2023-08-10 2 1 0 House of Reps 0 0

Thursday, 10 August 2023

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

BILLS 6077 BILLS Counter-Terrorism and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2023 6077

Counter-Terrorism and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2023

First Reading 6077 Second Reading 6077 09:02 Mr DREYFUS HWG Isaacs I move: That this bill be now read a second time. This bill supports Australia's robust and mature counterterrorism framework by implementing key recommendations of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security's (the Intelligence and Security Committee) 2021 review of police powers in relation to terrorism, the control order, preventative detention order regime and the continuing detention order regime, known as the AFP powers review. The bill would extend the sunset dates in respect of key counterterrorism powers, including the stop, search and seizure powers in the Crimes Act 1914; and the control order and preventative detention order regimes in the Criminal Code Act 1995. This bill would also bolster safeguards and oversight mechanisms for these powers, providing checks and balances which promote the rule of law and procedural fairness. In October 2022, this parliament passed the Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment (AFP Powers and Other Measures) Act, which extended the sunset dates for these powers by 12 months. This provided the government with sufficient time to consider the Intelligence and Security Committee's recommendations, to develop this bill and to consult and secure approvals from states and territories to further amend part 5.3 of the Criminal Code. Stop, search and seizure powers—Crimes Act 1914 The emergency stop, search and seizure powers in the Crimes Act ensure that law enforcement agencies are able to respond effectively to a terrorist incident or threat. The powers allow police to stop, question and search persons, and seize items in a Commonwealth place, in prescribed circumstances. Consistent with recommendation 3 of the Intelligence and Security Committee's AFP powers review, the bill would extend the operation of these powers for three years to 7 December 2026. This would ensure that these powers remain available to police to prevent and respond to terrorist acts, while also ensuring that the provisions are reviewed again within an appropriate period so that the parliament and the Australian people can determine whether they continue to be fit for purpose. While the Intelligence and Security Committee recommended this power be extended to 7 December 2025, that recommendation was made almost two years ago. The extension of the sunset date to 7 December 2026 is consistent with the intent of the Intelligence and Security Committee's recommendation, which was to extend the sunset date by three years. In accordance with recommendations 1 and 2 of the Intelligence and Security Committee's AFP powers review, the bill would enhance safeguards that apply to the declaration of a Commonwealth place as a prescribed security zone for the purposes of preventing or responding to a terrorist act. The bill would introduce new requirements for the minister, before declaring a prescribed security zone, to consider specific matters including the reasonableness of this course of action and whether other, less invasive powers are available to prevent or respond to the terrorist act. Given the impacts of such a declaration on the rights and freedoms of individuals, this requirement will ensure the power is only exercised as absolutely necessary. The bill would impose a requirement on the Australian Federal Police Commissioner to notify specified oversight bodies within 72 hours of the declaration of a prescribed security zone and a requirement on the minister to provide reasons for making that declaration. It would also require a police officer who has exercised stop and search powers for a terrorism related item to inform the person who has been stopped and searched of their right to make a complaint to an oversight body. These measures will assist oversight bodies in performing their important functions in investigating and reviewing the exercise of counterterrorism powers, and empower affected individuals to seek an independent review if they believe their rights have been infringed. Control order regime The control order regime in division 104 of the Criminal Code allows federal courts to impose an order that places certain conditions on an individual reasonably suspected of being involved in terrorism activity. Law enforcement agencies continue to rely on control orders as a critical measure to protect the community. As at 6 August 2023, there have been 28 control orders made against 21 individuals since these powers were first introduced. The bill would extend the operation of the control order regime to 7 December 2026. As with the three-year extension to the sunset date for the stop, search and seizure powers, this is consistent with the intent of recommendation 7 of the Intelligence and Security Committee's AFP powers review to allow a three-year extension. In accordance with recommendation 8of the Intelligence and Security Committee's AFP powers review, the bill would limit the power to issue control orders to the Federal Court of Australia. This is appropriate given the extraordinary nature of the power and the Federal Court's experience of considering matters involving significant volumes of evidence. The bill would also allow the court to impose any condition it considers appropriate as part of a control order—in the same way that the court can currently do as part of an extended supervision order. This would implement recommendation 10 of the Intelligence and Security Committee's AFP powers review and would provide the court with the discretion to tailor control order conditions appropriately. The bill would allow control orders to include conditions from which the controlee may apply for a temporary exemption. This would alleviate the burden on police to enforce contraventions of a control order that are reasonable and foreseeable and can therefore be excused in advance. In accordance with recommendation 12 of the Intelligence and Security Committee's AFP powers review, the bill would enable the AFP or controlee to apply to a court to vary a control order by consent. This will allow greater flexibility in ensuring that control order conditions remain appropriate if the controlee's circumstances change. Importantly, where the controlee is a minor, the bill would require the court to consider the best interests of the controlee in determining whether the variation is appropriate. Preventative detention order regime Preventative detention orders under division 105 of the Criminal Code allow a person to be detained without charge. These extraordinary powers can only be used where the AFP reasonably suspects an attack could occur within 14 days, or in the aftermath of a terrorist attack to preserve vital evidence. No preventative detention orders have been issued to date. The bill would extend the sunset date in relation to preventative detention orders to 7 December 2026. This aligns with the intent of recommendation 14 of the Intelligence and Security Committee's AFP powers review to allow a three-year extension. The bill would also limit the classes of persons who may be appointed as an issuing authority for preventative detention orders to superior court judges only. This reflects the serious and extraordinary nature of the orders, consistent with recommendation 15of the Intelligence and Security Committee's AFP powers review. Reporting requirements for post-sentence orders The bill would expand the public reporting requirements in relation to the operation of the post-sentence order scheme in division 105A of the Criminal Code. In line with recommendation 19 of the Intelligence and Security Committee's AFP powers review, the bill would require the minister's annual report to include information about the detention arrangements that applied to offenders subject to a continuing detention order, rehabilitation or treatment programs made available to offenders under the scheme, and funding for the administration of the scheme during the year. This will improve transparency in relation to the management of terrorist offenders subject to post-sentence orders. Recognising that states and territories hold much of the information that would be relevant to the new reporting requirements, the bill would require the express consent of the relevant state or territory before the Commonwealth could include any information in the report provided by the relevant jurisdiction. This will safeguard against the release of information that could compromise state and territory security arrangements, or the safety of individuals. The government acknowledges the report by the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor, Mr Grant Donaldson SC, on division 105A of the Criminal Code which was tabled in this parliament on 30 March 2023. The Intelligence and Security Committee has since commenced its own review into the operation, effectiveness and implications of division 105A. The government is carefully considering Mr Donaldson's recommendations, and will do the same with the Intelligence and Security Committee's report before developing government responses to both reviews. While the government accepts, and is committed to implementing, recommendation 6 of the Intelligence and Security Committee's AFP powers review, this bill would not implement that recommendation at this time. A mechanism by which an ex post facto assessment is undertaken to consider whether a police officer who entered premises in accordance with section 3UEA did so properly, and in accordance with the law, would provide assurance that the emergency powers have been exercised only in response to extraordinary circumstances and would enhance independent oversight of these powers. The complexity and significance of this matter warrants further consideration and consultation to develop an appropriate policy response. This includes having regard to the consequences that should flow from an assessment that the powers were not exercised appropriately; including in relation to the admissibility of any evidence gathered in purported exercise of the powers in subsequent criminal proceedings. Extension of sunsetting date of section 122.4 of the Criminal Code The bill would also extend the sunsetting date of section 122.4 of the Criminal Code by 12 months to 29 December 2024. Section 122.4 imposes criminal liability on current and former Commonwealth officers for breaches of approximately 296 non-disclosure duties in Commonwealth laws. It was enacted in 2018 to preserve criminal liability for breaches of these non-disclosure duties until each duty could be reviewed to determine whether it should be converted into a standalone specific secrecy offence or that criminal liability is no longer required. On 22 December 2022, I announced the government had commenced a comprehensive review of Commonwealth secrecy offences to address concerns raised by multiple reviews about the number, inconsistency, appropriateness and complexity of Commonwealth secrecy offences. This review is considering whether each non-disclosure duty should be converted into a standalone offence or criminal liability be removed. The review is undertaking broad consultations and will deliver a final report to government by 31 August 2023. A 12-month extension to the sunsetting date of section 122.4 is required until the review is finalised, and the government can consider the final report. Conclusion The bill would provide for the continuation and enhancement of important counterterrorism powers that contribute to the safety and security of all Australians. It strikes a balance between ensuring our law enforcement agencies have the powers they need to manage the threat of terrorism, while protecting the rights of individuals through stronger oversight and safeguards. The government thanks the Intelligence and Security Committee for its review and will table the government response to the report shortly. I commend the bill to the House. Debate adjourned. Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Australia's Engagement in the Pacific) Bill 2023 6079

Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Australia's Engagement in the Pacific) Bill 2023

First Reading 6079 Second Reading 6079 09:18 Mr CONROY 249127 Shortland I move: That this bill be now read a second time. The Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Australia's Engagement in the Pacific) Bill 2023will establish the legislative power to extend a range of government services and benefits to Pacific engagement visa holders and eligible Pacific Australia Labour Mobility (PALM) scheme families. The bill will provide immediate access for Pacific engagement visa holders to higher education and VET student loans, financial supports while studying and training, and family tax benefit part A. It will also extend access to family tax benefits and childcare subsidies for families participating in family accompaniment under the Pacific Australia Labour Mobility, or PALM, scheme. This bill reflects Australia's special relationship with the Pacific and Timor-Leste. The Albanese government has said before that Australia's central message to the Pacific is that we are here to listen, we are here to work together, and we are here to make a difference. This bill puts words to action. The measures contained in the bill extend support and benefits to Pacific engagement visa holders so that participants have the opportunity to not just settle in Australia but pursue education opportunities and flourish in their new communities. The new Pacific engagement visa is designed to grow the Pacific and Timor-Leste diaspora in Australia with ongoing connections to their home country, deepening our ties to the region. The bill also delivers on the government's commitment to expand and improve the PALM scheme by introducing family accompaniment, beginning with a pilot of 200 families. Workers under the PALM scheme provide essential support to Australia's economy, often in critical sectors, including in aged care and agriculture. But to do so, many leave their families behind for months or years. PALM scheme family accompaniment will permit workers on one- to four-year placements to bring their immediate family to Australia, with the support of their employer. This bill means that PALM scheme workers participating in family accompaniment will be able to access benefits to support them with the costs of raising a family and enable full participation of spouses in the workforce, if they choose to do so. It recognises the invaluable contribution that people from the Pacific and Timor-Leste make to Australia and addresses the under-representation of some of Australia's closest neighbours and partners in our migration program. It brings to the fore the importance Australia places on our relationships with the countries of this region, and upholds our commitment to strengthening ties with the Pacific family. Pacific engagement visa This package of legislation builds on two related bills introduced by my colleague Minister Giles to establish a pre-application ballot process for prospective Pacific engagement visa holders, and charge a small fee to enter the ballot. Collectively, these bills represent a significant step towards delivering on the government's commitment to introduce a new Pacific engagement visa—a groundbreaking, signature initiative of our plan to build a stronger Pacific family. The Pacific engagement visa is a substantive expression of the value Australia places on its relationship with the Pacific family and has been welcomed by the Pacific. Importantly, the Pacific engagement visa will address longstanding concerns of Pacific countries about limited migration pathways to one of their closest neighbours. Less than one per cent of Australia's permanent migrant intake is from Pacific countries, which is disappointing given our proximity and many shared values. The Pacific engagement visa will establish a permanent resident visa program for participating countries across the Pacific and Timor-Leste. Three thousand visas, inclusive of partners and dependent children, will be allocated annually through a ballot process. While the ballot process has been the subject of debate already in this chamber, I cannot overemphasise the importance of the ballot process to delivering on the objectives of the program. A ballot process ensures fair and transparent access, and gives equal chance to higher and lower skilled applicants, ensuring we do not deprive Pacific countries of skills and talent. This approach has been welcomed by Pacific partners during consultations. It provides broad access for Pacific and Timor-Leste citizens, including for applicants from remote and economically disadvantaged islands and regions. Eligible participants aged 18 to 45 will register in the ballot. If drawn from the ballot, they can then apply for the Pacific engagement visa and include their partner and dependent children in their application. Being drawn in the ballot does not automatically mean a visa will be granted. To be granted a visa, those drawn from the ballot will then need to apply and show that they meet the relevant criteria before being granted a visa. Those drawn or their partners will need to have an ongoing job offer in Australia. There will also be basic English language, health and character requirements for applicants. The government has consulted widely with Pacific leaders to ensure the program meets the shared needs and priorities of our Pacific and Timor-Leste partners, and removes barriers for low- and semi-skilled workers. This is a key ask of the Pacific, and the ballot and the measures contained in this bill respond to this ask. A key measure of success will be the growth of a flourishing diaspora with opportunities for education and skills development and career progression. The measures outlined in the bill will support this shared objective ensuring Pacific engagement visa holders are afforded basic levels of economic security when settling in Australia. Pacific engagement visa support measures To help eligible Pacific engagement visa holders and their families, the bill will introduce measures that assist with the cost of raising a family and ease the financial burden of undertaking further education. The bill will amend the Social Security Act 1991 to provide an exemption to the newly arrived resident's waiting period for Pacific engagement visa holders' access to Austudy and youth allowance, while studying or completing an apprenticeship. The bill also amends A New Tax System (Family Assistance) Act 1999 to provide an exemption to the newly arrived resident's waiting period for Pacific engagement visa holders for family tax benefit part A. We know the power of education and upskilling, and so supporting access to our world-class education and training system for the Pacific family is a top priority. That's why the bill also amends the Higher Education Support Act 2003 to extend the Higher Education Loan Program or HELP to Pacific engagement visa holders. It also amends the VET Student Loans Act 2016 to extend eligibility for holders of the Pacific engagement visa. These initiatives will open pathways for lower skilled and low-income applicants to upskill, and enable career progression and economic mobility. This will be good for individuals and families, Australian employers and regional economies and communities. Providing access on arrival to family tax benefit part A demonstrates our commitment to growing a flourishing diaspora from a diverse range of backgrounds and skills. The waiving of the one-year waiting period will also provide immediate access to rent assistance and the healthcare card for eligible families. The inclusion of HELP and VET student loans for PEV holders will be transformative. Providing immediate access to youth allowance for students and apprentices is an important step to ensuring Pacific engagement visa holders can meaningfully engage with Australia's quality education and vocational training sectors. We expect these reforms will result in more Pacific islanders participating in Australia's domestic education system than ever before. By supporting participation in our education system, we are saying to our Pacific family: 'We support your ambition to further your education and the opportunities that this will bring you, your families and future generations of Pacific diaspora in Australia'. It will mean Pacific engagement visa holders are better equipped to participate in the job market and contribute to both the Australian economy and their Pacific communities through remittances or during periods living back home, should they wish to do so. PALM scheme The PALM scheme allows approved employers to recruit workers from nine Pacific countries and Timor-Leste to address labour shortages in rural and regional areas. It includes short-term, seasonal work placements of up to nine months, and long-term placements between one to four years. The PALM scheme is highly valued by Australia, the Pacific and Timor-Leste. It delivers wins for workers, communities, Pacific countries and Australian businesses and it addresses youth unemployment, supports economic integration of our region and draws our societies together. The scheme is an important part of a wider package of measures designed to deepen Australia's ties with the Pacific and build a stronger and more united Pacific family. PALM scheme workers are reliable and productive, ensuring businesses can continue to run and support their communities when there are not enough local workers available. And they make a positive contribution in their communities. Fijian workers in Swan Hill have joined the Country Fire Authority as volunteer fire fighters. In Stawell, ni-Vanuatu workers spend time in the community visiting the elderly and people living with disabilities, helping them with general chores like gardening and moving furniture. And during the flooding in Lismore, PALM scheme workers volunteered to be part of the rescue effort, working with the SES to rescue people trapped by flood waters and get them safely to evacuation centres. The PALM scheme also, importantly, helps support the economic development of Pacific countries and Timor-Leste through remittances. Take Rufina, a PALM scheme worker from Timor-Leste employed at Hillwood Berries in Tasmania. When Rufina picks berries, she counts the number of punnets she picks each day to calculate how many bricks she will be able to purchase toward a new house back home. This is just one example of the transformative nature of the PALM scheme. We have already delivered on our commitment to expand the PALM scheme. The total number of Pacific and Timor-Leste workers in Australia has risen from over 24,000 a year ago to more than 39,000 today. And we will continue to expand the scheme, responsibly. New investments in skills development will deliver more training opportunities—helping PALM scheme workers return home with important skills and qualifications to contribute to their home economies and communities. Over the next six months, we will welcome 500 new workers in the aged-care sector who will complete a Certificate III in Individual Support (Ageing), while working as carers in aged-care homes in rural and regional Australia. Before the last election, as part of our plan for a stronger Pacific family, we announced that families would be able join PALM scheme workers in Australia. This arose from feedback from Pacific countries and Timor-Leste and their workers regarding the negative social impacts of extended periods of family separation. Currently, workers on long-term placements can spend up to four years in Australia filling critical roles that employers cannot find local labour to fill. This means they are separated from their partners and children back home for an extended period. Family accompaniment will allow these workers to bring their immediate families to Australia. We will start with 200 families and carefully monitor, evaluate, adjust and refine the program to ensure that family accompaniment is delivering for everyone. Any workers seeking to bring their families to Australia will need the agreement of their employer and will need to have been approved as participants in family accompaniment. They will also need to meet additional program criteria to be eligible to participate, particularly in the initial stage. Workers participating in the pilot will need to have spent 12 months in Australia prior to their families arriving. This means that the workers will have already completed the newly arrived resident's waiting period for family tax benefit part A prior to families arriving. After 12 months, PALM scheme workers will also be familiar with life in Australia and will be able to help their families settle into their communities. We know that for family accompaniment to be successful, partners and children will need to feel part of their local communities, whether through work, study, or other community involvement. That is why accompanying family members will be able to take up paid work and children will be able to go to school. For some families, the opportunity for their children to benefit from an Australian education will be an important factor in their participation. In the most recent budget, we announced that workers and their families participating in the family accompaniment pilot will also be able to access Medicare. This will support families to receive the health care they need during their time in Australia. The government is committed to supporting the welfare of PALM scheme families. We will be providing a range of settlement and welfare support to help families transition smoothly to life and work in Australia. It's in nobody's interests for PALM scheme workers or their families to be inadequately supported during their time in Australia. This bill is an important part of the support the government is providing to PALM. The bill will amend the A New Tax System (Family Assistance) Act 1999 to enable eligible PALM scheme workers and their families in Australia under the family accompaniment initiative to access family tax benefit parts A and B and associated payments; and the childcare subsidy. These measures will help support eligible PALM scheme families while they are raising children in Australia. These measures will also reduce the barriers to workforce participation for partners of PALM scheme workers, by ensuring the cost of child care does not act as a disincentive. We have prioritised those payments of most importance to lower income families. Conclusion Closer engagement between Australia and Pacific island countries deepens our people-to-people connections and enriches our communities and countries. As a member of the Pacific family, Australia is committed to working with all countries in the Pacific and Timor-Leste to achieve our shared aspirations and address our shared challenges. This bill is an important step towards delivering on our commitment to strengthen the Pacific family by supporting a flourishing Pacific diaspora in Australia, deepening connections with the countries of the Pacific and Timor-Leste. We will look back on this moment as a critical advancement in our relationship with the Pacific. A moment when Australia took steps to address a major shortcoming in our migration program—the under-representation of some our closest neighbours, those we consider family. These initiatives will strengthen our links with the Pacific family and deepen our ties to the region that is our home, and that is critical to our future. I commend this bill to the chamber. Debate adjourned. Parliamentary Workplace Support Service Bill 2023 6083

Parliamentary Workplace Support Service Bill 2023

First Reading 6083 Second Reading 6083 09:34 Mr GORMAN 74519 Perth I move: That this bill be now read a second time. The Parliamentary Workplace Support Service Bill 2023 will establish the statutory Parliamentary Workplace Support Service. This bill advances the government's commitment to implement recommendations of the Australian Human Rights Commission's Set the standard report directed at making Commonwealth parliamentary workplaces safe and respectful. Implementation of all 28 recommendations from that report is a shared responsibility across the parliament, and has been overseen by the Parliamentary Leadership Taskforce. The Parliamentary Workplace Support Service Bill implements recommendation 11 of the Set the standard report, which is a key structural reform. Once established, the proposed Parliamentary Workplace Support Service will carry forward work to implement another six recommendations. The bill is the product of extensive consultation with members of the Parliamentary Leadership Taskforce and its staff consultation group. This recognises that the proposed Parliamentary Workplace Support Service would have functions to provide human resources and other employment related support to parliamentarians and their staff. The Set the standard report found there was an absence of an adequate and authoritative people and culture function for parliamentarians and their staff, and a lack of standardised people management processes. The report therefore recommended that an independent body should be established to provide a foundation for a professionalised, safe, supportive and respectful workplace. These are objectives of the proposed Parliamentary Workplace Support Service. The proposed new entity will integrate the functions of the existing Parliamentary Workplace Support Service. Since its establishment in September 2021, that body has been a trusted source of advice and support on behavioural conduct to people who work in Commonwealth parliamentary workplaces. The proposed new Parliamentary Workplace Support Service would continue the support, complaint resolution and review functions of the existing service. It is intended that the review function, which is akin to a complaint investigation mechanism, would be performed by the proposed new service pending establishment of the Independent Parliamentary Standards Commission. The commission is the other main structural reform recommended in the Set the standard report. It would have a main function to investigate complaints of breaches of codes of conduct which were endorsed, on an interim basis, by both houses of the parliament in February this year. The codes introduce clear standards of behaviour to support a parliamentary workplace that is professional, safe and respectful. It is one of the functions of the new Parliamentary Workplace Support Service to provide advice on the codes. Representatives of this parliament need to work together to get these structural reforms implemented. We have been working intensely across the parliament to bring forward this legislation to establish the new Parliamentary Workplace Support Service. As the next step, the government will move forward with establishing the Independent Parliamentary Standards Commission as a priority. The Set the standard report set out guiding principles for the new human resources entity, namely that it should: be independent and recognise the unique nature of parliamentary workplaces, be able to compel compliance with required policies and address noncompliance, and be capable of influencing strategic and cultural change, and drive the professionalisation of the workforce. The Parliamentary Workplace Support Service Bill stays true to those principles. The new service would be headed by an independent office holder. The bill makes clear that the Chief Executive Officer of the Parliamentary Workplace Support Service cannot be directed by any person in relation to the performance of their functions or exercise of their powers. Importantly, the CEO will be able to obtain expert advice from an advisory board, and will also be able to obtain views from parliamentarians and staff whom it services, through a consultative committee. The PWSS will have an education and training function to support parliamentarians and staff in their employment relationship. It will provide training on the codes of conduct to a broader cohort of people that work in the parliamentary workplace. It is important that people can see that progress is being made in maintaining a professional, safe and respectful parliamentary workplace. With that aim in mind, the proposed new PWSS will report annually on key indicators of cultural change, such as gender and diversity characteristics, and progress in preventing misconduct like bullying and sexual harassment. Where needed, the PWSS will be able to make policies and training programs mandatory. This would require the approval of the PWSS Advisory Board. The PWSS will be able to publicly report on noncompliance with mandatory training by a parliamentarian. But, it ought to be the commitment of every parliamentarian and staff member to comply with any mandatory measures. This bill is the product of close and extensive consultation across parliament. The government thanks parliamentarians and staff for their input. The parliament is a unique workplace, but it is also one of Australia's most prominent workplaces. The people that work here should have the systems they need to go about their work in a professional, safe and respectful environment. Debate adjourned. Parliamentary Workplace Support Service (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2023 6084

Parliamentary Workplace Support Service (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2023

First Reading 6084 Second Reading 6084 09:41 Mr GORMAN 74519 Perth I move: That this bill be now read a second time. The Parliamentary Workplace Support Service (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2023 would provide for consequential amendments and transitional arrangements to support the Parliamentary Workplace Support Service Bill 2023. This bill proposes amendments to the Freedom of Information Act 1982 and to the Archives Act 1983 to restrict public access to documents of the Parliamentary Workplace Support Service. Many records held by that entity will concern employment related information that is personal information. In addition, these measures will give people greater confidence to engage with the PWSS's support and complaint related functions. The bill also amends the Parliamentary Service Determination 2013 to repeal a provision that establishes the existing Parliamentary Workplace Support Service. This is because the proposed new Parliamentary Workplace Support Service will integrate the functions of the existing entity. The bill also ensures that the proposed new Parliamentary Workplace Support Service can continue to deal with matters currently dealt with by the existing service. This Parliamentary Workplace Support Service bill package is the product of close and extensive consultation across the parliament. The government thanks parliamentarians and staff for their input. Debate adjourned. Members of Parliament (Staff) Amendment Bill 2023 6085

Members of Parliament (Staff) Amendment Bill 2023

First Reading 6085 Second Reading 6085 09:43 Mr GORMAN 74519 Perth I move: That this bill be now read a second time. The Members of Parliament (Staff) Amendment Bill 2023 will amend the Members of Parliament (Staff) Act 1984 (MOPS Act) to modernise, improve transparency, and clarify the employment framework for parliamentarians and their staff. The bill will implement recommendations of the review of the MOPS Act which was delivered by the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet in October last year. Measures in this bill will also contribute to the cultural change in Commonwealth parliamentary workplaces envisaged in the Australian Human Rights Commission in the Set the standard report on Commonwealth parliamentary workplaces. The MOPS Act establishes a framework for parliamentarians and office holders to employ people on behalf of the Commonwealth. The act has been in effect for 39 years. The Australian employment law landscape has evolved considerably in this time. Until now, the MOPS Act has not been substantially amended to keep pace with these changes. The Set the standard report recommended a comprehensive review of the operation and effectiveness of the MOPS Act to ensure consistency with modern employment frameworks. The review resulted in 15 recommendations, which were agreed in principle by the government and supported by the opposition. This bill would implement 11 of those 15 recommendations. The remaining recommendations will be implemented by the proposed new statutory Parliamentary Workplace Support Service to be established by the Parliamentary Workplace Support Service Bill 2023. The measures introduced in the MOP(S) Amendment Bill are intended to ensure that the employment framework for MOP(S) Act staff is fit for purpose, reflects contemporary employment settings, and supports a safe and respectful working environment. The bill clarifies the roles and responsibilities of parliamentarians, office holders, and employees, including their obligations under other workplace laws. The bill introduces employment principles to set expectations about the workplace for parliamentarians and their staff. The principles articulate the desired organisational culture in the workplace and will be an important touchstone for parliamentarians, staff and the new Parliamentary Workplace Support Service when formulating policies. The bill will also enhance transparency of employment arrangements with a new requirement that the determination of terms and conditions for employment under the act are made publicly available on the Federal Register of Legislation unless they identify individuals. The bill includes requirements intended to guide decision-making by parliamentarians about employment matters, and to support fair outcomes and processes when making significant employment decisions. Parliamentarians would be required to recruit employees based on their assessment of a candidate's capability to perform a specified role. This requirement reflects the value of establishing clear expectations at the start of employment and that can be met, while preserving the parliamentarian's ability to specify the role and skill requirements. It is anticipated the PWSS will provide guidance and support to parliamentarians to fulfil this new obligation. Parliamentarians would also be required to consult with the new PWSS prior to making a decision to terminate the employment of a staff member or suspend a staff member without pay. This measure will support parliamentarians to meet their legal obligations when making those decisions. A new provision for temporary suspension of employment will offer an alternative to termination of employment. It would be another mechanism to address risks in the workplace. The bill would also enable the PWSS, with the agreement of an employing parliamentarian, to suspend a MOP employee in limited, specific circumstances. The bill also allows the new PWSS to take action to address other gaps in the employment framework, including the power to exercise limited employer functions in cases where there is no employing parliamentarian. Some proposed amendments will streamline the MOP(S) Act, including by reflecting categories of employment used in practice, and removing obsolete provisions in the act. Proposed amendments to the act's automatic termination provisions clarify the intended operation of these provisions, and will increase job security for electorate staff of parliamentarians who occupy particular offices such as ministers and party leaders. As recommended by the MOP(S) Act review the bill also provides for a further review within five years of the amendments commencing. The amendments made by this bill are the product of extensive consultation with parliamentarians and staff across parliament, including through the Parliamentary Leadership Taskforce, its Staff Consultation Group and union representatives. Since the amendments implement recommendations of the MOP(S) Act review, they are also informed by the contributions of current and former MOP(S) Act employees, parliamentarians, academics, unions, parliamentary departments, Commonwealth government agencies, and state and international jurisdictions consulted during the course of the MOP(S) Act review. The government thanks every person who has engaged with the development of this legislative reform. Through collaborative effort to implement the review's recommendations we can deliver safer and more respectful parliamentary workplaces. The government believes the changes in this bill will underline the responsibilities and obligations of members of parliament as the employer. This bill is an important part of the reforms the government is progressing to support a professional employment framework for staff of parliamentarians. I commend the bill to the House. Debate adjourned. MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS 6086 MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS Nuclear Waste Management 6086 09:49 Ms MADELEINE KING 102376 Brand by leave—I rise today to make a statement on court proceedings challenging the Commonwealth's proposed National Radioactive Waste Facility and related matters. In 2012, the Gillard government passed the National Radioactive Waste Management Act 2012, which set out a legislative framework for selecting and establishing the Commonwealth's National Radioactive Waste Management Facility. The vast majority of Australia's radioactive waste is from nuclear medicine, which every Australian is likely to benefit from in their lifetime. It is also produced in the development of industrial and agricultural technologies in undertaking lifesaving scientific research. Anyone in this place who knows someone who has needed cancer treatment can understand why this material exists and the need to store these materials safely. According to the most recent national inventory, conducted in 2021, Australia has 13,287 cubic metres of low-level radioactive waste, which, by volume, is more than five standard Olympic swimming pools, and 4,377 cubic metres of intermediate-level radioactive waste, which equates to just under two standard Olympic swimming pools. Currently, radioactive waste is stored in over 100 locations nationwide, including hospitals, scientific facilities and universities. Australia's radioactive waste will grow into the future. While safe, these facilities are not purpose built and long-term management of Australia's waste at these locations is unsustainable. The site of Australia's only nuclear reactor at Lucas Heights can safely store waste on site for some time, but we must ensure this waste has an appropriate disposal pathway. The Labor Party, National Party and Liberal Party have recognised, through successive terms of government, that responsibly managing this waste is imperative for the nation. There has been bipartisan support for the responsible management of this waste. The current site-selection process has been in train for seven years. In November 2021, the former minister for resources, the member for Hinkler, declared the former farming property known as Napandee, near the town of Kimba, in South Australia, as the proposed site for the facility. This followed a number of years of consultation through various processes. Despite the genuine efforts of the Australian Radioactive Waste Agency and others, many feel they weren't adequately consulted. The traditional owners, the Barngarla people, have for many years pointed to deficiencies in the consultation process. Other landowners and farmers near the proposed site but not in the district of Kimba have made clear their concerns regarding the proposed site and their frustrations at not being included in those earlier consultations. The Barngarla people exercised their right to seek judicial review of the former minister's declaration of the Napandee site under the National Radioactive Waste Management Act 2012. On 18 July 2023, Justice Charlesworth of the Federal Court set aside the declaration that was made in November 2021. Some comments have been made in this place about the reason for Her Honour's decision. It has been said, quite incorrectly, that the decision to set aside the site declaration relates to the operation of native title. While the judgement does reflect briefly on native title law, this in no way was the basis of the decision of the Federal Court last month. The question raised in this case was about a decision-making process, not a claim of native title. The Federal Court's decision in no way impacts on existing law regarding when and in what circumstances landowners are required to consult with traditional owners. To suggest that it does is misleading. The Barngarla were able to bring this case to court because of their interest in the decision-making process. Any other person or group could have done the same thing and could have reached the same result. Rather, the site declaration was set aside because the court found apprehended bias present in the decision of the then minister. This is founded on certain statements made by the former minister relating to the site in question. I want to be very clear that the Federal Court did not find any actual bias demonstrated by the decision-maker, but Her Honour concluded that apprehended bias was sufficiently present to order that the site declaration be set aside. Some matters do remain before the courts, and I will not pre-empt the remaining judicial processes. Today I want to make clear with regard to the principal matter that I do not intend to appeal the judge's findings of apprehended bias. I have reached an agreement with the Barngarla Determination Aboriginal Corporation on costs, and I hope that we will also come to an agreed approach to orders relating to the date of application of the judge's decision in coming days for the court's consideration in due course. The judgement was clear, and the government is listening. I visited Kimba in January of this year and saw for myself what was in my opinion—and not everyone agrees with this—a town divided. I met residents supportive of Kimba hosting the facility and those that were not. There are many people in Kimba who support hosting this facility and I want to acknowledge their efforts over many years to diversify their local economy. I met with the traditional owners, the Barngarla people, who are no longer residents of Kimba but clearly have a deep connection to their ancestral country after being driven off it many years ago. We have said all along that the national radioactive waste facility requires broad community support—broad community support which includes the whole community, including the traditional owners of the land. This is clearly not the case at Kimba. The previous government sought to temporarily store intermediate-level radioactive waste on agricultural land and contemplated the double handling of the transport of this waste, first from Lucas Heights in New South Wales to temporary storage in South Australia, and then on to an undetermined permanent disposal site. This approach has raised concerns regarding international best practice and safety standards. Therefore, the Albanese Labor government does not intend to pursue Napandee as a potential site for the facility, nor is the government pursuing the previously shortlisted Lyndhurst and Wallerberdina sites. I can confirm that site characterisation activities taking place at and around the site near Kimba have ceased. Any activities that have already been conducted were non-permanent and will be reversed or remediated. The site is currently being supervised to ensure it remains safe and cultural heritage is protected while we work through dispossession of the land. The government intends to honour existing contracts for community benefit program round 3 grants. My department has begun work on alternative proposals for the storage and disposal of the Commonwealth's civilian low-level and intermediate-level radioactive waste. I am deeply sorry for the uncertainty this process has created for the Kimba community, for my own department, for the Australian Radioactive Waste Agency workers, and for the workers involved in the project at Napandee. I also acknowledge the profound distress this process has caused the Barngarla people, and I am sorry for that too. But we have to get this right. This is long-lasting, multigenerational government policy for the disposal of waste that can take thousands of years to decay. This government remains committed to the Australian Radioactive Waste Agency and its goal of safely storing and disposing of radioactive waste. We must consult widely and bring stakeholders, including First Nations people, along with us. We remain bipartisan in our approach and willing to work with those opposite and across the parliament on a resolution in the national interest. This is not where we wanted to be, but we have to start from where we are. This government is determined to get this right. 09:57 Mr LITTLEPROUD 265585 Maranoa It's profoundly disappointing that the government is abandoning the years of work for Australia's first national radioactive waste management facility. This is a legacy failure for Australia's radioactive waste management, the nuclear medicine industry and the pursuit of research and development. The coalition and Labor have worked in a bipartisan way over a number of years to ensure radioactive waste is effectively stored and managed. However, Labor has abandoned that today. Senator McDonald and Senator Cash wrote to the Minister for Resources and the Attorney-General last week offering any support necessary from the coalition to secure the site, and it's disappointing that this offer was not accepted or even acknowledged by the government. So much for the Prime Minister's claims of wanting to engage in a new type of politics. It's disappointing that this government has walked away from the bipartisanship on this issue and thrown into doubt the future of Australia's nuclear medicine industry. Almost every Australian will benefit from nuclear medicine in their lifetimes. Australia has a long and proud history of nuclear science, operating over many decades, and the development of this facility was the next step in this process. The former coalition government proactively engaged with the local Kimba community and Barngarla people and underwent a significant consultation process over a number of years, including ballots, which demonstrated strong community support. Local community sentiment supporting the facility was one of a number of important considerations in declaring the site. The minister says that consultation was deficient and that the site did not have broad community support, yet over 61 per cent of residents of the Kimba area and 60 per cent of its local business supported the site. A hundred per cent of neighbours who shared a boundary supported the site. The former Minister for Resources and Water, Mr Pitt, met with representatives of the Barngarla Determination Aboriginal Corporation, and the former government engaged with the corporation at numerous times throughout the process. The former government offered to support the Barngarla people to undertake ballots to gauge community support. And when the corporation undertook their own ballot through a private third party, that ballot was considered, along with all others, in the assessing factors. The Kimba community's ballot was undertaken by the local council in the local government area surrounding the site, following standard council election procedures. Processes were undertaken to ensure that the site near Kimba was the right site for this project. The minister is also right that the Barngarla people had no native title claim over the site selected. It poses the question: what is the government's impetus for not continuing with Kimba? The minister says the judgement was clear and that the government is listening. The Federal Court did not rule against the site but set aside a ministerial decision on administrative grounds. The court did not rule on the merits of the project, the viability of the site or the importance of developing a site to store radioactive waste. Nothing prevents the minister from simply remaking the decision through the process as set out in law. As Minister King said in June last year, the declaration of the site at Napandee was a step forward in ensuring that Australia can safely and securely manage its radioactive waste—waste that is not going to go away. If that's correct, why is the minister now walking away from Kimba? It would be deeply disappointing if other political pressures were forcing the minister's hands on this decision, because making decisions that put Labor Party factional politics and other political agendas above the national interest is no way to govern. The coalition will always support our nuclear medicine industry, which is vital for cancer patients around the country. The Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation, ANSTO, have made it clear that the development of a purpose-built waste management site is paramount to their operations continuing. The CEO of ANSTO said that if the site did not proceed then ANSTO's operations would be impacted within the next decade—as early as 2027. Operations that are so critical to Australians, like developing cancer treatments—the most widely used nuclear medicine in the world—occur at ANSTO's Lucas Heights facility. Yet this could be at risk because of this government's decision. It's absurd that the government criticises the temporary nature of the intermediate-level storage as a reason not to proceed with the site, as now they have no solutions at all. Seven years of work has gone into developing the National Radioactive Waste Management Facility, and with one swift move this government has erased that progress. They won't even consider the two alternative sites that were shortlisted as part of the process. So, after the work of successive governments and resources ministers, this government has nothing to show. It has become clear that they have no plan to manage Australia's radioactive waste and no plan to support our nuclear medicine industry. Despite the rhetoric from those opposite, they have delivered nothing for the people of Kimba, nothing for the future of ANSTO, nothing for the future of radioactive waste and nothing for the millions of Australians who rely on nuclear medicine. BILLS 6089 BILLS Higher Education Support Amendment (Response to the Australian Universities Accord Interim Report) Bill 2023 6089

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

Second Reading 6089 10:03 Ms LE 295676 Fowler My beloved mother, who recently passed, told me that, when she was asked, in refugee camps, where she would like to be resettled, she chose Australia because she had heard it had the best education system in the world. So, once we were resettled, our focus was to do exceptionally well at school, with the aspiration to enter university. Many refugee and migrant families like mine, where our parents' generation didn't get the chance for higher education because of conflicts in their birth countries, place all their hopes in the future of their children and their accessibility to higher education. I cannot emphasise how critical this is for my community of Fowler, where 14.9 per cent of my students are currently studying at university, according to the 2021 census. One constituent recently shared her university journey with me. Like me, she is a child of a refugee who escaped war-torn Vietnam. Neither of her parents finished primary education in their birth country. Her parents spoke little to no English but only hoped that she could further her education for a better future. With enough determination, she was admitted to university to study a dual law degree, a prestigious course that would enable her to enter her dream career field. However, this was not an easy journey. Her family was not well off and this was an expensive degree, so she had to work extremely hard for it. Eventually, she was awarded a few scholarships, which helped alleviate some of the financial burden. She finished her degrees a few years ago but now has approximately $64,000 of HECS debt with the current indexation. Her first graduate job paid $50,000 inclusive of superannuation. At that time, she did not feel like her hard work was commensurate to the debt she is now in. I share this constituent's story because it presents multiple issues with pursuing higher education: access, low-socioeconomic factors that can impact an educational trajectory and the stress of a HECS debt that follows. There is a lot of work for the government to do, to get the higher education system to be at its optimum for Australia. It is a privilege to go on to higher education in Australia and to pursue your passion, because not everyone has equal access to higher education, due to cultural, social and economic factors that hinder their rights. I acknowledge the Minister for Education for introducing this bill, as part of reforming higher education, to prepare the Australian Universities Accordinterim report. This report reveals key findings on the future of higher education for Australia and is an important initiative. It predicts that 90 per cent of jobs created over the next five years will require post-secondary education and a 50 per cent higher qualification. This means that our country must be well equipped to cater to this rising demand. Higher education is a vital part, alongside the trades industry, of making Australia's future a prosperous one. One of the priority actions that came out of theinterim report was for universities to establish hubs in regional and outer metropolitan areas, to target disadvantaged students. With just 15 per cent of my constituents currently holding a university degree as the highest level of education, compared to the rest of Australia at 26 per cent, this concept of a university hub in an area like south-west Sydney is an exciting project. I acknowledge the recent launch of the Western Sydney University's Fairfield clinic, this weekend, in my neighbouring electorate of McMahon. The concept is for a technology enabled space, to give students and the broader community an environment to study in and cultivate their knowledge. My understanding is that the hub is to also include an academic program for high achievers and pathway programs for school leavers. I hope this will provide further accessibility for students who are unable to access the critical resources for universities at home. I know that with the rising costs of living students may be finding it harder to travel, to pay for train tickets or fuel to get to their classes. It's important to have a university presence, to promote itself for future generations, but I must remind the minister and the government that it must also be fit for purpose for all students. If a student attending Western Sydney University is struggling with their studies, what will this hub be able to do and what support will be given to secure their university journey? Will students in courses that require specialised software, such as digital design or media, be able to access these programs so that they don't have to pay out of pocket to use them? Will students be able to have face-to-face engagements with educators, support workers and other critical services to ensure they are still part of the university community and not working in isolation from the main campus? I hope this will not essentially be just a centre with tables and computers and that substantial support will be provided in these proposed spaces. It's my understanding that this project is due to be completed in 2024, and I look forward to visiting it when it's completed. I will hold the government to account, to ensure this critical infrastructure is developed and is fit for purpose. The bill also incorporates priority action 2, which recommends ceasing the 50 per cent pass requirement of a student's first eight units of their bachelor's degree to continue as a Commonwealth supported student and to be eligible for FEE-HELP assistance. In lieu, the focus will be directed towards increasing reporting on student progress. The goal of this is to eliminate disproportionate disadvantages of students from low-socioeconomic backgrounds. I support and welcome this change. A 50 per cent mark may be perceived as the bare minimum to pass a course, but the reality is that there may be numerous factors that can prevent a student from reaching this mark. For example, I had a constituent share that during his time at university he juggled part-time work at McDonald's but was often assigned night-to-breakfast shifts, which made it hard for him to prioritise study as he was constantly fatigued. This resulted in him failing a first-year core course of his bachelor degree. He eventually quit his part-time job to salvage his degree. Students should not have to choose between earning money to get by day to day and furthering their education. We live in a society now where a 50 per cent mark shouldn't stop students from achieving their aspirations. We as a government need to ensure that the higher education system can provide adequate support to students. I understand that part 2 of the bill seeks to address this by requiring higher education providers to have a policy which deals with support for students to assist them to successfully complete their units of study for courses that they are enrolled in. A higher education provider is required to comply with their support for students policy and report to the minister about their compliance, and failing to do so will attract a civil penalty of 60 penalty units. By making it mandatory for higher education providers to have a support for students policy, this will ensure disadvantaged students' interests are at the forefront and they aren't left behind in their studies. However, I would like to draw attention to a critical point raised in the interim report. It states: New ideas must be explored to prevent excessive debt and rising student cost of living pressures from discouraging people of all ages from pursuing higher education and completing their qualifications. I remind the government that at present students are still battling their HECS debt and the indexation that follows, which currently sits at 7.1 per cent, the highest it has been; for the last 10 years it has never exceeded four per cent. The interim report notes that this is important, as excessive debt can deter prospective students from pursuing higher education when they can earn immediate money working other jobs. This is especially crippling for students who are from low-socioeconomic backgrounds and are unable to pay their HECS debt as it continues to grow with an excessive indexation rate. If we are encouraging students to obtain higher education for the good of Australia's future and to support their aspirations, we must take a step back and consider the financial inequities of higher education. The reality in my electorate is that students are disadvantaged and often concurrently studying and working to make ends meet, like the story of a constituent I shared earlier. With the interim report suggesting that new ideas be explored, we must do something regarding the HECS-HELP indexation, as we are essentially charging students interest rates to be able to study—money which they don't have. Recently, I called on the government to temporarily revert the indexation rate to the previous year's rate of 3.9 per cent for at least three years so that students can have an opportunity to gain stable employment and save to pay their HECS. This option should still be on the cards if we are to provide better equity and opportunity to students. While we cannot revert to the Whitlam era days of completely removing university fees, we should still consider measures to encourage students to obtain higher education for the good of Australia's future and to support their aspirations. We must take a step back and consider the financial inequities they may face currently. The reality in my electorate is that students are disadvantaged. I understand that the government is committed to extending the Higher Education Continuity Guarantee into 2024 and 2025, consistent with the recommendation of priority action 4. Higher education providers should be required to direct funding from this guarantee to achieve greater equity outcomes. Specifically, the funding should be allocated to create policies that provide support for students' outcomes, scholarships and equity related services. After all, if the government is prepared to spend $368 billion in building eight nuclear submarines, then surely the education of future generations of this country should have the same value consideration. How are we to be a clever country if we don't invest in our young people? We keep on saying they are our future. If so, then the government should put their money where their mouth is. I acknowledge that the minister is taking steps to address the inequity in our educational system and is looking at ways to give underrepresented students fair and equitable access. I would urge him and the government to start with HECS debt indexation, which would have immediate an impact for students currently studying and those planning to do so in the future. 10:15 Dr GARLAND 295588 Chisholm The bill before the House, the Higher Education Support Amendment (Response to the Australian Universities Accord Interim Report) Bill 2023, is really important. It is really significant to my electorate of Chisholm, which has two universities. There has been so much interest in the work of the Australian Universities Accord. We did a local survey in Chisholm and received over 400 responses. Higher education is a really significant issue. I'm really pleased that our government is undertaking this reform process so as to ensure that we have the best university system that we possibly can. The Australian government has committed to the Australian Universities Accord in order to drive a lasting and transformative reform in Australia's higher education system. This really is an incredible opportunity to build a visionary plan for Australia's universities and higher education sector. In November last year the Minister for Education, Jason Clare, appointed Professor Mary O'Kane to lead the biggest and broadest review of Australia's higher education system in 15 years. The accord panel, led by Professor O'Kane, brought together experience from a wide range of places—the university sector, the business sector and experts in public policy. The combined experience of the panel from across STEM and the humanities, from our cities and regions and from across the political divide has informed the interim report, whose recommendations form the basis of this bill. 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 minister has also tasked the accord panel with looking at how higher education and vocational education and training can and should work more closely together. I've had conversations locally with vice-chancellors and directors of local TAFEs about this very issue, amongst others. Our government has invested $2.7 million over two years to deliver the Australian Universities Accord. This is a really exciting process and opportunity for our nation in order to open the door of opportunity for more Australians to go to university. Three weeks ago the interim report, from which the items in this bill were drawn as recommendations, was released. This is an important first step. I note also that in the interim report a range of questions and issues were raised by the expert panel with an invitation for people right across Australia to make their own submissions, which close on 1 September. I know that people in my electorate, certainly, are taking advantage of that. This is a really consultative process which really demonstrates the seriousness with which our government is approaching the necessary reforms to a higher education sector. We read in the report that in the decades ahead more jobs will require a university qualification, so we need to make sure that more people are able to access university in order for them to be able to secure those jobs of the future. What the accord team has suggested and the minister has reiterated is that, in order to significantly boost the percentage of the workforce with a university qualification, we need to significantly increase the number of students from cohorts that are currently underrepresented in our universities—that is, students from the outer suburbs of our cities, students from the regions, students from low socioeconomic status backgrounds, students with a disability and Indigenous students. The risk of not significantly increasing the number of students from these groups will result in a shortage of the skills we need for Australia to take advantage of the decades ahead. It will also mean that we won't have an equal society where everybody is able to aspire to the opportunity of a university education and the good, secure, well-paid jobs that come with that. Without a skilled workforce, we leave opportunity on the table. The report is set out in two parts. The first part sets out priorities for immediate action. By standing in the House today, we are taking that immediate action by implementing those recommendations. In the first part of the report, five recommendations set out our priorities for immediate action: we are taking action by creating more university study hubs, not only in the regions but also in our outer suburbs; we are scrapping the 50 per cent pass rule and requiring better reporting on how students are progressing; we are extending the demand driven funding currently provided to Indigenous students from regional and remote areas to cover all Indigenous students so that Indigenous students from the cities as well as from the regions are able to get a place in university if they meet the criteria for entry; we are providing funding certainty during this accord process by extending the Higher Education Continuity Guarantee into 2024 and 25, with funding arrangements that prioritise support for equity students; and we're also working with state and territory governments, through national cabinet, to improve university governance. I was especially pleased to see the response yesterday from Minister Clare around the importance of improving student safety on campuses and convening a working group to be responsible for helping us navigate work in this important area. We need to make sure that universities are good employers and provide a supportive workplace and a workplace where staff can have confidence that they will not be underpaid for the important work they do. We need to make sure that governing bodies have the right expertise, including in the business of running universities and—going back to the safety issue—making sure campuses are safe. Alarmingly, we know from the National Student Safety Survey that one in 20 students has been sexually assaulted since starting university and that one in six has been sexually harassed. These figures are awful. They show just how widespread this issue of unsafe campuses is in this country and the need for us as a government to take urgent action in partnership with advocates, students and universities, alongside states and territories. The actions that universities have taken to address this have clearly not been good enough. We have the research and evidence and know the scope of the problem. I myself know from archival research in my former career as an academic that students not being safe on campuses is something that has been reported for many decades, and little action has been taken. We're really at a very significant moment in history where we are finally listening as a nation and taking action to make sure that students are safe on campus. I was so pleased to hear the minister's statement in the House yesterday regarding this issue and the appointment of Patty Kinnersly, the CEO of Our Watch, who will be part of the process to take meaningful action in this area as part of the working group. The first meeting of that working group is slated for next week. It will consult with groups like their STOP, End Rape on Campus and Fair Agenda. I've met with some of those groups and will continue to meet with them. With two university campuses in my electorate, I have spoken to students on campuses and know just how important this issue is. This is an area we have to finally get right. Unfortunately, during my undergraduate and postgraduate studies, I witnessed and experienced some of the things we need to ensure don't happen. I've watched people disconnect with study as a result of experiencing sexual violence on campus, and it's very devastating to think about all of those bright futures that aren't able to be realised because of the assaults, the abuse that happened to them on campus, and the academic careers that were cut too short. There is clearly more to be done to ensure that we have a consistent model around reporting sexual violence and that the problem can be tackled in a comprehensive and consistent manner across Australian campuses. Our government is ambitious in pursuing a safer country for all, and we have made that clear in a number of ways, including in our National Plan to End Violence Against Women and Children, which seeks to eliminate gender-based violence in one generation. That is a very ambitious goal, but it is a goal that we must aim for. Improving safety on campus and engaging educational institutions is a vital part of achieving that goal. As someone who has spent significant time within the higher education sector as both a student and an academic, I stand here as a passionate advocate for the sector, particularly with the number of students and academics that live in my electorate and the campuses in my electorate. I was really pleased to see that in response to recommendation 2 of the accord interim report, the recommendation to remove the requirement that students pass 50 per cent of the units they study to remain eligible for a Commonwealth-supported place when FEE-HELP assistance is there. The former government introduced this rule is part of its Job-ready Graduates Package, which still necessitates some examination, and it has seen a disproportionate number of students from low socioeconomic backgrounds being forced to leave university. This bill requires universities and other providers to have a dedicated plan in place—a support for students policy, essentially—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. We are putting forward a plan here to make sure people don't drop out, that they don't fail, that they don't get left behind, but where we can help people stay in university and improve retention rates and completion rates, particularly from the students from more disadvantaged backgrounds. Under the current arrangements, students are required to pass at least 50 per cent of the units they study to continue eligibility for Commonwealth assistance. This pass rate is assessed after they have completed eight units of a bachelor degree or higher, or four units of a shorter one. As mentioned, the students who fail more than half their subjects currently lose eligibility for Commonwealth assistance. Those pass rate requirements were originally introduced in January 2022 by the former coalition government as part of the Job-ready Graduates Program. I think it was designed to dissuade students from continuing in courses they were not academically suited for, but the impact has really been disproportionate for students from First Nations, low socioeconomic backgrounds, and other underrepresented cohorts or disadvantaged cohorts. This recommendation has been welcomed by the higher education sector, who don't want to see students fail—they want to see improved equity and to see students succeed. More than 13,000 students at 27 universities have already been hit by this rule—that's 13,000 students who are potentially now disengaged from the higher education system. The practical effect of these measures has been really punitive for students, and we should be helping students to succeed, not forcing them to quit their degrees. Universities right across the country have called for the removal of this rule. Helping students to succeed is now going to be the focus of this government's higher education policy, rather than forcing students to quit, which was the policy under the previous government. This measure also directly supports efforts towards achieving Closing the Gap outcome 6, to increase the proportion of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people aged 25-34 years who have completed a tertiary qualification to 70 per cent by 2031. One of the other important element of this bill looks to increase First Nations enrolment numbers through the expansion of the eligibility of demand-driven funding. We will now include First Nations students who are living in metropolitan areas in Australia to study bachelor and bachelor-honours courses. This means, effectively, that there is no cap on the numbers of First Nations students that can enrol in Commonwealth-supported places. The Department of Education has estimated that this may in fact double the number of Indigenous students at university within a decade, which is quite remarkable. This measure builds on our government's election commitment to deliver up to 20,000 Commonwealth supported places and fee-free TAFE. Again, this is a measure that has strong support from the sector. This bill and the recommendations outlined in the interim report represent a landmark moment for higher education and for our nation. It's a pivotal step to ensuring the continued excellence, accessibility and sustainability of Australian universities. Our universities have long been the bedrock of innovation, research and the cultivation of young minds. This bill responds to the concerns raised in the interim report with a comprehensive approach that will not only address existing problems but also lay the foundation for a brighter, better educational future for Australia. I commend the bill to the House. 10:30 Ms CHANEY 300006 Curtin I welcome the two amendments to the Higher Education Support Act laid out in the Higher Education Support Amendment (Response to the Australian Universities Accord Interim Report) Bill 2023. They represent significant and positive changes to shift us closer to the goal of greater equity and access to higher education. As noted in the interim report to the Australian Universities Accord review, the ongoing process of this review has served to reiterate how critical and transformative higher education is. Higher education is essential for the social and economic wellbeing of individuals but also to Australia as a whole, and particularly to our future growth and productivity. The review urges us to prioritise both the quality of higher education and access to it in Australia to meet the multiple challenges ahead and to deliver the skills we currently require and will require in the future. I'm particularly glad to see the 30-year time frame being considered in this review. We see far too little long-term thinking in policy development, and with education it can take decades to truly see the impact of policy changes. The University of Western Australia is in my electorate of Curtin. It's rated as a world top 100 university. It's part of the Group of Eight group of universities and is No. 1 in WA for graduate employability. I studied at UWA from 1992 to 1997, and I'm pleased to report that many aspects of the vibrant student life I remember from my time there continue to this day. I note that both UWA and the UWA Student Guild made submissions to the O'Kane review, which I support. The first amendment in this bill is a simple but important one. It will now extend and guarantee eligibility to all Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students for a funded place at university. The practical impact of this amendment is to extend the guaranteed funding for students in remote and regional areas to students in metropolitan areas too. This amendment is necessary if we're to reach our ambitious Closing the gap report target of 70 per cent of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander young adults with a tertiary education by 2031. These amendments may also have a positive impact on broader First Nations families and communities, as well as individuals, embedding generational accessibility to tertiary education. The second amendment proposes to remove the 50 per cent pass rule, which requires students to pass 50 per cent of their first eight units to maintain their Commonwealth supported place and other fee assistance. Like many submissions to the review, the student guild from Curtin University in Western Australia argued that the 50 per cent completion rate introduced in the Job-ready Graduates Package was flawed. It urged the review to consider the different reasons why students fail and, instead, provide universities with a discretion to look at individual circumstances instead of being forced to adopt a one-size-fits-all approach. Equity groups, including Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students, students from lower socio-economic backgrounds and students with disability, are likely to have more challenges transitioning to university and are disproportionately impacted by this rule. The Curtin Student Guild suggests money is better spent on providing support to students who may be at risk rather than the increased administration requiring universities to report on students who have not met the threshold of passed units. The University of Western Australia also urged consideration of the context of a student where there is little or no family history of tertiary education, and the impact of a punitive approach with the requirement to pass more than 50 per cent of the first eight units or lose the CSP and HELP loan. They noted that the pass rule ignores the enormous cultural and physical barriers to successful participation among non-traditional students and that some success in university can be a springboard to the success of others in the family or indeed to later personal success. Minister Clare tells us that more than 13,000 students at 27 universities in Australia—students who are mostly from disadvantaged backgrounds—have already been impacted by the 50 per cent pass rule in the two years since the job-ready package was implemented. In my experience, first-year students don't always make foolproof judgements about their choice of subjects. This would equally apply for students with added disadvantages, who may not have had family members with university experience to guide and support them in their subject choices. For those who have a low completion rate and who lose their CSP, it's likely that they'll pull out of university rather than continue to create more debt. Obviously, they are, and should be, liable to pay for the units they've failed, but the overall result is that they will withdraw altogether rather than remain at university without a Commonwealth supported place. So the 50 per cent rule does not, as the former minister for education, Mr Tehan, suggested it would, protect students from racking up debt. Rather, it presents an additional burden over the heads of disadvantaged and undersupported students. I support its removal. I commend the amendments that require all higher education providers to have a support-for-students policy that complies with the Higher Education Provider Guidelines—namely, to require institutions to not only identify students at risk of not completing their units of study but provide support to those students and to account to the Minister for Education for the execution of that policy and support. I'm optimistic about these amendments and the focus on strategies aimed at supporting at-risk students to continue with and complete their education, but there needs to be some rigour related to this support. The Department of Education must continue to listen to student representative bodies and higher education institutions to enable them to deliver effective and tangible support to students who are facing challenges. I commend the minister for acting quickly upon these two priority actions of the Universities Accord review interim report and I look forward to further detailed consideration by the Department of Education and the minister of the 82 policy areas identified by that report for improvement. 10:37 Ms TEMPLEMAN 181810 Macquarie It's always a privilege to speak about the things that we are doing to improve the quality of university education that Australian students access and to expand that access to other students, which is what this bill is focused on. The Higher Education Support Amendment (Response to the Australian Universities Accord Interim Report) Bill 2023 comes in response to the interim report of the team looking at how we improve our university system. This is not the end of the story; this is the start of the story. That team is comprised of a really skilled group of people. I think it's important to know that it has academics, like Professor Mary O'Kane, the chair of the panel, who is the former vice-chancellor of the University of Adelaide, and the Western Sydney University vice-chancellor, Professor Barney Glover, who is bringing lived experience of what happens in the part of the continent that my community in greater Western Sydney are familiar with. Also on that panel who are considering, at the request of the minister, some recommendations is the CEO of Macquarie Bank. I have known Shemara for a long time and I have a huge regard for her. I also think it's really important that we have business leaders involved in these discussions—that the review does involve a wider group of people reflecting on what makes a difference in our universities producing graduates and supporting students for the 21st century. We've also got the Hon. Jenny Macklin, who is of course well known to this place, along with Professor Larissa Behrendt and the Hon. Fiona Nash. So there is huge diversity. I want to stress that because it's important for people to know how wide the net is, in terms of drawing on expertise. It's also important to know that this group is asking for everybody's feedback, on the ideas it's come up with, and between now and the end of the year there is opportunity to look at what's being floated as ideas. There are something like 70 different ideas that have been put forward. If anyone needs those links, I'll make sure I make them available, when I post this speech on my Facebook page, so that people know how to access the appropriate page, so they can give feedback. That's because this is not something that we want to come up with in a vacuum. We want to draw on all that expertise. We're really committed to opening the door of opportunity for more Australians to go to university. Part of that means that we act on the priorities put in the interim report. There were five priorities that were things we could do almost immediately. One is that we create more university study hubs, not just in the regions but in outer suburbs. I'll talk a bit more about that one shortly. Another is that we scrap the 50 per cent pass rule; that is within this legislation. The third is that we extend the demand-driven funding, that is currently provided to Indigenous students from regional and remote areas, and make it cover all Indigenous students. That includes those in the Blue Mountains and the Hawkesbury in the electorate of Macquarie that I represent. Again, that is included in this bill. Another is 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. The final priority is that we work with states and territories to improve university governance. They're the initial steps we're taking as part of the response to the interim report. I want to talk specifically about the ones that are in this piece of legislation. Let's talk about the 50 per cent pass rule. I have had comments such as, 'Of course students should pass; they should at least pass their first year of university subjects.' The way it works now, students are required to pass at least 50 per cent of the units of study they undertake to even be eligible 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. Students who fail more than half currently lose all eligibility for Commonwealth access and assistance. The pass rate requirements were originally introduced, in January 2022, by the former coalition government as part of its job-ready graduates program. Essentially, it was to dissuade students from continuing in courses that they're not academically suited for. But the practical effect of those measures has been extremely punitive for some students. The impact of the pass rate requirements has disproportionately affected students from certain groups: First Nations, those with low-socioeconomic status, those who are first in family to university and those other under-represented or educationally disadvantaged cohorts. I would hope that wasn't the intended consequence of the rules that were brought in, but that's what we're seeing and we can't let that remain. More than 13,000 students at 27 universities have been hit by this rule. The removal of the rule has been called for by universities right across the country, everywhere from Adelaide to Sydney to the Sunshine Coast, including my own neck of the woods, Western Sydney University. We should be helping students succeed at university, not penalising them and forcing them to quit. I know, from firsthand experience, that the first year of university can be a real challenge for some students. I have spoken in this place previously of a student I supported through her university. I remember saying to Ellie, who has now completed her PhD and is waiting for that to be assessed—many, many years later—'First year is meant to be hard! It's teaching your brain to think about things in a different way than you did in high school.' And it is meant to be hard. But it is not ideal to know that there is this pass or fail rule where you're out if you don't manage to get your head around it in that first year and in those first subjects. I'm really pleased to see that we are taking an attitude that we support students to help them succeed, not force them to quit. This bill brings in requirements on universities and other providers to have policies in place to help students successfully complete their studies. The universities and other providers will be required to show us how they'll identify students who are struggling and how they'll connect those students with support services. The Department of Education will issue a discussion paper to consult with the universities on the content of these policies. The policies are expected to contain things like: a process for identifying students who need help; how to assess a student's academic and non-academic suitability for continuing study, particularly when an alert has been triggered; the connecting of students to support before the census date whenever possible; and providing sufficient non-academic support for students, such as financial assistance, housing information and mental health supports. That's important as many students struggle because of non-academic reasons. If we can address those issues, they will have a greater chance of success. We also want universities to have appropriate crisis and critical harm response arrangements as well as providing access to trained academic development advisers who can really help a student identify what is holding them back and come up with a really tailored response for that student, because it's not going to be a one size fits all. We want to ensure that the academic and non-academic supports are age appropriate and culturally appropriate, including specific arrangements for Indigenous students. We also expect universities to offer special circumstances arrangements proactively, where the provider is aware of a significant life event for a student, as well as targeted individual literacy and numeracy supports, peer support and in core support from academic staff. That is a really key part of this. We're not just saying, 'Let's drop that rule,' we're saying, 'Let's put in more supports so that it shouldn't even be necessary.' The other part that we're legislating, in this piece of work, is to extend the demand-driven places to metropolitan Indigenous students that currently are not given to metropolitan Indigenous students but are given to rural and regional Indigenous students. I want to be clear. In the Blue Mountains and Hawkesbury we don't qualify for rural or regional, even though it can take a huge commute of several hours on public transport—that's if you can access public transport—to get to a university. So there are many barriers already, and the barrier we can remove is around the competition for places. The existing demand-driven measure was implemented in 2021. This proposal aims to increase First Nations enrolment numbers by expanding the eligibility of demand-driven funding to include all metropolitan First Nations students studying bachelor and bachelor honours courses except courses of study in medicine. This measure directly supports efforts to achieve Closing the Gap outcome 6. That measure is aimed at increasing the proportion of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, between the age of 25 and 34 years, who've completed a tertiary qualification of certificate III or above to 70 per cent by 2031. This means no cap on the number of First Nations students who can enrol in Commonwealth supported places. That is going to be a really important step. Western Sydney University is one of those universities where there is strong support for this measure. While I am speaking about Western Sydney University, I want to go to one of the other interim recommendations, which is to have more university study hubs. I note that Western Sydney University has already opened a study hub in Western Sydney in the Fairfield region. Speaking at that, Professor Barney Glover, who is the vice-chancellor, described what it was going to be. He said: It will be as high tech and as advanced as the facilities that we've put in very recently to Bankstown, where we have an enormous new campus in the heart of Bankstown. I think that's really key. These study hubs have the capacity to operate as a mini campus. It's really important for people to be able to access university close to where they live. It does take away one of those barriers. We are very lucky to have the Hawkesbury campus, but it doesn't mean that everything is offered there. I really look forward to working with universities to expand the access we give to people. It's also really opportune to mention the investment that we are making in the Western Sydney University Hawkesbury campus around our agritech hub. Labor is providing nearly $17 million to the university to really boost the jobs, skills and agriculture research that happens there. These are the sorts of things our universities do, particularly somewhere like Hawkesbury. We are doing real, practical stuff. The funding will expand the glasshouses where experiments are going on to see what can be grown with very little water and nutrients in the most efficient way possible. I'm really proud that we're going to be investing significantly in that campus to expand the work that's happening, which will support the agricultural sector not only in and around the Hawkesbury but right across the country. There is no doubt there are opportunities for reforming universities. In my last few moments, I would like to reference the work that's been done to increase safety on campuses. Being safe on campus is something students have raised as their No. 1 issue. We're really committed to doing that. The working group that has been put together will be looking closely at what can be done. This is not something that universities have been able to address. They have made a lot of commitments to addressing it, but it does need us as the federal government to take a leadership role and support them to ensure they create very safe places for every student on campus. That's one of the fundamentals of a strong university sector. I commend this bill to the House. 10:52 Dr SCAMPS 299623 Mackellar I rise in support of the government's Higher Education Support Amendment (Response to the Australian Universities Accord Interim Report) Bill 2023. I have come to this place to represent the constituents of my electorate of Mackellar, and in doing so I represent all constituents of all ages, and of course that includes young people—people for whom this bill will have the most impact. University higher education has always been enormously important to my family. In the 1930s my grandmother, then Dorothy Arnott, was the second woman ever to graduate from veterinary science at Sydney University. I have also been extremely fortunate to benefit from Australia's world-class tertiary education system. However, I recognise the immense privilege it is to be able to undertake tertiary education. I also believe it must never be something that is only available to the privileged, and so I support this bill as it builds greater inclusivity and equity into our higher education system. Tertiary education provides an unparalleled opportunity for personal enrichment and is an invaluable investment in the future of our nation, so it is incumbent upon us here in this place to ensure that our universities remain relevant, robust and respected institutions for future generations. Most importantly, we must ensure they are accessible for people of all backgrounds and all walks of life. That's what this bill seeks to do. With the bill, the government seeks to implement two of the most pressing interim recommendations of the Australian Universities Accord. The Australian Universities Accord is the review that has been undertaken to ensure that Australia's tertiary education system is fit for the demands of the 21st century. Young people in 2023 are facing extraordinary challenges. Intergenerational inequality is real, and it is increasing. Cost-of-living pressures are hurting them more as inflation kicks in, including the booming cost of renting and ballooning HECS debts. Add to that the uncertain future of a world facing climate breakdown. Higher education is a critical area where we in this House must build policy that supports and gives a leg-up to our young people. Our higher education system must not only meet the needs of the nation and the future workforce; it must also meet the needs of the people in the system—the students, the academics and the support staff. To that end, it must be inclusive, relevant, supportive and of a quality that is equal to anything anywhere else in the world. Campuses must also be safe places for our young people to study and socialise. In November 2022 the Minister for Education, to his great credit, commissioned a 12-month review into Australia's higher education system, led by a panel of eminent Australians—the Australian Universities Accord. The minister's stated objective of this review is to 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. These are noble aims. During this process the minister has ensured that the crossbench has been kept up to date on progress of the accord, and I'd like to thank him for that. This week the minister has also arranged for the crossbench to be briefed by Emerita Professor Mary O'Kane, chair of the panel. These briefings are extremely helpful, and the collaborative approach of the minister on such a critical issue is indeed appreciated and respected. It has been wonderful to hear from Professor O'Kane, who has led a panel who so ardently believe in the benefits of higher education to individuals, to society and to the nation. To quote the panel: … a high-quality and equitable higher education system is now a must-have for Australia and there can be no room for complacency. To successfully tackle our big national priorities, including lifting economic productivity, making a clean energy transition, building a caring society, meeting the defence and security challenges of our region, and strengthening our democratic culture, our higher education system must become much, much stronger. The interim report of the Universities Accord was released last month. That report called for five modest and sensible priority actions to be considered immediately. This bill, less than a month later, seeks to implement two of these priority recommendations. It also lists a number of larger-scale issues for further policy consideration which will be dealt with in more detail in the final report, to be handed down in December this year. I'd like to comment on a few of the accord's priority recommendations today. The first is one of the recommended priority actions being addressed in this bill: the urgent recommendation that the 50 per cent pass rule be abolished. Given its detrimental impact on equality, as it disproportionately affects students from more-disadvantaged backgrounds, I fully support this move. Most of the students affected by this rule have been from underrepresented groups, including First Nations students, who are around twice as likely to be affected as other students. The rule requires that students pass 50 per cent of their units of study in order to continue to be eligible for Commonwealth assistance for their fees. Of course, without that assistance, very few students would be able to afford to continue university. However, the early years of university, as many of us know, are a time of immense change and challenge and can be incredibly stressful. The pressure of living away from home, cost of living, health issues, work demands, study demands and new-relationship demands are just some of the many reasons young people may struggle to achieve in the early years of university. To cut off a young person's dreams in this way is simply not fair. With this bill, the government will, rightly, remove this harsh and arbitrary rule. At the same time, the government has promised increased intervention and support and reporting on student progress, the idea being to help them when they're struggling rather than to kick them out. Again, this is a sensible and practical investment in our young people. As I explained earlier, starting university can involve significant adjustment stress for students, especially those from lower socioeconomic backgrounds who have never been in an environment like university before and who don't have the family financial resources to fall back on. These are the very students whose participation in tertiary education we should be fostering, rather than impeding. In a similar vein, the report identifies as its third priority action that all First Nations students must be eligible for a funded place at university. In other words: despite any caps on the number of students who can ordinarily be accepted for a course, all First Nations students who achieve the necessary grades will be given a place. This guarantee already applies to regional- and remote-area First Nations students but not metropolitan ones—and it must. University will not be free for these students. They will still be part of the HECS-HELP system, and it will not adversely affect any other students because it is in addition to current arrangements. We know that higher education outcomes are fundamental to closing the gap. The Uluru Statement from the Heart contains the aspiration that First Nations children 'will walk in two worlds' and that 'their culture will be a gift to their country'. The gap that exists in First Nations tertiary attainment needs to be closed. This is one step towards that aim. Another priority action that the interim report has identified is to improve university governance. When the interim report talks about governance, the basic idea is that higher education institutions need to be better, safer places to work and to learn. To make higher education institutions better places to work, they need greater funding security. Because of funding insecurity, many universities are only able to offer short-term contracts and rely on a highly casualised workforce. This is just not good enough. Our academics have dedicated their lives to the pursuit and handing down of knowledge. With their qualifications, many, if not most, could have had much higher paying and more stable careers in other industries. Despite this, they remain committed to research, to knowledge-building, to educating and to bettering our society. As the report states, 'The funding of higher education and its workforce structure are inextricably linked.' Workforce instability in the sector threatens the quality of our institutions, and, as in other sectors, the casualisation of the roles disproportionately affects women. Particularly appalling was the treatment that our university staff, our brains trust, received during the pandemic by the former government. Thousands of academics and other university support staff were forced to leave the sector during that difficult time because JobKeeper was not extended to them as it was to the vast majority of the country's workforce. The Fair Work Ombudsman considers that these issues causing workforce instability are entrenched in the sector. I look forward to the solutions the panel proposes in dealing with this critical issue in its final report. The safety of students and the duty of care universities owe to them is also considered by the panel to be an aspect of good governance. We know that safety on campus is an issue that has not been adequately addressed. The 2021 National Student Safety Survey found that 16 per cent of students have experienced harassment and five per cent have been sexually assaulted. If you think about that—about our daughters and their friends going off to university— out of a group of 20, at least one has been sexually assaulted on campus. Just last week, a group of brave women came to parliament to share their stories of sexual assault on campus, and they also shared their stories of the lack of care and support provided to them by many of the universities. It's unacceptable that these women feel they have no choice but to come to this place and reshare their experience of sexual violence to reopen that trauma in order for governments and universities to listen and act. Why is it always the survivor's job? The interim report recommends, and the government has committed to, engaging with state and territory governments to improve student and staff safety. I very much look forward to hearing more about how the government will approach this issue. In conclusion, I applaud the work already done by Australian Universities Accord panel and the work they have signalled they will move onto. To anyone interested in higher education in this country who believes in its transformative power, I commend the report to you. For a report prepared by a government-commissioned panel, it is genuinely good reading, no doubt reflective of the quality of the academics responsible for it. I will end by sharing one sentiment from the report, which elegantly summarises the place of tertiary education in our lives: We live in an era of profound intellectual, technological, economic and cultural change, in which complacency is dangerous and our egalitarian values need to be defended and renewed. In this environment, higher education is our best asset. It transforms lives and underpins our nation's wellbeing and security. It delivers education, research, community engagement and industrial capability. It powers social mobility, economic prosperity, security, creativity and innovation. It helps us understand the central place of First Nations people in our history—through the generous sharing of their knowledge, language, culture and sense of community and place. Higher education does all this and more by creating new knowledge, dispersing it widely and applying it to the many welcome and unwelcome challenges that confront us. 11:06 Ms McBRIDE 248353 Dobell It has been said before, but it is well and truly worth saying again: education can be a great leveller. It has the potential to lift individuals and communities and give them the very best chance. In my family it changed everything. My late father, Grant, was the first in his family to go to university; with the help of a scholarship he juggled three jobs whilst studying part time and parenting. He graduated as a civil structural engineer. His belief in the change that education and, in particular, technical training can make led him to an early career teaching at TAFE. Every kid deserves the opportunity that my dad had, wherever they grow up—in Dundas Valley or Wyong. I am proud to be part of a government that's making post-school education a reality for many people and families from disadvantaged backgrounds, with more Commonwealth-supported university places and hundreds and thousands of more places for fee-free TAFE. There are 480,000 places. My five brothers and my sister are now physicists, plumbers, sociologists, statisticians, business analysts and lawyers—all because of the chance of my father's and mother's education. Under the last government, that chance was slipping away for too many kids, especially those growing up in the outer suburbs and regions. As it currently stands in Dobell, 15 per cent of adults have a bachelor's degree or higher diploma. It's probably not dissimilar in the neighbouring seat that my colleague and friend, Minister Pat Conroy, represents. Mr Conroy 249127 Hear, hear! Ms McBRIDE 248353 In the entirety of New South Wales, it sits at around 30 per cent. That's twice as high as in communities like ours. The Higher Education Support Amendment (Response to the Australian Universities Accord Interim Report) Bill 2023 is especially important for communities that I represent and that Minister Conroy and Dr Reid in Robertson on the Central Coast of New South Wales represent. On the Central Coast we have the University of Newcastle. We've got campuses in Gosford and Ourimbah. People who attend university in my community are often juggling work, study, commuting and family commitments. Compared to other communities, they are more likely to come through an enabling program, like Yapug and Open Foundation, than directly from school. In fact, 30 per cent of commencing students at Ourimbah come through enabling programs, and the University of Newcastle has always had a focus firmly on equity and excellence. That makes it all the more important for a region like the Central Coast and the outer suburbs and regions around Australia. We need to do better at creating opportunities in our regions and our outer suburbs, like the Central Coast, with pathways to higher education and better support for students when they get there at whatever age or whatever time of life. In my capacity as Assistant Minister for Rural and Regional Health, the education divide between the city and the bush is clear, and it plays out in peoples' lives and in their health, quality of life and life expectancy. As Minister Clare has said time and again, in the regions only 13 per cent of people have a university degree in Australia today. As I mentioned, that rate of higher education is reflected in their health care and that of their communities. Recently, the Royal Flying Doctor Service released the Best for the bush, rural and remote health base line 2022 report. It showed that women living in the most remote parts of Australia are likely to die 19 years sooner than their city counterparts. It also found that those living in very remote areas are almost three times more likely to be hospitalised. This government's challenge—and my challenge as the assistant minister assisting Minister Mark Butler for rural and regional health—is to help turn this around. We need to turn this around. Our communities are relying on us to make this change. These regions are calling out for more GPs, nurses, dieticians, podiatrists and psychologists, just to name a few. But all of those jobs require degrees. We know that the best way to have health workers and health practitioners in the bush and in the outer suburbs is to train them there. The reality is that health professionals educated in Camperdown aren't moving to Condobolin, and this needs to change. The recommendation of the Australian Universities Accord interim report, led by Professor Mary O'Kane and released by the minister last month, makes that very plain. I was pleased to see that one such recommendation was to create more university study hubs in the regions and in the outer suburbs. This is absolutely critical reform. Our government has committed to doing just that. There are currently 34 of these study hubs in regional Australia. We have committed to 20 more in the regions, and, for the first time, we will be setting up 14 in the outer suburbs of major cities. Because for those kids growing up in the outer suburbs, this has become a big and growing challenge, as much as it is for those in the regions. This year, I've had the chance to visit and meet with students at rural clinical schools right around Australia, including in Cairns, Far North Queensland, Orange, Bathurst in New South Wales and Launceston in Tasmania. These young people are a testament to the changing structure of our higher education system and the changing nature of our healthcare system. It's not only kids of doctors who can become doctors in Australia today; it's the sons and daughters of farmers and teachers and firefighters who will contribute to their communities and make that much-needed change for their communities, lifting those communities, lifting the economic purpose, lifting the financial security of those communities and, in turn, providing the health care that those communities so desperately need and deserve. The answer to more doctors for the bush is to train more kids from the bush. A key part of that is giving every Australian—wherever they're born, wherever they live, wherever they grow up—the very best opportunity to get to higher education, whether through TAFE or university, and to succeed when they get there. Another recommendation from the Australian Universities Accord interim report is to remove the 50 per cent pass rule. As it currently stands, students are required to pass at least half of their units of study to keep their eligibility for Commonwealth assistance. The rule was implemented by the former coalition government back in January 2022 as part of what they called their job-ready graduates programs. However, what we have seen and what has been borne out is that it's nothing but punitive for struggling students. As the minister noted, Universities Australia has described the rule as 'widely regarded as being unnecessarily harsh'. It disproportionately effects first nations students, students from low socioeconomic backgrounds and underrepresented students. I have visited many students at the University of Newcastle, Ourimbah Campus. Many of them, through the enabling programs, have told me about their own experiences, where they've had caring responsibilities for a loved one and the financial situation in their household has meant that they couldn't successfully finish school or where the challenges their family had to face made it really tough for them to be able to get through secondary school. In my community, students will likely come through an enabling program like Open Foundation or Yapug. It's so important that those students have the very best support to succeed, particularly in a tough semester. When I was taking my final exam to be a pharmacist, one of my close friends from school passed away. That can have a big impact on you when you're going to take an exam, when you're sitting an oral exam. We need to make sure that the right scaffolding is there in support around people to make sure that when they get there, after all the struggle to complete secondary school or get through an enabling program—when they're at university—they get the very best chance to succeed. So I am so pleased on behalf of the many young people and other people in my community who have been adversely impacted by this that this is going to change. It's an important change. As I said, the rule disproportionately affects First Nations students, students from communities like mine and other underrepresented types of students. That you could lose your education support because of the death of a family member or you have caring responsibilities resulting in a particularly tough semester is not fair. The removal of this rule has been called for by universities across Australia, and I'm pleased that we're doing it. I'm pleased to support this amendment bill because it does just that, remove the unfair and unjust rule that affects students who are doing it tough. While we do that, we need to give students the best chance to succeed not only academically but personally. That means that we need better approaches for identifying students who need help and we need to get better at connecting students to that support. We need to provide enough wraparound support for students—financial, housing and, importantly, mental health and wellbeing support. I note the former minister, the member for Wannon, is in the House. I'm sure that what he did was well intentioned, but we are seeing students who are struggling and who are worse off because of it. We're pleased to see that it is being scrapped. We need to take into consideration the person behind the laptop and make sure that we're giving that person the best chance of success, and that is what these amendments are about. Deputy Speaker Freelander, with your indulgence, I would like to finish on a personal note if I may. To my nephew Gus: happy 21st birthday! I know just how challenging it was to complete school and your sound-engineering course through COVID and while juggling work. Your mum and dad and our family are very proud of you and the creative, kind, capable young man you are today. So many young people like my nephew Gus and my niece Isabel went through that very difficult time of finishing secondary school through COVID and making that start in life, whether it was through higher education or going straight into the workforce. With my responsibilities as Assistant Minister for Mental Health and Suicide Prevention, it is absolutely front of mind for us to make sure that every young person, whatever their circumstances—who have, particularly, been through this very challenging time—gets the best start in life, and that is part of this legislation, to give them the best chance. As I said at the beginning, education can be a great leveller, but that is only the case if we give everyone the chance of a world-class education. Australia has some of the best universities in the world; I was fortunate to attend Sydney university. We need to make sure that all Australians have a chance to walk through their gates and to leave with the very best start in life—a quality education. 11:18 Mr TEHAN 210911 Wannon It's an absolute pleasure to rise to speak on the Higher Education Support Amendment (Response to the Australian Universities Accord Interim Report) Bill 2023 because it will enable me to clarify a few facts which tend to get lost in debates like this, and facts, in the end, are pretty important. We had one member say that no support was provided to universities during the pandemic. That is blatantly wrong. The universities came to the government, and they had one main request. That was that they would continue to get their Commonwealth Grant Scheme funding, no matter what happened to student intakes during that period of time. So we basically guaranteed universities' baseline funding. We delivered that to them in a very short period of time so they had that certainty. So any discussion or any debate that, because we didn't provide JobKeeper, universities then went and sacked members of their staff is just wrong. We guaranteed their baseload funding to them. Not only that, we went one step further. Because international students couldn't come into this country, we said to the universities: 'We're going to provide you with a one-off payment of funding for research.' That one-off payment of funding for research was $1 billion. It was the largest injection of research funding that has ever been provided to the university sector in its history. This idea that they weren't funded is a complete and utter nonsense. I can go even further and say: look at the universities' financial records as they came out of the pandemic—look at the analysis done by the Australian Financial Review. It clearly shows that their balance sheets came out incredibly healthy. Let's get that fact on the table to start with. The other fact I'd like to address, and it's one which comes to this bill, is the reason we put in place a rule around students failing. This rule was put in place to stop universities churning students through units and courses that they were failing and racking up large HECS debts. The government needs to be honest about what they're doing. The universities did not like being held to account in this regard. The previous speaker mentioned a student might have a death in the family, or an illness, or something like that. We put in place very clear guidelines and exemptions that those students would be exempt from this rule. But what this was about was stopping universities—and they do it to those from low socioeconomic environments and they do it to Indigenous students. They don't put the wraparound services and protections in place so that those students pass their courses. What happens is that those students just continue on and they rack up a HECS debt and fail. So we put this pass rule in place. We were saying clearly to universities, 'You will not be able to continue to charge HECS to these students because they're failing.' What they need to do is bring these students in and say, 'Is this course appropriate for you?' Or, 'We are going to provide the services for you to make sure you do pass.' That wasn't happening. What you're doing by taking this rule out is you're going to make sure you see that happening again. This was about holding universities to account. It wasn't about the students. It was about making sure that the universities look after students properly, and look after Indigenous students from rural and regional areas. It's making sure that they are not put in the wrong courses, do a whole course, fail it and then end up with a HECS debt and nothing to show for it. So I would say to the government, 'Think long and hard about what you're doing here.' Why do universities not like this pass rule? Because it holds them to account. It's the first time we are holding them to account, and you want to take that away. Do you know who will suffer? It's the students. It's the students from the low socioeconomic backgrounds, it's the students from rural and regional Australia, it's the Indigenous students from rural and regional Australia. To show why that was what we had in mind, it was students from rural and regional Australia and Indigenous students from rural and regional Australia that we gave additional support to at that time and put more money into the sector to support those students. We want them to succeed. Because if you look at the problem with the higher education system—and it's a problem which just isn't alone for the higher education system—the further you are from the capital city, the less the likelihood or chances that you will go to university, or that if you go you will succeed. What the government is doing—and it always does it—is becoming city-centric again. Who's going to suffer the most? It will be those students from rural and regional areas, those low socioeconomic students, and those Indigenous students from rural and remote Australia. What you are doing is acting at the behest of the universities to disadvantage students even more. It is bad policy. The one area where we were actually able to get universities to be held to account, you are now taking away, and they will benefit as a result of it. It is very, very bad policy. The one thing that concerns me—and I commend the shadow minister for education—is that, with all the assumptions that this change is based on, it sounds like there has been no proper, thorough research done into it at all. As the shadow minister's amendment shows, it all seems to be based on, literally, pressure from universities, rather than doing the research, getting the data and making changes based on the facts. I would say to the government: have a look at it over a period of time. Get your facts right. Make the universities put the wraparound support in place for these students, rather than taking away the one thing which holds them to account on this. I would also ask the government to look at the impact that the previous government's record investment in the regions has had on participation by rural and regional students, and rural and regional Indigenous students, in accessing higher education and staying longer in education. Have a look at how our regional university centres have worked. Have a look at where the model is working well and where it could be improved, and make sure you look to focus your investment on those regional university centres. Make sure that the provision of higher education is spread out right across this nation. We also have to make sure that, on the fringes of our big capital cities, the universities that are providing for low-socioeconomic students are getting the opportunities that they need, as well. It is equally important that they look at how students get the choice between vocational education and higher education. The countries that best provide the skills for their companies and businesses, small and large, are ones which get the balance right between vocational education and higher education. One of the things that I really worry about with this new government is that the focus seems to be entirely on getting more and more people into higher education. If you look at the countries that do education well, they get the balance right between vocational education and higher education. One of the things that we did—and I would hope this government would continue to do it—is build the esteem and investment in vocational education in this nation. That is going to require working collaboratively and cooperatively with the states. We also need to say to the states, when it comes to vocational education, 'You have to lift your game.' We're not seeing the pride in and emphasis on vocational education that we see when it comes to higher education. I would say to the education minister: please do not lose sight, through your university accord—or what there is of it—of the importance of vocational education. If we are truly to provide our country with the skills that it needs for the future, then vocational education is a critical component of it. One of my frustrations, as education minister, was seeing how we could get better interaction and engagement from the states when it came to the provision of vocational education, and providing proper vocational education in the areas where we have skills shortages. This is one of our nation's great challenges. The previous minister, Michaelia Cash, embarked on a pathway to really improve that aspect of our higher education sector but, unfortunately, the course we were taking continued to run up against resistance from state governments. Now my worry is that the new government will not be putting the emphasis that's needed on vocational education to make sure that we do have those skills that we need going forward as a nation. In summary, I would ask the government, once again, to seriously think about what they're doing with the change they're making to this pass rule. It was been hard fought to get it through the Senate. It was hard fought because it holds the universities to account, to make sure that they're providing the extra, additional tuition, wraparound services and support that's required for students to make sure they pass their courses. It was designed and built to ensure that students don't do a full degree and fail it, and have a huge HECS debt and nothing to show for it apart from a HECS debt which they would take years to repay. The people who are impacted by this churn are those who are the most vulnerable: rural and regional students, Indigenous students from rural and regional areas and low-socioeconomic students. Look at the legislation that was put through, because it was well thought through. There are exemptions there for when there might be a death in the family, or where there might be an illness. This was about holding the universities to account; it wasn't about trying to do something which would disadvantage students. What you are doing is again setting those students up to fail, and to not have the universities held to account for those failures. I will finish on this note: any talk about our previous government not investing in universities, especially during the pandemic, is a complete and utter nonsense. We did the one thing that the universities asked for, and that was to underwrite their Commonwealth grants schemes. The second thing we did was to provide the largest one-off payment of research funding that this nation has ever seen. Those over there don't like it. A $1 billion dollar one-off payment in research funding was provided. Rather than welcoming it and saying 'well done', they just won't register that that's what we did, and it shows you how ideologically blind they are in everything they do. Debate adjourned. Ordered that the resumption of the debate be made an order of the day for a later hour. MOTIONS 6103 MOTIONS Royal Commission into the Robodebt Scheme 6103 11:34 Mr SHORTEN 00ATG Maribyrnong I move: That this House: (1) accepts the findings of the report of the Royal Commission into the Robodebt Scheme regarding the former ministers involved in the design and implementation of the scheme; (2) expresses its deep regret and apologises to the victims of the unlawful robodebt scheme, and to front-line Centrelink staff; and (3) commits to ensuring this cruel, unlawful chapter in the history of Australian public administration is never repeated. The reason why I'm moving this resolution and the government is supporting it is that we believe that the nation and the parliament cannot move on without accepting a genuine account of what went wrong. It was Justice Murphy of the Federal Court in the resolution of the class action who described robodebt as a shameful chapter in the social security laws of Australia and a massive failure in public administration. The royal commissioner, Catherine Holmes, said, 'It's remarkable how little interest there seems to have been in ensuring the scheme's legality, how rushed its implementation was, how little thought was given to how it would affect the welfare recipients by ministers and public servants on a quest for savings.' She also said, importantly: Where I have made findings against individuals that were liable to cause real damage to reputation … I have not reached those conclusions without a high degree of satisfaction about the evidence. I'll come back to that point in this resolution. The Royal Commission into the Robodebt Scheme was established on 25 August 2022. The final report was delivered on 7 July 2023. There were 46 days of public hearings and more than 100 witnesses. I also state importantly at the outset that the commission applied rules of procedural fairness. Individuals liable to be affected by a finding were given a fair and impartial hearing before any such decision was made—indeed, they got legal aid support. In her conclusion, Commissioner Holmes said the royal commission illustrated what: … can go wrong through venality, incompetence and cowardice. I thank the royal commission for doing their duty. First, I want to talk about some of the victims' stories in robodebt. There was one lady who chose to be anonymous. She was a refugee and not literate in English. When she got the debt notices, she hid her own children, afraid that the authorities would come for them. There was Anjuli, pregnant and living in a refuge after escaping domestic violence. She was working three jobs to keep afloat. She was told she had a debt and, even though she had reported her income correctly, it got garnished. At the grocery store, she had to leave groceries at the till because, when she went to pay using her own money on her card, the money had already been taken out of her account. Maddy received an $8,000 debt while studying at uni. She was so overwhelmed that she actually attempted to take her own life. There was another young single mum who said: 'I cried myself to sleep for two weeks thinking about where my daughter would go if I went to jail. I contacted her father for financial help. He then applied for shared custody of the daughter. To say robodebt ruined my life is a complete understatement.' Kathleen Madgwick told how her only child, Jarrad, took his own life after receiving a robodebt notice. Jennifer Miller gave a profoundly moving account of her son Rhys's experience of the scheme before he took his own life in 2017. Ms Miller said she went to her son's apartment in Melbourne and found debt letters hanging on the fridge along with a drawing of a person shooting a gun in their mouth, with dollar signs coming out of the back of their head. For the record, his debts were later reduced to zero. I say sorry to the victims, and we want the parliament to say sorry to the victims. I say sorry to the frontline staff, and we want the parliament to say sorry to them. The staff at Services Australia were victims too. Their concerns were dismissed. They were given code of conduct violations for trying to speak up. They had to console robodebt victims contemplating taking their own lives. I got an email the other day from a grateful Services Australia worker thanking the government for the royal commission. She wrote: 'It was a really distressing time to work in the Public Service then. I felt embarrassed and ashamed about where I worked. It also went against my values, the reasons I was working there. When I questioned senior management, I was made to feel like a second-class citizen.' There was Colleen Taylor, who actually stood up to the then departmental secretary, Kathryn Campbell, saying: … as a Compliance unit, we should not be the ones stealing from our customers. At the royal commission she said: There were so many people complicit in it that I think we all have to hang our heads in shame for what was being done to people … it was just horrific. I'm also sorry to the advocates. You were underfunded, but you fought tirelessly on behalf of the most vulnerable. I include Genevieve Bolton, Katherine Boyle and Catherine Eagle. They told the coalition what was going on. I include the Not My Debt campaign and ACOSS. They warned the coalition government over 4½ years that the averaging process was wrong, that the automated process was unreliable and that it was wrong to have victims chasing up former employers for info. Victims had to borrow money to pay debts. There were domestic violence victims and homeless getting debts. I also acknowledge many backbenchers, including Senator Rachel Siewert from the Greens, many Labor people and some coalition backbenchers, who spoke up at the time. I acknowledge the economic costs that the royal commission has identified. These economic supermen of the coalition made us believe there was a $4.7 billion mountain of gold which had been stolen, effectively, by the others, those on welfare. There was not a $4.7 billion mountain of gold. It did not exist; it was fool's gold. Instead, the Federal Court found that the coalition, using robodebt, unlawfully raised $1.8 billion of debt against no less than 434,000 Australians. The robodebt scheme was budgeted to save $4.7 billion for taxpayers. In the end, it has cost a billion dollars, not counting the money refunded. What a shocking waste of money in pursuit of a war on the poor. There were warnings ignored, and this really does go to the heart of lessons of robodebt. As one wit said on Twitter, 'There were more red flags than a May Day parade.' But the coalition government repeatedly ignored warnings. This is a very important point. If you create an unlawful scheme and you, for whatever reason, miss that it's unlawful, that is inexcusable. What is even more inexcusable perhaps is when you are warned by tens of thousands of internal reviews, thousands of AAT matters and hundreds of AAT decisions. When you are warned by legal academics or when you are warned by the parliament—parliamentary committees, the crossbench, Labor—it shouldn't take Madeleine Masterton, a student, Deanna Amato and the Victorian Legal Aid Commission to stop robodebt. They're the people who actually stopped robodebt, and the class action was the final nail in the coffin of robodebt. It shouldn't have taken whistleblowers from within the service. The royal commission also made findings about ministers. For the record, coalition ministers—the best and brightest of a generation of coalition politicians, they would say!—said this on 140 occasions, after which I stopped counting: 'I don't recall. I don't remember.' There's a new collective noun for amnesia: it's called a coalition cabinet! There was Mr Morrison. I did say earlier that the royal commission had to be satisfied to a high level. This is not just someone in a press conference judging the Prime Minister; this is a former chief justice of the Queensland Supreme Court. The royal commission found that Scott Morrison misled the cabinet and failed his ministerial responsibility, and it rejected part of his evidence as untrue. It says: Mr Morrison allowed Cabinet to be misled because he did not make that obvious inquiry. He took the proposal to Cabinet without necessary information … He failed to meet his ministerial responsibility to ensure that Cabinet was properly informed about what the proposal actually entailed … That is not what any self-respecting member of parliament, much less someone who has held the great office of the Prime Minister of Australia, would want said about them, but it has been said. It has been put. Mr Morrison had the chance to make an accounting of what he said, and he just failed to convince an impartial inquisitor of the royal commission. There was poor old Senator Marise Payne. The royal commission said about her evidence: This series of disparate and unsatisfactory answers would have the makings of a child's nursery rhyme if it were not so serious. No more needs to be said. On the former Minister for Human Services, Mr Alan Tudge, the commission said that he abused his power: … Mr Tudge knew that at least two people had died by suicide, and that their family members had identified the impact of the Scheme as a factor in their deaths. Nonetheless, Mr Tudge failed to undertake a comprehensive review into the Scheme … …   …   … It was all the more reprehensible in view of the power imbalance between the minister and the cohort of people upon whom it would reasonably be expected to have the most impact … On Christian Porter, the former Minister for Social Services, the commission found: Mr Porter could not rationally have been satisfied of the legality of the Scheme … The member for Fadden, who extended the doctrine of cabinet solidarity, giving permission to lie to the public about 'facts' that you know are untrue, rejected that as errant rubbish. Then there was Michael Keenan, the Minster for Human Services, who I actually think came off less bad than some of the others, but Professor Carney, who was an eminent AAT member and, for the best part of 40 years, a professor of law, gave five decisions in 2017. He said, 'This is unlawful.' When it was picked up and put in the media and when our own Linda Burney raised this very point in 2017-2018, the minister dismissed Professor Carney with that trademark coalition arrogance. He just said 'What does the opinion of a former member of the AAT matter?' What arrogance. When you become a cabinet minister, it doesn't make you smarter than everyone else. You don't get a uniform that makes you better. They ignored this advice. Given what's been said about the victims, the cost and the ministers, what's been the response of the opposition since the royal commission? Well, Mr Morrison said he doesn't agree with it. He dismissed the real harm it caused as 'unintended consequences'. The dangerous minimalism of dismissing the consequences to nearly half a million people and breaking the law for 4½ years is 'unintended consequences'. Then we had the Leader of the Opposition. I think he was a little ambiguous. He said the member for Cook gave a very strong defence, but the point about it is he just says he put a very strong case. We are still in the dark about whether not the member for Dickson actually agrees with the member for Cook or just thinks he's doing a strong job defending himself. Time will tell. We had the member for Bradfield create a new, creative scheme and proposition that public servants would be innovative and creative. This is jeopardised by the royal commission. But I must say that not all coalition members have reacted with the same sense of denialism and lack of repentance. I acknowledge the words of Senator Dean Smith on the Q&A show. He gave straight one-word answers: 'Yes. It was wrong.' I don't mean to embarrass him, and his own words speak for him, but the member for Menzies, earlier in the week in the Federation Chamber, I think wrote the blueprint for how the coalition should handle the issue. I hope me quoting him is not the kiss of death for his career, because he does deserve a career. If you listen to the member for Menzies, you might just have a chance one day of getting back into government, because his words were very good. He described the scheme as 'illiberal, unfair and incompetent' and he went to the issue of how an opposition can't regain the confidence of the people unless it looks inwards at what mistakes it made. I commend people to go look at those words. This resolution is not about Labor versus Liberal, it's about those who think that robodebt was illegal—unlawful, a shame, a stain, a war on the poor—and those who are so emotionally bound up in defending their term in government that they just can't hear anything else, and that is a challenge. In conclusion, we commend this resolution, and we commend this resolution because the narcissism of robodebt needs to be replaced by the ethos of servant leadership in government. Ceasing the scheme after 4½ years is not enough. The royal commission is not enough. What Australians want to hear from the political class, the people privileged to represent them, is a promise that it was wrong—not just unintended, not just a chilling effect on the creatives in the Public Service, not just a strong defence by the member for Cook. The people of Australia deserve better than the coalition's response. This was a breach of trust. The Liberal Party once stood for the rights of the individual in terms of the state, but, in a Frankenstein-like reversal of roles, they actually stood in the last government for the rights of the state against the individual. True conservatives believe in the rule of law, and the previous government was a government of lawbreakers. It is time to apologise to the victims, time to apologise to the staff, time to show real repentance for the illegality of your actions. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 265979 I thank the minister. I was reminded during that speech that Mr Morrison, the former prime minister, should be referred to as the member for Cook. 11:49 Mr FLETCHER L6B Bradfield I rise to speak on the motion proposed by the member for Maribyrnong. I'd like to start by again expressing the opposition's regret, and I extend our apologies to those Australians who received unlawful debt notices under the income compliance program administered by the Department of Human Services and Services Australia. To those Australians, I simply say: we are sorry. The apology I have repeated today is of course consistent with the apology given by the then Morrison government in 2020. When the previous coalition government became aware of the problems with the program, we cancelled the program and ensured that those affected received a refund or had their debts zeroed, and we delivered compensation payments. In fact, by November 2020 the coalition government had delivered 95 per cent of the compensation payments two years prior to the commencement of the royal commission. To date, 99 per cent of the payments have been delivered. Although this matter had been addressed by the previous government, and addressed on our watch, the present government came to power with a policy of holding a royal commission to examine what occurred. Given the substantial time, energy and public money which have been expended in the conduct of the royal commission, it is important that it be taken seriously and its conclusion studied carefully. The motion that the member for Maribyrnong has moved, in the terms that he has moved it, unfortunately is inconsistent with the objective of taking seriously the work of the royal commission and is an inappropriate course of action by this parliament. I therefore move, as an amendment to the motion moved by the minister: That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: "this House: (1) expresses its regret and apologises to the Australians who received unlawful debt notices under the income compliance program administered by the Department of Human Services and Services Australia; (2) notes that the Morrison Government cancelled the program and it ensured that those affected received a refund or had their debts zeroed, and that, to date, 99 per cent of refunds have been issued; and (3) notes that debate on this motion moved by the Member for Maribyrnong is diverting parliamentary time from the pressing challenges which Australian are facing, including eleven consecutive mortgage interest rate increases under this government, gas and electricity prices increasing dramatically in the face of the government's inability to deliver the promised $275 reduction in power bills, and soaring inflation which is creating a cost of living challenge for Australians". The first reason why this motion is inappropriate for this parliament to pass in the terms that it has been moved by the member for Maribyrnong and why instead the terms of the motion as amended, as I have moved, are appropriate is that, firstly, it is for the government to respond to the royal commission, not the parliament. As yet, we have not seen a formal response from the government. Secondly, the nature of this motion reveals on its face that it is a political exercise rather than a considered response to the royal commission. The report of the royal commission is over 900 pages long and has 57 recommendations. Many of these go to detailed issues of public administration, but this motion makes no attempt to address those. Instead, this motion speaks only about accepting the findings against ministers and is silent about all of the other findings and recommendations. This is a very good indication of the motivations of the member for Maribyrnong. He is very interested in a political witch-hunt targeting former coalition ministers. He is not at all interested in a measured consideration of the lessons for good public administration that should be drawn from this royal commission. I note that the royal commissioner, in her preface, observes that what politicians say and do sets attitudes. The member for Maribyrnong would do well to reflect on those words. It is not in dispute that our government made mistakes in relation to the income compliance program. It is also not in dispute that the mistakes were made based on advice from the Public Service doing exactly the job it is supposed to do—that is, advising ministers and implementing decisions made by ministers. The royal commission's report makes it crystal clear that the central idea underpinning the income compliance program was developed by officials within the Department of Human Services. Again, with the benefit of hindsight, it is now not in dispute that the central idea was one which required legislative change to implement. The public servants who came up with the idea failed to recognise that fact, and the legislative change did not occur. Of course, it also not in factual dispute that the cabinet submission and the new policy proposal prepared by the Department of Social Services for the minister of the day said that legislative change was not required. In other words, the Public Service gave the minister of the day clear advice, but the advice was wrong. The royal commission goes through the sequence of events very carefully. Its findings deserve careful analysis and consideration. There are several factors to be weighed up here. Of course recipients of social services payments must be treated with dignity and respect. At the same time, it is important that there be continuing scrutiny over the validity of social services payments and an ongoing process to identify instances of overpayment, whether innocent or fraudulent. Every dollar paid in social services benefits is a dollar raised from a hardworking Australian taxpayer, and taxpayers rightly expect that there are controls in place so that social services benefits do not go to people who are not entitled to receive them under the law. This is a proposition that the member for Maribyrnong is on the record as agreeing with. Let's not forget that in June 2011, when he was Assistant Treasurer, the member for Maribyrnong issued a media release with the then Minister for Human Services titled 'Welfare debt recovery process to be automated'. In that release it was announced that the Labor government within which he was a senior minister would automatically match data from Centrelink and the Australian Taxation Office to 'claw back millions of dollars from welfare recipients who have debts with the Australian government'. Of course, close observers of the career of the member for Maribyrnong will know that it would be naive to expect any consistency of approach from him, particularly if that consistency stands in the way of a potential political opportunity he sniffs out. Let us remember that the Labor Party supported the income compliance program at two elections. For the 2016 and 2019 elections, with the member for Maribyrnong as its leader, the Labor Party submitted policy costings that presumed the continuing existence of the income compliance program. It was only after the 2019 election defeat, as part of the member for Maribyrnong's search for continuing relevance, that he reversed his position and began campaigning against the compliance program, resulting in the Labor Party promising to hold a royal commission. The motion moved by the member for Maribyrnong is objectionable, then, because rather than being a careful weighing up of the complex issues considered by the royal commission it is at its core simply an exercise in political pointscoring. And it is objectionable for another reason. There is an appropriate process and there are appropriate next steps in relation to the individuals, both politicians and public servants, about whom the royal commissioner draws particular conclusions. There is a clear process set down by the royal commission and by the government itself in terms of the considered next steps that should be taken to respond to the royal commission. The government has said that former Public Service Commissioner Mr Stephen Sedgwick will carry out an independent review of the adverse findings. The royal commissioner has obviously given very careful thought as to how individuals should be dealt with, and she has prepared a separate sealed section of her report which is understood to contain materials specifically in relation to specific individuals and recommendations for actions against those individuals. Of course, members of this parliament have not seen this sealed section, yet the motion from the member for Maribyrnong is asking members to reach a conclusion about specified individuals. The broader point is that any individual, whether a politician or a public servant, is entitled to procedural fairness. There may be proceedings against individuals in the future. I do not know, and the parliament does not know, but there may be. And there is a serious risk that the passing of this motion could compromise the rights of particular individuals who become the subject of proceedings in the future. If the royal commissioner is recommending future processes, these should be carried out in a way that allows those accused to have the benefits of all the usual safeguards that the law in Australia allows. It is deeply unfortunate that the Prime Minister and the member for Maribyrnong have sought to politicise this royal commission, given the serious nature of the issues it raised. I conclude by reaffirming that the opposition is focused on learning the lessons from the royal commission. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 265979 Is the amendment seconded? Mr Sukkar 242515 I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak. 12:00 Ms WATSON-BROWN 300127 Ryan I rise to speak in support of the motion moved by the member for Maribyrnong. The report of the Royal Commission into the Robodebt Scheme is the culmination of years of fighting, advocacy and bravery from thousands of victims and their families, who were indiscriminately targeted and traumatised by the callous and illegal scheme. But justice is far from done. The member for Maribyrnong knows his government needs to do more. There are other recommendations that need urgent attention. Last week the Greens introduced an amendment to implement a robodebt royal commission recommendation to reinstate the six-year limit on social security debt recovery so that people aren't yet again hounded by debt collectors in perpetuity and so that robodebt isn't repeated. Labor voted against it. We've had 20 years of unfair Centrelink debts raised against people living in poverty. As well as failing to raise the rate, one of the member for Maribyrnong's first actions this term was to announce that the Labor government would recommence targeting jobseekers with more aggressive debt collection. These are political choices. Labor are choosing to make life harder and more stressful for people on poverty payments, all the while claiming they're championing victims of automated debt collection. The fact that the member for Maribyrnong can't see the hypocrisy is surprising. Imagine if as much effort went into making sure big corporations and billionaires paid their fair share of taxes. Imagine if we helped people in need of government support instead of hounding and shaming them. Labor must act on all the elements of the royal commission recommendations without delay. The government cannot keep failing people on income support. We've had one horrific robodebt scheme; we must not repeat it, or the member for Maribyrnong will be just as complicit as the member for Cook. 12:02 Mr SUKKAR 242515 Deakin I seconded the Manager of Opposition Business's amendment to this motion. His amendment, in a very calm and rational way, went through exactly why the motion moved by the member for Maribyrnong is nothing more than politics. Let's be frank: there's nothing subtle or sincere about this motion from the member for Maribyrnong. Subtlety is certainly not his strong suit—trying to politicise this for every single drop of political advantage possible. Anybody watching this broadcast would not have seen the sincerity dripping off him. This motion is about one thing: the member for Maribyrnong. The member for Maribyrnong is just trying to exploit this for political purposes—nothing else. No-one out there seriously believes that the member for Maribyrnong is here fighting for the interests of those who were victims of robodebt. No-one believes that! No-one in this House—not even those opposite, on the government benches—believes that the abiding motivation of this motion is to defend the interests of those Australians. This is about one thing: politics. There's no sincerity; there's no subtlety. That's why we have moved the amendments to this motion. Government members interjecting— Mr SUKKAR 242515 It's very clear that the Labor government, including the backbenchers who are interjecting right now, have very little interest in the issues impacting Australians around their kitchen tables today. Ms Sitou 298121 Where you've politicised it! That's outrageous! Mr SUKKAR 242515 On cue: an interjection that highlights that exact point. Parliamentary time in this chamber today should be spent on trying to hold the government to account on what on earth they are doing for the millions of Australians who are struggling today, who will get home tonight, open their emails—or some, those with snail mail, will go to their letterbox and get the bill in the mail—and wonder, 'How on earth am I going to pay this bill?' That is what they will be doing today. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 230531 Member for Deakin, if I could just— Mr SUKKAR 242515 And instead— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 230531 Member for Deakin, there has been a point of order called. I would ask you to take your seat. Mr Brian Mitchell 129164 The point of order is on relevance. This debate has to be on the motion before the House, and he is straying far from the motion before the House. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 230531 The question before the House, which he is speaking to, is the amendment put forward by the opposition. Thank you for your interjection. The member for Deakin has the call. Mr SUKKAR 242515 Thank you. That's a very confused backbencher there. It's not question time yet. Those standing orders don't apply. We've got millions of Australians who will get home today and have that bill in the mail, and they'll be wondering, 'How on earth do I pay it?' It could be a gas bill. It could be an electricity bill. Many of them will have voted for the Labor Party on the basis that its leader promised them he would reduce their power prices by $275 a year. Many Australians, honest people, would have thought that was an honest commitment from the Prime Minister. Every single person opposite who is interjecting had that on brochures that went out into people's letterboxes: 'We promise a $275 reduction.' People are today dealing with the consequences, and they would rightly expect that the government was focused on that. Instead, what we've got is a vindictive and politically motivated stunt from the government. Where on earth is the government's response to the royal commission? Where is it? I would say, with something that's 900 pages long, I can understand why the government would still be considering all of those recommendations. I understand that, which is why this motion today is so obviously politically motivated. How on earth could the government be moving this motion before they had considered and responded to the recommendations by their hand-picked commissioner? It's very clear— Ms Sitou 298121 Now you're questioning the independence of the commissioner. Wow! Mr SUKKAR 242515 Absolutely hand-picked commissioner. And if you are not willing, as a government, to respond to those recommendations then what on earth is this motion about? It's about politics. As I've said—and I've said it many, many times—the member for Maribyrnong is trying to squeeze every single drop of political advantage out of this. The reality is that people see that for what it is. Australians know that this now is being cynically used by the Labor Party, and I think, to be frank, that ruins your credibility on this issue. Sure, you don't have the 'sincere in chief' minister pushing this, but the utter lack of subtlety and sincerity, I think, is atrocious. That's why the very sensible amendment moved by the Manager of Opposition Business should be supported by those who are sitting opposite me. The reality is that there have been many times in political history when the House has apologised, and often there has been a willingness to apologise for the deeds of others. We very rarely see governments—or members of parliament, quite frankly—willing to apologise for things that they've done. They're always very willing to apologise for the sins of the past of others. But—to come to sincerity—you can only be sincere if you're willing to apologise for your own misjudgements and your own failures. Government members interjecting— Ms Sitou 298121 Have you apologised? Mr SUKKAR 242515 To the members who are interjecting who perhaps weren't in the chamber: the Manager of Opposition Business, in the amendment which has been circulated—and perhaps you should read that before you interject—has that as an opening line. I would encourage those who are interjecting to educate themselves and read the amendment before they vote. I know those opposite, in a lemming-like fashion, will do what the minister tells them to do with their vote, but I am saying quite clearly that, as an opposition, we've made our position clear. We closed down the scheme. Mr Shorten 00ATG You had to! Mr SUKKAR 242515 The member for Maribyrnong was a minister in a government with a litany of issues. We all remember the devastating consequences of pink batts, which led to four deaths. It would be very disingenuous for any politician to come in and say, 'We are going to ascribe responsibility for that to everybody on that side of politics.' Of course we wouldn't do that. That's why this lack of sincerity from the government is turning Australians off what is a very political approach. I support the Manager of Opposition Business's amendment. I note his third point, and I reiterate it: … debate on this motion moved by the Member for Maribyrnong is diverting parliamentary time from the pressing challenges … eleven consecutive mortgage interest rate increases— I wish the members opposite would get as animated on behalf of their constituents about that— … gas and electricity prices increasing dramatically in the face of the government's inability to deliver the … $275 … and soaring inflation which is creating a cost of living challenge for Australians— Including their promise, before the last election, to deliver cheaper mortgages. We often ask, 'Where on earth are those cheaper mortgages?' I would say to those opposite: if you want to be sincere, reflect on promises you've made and broken; come into this House and apologise to the Australian people for what you have done. It's very easy to apologise for the sins of the past or the sins of others, but it's not so easy to reflect on your own actions—the mistruths that were told before last election. To now double down on that and divert parliamentary time away from the things that will be concerning, stressing and worrying families around their kitchen tables tonight is a shame. 12:12 Mr GEORGANAS DZY Adelaide I rise to support the motion put by the member for Maribyrnong. I think it is a serious issue that we should be debating. We should be clearing everything on this particular issue because it is a shameful stain on this House and on Australian democracy. It is one thing to talk about policies on electricity prices and the cost of living, which are very important, but it's another thing to talk about a government ripping off its own citizens, and that's what the previous government did. Around 2017, people started coming to my office or ringing or emailing about debts that they were receiving—not one or two but quite a few. For each and every one, as I do for every single constituent, I would write to the minister and ask him to investigate. We did a survey of the results of those investigations in my office, and 70 per cent were either reduced or dropped altogether. In any business or association, if you had a 70 per cent error rate in a particular area, you would investigate and see what was going wrong. Those opposite were told by many backbenchers, by shadow ministers and by the current minister, and what did they do? They did nothing. All they did was pursue the poorest of the poor to try and get a few dollars out of them. That was wrong. In Holland we saw a similar case a couple of years ago. They were taking back money that they'd paid out to particular constituents, and the entire cabinet and government resigned over it because it was wrong. This lot, when they were sitting on this side of the chamber, kept on covering up. Yet only yesterday we saw a debate on transparency for multinationals and they voted against it. They voted against transparency for multinationals but were quite happy to pursue the poorest of the poor, pensioners, our part-time workers, students and the unemployed. They were quite happy to squeeze as much as they could out of them, to squeeze every single cent out of those people. But yesterday they were quite happy to vote against the transparency bill on the multinationals. They heard, over and over again, that this was wrong. I had people ringing me from the department, whistleblowers, telling me they were told not to speak to any client that had a robodebt. I even had one say to me, 'We could tell that they were wrong, and we knew that there was something wrong with it, but we were told to leave them as they were.' This was not happening by a small business out there trying to rip money off people, this was the government of Australia. And to say that we're wasting time in this place discussing it or moving this motion is absolutely wrong. The Australian public needs an unequivocal apology—not an apology with why and what they did and cover-ups but an unequivocal apology. The royal commissioner himself said that this was wrong, that it was basically a criminal act that shouldn't have taken place. Any other government in the world would have hung their heads in shame and resigned. We're here to look after those people—our pensioners, our part-time workers, our unemployed—to try and assist them. What the former government did was try to chop them at the knees and bury them. In fact, they did do that to some of them. I support the member for Maribyrnong's motion. They should be supporting it as well, unequivocally. 12:17 Mr SHORTEN 00ATG Maribyrnong In reply, at the conclusion of this debate, I do feel it appropriate to respond to some of the comments made by the members for Bradfield and Deakin. What we've seen in response to the initiating resolution, which says that we accept the findings about the ministers, that we think that we should apologise and that we as a parliament also believe we should commit to making sure this never happens again, is the opposition's own amendment. They're entitled to do this, self-evidently. But I want to go to the core of their arguments criticising this resolution. It goes to whether or not the lessons of robodebt have been learned by the parliament. The member for Bradfield is very punctilious with his words, so I listened to some of them. Essentially, his proposition was that the Public Service came the coalition government with this proposal. But what that glosses over—quite deliberately, in a calculated fashion—is the coalition government were interested in whether or not they could track down what they thought was a mountain of welfare fraud. This was deeply in the DNA of the previous coalition government, this sense of unfairness, that somehow people on welfare were getting something they weren't entitled to. They created this straw man, that somehow there is a lot of money being siphoned out of the welfare system by welfare recipients. They thought that they could turbocharge welfare compliance, drop out human oversight and reverse the onus of proof and that this would lead to rivers of gold for their budgets. The royal commission exposes the fact that there wasn't an amount of gold there. This is like that explorer, in the 1930s, in Australia, Lasseter who went looking for an imaginary vein of gold but it never existed. The problem is, all Lasseter did was harm himself—he disappeared—but this was not a consequence-free proposition by the government. What they did, in their rush to have a war on the poor and demonise people on welfare as second class, is take away their rights. They reversed the onus of proof. It is truly ironic that the member for Cook bleats about how he feels that his onus of proof has been reversed onto him now that the royal commission has listened to him and formed a view. I just wish that he and his colleagues had shown some of the empathy they feel for themselves for everyone else. Essentially, once the coalition triggered this runaway train of illegality, saying, 'Well, it's just the public servants', the member for Bradfield then glosses over 4½ years and says, 'We stopped it when we saw it was wrong'—it was as if they were never told. It was as if the AAT never existed. It was as if there weren't 19,000 internal appeals, 4½ thousand external appeals and at least 500 cases identified by the royal commission, where decisions are made on the use of income averaging. It's as if Pricewaterhouse never gave them a report, which they paid a million dollars for. It's as if Clayton Utz never gave them a legal opinion in 2018, telling them of the severe problems with the legality. What we have is a coalition and opposition who haven't learned the first lesson of losing an election—you've got to show some contribution to the voters. Not on everything; you don't have to abandon your legacy. But sometimes, when a nation changes government, the party that was in government and is now in opposition needs to reflect on ways that they can demonstrate they hear some of the lessons. Those opposite are masters of using a word and pivoting off the word to create a totally different meaning. The member for Cook said that he regrets the 'unintended consequences'. What a minimisation that must be. What a sense of cold comfort that must be for the victims. Your harm was an unintended consequence. If you're just one person, you might say, 'Oh, okay.' But it wasn't just one person who had unintended consequences; there were tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands. They were coming into coalition backbenchers' doors, too. These masters of language also then seek to demonise the royal commission. They say it's not their fault. What is the point? What is the point of being a coalition cabinet minister if, every time the Public Service tells you to do something, you say, 'Thanks, where's my limo; where's my lunch?' That is not the job. The job of a cabinet minister is to interrogate the proposals. The coalition's defence is, essentially, 'We are glove puppets of the Public Service.' But then they move on to say, 'When it was wrong, we stopped it.' That's just an outrageous lie, and I'm calling it out as a lie. There were so many warnings on this—it's ridiculous. Then they say they stopped it. It's a bit like a pyromaniac setting fire to the bush and then, when the fire brigade puts it out, saying, 'Well, without me, it couldn't have been put out.' The point is that Deanna Amato and Madeleine Masterton—remember those names—showed more commitment to putting down this scheme than the coalition and the Victorian legal aid commission combined. As for the member for Deakin's contribution, what a dishonest farrago of words. He couldn't even mention robodebt once. He's just beamed it out. But I also noticed the assault on the royal commission itself. I have to stand up for the royal commissioner. Mr SHORTEN 00ATG The member for Deakin, bagging people for being politicians. Well, it takes one to know one, my friend. He says, 'Handpicked.' Well, yes, a government appoints a royal commissioner, but handpicked—it's the insinuation that we're all friends. That is not right. The royal commissioner has seen it all in the witness box. That's why she didn't believe the member for Cook. But then they get into what I think is the most shameless and incorrigible attack. The Greens made a contribution, but, as usual, they spent more time attacking us than attacking the Liberals, so I'll treat that sniper fire with the amount of time it deserves. We get to the attack by the coalition saying: 'It's just politics; it's political. Oh, the member for Maribyrnong, he's political.' Yeah, you got me; I'm a politician. I want to confirm one thing. My word, it's political, and my word, it's personal, but not in the way those refugees from the last cabinet of the coalition government would insinuate. It's personal and it's political to Labor, because you hurt a lot of people. For years we sat in opposition while you tucked your very important thumbs behind the very important lapels of your jacket, and you said, 'We believe in the rule of law.' Well, actually, you didn't! You hold yourself out in this cloak of sanctimonious conservatism—'We are the party of the law!' It's in the conservative DNA to be the party of the law and respect the law—but you didn't! When you say you believe in the rule of law, the klaxon goes off: wrong! If you believed in the rule of law, you would have checked if the scheme were legal. If you believed in the rule of law, Mr Morrison, when he saw in his first submission— Mr SHORTEN 00ATG The member for Cook. Good point. I will call him the member for Cook. The member for Cook got a submission saying, 'You're going to need to change the law.' Then, in that marvellous, magical world that he lives in, of invisibility, the next submission says, 'No legal change required.' The member for Cook's far too smart to question his luck. He just goes on. 'Fantastic! That obstacle magicked away!' If you believed in the rule of law, you would have listened to the AAT. If you believed in the rule of law, you would have paid attention to being a model litigant. The model litigant requirements of the Commonwealth say that, when you've got a series of decisions, you better report it to someone. In no fewer than 424 cases identified by the royal commission, these former 'masters of the rule of law' just never noticed. When you get a bad decision, and a series of bad decisions, and a conga line of bad decisions, you are obliged to either appeal the decision, because you think it's wrong, or change your policy. But you took the cowardly way, of ignoring it. There is no satisfactory answer to that in the minds of the Australian people. It is personal to us when you demonise people on welfare and don't give them the same legal rights; when you ignore all the warnings; when you gaslight the victims; when you attack the advocates; when you use the power of your office to look up personal files to attack the critics in the media; when you take the pay as a cabinet minister; when you lecture year upon year, 'We're going to get these people,' and then it's wrong; and when you gaslight the royal commission, 'Yes, we are the messengers, and you can shoot us all you like.' If I were being really partisan, I would hope that you keep doing exactly what you're doing, because, at the moment, the way the coalition's handling this royal commission—with a few notable exceptions—means you've learnt nothing and you'll repeat the same mistakes again. The SPEAKER 53517 The question before the House is that the amendment moved by the honourable member for Bradfield be agreed to.  

The House divided. [12:31]
(The Speaker—Hon. Milton Dick)

 49 AYES Andrews, K. L. Bell, A. M. Birrell, S. J. Boyce, C. E. Broadbent, R. E. Buchholz, S. Caldwell, C. M. Chester, D. J. Coleman, D. B. Conaghan, P. J. Coulton, M. M. (Teller) Entsch, W. G. Fletcher, P. W. Goodenough, I. R. Hamilton, G. R. Hastie, A. W. Hawke, A. G. Hogan, K. J. Howarth, L. R. 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. Violi, A. A. 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. Archer, B. K. Bates, S. J. Bowen, C. E. Burke, A. S. Burnell, M. P. Burney, L. J. Burns, J. Butler, M. C. Byrnes, A. J. Chalmers, J. E. Chandler-Mather, M. Chaney, K. E. Charlton, A. H. G. Chesters, L. M. Clare, J. D. Claydon, S. C. Coker, E. A. Collins, J. M. Conroy, P. M. Daniel, Z. Doyle, M. J. J. 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. Le, D. 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. Payne, A. E. Perrett, G. D. Phillips, F. E. Plibersek, T. J. Rae, S. T. Reid, G. J. Repacholi, D. P. Rishworth, A. L. 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) Spender, A. M. Stanley, A. M. (Teller) 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.

 12:42 The SPEAKER 53517 The question is that the motion be agreed to.  

The House divided. [12:42]
(The Speaker—Hon. Milton Dick)

 88 AYES Albanese, A. N. Aly, A. Ananda-Rajah, M. Archer, B. K. Bates, S. J. Bowen, C. E. Burke, A. S. Burnell, M. P. Burney, L. J. Burns, J. Butler, M. C. Byrnes, A. J. Chalmers, J. E. Chandler-Mather, M. Chaney, K. E. Charlton, A. H. G. Chesters, L. M. Clare, J. D. Claydon, S. C. Coker, E. A. Collins, J. M. Conroy, P. M. Daniel, Z. Doyle, M. J. J. 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. Le, D. 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. 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) Spender, A. M. 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. 50 NOES Andrews, K. L. Bell, A. M. Birrell, S. J. Boyce, C. E. Broadbent, R. E. Buchholz, S. Caldwell, C. M. Chester, D. J. Coleman, D. B. Conaghan, P. J. Coulton, M. M. (Teller) Entsch, W. G. Fletcher, P. W. Goodenough, I. R. Hamilton, G. R. Hastie, A. W. Hawke, A. G. Hogan, K. J. Howarth, L. R. 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. Ware, J. L. Webster, A. E. Willcox, A. J. Wilson, R. J. Wolahan, K. Wood, J. P. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

BILLS 6113 BILLS Higher Education Support Amendment (Response to the Australian Universities Accord Interim Report) Bill 2023 6113

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

Second Reading 6113 12:46 Ms SITOU 298121 Reid The benefits of higher education are clear. University graduates are more likely to be employed compared to their non-graduate counterparts. Seventy-two per cent of bachelor's degree graduates are in full-time employment within four months of completing their studies, compared to 58 per cent of people with a high school qualification. Australian workers with a university degree earned 55 per cent more than those who only completed year 10. Higher education is good for the individual and good for our economy and society, and the future of work demands it. To support the growth of the Australian economy, education, skills and training are the most critical components. Of the 1.2 million new jobs projected to be created over the next five years, nine out of 10 of those jobs are forecast to require post-secondary education. But, when I think about those statistics and the insatiable need for skilled labour in this country, it does give me pause for thought. Why? Because of my own family story. My parents came to this country 45 years ago. They fled their homeland and were lucky to call Australia home—a country that gave them refuge. But, when my parents came here, they had limited formal education and spoke very little English. They worked hard in factories, where they were able to find secure work with good conditions. They were able to go on to give my brother and me the work and education opportunities they never had, and my family was able to thrive here. I went on to have the most incredible career, working in international development in the Asia-Pacific and then in international education. Now I'm a federal member of parliament. That was only possible because of two key opportunities this country gave my parents. The first was that they were welcomed here in the late 1970s. The second was the opportunity to get good, secure work with good conditions despite the limited education and skills they had. So, when I hear that the vast majority of jobs of the future will require post-secondary qualifications, it does give me reason to reflect. Would people like my parents be left behind in this new world, where there is an ever-increasing demand for skilled workers? When we talk about the future of work, we need to make sure we are opening opportunities for all, regardless of their background, the postcode where they grew up or the school they meant to. But, for too long, those opportunities have been closed for some. In 2008, about 15 per cent of undergraduates came from low socioeconomic backgrounds. Fifteen years later, that proportion has not budged. It is sitting at around 17 per cent now. We must do better. The doors of opportunity that higher education can provide must be available for all because higher education is transformative for an individual and transformative for a society. It makes me think of someone like Professor Rae Cooper from the University of Sydney—the first in her family to go to university. Moving to Sydney to study was a big adventure for a country kid from Merriwa in the Upper Hunter. The adjustment for a country kid studying at one of Australia's leading universities in Sydney can be overwhelming. That was something Professor Cooper experienced, and she dropped out in her first semester. She returned the next year, and she not only survived university but thrived, majoring in industrial relations at the University of New South Wales. Professor Cooper was awarded the university medal, and a lifelong love of research in work, employment and women began. She went on to complete her PhD at the University of Sydney, and she's been there ever since, and we are all the beneficiaries of that. Professor Cooper has gone on to become one of the most influential researchers and thinkers on women in the workplace. She is the co-director of the Women, Work and Leadership Research Group at the University of Sydney Business School, an initiative studying gender and work, women's careers and flexible employment. Such has been the invaluable contribution of her research that she was awarded an Order of Australia in 2019. However, her contribution extends far beyond research and its application. Professor Cooper has been a mentor for so many students who needed extra support at university. In her own words, she said she spent 20 years identifying and seeking out students who looked lost in class. Down to the last one, they were first-in-family students, usually from the country or outer suburbs. Professor Cooper was also my university supervisor, so I experienced firsthand how invaluable her mentorship can be. I am thankful to Professor Cooper for her support of me, the child of migrants from the western suburbs of Sydney and a first-in-family student. And there were so many other students. She changed lives in more ways than one. Professor Cooper's story is just one example of the transformative power of education. I'm proud to be part of a government that recognises this and values our universities. This bill implements the priority recommendations of the Australian Universities Accord interim report. We are creating university study hubs in our regions and outer suburbs. These study hubs have been successful in helping students, particularly those from rural and regional areas, adjust to universities, because they are located closer to home, closer to family support and networks. We think students shouldn't have to leave their community to succeed at university. We are scrapping the 50 per cent pass rule. It has disproportionately affected First Nations students, those of low socio-economic status, those who are first in family, and other underrepresented cohorts of students. We should be helping students to succeed, not punishing them when they fall behind and forcing them to quit. So that universities can target their support, we'll require better reporting on how students are progressing that identifies students who are struggling and connects them with support services. We will extend demand-driven funding to all Indigenous students. Currently an Indigenous young man has a higher chance of going to jail than to university, and that's just not right. Those young people are missing the chance to develop a career and, with that, a brighter future. And Australia is missing out on their untapped talent. We will provide funding certainty to higher education institutions during the accord process by extending the Higher Education Continuity Guarantee into 2024-25, with funding arrangements that prioritise support for equity students. Stronger higher education is good for the individual and good for our economy. I want to contrast what we are doing on this side of the House with what those opposite did when they were in government. What did the previous coalition government do? Who was the education minister? Not sure? I don't even think the Morrison government knew who the education minister was for much of their time. Was it the former member for Aston, Alan Tudge? Yes, until he was benched. Was it the former member for Fadden, Stuart Robert? Yes. He was acting education minister for a short time. Neither of them is in our parliament today, which is probably for the best. Let's look at their legacy. What did they do for higher education when they were ministers for education? It's not a great legacy. They actively undermined the sector and oversaw the highest number of job losses this sector has ever seen. There are estimates of around 12,000 jobs lost during the pandemic. We on this side of the House see higher education as integral to the future of this country. Whether it's transforming our economy to clean, reliable and affordable power, rebuilding our manufacturing capacity through the National Reconstruction Fund or providing the essential workforce required by defence industry in the years ahead, a robust and high-performing higher education system is fundamental. We need a post-secondary education sector that deliver the better skilled, better trained workforce Australia needs. The Minister for Education, Jason Clare, has appointed Professor Mary O'Kane to lead the team that has developed the interim report for the Australian Universities Accord. The accord will build on a long-term plan for Australia's higher education system. It is the first broad review of the higher education system since the Bradley review, almost 15 years ago, and is long overdue. It provides an opportunity to examine the system as a whole. The university accord process provides an excellent opportunity to explore how our higher education institutions can deliver quality education and training that meets the needs of students and develops the skills needed now and in the future. I am particularly interested in how the process can assist in improving the student experience, fostering lifelong learning by enabling students to develop transferable skills and move more easily between sectors. The accord will drive lasting and transformational reform in the higher education sector. We on this side of the House want to make sure that we are opening the doors of higher education and all the opportunities that come with that—open for all, regardless of their background. I welcome some of the key findings from the interim report and look forward to seeing the final report, which is due in December, later this year. I worked at the University of Sydney for almost a decade, so I got to see firsthand the transformative power of education. I saw that through the teaching that was happening with so many of the students who came to the University of Sydney. Many were first in family, many were from regional and rule areas of Australia and many were Indigenous students. We are better for it. I also saw the transformative power of higher education through the research that was happening there. There was incredible expertise, incredible researchers doing important work and looking at the grand problems that we as a society face. I saw what they were able to do during the COVID pandemic. They were providing expert advice at a time when we as a society needed it the most. Our higher education system changes lives, changes families and changes our society. We on this side of the House want to make sure that the doors of higher education and opportunity are open to all, including for people like me, a kid from Western Sydney from a migrant background, and someone like Professor Rae Cooper, a kid from country New South Wales. 12:58 Mrs MARINO HWP Forrest I'm really pleased to talk on this Higher Education Support Amendment (Response to the Australian Universities Accord Interim Report) Bill 2023, which amends the Higher Education Support Act 2003. I am looking forward, at some point, to seeing equal respect and value placed on those who have incredible skills through university education as well as on those who have extraordinary talents and skills through the vocational sector. We need to get to a point where we place equal respect on those achievements and skills. This bill is going to implement two of the priority areas and actions from the Australian Universities Accord interim report. The objective of the accord is to provide recommendations and performance targets that improve the quality, accessibility, affordability and sustainability of higher education. It is equally as important that our universities are graduating students who are actually job ready and able to add value to whatever business, industry or sector they're actually entering. In my opinion, the ultimate arbiter of the success of our entire education and training system is the person who is employing them—the employer: 'Is this person capable of and up to the job that I'm paying them to do in my business or sector?' I want to focus, in my speech today, on one of the recommendations of the accord and raise my concerns. The first recommendation is to extend visible, local access to tertiary education by creating further regional university centres. This is a very good measure. The government also announced an additional 34 regional study hubs. However, 14 of these will be located in suburban and metro areas. That is a change that really concerns me. Every one of these takes away another opportunity for young people living in regional and remote parts of Australia. The regional study centres were an initiative of the coalition while we were in government. It's an initiative that I'm very proud of. It has been a very effective way of enabling aspiring students from regional and remote parts of Australia to access higher education and be supported in their communities while they're actually studying by distance with any Australian tertiary provider. It was and is an innovative model. There is no doubt that these centres make a real and practical difference to our students and their families. These are the young people we actually need. They live hours and hours from tertiary institutions, which are, in many instances, hundreds and hundreds of kilometres away from their homes. They're the ones who can't get on buses and trains to have access to a tertiary education. They simply live too far away. This is the gap that the regional university centres were specifically designed to fill. These great young people no longer have to leave their families, their friends or their local communities to pursue their higher education. They can actually stay at home while they're studying. At the same time, their skills can be available to and boost their local communities and economies, which are sometimes really small local communities and economies. The centre provides them with study spaces, videoconferencing, computer facilities and internet access as well as administrative, academic and wellbeing support for those studying in that method at any Australian university or vocational education and training provider. That's a fantastic, practical option. It is one that clearly works, and I am very proud of it. We know that people in regional Australia are less than half as likely to complete a university degree compared with people who live in cities. Our regional university centres are actually helping communities right across Australia to reverse this trend. This was part of our determination and focus while in government—that all Australians, no matter where they live, particularly those in regional and remote areas, deserve access to high-quality education. These centres offer the facilities and support they need to access their tertiary education so that these young people can live at home and get the care and support they need from their families while they study. These issues are critical for regional and remote students, which is why I want to make sure that the new hubs are in areas that will benefit regional and remote students the most. This means study centres located in their own community, where they can pursue those study dreams. I want to acknowledge all of my coalition colleagues who've worked with me constantly over the years to improve access to higher education for these wonderful young people who live in our regional, rural and remote electorates. We've been relentless on their behalf in the parliament, and we'll continue to do so whether we're in opposition or in government. This has been and still is an absolute passion and priority for us. We are committed to our young people being able to pursue their higher education or their training and their work dreams and ambitions. In my very first campaign, this was a priority issue raised with me by families right across the south-west of WA, but when I came into this place I found that successive Labor governments failed to understand the lack of access and the disparity between rural, regional and remote students and those in metro and suburban areas. In fact, the Rudd government excluded young people who lived in areas defined by the ASGS classifications as 'inner regional' from accessing independent youth allowance, which is the financial help from Centrelink that they so badly needed to help with accommodation costs and higher costs from living away from home. That decision excluded countless young people from my electorate, and my colleagues' electorates, who live well and truly over an hour and a half from Perth based universities. Those young people had no choice but to move to Perth to be able to do the courses they needed to do for their education and career ambitions. I'll never ever forget the conversation I had with one really distressed mum in a Busselton supermarket who had to decide which one of her children she could afford to send to university at that time. She could afford to send only one, and she was so hurt at having to choose one of her children. What hurt even more, I found when I visited the schools at the time, was those great young people who were self-selecting alternative courses at high school because they knew their families simply could not afford the cost of their university education while they had to live away from the family home. These are the critical young people we need to keep in our regional and remote communities to keep them thriving. It's their new young ideas, their energy and what they'll bring that we need. It's also the equity of access for them. Besides the significant changes we made to the conditions around accessing independent youth allowance for regional and remote students, one of the things we did in government was to initiate the independent review by Emeritus Professor Dr John Halsey. We as a government accepted all 11 of those recommendations, and that saw the first cohort of the 16 regional university centres located in all states and the Northern Territory announced in the same year, with a further eight added in 2022. The National regional,rural and remote tertiary education strategy built on the Halsey report's initiatives. I am pleased that the current Australian Universities Accord has prioritised more regional university centres, but, as I said, I'm particularly concerned that the focus has shifted to extending these into suburban and metro areas. The RUCs, as they're known, have been very successful in those regional and remote areas. You only have to look at where they're located on a map to know why they're so important and that so many more students in similar areas desperately need these centres. The accord itself notes that RUCs have been effective at improving student participation, retention and completion rates in regional and remote areas, and I believe that should be the continuing focus because that need is still there. There is no doubt that regional and remote areas are the ones most in need of regional university centres. But the actual centres need an enduring community framework around them to be able to be sustainable. We've seen them often supported and prioritised by their Regional Development Australia committees and local governments, established in places like Geraldton, Taree, Mount Isa, the Pilbara, the Bass Coast and Albany in Western Australia, for instance—all locations where young people would have had to move away from home just to go to university. They can't take buses or trains to get there. They live hundreds of kilometres away from these universities. There is also an additional cost involved in sending young people to university and supporting them while they are there. Rent and accommodation alone at the moment is a massive cost. It's hundreds of dollars a week. Of course, these young people have to work and study as well, and they have to be able to cope with life away from their home. Recently, I was talking to a family in Margaret River with two sons. The father actually has to leave his job and move to Perth to be able to fund his son's access to university. This is common story if you live in regional or rural areas. There is no doubt at all that regional country kids simply don't have the same opportunities as students in cities or suburban or metro areas. Those of us who live and work in regional and remote areas know exactly what the challenges are for both the young people and their families in trying to access higher education. There is a real need and commitment from the community to support the establishment and ongoing presence of a regional university centre. This cannot be underestimated. I saw this in practice at the Albany centre. There were whole wraparound supports there and a community commitment to that centre, because they actually understood, as did the local Regional Development Australia committee, how important this opportunity was for their young people. Some issues need to be considered. Does this RUC align with the community's needs and aspirations? Is there physical capital in the community to do so? They are really important to the sustainability of any of these. Other factors include no existing local campus for them to go to, and the distances from other campuses as well. As I said, there is a real need for the community to engage, support and extend these regional university centres. I have met some fabulous young people who have attended these. They are just extraordinarily empowered. They've had the best experience and now have opportunities as a result. Edith Cowan University in my part of the world, in Bunbury, has itself opened several regional learning hubs around the south-west, and one in the Peel region. They're actually in the process of refurbishing their Busselton learning centre, which will open soon. I think there is no doubt that flexible learning options are what is needed both now and into the future. The accord review itself states: … a high-quality and equitable higher education system is now essential. It is, but it is certainly that for kids and young people who live in regional and remote parts of Australia. As I said early in my speech, given the great young people I get to work with and the value they add to our regional communities, I hope we get to a point in this country where, through any of the education and training pathways, there is the same amount of value and respect for a person who has come through the vocational education process and added significantly to their area of expertise. Some of these people are absolutely brilliant. If you want a problem solved and you want something fixed, they are the people who will do it. Many of the jobs ahead will be in that space. I would say there should be far more equal respect and value placed on those talented young people with skills who come through the vocational sector, as well as those that do university, study and training. All of them are able to add the skills that we need to take Australia forward. 13:13 Mr LAXALE 299174 Bennelong Bennelong is home to Macquarie University. With over 40,000 students and 3,000 staff, and a rich tapestry of academic disciplines, Macquarie University is a hub of knowledge and innovation and an incredibly important part of our local economy and our local community. Yet even at Macquarie University the impact of funding constraints, job uncertainty and increased workloads has not been overlooked. The challenges faced by our educators within the walls of the university reflect the broader narrative of the academic community nationwide. The last 10 years have seen our higher education sector grapple with storms of uncertainty, funding woes and policy changes. It was a period marked by challenges that have deeply impacted students, academics and the very fabric of our educational institutions. Tuition fees have surged, and the burden of student debt has weighed heavily on the minds of our aspiring scholars. A decade ago the average debt of a university graduate was around $15,000. Today it has surged to a staggering $28,000, and the number of people with debts in excess of $100,000 has tripled in the past three years. This has left countless young minds grappling with the burden of financial uncertainty as they embark on their academic life. Academics and educators in the higher education sector have grappled with funding cuts totalling more than nine per cent in real terms since 2011 that have strained their ability to engage in groundbreaking research and deliver high-quality education. The last decade has been marked by unprecedented uncertainty for university educators, casting a shadow over the stability of their roles within our institutions. This uncertainty has been fuelled by the casualisation of the academic workforce, a troubling trend that has seen a significant portion of educators trapped in precarious short-term contracts. In fact, according to data from the Australian Bureau of Statistics, the proportion of university employees on casual contracts has surged to nearly 40 per cent, making the lives of these dedicated individuals a constant struggle to secure stable employment. This precariousness is intricately linked to the burgeoning workloads our academics face. As we all know, quality education requires time—time for research, time for mentorship and time of innovation. However, over the past decade the academic workforce has experienced an alarming increase in workloads. According to the Higher Education Statistics Agency, academics in Australia have experienced an average increase of nearly 20 per cent in teaching hours over the past decade, a trend that compromises the quality of both teaching and research. This surge in workload is not merely a numerical statistic. It is a real burden that our educators bear day in and day out. The pressure to juggle research, teaching and administrative duties often comes at the expense of one or more of these essential components of academia. As educators strive to provide meaningful and impactful education, their ability to dedicate time to nurturing students, engaging in research and contributing to the intellectual discourse has been severely hampered. In the regions, where educational access is even more of a challenge, the difficulties have been particularly pronounced. In the past decade, rural and regional areas have witnessed a decline in higher education enrolment by rates of nearly 20 per cent. The promise of a university education, which should be a beacon of hope for every young Australian, has seemed distant for those residing outside metropolitan areas. The stress and pressure on the higher education sector is why the Albanese government was elected with a commitment to reform the industry and ensure that education is accessible to all who seek it. The Higher Education Support Amendment (Response to the Australian Universities Accord Interim Report) Bill 2023 amends the Higher Education Support Act to implement priority recommendations of the Australian Universities Accord interim report, released by the Minister for Education on 19 July 2023. Professor Mary O'Kane AC, Professor Barney Glover AO, Ms Shemara Wikramanayake, the Hon. Jenny Macklin AC, Professor Larissa Behrendt AO and the Hon. Fiona Nash showed tireless commitment through their roles in the accord team to deliver a report that would provide key recommendations to empower students, support universities and drive the engine of progress in this sector. Central to the bill's objectives is the commitment of the Albanese government to widen the doors of opportunity for every Australian to pursue higher education if they seek it. This is not just a promise. It is a reflection of our belief in the transformative power of higher education. The bill resonates with our government's commitment to action, as evidenced by its resolute implementation of priority actions outlined in the Australian Universities Accord interim report. As we delve into the provisions of the bill, we unearth a tapestry of reforms that hold the potential to reshape the landscape of higher education, not only in Bennelong but across the nation. Firstly, the bill sets its sights on creating university study hubs, not just confined to sprawling campuses but strategically situated in regional areas and outer suburbs. Imagine for a moment the power of knowledge reaching beyond the boundaries of cities, touching lives in regional and rural areas. These hubs are not merely bricks and mortar. They symbolise the democratisation of education, a leap towards more-equitable access. By bringing the university experience closer to home, we tear down geographical and logistical barriers, empowering individuals who may previously have been held back by our tyranny of distance. Secondly, this bill will remove the 50 per cent pass rule. We know that academic success is a journey with diverse trajectories. We recognise that students are not just statistics but unique individuals, each with their own rhythm of learning. The pass rate requirements were originally introduced in January 2022 by the former coalition government as part of its Job-ready Graduates Package to dissuade students from continuing courses they are not academically suited for. The proposed removal of this rule is more than a policy shift; it's a declaration that learning is not defined by rigidity but by potential. Furthermore, this bill brings with it a new era of holistic support in higher education, ensuring that universities stand ready to identify struggling students and offer them tailored assistance, whether academic or non-academic. Our commitment to equity echoes in the extension of demand-driven funding to embrace all Indigenous Australian undergraduate students. 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 Australian 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. By expanding the eligibility of demand-driven funding to include metropolitan First Nations students studying bachelor and bachelor honours courses, we directly support efforts towards achieving Closing the Gap outcome 6, which is to increase the proportion of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people aged 25 to 34 years who have completed tertiary education to 70 per cent by 2031. This week in the House we heard the education minister state that if you're a young Indigenous man you're more likely to go to jail than to university. This is a harrowing statistic that this measure will seek to overcome. In tandem with these improvements, the bill enshrines the principle of funding continuity, securing the pathway to higher education for those who seek it. By extending the Higher Education Continuity Guarantee, we stand as a bulwark against financial uncertainties that could obstruct the dreams of students. This guarantee serves as a testament to our resolve: education should not be compromised. The extension of the Higher Education Continuity Guarantee into the years 2024 and 2025 is not just an administrative decision; it's a lifeline of assurance—a beacon of hope for those who dare to dream. Statistics paint a stark picture of the financial burdens that higher education can impose. Over the past decade the cost of higher education has escalated exponentially. According to data from the Australian Bureau of Statistics, the average cost of university fees has risen by nearly 60 per cent, far outpacing the rate of inflation. This surge places an undeniable strain on students, especially on those from disadvantaged backgrounds who grapple with the prospect of accumulating debt that might shadow them well into their professional careers. The Higher Education Continuity Guarantee is a commitment to alleviating these financial anxieties and a promise that education will not be derailed by economic constraints. The provision of funding certainty, as stipulated in the bill, resonates as a testament to our support for equity students. By prioritising these students in funding arrangements, we recognise the value of diversity within our academic community. We acknowledge that economic challenges should never be a roadblock to a higher education. These measures are an important start to university reform in Australia. There is so much more to be done, but they represent a measured and principled response from the Albanese government to restore the higher education sector back to its former glory. After a decade of cuts and neglect from those opposite, this is a good start to getting universities and their students back on track. I commend the bill to the House. 13:24 Mr VIOLI 300147 Casey I'm pleased to rise and speak on the Higher Education Support Amendment (Response to the Australian Universities Accord Interim Report) Bill 2023 because the reality is that education is a foundational pillar of our society. It impacts and improves so many lives. It is important and crucial that we get the legislation right, because, if we get it right in this House, we're impacting so many people across society. What's so important about education is not only the benefits that it delivers today, for those students that receive that education, but also the benefits that flow on through their whole life and, importantly, to the next generation. We know from lots of statistics and data. The legislation that we get right in this House makes a big difference. For myself, it's also personal. As I said in my first speech, education was the foundation for me to create a life for myself and my family. That experience underpins my belief that a crucial element of lifting people out of poverty and enabling them to build a better life for themselves and their communities is a strong education system—a system focused on delivering tangible education outcomes for students, setting them up for long-term success and providing parents with choice in their children's education. A robust education system focused on educational outcomes and opportunities is the foundation of our society and of the individual, and it needs to be a priority of government policy. As I said, I benefited greatly, from primary school through to secondary and tertiary education. It has made a big difference to the person I am. I understand the opportunity and responsibility that I have, in this House and in this role, to give other young Australians the same education opportunities that I received. I will continue to support and speak on bills and support any measures that improve the higher education sector. Really importantly, we also need to make sure we focus on an education sector that is about more than just providing university places. It has to be about ensuring that students finish their degrees and gain benefits from their degrees. Too often—in many policy areas, but particularly in education—we focus on the money we spend or the people that start. That's important because it flows through, but it's also about delivering those outcomes. Are students getting value for money? Is the community and society getting value for money? Are we making a difference in those students' lives? When we read that only 41 per cent of undergraduate students complete their degrees within the first four years, we have to seriously question whether those students are getting the benefits that they deserve and whether we're getting the benefits, as communities and as a society. There is an obligation on universities to do a much better job at ensuring that students complete their courses and that it leads to meaningful employment outcomes. It was a few years ago, but I do remember my university time. It was very much a sink-or-swim attitude at that time, and there's nothing wrong with that. We need to take responsibility for ourselves and take control of our own educational outcomes. But when students are going to university and they have challenges at home—their parents might not have had a higher education opportunity—there is an obligation on the organisations to provide wraparound services and a little more guidance. I question whether we're getting that right, with only 41 per cent of undergraduate students finishing their education. We need to make sure that we're getting that right. Access to physical campuses is an important part of getting it right. We're in a new digital world, and COVID accelerated a lot of online learning, but being in a physical location is a very important part of that wraparound service that we can provide, enabling people to speak face to face. It is positive to see that an additional 34 regional study hubs have been announced, which is an extension of the coalition policy. For regional and remote students, that is one of the biggest challenges they have—the distance they have to travel to get to a facility—but it's important that we get the locations of those hubs right. Casey is an outer-urban area. I would definitely be looking at where these hubs are, making access possible for all students. They can't be in the inner city, or 30 minutes from an existing university campus; we have to get them into areas that are going to make a difference. I'll be looking closely at the 14 hubs that are in metropolitan areas and making sure that they are accessible and in the right locations to make a difference. I have a concern in this bill around removing the requirements that students must pass 50 per cent of the units they study to remain eligible for the Commonwealth supported places and FEE-HELP assistance. This was introduced under the coalition's job-ready graduates program to make— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour. If the member's speech was interrupted, they will be granted leave when the debate is resumed. STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS 6120 STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS National Student Wellbeing Program 6120 13:30 Mr VAN MANEN 188315 Forde Our chaplains contribute so much to students, staff and parents in our schools right across the country. I am pleased to highlight the fantastic work of the chaplains in Forde at a recent thankyou afternoon tea. It was surprising to hear some of the stories from these chaplains on what they deal with on a day-to-day basis in their various school communities. It is important to note that they often counsel not only the students but also the parents and the teachers of those students. On average, chaplains have 15,724 conversations with students each week across the country, delivering measurable results for children to improve school attendance, have greater focus in class and improve behaviour. The school chaplaincy program—now known as the Student Wellbeing Program—has been a tremendous help to students across Forde since its inception in 2007 under the Howard government. The previous coalition government recommitted to the program through $245 million in funding to support schools in hiring chaplains. It's disappointing to see that Labor has deleted the impact of chaplains by allowing schools to hire secular pastoral care workers through the same funding while also allowing the deductible gift recipient status to lapse for chaplaincy service providers, restricting the donations they receive. Thank you to all of our chaplains for the wonderful work you do. Bowel Cancer 6121 13:31 Ms STANLEY 265990 Werriwa Bowel cancer is the fourth most commonly diagnosed cancer in Australia, with the majority of cases presenting in Australians over 50. But the rate of bowel cancers in those under 50 is increasing year on year; 10.7 per cent of bowel cancer diagnoses are in Australians under 50. Over the past two decades, rates for those aged 20 to 39 have doubled. Often, cancer, especially bowel cancer, is not front of mind when a younger person visits a doctor with symptoms. The symptoms can be non-specific and are commonly associated with other diseases, and sometimes they can be embarrassing for people to admit. But they shouldn't be embarrassed, because early detection is incredibly important, and we should do what we can to dispel the stigma and encourage those who are worried to reach out to their GP as soon as possible. With the indulgence of the House, this week, my goddaughter's—Kirstyn Taylor—fight with bowel cancer made a huge milestone. She no longer has to see her oncologist. Thanks to her wonderful team of doctors and care teams, her family and I can live with her for years to come. Honourable members: Hear, hear! Nuclear Waste Management: Submarines 6121 13:33 Mr STEVENS 176304 Sturt It is disappointing and concerning to see the government walk away from the proposal to build a low-level nuclear waste repository in my home state of South Australia. Regrettably, this seems to be the beginning of the unravelling under this government of the important need for sensible and responsible nuclear full-cycle stewardship and custody that puts at risk the AUKUS submarine deal and a whole range of other things. We've also seen the reports in the media that the Boothby Labor sub-branch has passed a motion condemning the AUKUS agreement and calling on the Labor government to step away from that. That's the Boothby sub-branch of the Labor Party in my home state of South Australia—the state where we will be building the submarines and where we should be building the submarines and achieving the enormous economic and industrial outcome. The Labor Party in the state that will have the most significant economic benefit from the AUKUS submarine contract doesn't support the AUKUS submarine deal. That is extremely concerning and something the people of South Australia need to know and understand. AUKUS is a massive opportunity. The Labor Party are really struggling to hold their own people together in support of it. And only a change of government will give security and certainty to the AUKUS agreement and the opportunity for a civilian nuclear industry in this country. That's what we need for our future, and the Labor Party are clearly recklessly putting it at risk. Mayo, Mr Thomas 6121 13:34 Mr JOSH WILSON 265970 Fremantle Thomas Mayo has demonstrated enormous conviction, energy and stamina in his commitment to the vital cause of reconciliation. He has devoted himself to making the case for constitutional recognition of First Nations Australians through a voice to parliament, and he is literally crisscrossing this incredible continent, week after week, talking with anyone and everyone about that cause. His book Finding the Heart of a Nation tells the story of the Uluru Statement from the Heart, which was the culmination of a representative process that has been part of the most extensive preparation for a referendum that Australia has ever seen. Not long ago, Thomas Mayo attended an event at the Beeliar Wetlands Centre, in my electorate, to speak with people who want to see our nation take a long-awaited step in the direction of recognition, consultation and fairness. On that day, he was characteristically generous and characteristically his gentle-natured self. He recited the Uluru Statement from the Heart, which he knows by heart. He spoke from his fundamental core of goodwill and reason to make the point that better decision-making through consultation is in the best interests of all Australians. Thomas Mayo is a remarkable Australian of courage and has faith in our values and our democratic processes. He's doing a fantastic job of explaining how we have everything to gain and nothing to lose by walking together on the path to fairness and reconciliation by creating a voice to parliament. Wentworth Electorate: Charitable Organisations, Mikolot Public Speaking Competition 6122 13:36 Ms SPENDER 286042 Wentworth I want to draw attention to the work of two amazing community organisations in Wentworth: Caretakers Cottage and Bondi Beach Cottage. When I visited Caretakers Cottage, I was truly moved by the dedication of their staff, including Laurie and Sharon, to supporting some of our community's most vulnerable young people and families. Caretakers provides an invaluable service to young people facing homelessness, including through crisis and transitional accommodation, education support and health services. I also had the pleasure of visiting Bondi Beach Cottage, which provides counselling, child care and support services to those who've experienced domestic and family violence. A special thank you to their staff, including Susan, Eleanor and Sandra, for continuing to provide such vital services in an environment of insecure funding. The success of these organisations relies on our collective support, and I urge the government to increase funding for both youth homelessness and family violence services, as, by supporting organisations like these, we can give young people a chance to thrive and survivors the strength to heal. Last Friday I also had the honour of being a judge at the grand final of the 2023 international 'Mikolot: voices of the future' public speaking competition held at Moriah College. I was inspired by the subject of 'humility in leadership'—a subject that I think many of us in this place could reflect on. I want to give my special congratulations to Sarah, Elijah and Meira, who took out first, second and third places, respectively. I wouldn't be surprised to see them in these rooms. Dunnet, Mr John, OAM 6122 13:37 Mr REPACHOLI 298840 Hunter I rise to congratulate Mr John Dunnet OAM, who was recognised as part of the King's Birthday 2023 Honours List, being awarded the Medal of the Order of Australia. This award was fitting recognition for his many years of service to the print media industry. John has had a long and distinguished career. He was a co-proprietor and managing director of the Courier Narrabri from 1972 to 2007. He also served as a board member of the regional newspapers national industry body, Country Press Australia, from 1986 to 1997 and served as the president from 1995 to 1997. He was the Country Press New South Wales president from 1986 to 1999, before being made a life member in recognition of his many years on the state board. John additionally served as an industry delegate to the Australian Press Council for 18 years, from 1997. John's priority was always to ensure that the practice of journalism in our regions is delivered by newspaper women and men who are determined to uphold the traditions of accountability and responsibility. Our local newspapers are so important in small regional communities. The information they provide and the stories that they share are valuable to everyone who reads the paper. Congratulations, John, on being awarded the Medal of the Order of Australia and thank you for your lifetime of service to keeping your community informed and up to date on everything that is important. Goldstein Youth Forum 6122 13:39 Ms DANIEL 008CH Goldstein I recently led a group of year 6 students from 13 different schools from within my electorate as they participated in our inaugural Goldstein Youth Forum, organised by my office. The students debated eight issues that they had nominated as important to them and their peers and voted for their top issue based on their level of concern and the strength of the argument put forward by the teams on the day. Management of waste and recycling came in first, followed by cost of living and then inclusiveness at school and in society. This year's forum was incredibly worthwhile and thought-provoking. While these students are too young to vote, as their representative to parliament it's critically important to me to be their voice and to understand and advocate for their concerns and ideas. These students were amazing representatives of our communities. Huge thanks go to the Victorian Electoral Commission, who assisted with their Passport to Democracy packs, and to Beaumaris Secondary College, where the forum was held. Our next forum is on 21 August, and this one will be held in the Legislative Assembly chamber of the Victorian parliament for year 10 students from secondary schools across Goldstein. I look forward to hearing from these young and engaged members of our community. Great Eastern Wine Week, Tasmanian Whisky Week 6122 13:40 Mr BRIAN MITCHELL 129164 Lyons Great Eastern Wine Week runs from 8 to 17 September, so book your tickets to Tasmania today. Great Eastern Wine Week showcases some of Tasmania's finest wines along the beautiful 221-kilometre coastal stretch of my electorate, a coast that includes—but is in no way limited to—Orford, Freycinet and the Bay of Fires. More than 40 events will take place over the 10-day festival, providing visitors an opportunity to sample Australia's best cool climate wines at wineries and other venues and pair them with produce, including the coast's stunning oysters. Visitors will also be able to meet passionate winemakers while taking in the stunning landscapes, working their way south from St Helens in the north-east, through Bicheno and Swansea and down to Spring Bay. Sensibly, buses are available for anyone who would like to try more than a sample, and they're well recommended. The wine industry in Tasmania contributes more than $200 million to our economy and employs more than 2,000 full-time workers, so it's serious business. You're not going just for the fun of it; you're going to support the economy. That's important to remember! Meanwhile, this week is Tasmanian Whisky Week. As a co-convener of the Parliamentary Friends of Australian Spirits, I'm pleased to say: book your tickets to Tasmania today for the weekend, enjoy the whisky and then come back on 8 September for Great Eastern Wine Week. Nuclear Waste Management 6123 13:41 Mr PITT 148150 Hinkler In September I will have been in this place for a decade. In that time I've seen a lot of things, but I don't think I've ever seen a worse or poorer decision than the one taken by the Labor Party this morning to abandon the low-level radioactive waste facility in Kimba, South Australia. It is an absolute disgrace. The national interest has been sacrificed on the altar of the Voice. The people of Kimba, the community, those who need cancer treatment—they have been thrown to the wolves. Let's not underestimate what is at stake here. According to the ANSTO website, 700,000 patient treatments a year involving nuclear isotopes are delivered in this country, and they produce low-level waste: disposable gloves, disposable gowns—things that have to be dealt with. This is the best opportunity this country has seen in the almost five-decade search for this facility. The community supports it in the majority. It is on a site which is freehold. There is no native title. But what do the Labor Party do? They back the minority, not the majority. They don't back the people; they back the minority, who don't even live at this location. This is an incredibly important facility. It is necessary for this country. The search has been going on for almost 50 years. It needs to be delivered. The Labor Party could walk in tomorrow and deem the site. They could come to parliament, put it before the parliament, a decision will have been made and we can get on with it. Pearce Electorate: Surf Lifesaving 6123 13:43 Ms ROBERTS 157125 Pearce Congratulations go to the Quinns Mindarie Surf Life Saving Club, President Nathanial Lee and team, for their remarkable achievement in winning the Woodside Nippers Club of the Year award. The nippers program stands out for its excellence in safety and quality and its ability to connect with young people and families alike. Congratulations also go to club member Richard Swinnerton, who won Woodside Nippers' Volunteer of the Year. Always the first on the beach, Richard provides hours and hours of service to ensure the safe and professional delivery of the club's nippers program. The long-term aim is to equip these young nippers with skills that will seamlessly guide them into the youth program and into lifelong surf lifesaving membership. Emphasising individual safety, nippers warm-up routines include beach-specific signals, which foster a grasp of effective communication at the beach. Weekly sessions with nippers and parents also encompass vital SunSmart messages. Knowledge of key beach features, to improve surf awareness, forms a pivotal aspect. Grasping concepts like rips, beach types and basic weather conditions is paired with age-appropriate entry techniques such as wading, dolphin dives and bunny hops. The club's continued remarkable growth clearly indicates the need for increased space to enable our youth to access important lifesaving skills. I am a staunch supporter of the club as well as the broader Quinns Mindarie community and surrounding areas, who are united in preserving the remaining beach foreshore as public open space, catering to the present community and the generations to come. Australian Diamonds Netball Team 6123 13:45 Mr TAYLOR 231027 Hume I rose today to extend my heartfelt reservations to the Diamonds on the outstanding achievement of their 12th Netball World Cup crown on Monday. Their win put on display, extraordinary talent, dedication and hard work of the wonderful Australian netball team. I would also like to take a moment to pay tribute to an exceptional athlete and true inspiration to that team, Ash Brazill. Ash's absolutely outstanding performance in the final match on Monday didn't just bring her incredible career to a conclusion; she retires as a world champion. In my electorate of Hume we can all be incredibly proud of her achievements because her journey began on the Tahmoor netball courts representing Bargo Netball Club. Hailing from Wollondilly, Ash's success story is one that all of us in our region and right across our nation can be very proud of. She has shown us what can be achieved through hard work, perseverance and dedication not just in netball but also in the AFLW. Her contributions to the sport have inspired young athletes to dream big and to continue to strive for excellence. That's what we love to see. As we celebrate her success, let's remember that every great athlete starts somewhere, often at local clubs like Bargo in my electorate. World Scout Jamboree 6124 13:46 Dr REID 300126 Robertson I rise to acknowledge the 23 Scouts and seven leaders from the Central Coast who have taken part in this year's 25th World Scout Jamboree in South Korea. The World Scout Jamboree takes place every four years and is organised by the World Organization of the Scout Movement. The World Scout Jamboree is a spectacular event, bringing together Scouts and leaders from 154 countries. Scouts and venturers develop and learn new skills and experience new cultures, and—importantly—form friendships with other Scouts from participating countries. This year Australia sent 914 Scouts and leaders representing our country, with 388 coming from New South Wales. I commend the following leaders, Rovers, and Scouts from Robertson who made the journey to South Korea for the 25th World Scout Jamboree: Janine Southall, Esme Rhodes, William Harcourt-Hayes, Rhiannon Jackson, Adam Jackson, Ken Broadhead, Rachael Degrassi, David Green, Christopher Mitchell, Singto Moser, Amelia Bromwich, Mia Clarke, Roche De Wet, Lottie Morello, Finlay Johnstone, Thomas McArdle, Isabel McArdle, Ben Hartlen, Oscar Rhodes, Lily Arendse, Nico Biala-Learmonth, Ryan Hill, Liam Clarke, Julie Munro, Toby Scurrah, Emma MacDonald, Edward Dehe, Peter Cross and Miles Parncutt. I'm sorry your time was cut short in South Korea due to severe weather events, but I do look forward to seeing you all back safe and sound on the Central Coast and to hearing of your experiences at the World Scout Jamboree. Cotchin, Mr Trent 6124 13:48 Mr TEHAN 210911 Wannon I rise today to acknowledge a Richmond Football Club immortal who announced their retirement today: triple-premiership captain Trent Cotchin. He has been an absolute inspiration to the Richmond Football Club, and I know I speak for all members and supporters in saying: thank you, Trent, for what you have done for our football club, and I wish you all the very best for the future. It will be a bright future, because Trent, who I have got to know over the last decade, is a man of enormous calibre. He is a man of enormous integrity. I know that, whatever he goes on to do, he will do it in a great way. But it is his contribution to the Richmond Football Club which should be acknowledged today. I will never forget as a supporter that 2017 second qualifying final when we beat Geelong to win our first final since 2001. That pirouette in the forward half when he kicked that goal in the last quarter, as we ran all over Geelong, was something I will never forget. We went on to win three premierships under his stewardship. He led a team of calibre, a team which was built around the ethics which he always portrayed. Trent: thank you, well done and good luck with the future. Landcare Week 6124 13:49 Ms PAYNE 144732 Canberra This week is Landcare Week, a week when we celebrate the fantastic work of Landcare groups around the nation. Landcare are a volunteer powered movement who play a vital role in environmental stewardship and come together across the nation to do the practical work to care for our precious environment. So it was fitting that this morning, to mark this week, I joined the Minister for the Environment and Water, Tanya Plibersek, and my ACT colleague the member for Fenner at the Jerrabomberra wetlands to make an important announcement of a $3.2 million investment to work with Landcare and the Woodlands and Wetlands Trust to improve the health of ACT waterways. This investment will be delivered in partnership with these groups, and it is part of a funding of $200 million in projects around Australia to help restore and clean up our urban waterways. The Jerrabomberra wetlands is only about four kilometres from here, and it is an absolutely extraordinary natural place—such an important home for all kinds of wildlife, including the Latham's snipe, a migratory bird that travels all the way from Japan to these wetlands. It just shows you how critically important these natural spaces within urban areas are for our wildlife and broader biodiversity. I'm so glad that we can partner with Landcare to deliver this program, and I want to thank Karissa Preuss, Maxine Cooper and all the fantastic Landcare volunteers for the critical work they do for our environment. Townsville Toy Library 6124 13:51 Mr THOMPSON 281826 Herbert There isn't a child in this country that doesn't love a new toy. The feeling of discovery and adventure as children play with their toys can lead to some of the most formative memories of childhood. The wonderful volunteers at Townsville Toy Library are facilitating the creation of these connections and are set to continue providing this service at their new facility in Vincent. However, due to criminal activity—several scumbags in Townsville—they spent their moving day cleaning up over $5,000 of damage to their new facility. This is another $5,000 that should be put directly on the state Labor government's tab. The crime crisis in Townsville is a direct result of their inaction and their new tactic of pointing the finger at the judicial system instead of making laws that make a difference. Through the resilience of the Townsville Toy Library volunteers and our community, I have no doubt they will continue to provide this fantastic service that supports over 300 members. I look forward to volunteering again in the role of 'chief toy checker' and attending the reopening day in early September. To the three state Labor MPs in Townsville, there is a very clear message: get your head out of the sand; you need to act now or get out of the way so we can elect people who will. Furlong Park School for Deaf Children 6125 13:52 Dr MULINO 132880 Fraser I recently visited Furlong Park School for Deaf Children, which was awarded a $25,000 grant by our government to upgrade its ICT equipment. Furlong Park runs an early education program for three- to four-year-olds who have a permanent bilateral hearing loss, and a program for prep to year 6. Thanks to the grant, students will be able to more easily collaborate and share their work directly from their iPad to the screen. Principal Lee Bullock says the upgrade will also ensure a more inclusive environment. It will allow messages to be sent directly from the office to the screens in each class, which means that deaf and hearing staff will receive the information at the same time via the same medium. Ms Bullock has been the principal of that school since 2017. She is fluent in Auslan, as are many of the teachers at the school. She says that learning Auslan helps the children develop a strong sense of self and the confidence to communicate. Labor recognises the importance of Auslan and has announced an increase in funding for Auslan services to further support the employment of Australians with a disability. Labor has long championed giving people with a disability opportunities and the best of supports so they can have more autonomy in their lives—more autonomy, more independence and more choice in the resources that they receive. This was a key driver of the NDIS, and I am very proud of the support that Labor provides in this area. Education 6125 13:54 Mr VASTA E0D Bonner I'm excited to update the House on the progress of my motion to make financial literacy a compulsory part of the national curriculum. Since I introduced this motion, I have had an incredible amount of positive feedback from my electorate of Bonner. Mums, dads, schoolteachers, principals, accountants, business owners and local school students have said to me that not only is financial literacy in schools a good idea but it must become compulsory. Local mum Helen told me that, if financial literacy was compulsory when she attended school, she believes that it would have given her the skills to make better financial decisions to help her family get ahead, helped to reduce financial stress and even potentially reduced fights about finances in her home. I also heard from Bonner local school student Jake, who told me that personal finances are not spoken about in his house. Jake said that he wished that financial literacy was already compulsory in schools so he would be confident in how to manage his money as he enters the workforce. It is our responsibility to ensure that the next generation is equipped with the skills that they need to be confident in making smart financial decisions so that they can get ahead. I look forward to my next update to the House as I start my Bonner schools financial literacy tour. Trade 6125 13:55 Mr LAXALE 299174 Bennelong I rise to welcome the news that China has removed the 80.5 per cent tariff on Australian barley. This outcome paves the way for industry to re-enter the Chinese market, which is a win-win for Chinese consumers and, of course, Australian producers. Importantly, it affirms the calm and consistent approach the Albanese government has taken to repairing our international relationships. My community of Bennelong is home to a thriving Chinese Australian community, the second-largest Chinese community in Australia. I'm acutely aware of the significance a strong and harmonious relationship between our two countries has to them. The reinstatement of barley exporting from Australia to China is not merely an economic triumph; it is a testament to the power of diplomacy and engagement. The adults are back in charge, which is exactly what Chinese Australians in Bennelong voted for. They voted for a government that values migration and one that treats our key international relationships with professionalism and respect. They voted for a government that would not play politics with national security, nor politicise foreign affairs—because, when the Liberals played politics with foreign affairs, it had a direct impact on Chinese Australians in Bennelong. They were targeted, abused and racially vilified. In contrast, the Albanese government's approach is welcomed. With China, we will cooperate where we can, disagree where we must and always engage in our national interest. Nuclear Waste Management 6126 13:56 Mr RAMSEY HWS Grey I can only describe the decision of the government today to withdraw support for the Kimba facility, the national radioactive waste management facility, as weak, cowardly and, indeed, gutless—absolutely lacking moral fibre. This government has put at risk the future of ANSTO and Australia's nuclear medical production. Over 700,000 people a year benefit from that production. The government has left Kimba, my home community, up the creek without a paddle after eight years of actually going down this pathway. There are people in Kimba who have made business decisions—on the back of the decision of both houses of parliament, here in Canberra, to locate this facility in Kimba—and put off marketing their businesses, making new decisions or, in fact, investing in the $300 million pipeline that was heading our way. It is a complete abandonment of principle. It has left landowners around Australia wondering what on earth freehold title is worth, when any Indigenous group can now challenge on the basis that they could have claimed native title if somebody hadn't claimed freehold title first. Primarily, the question here is: does the minister have an answer for ANSTO? Are they going to lean on ARPANSA to change their ruling—and, if they do, they should be thrown from office immediately. It is an independent scientific body that must rest on its own decisions, and it should not be undermined or leaned on by this government. (Time expired) Homelessness 6126 13:58 Dr ANANDA-RAJAH 290544 Higgins There are a group who are doing worse than renters, except you can't doorknock them because they don't have a door. They live among us, unable to participate fully because they don't have the warmth of a home. To the 122,000 Australians experiencing homelessness, it is an indulgence to hear others campaign on housing. Survival dominates their days, their next meal, a safe place to sleep, or caring for their pets. These people are easy for minor parties to overlook because they have no voice. Instead, they depend upon community housing champions and a Labor government to fight for them. While this catastrophe grows, the Greens political party, with their new besties, the Liberals and One Nation, reject pleas from housing providers who are shovel-ready, waiting for the Housing Australia Future Fund to be passed. According to the Greens, it is better to have 100 per cent of nothing than a secure pipeline of housing. Try telling that to the Australian men and women, children, veterans, First Nations and youth experiencing homelessness. I may not have tent cities in Higgins, but I certainly do have homeless Australians, outside supermarkets and on footpaths as luxury cars go by. I can assure you that the occupants of those cars expect the Greens and the Liberals to find a way rather than stand in the way. The SPEAKER 53517 Order. In accordance with standing order 43, the time for members' statements has concluded. DISTINGUISHED VISITORS 6126 DISTINGUISHED VISITORS Rudd, Hon. Dr Kevin, AC, Rein, Ms Therese 6126 14:00 The SPEAKER 53517 I'm pleased to inform the House that present in the distinguished visitors gallery today is former Prime Minister the Hon. Dr Kevin Rudd AC and Ms Therese Rein. A warm welcome to you both. Honourable members: Hear, hear! United States of America: Parliamentary Delegation, Smith, Hon. Tony 6126 14:00 The SPEAKER 53517 I'm also pleased to inform the House that present in the galleries today is a distinguished delegation of members of the United States Congress and accompanying officials. With them is the Hon. Tony Smith, former Speaker of the House. On behalf of the House, welcome to the Australian parliament and question time. SHADOW MINISTRY 6126 SHADOW MINISTRY Temporary Arrangements 6126 14:01 Ms LEY 00AMN Farrer I inform the House that the Leader of the Opposition will be absent from question time today, for personal reasons. I will be representing the Leader in question time. STATEMENTS ON INDULGENCE 6127 STATEMENTS ON INDULGENCE International Relations: Australia and the United States of America 6127 14:01 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I have accepted an invitation from President Joe Biden to undertake an official visit to the United States from 23 to 26 October. I'm deeply honoured to accept the President's invitation on behalf of all Australians. Our alliance with the United States has long been at the heart of our foreign policy. For generations now, we have worked together in service of our shared ideals, as partners for peace, security and stability in the Indo-Pacific and in the wider world as well. For all the profound history that we share, the future of our relationship offers us a greater world of opportunity. I look forward to building on the constructive discussions I've had with the President in our previous meetings, including advancing ambitious climate action and the transition to clean energy under the historic agreement that we came to in Japan—the Climate, Critical Minerals and Clean Energy Transformation Compact. Of course, this visit is also a valuable opportunity for Australia and the United States to build on the AUKUS agreement, which we announced in San Diego earlier this year, deepening the opportunities in research, science and technology and local manufacturing and an even closer defence cooperation in our region. Operation Malabar, along with Japan, India and the United States, will be taking place this weekend as well. On the subject of cooperation, I know that the whole House will join me in thanking the United States armed Forces for the assistance that they provided in the recovery following those tragic events of Hamilton Island. I welcome as well the esteemed members of the US Congress who are present in the chamber today. You are very welcome visitors here, to our nation. I look forward to meeting with you later today at the Lodge and then meeting with you as well in the United States of America, in your home land. You are welcome guests here in our country. I also take the opportunity to welcome our ambassador to the United States, Kevin Rudd and Therese Rein. I congratulate Kevin on the unveiling of his portrait this morning and thank all those members, including the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, for their attendance at what was a great celebration here in this house. I consider President Biden's invitation a great honour not for myself but for who we represent—our great nations. It is a friendship between Australia and the United States. I very much look forward to representing Australia in the United States in Washington, DC. During the visit, we will be opening—or reopening—the new, refurbished Australian Embassy there in Washington, DC. 14:04 Ms LEY 00AMN Farrer I associate the opposition most strongly with the Prime Minister's remarks and note that the US is our strongest ally. The AUKUS initiative, delivered under us, is vital to our national security future. We wish the Prime Minister well on his visit, and, once again, we associate the opposition with all that he has just stated, including the warm welcome to Kevin Rudd. It was a pleasure, Former Prime Minister Rudd, to be at the unveiling of your portrait earlier today. Well done. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 6127 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Health Care 6127 14:05 Ms LEY 00AMN Farrer My question is to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister has been a member of this House for almost 30 years and now lives a privileged life in the Lodge and Kirribilli House. He has never dealt with the challenge of accessing health care in regional and remote Australia. Why is this arrogant Prime Minister pursuing a reckless policy which will close pharmacies and deprive Australians of vital access to health care? How on earth can Australians get cheaper medicines from their local pharmacy if that pharmacy closes? 14:06 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I thank the Deputy Leader of the Opposition for her question. It is true that I do not live in regional Australia. I live in Australia's largest inland city—the one we are in right now, Canberra. It's true that, like the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, all of us in this chamber live a life of relative privilege, compared with the people that we represent. That is right. It's precisely why we need to do whatever we can to look after people and to address cost-of-living pressures. It's why the 60-day dispensing is aimed precisely at that and precisely at making sure that, instead of having to go twice to the pharmacy—once on day 30 and once on day 60—you go once. If you go once, you are cutting the price literally in half as well as taking pressure off the medical system by having fewer journeys to the doctor. The SPEAKER 53517 The Acting Leader of the Opposition has asked the question. The Prime Minister will be heard in silence as she was heard in silence when she asked the question. Mr ALBANESE R36 I was pleased yesterday to read a press release from the shadow health minister. I thought that the party that have been obsessed with saying no to everything were about to have a kumbaya moment and say something positive. It began: The Coalition strongly supports Australians having access to cheaper medicines. Excellent! Then it went on to say in the very next sentence: We support 60-day dispensing. I thought: 'This is going well. That's the way.' Then I read the next word: 'However, even though we support it all, we're against it. And what we'll do is we'll put a disallowance motion in the Senate. We'll hold a press conference with all the drama—the Nats and the Libs out there—and we're going to knock it over tomorrow.' Do you know what they did in the Senate earlier today? They lost six votes trying to block the vote being held on their motion. Then, when that all failed, they withdrew the moving of the motion. Now it sits on the Notice Paper as an orphan. No-one's moving it. No-one's associated with it. What a farce! Aged Care 6128 14:09 Mr KHALIL 101351 Wills My question is to the Minister for Aged Care. How is the Albanese Labor government addressing the challenges it inherited to put nurses back into nursing homes and improve care for older Australians? 14:09 Ms WELLS 264121 Lilley I thank the member for Wills for his question. Today is a milestone day for Australia's aged-care sector. The Albanese government has put nurses back into nursing homes. The Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety told a shocking story of neglect, of inaction and of a lack of ambition under the now opposition. One of the commission's key findings was that there were unacceptable staffing levels, which were creating a horrific environment of substandard care. In response, the commission recommended care minute targets and 24/7 nursing to make sure that aged-care residents could get the clinical care that they required around the clock, day or night. Those opposite refused to commit to 24/7 nursing for 15 long months in government. They believed that just two-thirds of that would suffice because, apparently from their view, emergencies just never happen at night, so why plan for it? But this side of the House understood the importance of round-the-clock care, and that is why we ambitiously brought forward this deadline by a year. Earlier today we released the first data for nursing coverage in July. On average, there was a nurse onsite in aged-care facilities 98 per cent of the time. Let me state that again: our very first month with 24/7 requirements led to a registered nurse onsite in aged-care homes 23½ hours a day. We hope this will improve over the coming months. Taking on workforce shortages in aged care has been a huge effort across the entire new Labor government, including Minister Giles with the industry labour agreements and speeding up visa processing times; Minister O'Connor and fee-free TAFE; Minister O'Neil and student visas; Minister Clare and university places; Minister Burke and the work value case; the Treasurer and Minister Gallagher with an $11.3 billion aged-care pay rise; and Minister Butler and the Prime Minister, who have always put aged care at the heart of our reform agenda. We've done this despite the naysayers across the chamber. I know those opposite are very disappointed that the sky did not fall on 1 July. Those opposite met our ambition with great scepticism—scepticism they still seem to possess today despite the fact that today they are witnessing 98 per cent nursing coverage in aged-care facilities across the country. They didn't even bother to try. They didn't even bother to measure. But we've done both, and here we stand with aged care in a better position in this country than it ever has been. (Time expired) Health Care 6128 14:12 Mr WALLACE 265967 Fisher My question is to the Prime Minister. On 31 July, the Montville Pharmacy in my electorate of Fisher was forced to close as a direct result of the increased costs of doing business and in anticipation of the commencement of Labor's community pharmacy changes. Government members: It hasn't come in yet! The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The member for Fisher will resume his seat. Members on my right! The minister for infrastructure, the minister for water and the Minister for Indigenous Australians: I've been pretty clear about listening to members and being heard in silence. Out of respect for the member for Fisher, he will begin his question again and there will be silence on my right. The member for Fisher has the call. Mr WALLACE 265967 Prime Minister, on 31 July the Montville Pharmacy in my electorate of Fisher was forced to close as a direct result of the increased costs of doing business and in anticipation of the commencement of Labor's community pharmacy changes. Montville has also recently lost its only doctor. Prime Minister, how will the people of Montville and rural and regional towns across the country obtain access to cheaper medicines when there are no community pharmacies left in the bush to dispense them? 14:14 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I note the nature of the question from the member opposite. These changes come in from September. What he's saying is— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The member for Fisher has asked the question. I can't hear the Prime Minister. Mr ALBANESE R36 somehow the changes also— The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Deakin and the member for Hume: I can't hear what the Prime Minister is saying. Mr ALBANESE R36 If he had followed the debate he would know that just one-third of the changes come in in September. Then there's a further change in March—I think that's correct—of next year and then a further change six months later on. I myself have met with the Pharmacy Guild, as well as other pharmacists in my own electorate, about these issues. That's why we're continuing to have discussions and why the health minister announced additional support for pharmacies as part of the program. The SPEAKER 53517 The acting leader will cease interjecting, please. Mr ALBANESE R36 It's important to recognise here that this is about making a difference on the cost of living. The idea that you'd deliberately keep costs to consumers high as a conscious strategy is one that, frankly, I believe is indefensible. That's why it was recommended to those opposite in 2018 that that be the case. The fact is that this is about cheaper medicine for six million Australians, and if those opposite want to stand for more-expensive medicines for six million Australians, then let them know that that is the case. Six million Australians—people in cities, people in regions—will all pay for this policy. Yet again undermining the PBS, yet again pushing up the cost of living for millions of Australians—the Liberal Party never miss a chance to try and make Australians pay more for the health care that they need. They never miss a chance. We on this side will always stand up for help with the cost of living, and we'll always be the party of cheaper medicine as well. Dr Freelander 265979 You could do the simple thing and ask the patients what they want! The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Macarthur is warned. Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! There is far too much noise on my left. If that continues, people will be warned. One warning, and then you'll remove yourself under 94(a). Health Care 6129 14:17 Mr RAE 300122 Hawke My question is to the Minister for Health and Aged Care. Why is it so important that the Albanese Labor government delivers cost-of-living relief for millions of Australians through cheaper medicines? What obstacles are there to delivering this relief? 14:18 Mr BUTLER HWK Hindmarsh I thank the member for Hawke, who is part of this terrifically talented new generation that was voted to the Labor benches at the last election. He, along with all those members, promised Australians cheaper medicines at the last election, and in just 12 months we have already delivered three waves of cheaper-medicines reform that will save Australian patients hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars. But we know there is more to do, and that is why we accepted the advice of the medicines experts who manage the PBS to allow doctors to issue 60-day prescriptions for common medicines for ongoing health conditions at the price of a 30-day script, halving the cost of these ongoing medicines for six million Australian patients. It is not only good for their hip pocket but also for their health, because we know from overseas evidence that it will improve medication compliance and will free up millions of GP consults, which are so desperately needed out there in the community. So it is good for the cost of living and good for health. That is why so many other countries to which we would usually compare ourselves already do this, already allow 60- or even 90-day scripts. That's why we have received such strong support for this measure from every single patient group and every doctors group in the country. I'm asked about obstacles. The first thing to say about that is, as the Prime Minister just said, this is not new advice. The same advice was delivered by the same experts to the former government five years ago, and they did nothing. They chose to support the pharmacy lobby over the interest of patients. As a result, those patients have shelled out hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars in fees they didn't have to pay. Now, you can say a lot of things about those opposite, but at least they're consistent. Yesterday they lodged a motion to block access to cheaper medicines for six million patients, once again backing the lobby over the interests of patients—exactly what you would expect, frankly, from a party led by a man who as health minister tried to jack up the price of medicines by $5 a script. We know how important cheaper medicines are at a time of a global cost-of-living shock for millions and millions of patients. We know how important it is to free up the health system after the pressures of three years of a pandemic. Whatever the coalition and One Nation try to do over in the Senate, we are determined, with or without the coalition's support, to deliver cheaper medicines to Australian patients. Climate Change 6130 14:20 Mr CHANDLER-MATHER 300121 Griffith My question is to the Minister for Climate Change and Energy. Your government has approved three new coal projects and supports new gas. However, the International Energy Agency has been clear that, in order to avoid catastrophic climate change, no country can open any new coal and gas, while the International Institute for Sustainable Development has said there is a large consensus that new oil and gas fields are incompatible with limiting warming to 1.5 degrees. Can the minister explain whether the government supports these findings? And, if so, how can he justify new coal and gas? 14:21 Mr BOWEN DZS McMahon I thank the honourable member for his question, and I thank him for the opportunity to talk about everything this government has done over the past 15 months in relation to acting on climate change after 10 years of denial and delay. The honourable member quotes the IEA. The IEA is a very important organisation. If the honourable member is going to quote the IEA—and he's quite entitled to do that—he should quote the IEA in full: all their views about all things, including carbon capture and storage, for example, which is not I think a view the honourable member shares, and he would not quote the IEA in that regard. In relation to climate change, I'm very proud of the fact that this government has finally given Australia a climate change act with a significant increase in the targets. I'm very proud of the fact that we brought the Climate Change Authority back, to give independent advice to the government of the day, as it should, in a transparent way. I'm very proud of the fact that we've changed the objectives of the CFC and Arena and so many other government organisations to actually finally put us on track for net zero emissions. I'm very proud of the fact that we've funded $20 billion in Rewiring the Nation to upgrade our energy grid, because there's no transition without transmission. I'm very proud of the fact that we're improving, including today, community engagement on that transmission. I'm very proud of that fact. There may be things the honourable member doesn't support. The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Herbert is warned. And I'll call the member for Griffith. Mr Chandler-Mather 300121 On relevance, Mr Speaker, the question went specifically to coal and gas and whether the government accepts the findings of the IEA and other bodies that have said we can't have new coal and gas. He didn't mention coal and gas once in that entire answer. The SPEAKER 53517 The minister is reminded to be directly relevant to the question. There are a number of parts to the question. He can answer as he sees fit. But I'll listen to him carefully to make sure he is being relevant. So far, he is talking about the subject matter in the question, and he still has one minute and 30 seconds remaining. The minister has the call. Mr BOWEN DZS This government believes in a holistic approach to Climate Change. The honourable member likes to pick things out—we've got this project, we've got that project. He doesn't acknowledge the sweeping reforms this government is putting into place, like finally ensuring that Australia has an offshore wind industry, declaring the first two zones and beginning the process for more, for delivering a capacity investment scheme to drive gigawatts of renewable energy investment across this country—something those opposite promised and never delivered—to give the safeguard reforms teeth to actually drive reforms that will be the equivalent of two-thirds of Australia's cars' emissions between now and 2030. And while we are talking about cars, the minister for transport and I are driving a fuel efficiency standard so that Australia finally catches up with the rest of the world and has a fleet that is low- and no-emissions and stops being the only major economy apart from Russia without fuel efficiency standards, which was something the previous government left us with. I'm proud of the fact we've signed the Global Methane Pledge and joined the Climate Club, both well overdue as well. I am proud of the fact we've passed the electric vehicle discount, which has driven an uptake, in our short time in office so far, of electric vehicles from two per cent to eight per cent. The SPEAKER 53517 The member for O'Connor will cease interjecting. Mr BOWEN DZS I saw a shadow minister on television the other day saying, 'Electric vehicle sales were going through the roof under the coalition.' It must have been a very low roof, because they did nothing for 10 years and we're fixing up the mess. Aged Care 6131 14:25 Ms SITOU 298121 Reid My question is to the Prime Minister. How is the Albanese Labor government working to restore dignity to the aged-care sector? 14:25 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I thank the member for Reid for her question and for her concern for the people just a little bit further west than me, in her electorate of Reid, and particularly the elderly people in that fine electorate. There are a range of aged-care facilities—in Burwood, in Concord, in Five Dock, in all of those communities, including ethnically specific aged-care centres for the Chinese community and for the Italian community and others. After a decade of neglect and a royal commission that was titled Neglect—a royal commission that they established, where they appointed the commissioners; they titled its interim report Neglect—we needed to have more carers with more time to care. It's a commitment that we took to the election, to restore dignity to aged care. I think that most Australians would think that nurses should be in nursing homes, that this was not a radical policy but a sensible commonsense policy. We said that we would get nurses back in aged care, 24/7. Today the results are in. On average, just after this began in July, there is a registered nurse onsite 98 per cent of the time. Eighty-six per cent of facilities already have a nurse onsite 24/7 and, on average, there is a registered nurse onsite in aged-care homes, for 23½ hours a day, across the country. What that means is older Australians are getting the care that they deserve, because we changed the rules to make it happen—as well as encouraging the workforce to stay in aged care, by having the 15 per cent pay increase from 1 July, with 250,000 aged-care workers benefiting from that. Prior to this, we had the usual scare campaigns. The member for Farrer said: … weeks out from the Federal Election, Anthony Albanese's key promise … was to force every aged care home to have a nurse in their facility 24/7 by July this year.…   …   … … he … sowed the seeds of the crisis that is now unfolding across the nation. The consequences are absolutely devastating. What is happening in aged care is that things off the back of their crisis are getting better, and these figures show that that is the case—with more funding, a better workforce, delivering on our commitments and ensuring that older Australians have the dignity and care that they deserve. Economy 6131 14:28 Mr TAYLOR 231027 Hume Prime Minister, since Labor came to government, interest rates have gone up 11 times, core inflation is amongst the highest of advanced economies, real wages have fallen off a cliff, consumer confidence is tanking and economic growth is half the OECD average. The result is Australians are working harder for less. Will the Prime Minister admit that under Labor Australians are worse off? Government members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! Members on my right. The Treasurer will cease interjecting as well. 14:29 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler It is good. I congratulate the shadow Treasurer on getting a question on the economy this week. It doesn't go to the Treasurer, but I'm happy to step in. Once again, we saw the catastrophising from those opposite, who always want to talk down Australia and talk down our economy. The facts are these: the highest inflation rate this century was on their watch, at 2.1 per cent in the March 2022 quarter. The inflation rate in the last quarter was 0.8 per cent. 0.8 or 2.1? Unemployment when we came to office was 3.9; now it's 3.5—fact. Women employed full time is 3.9 million under us; under the previous government, 3.6 million—fact. Long-term unemployed was 133,000 under them; 100,000 under us—fact. On industrial disputes, 128,000 days were lost in the last quarter in which they held office. Remember? Australia was going to stop if the industrial relations legislation went through. What's the figure for the March quarter of this year? 7,700—fact. Annual wage growth was 2.4 per cent under them; it's 3.7 per cent under us. Private business investment was 10.8 under them in the March quarter; it's 11.3 per cent under us. The SPEAKER 53517 The Acting Leader of the Opposition will cease interjecting. Mr ALBANESE R36 Of course, taxes under their year, 2021-22, were 23.2 per cent; they're lower under us as a percentage of GDP. The doozy is the budget: a $78 billion deficit under them; a surplus of around $20 billion under us. Responsible economic management is making a difference. Those opposite promised a surplus in their first year and every year thereafter but didn't deliver in the whole decade. Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 There is far too much noise on my left. A general warning has now been issued for members. That level of noise will not continue. Aged Care 6132 14:32 Dr GARLAND 295588 Chisholm My question is to the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations. What policy approaches has the Albanese Labor government changed to better support our aged-care workforce? 14:32 Mr BURKE DYW Watson Thanks to the member for Chisholm for the question and for her commitment in improving aged care and improving working conditions for people. Both the former government and this government were presented with the same information by the royal commission. The royal commission finding was: The evidence is clear that the quality of care and the quality of jobs in aged care are inextricably linked. …   …   … Australia's aged care system is understaffed and the workforce underpaid— and goes on to say: The sector has difficulty attracting and retaining well-skilled people due to: low wages … Presented with that information, there were two different approaches as to how you deal with the aged-care workforce. It was clear that if you don't have enough staff you end up with residents who need more significant treatment. Per day in aged care costs $200 to $300. Per day in hospital costs $2,000. It wasn't just neglect of the aged-care residents but neglect of the workforce. Punished the workforce, punished the residents and cost the budget model. There were two approaches to handle this. The approach from those opposite was to just give a couple of one-off payments. They gave one-off payments of $800, which were not well administered. People don't go back to a workforce on a permanent basis because there's going to be a one-off payment. They want to know what's happening in pay rates overall. The Fair Work Commission's work value case was being held. Under the previous government, the decision was that it would not turn up and ask for a pay rise. Our decision was to go with a submission that said the Commonwealth supports a minimum wage increase for aged-care workers. The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Deakin. Mr BURKE DYW Under them, they refused to tell the Fair Work Commission whether the government would actually fund any increase. The SPEAKER 53517 The minister will pause. The member for Deakin has been continually interjecting after I gave a general warning which I said there'd be actions for. So the action now is that you will leave the chamber under 94(a). The member for Deakin then left the chamber. The SPEAKER 53517 I'll just ask the minister to continue. Mr BURKE DYW They refused to say they'd fund a pay rise. We put in a submission that said, 'The Commonwealth will provide funding to support any increases to award wages.' What difference did that make? It meant a 15 per cent pay rise was awarded. It meant, for a level 4 direct-care employee, they now earn more than $5 an hour extra. That's nearly $200 extra a week. That's more than $10,000 extra a year. That's why we are now seeing people being able to be retained and returning to the workforce and choosing to be trained for the workforce. It was the deputy leader, today the acting leader, who said, 'There are concerns out there today about the actual collapse of the aged-care system as we know it.' Well, what we have seen is: now there are nurses in nursing homes—98 per cent compliance. (Time expired) New South Wales: Floods, Resilient Homes Program 6132 14:36 Mr LITTLEPROUD 265585 Maranoa My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to the Prime Minister's answer to my question in June where he committed to working with the New South Wales government on the flood recovery of devastated communities in Central West New South Wales. Can the Prime Minister update the House on whether the Resilient Homes Program will be offered to families in the Central West who have now been living in temporary accommodation for almost nine months? 14:36 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I thank the member for his question. We have had discussions with New South Wales. Indeed, the minister, Minister Watt, is convening a meeting of all national emergency ministers in the coming month. Just this morning we signed off on some further support for people who have been victims of natural disasters, to make sure that that support flows. We'll continue to engage with New South Wales, as well as with other state governments. I will report back. I will speak directly to the Leader of the National Party, because I know that he's very sincere in his commitment there. Frankly, the response has left communities, I know, in the Central West of New South Wales—I've had discussions with the member for Calare about these issues as well. I know that, in Lismore, as well, there are still people doing it really tough, and there we had a whole program, for example, of buying out people who were on flood plains who shouldn't be remaining there, because they just couldn't return to those homes. These issues are complex. I will continue to work, though, with people across the chamber, as I do on these issues, and I will engage directly with the honourable member opposite. Cost of Living 6133 14:38 Ms MURPHY 133646 Dunkley My question is to the Treasurer. How is the Albanese Labor government helping to ease cost-of-living pressures on Australian families and small businesses, and what barriers are there to that support being delivered? 14:38 Dr CHALMERS 37998 Rankin I thank the member for Dunkley for her question. That's her first question to me this week about the cost of living, but it's more than the shadow Treasurer has asked me this week. On this side of the House, we understand Australians are under pressure from a combination of moderating but still-too-high inflation and higher interest rates and the impact of global turbulence. That's why this Prime Minister's and this government's highest priority is rolling out billions of dollars in cost-of-living help for Australians doing it tough, and we're doing that in a way that takes some of the edge off these cost-of-living pressures without adding to inflation in our economy. We're doing that by targeting the relief to where the pressures are most acute—like rent and out-of-pocket health costs and electricity. We're doing that at the same time as we're getting the budget in much better nick—as the Prime Minister said, a $100-billion turnaround in the cash balance for last year—and we're investing in the foundations of a stronger economy and a better future for more of our people. When we came to office, quarterly inflation was higher, unemployment was higher, deficits were bigger, debt was higher—and that was costing Australians more in interest. Our responsible economic management is seeing some progress made, but we know that times are still tough, our economy will soften and the pressures on the budget are intensifying rather than easing. But it remains the case that the wasted decade presided over by those opposite made Australians more vulnerable to the shocks that are coming at us from around the world. The SPEAKER 53517 The Treasurer will pause. The Acting Leader of the Opposition is getting closer—it may be a bit far away, but I'm hearing her get louder and louder. I'll ask her to cease interjecting for the remainder of this answer. Dr CHALMERS 37998 Those opposite made a mess of the economy and a mess of the budget, and now they are refusing to help us clean it up. They were part of the problem when it comes to the economy and now they refuse to be part of the solution. We know that because, at almost every turn, they have tried to block our efforts to help people through difficult times. They had a chance to vote for caps on gas prices. Instead, they voted for higher energy prices. They had a chance to help people with their electricity bills. Instead, they voted for higher electricity bills. They had a chance to help people with the cost of their medicine. Instead, they want to vote for even more expensive medicine for people with chronic conditions. They had a chance to help build more homes. Instead, they voted for fewer homes and therefore higher rents. If those opposite really understood the pressures that people are under, they wouldn't have voted again and again against helping them with their energy costs and their medicine costs, and they wouldn't have hidden, as the member for Hume did, the higher electricity costs from the Australian people. If those opposite had any economic credibility whatsoever, they would acknowledge that rates were rising and quarterly inflation peaked back when the member for Hume was the worst minister in the worst government since Federation. If they had any credibility, they would acknowledge that inflation is moderating, we've got billions of dollars of help rolling out, we've got the first surplus in 15 years, and we've got half a million jobs created on our watch. The cost of living is the highest priority of this government, even if those opposite couldn't give a stuff. (Time expired) Nuclear Waste Management 6134 14:42 Mr RAMSEY HWS Grey My question is to the Prime Minister. For eight years, the Kimba community in my electorate pursued an invitation to host the national radioactive waste management facility. As with Israel and other issues at the Labor Party's upcoming national conference, is Labor's decision to scrap this facility yet another example of the bitter internal backroom Labor factional deal being prioritised over the national interest? The SPEAKER 53517 The member will resume his seat for a moment. Order! I'll hear from the Leader of the House. Mr Burke DYW In practice, there's a blanket prohibition on questions about party conferences. The SPEAKER 53517 There is. I'll just ask the member for Grey, to assist the House, to make sure the question is relevant, to remove that part of— Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 I'm trying to help the member for Grey. Could he just rephrase the question to be about policy, not the conference. Mr RAMSEY HWS My question is to the Prime Minister. For eight years, the Kimba community in my electorate pursued an invitation to host the national radioactive waste management facility. The government's decision today has left no plan for ANSTO to handle its waste in the future. What does the government plan to do with that waste when room runs out at Lucas Heights? 14:43 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I thank the member for Grey for his question. He was a member of the government for three terms. During that period, it is correct to say that the government of the day proposed Kimba as the site, and the Labor Party, under my leadership, supported the site. The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Grey has asked the question. He will not interject anymore. Mr ALBANESE R36 The decision was knocked over in the Federal Court of Australia. It was knocked over because of the incompetence of the former minister in the way that he dealt with the administration of that act. It is completely the responsibility of the former government that this decision has been knocked over in the Federal Court. Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Is the member for Grey seeking the call? The Prime Minister has concluded his answer, resume your seat. The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The member for Grey will leave the chamber under 94(a). The member for Grey then left the chamber. Regional Australia 6134 14:45 Ms SCRYMGOUR F2S Lingiari My question is to the Minister for Regional Development, Local Government and Territories. Minister, how is the Albanese Labor government delivering for our regional communities? The SPEAKER 53517 Order! I have not called minister. I remind the member for Mitchell that he's on very thin ice. I give the call to the Minister for Regional Development, Local Government and Territories. 14:46 Ms McBAIN 281988 Eden-Monaro I thank the member for that question. The member does a fantastic job representing remote Territorians, the Tiwi Islands and our external territories in Christmas Island and Cocos Islands. Thank you very much. As a regional member, I'm incredibly proud to be part of the Albanese Labor government, delivering for regional Australia. We on this side of the House know how important it is to back our regional businesses, regional communities, local councils and farmers. Those opposite talk a big game and deliver a lot of press releases, but they actually forget the delivery part! The bush summit is a great opportunity for us to come together with regional communities, industries and businesses to have those direct conversations. I know that the Prime Minister is looking forward to going to Tamworth tomorrow and speaking to people at the bush summit there, as are my colleagues across this place who will be going to different parts of the country and participating in the bush summit. For my part, I am interested in this and heading to Wodonga on Tuesday of next week to be part of the bush summit and to hear firsthand from our regional communities. But time and time again when I am out listening to regional communities there are a couple of key things. No. 1 is housing, because it's a critical part of regional development. If you cannot provide housing then you cannot get workers, whether they be in our essential services, like child care or aged care, or our teachers. Last week, I met with the North West Queensland ROC—10 councils from North West Queensland—who said, each and every one of them, 'Housing is a priority for us'. That was backed in the following day when I met with Bendigo and Shepparton councils, who said the same thing. The former government failed to put dollars into housing policy. They failed to deliver for regional communities. And, on this side of the House, we know how important it is to deliver that, which is why we have a comprehensive housing policy— Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The minister will pause. There is far too much noise on my left and right. I want to hear from the Manager of Opposition Business. Mr Fletcher L6B Speaker, my point of order is on relevance. This answer is riddled with references to 'those opposite', the former government. The question was in fact a commendably tight question: how is the Labor government delivering for our regional communities? The minister should be directed back to the question. The SPEAKER 53517 The minister has been going for two minutes and I'm going to ask her to return to the question she was asked. Ms McBAIN 281988 Thank you. As I said, we went to the election with a comprehensive housing policy, and I would urge those opposite and the Greens party to listen to what your communities are telling you. They're telling you to back the Housing Australia Future Fund. Connectivity is no longer a nice-to-have thing in our country, it's an absolute necessity. While they talk a big game for our regional communities, they failed to deliver for our regional communities. That's why it has taken a Labor government to deliver telecommunications and connectivity across the country. There was $2.2 billion in our regional connectivity plan and $2.4 billion for the NBN upgrades. That's 660,000 additional premises that will get fibre to the premises. Those opposite failed to deliver for regional Australia. Isn't it interesting that it takes a Labor government to stick up for regional Australia, say connectivity is important, deliver housing and back our regional communities! Oil and Gas Exploration: Tiwi Islands Traditional Owners 6135 14:50 Dr SCAMPS 299623 Mackellar My question is to the Minister for Resources. Last year traditional owners on the Tiwi Islands won a landmark case in the Federal Court. The victory guaranteed Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders the right to be consulted about offshore oil and gas projects which impact their homes and culture. However, in a meeting this week, Tiwi Islanders expressed to me the fear that the government will water down the required consultation process. In this year of the Voice, will the minister rule out the watering down of these consultation requirements? 14:50 Ms MADELEINE KING 102376 Brand I thank the member for her question. I also want to acknowledge the traditional owners of the Tiwi Islands and their connection to their land and sea country. I've been very clear on this issue for some time now. It is the government's position that all corners of industry, including the oil and gas sector, must genuinely consult with First Nations peoples as part of the regulatory approvals processes. All people, including First Nations people, have the right to be consulted on activities that impact them. They have a right for their voice to be heard. This was made clear by the Federal Court's judgement, and the government does accept that finding, which is the court case that you referred to. We are not looking to change that at all. In the last budget, the government invested $12 million for a comprehensive review of Australia's offshore oil and gas environmental regulations, with a particular focus on consultation outcomes, including for First Nations people. We want to ensure better consultation with First Nations peoples. We want to make that a feature of the regulatory system, and we are working solidly toward that outcome. We know that there has been a distressing lack of genuine consultation and collaboration with First Nations Australians for more than two centuries in this country, and we aim to fix that. Albanese Government: Telecommunications, Albanese Government: Broadband 6135 14:52 Mr REPACHOLI 298840 Hunter My question is to the Minister for Communications. What is the Albanese Labor government doing to boost connectivity for regional communities, and why is this investment needed in these areas? 14:52 Ms ROWLAND 159771 Greenway I thank the member for Hunter for his question. He's a passionate advocate for his region, right across the portfolio. The Albanese government understands the vital role that communications services play for those living and working in regional and peri-urban Australia. We've been reminded all too often, through the ravages of bushfires, floods and COVID, of the importance of resilient and reliable communications networks. That's why our government is delivering the largest regional communications funding package since the inception of the NBN, at over $2.2 billion. Our better connectivity plan is providing $656 million for regional connectivity and communications resilience, including $30 million to expand on-farm connectivity. Improving connectivity for primary producers will create more opportunities to use digital technologies to more productively and efficiently improve the safety of farmers at work. The connected technologies have brilliant practical application, from soil moisture monitoring to automated farm gates. We've also committed $1.1 billion to deliver high-speed NBN broadband with full fibre connections to 660,000 regional homes and businesses, finally fixing the copper mess left by those opposite. This morning I joined my colleague the minister for regional development and her constituent Margot, from the Jerrabomberra Residents Association, who was incredibly excited to have finally received a full fibre NBN connection. After years of advocacy, Margot was elated. In her words, 'Today is a very special day.' Margot finally has reliable, high-speed broadband with a fibre connection. Margot runs a branding business, and she often works from home. She explained the frustrations with her old copper connection—slow and unreliable; a legacy of the former coalition government's disastrous second-rate technology mix. Her story is one that I've heard many times across the country. Copper is less reliable, more expensive to maintain and more likely to— The SPEAKER 53517 The minister will pause. The member for Groom has been interjecting all of question time. He will leave the chamber under 94(a). It is not a time to give continual interjections when the minister is on her feet. The member for Groom then left the chamber. Ms ROWLAND 159771 Copper is more likely to experience prolonged faults, as Margot and her community have experienced firsthand. As to why these investments are needed, it's because it was not just the technology that those opposite got wrong; they also managed to create an economic mess with a $29 billion cost blowout thanks to the very puzzling purchase of 60,000 kilometres of new copper. This government has a clear program underway to ensure that, by the end of 2025, 90 per cent of the fixed line networks, some 10 million premises, can access gigabit speeds, which augurs so well for our regions and their ongoing growth. Central Australia 6136 14:56 Ms LEY 00AMN Farrer My question is to the Minister for Indigenous Australians. In January the Prime Minister promised a $250 million package for Central Australia, which the government claimed would improve community safety, create jobs and improve health services. More than six months later, how much of this money has actually been spent? 14:56 Ms BURNEY 8GH Barton Can I thank the member for her question and say that the rollout of the $250 million is going remarkably well. We have upgraded roads and water facilities in outlying communities. We have made available money to a women's service there that deals with domestic violence. We've increased funding for the Northern Territory women's legal service in Katherine, which was needing additional money because of the imposts on that. We have also made some commitments in terms of education. We have also spent $25 million on youth services which, by the way, were running out of money in June under your government. The SPEAKER 53517 Has the minister concluded her answer? Ms BURNEY 8GH Not quite. The SPEAKER 53517 I will hear from the Acting Leader of the Opposition. Ms Ley 00AMN It was a specific question about how much of the $250 million has actually been spent. I am comfortable if the minister would like to return to the chamber at a later point to actually outline how much of that $250 million has been spent. The SPEAKER 53517 The point of order was on relevance. I will go back to my earlier explanation: direct relevance and direct answers aren't the same thing. The point of order was on relevance. I am just asking the minister to continue with her answer because she is talking about the expenditure, where it is being allocated and the program is involved. Ms BURNEY 8GH I conclude my answer by saying that the rollout has been collaborative. We've established an Aboriginal leaders group in Central Australia to assist the government with that rollout and to listen to those people. We are doing further work—in fact, I'm going to Alice Springs in three weeks time. The SPEAKER 53517 The minister has finished her answer, but I will hear from the acting leader on a point of order. Ms Ley 00AMN I'm seeking leave to table a document: the Prime Minister's February media release, titled A better, safer future for Central Australia. I assume the Leader of the House will have no objections, as he has been tabling articles in the public domain all week. May we table it in order to assist the minister to return to the House with an exact figure of how much of $250 million has been spent? The SPEAKER 53517 The acting leader is seeking to table a document. Mr Burke DYW It's a media release. It's public. Leave is not granted. Royal Commission into the Robodebt Scheme 6137 15:00 Dr MULINO 132880 Fraser My question is to the Minister for Government Services. What does the Royal Commission into the Robodebt Scheme say about the treatment of vulnerable people in the social security system and what were the failures to support vulnerable recipients under robodebt? 15:00 Mr SHORTEN 00ATG Maribyrnong I thank the member for Fraser for his question. The concept of vulnerability is important in our social security system. The demographic of Australians who need access to income support payments is wide, it's very varied, but it can include people experiencing physical, psychological, social or cultural disadvantages. Vulnerable people can struggle with understanding, accessing and navigating our social security system, and it's well established that they may require additional support. However, when the robodebt scheme commenced, the notion of vulnerability was simply trashed; it was thrown overboard. The cohorts of vulnerable people who received no extra support when the scheme started included those in full-time residential care, victims of terrorist incidents, those with intellectual or physical impairment, those fleeing domestic violence and the homeless. Of course, in the royal commission, the former coalition cabinet ministers' defence was essentially one of 'no-one told us'. But why did coalition ministers need to be told that some Australians are vulnerable? You can hear the 'woe is me' cries of the former coalition cabinet ministers asking, 'How can we be expected to understand what's happening to hundreds of thousands of our fellow citizens?' The former coalition ministers expect us to accept their threadbare response that they were just following the orders of their Public Service. They have to accept this—they don't read the newspapers, they don't go online, they don't talk to people in the street and they don't hear from the people complaining. It's interesting to note that in 2021 the entire Dutch government resigned after it was found that they had been instituting claims against 20,000 families in Holland which were based on a fraudulent proposition. Before question time, the member for Deakin gave a speech which is destined for the liner of the kitty litter tray of history when he complained that our focus on robodebt is all politics. Let me explain to the opposition on my behalf and on behalf of Labor. Robodebt is political, but not in the way that's insinuated by those opposite. For Labor, for the Albanese government, for me, it is political when you bully the poor, when you pick on the vulnerable, when you demonise them, when you trash their reputations in the paper. That is political. It's political when you divide this country into those on welfare and those not on welfare. It is political when you seek to divide the country and say that some people are lesser than other people. I say to the coalition: this issue will never cease for you until you get up and accept what you did wrong, which was bully the poor in this country. Donations to Political Parties 6137 15:03 Ms CHANEY 300006 Curtin This is a question for the Prime Minister. Will your government ban political donations from government contractors? 15:03 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler Matters of donations to the Australian Labor Party—which I'm responsible for—are matters for the organisational wing of the Australian Labor Party. We've made very clear and transparent decisions over issues including the banning of donations from tobacco companies that we made some time ago. We're the only party of government that has made that decision and carried through with it. I understand the concerns that are raised about political advertising in general, and you would be including donations, including the funding of election campaigns. The Special Minister of State, my colleague Senator Farrell, is of course overseeing—and indeed there was an inquiry about these issues in the parliament. That process is of course ongoing. At the moment in Australia I know that there is debate over the funding of election campaigns—and it has been there for some time—and over whether there should be greater public funding of election campaigns. That, of course, runs up against the fact that that would mean increased costs to taxpayers. That is the basis of the debate that has gone on though. It will continue to occur into the future. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice 6138 15:05 Ms VAMVAKINOU 00AMT Calwell My question is to the Attorney-General. How will recognition through a Voice improve outcomes for First Nations Australians, including in the Attorney-General's portfolio? The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Petrie— The SPEAKER 53517 I don't care what you're doing. Just stop interjecting. The Attorney-General has the call. 15:05 Mr DREYFUS HWG Isaacs I thank the member for Calwell for her question. It has been three months since this House passed the Constitution alteration proposal. Its passage through the House and the Senate set in train the referendum process which later this year will allow all Australians to have their say on constitutional recognition of First Nations Australians through a Voice. We are closer than we have ever been to righting a historic wrong—120 years of explicit exclusion of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples from our founding document, the Constitution—and closer to giving our First Peoples a Voice, a representative committee that will provide advice to the parliament and executive government which does not replace, direct or impede the actions of either. The current approach is broken and we have a once-in-a-lifetime chance to fix it, to put the right approach in place, because, when you listen to Indigenous Australians about the laws and the policies that affect their lives, you get better outcomes, and we need better outcomes. Nobody who looks at the closing the gap statistics can argue that we are doing enough to address the disadvantage of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, particularly children. As my colleague the Minister for Education has pointed out this week, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people are more likely to go to jail than to university. This must change. Of course there is already a great deal of work underway to address these issues, including in my portfolio, but the work can only be enhanced by a greater degree of input from all those it is meant to help. What is there to fear from the simple act of listening to advice? Nothing. The Voice can do no harm, only good. We know that outcomes are better when we partner with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities. As I've said before, the Uluru Statement from the Heart was issued to the people of Australia, not to government and not to politicians. The Australian people will decide whether to accept its generous invitation to walk together towards a better future. It is a modest ask, but it is an important one. I urge the Australian people to believe that things can be better and to take this chance to make a real and lasting difference. Uluru Statement from the Heart: Treaty 6138 15:08 Mr PEARCE 282306 Braddon My question is to the Minister for Indigenous Australians. One of the elements of the Uluru statement is a 'makarrata commission' for 'agreement-making' and that 'Labor will take steps to implement all three elements of the Uluru Statement from the Heart in this term of government'. Will the government negotiate a treaty in this term of government? The SPEAKER 53517 I was a little lost in that question. I want to hear from the Leader of the House about what was being quoted. Sorry, I couldn't hear that. Mr Burke DYW The point of order is about any minister trying to make sense of the question. The question made clear that it was quoting from something, but he kept secret what he was quoting from, which makes it very difficult for a minister to answer or for us to work out whether it's in order. The SPEAKER 53517 I ask the member for Braddon to state the question again and, perhaps if you're using a quote, to say that source. Mr PEARCE 282306 Will the government negotiate a treaty in this term of government? The SPEAKER 53517 That's a different question, but it's within the standing orders. 15:10 Ms BURNEY 8GH Barton I thank the member for his question. I have repeated a number of times this week that the priority of this government is a referendum at the end of the year to recognise First Peoples in the Constitution and to make sure that policy and practical outcomes are improved so that we can close the gap. Australian Constitution: Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice 6138 15:10 Mr ROB MITCHELL M3E McEwen My question is to the Leader of the House. What role has the House of Representatives played in the process that has led to this year's referendum? 15:11 Mr BURKE DYW Watson It's important to know that the long process of consultation that's led to the referendum later this year started in the House of Representatives and that the House of Representatives, over various prime ministers, has facilitated that process. In 2007, under Prime Minister John Howard, there was a commitment to having some form of constitutional recognition. The decision was made that the question would be put to First Nations communities, to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities, as to what form of recognition in the Constitution would make it meaningful. In 2012, under Prime Minister Julia Gillard, this House established the Joint Select Committee on Constitutional Recognition. Then, in 2013, under Tony Abbott, that committee was re-established. That led, in 2015, to the Kirribilli statement. Ultimately, Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull reported to the House that he'd established the Referendum Council. That led to the House asking for the consultation to happen, where there were 18 regional dialogues—1,200 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander representatives over 18 months being asked to report back, ultimately to this House, on what form of constitutional recognition they would want that would make constitutional recognition meaningful. Following that dialogue, in May 2017, the House was advised of what had happened at the constitutional convention of 250 representatives, and those were the representatives who gave the Uluru Statement from the Heart. That followed, in 2018, with this House establishing a joint select committee co-chaired by the member for Berowra and Senator Patrick Dodson. Out of that, we ended up with the design principles following the co-design process. During that whole period, there has at the same time been the annual drumbeat of both good intentions and policy failure when we have heard the Closing the gap report. In all of those reports during that period, we have heard what's on track and what's not. The child literacy and numeracy objective has never been on track. The life expectancy objective has never been on track. We know from local examples that listening works, and we know that this proposal is a request from Indigenous Australians across Australia that was initiated because of decisions made in this House when the question was asked, 'What would you like the form of meaningful constitutional recognition to be?' For those who have previously rejected other ideas as being tokenistic, to now oppose this one because it's meaningful really misses the point. The Uluru Statement from the Heart gives us a way of recognition through Voice to deliver results. It's a gracious statement, and we can be gracious in return. (Time expired) Mr Albanese R36 Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper. PRIVILEGE 6139 PRIVILEGE Member for Cook 6139 15:14 The SPEAKER 53517 On Tuesday this week, the member for Brisbane raised as a matter of privilege whether statements made by the member for Cook, in 2020 when he was Prime Minister and also last week, constitute a breach of privilege or contempt of the House. In requesting that I grant precedence to a motion to refer this matter to the Standing Committee of Privileges and Members' Interests, the member for Brisbane provided documents in support of his request: the responses by the then Prime Minister and member for Cook to the questions during question time in 2020, as follows—a question from the member for Grayndler on 10 June, a question from the member for Maribyrnong on 11 June and a question from the member for Maribyrnong on 8 December; the statement, made on indulgence, by the member for Cook on 31 July 2023; and pages 105 to 106 and 488 of the Report of the Royal Commission into the Robodebt Scheme. I reviewed the matter raised by the member and the supporting information he provided. Given that the matter relies in part on the statement made by the member for Cook last week, I accept that it was raised at the earliest opportunity. The member for Brisbane stated that aspects of the statements made by the member for Cook in the House have been shown to be false by the Report of the Royal Commission into the Robodebt Scheme. Some of the statements made by the member for Cook, to which the member for Brisbane refers, do appear to be at odds with findings of the royal commission and, on that basis, may be considered to be incorrect. However, I do not have material in front of me that demonstrates that the member for Cook knew that any statements were false at the time he made them and that he intended to mislead the House through his comments. In his statement by indulgence to the House last week, the member for Cook canvassed findings of the royal commission and rejected some of the adverse findings which relate to his role and actions. The fact that the member for Cook disagreed with these findings and made comments to this effect in the House does not in itself represent a misleading of the House. The member for Brisbane has stated that the member for Cook misled the House and did so knowingly and deliberately. The matter of deliberately misleading the House is a serious one, and rightly there should be prima facie evidence that the House has been misled and the misleading has been deliberate in order for a Speaker to act under standing order 51 and allow such a matter to be referred, as of right, to the Committee of Privileges and Members' Interests. On the basis of the material that was provided by the member for Brisbane, I am not able to grant precedence for a referral on this occasion. BUSINESS 6140 BUSINESS Leave of Absence 6140 15:17 Mr BURKE DYW Watson I move: That leave of absence be granted to every Member of the House of Representatives from the determination of this sitting of the House to the date of its next sitting. Question agreed to. DOCUMENTS 6140 DOCUMENTS Presentation 6140 15:17 Mr BURKE DYW Watson This document is tabled in accordance with the list circulated to honourable members earlier today. Full details of the document will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings. MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE 6140 MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE Infrastructure: Regional Australia 6140 15:17 The SPEAKER 53517 I have received a letter from the honourable member for Gippsland proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The government's failure to invest in infrastructure and support regional Australians. I call upon those honourable members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places. More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places— 15:17 Mr CHESTER IPZ Gippsland As you know, Mr Speaker, I'm an optimistic kind of bloke. I've noticed that these matters of public importance are often quite negative. So today I thought I'd try and start on a more positive note. Given that this MPI is all about infrastructure and delivery, I thought I'd do the right thing by the government. I thought I'd do the right thing by the Albanese government and list their infrastructure achievements, reading them for the benefit of the parliament, so we'd all be better informed. So we searched. We checked the ministerial press releases. We read through social media. I didn't check in the dispatch box, but maybe I should have! But here is the definitive list—zero, zilch, nothing, duck eggs. We couldn't find a single project that the minister—who hasn't stayed here for the MPI—or this government has announced, designed, funded and delivered in the past 15 months. I note that my good mate the member for Cowper is right behind me today. His electorate is famous for the Big Banana at Coffs Harbour. As a child, I visited the Big Banana. I'm worried that the infrastructure minister also visited the Big Banana as a child but took that as some sort of ministerial job description for a future career, because she has become the Big Banana of the Albanese cabinet—build absolutely nothing anywhere near anything. It used to be the infrastructure portfolio; now it has become the banana portfolio—build absolutely nothing anywhere near anything. There are some dangerous places in the world today—hostile areas with particularly inhospitable environments. Among the top 10 of the most dangerous places in the world are: Death Road, Snake Island, the Gates of Hell, the Skeleton Coast and Death Valley—they all sound very dangerous, but I'm quite sad to report this list isn't quite complete. It's out of date. There's another place in Australia today which needs to be added to the list. There is one other place you just don't want to find yourself loitering for too long. You never want to stand between a Labor minister and a ribbon-cutting event on a project they had nothing to do with. Never stand between a Labor minister and a ribbon-cutting event that they had absolutely nothing to do with. You see them lining up for the project openings. Be very careful, colleagues, in your own electorates, if you actually get invited; be very careful if you're there, or you will be killed in the stampede for the photo opportunity! They're claiming credit for projects that were fully funded by the previous government, claiming credit for projects that commenced construction during the term of the previous government, claiming credit for projects fully funded by the coalition. They're not only claiming credit but also boldly posting with gushing praise on their social media accounts. Then they come in here, whinging that the previous government did nothing. If you travel anywhere in regional Australia today and you see a bulldozer, a grader or a crane working on a new infrastructure project, you can be certain of one thing: it wasn't funded by this Labor government. On this side of the chamber, we are proud of our achievements. We had record infrastructure investment which changed and actually saved lives. We built roads, we built railway lines and we built airports. We funded local councils to build community infrastructure. After 12 months, we are waiting for the ministers in the Albanese government to build anything other than their own egos. If you listen to those opposite, it's like a variation on that famous Monty Python sketch: what have the Romans ever done for us? 'What has the coalition done for us?' Well, apart from fully duplicating the Pacific Highway from Sydney to Brisbane, massive upgrades to the Bruce Highway right through Queensland, starting construction on the Western Sydney Airport, light rail and inland rail, an extra lane to the Monash Freeway, the Beef Roads Program, Roads of Strategic Importance, a second road crossing in Toowoomba, increased funding for local and regional roads, introduced the Local Roads and Community Infrastructure Program, which those opposite have now abolished— Mr Wallace 265967 Apart from all of that— Mr CHESTER IPZ Apart from all of that, what has the coalition done for us? Apart from the Monty Python attack lines from this minister, it all falls flat on one critical point: the minister, who can't be bothered coming in here for a matter of public importance on her own portfolio, hasn't built anything. She really is a banana minister—builds absolutely nothing anywhere near anything. Those of us who were here for the Treasurer's speech on budget night might have noticed one thing: he didn't mention the word 'infrastructure' once. He couldn't even bring himself to mention the word 'roads' once. But that hasn't stopped this minister from hitting the ground complaining and reviewing. She hasn't funded a single project of her own, so she's out there taking credit for the work of the previous government. This would be laughable if it wasn't so bad and so sad for regional Australians. The infrastructure and transport portfolio is so important for the future of rural and regional Australia. All this minister has been able to do in 15 months is announce a review into the infrastructure investment pipeline. She has been the minister for 15 months, and on her 90-day review—we're up to 110 days now, I think—we are still waiting for the outcomes of this razor-gang review. This lack of support for regional Australians is reflected very obviously in the programs that have gone missing under this government. The minister is out there opening projects, taking credit, putting out press releases and saying how wonderful the local roads community infrastructure program is—she loved it so much, she abolished it. The Roads of Strategic Importance program—it's gone. The regional airports infrastructure program—that's gone. And the Treasurer stood here this week and admitted the Stronger Communities program is goneski as well. On this side of the House we actually trust regional people to make good decisions. That's why we believed in them to set local priorities and fund local projects. We believed in the future of regional communities and we invested heavily in them. Those opposite have just kept on cutting programs. It's because they don't want to support our regional people. In closing, this lack of support for regional people has never been more obvious than in Victoria today. The most obvious example of that today is the Victorian Labor Party and its illogical, treacherous and bloody minded decision to ban the native hardwood timber industry in that state. What did we hear from those opposite, the once great champions of the working class? What we hear from them when Dan Andrews showed no respect to timber workers and cut the guts out of the industry? What did we hear from those opposite? Not a single word of complaint, not a whisper, not a murmur, not even a raised eyebrow—because that's the new Labor way. Old Labor could be trusted to fight for blue-collar jobs. The only thing that new Labor fights for is Greens preferences. The only thing they're interested in is Greens preferences. Those opposite know how true this is because, every time I've raised this issue in the parliament, they never stand up and take a point of order or raise a single word in defence of Australian timber workers. Those opposite are simply too gutless to stand up to the Victorian Labor Party and say a single critical word, even when they know that this decision was based entirely on political science. It had nothing to do with environmental science, and it is devastating for regional communities not only in my electorate but right across regional Victoria. Their own colleagues are sneaking around the back trying to get motions up at their own federal conference to ban the entire industry across Australia. They're shaking their heads now and saying it's not true. Well, stand up and fight for the blue-collar workers right across regional Australia. Let me give the Labor Party a little tip. If the Greens are cheering your decision, it's probably a very bad decision. If the light greens—sorry, the teals—are cheering you on, think again. The teals are just the Greens with trust funds. It's obscene to watch members from some of the most privileged communities in the nation demanding timber workers right across Australia lose their jobs. The teals and the Greens enjoy all the spoils of a life created from the hard work of regional Australians, but that doesn't stop them from trying to campaign to take their jobs away. This government has had 15 months in office, and all they've done is cut regional grants programs, whinge about the previous government and turn their backs on hardworking families in rural and regional Australia. 15:28 Ms McBAIN 281988 Eden-Monaro There's a lot I can say about this MPI, but I'm going to start with one simple thing: is this a joke? For the last 10 years, those opposite have been traipsing around the country announcing infrastructure projects and not delivering a lot. They had 10 years without a decent change to rural aged care, 10 years without understanding that investment in schools delivers skills, 10 years without dealing with the housing crisis that every regional community is now facing and 10 years to make sure that we had GPs in regional areas. Grant programs deliver things for communities—absolutely—but we need services. We need investments in our people. We need understanding that it is more than a grant program. Those opposite complain about a whole list of things. They say they've delivered projects, but so many of them are undercooked, are underinvested, are poorly thought through, had no delivery partners, weren't done in consultation with state or territory governments and had zero consultation with local councils. We need to make sure that our three levels of government are working together to deliver for our communities. Throwing press releases around doesn't build a road, and you cannot show up for a photo op and not follow through with communities. From day one, this side of the House has been getting on with the job of delivering for regional Australia. An opposition member interjecting— Ms McBAIN 281988 Where? An opposition member: East Gippsland. Ms McBAIN 281988 East Gippsland—I'm really glad you've mentioned this. East Gippsland is where the former deputy prime minister, once or twice removed—I'm unsure—the member for New England, said he was going to fund two projects for important bushfire-affected communities. He wrote a letter to them saying, 'We've fully funded it,' but they failed to put it in the budget. That's absolutely distressing for regional communities. And I feel sorry for the member, because it is really difficult to go to communities and try to explain that your own party shafted you. The Labor Party made sure those two commitments were delivered, because it's important to back communities that have been through natural disaster. Despite all the noise, the reality is that you supported some regions. You didn't support all of regional Australia. You can sit here and say you're here for regional Australia, but you were not. You governed via colour coded spreadsheets, by postcodes. You determined that people who were represented by other parties were not worthy of taxpayer funds. You said that funding the North Sydney pool through a regional development program, a closed-tender program which was meant to provide upgrades to women's changerooms, was the most important thing. I don't know where the National Party was then, standing up for regional Australia saying, 'How about you invest in regional pools in regional areas?' It's absolutely ridiculous. To top it off, we've got 800 projects in an infrastructure pipeline, but not money for 800 projects in the infrastructure pipeline—great economic managers on that side of the House! 'Let's put some projects in a pipeline. Let's do some press releases. I don't want to fund them; that's someone else's job!' And local roads and community infrastructure: I hear a lot about it—it's incredibly important—is a measure that you didn't continue in the budget. Actually, on our side of politics, we added $250 million to it. Do you know what else we did? We said, 'We know how important it is for regional, rural and remote communities to deal with roads upgrades.' So, we said that round 4A was going only to those councils who needed it the most. That is what standing up for regional Australia looks like. That doesn't mean we're going to give it to metro councils and say: 'Go for your life. I know parking fines have topped $90 million in the city of Sydney, but that's okay. Here: take some more taxpayer dollars and deal with your nice-to-have projects.' We delivered for remote communities doing it really tough. We are a government committed to working with our communities, to listening to local government. That's why we brought them back to the National Cabinet table. That's why we redelivered the Australian Council of Local Government—because we want to work with our regional communities, we want to work with all communities across the country. As I said earlier today, there are a couple of key themes across our regions. One of them, no matter where you are, is housing. Among the Far North Queensland Regional Organisation of Councils, 10 councils told me last week that housing is a priority for them, that they can't get more council workers, can't get childcare workers, can't get aged-care workers, can't get teachers or nurses, because they don't have housing. I know those opposite get the same comments in their own communities. But they are failing to understand that they have a role to act. The Housing Australia Future Fund is one way to make sure we can get more dollars into housing supply across the country. Shepparton council backed in what all those councils across Far North Queensland said to me the following day: 'Housing is a critical shortage for us. We need houses for our fruit pickers, for chefs, because unless we get those people we cannot get a productive workforce.' And childcare workers are an absolute essential if we are to get productivity moving in our nation. We know there is no access to child care in some regions across this country. In the Kimberley there's a critical workforce shortage. Earlier today I was speaking to a parent from Kangaroo Island, who said, 'Unless we have houses, unless we deal with that critical shortage, we cannot attract childcare workers to start the facilities to get people back into the workforce.' From Bega Valley to Broome in WA, the same issue is housing, but those opposite have sided with the Greens to block that. The time for talking is over. Your petitions need to stop. Get on with it so that we can deliver housing across the country. The other key theme, regardless of where you are in this country, is connectivity. Digital accessibility is important no matter where you live, but it's even more critical in the bush. The digital divide could not be more stark. Those opposite know that we need more connectivity across this country. You've been through natural disasters—everyone points you to a phone: 'Get on the Fires Near Me app. Check your hazards report.' You know what? If you have a black spot and you don't address it, you cannot deal with it. The NBN was left in a critical mess—an absolute mess. It was going to be $29 billion, then $41 billion, then $49 billion, and then they ended up spending $58 billion on a redundant system—a system that was just outrageous. During lockdowns, I had community members say to me, 'I can no longer have my child learning from home because I've reached my cap on Sky Muster.' Honestly! The champions of regional Australia over there forgot to have unmetered data for people on satellite plans! Let's get serious—you cannot grow a business, you cannot invest in a business, you cannot skill up and learn from home and you cannot keep in contact with family and friends unless you're serious about connectivity. That's why this side of the House has made the biggest commitment to regional communications since the creation of the NBN. As I said, it's a Labor government that delivers those critical infrastructure needs for regional Australia. Our communities said to us, 'Invest in disaster resilience and mitigation,' and that's exactly what we did. We have backed regional communities by making sure that there are critical investments in mitigation and resilience projects that are critical to our communities. We are supporting regional Australia, we'll continue to do so and we're going to do so with clear and transparent regional programs. The Growing Regions Program is a new opportunity to apply for funding for social and economic infrastructure, for councils and not-for-profits, and it is going to be done through an open, competitive grant process. The Precincts and Partnerships Program is going to provide a strategic, nationally-consistent mechanism for funding and coordinating our large-scale projects. It will transform places. It'll benefit communities in our regional cities and regional and rural Australia. Why is that so important? It's important because we respect regional people. They are in every town and village across the country. We want them to know that, if they put in an application, it's going to be treated on its merits, not treated on the postcode that it's in. We want to give people a fair go, and we will back their ideas. Unlike those opposite, we're listening to regional Australia. We will deliver for regional Australia. As I said, it takes a Labor government to put regional people first. 15:38 Mr HOGAN 218019 Page Wow, what a long 10 minutes that was! The amusing thing about this—it's not a funny subject, but it's almost an amusing dichotomy about what they used to speak about—is that, when we were in government, we, as regional MPs, were criticised by those opposite for 'pork-barrelling' our seats, and they're still saying it. Now, I take issue with the term 'pork-barrelling' because I always used to refer to it as 'being a strong advocate' rather than 'pork-barrelling'. But we were criticised for 'pork-barrelling' our seats. What's the definition of 'pork-barrelling'? Basically, it's getting money that other people don't think you deserve and that you're getting for reasons other than you should. That's an insult to every regional MP who was advocating and got stuff for their regional community. But it's changed now. No, we're not pork-barrellers anymore. We don't talk about pork-barrelling anymore. Now they're saying that we were all announcement but no action. So we've gone from delivering too much for our communities as pork-barrellers who were getting stuff delivered to our communities that we should have never got—that's what they were saying in opposition. Now that they're in government, they're saying: 'No, you just put out the press releases. There was no delivery.' That is actually a contradictory statement, but I'll just leave that there. A long time ago—and it hasn't changed—a previous prime minister and a previous leader of the Labor Party basically showed how the Labor Party think. He belled the cat, basically. He said exactly what every Labor MP says. He said that every Nat MP that he spoke to—all they wanted to do was build a road to nowhere. He probably thought that was funny—funny Paul Keating. 'All regional MPs want to do is build roads to nowhere.' They don't go to nowhere. They go to our farms; they go to our homes; they go to our hospitals; and they keep us safe. It's very important. Again, the Labor Party would never understand. We need regional infrastructure. Do you know why we need regional infrastructure? Those opposite don't want to know about this either. It's because the regions are big exporters of four things; they're the four biggest exports in our country. I'll say them. The Prime Minister and the Treasurer will never say this, but I'm going to tell those opposite right now what the four biggest exports in this country are: coal, gas, iron ore and ag—farmers. Where do they all come from? Where does every single dollar from those four things, which are the biggest exports of this country, come from? From the regions. Those opposite think the roads we want to build out there are to nowhere. They roads are to help us and our export industries flourish. They'll never say that. I encourage anyone opposite to name those four things: coal, gas, iron ore and agriculture. They're our four biggest exports, funding our lives. All the things you love to spend money on—as we need to as a government—all come from the revenue from those four things. I'll just throw that out there. The regional infrastructure that we need and deserve is very much about that. Why don't they get it? They have a few token regional seats; they're very token. If you look at a map of regional Australia, it's all blue and green. It's blue for the Liberal Party regional MPs and green for the Nat MPs. That's who the regional representatives in this community are. I want to run through some of the harsh cuts to programs. I won't run through them all, because there are too many. When we talk about cuts to regional Australia, we're talking about cuts to community. One of them they didn't care about is a little one called the Stronger Communities Program. It's a real little program. It's grants of five grand, 10 grand or 15 grand to tennis courts, local sporting clubs and other local community things. These grants were dear to us, as regional MPs, because we're part of our communities. For our communities and our little community groups, that program was really important, and it was gone straightaway. They don't care about that stuff. They don't care about community organisations or things like that. If they did, they would've fought for them. You can nod your head, but you didn't protect it. Besides infrastructure, another thing this government has done to really hurt regional communities is the pharmacy decision. They don't care; they've got big pharmacies, the big guys, but we have small regional and rural pharmacies that will close because of this decision. The other thing is the distribution priority areas for GPs. We have a critical shortage of GPs in our regions. They changed the rules so that foreign-trained and Commonwealth-scholarship GPs can now work in the cities. They don't understand the regions, and that's why they have no seats in the regions. 15:43 Ms CHESTERS 249710 Bendigo Wasn't that a terribly long five minutes that we all had to sit through! There are a couple of things I want to pick up on from the previous speaker's comments. Gold was missing off his list of our biggest exports. As a proud gold mining electorate, I wanted to correct his statement. Gold is our fourth biggest export in this country. It outranks wheat. Gold is a critical export, and it is in my electorate that we mine gold. We are a proud regional electorate, like that of the member sitting next to me, the member for Blair. His is a proud regional electorate. And there are other members here in the chamber, who will also speak, who are from proud regional electorates. They appear on the electoral map as red. Regional electorates are not just blue, green or independent. There are lots of red electorates, Labor electorates, in the regions. We have Newcastle, Gilmore, Paterson and Hunter—all regional electorates. Bendigo, Ballarat and Geelong are regional electorates. We have Eden-Monaro—the list goes on. It is not right of the coalition and those opposite to say that they are the only regional MPs. They are not. Another point that those opposite raised that I want to touch on: the Local Roads and Community Infrastructure Program was put forward by the previous government as a COVID recovery measure. In the first instance, it was for a year. I remember writing to the minister of the day, who's probably going to make a contribution, and saying, 'This should be extended because recovery from COVID will take a few years.' It was funded in the budget papers for four years, and it ended. It ended on their watch, not on our watch. We made an election commitment to an extra year of funding for local roads, and that's what we've done. That is the history of that. Sports rorts: in my regional electorate, a football club in my area, Kyneton District Soccer Club, did quite well, scoring 96 in the ratings. They thought they were sure to get the funding, but they missed out. It was taken away from them and reallocated. Why? Because, as we now know from the sports rorts, they appeared as a red electorate, not a green electorate or a blue electorate. That's why they lost their funding. That is what happened under those opposite. That is why, with us government, these processes are gone. We've introduced a new way of doing grants to make sure it is fair and transparent. A couple of other things in infrastructure: those opposite would like to suggest that building roads, buildings and railways is all that matters when it comes to infrastructure. Yes, it is critical, and we have plans on where we're going to prioritise that building, but we are also investing in health infrastructure and education infrastructure. We're building the NBN properly, going back and fixing up all the mistakes of those opposite. Regional Australia is the biggest winner, with Minister Rowland and what is happening in telecommunications and the NBN. We're uncapping Sky Muster, so all those relying upon satellite can now get all the internet data that they require. We're building more fibre to the curb and fibre to the premises. Regional electorates are the big winners—people who have towers. We're boosting the towers so they can get the download and upload speeds that they need. It's not something metro areas need to worry about; they don't have towers, but in regional electorates, like mine, we have a huge network of towers. It is our government that has lifted the download/upload speed so that people can work from home and businesses can thrive. These are some of the big changes that we're introducing, and that is making a real difference. We're also investing in people. We're making sure that we have the skilled workforce we need in the regions. We are also investing in manufacturing. The National Reconstruction Fund is $15 billion. Manufacturing occurs in the regions. One of the key priority areas is critical minerals. There's not a lot of critical mineral mining that occurs in metro areas. Almost all of that infrastructure funding will come to the regions. There is this weird idea among those in the coalition that it needs to sit in a regional portfolio for it to be regional. Our government approaches it very differently. Every single area prioritises the regions. That's what we're doing. 15:48 Mr McCORMACK 219646 Riverina I thank the member for Bendigo for her contribution and express gratitude to her for pointing out the regional members from the government who represent rural constituents. I say to those Labor regional members: fight for your electorates, fight for your rural communities. You have the member for Rankin as your Treasurer—a Brisbane city based Treasurer. When I was in government, I had the member for Kooyong, but at least I knew that that Melbourne city based Treasurer understood regional Australia, because he'd actually worked in regional Australia. He'd worked on a station. He understood regional Australia. More to the point, he cared about regional Australia. I don't suspect that the member for Rankin quite understands regional Australia like the member for Kooyong, the former Treasurer, did. It's up to the Labor members to go into where the Expenditure Review Committee is meeting; it's up to them, when the budgets are being prepared, to go in there and fight for regional Australia! But, unfortunately, those members—those ALP members from regional areas—are not. Proof positive of all of the regional programs that have been cut is proof positive that they're not fighting for regional Australia. It's up to those members to do just that—to go in there and fight. They need to fight for the Building Better Regions Fund, which has been abolished. They need to fight for the Stronger Communities Program, which has been abolished. They need to fight for the Local Roads and Community Infrastructure program, which has been abolished. They need to fight for more water infrastructure and to fight against the 450 gigalitres that are going to be pushed down the Murray-Darling system and cause such heartache for those irrigation towns and for those communities that rely so much on water. They're going to have that water stripped away. Earlier, I was talking to Brent Finlay. He's a good man. He's from Stanthorpe. He said to me that Stanthorpe is going to be the biggest town in Australia to run out of water in the next 10 years. Now, I fought hard to make sure that there was money on the table—federal grants—to get the Emu Swamp Dam. But, unfortunately, that side of politics doesn't believe in building dams and doesn't believe in water infrastructure. Mr McCORMACK 219646 I hear the member for Lyons interjecting. Well, I built a dam; I built a dam in your state of Tasmania—it's called Scottsdale. Go and look it up! But we need to fund the Emu Swamp Dam, and we need to fund it because it's 12,000-megalitres of water infrastructure that's going to provide water security for Stanthorpe, with a population of 6,000, and it's going to provide for industry and agriculture. It's up to those regional members opposite to fight for industry and to fight for water security—to fight for irrigation and industry. But they're not. As Brent Finlay said, there are ways to do this. There are ways around state governments, but those opposite don't seem to want to do that. All they want to do is abolish programs—abolish regional programs which have been so beneficial. And they know it! In their heart of hearts, those members from country areas know how these are just so advantageous for regional communities. Programs such as— Ms Rishworth HWA You should have done it when you had the chance! Mr McCORMACK 219646 And I hear the minister opposite, who also keeps interjecting. She doesn't understand regional Australia, doesn't understand irrigation and doesn't understand that it's those irrigation communities which are growing the food to feed our nation, and many others beside. They're called 'exports'. We heard the Treasurer in the last budget; for the first time in quarter of a century a Treasurer stood at that dispatch box and didn't even use word 'infrastructure' once! Not once! Shame on him! But we also heard a budget speech last time where he talked about the things that we sell overseas and he couldn't bring himself to mention coal, gas and iron ore—the things we sell overseas. What an insult to those regional people who work in mines and who are proud of the resources sector! And we should be proud of regional Australia. I call on those members opposite who are from the regions to fight harder to protect and preserve regional Australia and infrastructure. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 Before I give the call to the member for McEwen, I'll say that robust debate is welcome in this place but it's getting loud and the interjections are getting a little disorderly. I'm going to remind the member for Nicholls—I didn't want to interrupt the member for Riverina during his speech—that interjections are problematic, but interjections when you're not sitting in your seat are highly disorderly. Let's just dial it down a little and progress to the member for McEwen. 15:54 Mr ROB MITCHELL M3E McEwen The one consistency we have with the National Party is that they're blowhards in opposition. They're all bluster, bluff and carry-on about standing up for the regions. But when it comes to government, what did they do? Nothing—absolutely nothing! They had dodgy spreadsheets that were colour coded and took money out of regional areas all the time for themselves. I'll mention the four words—and I want to get onto this, because this is a ripper—let's look at coal, iron ore and gas, three things where the National Party have screwed farmers over. They don't care what happens on the land; they only care about what's underneath it. The days of the National Party representing farmers are now gone. All they are doing is representing mining interests. They don't care about farmers. We hear them talking about roads and all this sort of stuff, but it's all bluff and blunder. I think the member for Riverina is a good bloke, but standing up to defend the member for Kooyong as your regional Treasurer was as bad as talking about former member for North Sydney Joe Hockey as your Treasurer! But we know you backed him, because you built a pool in North Sydney. That was one of the things you wanted to do. Let's have a talk about what happened in the nine years of neglect under that lot opposite. Victoria got dropped to seven per cent of infrastructure spend. You'd think those Victorian MPs in the National Party would be standing up, but they didn't. They went out and backed that continuation. They made empty promises day after day. Let's talk about opening things that you never did. The member for Riverina would remember the day that his replacement—the bad one, the member for New England—came down and dug the hole for the quarantine centre, something that we funded. I'll tell you how petty the National Party are: they wouldn't let us get in the photo. They wouldn't let us get involved. We funded it and put it there, but they wouldn't let us. Just like the Wallan superclinic. We funded it, but due to the pettiness of the now Deputy Leader of the Opposition they wouldn't do an official opening, because it was a Labor project and that would have screwed up their story about Labor not building superclinics. They are an absolute farce when it comes to integrity. When we're talking about roads, we hear, 'The farmers bring the food in.' They can't get to the Melbourne markets, because of the Hume Highway being such a mess. What happened? In two elections they were promising $50 million for the Hume Highway. It was a zombie project, which we know they had lots of. They hadn't consulted with anyone, they hadn't spoken to funding partners or anything. What did they do? Here's a letter from the now disgraced Alan Tudge, their mate, the car park rort scheme man. They took the money out of the Hume Highway upgrade. They went to two elections promising it and then ripped off regional Victorians for $50 million. They don't stand up and talk about these things, because they know we're right. There's a big reason that we look at things like the Macedon Ranges Health centre. That was another one we built, but, of course, what happened? The now Deputy Leader of the Opposition went out and opened it but never mentioned that it was funded and built under a Labor government. You know what? They're all good on announcements. Everything they do is all fluff and bubble, but there is no substance. The only thing they had substance in was the rort scheme under the previous government. We talk about telecommunications, which is an absolute ripper, with $51 billion spent on a $25 billion program. They took the black-spot funding out of regional areas to go and pork barrel their seats. That's exactly what happened. Areas that were prone to bushfire, major roads and rural areas lost funding so that they could prop up seats for themselves, like that of the member for New England to keep him happy. They took it away from Victorians. No Victorian National MP has ever stood up for Victoria. They're happy to stand on them when they're in government, but they won't stand up for them. Never once will you hear them come out and say, 'We did the wrong thing.' In round 4 of the Mobile Black Spot Program, every single one of the projects promised and ready to be delivered was taken away because they wanted to fund their election commitments. Then they had the hide to talk about us. At least we're funding programs in regional areas, plus we're funding our election commitments. Not like those opposite. They invested in copper and put regional Victorians behind. Regional Australians have done nothing but suffer when the National Party are in government. They like to talk about what they do, but, if you have a look at all the health indexes and education indexes, every single one of them has never improved, because the Nats are all talk and no action. 15:59 Dr WEBSTER 281688 Mallee Those opposite do not support regional Australians. Despite all the hype and the bluster, it appears Labor is focused on investing in infrastructure in their own seats or those that they think they might have a chance of winning. Round 6 of the Mobile Black Spot Program is a testament to that, and I have the Minister for Communications right here having a chat with her. It targeted funding to Labor seats as election commitments. In fact, 74 per cent of the grants went to electorates that vote red or might vote red. This is despite Labor only representing one-third of regional electorates in the nation. In Victoria, the Labor seats of McEwen, Bendigo and Corangamite all benefited from the communications minister's handpicked funding. There was no funding for Mallee, no funding for Nicholls and none for Gippsland—none even for the independently held Indi. Yesterday in question time the member for Bendigo and the member for Ballarat, who is the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government, waxed lyrical over their government delivering for the regions. They talked up the cities of Bendigo and Ballarat—cities in their seats. They forget about more than half the land area of Victoria, which includes cities like Mildura in my electorate, Warrnambool, Shepparton, Wodonga and Traralgon. Regional Victoria and Australia are waiting with bated breath to hear the results of Labor's 90-day infrastructure review razor gang, which is now up to 110. It has been more than 100 days since it was announced, but where is it? Which projects are getting axed? In Mallee, the Swan Hill community are waiting to find out whether the axe will fall on a $60 million project the former coalition government committed to for a bridge across the Murray River. This has been held up by state governments and heritage listings and all kinds of other reasons. It was not under the coalition that it was held up; it's because of other reasons. Yet here we find that project, which has been promised for years to the people of Swan Hill, is in the axing. We are waiting to hear. In the south of my electorate, the people of Wimmera are still waiting for the duplication of the Western Highway between Ararat and Stawell, as well as the Horsham roundabout. All are subject to the minister's razor gang. I have spoken to one of my regional councils this week. Due to a Victorian decision to axe the Regional Infrastructure Fund, his council now cannot access federal Labor government's Growing Regions Program. How does that work? This federal Labor government, like Labor every time they get in, has matched funding of fifty-fifty with state governments. Now that the Victorian government has axed their Regional Infrastructure Fund, it means that communities cannot access any funding. Where does that leave us for the next three years? Absolutely high and dry. It's an absolute disgrace. Growing Regions may fund projects between $500,000 and $15 million, but councils are required to fund the fifty-fifty. The Andrews government has slashed the only possibility for most councils in my electorate to access any funding at all. Councils nationwide, including those in Mallee, can get a 90 per cent Commonwealth contribution only if they have been affected by natural disasters like recent floods. But guess what the caveat is. It can only be projects where the site was rolled over with flood; it is not for replacing roads and footpaths which are desperately needed in the region. One council who came to see me this week said they have a total budget of $12 million for all the people that they care for. They have 5,000 kilometres of road. Please tell me: how is that council going to repair any of that roadway? This leaves regional communities absolutely desperate. It's no wonder our roads are still full of potholes. Under the Labor government, that is going to remain. Do I have to tell my local communities that that is the outcome? It is appalling. In their first budget, this federal Labor government has cut more than $10 billion in regional programs, highlighted by the axing of the highly successful Building Better Regions Fund and the Local Roads and Community Infrastructure funding. I have had councils nearly weep on my shoulder about the cutting of that fund because it was the only way they could build the projects that are so important to their communities. 16:04 Ms SWANSON 264170 Paterson It was so interesting to hear the member for Gippsland lead off on this matter of public importance. He held up a blank sheet of paper and tried to say to Labor, the new government, that that's what we have achieved in infrastructure. Really I think he was actually just holding up a record of the last 10 years, primarily in infrastructure—their absolutely failed attempt. It was also interesting to hear him say that the current minister for infrastructure has achieved nothing. Well, I could actually hold up a number of press releases, but I know how the chair feels about props, so I'm not going to be quite that flamboyant. But there are a number of things we can talk about that, in just 12 months, we have achieved in the infrastructure space. To my mind, one of the most important achievements is that we have been able to fix Infrastructure Australia. The minister for infrastructure has said: 'Hang on a minute: this organisation was supposed to be the peak body that led the priorities for the big infrastructure projects that we needed.' I can remember that not long after I was elected I went along to an Infrastructure Australia announcement under those opposite, when they were in government, and I was aghast. I looked at the document that had been produced, and it was like this endless shopping list of projects for which they had not attributed any budgetary funds whatsoever. I thought, 'How is this ever going to be built?' Then we got to government and the minister spent time and looked over it and said exactly that. She said that what they came up with was lots of glossy brochures—an enormous shopping list of things that needed to be done. We don't have any argument with those opposite: there is a lot of infrastructure to be built in Australia. We're a big country with a small population, and we've got to build more infrastructure. On that I agree. But we've got to get those priorities right, and bodies like Infrastructure Australia should absolutely be doing the big priorities. I commend the minister on that, because it is important that we get back to identifying those big priorities. One of them is so important to me and the people of the Hunter region more broadly and to my seat of Paterson particularly. It is the M1 between Sydney and Brisbane. I and the member for Newcastle, who is sitting in the chair at the moment, share the last choke point between Sydney and Brisbane. But it's not only Sydney and Brisbane. It's trucks, particularly, on the Golden Highway heading outside towards areas not far from the member for Riverina. They're trying to get their wheat across to the Port of Newcastle. There are all manner of products and commodities trying to get from west to east in Australia that must come through Tarro, Beresfield and the Hexham Straight to get to the Port of Newcastle, and it is a colossal choke point. I am so proud to say that the minister for infrastructure came to my seat last week and made the announcement that we would be spending, in total, $2.1 billion to fix the Hexham Strait and also build the 15 kilometres of road between Black Hill and Raymond Terrace for the M1 extension. I've spoken about this in parliament so often. You get to Beresfield if you've come from Sydney and you get to the end of the M1. You sit at a set of traffic lights. You have to turn right, go over a sweeping overpass, and then you usually sit in traffic to go over the railway bridge, which I think is close to 80 or 90 years old. It's a danger, actually. People have been killed on it. Well, we've finally made the decision. The drill holes are being done as we speak. It is starting. Finally, I want to speak about Newcastle Airport. And I will give the former deputy prime minister some props for this. He listened to me when I advocated for that when he was last in government, and I sincerely thank him for that. And our Prime Minister came last week and did the turning of the sod. We are building that project. So, for anyone on that side to say that Labor doesn't represent the regions—it is just a fallacy. We fight for them every day. 16:09 Mr BOYCE 299498 Flynn I'm here in parliament because I believe rural and regional Australia needs strong representation. To many people's surprise, I had a career before I came here. When I left school, I worked throughout Queensland as a ringer and a timber cutter, a plant operator and an earthmoving contractor, amongst many other things. I was an active partner in my family grazing and farming business and in my engineering and earthmoving business. I still am. I'm a qualified boilermaker, and I worked for many years in the gas industry as a high-pressure pipe welder. Most importantly, I'm a husband, I'm a father and I'm a grandfather. I want my children and my grandchildren to have a strong future in rural and regional Australia. I support the matter of public importance, and it is clear that this government is failing to invest in enough infrastructure to support regional Australians. What is Labor's plan to invest in regional infrastructure and support regional Australia? Tax, tax and more tax. We've seen them introduce carbon tax 2.0, truckie tax and fresh food tax. What they really should do is change the name of the Australian Labor Party to the Australian tax party. The reason for this is simple. As former prime minister Margaret Thatcher said: 'The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money.' So then you have to tax everybody. That's what happens. Central Queensland is the economic engine room of Australia, and it has been under attack since the Labor government has come to office. Labor's infrastructure razor gang are taking aim at the road users, leaving communities and local residents with an uncertain future. The $120 billion 10-year infrastructure investment pipeline adopted by the former coalition government included many worthy land transport projects that had been identified in partnership with state and territory governments, local councils, freight industry stakeholders and communities. Yet now all of it's under review. Fifteen roads in the Flynn electorate are included in Minister King's infrastructure review. Labor has also referred ongoing programs to the 90-day review, putting them at risk, including Roads to Recovery, the Black Spot Program, the Bridges Renewal Program, the Heavy Vehicle Safety and Productivity Program and national road network maintenance. Labor has scrapped the Building Better Regions Fund, a regional grants program designed to deliver funding for regional infrastructure projects and community development activities. Projects that have previously received funding through the Building Better Regions Fund in my electorate are: $380,908 towards the construction of a speedway track and facilities at the Gladstone Auto Club; $5.7 million for the upgrade of the water supply infrastructure with a new water treatment plant and raw water reservoir at Biggenden; $108,500 towards the construction of the Gemfields skatepark; $300,000 towards improving disabled and elderly entry upgraded bathroom facilities, increased shaded areas and a water feature at the Wondai memorial pool; almost $4.1 million towards nine one-bedroom residential units at the Ivy Anderson aged-care project in Springsure; $1.4 million to the construction of the Emerald Retro Street kindergarten; $492,000 towards upgrading the Vinnies Gladstone warehouse and family support centre; $360,000 towards weatherproofing a roof to an all-weather facility at Calliope community hub; and almost $1.4 million towards the Gin Gin community hub development. These are just a few. As many in the coalition know, water means life. Water is opportunity and it means production. The Labor government, in their wisdom, have cut more than $7 billion in dams and water infrastructure proposed at the last election, deferring funding of $899 million over four years from the Dungowan dam and pipeline, Emu Swamp dam and pipeline, Hughenden irrigation system and the Wyangala dam wall raising project. Labor's recent budget did not match the coalition's commitment of $25 million towards the supply of water critical for the development of the new industrial precinct 20 kilometres from Emerald at the Yamala Enterprise Area. The funding would support the Yamala Enterprise Area intermodal and industrial precinct to turbocharge Central Queensland's economy, creating more jobs and industries. Cuts to water programs are devastating, and these impact rural and regional Australia. Labor simply does not understand how critical water infrastructure is. 16:14 Mr BRIAN MITCHELL 129164 Lyons Listening to those opposite, you would not believe that they were actually in government for nine long years. The member for Riverina at the table and the member for New England were deputy prime ministers in the former government—two of the highest offices in the land—and acting Prime Minister for some of it. Those are two of the most powerful positions. If you want a measure of how regional Australia went, where is the data, former Deputy Prime Minister, on health outcomes for regional Australians? Where is the data on education, skills, communications and housing? Where is the data on how you improved life for regional Australians over your nine long years in government? You haven't got it, because regional people's lives did not improve over your nine long years in government. That's the big difference between us: the way we approach government. Our government is taking a holistic approach. We want to make lives better for everybody, including regional Australians. We want better health outcomes for everybody, including remote, regional and Indigenous Australians. We want better education outcomes, skills outcomes, communications outcomes and housing outcomes. When you look at the deep vein of policy that we have before this place, that becomes evident: a $15 billion National Reconstruction Fund, a stronger Medicare program, university programs, fee-free TAFE programs and regional communications. The list goes on and on. The member for Gippsland gave a blank piece of paper. That was a sonograph of what's inside his head! Here we have a $15 billion National Reconstruction Fund, $2.2 billion towards regional communications, $2 billion towards a Hydrogen Headstart program, $1.9 billion towards the Powering the Regions Fund, $1 billion over four years for biosecurity, $1 billion over three years for the Growing Regions Program and the Regional Precincts and Partnerships Program, $150 million for the Cairns Marine Precinct Common User Facility, $100 million for common user infrastructure at the port of Newcastle—I'm sure you'd be happy to hear that, Deputy Speaker Claydon—$50 million for a new CQUniversity campus. Then we've got the more general outcomes, such as the $10 billion Housing Australia Future Fund. We know how important it is to get housing supply in the regions for regional employment. Those opposite, including National Party members—including the member at the desk, the member for Riverina—are standing in the way of getting housing supply for regional Australians. If you really cared about regional Australians, you'd back the HAFF and you'd tell your senators to back the HAFF. We have $3.5 billion to triple bulk-billing incentives, helping regional Australians access health care. We have $2.4 billion to extend the full-fibre NBN to 1.5 million premises, including 660,000 premises in the regions. That's after nine years of failure from those opposite to get broadband to the regions. That's the mess you left us with, that $29 billion blowout, after saying you would deliver a cheaper and better NBN. You left regional Australians absolutely in the dark. We have $589 million towards the National Plan to End Violence Against Women and Children. It is women and children in the regions who suffer more from domestic violence than those in the cities. I know you know that, Deputy Speaker. There is the regional first home buyer scheme. There are 10,000 new energy apprenticeships, with five out of six new jobs going to the regions. The list goes on and on. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 It being 4.18 pm the time for this discussion has now concluded. BILLS 6149 BILLS Aboriginal Land Grant (Jervis Bay Territory) Amendment (Strengthening Land and Governance Provisions) Bill 2022 6149

Aboriginal Land Grant (Jervis Bay Territory) Amendment (Strengthening Land and Governance Provisions) Bill 2022

Consideration of Senate Message 6149 16:19 Ms BURNEY 8GH Barton I move: That the amendments be agreed to. Question agreed to. Greenhouse and Energy Minimum Standards Amendment (Administrative Changes) Bill 2023 6150

Greenhouse and Energy Minimum Standards Amendment (Administrative Changes) Bill 2023

First Reading 6150 Health Insurance Amendment (Prescribed Dental Patients and Other Measures) Bill 2023, Australian Organ and Tissue Donation and Transplantation Authority Amendment (Disclosure of Information) Bill 2023 6150

Health Insurance Amendment (Prescribed Dental Patients and Other Measures) Bill 2023

Australian Organ and Tissue Donation and Transplantation Authority Amendment (Disclosure of Information) Bill 2023

Returned from Senate 6150 Higher Education Support Amendment (Response to the Australian Universities Accord Interim Report) Bill 2023 6150

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

Second Reading 6150 16:21 Mr VIOLI 300147 Casey The 50 per cent pass rule was introduced to protect students from accruing massive HECS debts under circumstances where it was highly likely that they would not complete the course. This aimed to safeguard students from racking up significant HECS debts without any university qualification to show for it. By seeking to abolish the coalition's 50 per cent pass rule, the Albanese Labor government is failing to protect students at higher risk of not completing their courses from accumulating those higher HECS debts. It is also very clear that this proposal to abolish the 50 per cent pass rule is policy on the run. The education minister put together a survey with 27 universities, and it showed that 13,000 people were impacted by the policy. However, it's important to understand that we don't know how they were impacted. We don't know whether they went on to do another course, whether they potentially moved to a full-fee-paying course or whether they dropped out altogether. We don't have that detail. Some of those 13,000 students would have been protected by this legislation and by this set-up from continuing to fail unit after unit, only to leave university without a qualification and with a significant HECS debt that they would have to repay. They could have moved to a TAFE course as part of this change to follow something that better suited their ambitions and their capabilities, and that's why it's important that we get more information—to understand how people were impacted, not just who was impacted. That's why I'm glad that this bill is going to a Senate inquiry, to the committee stage, so that they can do a deeper review and understand in more detail the implications of this change to the 50 per cent rule. It is also very important, when we talk about higher education—and I spoke earlier about the impact that higher education has had on me—that we put students first, but we also need to acknowledge the fact that not every student is suited to university and that it's not the correct path for everyone. We need to support students in their choice, whether they pursue their own educational aspirations through university—if that's what they want to do—TAFE, an apprenticeship or a traineeship. We need to support their choice. I've had the great pleasure, like every member in this House, to visit schools. Just last week I was out at Mooroolbark College at their assembly, talking to the captains and the year 12s. They're about six weeks away from starting their VCE exams. I wish good luck to all the students doing VCE and to all students in other states across the country doing their exams. There is that pressure to achieve in year 12 and that expectation that you will need to go to university to 'be a success', but that's not always the case. There are many paths to a successful career and a successful life. We should always remember that when we have these conversations. I spent three years in the tech sector working in a digital start-up, and I can guarantee that a higher education university degree isn't required to work in the tech sector. There are so many opportunities in short courses. In many cases, the technology sector is looking for entrepreneurs to risk it all and learn on the job. In my electorate of Casey, in particular, without trades we wouldn't be able to survive as a society. The roads, the infrastructure we've just been debating—that's all down to tradies. I'm very lucky that over 12,000 local residents in Casey, 15.7 per cent of my constituents, are tradies. I'm reliably informed by Master Builders Australia that it's the highest percentage of any electorate in the country, and I'm very proud of that. It's also close to my heart. My best friend, a man called Glen, who I've known my whole life, is a sparky. We've been friends since kinder. I spent my life with him—through kinder, primary school and high school. I went off to university. He finished year 12 but went and got an apprenticeship as an electrician. It's been wonderful to chart his journey as a tradie, a sparky. He's father to three amazing, wonderful children. He's got a great wife. He's got a great family and a great life. University was never something he wanted to pursue, and he has become very successful, now running his own business as an electrician. I see there are still some young people up in the gallery that I waved to earlier. It's an important message for them to hear as well—that their lives are not defined by the educational outcome of going to university. For those who want to pursue it? Absolutely. We need to be careful, in these conversations, that we are not sending people down a particular the path according to what society says is success. I remember, when I was doing my university degree, talking to a lecturer about the many conversations she'd had with students who were two to three months into their first year at university and were in tears because they didn't want to be there. They were there because of family expectations. They would have been a lot happier working as a tradie, a chef or something else. We need always to balance that in these conversations. For those who want to go, we should make university and higher education an absolute must. But it's getting harder and harder for Australian students. We all know that the cost of living, the day-to-day costs, is crippling everyone. One of the key reasons we need to get inflation under control is its impact on HECS debt. The last HECS increase was 7.1 per cent. This is just another example of why it's so important that we don't let students accrue debts that aren't going to provide them a benefit in the future, because they are required to pay those debts back. As we're seeing, when they're required to pay those debts back in a high-inflation environment they aren't able to. With inflation, the debts keep building. That 7.1 per cent is the highest indexed rate in more than 30 years. That's why it's so important that we get the cost of living under control. It's having significant impacts today, but all those young people with HECS debts now will be paying off those debts for many years to come. We need to give students a choice and to remind them that they can be a success without a university degree, but for those who go to university it's important to make it accessible and to provide wraparound supports for students. Universities should have an obligation, if they accept a student, not to treat it just as an opportunity to make money off that student. They need to provide the services—whether it's counselling or education and career support—the student needs. When I went to university it was very much a sink-or-swim environment. That's not an entirely bad thing, because we all need to survive. I'm a big believer in individual responsibility and personal responsibility. But there's also an organisational responsibility and obligation to support students. I'm concerned that with the removal of the 50 per cent rule there will be less incentive for universities to provide support to people who have come into the university. There's a lot more that we need to do. We need to understand that the issues and challenges we face in education don't just need to be addressed in the higher education sector. We need to continue to look at primary school, secondary school and early education, because if we can set the foundations of educational support for young people then there will be more people who can go to university. There will be more people who can have a successful career and add to the jobs and skills that we need. In Victoria, unfortunately, we have seen the educational impacts of the lockdowns. That is still being felt to this day, and there is more support that we need to provide. As I said at the start of my speech, I'm passionate about education. I've got a deep belief that it is a foundational pillar of who we are as a society. Debate interrupted. ADJOURNMENT 6152 ADJOURNMENT Taxation 6152 16:30 Ms WATSON-BROWN 300127 Ryan One in three corporations in Australia pay no tax. That stat isn't just pulled out of thin air; it comes from the Australian Taxation Office itself. The ATO publishes a corporate tax transparency report each year, and the most recent data from the financial year 2020-21 is, as you would expect, damning: Ampol made $20 billion income with zero tax paid; BP made $17 billion income with zero tax paid; Glencore made $14 billion income with zero tax paid; ExxonMobil made $11 billion income with zero tax paid; Woodside made $6.7 billion income with zero tax paid; Chevron made $9 billion income with $30 tax paid. I'm not sure if paying that $30 in taxes is more or less offensive than paying nothing. These companies avoid taxes by taking part in a process called 'profit shifting'. This technique involves multinational companies moving their profits from Australia, for example, into another country that has a low or no corporate tax rate. Does that seem confusing? Let's just break it down. Let's use the example of Nike. The Paradise Papers scandal confirmed that Nike had engaged in profit shifting. They did this by registering the country of Bermuda as the location of their intellectual property—their designs, logo and so on. This Bermuda Nike subsidiary then charged ridiculously expensive royalties to other Nike groups around the world for the use of the intellectual property. Intellectual property is very often tax deductible, and so Nike subsidiaries around the world could claim these very expensive royalties against the profits they were making in their own country. Does that sound complicated? That's because it is. It's also very expensive for governments. In fact, the OECD estimates that multinational corporations shift $1.38 trillion of profits every year, costing governments around the world a collective US$245 billion in lost tax revenue. This is completely unjustifiable and unsustainable. One sure-fire way to address this issue is to establish public country-by-country reporting. This would force companies to provide a breakdown of which countries their profits are made in, instead of allowing this figure to be posted as a lump sum. This is something the Greens and tax justice advocates have been long calling for. In November last year, the Assistant Treasurer and the Assistant Minister for Competition, Charities and Treasury put out a media release, promising that Labor would require, by 1 July this year, multinationals to publicly disclose revenues, profits and taxes paid in each jurisdiction. The exposure draft of this commitment proposed the first unrestricted and mandated public country-by-country reporting framework. Of course, this was not so widely welcomed by big business—businesses like who else but the globally renowned facilitators of multinational tax avoidance schemes and disrupters of government attempts to crack down on these schemes, our old friends at PricewaterhouseCoopers! They said in their submission: … based on our own observations and discussions with stakeholders, domestically and internationally, there has been significant concern with these measures as currently drafted. In summary, in our view, the design of the proposed legislation may not meet policy objectives of enhancing transparency and trust without an excessively onerous compliance burden. Just like that, country-by-country reporting was removed. When these companies avoid paying their fair share of taxes—or any taxes at all, as is often the case—it's the Australian people who suffer. For every dollar that these giant multinationals shift offshore our communities lose vital funding for essential services such as education, transport, health—the list goes on. So the next time a government tells you, 'We just can't afford that,' just remember that we don't have dental covered by Medicare because our health needs are apparently trumped by the Chevrons of this world only wanting to pay $30 in taxes. Bushfire Preparedness 6153 16:35 Mrs PHILLIPS 147140 Gilmore No-one cannot have been impacted by the 2019-20 bushfires. There were tragic losses of lives, and hundreds of homes were destroyed and/or damaged, along with outbuildings, stock animals and wildlife. Recovery was made all the more difficult by multiple floods, storms, landslips and COVID-19. That journey is continuing. But today I want to focus on our upcoming bushfire season and let people know of just some of the many things that have been done and continue to be done to help prepare for it. The message I heard loud and clear was the need for better power and communications. I began beating the drum for improved power and communications, and I want to thank the Minister for Emergency Management and the Minister for Communications for listening. I give a special shout out to the Durras Progress Association, which advocated for composite power poles from the Princes Highway into their one-road-in, one-road-out community. They also questioned having a stretch of NBN cables above ground that could easily have been put underground. Before the 2022 federal election, I made a commitment to have that fixed. I'm pleased to say that just last week I visited South Durras and saw for myself the NBN cabling fixed and the composite power poles being rolled out by Essential Energy workers from Moruya. During the bushfires, we lost essential and emergency communications when the Mount Wandera transmission station was burnt to the ground. While the Mount Wandera transmission station was rebuilt, again came the calls for composite power poles to help bushfire-proof the power and protect the comms. Again I made a commitment to doing it, and I'm pleased to say the composite power poles will go in next year. Endeavour Energy has worked with the Bawley Point and Kioloa community, with the help of federal funding, to build a microgrid which will provide a more resilient and reliable power supply during emergencies. During the bushfires, there was no dedicated, purpose-built emergency operation centre at Moruya. I was pleased to make a $5 million funding commitment towards a purpose-built emergency operations centre at Moruya, with funding delivered in the budget. Pleasing progress is being made on this by the New South Wales state government and Eurobodalla Council. In the Shoalhaven, with federal funding, 25 community information hubs are now working on the walls of community halls and will provide tailored emergency information, controlled by the incident controller, in times of emergency. The government has also implemented a new Australian fire danger rating system. There is now a dedicated national large air tanker capable of dropping 15,000 litres of water or fire retardant, which will supplement the state's bushfire air fleet. Our Rural Fire Service, at both state and local levels, are doing all they can to complete hazard reductions in time for the upcoming season, even though this has been difficult in such wet times. Our local Indigenous rangers have been out completing Indigenous cultural burnings. There are upgrades to RFS stations and more satellite communications at key emergency centres, and mobile phone towers now have improved battery back-up. There are more cells on wheels to provide emergency communications that can be delivered to communities when needed. In coming weeks, the national Minister for Emergency Management will meet with emergency ministers around the country to make sure we are prepared as much as possible. Today we opened up public consultation on how we can improve disaster response support. Just last week, I opened up another heatwave and bushfire haven at Batemans Bay. I want to thank the Southcoast Health and Sustainability Alliance for their dedication. This is now the sixth heatwave and bushfire haven established in the Eurobodalla. There have been many great disaster preparedness projects that I have championed and helped with federal funding. The EMBER project by disability employment provider Flagstaff in the Shoalhaven is another which is amazing. It provides valuable tools and resources for people with a disability, their carers and emergency workers and volunteers. In the Eurobodalla, I have been very impressed by the work of the Australian Breastfeeding Association, spearheaded by local GP Dr Michelle Hamrosi. It conducted research from the bushfires on how we can better support mothers and parents during disaster. One of the results is evacuation packs specifically designed for breastfeeding mums and formula-fed babies. There's a pack for toddlers too. It is imperative that people have their fire plan ready. Talk with your local RFS about what you can do to be fire ready. We have learnt many lessons from the bushfires. While we can't defy science, we can be better prepared, and that we are. Nuclear Waste Management 6154 16:39 Mr RAMSEY HWS Grey I'm sad to report that I'm in no better mood about the government's decision to cancel the Napandee project in Kimba, to be the host of the National Radioactive Waste Management Facility, than I was in question time. This is an appalling decision that has left the Australian medical nuclear isotope industry with no plan for the future. It is a decision that the government has chosen to take to clear the decks of any altercations with Indigenous groups around Australia before the staging of the Voice referendum. It has slayed the interests of Australia on the altar of the Voice. It is an appalling decision. The government should backtrack on its decision today and appeal the decision. Bear in mind that this exact same case had been before the Federal Court twice before, and the Barngarla Determination Aboriginal Corporation decided to bring it back for a third time. If you shop around long enough, eventually you'll find a judge that agrees with you. In this case, the government chose not to pursue the costs that were awarded against the BDAC on the first two cases, so there's no cost to this corporation to keep challenging it in every court in Australia. There's no end to the process, so eventually they find a chink in the armour. This government has chosen not to stand up to that, just because we're heading for the Voice. If people think that this rollover today is not a precursor to what is likely to happen under the Voice, they are kidding themselves. We've got the Prime Minister telling us that it's only good manners, that it won't have any power and that the government doesn't have to do what it says. Well, the government could have stood up to this decision too, but it chose not to. Where it leaves ANSTO, I don't know, but my understanding is that they were told by ARPANSA in about 2018 that they needed to have a plan in place by 2020 to manage waste beyond 2030. That was three years ago. That plan was called Napandee, and it went out the door this morning. So where does that leave ANSTO? I asked the Prime Minister today to tell me what plan the government now has to deal with this waste. You saw his answer—he ended it off quickly and wouldn't answer the question. It has also led on the Kimba community, who in good faith entered into the pursuit of securing this site for a town that has a declining population. In 1983, we had a population in Kimba of a little over 1,700. We now only have a little over a thousand. We had four grocery shops in 1983, and now we have two. We had five machinery dealerships, and now we have one. The community is still vibrant and capable of attracting people there, but this facility offered 45 permanent jobs and a way to actually secure our future. We worked our guts out for it and have been abandoned by the government. It has also, in my opinion, raised doubts about the integrity of freehold land ownership. The minister specifically denied this in her response, but bear in mind that BDAC were given standing in the court. That means they were allowed to appear in the court and actually make their appeal against the decision. They were given standing in the court on the basis that, if the freehold title had never been issued—I think it was about 70 years ago—and it was just standing scrub today or whatever, they could claim native title, despite the fact that the judgement actually recognises that freehold title totally extinguishes native title. So this is a ridiculous decision within itself. And then they claimed that the minister—after going through an eight-year program to select a site in a community that was suitable, that the farmer was prepared to sell and that the community actually wanted to have—was biased in selecting that site. Then what on earth was the whole program about? What was the minister supposed to do when he got to that point? Should he have said, 'Let's abandon ship and start all over again'? That's what's happened now. The government has abandoned ship and we have to start all over again—and we've got about an eight-year timeline to get this right. Considering that in the last eight years we've barely been able to get a small hole in the ground to drill for soil type, how on earth is the government going to have this facility up and in place by 2032? Homelessness 6154 16:45 Ms PAYNE 144732 Canberra This week is Homelessness Week, a week where homelessness services and community groups educate our broader community and advocate for change. This year, the theme for Homelessness Week is 'It's time to end homelessness', and I couldn't agree more. No one should be homeless in a country like Australia. I want to take a moment to pay tribute to some of the fantastic groups in my electorate of Canberra who go above and beyond to help those in our community experiencing homelessness. As a relatively well-off part of the country with high average incomes, our city is an incredibly difficult place to be poor or on a low income. In fact, the ACT has the highest rate of long-term homelessness of any jurisdiction in the nation. According to the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, homelessness services reported over 3,800 clients across Canberra for the last financial year. Of those, about 50 per cent were families experiencing homelessness. These figures are devastating, and they highlight the need for services like Karinya House, which I recently visited—a service that provides support, accommodation, and other supports for pregnant women, and mothers with newborns and their families. They pointed to the fact that they have many women on their waiting lists, and they can't support all of them. The Early Morning Centre is a wonderful group of people who provide food and a whole range of services and support for the community here in Canberra who are in a tough spot. Other groups such as the YWCA, St John's Care, the Salvation Army, Beryl Women, Samaritan House, MacKillop House and so many others work tirelessly every day to help those going through homelessness in our community. They deserve our deepest gratitude, but they can't do it alone. They need support from government. Our ACT government is investing more in homelessness than ever before. I am incredibly proud that the Albanese Labor government have made housing and homelessness a central part of our priority and objective. Under the leadership of the Minister for Housing and for Homelessness, Julie Collins, we have invested $1.7 billion in the National Housing and Homelessness Agreement, including a boost of $67½ million in direct payments to state and territory homelessness programs. We have invested almost $92 million in addressing youth homelessness through the Reconnect program over three years. On top of that, we have raised rent assistance by 15 per cent, the biggest increase to this payment in 30 years. Last week the Labor government re-introduced our Housing Australia Future Fund Bill. This is a bill that will revolutionise the way we think about housing in this country. It will establish a $10 billion fund that in its first five years would build 30,000 new homes—social and affordable homes—including right here in my electorate of Canberra. Of those homes, 4,000 will be specifically set aside for women and children fleeing domestic and family violence. But it doesn't stop there: this is a fund that will build homes into perpetuity. It will help address the housing needs of this country for decades to come. That's why I cannot understand why anyone in this House that is listening to their community about their housing needs would stand in the way of this critical investment. Every day of delay is cutting money that would be invested into new homes. I say to the opposition and the Greens: it's time to stop blocking and start building. This is an urgent need for Australians, including here in my community of Canberra. This is not the only thing that we are doing, though. We have also invested an extra $2 billion to deliver thousands of new social homes across Australia. We're funding a further 10,000 affordable homes through the National Housing Accord, which will be matched by the states and territories. We're funding $2 billion in financing for community housing providers, for more social and affordable rental housing through the National Housing Finance and Investment Corporation. We're working with states and territories to improve renters' rights and tackle planning reform. We have already helped more than 50,000 Australians into home ownership through the Home Guarantee Scheme. This week the Albanese government announced that we will be developing a National Housing and Homelessness Plan to help more Australians access safe and affordable housing. We're collaborating with state and territory colleagues on this shared vision. But we want to do more. The Housing Australia Future Fund is an incredible opportunity for this parliament to roll up its sleeves and start building houses. It is backed by groups such as Homelessness Australia, the Community Housing Industry Association, Master Builders, National Shelter and the Property Council. As I said, we need to stop blocking and start building. Climate Change: Safeguard Mechanism 6155 16:50 Mr BOYCE 299498 Flynn The safeguard mechanism represents one of the world's most punitive carbon taxes, and it will only see prices soar even further for struggling families. This is a hard cap on economic growth, a hard cap on new industries and a hard cap on jobs. It is de-industrialisation, not decarbonisation, which experts have warned the government about. This will do irreparable damage to the energy market and will penalise consumers. This does nothing to eliminate global emissions. All the government has succeeded in doing is putting a hard cap on future economic growth, because if industries cannot develop in Australia they will look to move overseas. As the carbon tax begins to take its toll, impacted businesses will be forced to pass on their costs to consumers. This will add fuel to the flames of Labor's cost-of-living crisis. This will see the cost of everything, from fuel to food, skyrocket when families can least afford it. Of the 215 largest industrial facilities affected by the safeguard mechanism, 28 are operating in the electorate of Capricornia and 18 in the electorate of Flynn. So approximately 30 per cent of all targeted industries are in Central Queensland This includes the Yarwun refinery of Queensland Alumina Limited in Gladstone. In 2021, Rio Tinto owned Yarwun refinery in Gladstone and reported that they employed 700 people, the majority of whom lived in the local region. About 500 contractors were employed for annual shutdowns and other activities. Yarwun refinery's annual production exceeds three million tonnes of alumina. In 2020, Queensland Alumina Limited paid $983 million in contributions to the economy, including salaries, partnerships, in-kind support, taxes and total national supplies spend. QAL sends alumina to locations such as Tasmania, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, China, New Zealand and Russia, as well as to Queensland manufacturing businesses. However, it was recently announced that Rio Tinto has slashed US$1.2 billion from the value of its Australian alumina assets on the back of the federal government's safeguard mechanism, writing off the value of the Yarwun Alumina Refinery completely due to the need to buy carbon offsets for this asset. Rio has also slashed $227 million for the value share of Queensland Alumina Limited. Since Labor's safeguard mechanism was announced, I have called it an attack on heavy industry and the thousands of workers that work in the sector—and it has proved to be exactly that. While Labor claim to be a friend of the working man and woman, they're happy to shut down these industries that employ them. You simply cannot trust them with your job. What does the Labor government's 43 per cent emissions target mean for Central Queensland? What does their safeguard mechanism mean for us in Central Queensland, and how is it going to affect us? How is it going to affect the manufacturing industries in Gladstone, and what will it mean for all the people who work there and have jobs there? Anyone in business knows that the value write-off of a business asset is the first step to the possible closure of that business. The safeguard mechanism is not the first desperate and dodgy deal that has been done with the Greens to pass legislation. One of the many deals was for the National Reconstruction Fund Corporation Bill, which is going to hurt the Australian manufacturing industry. Every manufacturer I speak to is already struggling with power prices and the dodgy deals done with the Greens to which Labor is beholden to. Labor supported the Greens' amendments, which means that the $15 billion National Reconstruction Fund Corporation will not fund any coal, gas or pipeline infrastructure, or logging of native forests—the same industries where Labor has taken hardworking men and women for granted for far too long. Australian manufacturers rely on cheap energy to make things onshore, but this demonisation of gas, broken promises to bring down power prices and the implementation of the safeguard mechanism will force more Australian manufacturing industries offshore. This means fewer jobs for Australians and fewer jobs for my local community, and we are seeing exactly that. Every time the Labor government comes to power, they make crazy deals with the Greens that are not in the interests of families and businesses of average Australians. It is quite simple: if we have no industries in Gladstone, we will have no jobs there. Housing 6156 16:55 Dr REID 300126 Robertson The Housing Australia Future Fund was a signature policy of the Australian Labor Party going into the 2022 federal election. Australians overwhelmingly supported that policy, and from the conversations that I have, and continue to have, in my home electorate on the New South Wales Central Coast this is one of the many reasons that people voted Labor. They understand that governments need to take urgent action to increase the supply of housing across the nation to address the affordability issue. That is exactly what this policy will do. The $10 billion Housing Australia Future Fund will enable the Australian government to build 30,000 social and affordable houses within the first five years of this policy coming into effect. Importantly, these houses will be for our most vulnerable people and key, essential workers in our communities right across the country: vulnerable people like women over the age of 55—one of the fastest-growing demographics who are becoming homeless—or young Australians escaping family and domestic violence. It will mean more housing for police, more housing for nurses, more housing for teachers—those frontline workers, critical workers that our community requires and needs to function successfully. On the Central Coast this policy cannot come sooner. There are 182 priority-assessed families on the waitlist for housing in my region. That is 182 Australian families without the protection, security and wellbeing that housing provides. More concerning, there is a total of 3,301 households on the housing waitlist in my region. How much longer will my people need to wait until those stalling the Housing Australia Future Fund act? I'm particularly frustrated, continually frustrated, by the hypocritical, self-righteous approach that the Greens political party continue to take on this important policy issue, because it affects people's lives. The Greens political party would rather have no progress at all if it is not on the terms and conditions that they want. What the Greens political party must understand is that Australians are watching and they are judging the Greens' blockade. The longer the Greens political party delay this policy, the worse the issue will become, because every day that this policy is delayed means millions that are not being invested into building more social and affordable housing. That means hundreds of millions of dollars every six months not going into increasing housing supply, all because the Greens political party and the Liberal Party are obstructing this policy from becoming law. Despite the political games the Greens political party are inflicting on the Australian people, the Albanese Labor government has announced a range of housing support measures to immediately assist those in need. From our increases in the Commonwealth Rent Assistance, which will help 4,320 households in my electorate of Robertson, to our government's $2 billion Social Housing Accelerator payment going to our nation's state and territory governments, this immediate fund will be used by the state governments to build desperately needed housing for those on waitlists and to increase housing supply now. Although the Albanese Labor government will invest record amounts of funding towards housing, the Housing Australia Future Fund continues to be blocked by those opposite. I wish to emphasise the urgent need for the Housing Australia Future Fund in my region. There are currently 13,658 people receiving Commonwealth Rent Assistance who are in stress on the Central Coast. There is a construction shortfall of 12,169 houses in my region. This is being exacerbated by the continuing stalemate by those in the Greens political party and those in the Liberal Party. Who would've thought that the virtuous Greens political party would subscribe to the regressive tactics of the Liberal Party and block more social and affordable housing from being built? Here we are. I commend community housing providers like Pacific Link Housing, who house approximately 2,500 people in the 1,200 properties across the Central Coast, Lake Macquarie and the Hunter regions. These social housing providers understand the perilous state of the housing market and are calling for increased funding to build more housing. Here is a policy to do just that, yet it is being blocked. What I say to the Greens political party is: stop playing political games and pass the Housing Australia Future Fund for all Australians. House adjourned at 17:00 NOTICES 6157 NOTICES Presentation 6157

Thursday, 10 August 2023

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Chesters) took the chair at 09:29.

 

CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS 6158 CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS Cost of Living 6158 09:29 Ms SHARKIE 265980 Mayo I was elected in 2016, and in the last seven years I cannot recall a time when so many people in my community have contacted me to describe the hardship they're experiencing, and what started as a trickle has become a flood of stories. I heard a term recently, 'polycrisis'—multiple crises that culminate in leaving people in a state of despair. The centre of this crisis is the cost of living. People are suffering enormous pressure with regard to energy costs, rent or mortgage stress, grocery bills, insurance costs, school fees, council rates, and the list goes on. This week I spoke to an elderly couple in my community. They're going to bed at six o'clock at night because they can't afford to put on the heaters, they're going to bed and putting on their electric blanket and they're trying not to get up until it's at least warm—because their electricity bill for a quarter is over $800. That is just not sustainable. Energy costs are, I think, the nub of this crisis—that, coupled with housing. In my community, all of our shelter and emergency food organisations are really buckling under the pressure. Hungry No More, run out of the Mount Barker Uniting Church, six months ago were feeding around 50 people. Now they're feeding around 70. They have five people sleeping around the church grounds—some in tents, some in their cars and some on couches. The church would normally be able to find alternative accommodation for them, but there isn't any. This is a fault that lies with successive state and federal governments. We're talking about that constant salami-cutting of state government owned housing right across our nation and we're talking about the fact that we haven't had a housing policy. NRAS was aged out, and for a decade we haven't had anything that has increased the stock. It's impossible to understand in our nation. We are an energy powerhouse, and yet the people in our communities are in this terrible situation. We should be the envy of the world, but instead I have, day in, day out, people writing to me and saying they have never contacted a member of parliament about these issues before. We must do better. We must treat this with the urgency that it deserves. We must all work together here, and state governments need to do their share as well. I can't think of another time like this. There is a hopelessness. We need to find the solutions and we all need to work together to do this. So I would urge the government: make this your No. 1 priority, because fielding those calls is just heartbreaking. We must do more, so let's all come together to make this happen. Barley Industry 6158 09:31 Ms LAWRENCE 299150 Hasluck Sometimes I like to have a beer. Beer is made through a process of brewing a starch source, usually a premium Western Australian barley, into a sugary liquid which is then fermented with yeast. Barley is Western Australia's second-largest cereal crop, being 25 per cent of the state's total grain production and producing over a billion dollars in export earnings each year. Thirty per cent of the barley produced is delivered as malting grade, destined for the international beer industry. In Hasluck we know all about quality WA barley and quality WA beer, and we are blessed with many quality brewers. These include funk 2.0, Valley Social, Mash Brewing, Duckstein Brewery, Bailey Brewing in Henley Brook, Baskerville Tavern and Txoko Brewing in Baskerville, the Homestead Brewery at Mandoon Estate in Caversham and the Swan Valley Brewery in Middle Swan. There are many people in parliament who also know too well the sweep of quality produce from Western Australia and, in particular, the Swan Valley, having attended the very successful WA showcase in the Great Hall of the parliament this week. There were excellent manufactured products and excellent primary products. It would be no surprise to me if it is not just Australia that is celebrating the lifting of tariffs on barley and the improving trade relations with China; I'm quite sure that brewers and consumers alike in China are celebrating. The ongoing stabilisation of trade relations with China, our most important trading partner, continues under the constructive, productive stewardship of this government. The announcement of the reinstatement of CBH and Emerald Grain by China yesterday was the result of ongoing discussions on biosecurity issues, which have come to a resolution, and follows last week's confirmation that China would remove the duties on Australian barley. The skilful and steadfast work done by many ministers—notably, Foreign Minister Wong, Trade Minister Farrell and Agriculture Minister Watt—means that barley growers across Australia, including our growers in Western Australia, can once again benefit from the breadth of the Chinese market, which is measurable. Prior to the disrupting imposition of those duties, China was Australia's most valuable export partner for barley, worth around $960 million in 2018-19, which was about 70 per cent of that export market. I've no doubt that Australia has also been well served by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade in those negotiations, and I place on the record here my thanks to our public servants. This is a great outcome for Aussie farmers and will make a real difference across our economy and for beer drinkers around the world. La Trobe Electorate: Officer Football Club 6159 09:34 Mr WOOD E0F La Trobe I'm delighted to speak on behalf of local residents in Officer and thank the Officer Football Club, otherwise known as ROC. I was at the opening of their new facility—actually, not the official opening, but the sponsor's day a few weekends back. It was absolutely fantastic to see the new social rooms. Officer is one of the fastest-growing suburbs in the entire country. In actual fact, the club has 26 junior sides, which is rather incredible. These new social rooms will be used by not only the club but also the local community and the netball club. There are a few people I'd like to thank—the president, Lachlan Balzary; the treasurer, Gavin Hooper; and the entire Officer Football Club—for inviting me to this important event. I'd also like to thank all the sponsors, the lifetime members and those who made this incredible event happen. I was very honoured to commit, back in 2016, $500,000. When we found out it needed another $500,000, I recommitted in 2019—so it ended up being $1 million. The reason it's so important for governments to support local football clubs—and I go to local Gareth Shean. Gareth contacted me pretty much every day between 2016 and 2019 about the struggles of the club, the growth of the club and how they needed support. Now I'll come to two incredible people, Rob and Carol Porter, who I've known for over 20 years. Rob Porter, every single week, pretty much goes out and mows the lawns of the football club. Recently, Rob was in hospital, and we're so glad he's got out. But I can't go without mentioning Rob and thanking him so much for the incredible efforts and support he's given the Officer community for so many years—and the same with Carol Porter. Carol Porter was instrumental in bringing to my attention the need for upgrades to the Officer Netball Club. We previously provided funding to make sure the female players had club rooms and state-of-the-art courts. Even the Officer Memorial Gates, which we opened back in 2015—we actually had to move the gates, the beautiful stone gates down there on the corner of Princes Highway. People like Rob and Carol Porter and Gareth are the backbone of local communities. On behalf of the local community but also all members of parliament—they would agree—I thank them so much for all the great work they've done for so many years for the Officer community. They've both had bad medical conditions recently, and we wish them the best in their future. Fraud 6159 09:37 Mr LAXALE 299174 Bennelong One afternoon, I found myself listening to Ben Fordham's podcast on 2GB and I heard the story of Paul Trefry. Paul was contacted via text message by ANZ. They told him his business account had been compromised and, in order to solve it, he had two options: cancel his credit card or deposit money into a new account. Paul decided to go with the second option. Over a four-day period, $133,000 was transferred into this new account. But, in reality, it was being transferred into an account owned by scammers. ANZ has helped recover some of the money, but there's still just under $70,000 missing. Scammers had spoofed ANZ's SMS service so it looked like messages were coming directly from ANZ. What makes this case so heartbreaking is that ANZ were aware that their SMS service was compromised but didn't let Paul know about it. Online, text message, phone and in-person scams cost Australians a whopping $3.1 billion in 2022. Disturbingly, that was an increase of 80 per cent from the year before, and the average amount lost per scam is a whopping $20,000. In Australia, an average of only two to five per cent of funds lost through scams are refunded. In comparison, in the UK, 66 per cent of funds are refunded. In 2019, a voluntary code was set up in the UK for banks, with a comprehensive set of guidelines aimed at combating fraudulent activities and protecting individuals from falling victim to scams. This code encourages financial institutions to collaborate in order to prevent scams and provide support for those who have been targeted. During the Standing Committee on Economics public hearings with the big four banks recently, I asked each of the big four banks if they would sign a voluntary code like the one in the UK, and each of them advised they would not. The time is right for the government to step in. In July, Assistant Treasurer Stephen Jones told the ABC that this government will lift the bar and ensure that banks are accountable for much more. This is very welcome news. While the government has taken substantial steps to combat scams, including $86.5 million in the budget for anti-scam measures, further reform is needed to protect vulnerable Australians from losing money to scammers. Yesterday it was announced that the Commonwealth Bank made a record $10.2 billion in profit. While Australian banks are making major profit increases, their customers continue to be hugely impacted by scams on a daily basis. In the UK, there is a clear model where banks have taken a greater responsibility and have drastically improved results for victims of scams. The same must happen here. Veterans 6160 09:40 Mr BROADBENT MT4 Monash Firstly, I'd like to identify wholeheartedly with the member for Bennelong's remarks. South Gippsland Legacy Group is marking the centenary of the wider Legacy movement with a commemoration at Coleman Park, Korumburra, on Saturday 10 September. Commencing in the aftermath of World War I, Legacy assists the widows and families of veterans. The beautiful town of Korumburra in my electorate is significant in Legacy's story because its founder, war hero Lieutenant-General Sir Stanley Savige, spent his formative years there attending Korumburra Primary School. Sir Stanley is honoured by the Stan Savige memorial gates at Coleman Park, which is the site of Korumburra's cenotaph. These gates were erected in 1955 by the Rotary Club of Korumburra, with incoming rotary district governor Bill Burch unveiling the commemorative plaque. Bill was also a founding member of South Gippsland Legacy. The 2023 commemoration will begin with a march of veterans from the Lone Pine planted by Legacy in the park in 1981, through the memorial gates, to an adjoining Scout hall. That is symbolic too because the young Stan Savige was a Scout. Marchers will be led by pipers and flag-bearers, one of whom will be South Gippsland Legacy Group president legatee Phil Head. The entrance to the hall will be flanked by two life sized wire figures—one a soldier, the other a nurse. These have been crafted by legatees Tom and Sue Loughridge of Loch, who, between them, have served South Gippsland Legacy for nearly 70 years. A commemorative plaque will be unveiled by long-standing South Gippsland legatee and Vietnam veteran Perry Neil of Korumburra. A talented woodworker, Perry made the lectern to be used on the day for the 1999 golden anniversary of South Gippsland Legacy. Created from blackwood grown on the local farm of a World War I digger, the lectern also features scales from the Lone Pine tree in Gallipoli. Some of the Legacy group's 180 widows drawn from Phillip Island to Foster will be attending the commemoration, as will descendants of Sir Stanley. Widows will be invited to light a candle in memory of their husbands, and pipers will play a lament during this part of the proceedings. Legatees Jane Ross and Kathie Surridge, the daughters of founding members of South Gippsland Legacy Bill Ross and Bluey Reilly, will also honour their legacy with candles. Bill was a legatee for 60 years. Current legatees say they are standing on the shoulders of giants. Indeed they are. Lest we forget. I thank the amazing Jane Ross for pulling this piece together in celebration of Legacy's commemoration. Housing 6160 09:43 Dr LEIGH BU8 Fenner Here in the ACT and across the country, housing affordability has become a major challenge. Under the former government, home ownership rates in Australia fell to a 50-year low. Many Australians are struggling to pay the rent. Since coming to office, our government has focused on improving access to housing and tackling the homelessness challenge. We've invested in the Social Housing Accelerator. We're expanding build-to-rent, including right here in the ACT. Through National Cabinet, states and territories have committed to renters' rights. I commend the hard work of the Housing Minister Julie Collins on achieving these outcomes. We've delivered the biggest increase in the Commonwealth's rental assistance in 30 years. But unfortunately, a no-alition of the Liberals and the Greens is blocking the Housing Australia Future Fund, a major investment in housing supply. For every day that that blockage continues, 16 more houses don't get built. So, by standing in the way of the Housing Australia Future Fund, the Greens are blocking housing supply. But the Greens have an even nuttier idea: a nationwide rent freeze for two years. The problem is that the Greens don't seem to understand that markets have sellers as well as buyers and that we need to think about incentives for landlords as well as for tenants. You don't have to care about the wellbeing of landlords to understand how a two-year rent freeze would hurt tenants. If you think it's hard to find a rental property now, imagine how much harder it would be in an environment in which landlords were fleeing in droves because the rent they earned couldn't keep up with the costs they were paying. If you want a policy that will reduce the supply of rental houses, then a two-year nationwide rent freeze is that. If a price freeze were such a good idea, why wouldn't we deal with the challenge of more expensive cars, bread and tomatoes by similarly freezing their prices? The answer is, as we know from countless examples in other countries, that price freezes create shortages. We need more supply, not less. I call on the Greens to pass the Housing Australia Future Fund and to stop playing undergraduate games. The only reason they're advocating a rent freeze right now is that they know that, as with so many of their policies, this one will never be implemented and they can play their undergraduate games, as they did when they blocked the CPRS in 2009 and as they're doing in speculating about the benefits of no longer asking high-income earners to contribute anything to the cost of their university education. The Greens need to understand the importance of supply and back the Housing Australia Future Fund. Gold Coast: Infrastructure 6161 09:46 Mrs ANDREWS 230886 McPherson I've spoken in this place before about the need to ensure that planning is advanced for the extension of the heavy rail from Varsity Lakes to Coolangatta airport. This is the public transport infrastructure that our community wants and needs. In a recent survey, more than 85 per cent of residents said the heavy rail should be a priority. In 2019 the coalition provided $8 million in funding for a business case for funding fast rail from Brisbane to the Gold Coast and to explore extending the heavy rail from Varsity Lakes to Coolangatta airport. There were two parts to the funding: part A, the business case into Logan and Gold Coast faster rail, was delivered back in 2021, and the funding has been allocated and planning is underway for the addition of extra tracks between Kuraby and Beenleigh; part B, the study into the extension corridor from Varsity Lakes to Coolangatta, seems to have been shelved or put on the backburner by the Queensland state government. The Queensland Department of Transport and Main Roads website states: We are undertaking a review of the preserved Gold Coast heavy rail corridor between Varsity Lakes and Gold Coast Airport. This seems to have been the case for some years. Last August—a full year ago—I wrote to the Queensland state transport minister asking for an update on the progress of this review. His response was a non-answer that TMR 'has preserved a rail corridor between Varsity Lakes and Gold Coast Airport as part of its long-term vision.' I also wrote to the federal minister for infrastructure and transport more than a year ago asking that she request an urgent status report on the study for the extension of heavy rail for which federal funding was provided. Her response didn't even mention heavy rail but focused on planning work for stage 4 of the light rail. I then lodged questions in writing in the House in June about the funding that was allocated and what its progress was. The minister's response, received just last week, was: … the Queensland Department of Transport and Main Roads continues to review and protect the preserved rail corridor consistent with the Queensland Government South East Queensland Regional Transport Plan 2021. No advice was provided on the status of the study that was funded in 2019 or when we will see any step towards planning. The heavy rail extension is the public priority transport infrastructure project for the people of the southern Gold Coast. We deserve some answers on when the state and federal governments will continue the planning for this very much needed project. Refugee and Humanitarian Program 6161 09:49 Mr HILL 86256 Bruce I want to acknowledge the extraordinary effort of three men from south-east Melbourne who walked from Dandenong to Canberra over the last few weeks—yes, they walked. I hosted them in parliament this week. They're Afghan Australians who made this journey to highlight the ongoing trauma post the return of the Taliban and the moral obligation of our country to bring to safety those people who worked with, and risked their lives in Afghanistan for, Australia over many years—the locally engaged employees and their families. Decisions regarding individual visas are made by the Department of Home Affairs, not MPs, and I don't envy them that almost impossible task. The government has employed hundreds of new staff to address the backlog, and last year a record 6,935 permanent humanitarian visas were granted to people from Afghanistan—the largest share by any group in the humanitarian program. The former government made multiple announcements but didn't actually deliver on those announcements and didn't fill the program every year. It was too little too late, and the visa mess that we have inherited is enormous. The hard truth of course is that Australia will never be able to give permanent refugee places to everyone who is eligible, to everyone we would like to. The return of the Taliban means that there are simply too many people. There are more than 170,000 applications for the limited places each year, and that is from Afghanistan alone. The pressures on the refugee program are enormous: split-family cases—and I'm still trying to secure the wives and children for people who were evacuated two years ago; single women with close relatives in Australia; and persecuted minorities, such as Hazaras and others. Even amongst these groups, locally engaged employees and their families must remain a priority. They make a wonderful contribution to Australia and my community. Their children are becoming school captains. They are starting vibrant businesses, employing people and growing wealth. They are pursuing education and working right across the economy. I've been clear that Australia cannot grant visas to people who are physically in Afghanistan. No member of this House could defend to 25 million Australians the granting of permanent visas to our country to people in a terrorist state when you can't do the biometrics. That has never been the purpose of the humanitarian program; the purpose of the program is to protect people who can't return to their country. It's a difficult reality. But the government is implementing the locally engaged employees review by Vivienne Thom, which will see more LEE certifications granted over the next few months, but even amongst this we do need to prioritise locally engaged employees and their families and increase the overall refugee intake over the coming years to honour our obligations to these people. Part of that must be, I believe—and it's not government policy yet—a review of the definition of 'family'. Meikle, Kuba 6162 09:52 Mrs ARCHER 282237 Bass A great joy in being an elected member is the opportunity to meet and engage with members of the Northern Tasmanian community of all ages and backgrounds. Getting out to schools and meeting young Tasmanians is a particular bonus of this job. Over the past year I've been fortunate to meet with a group of year 11 and 12 students from Launceston College who are also members of the Launceston Amnesty International Action Group to discuss a wide range of issues, including the Voice to Parliament. Today I'm proud to highlight the achievements of one of these students—Kuba Meikle. For four years Kuba has taken part in the national speaking competition Rostrum Voice of Youth. This year Kuba took out the national championship in Melbourne, becoming the first Tasmanian student in six years to do so. All competitors in the national competition were presented with a number of broad topics. 'Let the past not rule us' was the inspiration for Kuba's final eight-minute speech. Considering the upcoming referendum, his chosen subject is very topical. In delivering a speech on how the Constitution is an archaic document, he said: Our Constitution, the nation's rulebook, is meant to be a guide, a compass that navigates through the seas of change, but instead it holds us back because it's so hard to amend. He continued to share his thoughts and said: Under our outdated Constitution, Australia has made a system where education is controlled by 18 separate organisations. We've created a system where university is controlled by the Commonwealth, even though exams, from which your entrance is calculated is state based. It means that although it's a national system, students who come from poorer States, like me, still have a tough time competing for admission, but it's still a national system. Kuba's speech continued to further look at the consequences of the Constitution and proposed his own alteration—how it could be changed. Though I don't have time to read the speech in its entirety, I'll happily share his ideas with any parliamentarian in this place. Kuba's passion for politics and international relations also paved the way for him to attend the 2023 United Nations Youth Australia National Conference recently held in Perth. I was pleased to support Kuba's efforts to attend the conference, where he was given the opportunity to meet with 70 other participants from across the country and engage in speaker sessions, workshops, and model UN debates. 'The event has helped me expand my knowledge about globalisation and international relations, given me the opportunity to hear others' viewpoints, and has allowed me to meet some exceptional new friends,' Kuba told me. Kuba has also been selected to run the United Nations Youth Voice Competition in Tasmania later this year, and I have no doubt that he'll do a terrific job. Congratulations, Kuba, on all you have achieved this year. Your future is looking very, very bright. Gilmore Electorate: SAHSSI 30 Walk 6162 09:55 Mrs PHILLIPS 147140 Gilmore In between sitting weeks here in parliament, I made the dash home to the New South Wales South Coast and was able to take part in one of my favourite activities. Bright and early on Saturday morning, the SAHSSI 30 Walk was on. SAHSSI 30 is a fundraising walk to raise awareness and to support women and children escaping domestic violence. Importantly, funds raised go to support the Nowra women's refuge and supported accommodation. I'm pleased to say this is my third SAHSSI 30 Walk. I love the SAHSSI 30 for another reason as well: it is about getting outside, breathing in the South Coast salt air, feeling the sand and hearing the waves. You just can't help but admire the beautiful surrounds of our bush, Jervis Bay and our natural environment. The SAHSSI 30 is a 30-kilometre coastal walk that goes from Huskisson along the glorious beaches of Jervis Bay and into Booderee National Park. We go through Plantation Point, Nelson Beach, Blenheim Beach, Greenfield Beach, Chinamans Beach and Hyams Beach and through HMAS Creswell to Captains Beach and then through Iluka Beach and Iluka reserve to the 15-kay turning point. I always say to people: if you get the chance to do the SAHSSI 30 Walk, always do. It is for a brilliant cause, and the walk is one of the most scenic you will ever find. Thirty kilometres might seem a long way, but when you put one foot in front of another and have the good company of fellow walkers like Deb, the time sure does fly by. But it doesn't matter how far you walk. You can walk a little or a lot. I had many great conversations and met new people as well. It's at this stage that you are reminded of the many people in our community that work day in and day out to support women and children faced with and escaping domestic violence. The South Coast Police District were represented as well. They, of course, do the most vital work and work hand in hand with SAHSSI. The walk goes through HMAS Creswell. Special thanks to HMAS Creswell for allowing this to happen. I'm pleased to report that, once you reach Iluka Beach and then Iluka reserve, there is a delicious morning tea put on by Jervis Bay CWA, which is code for more enjoyment and talking with people. I want to sincerely thank SAHSSI; SAHSSI 30 Walk organiser Jo Warren; and the SAHSSI All Stars. Thanks to Radio 2ST for their support, and, of course, thank you to all walkers and everyone supporting SAHSSI 30. One foot in front of the other, together, we are working to support women and children escaping domestic violence. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 249710 In accordance with standing order 193, the time for members' constituency statements has concluded. BUSINESS 6163 BUSINESS Rearrangement 6163 09:58 Dr ANANDA-RAJAH 290544 Higgins by leave—I move: That order of the day No. 1, government business, be postponed until a later hour this day. Question agreed to. STATEMENTS ON SIGNIFICANT MATTERS 6163 STATEMENTS ON SIGNIFICANT MATTERS Universities: Physical and Sexual Harassment and Violence 6163 09:58 Dr GARLAND 295588 Chisholm Yesterday Minister Clare made a very important statement regarding student safety and sexual assault on university campuses in Australia, announcing that he had appointed Ms Patty Kinnersly, the CEO of Our Watch, to be part of the working group on the prevention of and response to sexual assault and harassment, which formed part of the commitment that our government has made, through the interim report for the Australian Universities Accord process, to ensure that we do more to coordinate a national approach to doing better on the issue of campus safety. This is an issue that affects me both personally and as a member of parliament representing a community with two universities in it. Every time I visit one of the campuses, whether Monash or Deakin, I speak to students—predominantly women—about their concerns for student safety on campus and the need to do more. At the outset here, I really want to commend all the people who have spoken to me and who have spoken to other members of parliament, or who have shared their stories with the expert panel of the accord to advocate for change and to raise awareness of this really terrible issue. Unfortunately, it's not a new issue; it's an issue that has been pervasive and persistent for far too long. I remember my own experiences as an undergraduate student and as a postgraduate student living in a residential college and witnessing the devastation that sexual violence wrought on people's lives. I remember accompanying friends to hospital on many occasions. I remember calling people's parents in the middle of the night to tell them that their daughter had been sexually assaulted. I remember trying to navigate complaint processes; it was seemingly nobody's responsibility that violence had occurred on campus. It wasn't the responsibility of colleges, it wasn't the responsibility of the university and students had nowhere to go beyond the police—and sometimes that's not the place people want to go to raise their complaints. As a researcher and someone who loves archival research, who finds comfort in understanding history to give me a perspective of issues in the world, I remember spending time around 15 years ago in the archives of the State Library of New South Wales. I realised that the issues I was confronted with, the experiences that I had myself and those of my peers around me, were not new things. There were media reports and reports in student newspapers for decades and decades about how unsafe campuses were for women, and nothing had been done. Every few years, it seems, issues were ventilated in the press and nothing happened. Nothing has changed, and we hear of the horrible cultures that exist—the horrible hazing rituals, the harassment, the assaults, the sexism and the entitlement that often enable abuse to happen on campuses. I'm really pleased that at last our government, in partnership with advocacy groups and universities, is doing something about this problem. It has been a long time coming. Earlier, I praised the advocates who shared their stories and raised their voices in this particular accord process. But I also want to reflect on the work that so many have done on campus for generations to try to elevate this issue. It's hard not to think, too, about all the lives that have been disrupted and the futures which had their trajectories changed, often not for the better, because of the violence experienced on campus. I know too many people who disconnected from study, whose lives and relationships were absolutely devastated after they experienced violence on campus. I know that I too struggled through my own academic career due to not always feeling, and not being, safe on campus. I think of those generations of women who could have forged a place in the world different to the one they ended up with because they disconnected from studying. They walked away from really bright careers, and we will never know the potential that was lost because nobody acted to make sure they were safe on campus. I don't want any other generations of women to have to go through that It's a really ambitious thing that we're taking on here. It's ambitious that we take on the National Plan to End Violence against Women and Children and, in doing so, get rid of gendered violence within a generation. But if we don't, too many lives will be destroyed. Enough is enough, and I look forward to the progress that we will make to end violence on campus. 10:04 Ms DANIEL 008CH Goldstein Every woman knows a woman who's been sexually assaulted at university, or she's experienced it herself: the horror, the shame, the isolation and the frustration at the lack of recourse that neither universities nor residential colleges will step up and take responsibility for. The distressing level of sexual assault and harassment at Australian universities has been well established by two comprehensive national student safety surveys. The 2021 survey results show the magnitude of the problem. One in 20 students reported being sexually assaulted since starting university. This equates to 14,300 sexual assaults per year or 275 sexual assaults each week, every week. The numbers are shocking. The lack of action from the university sector is also shocking. When the Change the Course report was released in 2017, it recommended universities be transparent about sexual harm on campus. The 39 universities agreed to the recommendation, but fewer than a third of them are clearly reporting sexual violence. Some aren't reporting results in an easily accessible way, while others aren't reporting them at all. Universities must be held accountable for the sexual violence that occurs on their campuses and in residential colleges. The lack of leadership, duty of care and respect from the sector has been shameful. According to the founder and director of End Rape on Campus Australia, Sharna Bremner, right now student-survivors who have been raped by other students or staff can't even get their universities to make arrangements so they don't have to sit their exams in the same room as their rapist. Renee Carr, from Fair Agenda, says some institutions even fail to ensure known perpetrators of sexual violence aren't hired into positions of access and influence. There are so many stories such as the young international student who was harassed repeatedly by a staff member. He sent unwanted texts that commented on her appearance. The woman raised the issue with her head of department and was told to just block the accused's phone number and not attend seminars or social events. There was the residential college with its annual 'feral women's night', where first-year residents are force-fed alcohol, told to remove their tops and serve drinks to older male residents while being subjected to derogatory comments and chants. This is grossly unacceptable behaviour that's allowed to continue because universities won't act. If a student-survivor knows how to access the university's complaints process and has the time and the strength to file a report of their sexual assault, they often find that the complaints process itself is harmful to their educational progress and their overall wellbeing. The survey results confirmed the inadequacy of current university complaint systems. Fewer than half of current students know about their university's policies on sexual assault and sexual harassment or where to seek support or assistance at their uni. Only 5.6 per cent of students who experienced an incident of sexual assault reported it to the university. Just 29.7 per cent of those students who reported an incident of sexual assault to their university were satisfied with the reporting process. This is why I joined the courageous women from the STOP campaign and End Rape on Campus last week and called for an independent task force to monitor the sector's progress and impose penalties on those institutions that continue to ignore their responsibilities. Fair Agenda says, 'An independent oversight and accountability mechanism such as an expert led task force will deliver oversight that's independent of universities and residences and led by experts in sexual violence prevention and response; accountability when basic standards are not met; transparency around which institutions are providing appropriate and effective responses and prevention initiatives; and avenues for concerns to be raised by students, survivors and other stakeholders. After meeting the student-survivors last week, I raised the issue of sexual violence in universities in a face-to-face meeting with the Minister for Education. To his credit, he immediately met with the STOP campaign that day. The following day, he announced a working group through the Universities Accord process, with an expert on the prevention of and response to sexual assault and harassment. I welcome the appointment of Patty Kinnersly as the expert advisor. Having worked in the violence prevention space for many years with Our Watch, Ms Kinnersly will bring a whole-of-institution approach to stopping gender based violence on campus. Supporting victims-survivors is critical, but it should not be the sole focus. It requires multiple reinforcing actions across all areas of the university—culture, policies and structures—from the vice-chancellor down. Any meaningful change will require genuine and committed leadership from the vice-chancellors. This is the moment for universities to get back on track after cherrypicking recommendations from previous reports. Speaking of reports, a new national survey is a must. One of the recommendations from the Change the course report was that universities should engage an independent body to conduct the survey every three years. This is important because up-to-date data makes for better decision-making and effective action. I still favour an independent task force, but an expert on the working group that reports directly to the minister is a good start. We must get this right. There is too much at stake. Students-survivors tell End Rape on Campus that their rape was bad, but the response from their university was worse. This cannot be allowed to continue. Universities should be a place of joy and learning, not fear and distress. 10:11 Mr STEVENS 176304 Sturt I appreciate the opportunity to make a contribution on this sensitive and delicate topic. It's important that we talk about difficult issues, and this is absolutely one of them. I want to add to the debate a South Australian perspective that I think is important. But, first, I want to endorse the contributions of all others to this debate so far. I want to highlight an awful, terrible chapter in South Australian history, which was the murder of Dr George Duncan in 1972. He had been employed at the University of Adelaide only six weeks earlier. He was a very distinguished law graduate and law lecturer. He was thrown into the River Torrens, adjacent to the Adelaide university campus, in what is suspected to have been be a gay hate crime probably perpetrated by South Australian police. That is an unsolved crime. Regrettably, it happened in an era where the culture in the police force, in particular, was one of cover-ups and protection. Also, shamefully, at that time homosexuality was in the criminal code, so the South Australian police engaged in the victimisation, persecution and intimidation of homosexual South Australians, of whom Dr Duncan was one. It's relevant to this because the crime was committed upon him leaving the University of Adelaide campus. It was part of a culture of seeking to identify homosexual people studying at the university and intimidate them. In Dr Duncan's case, the worst circumstance, he was brutally bashed and thrown into the River Torrens, and he ultimately died. The silver lining was that it led to South Australia becoming the first jurisdiction to decriminalise homosexuality. I pay tribute to Murray Hill, whose son, Robert Hill, served in this parliament, in the Senate. It was Murray Hill, a Liberal member of parliament, that took the opportunity of that awful crime to take the lead on the decriminalisation of homosexuality in South Australia, and we became the first jurisdiction to undertake reform in that area. I make this contribution on the basis that, thankfully, the culture at our universities is dramatically and drastically different from what it was back in the 1970s and earlier. I think those awful chapters in our history are important to reflect on, firstly to give us some comfort that we have made progress, but secondly to re-energise us on the need for continuous reform and to remind us that the job of ending sexual harassment and sexual violence is far from over. We shouldn't be overly depressed that we haven't made progress, but we need to balance that with the reality that a lot more work needs to happen. I think reflecting on people like Dr Duncan and the crime committed against him can be helpful to give us some inspiration on how important it is to keep necessary reform in this space going. I conclude by pointing out that the other really important thing about this topic is that, in the community, there are sometimes stereotypes about where sexual harassment, sexual assault and sexual violence are and aren't occurring. I think sometimes there's a view that universities and university campuses are the more enlightened places in our society—that they have higher standards of behaviour and conduct on this topic and others compared with the average building site or mine, or other elements of our society and our economy, where people might think that bad behaviour on this topic is more prevalent than at others. What the 2021 survey indicates, and what us debating this topic indicates, is that at universities, very regrettably, the experience people are having around sexual harassment and sexual violence is seemingly in line with, if not in some cases worse than, the general experience of that in our society. So universities have got a real burden on them to take this seriously and do a lot more work than they are doing right now. I hope that they see the outcome of some of this data as an appropriate call for them to deepen their action in this area. Addressing sexual assault, sexual harassment, sexual violence and sexual discrimination more generally, particularly gender and sexuality based discrimination, are something that as a society we all have to do together—and no-one can pretend or say that it's not their responsibility—because, unless we're all on a unity ticket about seriously addressing this, we're not going to achieve what we want, which is, of course, the complete eradication of this appalling behaviour. I appreciate the opportunity to contribute on this. I thank the minister for bringing this topic to the parliament. It's important for us to talk about it and think about how we can do more, and I hope that in my time here we continue to see dramatic improvement on this topic. It's very important for us as a parliament to take national leadership on it to achieve the results we want in this regard. Homelessness 6165 10:17 Mrs McINTOSH 281513 Lindsay I rise to speak on the ministerial statement on homelessness, and I thank the shadow minister for homelessness, the honourable member for Deakin, for the informed contribution he made yesterday. The cost-of-living crisis hitting Western Sydney is having astronomical impacts on so many people. Over recent months, there are more tents along Peach Tree Creek in my electorate of Lindsay. This is concerning and demonstrates the homelessness problem facing the nation. In my community, I've spoken with local food banks and charities, who are working overtime to assist those in need, from providing a warm meal to trying to provide them with emergency and safe housing. One local church recently told me there has been a sharp rise in dual-income households accessing their services, when they had not experienced this previously. These are proud Western Sydney mums and dads who don't want to be seeking a handout, but due to the cost-of-living pressures—higher mortgage rates, ever-increasing energy bills, fresh food costing more and inflation being uncontrollable—they have nowhere else to go. A few months ago, I held a housing and homelessness roundtable for local community leaders, community housing providers and charities to discuss solutions to the sudden and rapidly growing crisis of homelessness impacting the Lindsay community. They said more government support is needed to control inflation that is outstripping pay rises. An additional spend of more than $180 billion in the most recent budget certainly isn't helping to tame the inflation that is causing so much distress in my community and in every middle-Australia community across the country. We know adequate and secure housing is the foundation for improving outcomes for health, education and economic furtherment in life. Kids need a home that is happy and warm. Unfortunately, the housing crisis is causing mental health issues for mums and dads, and this is spiralling through the family and impacting kids. I met with Kids Helpline last week, and they have noted a rise in really young children using their service, worried about their parents not being able to pay the mortgage or the rent and potentially becoming homeless. They are hearing these discussions that their parents are having and the distress that their financial issues are causing. This is shocking in a country like Australia. This year's theme for Homelessness Week is It's Time to End Homelessness. The housing crisis is causing immense homelessness issues right now, and we do need solutions now. As someone who, directly prior to being elected to parliament, worked for a community housing provider, and has also worked in government on social impact investment and affordable housing policy, I know there is always more to be done in this space. Over five years ago when I was working in community housing, we were seeing a sharp increase in older women experiencing homelessness because they didn't have the financial support in their older years; they didn't have superannuation. We were raising the alarm back then, and still we are seeing a huge increase in older women experiencing homelessness and not having the housing product that is right for them and affordable for them. The former coalition government was a leader in the policy area of housing, creating the National Housing Finance and Investment Corporation—a key initiative which has helped many Australians into homes. The former government ensured the program supported 15,000 social and affordable homes across Australia. There was also the National Housing Infrastructure Facility, which has seen almost 7,000 more social and affordable dwellings. It was the first time the Commonwealth had invested in housing in this way, as the former housing minister has spoken about. It is good to see. I say 'good' because more needs to be done to see the government take on these two coalition initiatives, which have seen meaningful impacts for Australian families and helped in reducing homelessness. Further, the coalition secured the National Housing and Homelessness Agreement, which targeted specific cohorts of Australians in need of housing, including older women, families impacted by domestic violence, young people who live out of home, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders and those who have experienced long-term homelessness. These policies were all geared to get Australians out of homelessness. But the figures are astounding. Things aren't shifting. I'm informed that there are 122,000 individuals who are facing homelessness on a nightly basis across the nation. Nearly a quarter of those are aged between 21 and 24. This needs direct and immediate action. If we can secure housing for these younger Australians early, we have a chance to turn their lives around and make sure they do not become another statistic of a person facing long-term homelessness. Our older Australians are silent sufferers of homelessness, with around 20,000 over-55s facing homelessness on a nightly basis. We know that around 175,000 households are on social housing waitlists which extend to 10 years and more. In my home state of New South Wales, we are facing a social housing waitlist of 57,500 people. This is made up of 51,000 in the general waitlist, and 6½ thousand on the priority list who need assistance right now. I want to acknowledge the local New South Wales Department of Communities and Justice housing team for their work in looking after so many social housing tenants across the Lindsay electorate. I also acknowledge our community housing providers, who do a lot of work in providing not only housing but also wrap-around support, with the ultimate aim that people don't stay long-term in social housing but can move on to the private market, which seems absolutely impossible for so many people right now. To the people who are on the frontline of homelessness every day: I know you are working so extremely hard to make a difference, but we do need more support, across Lindsay and across Australia, to end homelessness. 10:24 Ms STEGGALL 175696 Warringah I rise to speak in response to the statement on Homelessness Week. Housing, and homelessness, is an area of increasing concern for all electorates, and each experiences the issue differently. It's not just a question of rough sleeping, and it's not always so evident to people in the community. It is couch surfing; it is relying on friends and family, having temporary solutions; it's house-sitting. They all show that there is insecurity of housing, and that can often snowball into so many other issues. The most distressing is when we look at which the demographics are within our community most at risk of facing homelessness. In that respect, women over 55 are the most at-risk group facing homelessness. That's just incredibly concerning when we think that this is a generation of women that has given so much to our society. Obviously, rapidly rising interest rates and housing affordability are issues on everyone's mind, and they always have a knock-on effect. It isn't just the affordability or where the mortgage is, it's what happens when it comes to rental availability and other issues. And, of course, we're also seeing a huge increase in insurance premiums. All of these things create added pressure on a system that's already failing. The independent review into the government's National Housing Finance and Investment Corporation found that the government needed to invest some $290 billion over the next two decades to address the shortfall in housing. The current government has, to date, committed $10 billion to its Housing Future Fund, which of course will be a smaller amount on a yearly basis from an investment point of view. There has been much debate about this but, to date, the government has failed to put other plans on the table or what else it's going to do—it's really hanging everything on that. Of course this isn't a situation just for this government; the previous government failed to address this. The housing crisis and homelessness is a compounding problem that all sides of politics have contributed to by failing to address long-term policy in relation to it. Another group which is often overlooked in these discussions—and we have been focusing on women over 55 being so at risk—is young people, many who cannot stay in their homes for safety or other reasons. There are very few solutions for this. Recently, I attended a youth homelessness convention and I heard the stark evidence about major shortfalls in solutions for young people. The most distressing aspect was that if young people face homelessness in their youth then the percentage who are likely to face it again in life is very high. This shows that we have a whole cohort of young people whose future and prospects are incredibly impacted by the homelessness that they experience when they're young and, often, they experience this because of safety and other aspects. In Warringah, data indicates that there are about 120 people who are homeless. Again, I'm concerned that the data doesn't truly capture the number, when one thinks of couch surfing, house sitting and other temporary solutions that people find. I know that some 84 of those are under the age of 19 and they're at the same risk as that young cohort I mentioned earlier. Thirty-three per cent of the Warringah electorate currently experiences rental stress—that figure is from Homelessness New South Wales—and we know that we have less than one per cent rental availability in the electorate. So the problem is under pressure from all angles. We need all levels of government to coordinate and work collaboratively on this. Historically, there has been a high degree of responsibility-shifting between state and federal governments on homelessness and housing affordability. The recent Homelessness New South Wales paper, Pathways to ending homelessness, recommends simple changes, including: improving access to temporary accommodation by increasing minimum days from two to seven; removing the 28-day annual cap on temporary accommodation; increasing wraparound support and safety within temporary accommodation through consultation with providers, and embedding a culture of safety; and providing pathways out of homelessness for temporary accommodation. I visited Mission Australia a little while ago, and a solution that was also put up was assistance with putting up bonds to get into rental accommodation. Often, when people try to get out of homelessness, or when they've been in a shelter situation, they may be able to meet the rent but aren't in a position to put up the bond required to get into a lease and be accepted in the first place. Again, we need more solutions on the table. All these changes can be made to improve access to temporary or rental accommodation, which is a key part of addressing homelessness. Next, we need evidence based solutions that include economic modelling and which utilise international examples and best practice. We need more social housing and, to achieve this, we need mandatory inclusion zoning. One recommendation is that some 20 per cent of all new housing should be social and affordable housing. Social Ventures Australia and the Grattan Institute are advocating that Commonwealth rent assistance be doubled. These are things that are directly within the purview of the current government to address. We need incentives for long-term rentals to improve security for those unable to afford to buy a home. For example, European nations have far greater security for long-term rentals. There is an acknowledged culture that not everyone will buy a home, but, when you are renting, you can still have that as a long-term home. We also need to reduce barriers to the rental market, and that means greater access to rental bond loans, as mentioned by Mission Australia. We must also crack down on short-term leasing, such as Airbnb, and address the role that short-term rentals play in housing insecurity. Again, that is something that has increased dramatically over recent years, and there needs to be a proportional way of addressing this—as with vacancies. If too many homes are purchased by foreign investors or people living overseas but remain empty—I know that is a situation, often, in many of our major cities—that should be addressed. Other jurisdictions are looking at vacancy levies and things like that so that there is a disincentive to purchase real estate and leave it empty. Currently in Warringah there are some 14,320 unoccupied dwellings, so that is clearly a problem that needs to be addressed. We can't talk about homelessness without acknowledging the local support of so many incredible organisations and volunteers. The support networks on the northern beaches are overwhelmed by the influx of people needing housing assistance. As a result, they're finding it hard to rehouse people in the beaches area, and they're relocating some people to areas where they lose connection with family and community and lose their support systems, which compounds the trauma of becoming homeless. I want to thank community groups in my electorate for all their work and support for those experiencing homelessness, housing stress and cost-of-living stress. In particular, I want to thank Community Northern Beaches, for whom I've written to the Treasurer asking for additional funding because we need to ensure we have these organisations that are able to support our community and those most in need; Community Care Northern Beaches; Northern Beaches Women's Shelter; Bridge Housing, who have done an incredible project in the electorate; Burdekin group; Street Side Medics, who are out there helping to keep healthy those who are in homeless situations; One Meal, who are assisting so many households with meeting their food needs—so many families are doing tough when it comes to food, and we know the data says that too many parents go without because of that stress—Shelter NSW; Mission Australia; Salvation Army; Mosman House; Women's Community Shelters; and Link housing. Of course, there are many others who support those in need of food, shelter and help with coping with the cost-of-living crisis. I'd also like to acknowledge Sarah Nelson, a constituent of mine who has extensive lived experience of homelessness and childhood abuse. I'd like to thank Sarah for her tireless advocacy and efforts in working across all parties and groups to achieve better outcomes for children at risk of homelessness by sharing her story, proposing solutions and building the business case for action. Her passion and determination to fix this issue is inspiring, and I really appreciate her constant contact with my office to put up solutions. A stable house is a source of security and a foundation for building a better future for all aspects of a person's life. For society to function and for everyone in it to contribute productively, we need people to have security of housing. It's essential that we do more to provide affordable housing and social housing to those who need it most. Failing to provide this will cost government and society a whole lot more in the long run, so it is the right thing to do. I urge the government to get more proactive. ADJOURNMENT 6168 ADJOURNMENT Animal Welfare 6168 10:34 Mr WILKIE C2T Clark It's no secret that the greyhound racing industry results in animal suffering and unbearable cruelty, which is I've long campaigned to ban greyhound racing within Australia—and I'm not alone. My office has been constantly contacted by members of the community who share my disgust with this industry and its abhorrent treatment of dogs throughout the country. The recent drone footage of a Tasmanian trainer's property showing inadequate shelter for dogs and dead animal carcasses is especially distressing, but, sadly, it's nothing we haven't seen before or after. Between 2020 and 2022 there were over 30,000 documented injuries and over 600 reported deaths of greyhounds due to track racing, and this is not to mention the unreported deaths, including thousands of puppies every year. Moreover, according to the Coalition for the Protection of Greyhounds, this year in Australia there have been 73 recorded track deaths and 6,591 track injuries. In Tasmania there have been five reported greyhound deaths and 187 injuries. The fact that Australia is only one of seven countries where greyhound racing is still legal is telling, as is the fact that, even among the six other countries allowing racing, the popularity of greyhound racing is diminishing. Indeed, Australia has the largest commercial greyhound racing industry in the world, with approximately 64 tracks as of 2022 compared to 22 tracks in the United Kingdom, 17 tracks in Ireland and fewer than 10 tracks between New Zealand, the United States, Mexico and Vietnam. In fact, in the US, greyhound racing is now illegal in at least 42 states, with only two active greyhound racetracks remaining. The department of agriculture statistics show that 331 greyhounds were exported from Australia between January and June 2023. The lack of an international tracing system makes it impossible to know where the exported dogs ended up, which is even more alarming when we consider that there are so many loopholes that can be exploited to allow greyhounds to end up in countries without adequate animal welfare protections. These include animals being sent through approved countries to blacklisted countries or being incorrectly listed as companion animals. Thankfully, there is a bill currently before the Australian Senate that would ban the export and import of greyhounds for racing, breeding and other commercial purposes. This is a key step towards limiting the cruelty Australian greyhounds face overseas, where they are at high risk of mistreatment and early death, and warrants the support of the parliament. I have made a submission detailing my own support for this bill, though I stand by my long-held belief that the only way to actually ensure the safety of greyhounds is to ban the practice entirely. Frankly, there is simply no conceivable way to conduct races in a way that adequately meets animal welfare standards. It is a blight on our country that, while the ACT banned greyhound racing in April 2018, all other jurisdictions have failed to follow that example, despite the widespread and increasing opposition to greyhound racing. Indeed, a national survey commissioned by GREY2K USA Worldwide and CPG in 2022 found that 57 per cent of Australians believe that greyhound racing should be phased out or banned and 69 per cent oppose government subsidies for greyhound racing. Despite that, my home state's Tasracing is currently funded by the Tasmanian government to the tune of $27 million a year over 20 years, with the funding set to expire in 2029. And far from reducing funding in line with community interests, last year the state government announced a $2.53 million, or eight per cent, increase in funding for the Tasmanian racing industry. Surely this funding of state-sanctioned cruelty would be better spent on health and social housing, among other things, instead of lining the pockets of those breeders, owners and trainers who mistreat their dogs and discard them when they're of no use any more. The greyhound racing industry claims that everyone involved loves their dogs, but hard evidence proves that too many people don't. The industry also claims that rehoming programs work a treat, but again it's all just spin because the industry knowingly kills countless surplus dogs, physically imperfect dogs, dogs that don't run fast enough and dogs that are of no use anymore. Frankly, the only way to end the cruelty is to end the industry. And the sooner that happens the better. It's as simple as that. Cost of Living 6169 10:39 Ms SITOU 298121 Reid We all know that the rising cost of food, petrol, energy and rent is having a real impact on so many across our community. With this knowledge, we need to recognise that we as a government, as a parliament, need to step up and support people where we can, so I'm proud to be part of an Albanese Labor government that is providing targeted cost-of-living relief where we can through things like an increase in JobSeeker, rental assistance, cheaper medicine and making child care more affordable—a measure that will help with our productivity growth. These are all very important steps that are going to help the community. I also think it's important for me, as a local member of parliament, to be supporting my community in a really practical way that supports what the Albanese Labor government is doing. That is why I have organised for two cost-of-living relief help hubs in my local electorate, one on 28 August in Burwood at Saint Paul's Anglican Church and one on 18 September in Lidcombe at Lidcombe Public School. The idea behind the cost-of-living help hub is to bring different agencies together at the federal, state and council levels so that we can provide direct assistance to members in the community who are really struggling so that they know there are rebates, financial relief and vouchers that they can access to help them during this period where things are getting more expensive. I'm really grateful to the organisations who have already agreed to be part of these costs-of-living help hubs: Services Australia, so that people can speak to people from Centrelink and Medicare to get direct practical assistance; Service NSW, so people can find out about the rebates that are open to different households and families; and also the National Debt Helpline. They're going to be able to provide important information about how you manage your debt and the services that are available through financial counselling that people can access. Sydney Water will also be coming, and we're encouraging everyone to bring their energy and water bills so that they can get the assistance they need in order to help pay those bills, because we know that those bills are currently going up. We also have Marrickville Legal Centre and Western Sydney Community Legal Centre to provide legal advice to those who might not be able to afford it. I'm really grateful to a whole range of NGOs in my lecture who are providing real direct assistance through vouchers, financial relief or food hampers. Thank you very much to CASS, Metro Assist, the Smith Family and the Salvation Army for agreeing to come along to the cost-of-living relief help hubs. To complement the work that we are doing by bringing these agencies together at these two events, we've also developed a cost-of-living relief kit. That's a booklet that has all the information about rebates, financial assistance and vouchers that members of the community can access. We want to make sure that, during this period where people are struggling, they know where to go for help. There are some fantastic organisations available, There is some great government assistance that people can access. We want to make sure that people are armed with that information as well as a list of financial counsellors in the local community, because we want to make sure that you don't get yourself in trouble by adding to the debt that you might already be in. Get the financial advice early because that's the best way of ensuring that you're able to manage your finances. I think this is going to be a real complement to what the Albanese Labor government is doing with the targeted cost-of-living measures that we announced in the budget. I think that my role as a local member of parliament is to make sure that my local community has a better understanding of the support that is available to them. Cost of Living 6170 10:44 Mr VIOLI 300147 Casey No doubt the cost-of-living crisis is the biggest challenge that we face as a nation, and there are multiple impacts to this challenge. We all know about the rising interest rates that are putting pressure on people's repayments of their mortgages. Food prices are going up every day. Energy prices are also going up. We're just hearing about another issue that's coming about because of this crisis, and it's something that a lot of people, including constituents in my electorate, have raised, and that's the health challenges that are coming. We're hearing reports of GP visits being put off and delayed because people can't afford to go to the doctor or are concerned about that cost. It is a serious and significant issue. One of the concerns is not just the health impact today for those people but the long-term consequences for them. We need to continue to do more to invest in health and make sure those that can afford it can get it. Finding a doctor and an appointment is also crucial. One of the challenges the Australian people face at the moment is that we've got a government that is big on announcements and there is no delivery. Let's look at just one example of where they'll talk a big game but they won't actually deliver on the ground and make a difference. Urgent care clinics were something that the then opposition ALP talked about a lot and promoted a lot during the campaign, and I've got no doubt that many people supported them when urgent care clinics were talked about because, in theory, they're a very important and great idea. Labor promised that they would have 50 urgent care clinics up and running within their first 12 months—and we're now 15 or 16 months into this new government—including 10 in my home state of Victoria. Disappointingly, there are no clinics in my electorate of Casey. We're 2,500 square kilometres, which is quite a good size. The member for Dawson and the member for Grey, who are here, will tell me that their electorates are significantly larger, but mine is 2,500 square kilometres. We have no emergency departments and no hospitals in Casey, and this government has decided that we don't deserve an urgent care clinic either. When I'm talking to residents, particularly in Healesville and Yarra Glen in the Upper Yarra or in Warburton, where I was a few weeks ago, it is raised as a significant issue, because they've got a drive of almost an hour to get to the closest hospital, and there is not one urgent care clinic for our community to make sure that they can be looked after. It's an issue that's going to continue to be a problem in my electorate. But it's even worse than that. They promised 50 in 12 months. They promised 10 in Victoria. But actually, if they deliver—and they haven't delivered them yet—at best they'll deliver two new clinics into Victoria. This is the spin, and this is what this government does. Eight of those clinics that they're now claiming are going to be opened are literally being rebadged from the state government. They're taking a state government-funded clinic, and they're going to call it a federal urgent care clinic, bring the money from the state budget to the federal budget and claim they've added 10 new facilities. The problem with this is that in the real world, for people that are trying to get a place with a doctor, it doesn't add an extra appointment. It doesn't add any extra doctors. It's literally just moving the cost from the Victorian state government—and let's be honest: given what we've seen with the Commonwealth Games, removing more costs from that state government is probably a good thing, with the way Dan Andrews and Tim Pallas are running that—to the federal budget. So the government, the minister, the Treasurer and the Prime Minister—those opposite—can stand up and talk about how they're delivering these urgent care clinics, but they're not actually delivering for our community. It's just more spin without any tangible actions. We're seeing those reports, as I said, of people struggling to get an appointment. The costs are going up, clearly. People cannot afford to book an appointment, because they're scared of being unable to pay those bills. So there are multiple things this government needs to do. This Treasurer and this Prime Minister aren't focused on the cost of living or the economy. Sixteen months in, the Prime Minister has not received one briefing from Steven Kennedy, the head of Treasury, about the economy. Cost of living and the economy are the biggest issue we face in this country, and this Prime Minister has spent more time at the tennis—at the Australian Open—than he has speaking to the Secretary of Treasury about some solutions to the cost-of-living crisis we have in this country. Veterans 6170 10:49 Mr BURNELL 300129 Spence As the Federation Chamber now prepares to adjourn for the final time for this sitting fortnight, I can't help but reflect on this place as an institution. Our parliament, if it were to be considered an employer, employs a grand total of 19 veterans as members and senators. This is around 8.3 per cent of the total population of parliamentarians. This can be contrasted with the results from the 2021 ABS census, which found a few interesting stats in this space. It measured that 581,100 Australians had served in the Australian Defence Force. That's 2.8 per cent of the population. This number rises slightly when measured as dwellings that contained at least one person who had served in the ADF, or one person who had served previously in the ADF, which amounted to 5.3 per cent of Australia's population. Whilst on face value you could say that parliament's population is overrepresented compared to what was in the most recent census, I feel that we could always welcome more veterans into our ranks. It is an especially important time to be both a veteran and a member of this place, given that the final report of the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide is due to be handed down in less than a year's time. Whether or not you can consider this place to be an employer is up for debate, but not for today, for I'm here to speak on a number of ordinary veteran employers who do extraordinary things, making a meaningful impact in the lives of veterans and their families as they make the adjustment towards civilian life. That transition is quite often fraught with complications. It's different for each veteran going down this road. However, several common denominators are often present. Some employers take proactive steps to engage and hire veterans, taking full note that veterans are a unique, diverse and high-performing cohort within our workforce, waiting to be tapped into. The Department of Veterans' Affairs' Veteran Employment Program provides employers with the option to make a commitment to Australia's veteran population by signing the Veterans' Employment Commitment. By doing so, these employers are making a commitment to veterans that their workplace is one that provides career opportunities to those who have served our nation, one that strives to find ways to translate the long years, in many instances, of intense training that a veteran has undertaken in the ADF to a civilian role that not only adds value to the organisation but also adds a great sense of purpose to the veteran's civilian career. Those businesses can proudly display the fact they signed the commitment for all to see, but they can also be searched for at veteransemployment.gov.au. However, some companies and organisations are model veteran employers because they're also run by veterans, offering a nurturing environment where any newly-hired veteran will be able to take comfort in the fact that their workmates are also their peers—people who have experienced similar emotions and challenges as they're experiencing with the move away from their career in the ADF. Over the winter break, I had the pleasure of meeting Ben from Bluerydge at my electorate office. Bluerydge is a company that fits this sort of workplace to a tee—a company whose ranks comprise 70 per cent ex-ADF personnel and whose CEO, Jim Boekel, is ex-Army himself. Bluerydge provides specialist cybersecurity and technology services to government and to Defence. It's working with the City of Playford in my electorate of Spence to assist them with their digital transformation and assisting the council to bridge the gap with Defence, which has always been important in the northern suburbs of Adelaide—the proud home of RAAF Edinburgh. Late last year, Bluerydge was announced as the Outstanding Employer of the Year 2022 as part of the Prime Minister's National Veterans' Employment Awards. I couldn't be happier to have firms, such as Bluerydge, that are both veteran led and veteran driven engaging with our businesses in Spence. That includes firms such as Aimpoint RPL, an established training organisation that operates within the defence industry space. Mark Robinson, the executive director of Aimpoint, has shown real leadership in promoting the north of Adelaide as a defence industry powerhouse through his involvement with the Edinburgh Industry Alliance. Seeing companies like this grow has an added benefit attached: it's very likely that the lion's share of new employees who get taken on have, like many of their coworkers, successfully transitioned from the ADF to stable and gainful civilian employment. I thank the House. Nuclear Waste Management 6171 10:54 Mr RAMSEY HWS Grey Around an hour ago, the Minister for Resources announced that the government was abandoning the plans to site the National Radioactive Waste Management Facility at Napandee in the Kimba district. I've got to say that this shows that the government is cowardly, if not gutless, and that it is incapable of standing up for Australia's best interests and is sacrificing Australia's best interests at the altar of the Voice. They are determined to clear the decks of any conflict with Indigenous people throughout the whole country, in order to slide their Voice past the Australian people. While they are telling the Australian people, on the one hand, that it won't make much difference—'It's just good manners; government won't have to do what the Voice says'—they have caved in, at the earliest opportunity, at the first challenge of an Indigenous Voice. An Indigenous group that had been to the Federal Court twice before and had their concerns dismissed came back a third time and got lucky—third time lucky—with the judge. It has left ANSTO, which produces over 700,000 doses of nuclear medicine for Australians a year, without a plan to manage low-level waste beyond the end of the decade. In fact, by 2027, they will be out of space for the aluminium containers—I don't know exactly what they are—and, by 2032, they'll be out of space for low-level waste. That was what was intended to go to the Kimba site. We have already spent nearly 50 years trying to find a site and the last eight going through this lengthy process of finding a farmer who was willing to sell part of their property to the Commonwealth government to develop a radioactive waste management facility, and then finding if that land complied with the geological needs of such a facility and then if it sat within a community that actually supported the decision—and 61.8 per cent of people in Kimba voted in favour of this. So in abandoning it after that eight-year process—where people have made decisions about their future, about business investment: whether or not they would exit their business or hang around for that $300 million project to be built within the community—the government has totally failed. They've just walked away and said, 'Oh, it's all too hard.' But the problem is: the minister's statement gave absolutely no indication that she had any idea of what they are going to do instead. My understanding is that ARPANSA laid down the rules to ANSTO and told them that they had to have a plan for management beyond 2030, in place by 2020. Now, I'm trying to get confirmation of that, but, by my reckoning, that means ANSTO is operating outside of their regulations at the moment. So, in my opinion—and I will be seeking confirmation of this—the minister's decision has now put ANSTO in contravention of its operating regulations. We shall wait and see. But they certainly have no plan to deal with future waste, and we've been told that they don't have any more room for sheds and whatever at the Lucas Heights facility. Also, the judge's decision—and I've spoken about this in parliament before—allowed standing for the Barngarla Determination Aboriginal Corporation on the basis that, yes, freehold title does totally distinguish native title rights, but that if that freehold title had never been taken up then they would be able to claim native title rights on it now. That's like saying: 'Well, the chicken wouldn't have come along without the egg without the'—it's a decision beyond my comprehension. I think to allow standing in the first place was an error. As to ruling that the minister was biased in his decision: after an eight-year process that found the property, that found the community and that then went through the process of getting the approval of the community, to say, 'It's biased'—well, what else would it be, for goodness sake! What does the minister do after that eight-year process—walk away and say: 'Oh, well, we'll just decide to start again'? There is an imperative at stake here, and this government have failed at the first opportunity to do so. It is a disaster of their own making. Had they backed the former government when the bills were put to the parliament and actually deemed the site—we figured that, after seven years, we'd been talking about it and had consulted on it for long enough—we wouldn't be having this conversation now. Now ANSTO is left up that proverbial Australian creek without a paddle. The government has no defence. And they are clearing the decks for the Voice. You know—'Don't watch here, little boys and girls. Just move along. Nothing to see here.' What a pathetic response! Health Care 6172 10:59 Ms COKER 263547 Corangamite by leave—You may not be aware that the Liberals and Nationals have teamed up with One Nation and Senator Van to introduce a motion to disallow 60-day prescriptions in the Senate, moving to block cheaper medicines for six million Australians. Those are six million Australians who are currently paying for medicines every 30 days. Under this bill, people on regular prescriptions will only need to pay for prescriptions once every 60 days. Sixty-day prescriptions mean twice the medication for the cost of a single prescription, saving money and time for, as I said, six million Australians with an ongoing health condition and freeing up GP visits. In my electorate at the moment it is challenging for people to get in to see a GP. This will free up GP visits and make medications cheaper for so many people. It makes absolute sense. So why is the coalition standing with One Nation and Senator David Van in an attempt to block this bill? This bill will save people throughout Australia money and give them access to cheaper medicines for 60 days, rather than 30, which also means it is more convenient for citizens of Australia who need regular medications. Blocking access to cheaper medicines will also mean $1.2 billion worth of investment in community pharmacy will need to be withdrawn because it is funded by this saving. The Senate now has a choice: to allow access to cheaper medicines for six million Australians, as medical experts have recommended and every patient and doctor group has supported, or to accept the position of the coalition and the pharmacy lobby and force patients to pay double what they would under the Albanese government's policies. If senators are for cheaper medicines for six million Australians, they should vote accordingly and pass the Albanese government's bill. Question agreed to. Federation Chamber adjourned at 11:02