2023-09-04 2 1 0 House of Reps 0 1

Monday, 4 September 2023

The SPEAKER ( Hon. Milton Dick ) took the chair at 10:00, made an acknowledgement of country and read prayers.

COMMITTEES 1 COMMITTEES Petitions Committee 1 Report 1 10:01 Ms TEMPLEMAN 181810 Macquarie I present the 14th report of the Petitions Committee for the 47th Parliament. The report read as follows— HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES PETITIONS COMMITTEE REPORT No. 14 Ministerial Responses 4 September 2023 MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE Chair Ms Susan Templeman MP Deputy Chair Mr Ross Vasta MP Mr Sam Birrell MP Ms Alison Byrnes MP Ms Lisa Chesters MP Mr Garth Hamilton MP Ms Tracey Roberts MP Ms Meryl Swanson MP Report summarising the ministerial responses being presented. The committee met in private session in the 47th Parliament on 9 August 2023. 1. The following 16 ministerial responses to petitions were received: Ministerial responses received by the Committee on 9 August 2023 From the Treasurer to a petition regarding forbidding state governments from charging taxes on ownership of electric vehicles (EN3601) From the Assistant Minister for Defence regarding the Australian Defence Force Cadets Program being incorporated into the school curriculum (EN4143) From the Speaker to a petition requesting that COVID-19 vaccination be made compulsory for all Members of Parliament (EN4159) From the Minister for Health and Aged Care to a petition requesting the Australian Government increase Medicare rebates for general practitioners (EN4373) From the Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme to a petition requesting the role of Chair of the National Disability Insurance Agency Board be held by a person with a disability (EN4393) From the Minister for Health and Aged Care to a petition requesting an inquiry into affirmation practices for children identifying as transgender (EN4434) From the Attorney-General to a petition regarding negotiations with Noongar Elders concerning compensation (EN4808) From the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations to a petition regarding additional entitlements for certain employees made redundant (EN4839) From the Minister for Health and Aged Care to a petition requesting that lactation consultants be provided with a Medicare provider number (EN4909) From the Attorney-General to a petition regarding a national Human Rights Act in light of the COVID-19 pandemic (EN4914) From the Minister for Health and Aged Care to a petition regarding free access to wellness and mental health practitioners (EN4960) From the Minister for Health and Aged Care to a petition requesting the House of Representatives to make mental health medications illegal (EN5057) From the Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister to a petition regarding the Prime Minister's attendance at the NATO Leaders' Summit (EN5061) From the Minister for Health and Aged Care to a petition regarding the implementation of the expanded newborn screening program (EN5078) From the Minister for Foreign Affairs to a petition regarding the conflict and humanitarian crisis in Sudan (EN5081) From the Minister for Health and Aged Care to a petition requesting the listing of fenfluramine (Fintepla(R)) on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme for Dravet syndrome (EN5090) Ms Susan Templeman MP Chair—Petitions Committee PETITIONS 2 PETITIONS Responses 2 10:01 Ms TEMPLEMAN 181810 Macquarie I present the following 16 ministerial responses to petitions previously presented: Electric Vehicles 2 Schools 2 COVID-19: Vaccine 3 Medicare 3 National Disability Insurance Scheme 3 Gender Dysphoria 4 Native Title: Western Australia 4 Workplace Relations 4 Medicare 5 Human Rights 5 Mental Health 6 Health Care 6 North Atlantic Treaty Organization 7 Health Care: Newborn Bloodspot Screening 7 Sudan 8 Dravet Syndrome 8 PETITIONS 9 PETITIONS Statements 9 10:01 Ms TEMPLEMAN 181810 Macquarie Today I'm presenting ministerial responses to petitions only. Due to the timing of the petitions cycle, there are, right now, no petitions ready for presentation. There are, however, 76 petitions currently open for signature on the parliament's website, and these will be presented to the House in the coming weeks. I'd also like to note that the Petitions Committee's electronic survey on the parliament's website has now closed. The survey was open for the month of August and sought feedback on an important part of the petitions process—the referral of petitions to ministers for written response. In particular, the survey asked respondents whether a petition should have a minimum number of signatures before it's referred to a minister for response and, if so, how many signatures a petition should have before referral. This survey is part of the committee's ongoing work to ensure that the procedures for the processing of petitions continue to meet the needs and expectations of those engaged in the petitions system. This is particularly important given the steady increase in the number of petitions received by the House since the introduction of electronic petitioning in 2016. I'm pleased to report that more than 15,000 people participated in the survey, which is an excellent result. I'd like to take this opportunity to thank all of those who took the time to share their views with us. The committee will carefully consider the results of the survey. I look forward to reporting our deliberations to the House. BILLS 10 BILLS Commonwealth Electoral Amendment (Real Time Disclosure of Political Donations) Bill 2023 10

Commonwealth Electoral Amendment (Real Time Disclosure of Political Donations) Bill 2023

First Reading 10 Second Reading 10 10:04 Ms SHARKIE 265980 Mayo I move: That this bill be now read a second time. I have often raised concerns in this place regarding the weakness of Australia's federal donation laws. Last year, the OECD reported that trust in government in Australia is at an all-time low, which we know makes it harder for governments to implement policy. Under existing regulations, Australians had to wait nine months after they'd voted in the last federal election to be able to 'follow the money' from donors to candidates, due to our lax political donation reporting requirements. This meant, for example, that voters did not learn before the election that the Minister for Communications, with responsibility for online gambling, received cash donations of around $19,000 while she held the shadow portfolio, shortly before the 2022 federal election. Australians are required to vote in elections without having up-to-date information regarding the candidates' backers. This compares with most Australian jurisdictions having introduced real-time political donation reporting within seven days of receipt of large donations. The Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters inquiry into the 2022 federal electioninterim report indicates that most submissions are supportive of a real-time disclosure framework. In its submission, the Australia Institute called for increasing transparency around the funding of parties and candidates, so that Australians can make more informed choices. And the Australian Electoral Commission acknowledged the time lag of up to 18 months. We would all remember when the former member for Wentworth made a very sizeable donation to his political party just before the election in 2016, and because that donation was made, I think, a day or two into the new financial year, none of us were aware of how much that was not until the following February but the February after. That is really lax, and we need to do better. The bill will require candidates and political parties to advise the Electoral Commission within five business days of receipt of any gifts which exceed the disclosure threshold for the financial year. This will also apply to campaigners if any part of the gift or gifts is used for certain electoral purposes by the campaigner. I'm sure you would remember in 2019 I introduced these bills, way back then, and they went to a committee. It was a then government committee, who are now in opposition, and they did not support this. However, I was really pleased that there was a dissenting report. To quote from the dissenting report, it said: It was Labor who, under Bob Hawke, introduced the first donations disclosure scheme in 1983, with a disclosure threshold of $1,000. The Liberals and Nationals, under John Howard, changed the rules in 2006 to hide who was giving them money raising the threshold to $10,000 and linking it to CPI. That indexation has got us now to $16,300. I was really pleased that Labor when in opposition provided a dissenting report, effectively supporting the bills, so let's make this a reality. Let's have a system where we know exactly who's giving what. If gifts totalling more than the disclosure threshold are made by a single person to the same political party, branch or campaigner during a financial year, an annual return must also be provided to the Electoral Commission. While the Special Minister of State when he was in his shadow role supported this, I'm yet to see in this parliament a desire for change. So I would really urge the government: let's have real-time disclosure of political donations. Let's not wait until the following February or, if it's just brand new into the new financial year, even beyond that. We need to improve this because this is about trust in our democracy. I had a lovely intern here a little while ago. Her name is Isha Singhal, and she found in her 2023 Australian National Internships Program—she wrote me a paper, and it is called Global comparison of political finance regulations and recommendations for Australia—that: It is vital that Australia prioritise political finance reform to ensure the continuance of a stable democracy in Australia that is truly representative of the people's needs. While there are many other measures which Australia could adopt, including capping or increasing scrutiny of large donations, increasing public funding and dealing with emerging challenges as well as embracing opportunities arising from advances in digital technology, the bills before the House today provide sound first steps. This is easy. We all now have systems in our offices. If Independent members of parliament can do this, I think anyone can do this, particularly the big machines. I therefore call on all members in this place to support this bill, and I would like to give my remaining time to the member for Indi, who is seconding my bill. The SPEAKER 53517 Is the motion seconded? 10:10 Dr HAINES 282335 Indi I second the motion. I'm pleased to support the Commonwealth Electoral Amendment (Real Time Disclosure of Political Donations) Bill 2023 moved by the member for Mayo. I back her in completely on this. Political, parliamentary and public service integrity is fundamental to the strength of our Australian democracy. The transparency of election campaign financing is key to its vitality and integrity. The loss of political integrity across Australia concerns Australians—just read the letters to the editor—and the data shows it too, with diminishing trust over a period of time. That's fundamentally bad for our democracy. If we don't have trust in our governments and key political organisations, how can we bring Australians along for the bold reforms that are needed into future? The current federal donation disclosure threshold is $15,200. Donations over that threshold are not disclosed until well after an election. Voters should have the opportunity to understand, before they vote, who is funding campaigns. Greater transparency of political donations will contribute to reducing the influence of private interests on politics and improving public trust. If the disclosure threshold were reduced to $1,000 and reported in real time, it would be much more difficult to conceal the identities of political donors. The federal donation disclosure system allows millions of dollars in political donations to go undisclosed, due to the large number of donations just under the current high threshold. Transparency measures also must be in place to close current loopholes for avoiding disclosure. There are a range of measures that are undertaken to avoid disclosure, things like large amounts of undisclosed money put forward into large party coffers as a result of the practice of hosting high priced ticketed events; charging, for example, $15,000 for a dinner with the Prime Minister; and claiming that that charge is fair market value. That's a pretty good dinner, I would say, and it certainly comes under what I would consider a political donation. Across Australia, we see the political campaign finance laws diverge between jurisdictions. The parliaments of New South Wales, Victoria and Queensland have set a disclosure threshold on political donations at $1,000. New South Wales, Victoria, Queensland and South Australia require near real time disclosure of donations, yet the Commonwealth requires disclosure just once a year and then many months after the reporting period has ended. In addition to that, the NSW Electoral Commission actively pursues breaches, yet the Australian Electoral Commission rarely employs its coercive powers, as the Senate finance and public administration committee heard way back in 2017. The crossbench has been calling for reform for years—multiple bills introduced. I thank the member for Mayo for continuing this strong push. Only a few weeks ago, the member for Curtin introduced a strong bill, laying out considerable, sensible reforms for our federal electoral laws that would go a long way to restoring public trust and levelling the playing field. Right now, the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters is considering reforms. I urge the government to do what is right: lower the disclosure limit to $1,000; make the disclosure real time; and get the dark money out of politics. It's not that hard. I've been doing it for a long time. Again, as the member for Mayo would say, if an Independent member of parliament can do this, then surely everyone can do this. I thank the member for her bill, and I'm proud to second it today. The 53517 The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. Commonwealth Electoral Amendment (Lowering the Donation Disclosure Threshold) Bill 2023 12

Commonwealth Electoral Amendment (Lowering the Donation Disclosure Threshold) Bill 2023

First Reading 12 Second Reading 12 10:14 Ms SHARKIE 265980 Mayo I move: That this bill be now read a second time. This bill, the Commonwealth Electoral Amendment (Lowering the Donation Disclosure Threshold) Bill 2023, goes hand in hand with the Commonwealth Electoral Amendment (Real Time Disclosure of Political Donations) Bill 2023, which I just introduced. We need to have real-time disclosure of political donations and we need to lower the donation disclosure threshold. Australia has some of the most lax political donation laws in the world. That is true. We rank only 106th out of 180 countries on the Regulation of Political Finance Indicator. Among 13 nations with similar socioeconomic circumstances, including New Zealand, several European nations, the United States and Canada, we manage only eighth. That's pretty appalling. This is largely due to having fewer restrictions on who can donate and spending limits, weaker regulation requirements and less access to public funding than other comparable nations. The interim report of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters inquiry into the 2022 federal election identified that former MP Clive Palmer's mining company donated $117 million to his United Australia Party for the 2022 election campaign, while Pratt Holdings shared around $3.7 million across the two major parties. The Grattan Institute noted in its submission that union donations made up more than half of all Labor's declared donations, and that some wealthy individuals and corporations channelled donations through fundraising entities associated with the Liberal or National parties. Australia also saw a rise in donations from significant third parties to Independents like myself. The Parliamentary Library found that the existing political finance laws were challenged in effectively capturing the political finance activities of Independent candidates at the 2022 election and noted that complexity rendered it difficult for some Independent candidates to comply. Further, the Centre for Public Integrity, in its submission to the joint standing committee stated: With Australian political parties declaring $1.38 billion in income of unexplained origin between 1998/99- 2020/21 … the Commonwealth's high disclosure threshold is creating a transparency void. For the 2020/21 financial year alone, 38.6% of parties' income—or $68,265,479—was of unexplained origin. That is a huge amount of money to be swimming around the system when nobody knows where it comes from. They noted that this is significantly out of step with states' and territories' thresholds for disclosure of such donations. During the last parliament, myself and the now Special Minister of State, in his shadow role, and other members introduced proposals to lower the reporting threshold for political donations. But we haven't seen anything yet in this parliament. So I would urge the government: when you were in opposition, you supported this, so please be the champion now and bring this into our parliament. This bill also provides that donations include gifts. The definition of 'gift' is broadened to include electoral expenditure and gifts-in-kind to a political entity, where the value of the gift is equal to or more than $1,000 and provided without consideration or with inadequate consideration. The bill also expands the definition to include amounts paid to attend fundraisers or functions. As the member for Indi just said in a speech related to the previous bill, it is absurd that we can have a system where somebody can pay for the exclusivity of being in the company of ministers, to the tune of thousands of dollars—$20,000—just to sit at the table, and that that is not disclosed. We don't know. We need to change this system. If we want people to trust us, they need to see that big money is out of this place. This bill does not limit the amount that may be donated, nor prevent certain organisations from making donations. I would like to see in future bills that we actually limit the amount that people can donate. They have that in Canada. They have a maximum amount that an individual can donate, and corporations can't donate. I think that that's entirely sensible. What that means is that we need to properly fund candidates and systems much better than we do in Australia. We need to get the big money influence out of politics. I first introduced this bill back in 2019 after the Museum of Australian Democracy launched Democracy 2025 with a report entitled Trust and democracy in Australia: democratic decline and renewal. This report found that without action to address eroding trust in key institutions fewer than 10 per cent of Australians would trust their politicians and political institutions by 2025. Well, we're a year out from that, and I believe we need to stem this growing electoral arms race and lack of transparency. I believe that it threatens trust in us all—as individuals and collectively—and ultimately in democracy, so I call on all members to support this bill. I'd like to provide my remaining time to the member for Fowler, who is seconding this bill, but I might just again read from that dissenting report from the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters that was tabled in 2020. In the dissenting report, Labor said: … it is Labor's strong belief that donations reform and transparency in disclosure are the vital next steps in preventing undue influence and restoring faith in our democracy. Thank you, and I would like to provide the rest of my time to the member for Fowler, who is seconding the bill. The SPEAKER 53517 Is the motion seconded? 10:21 Ms LE 295676 Fowler I second the motion. The Commonwealth Electoral Amendment (Lowering the Donation Disclosure Threshold) Bill 2023 relates to the issues of integrity and transparency. The member for Mayo's bills propose real-time and lower-threshold reporting and the disclosure of political donations to eliminate any grey areas or uncertainty and to ensure there is a record of every donation and gift made to every politician and political party in the country. I note that a similar call was made to ban foreign donations and introduce real-time donation disclosure in 2018 in which the Senate passed a bill to ban foreign donations of more than $100. However, both Labor and the Liberals did not support the real-time donation disclosure or caps on anonymous donations. We know that political donations come from a range of companies—from fossil fuel, gambling and alcohol companies to unions—and often the amount increases just prior to an election. According to the AEC's 2021-22 financial disclosure, more than 75 per cent of political donations to the major parties came from just 10 individuals. Is it just me, or does anyone else find it unbelievable that over 75 per cent of the money for the last election came from just 10 individuals? How much do these companies and individuals influence our government's policies and decision-making processes at the end of the day? When I ran as an Independent candidate for the federal seat of Fowler in 2022, I had no-one to call on to donate to my campaign, but I used my own funds—my personal funds—which we borrowed against our mortgage. We put our money where our mouth was. In addition, the community also donated, from an elderly pensioner for the amount of $100 to people who were giving me $25. I think the cut-price cost of my campaign has been well documented. Not all political donations are underhanded—in fact, most are critical for a successful campaign—but we must identify where and who the money came from and make this clear to the public. If we want to engage our communities in the political system, then we must enable transparency. Political donations have a place in our political process, but only if there is a framework in which they can exist and operate, instead of the perception that the more you donate, the more access you have to the people in the high offices. Again, I want to emphasise that I am not against political donations. But it is important that we have rules in place that prevent political donations from manipulating politicians or political parties in favour of the views, opinions and beliefs of some of the big donors. A 2018 Grattan Institute report Who's in the room? Access and influence in Australian politics said that powerful groups have effectively 'triumphed over the public interest', and that's not in the best interest of hardworking Australians. It's all up to us here in the House to ensure the future of our democracy is not tainted by industry or corporate heavyweights throwing money around in exchange for public policy that favours their cause. Essentially the significant amendments aim to restore balance, transparency and integrity by mandating guidelines for the reporting of political gifts and donations to the Australian Electoral Commission. The Australian public deserve honesty, and the member for Mayo's amendments call on the government to focus on building trust and to restore integrity and transparency in our political donations process. Therefore, I commend the bill to the House. The SPEAKER 53517 The time allocated for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned, and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS 13 PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS Housing 13 10:25 Ms SPENDER 286042 Wentworth I move: That this House: (1) acknowledges that Australia is facing a housing crisis, with rents and house prices surging, home ownership falling, and more than 640,000 households either homeless or under housing stress; (2) notes that: (a) this crisis is severely affecting young people, those on lower incomes and renters, with advertised rents rising over ten per cent across capital cities and many regions; and (b) the crisis is the result of decades of failed government policy, which has left Australia with one of the lowest number of homes per person in the OECD; (3) further acknowledges that: (a) the Government has taken some positive steps but its commitment to building one million new homes by 2030 is insufficient relative to the scale of the crisis; and (b) without substantial further action, the Australian dream will soon become a nightmare and a generation of young people will forever be locked out of home ownership; and (4) calls on the Government to: (a) significantly raise its ambition on increasing housing supply; (b) work with state governments and local councils to accelerate actions that increase housing and land availability, which will lead to increased home ownership and improved housing affordability; and (c) provide urgent support to help young people and renters deal with the cost of living pressures created by this crisis. Australia is facing a housing crisis. We have 640,000 households who are homeless or under housing stress. Rents are rising at over 10 per cent, and we have some of the lowest amounts of housing per person in the OECD. This housing crisis is particularly affecting young Australians, who are facing being locked out of housing forever. The dire situation they face was best summed up by a young man who came to visit my office recently. He told me that he'd studied hard, got a good degree and got a great job in health care, but, despite doing everything right, he's been left with $50,000 worth of HECS debt and sees no prospect of having housing security or ever buying a home. His story isn't unique. Decades of policy failure from the major parties have created intergenerational tragedy, where young people are getting smashed by rent increases and are locked out of homeownership. In Wentworth, 45 per cent of properties are rentals, and housing is one of the most pressing issues facing our community right now. In recent months I've spoken with nearly 200 residents as part of a series of housing forums and got the view of 500 locals as part of a housing survey. Their feedback was clear. Key workers can't afford to work in the area or close to where they work. There's not enough social housing, and some of what is available is poorly maintained. Most of all, young people cannot afford to buy in the area unless they're lucky enough to be supported by their parents. We need to move to a situation where younger generations can afford to buy and rent without parental support, where we have normalised long-term renting and where there is a mix of housing options available. But we won't get there without urgent action. To the government's credit, they have taken some positive steps. For months I've been calling on the Labor government to get guarantees from the states that they will deliver on the increased housing targets before being given extra federal funding. I'm pleased that the National Cabinet has taken up this idea and that money from the new home bonus will be performance based. It's also positive to see more provided through the social housing accelerator and a commitment to strengthening renters' rights. But this plan, even if successfully delivered, will only deliver 1.2 million new homes over the next five years, and it isn't clear that it will be able to be delivered. It won't provide relief to renters in the short term. So we need to go further. We need to do more to encourage new housing supply, and we need to do more to support young renters doing it tough. On supply, we need to consider all weapons in our arsenal to address how house ownership can be an option for all people and how affordable rental can be an option for all people, and that includes considering the tax system. For instance, stamp duty makes it almost impossible for many people to get onto the property ladder, and it stops people who want to from downsizing. In Victoria, a recent parliamentary inquiry found that stamp duty disproportionately hurts divorced women and young people. In New South Wales, a Treasury analysis showed that, if we switched stamp duty for land tax, homeownership would rise by about seven per cent—seven per cent more people whose lives would be transformed by homeownership. But the financial barriers for states to make the switch are real, so the federal government must give them a helping hand. I urge the government to go beyond just stamp duty and to consider other tax reforms, including how to address tax disincentives to building and scaling build-to-rent, because the tax system is an integral player in the housing system and must be on the table. On renting, we need systematic reforms that actually deliver results, not bandaid solutions that make good sound-bite policy but bad long-term policy. The evidence is clear that rent freezes reduce the supply of rental accommodation, encourage landlords to preference shorter and less secure tenancies and discourage investment in maintaining homes. We need reforms that work. That starts with supply, but it also means working with tenancies, so I'm pleased that the National Cabinet has agreed to end no-fault eviction and to limit increases of rents to once a year. These issues need to be implemented urgently. But expanded renters' rights shouldn't stop there. We need tenants to have much greater control over the length of their tenancy. We need a better process for ensuring unjustifiable rent increases aren't forced upon renters, and we need strong minimum energy performance standards for rental property so that renters can reduce their power bills. Without urgent action on housing we are sleepwalking into an intergenerational tragedy, and I urge the government to push harder on this issue. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 265979 Is the motion seconded? Ms Le 295676 Yes, I second the motion and reserve my right to speak. 10:30 Mr KHALIL 101351 Wills Housing is one of those public policy areas that beats with a very deeply personal heart for many of us. I remember every flat, apartment and house I've lived in, and, while I certainly remember our public housing commission flat as being a bit rough, I feel fortunate that I and my family were given that opportunity by many Labor governments, frankly, who provided my migrant family an opportunity with that first all-important place to call home. Without access to public housing, I wouldn't be where I am today. I'm also keenly aware that it was easier to make that journey in the 1980s and nineties than it is right now. We need a roof over our heads to engage in our community, to fully participate at school, to look for and get a job, to work and to contribute. It's about dignity and it's about opportunity, and it gave my family the security that allowed my sister and me to pursue our education and give back to our country, which had given us and continues to give us so much. This is the reality I want for the community that I represent. I know this is the reality the Prime Minister wants for all Australians. Housing insecurity causes immense stress to people across my community and across Australia. For the young family trying to manage alongside childcare fees, for the university student juggling study with part-time work, for older Australians relying on their pension or superannuation, housing affordability and rental stress are issues that cut across all our electorates and our communities. How did we get to a point where so many Australian have lost hope in the Australian dream? There are lots of reasons. Taxation settings, planning laws that restrict housing in appropriate areas and a lack of government investment in public and social housing over decades have all been contributing factors. But let's not let this be a free pass for the failures of the previous Liberal-National government who for nine years oversaw an increase in housing construction costs—46 per cent over a decade. Scott Morrison, the former prime minister, infamously said he didn't believe in leaving a legacy. Well, he left a legacy of higher house prices, higher rents and greater housing stress, a legacy that has left so many Australians unable to buy their own home. I welcome the member for Wentworth's motion noting the positive work the Albanese government has already undertaken. In just our first year housing has been front of mind in terms of both affordability and supply. At the recent National Cabinet meeting the Albanese government committed to build over one million new homes, adding a $3 billion new homes bonus and a $500 million housing support program. At the same National Cabinet meeting we secured a better deal for renters with regard to rent increases and evictions and much more. Earlier this year the Prime Minister announced federal funding of $2 billion to the Social Housing Accelerator, which has already been delivering to states and territories to start building new social homes. We have also increased the maximum of Commonwealth rent assistance by 15 per cent, the largest increase in over 30 years. There's also been the work done with states and territories on the Help to Buy SCHEME, which will support up to 40,000 low- and middle-income families to purchase their own home and cut the cost of buying a home by up to 40 per cent for these Australians. We've expanded the Home Guarantee Scheme eligibility, allowing friends, siblings and other family members to jointly apply. This will help Australians to own their home. This will help Australians with their rental stress. This will help Australians access housing because it's about supply. But let's not forget the importance of the National Housing and Homelessness Plan with its $1.7 billion to support frontline homelessness services throughout Australia with the essential work that they do, and next year the states and territory will see a collective $67 million boost to homelessness funding. The government also has the National Housing Infrastructure Facility, which is investing $575 million to build homes today. I encourage and call on the other place to support our $10 billion Housing Australia Future Fund because it will ensure that 30,000 social and affordable new homes are built over the next five years. There has been a lot of action in this space in our first year and a half of government, and there will be more. This government is committed to increasing supply, and all the policies I've just outlined demonstrate that commitment in real action. We believe in the fundamental human right that is housing, and in getting the balance right. For too long housing has become more of an investment vehicle in some respects, because of those settings, rather than a fundamental human right and a starting point to enable families to make their contribution to Australia. That's what was given to my family almost 50 years ago—the opportunity to get a good start in life through housing. It's a fundamental need, and this government is committed to it. 10:35 Ms LE 295676 Fowler Like the member for Wills, my family was also given the opportunity to rebuild our lives through the availability of public housing. I'm grateful for that, and I'm here today as a result of that kickstart. We all know that, back in the 1970s, about 64 per cent of young people aged between 30 and 34 years owned a home, whereas now that figure is down to about 50 per cent, and I believe it's shrinking. Housing is a crippling challenge for many Australians who are working hard for themselves and their families. These days, no matter how hard you work, the great Australian dream of owning a home is just that—a dream. While we have been debating the merits and detriments of the Albanese government's Housing Australia Future Fund, or HAAF, millions of Australians have been struggling to pay their rent or meet their mortgage repayments, even being evicted. On top of all that, a new class of working homeless is emerging. We can't keep talking about the problem; we need action. We need to pull together. We need to work together and implement an accelerator type program to create real solutions for all Australians. The member for Wentworth and I come from different electorates, but we share a common goal: we want to see our future generations able to own their own home. We want to bring back that great Australian dream for everyone in Australia, regardless of background or postcode. With the current cost-of-living crisis, many young Australians and middle-income earners have simply given up on the idea of ever owning their own home. Our most vulnerable communities bear the brunt of the housing crisis. Low-income earners, living pay cheque to pay cheque, find themselves forced to vacate their residences and left to face a life in emergency accommodation or, even worse, on the streets. Forty-two per cent of my electorate of Fowler currently rent, and we have the fourth-worst rental affordability in Australia. Over 45 per cent of families spend more than 30 per cent of their household income on rent. Our area is crying out for more social and affordable housing. We simply cannot afford to sit and wait on the social housing list for more than 10 years. It's heartbreaking to see families in Fowler who have shared my dream of making a better life and now do not dare to dream of owning a home. What they dream about is a warm bed and a safe place to raise their children. Only 26 per cent of the population in my electorate owns a property, and many are struggling to meet their home loan repayments, with the fourth-worst mortgage affordability in Australia. Nearly 25 per cent of our households spend more than 30 per cent of their household income on repayments. While I acknowledge that the government is trying to improve the situation with the HAFF and the Housing Accord, financing is just one issue. Other issues include a lack of available land, workforce shortages, increased cost of construction, and council and state government processes and regulations. This cannot be fixed just by throwing money at the problem. What is clear is that there needs to be collaboration between all levels of government in order to address the current housing crisis. Together with the member for Wentworth, I call on the government to work with local and state governments to accelerate actions to increase housing and land availability, which will lead to an increased availability of social and affordable housing. We need to act together. State governments can eliminate the red tape by releasing land and working with councils to promote better housing outcomes, as well as improving regulation processes and procedures. How can we facilitate the process for young people? We've seen New South Wales scrap land tax and Victoria scrap stamp duty. Why can't we give people more choices to suit their unique situations? Community housing providers and their partnering developers should be allowed to access tax breaks, expedited DA approval processes and other incentives on a state and local level to make up the shortfall of construction costs and land prices. It is up to every one of us to take steps that will increase social and affordable housing in this country. We have to stop talking about the problems and start talking about solutions, otherwise we will continue to see the decline in housing availability and family and children living in crisis and emergency accommodation. 10:40 Mr LAXALE 299174 Bennelong It's clear we are in the middle of a housing crisis. Rents and house prices are skyrocketing, making an affordable place to call home harder to secure. The sad part about this is that this crisis is not new. It didn't start when the Albanese government was elected last year. It didn't start when Tony Abbott was caught eating an onion. This is a crisis that has been evolving and worsening for quite some time. When I'm chatting to locals in Bennelong I hear again and again that they are concerned about housing affordability. Homeowners want their kids to afford a place to live locally and young people and young families want a stable, affordable roof over their heads—just as the majority of their parents had in their generation. The public desire for action has been there for some time. Unfortunately the need for action right now is becoming more and more urgent. Before coming here, just like the member for Fowler, I had the pleasure of spending nearly a decade in local government, five as the local mayor. It was through that experience that I became aware of the housing crisis and the inability of the market to fix it. It became quite clear to me quite quickly that government intervention was necessary as the market, in its then form, was incapable of providing affordable rentals and affordable homes to buy for all. So at the time, as mayor, I thought I would try to do something about it. After holding a local housing summit, the council then adopted an affordable housing policy with the aim of trying to get developers to provide affordable rental homes to the council for the purpose of providing homes for low- and middle-income earners. Projections by the council's policy indicated that by 2031 the local government area in Bennelong will require an estimated 10,700 affordable dwellings to meet local needs. In response to these shocking statistics, the council, with community support, lodged an inclusionary zoning amendment in our local planning laws to help fix the problem. And despite evidence showing housing was unaffordable for families, despite then Premier Berejiklian declaring affordable housing as her priority and despite community support for our proposal, our efforts to help housing were rejected. Farcically, the Liberal state government said the proposal 'was ahead of its time'. What this shameful example taught me is that no one level of government can fix this housing crisis, no one level of government can go it alone. This is a national crisis and one we need a coordinated and targeted response to solve. I cannot tell you how proud I am to be part of a federal government that has put solutions to our national housing crisis on the table. It was part of the reason why I decided to put my hand up to be a candidate last year. The nation is talking about housing because it is this Labor government that was elected on a mandate to help solve it. It is this Labor government that took policies on housing to last year's election, and it is the Labor housing minister that has been working every day to implement them. And it is this Labor government that is bringing state and local governments to the table to work together on this. After a decade of negligence by the former federal government, we finally have a federal government committed to addressing the housing crisis and taking tangible steps to deliver housing relief for Australians. On top of our direct investments in building homes and our proposed Housing Australia Future Fund, one of the most important things we've done since coming to government is getting the states, territories and local governments together. Expanding upon the foundations laid by our National Housing Accord, we have introduced substantial initiatives such as the $3 billion New Homes Bonus and the $500 million housing support program. These efforts with state and territory governments are geared towards achieving national targets which entail the construction of 1.2 million new homes in the course of the next five years. We know these measures are important, and they need the support and collaboration of this parliament and all levels of government across the country. There is no one solution here. We need direct investment, we need cooperation with state and territory governments and we need this parliament to be working hard to deliver outcomes. I'd encourage those in the other place to support the measures that will soon to be in the Senate for the Housing Australia Future Fund, because without that collaboration, without that national response, we'll not be able to ease the housing pressure that is facing Australians today. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 265979 The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned, and the resumption of the debate will be made in order of the day for the next sitting. Pensions and Benefits 17 10:46 Dr REID 300126 Robertson I rise to highlight the damage, hurt and distress the former Liberal government's failed and unlawful robodebt scheme has had on the people of the Central Coast. The Australian people know that the former Liberal government's failed robodebt scheme was a shameful chapter in our nation's public history. It has been labelled by esteemed Australian legal professionals as a massive failure in public administration. But how exactly did we end up here and what is robodebt? Robodebt was conceived in early 2015 and was a program to collect debts off vulnerable Australians using averaged Australian Taxation Office income information. Averaging took place when there were discrepancies between the incomes of Australians reported to Services Australia and those reported to the ATO. Over the program's life span, it collected $1.8 billion in debts from almost half a million vulnerable Australians. We understand now that these debts were recovered unlawfully, as stated in the final report of the Royal Commission into the Robodebt Scheme, headed by Catherine Holmes. We also know now that the impact was dreadful—the impact this ill-devised program has had on the Australian people, especially the 2,738 people living in my electorate of Robinson. It has been made terribly clear in the final report how those in the former government wanted to betray Australians receiving welfare. They wanted to create a narrative about those on welfare support being drags on the budget and a burden to the taxpayer. We know that during their lives some Australians will need the support of the government, whether it's temporary while they pursue study or look for work, or permanently because of age, disability or disadvantage. By continuing this robodebt program and ignoring the official advice provided to the former government, Australians on welfare were unlawfully targeted, harassed and exploited. And what a legacy it has left. Almost half a million Australians were affected by this program and continue to struggle with the damage that it caused. The former Prime Minister and social services minister should be ashamed of the role that he played in this program. As the Royal Commission into the Robodebt Scheme identified, the member for Cook failed in his role as minister to make the necessary inquiries and fulfil his obligations according to his ministerial responsibilities. Similar criticisms have been levelled against other former ministers responsible for oversight of this scheme. The final report said that the former human services minister provided 'unsatisfactory' responses about the information she was aware of about the legality of the scheme, implying that her evidence to the royal commission was disappointing and unhelpful. Additionally, former human services ministers abused their power and sought to 'distract' the public from the developing news about problems affecting the robodebt scheme or arising from the robodebt scheme. The former minister also failed to establish a comprehensive review of the scheme following reports of the suicides of two young men in which their parents say robodebt played a contributing factor. The report also criticised the former government services minister, who they state did not act as quickly as he professes to have in relation to ending this scheme. What all of this says is that the former Liberal government was inept and could not manage this failed and unlawful scheme from start to finish. What has the current Liberal leader, the opposition leader, had to say about the Royal Commission into the Robodebt Scheme? He said: … this is nothing more than a political witch hunt … What an absolute slap in the face for the people on the Central Coast that this scheme affected. I challenge the opposition leader to say this statement directly to the faces of the 2,738 people in my electorate of Robertson who were impacted by this failed scheme. Does the opposition leader believe that these Central Coast residents are not entitled to the information as to who was responsible for this scheme or why people were unlawfully targeted and unlawfully harassed? I say to people of the Central Coast: the Albanese government will never abandon you like the former Liberal government did and continue to do. I look forward to the Albanese government acting on the 57 recommendations in the final report. 10:51 Dr S 299623 Mackellar CAMPS () (): I rise today to support the member for Jagajaga's motion regarding the robodebt scheme. Like the member for Jagajaga stated in her statement, I too commend the courage, leadership and bravery of victims, families, advocates and whistleblowers who continue to raise concerns about the robodebt scheme. I welcome the government's commitment to ensuring such a tragedy never happens again. The Federal Court has described the scheme as a 'massive failure of public administration', incredibly strong language by judicial standards. Royal Commissioner Catherine Holmes SC concluded that robodebt was a 'crude and cruel mechanism, neither fair nor legal'. The Prime Minister said that it was a gross betrayal and a human tragedy. The CEO of the Australian Council of Social Service, Cassandra Goldie, described the scheme as an 'aggressive abuse of government power'. In her nearly 1,000-page report resulting from the royal commission into robodebt, Commissioner Holmes said: It is remarkable how little interest there seems to have been in ensuring the Scheme's legality, how rushed its implementation was, how little thought was given to how it would affect welfare recipients and the lengths to which public servants were prepared to go to oblige ministers on a quest for savings. It is this last aspect of the commissioner's comments that I wish to focus on today—that is, the seeming lack of independent advice from the Public Service. It is very clear from the findings of the royal commission that issues of culture within the Public Service and between the Public Service and ministers played a large role in the robodebt disaster. There was either too much fear about speaking the truth or too great a desire to please ministers with good news. Either way, it is clear that a culture of providing frank and fearless advice did not exist, leading to bad decisions and ultimately disastrous consequences. It will not be an easy culture to fix, but there is one simple way to improve it. It is something that I have been advocating for since I first came into this place. That is to bring transparency and accountability to the process of appointing people to significant Commonwealth and Public Service roles. Most recently, I proposed in this place amendments to the government's Public Service Amendment Bill. Those amendments were modest and sought to improve the process for the appointment of departmental secretaries. The amendments require the Public Service Commissioner to: publish selection criteria for the appointment; widely consult for candidates; rigorously consider candidates against the selection criteria; and prepare a shortlist of at least three candidates for the Prime Minister's consideration. If the Prime Minister decided to select someone for the position who was not on the shortlist, he or she would have to table a report naming that person and giving reasons as to why that person had the appropriate qualifications, skills and experience for the role within seven sitting days of the appointment. This is a straightforward process. Other than the requirement to table a report in parliament, it is a process that you could expect to see in recruitment being undertaken anywhere in Australia, both public and private. Ordinary Australians would not balk at it. Indeed, I believe they would demand it, especially for significant, highly-paid roles in the Australian Public Service. For the Public Service Commissioner role—a role of such significance that it has been described as the guardian of an impartial Australian Public Service—my amendments proposed an additional requirement: that the Prime Minister consult with the Leader of the Opposition on the appointment. This is in recognition of the APS Commissioner's unique role, and it reinforces for the Australian public the independence and impartiality of the role. Unfortunately, the government did not adopt my proposed amendments. These amendments would have ensured greater transparency and independence of the selection process for major Public Service appointments. The undermining of our democracy by the jobs-for-mates culture is something that ordinary Australians are angry about. So I urge the government to get serious about reforming the jobs-for-mates culture that pervades our democracy and the important institutions and bodies that underpin it. 10:56 Mr REPACHOLI 298840 Hunter Under the previous government, there was a lot that you could point to as examples of the worst of what governments are capable of. There were many times when I, and many Australians, looked at what the government of the day was doing and felt ashamed, disgusted or even angry. But the robodebt scandal takes the cake. A government is meant to be there for the people. Instead, they implemented a scheme that caused harm to those in our community who are most vulnerable. It was a system that cared zero for humanity—a system that targeted people like the homeless and domestic violence victims. What is even more unbelievable is that the government of the day knew the harm that they were causing but continued the scheme anyway. The warnings were mounting. The criticisms were constant. But the government continued to illegally raise debts against some of society's most vulnerable. These are not my words; these are the words used in the 990-page report which came from the royal commission into the robodebt scheme. This scheme was so disastrous that it needed an independent royal commission to look into the scheme and who was responsible for it. And it's not like there were only one or two mistakes made. In the end, the royal commission made 57 recommendations. The scheme had a short life, but the damage was significant. Robodebt was first introduced in 2015 as a budget measure, and in late 2019 it was found to be illegal by the Federal Court. But four years was enough time to destroy around 6,700 lives in the Hunter electorate, and it put some into such a position that they felt their only option was to end their life. The fact that something like robodebt could happen in a country like Australia is just shameful. The Minister for Government Services outlined this perfectly in the House recently when he spoke about the full impact of this scheme. We rightly think about those who were being targeted by robodebt, but we often forget about those others who were impacted: the frontline staff at Services Australia, who were left to cop the fallout of the scheme. They were the ones left dealing with distressed victims and hearing the heartbreaking stories about lives being torn apart. When they tried to do what any decent human would do and raise their concerns about the scheme, they were not listened to. In fact, they were given Code of Conduct violations for trying to do what was right. The full extent of what this scheme did to far too many Australians is not something I want to discuss. But the man who knows full well this extent, more than any other person, the former Prime Minister, the member for Cook, sat in this chamber recently, with his typical smug grin on his face, laughing at the tragedy that he'd helped to inflict, when questions were asked about robodebt during question time. This scheme should never have been implemented, and it went for far too long. In some ways, we are lucky that this scheme lasted for only a short time, but this was only the case because brave victims stood up and called it out. Brave people shared what was happening to them or what they saw happening to their families or loved ones around them. There were many whistleblowers and advocates who kept up the fight. Because of these people, because of their bravery, courage and leadership, there are people today in this country who were spared the pain that so many felt as a result of robodebt. Over a year ago, Australia voted for change. They were fed up with the previous government, and it's easy to see why. When Australia voted for this current government, they voted to turn a page on how this country is governed. They voted for a government who truly cares about the people in this country. They voted for a government that will never inflict pain on its own people as the previous government did with robodebt. This government is committed to making sure that a tragedy like robodebt never happens again. We will look at and consider every single one of the 57 recommendations from the report, and we will absolutely respond to these recommendations. That is what the victims and the Australian people voted for and the change that they all deserve. 11:00 Ms McKENZIE 124514 Flinders I rise to speak on the motion moved by the member for Jagajaga. Over the winter recess, I went to visit one of the busiest Centrelink services on the Mornington Peninsula, located on High Street in Hastings. It was a privilege to meet with the team there, led by Lily Nikora, and to hear firsthand their experience in recent months. They described pensioners and families coming into a Services Australia office for the first time in their lives. These are proud, self-reliant, capable, hardworking people who now face a cost-of-living crisis unparalleled in recent times and now find themselves heading into an office to seek guidance, help, a sympathetic ear, reassurance and compassion. As the Centrelink team explained to me, for many it was their first time seeking any help from government at any level. The team at Services Australia was characterised by their patience, their kindness, their empathy, their humour, their respect for one another and their respect for their clients. Over the last sitting break, I met with constituents in my electorate of Flinders who had navigated the so-called robodebt scheme. They came in to see me with handfuls—indeed, binders—full of papers: letters of demand; baffling calculations, each time different; bills to be paid; moneys to be extracted from their fortnightly payments; dates to be met; and moneys to be explained and justified. These letters stretched over years. The brave ones raised concerns and sought redress, first with the ATO and then with the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, and ultimately participated in a class action. One of my constituents came in and told me her story, her constant struggle to explain what money she had earned and when. She joined the class action, and she succeeded in that class action, and she received 3c after years of stress and endurance. I'm in awe of her determination. She was fearless. It should be no surprise that she had been a member of the Australian Defence Force. Best of all, she kept her sense of humour about it, when most of us, if not all of us, would have long given up. In conversation with those who serve our community via the Mornington Community Support Centre, I heard of another constituent who had worked hard over summer, as we often do on the Mornington Peninsula, and then gone off to study and who had come back from study to be greeted by a $7,000 debt. He then challenged that debt, only to be given an $11,000 debt in its place. He tried to fix it as best he could. He was studying overseas, and he couldn't access the online portal from Europe. If ever we needed to learn a lesson that the sharp edges of algorithmic and artificial intelligence computation need a human overlay, this should be it. The integrity of Australia's welfare system is paramount. Our welfare system distributes more than $150 billion in payments every year, and fairness and compliance are critically important components of the system. However, it is now apparent that the expanded compliance system which was rolled out from mid-2016, now known as robodebt, is one of the poorest chapters in Australia's public policy history and one that sits at the feet of the coalition in its time of government. The thousand-odd pages of the full report of the Royal Commission into the Robodebt Scheme paint a picture of avoidable human suffering, of bureaucratic processes and of an attempt to reconcile the fast paced nature of digital transformation together with real life. The scheme had tangible consequences on people and especially on vulnerable people. It's important that we all, on both sides of this place, take the lessons from these errors and ensure that we do not revisit them. The party I'm privileged to represent in this place is built on personal responsibility and has a record for high integrity in government. In reading the findings of the royal commission I find it out of sync with the coalition governments I have known and served in during the Howard and Abbott eras. I find it equally vastly out of sync with the Australian Public Service that I have known and worked with over the last three decades. I was perhaps incredibly lucky to grow up professionally in this building, working in partnership with public servants like Peter Shergold, Lisa Paul and Peter Varghese, and in various capacities outside the building with those now leading and improving the Australian and state based public services like Glyn Davis and Peter Coaldrake. It was always a culture of mutual respect, and there was an expectation that the Public Service could and would speak its mind frankly. The Public Service I know would generate their own policy proposals and improve the policy proposals emanating from the political class. It was a true partnership and collaboration in which the public servants ultimately held the pen, the official record and the accountability that went with it. I commend my colleague and my friend the member for Menzies, Keith Wolahan, when he said in this chamber that we have a duty to have a strong and sustainable safety net. Any one of us may find ourselves in the position where we rely on it. Even if you don't rely on it, I like to know it's there for my fellow Australians when they need it, and the system should be one that is compassionate. In the light of tangible local examples, our responsibility as parliamentarians to learn from these mistakes is clear. 11:06 Mr GEORGANAS DZY Adelaide As we now know, the previous government set up a system that led to funds being withdrawn from hardworking Australians through the issuing of thousands of unlawful debts, which is now known as the robodebt saga. New analysis shows that in South Australia alone there were over 33,000 individuals who were caught up in the complexities of the robodebt scheme. To break it down further, in my electorate some of the suburbs, like Prospect, saw 309 victims, Walkerville in the electorate of Adelaide had 93, and within the Adelaide CBD there were 357 residents dealing with the repercussions. These are not just stats. They are real people who were trying to live their lives, and suddenly they were thrown into a nightmare. You can imagine the nightmare when you're thinking you are doing everything correctly, and you receive a letter saying that you owe X amount of dollars when you know you had done everything correctly. Australians innocent of wrongdoing found themselves subjected to threats of legal action and even the relentless pursuit of the former government's debt collectors. I heard about this firsthand, as many members of parliament did. I took calls, and my office responded to calls and emails. We listened, we considered them and we took action. Our actions weren't just about shaping the future but about rectifying the past and assisting as many people as possible in their recovery from the emotional and financial strain that was unjustly placed on their lives by the former government. Our constituents were not the criminals, yet they were the ones that suffered. In effect, our neighbours, our friends and our constituents were all people that suffered. I recall 2016 and 2017 when worried and burdened pensioners walked through my door at the electorate office. These were people who had already lived through so much and now were grappling with the fear that, if they didn't pay what was claimed as their debt—a debt often wrongly calculated—the government would pause their lifeline, their pension. This is a great burden to put on people. How can you put someone through that kind of ordeal? How can you strip them of their sense of security through the very support they've earned through years of contribution? These questions should haunt the former government and anyone responsible for the decisions that led to such heartache and distress. Even after seven or eight years I continue to have constituents seeking answers from my electorate office in Adelaide. I recently heard about a sad case from a father recounting an incident involving his family. Their daughter was wrongfully caught up not once but twice in this malicious scheme. Tragically, this family lost their beloved child as a result of the distress inflicted upon her. As members of parliament, many of us being parents or grandparents ourselves, we all hear a lot of pain and distress. But that family's reality was absolutely a hard one to stomach. We must be reminded that this matter was not just a financial or numbers issue. The pain caused harm for real-life human beings, and this pain was caused by the former government. The robodebt scheme was an ordeal that Australians should never, ever have endured and should never endure again. Our constituents called out the systematic failure—a stance I commend, as they rightly deserve better. We heard Justice Murphy, the judge presiding over the case, approve the largest class action settlement in Australian history. Interestingly, when the idea of a royal commission was being proposed by the then opposition leader, it was just brushed aside as nothing more than a political witch hunt. We recall those debates and we recall those statements when we were in opposition. In a different light, the current government is taking active steps to address the aftermath of the robodebt debacle, putting in place safeguards to prevent any potential recurrence of any similar scheme. The heart of the matter lies in the fact that the Australian people have entrusted us with their concerns and stories. It raises a legitimate question: how can we genuinely lend an ear to our constituents and then proceed to establish a system that inflicts even more hardships upon them? The former government may be okay with doing that, but I'm certain this government is not— The 265979 Order. I thank the member for Adelaide. The question is that the motion be agreed to. I call the member for Newcastle. 11:11 Ms CLAYDON 248181 Newcastle I rise to speak on this private member's motion, put forward by my friend and colleague the member for Jagajaga, and I want to thank her for bringing this important motion to the House. This motion acknowledges the release of the report of the Royal Commission into the Robodebt Scheme. The robodebt scheme was found to be unlawful by the Federal Court in late 2019 and caused untold harm to vulnerable members of the Australian community. The royal commission into robodebt was an election commitment of the Albanese Labor government. Across 46 days of public hearings, the royal commission heard from more than 100 witnesses in what was utterly heartbreaking and disturbing evidence. Between July 2015, when the robodebt was ticked off by the then cabinet, and November 2019, when it was finally paused, approximately 435,000 Australians who relied on the social safety net were targeted by their very own government. In Newcastle, more than 4,000 customers were impacted by robodebt. They included registered nurse Paul Collins, who says his dealings with Centrelink during the robodebt scandal left him distrustful of government and mentally scarred. Mr Collins was just one of the dozens and dozens of constituents who called my office for support, having been targeted by their own government in a cruel, unlawful scheme for money they did not owe and left powerless with no means of fighting back. Mr Collins was forced to go on sickness benefits for 16 weeks after breaking his wrist in 2012. He said he had told Centrelink as soon as he no longer needed the benefits, only to be hounded for weeks by the agency for a $5,500 debt he did not owe. Mr Collins said he was reduced to tears during one of the dozen or so phone calls he received from Centrelink demanding money and threatening to garnish his tax returns. He said: "Even though I knew I'd done nothing wrong, it was just destroying me mentally. "The way I was treated as a cheat and somebody who was trying to get money out of the government, for no valid reason, really hurt my core values and, you know, I do feel damaged by it still to this day." Indeed, this scheme was counter to the core values of Australians and our belief in a fair and egalitarian society—a society that supports those when they require assistance and does so willingly, adequately and with respect. As the Prime Minister has stated, the robodebt scheme was a gross betrayal and a human tragedy. It was wrong. It was illegal. It should never have happened, and it should never happen again. The robodebt royal commissioner, Catherine Holmes, said: Robodebt was a crude and cruel mechanism, neither fair nor legal, and it made many people feel like criminals. …   …   … The ill-effects of the Scheme were varied, extensive, devastating and continuing. The commissioner found former Minister for Social Services, the member for Cook, had failed to meet his ministerial responsibility and had allowed cabinet to be misled about whether legislation was required to raise debts through a method known as income averaging. Instead, the former coalition cabinet—of which the current Leader of the Opposition, the member for Dickson, was a member—ticked off on the major decisions in relation to the scheme. After we announced the royal commission, the Leader of the Opposition had the gall to call it 'nothing but a political witch-hunt'. This blatant disrespect for the victims of the scheme and the devastating impact it continues to have on their lives is truly appalling. I commend the courage, leadership and bravery of victims, families, advocates and whistleblowers who continue to raise concerns about the robodebt scheme. I commend the people of Newcastle for telling their stories—they had done nothing wrong and were hounded by their own government. While the royal commission has gone some way to bringing a voice, visibility and some justice to those impacted, we know that for others it is too late. This should never have happened, and it should never happen again. That is now the work of the Albanese Labor government. That's the job left and tasked to us—to make sure the Australian people know we will do everything we can to ensure this massive betrayal of the public never happens again. 11:17 Mr BROADBENT MT4 Monash I don't remember these issues being raised with the government on the floor of the House before the last election—or did I miss it? I don't remember it constantly coming up in the adjournment debates, the 90-second statements or anything that we heard. When did those opposite take the time to say that before this time? I think there are issues around robodebt that I'm personally ashamed of. I'm personally sorry that I didn't stand up at the time and say more than I did, but that's in the past. I just want to remember what was said whilst this debacle was carrying on over a number of years. 11:18 Ms MURPHY 133646 Dunkley I can help the member out as to when this was raised and spoken about. It was every question time and most 90-seconders. I was elected to this place in 2019. I spoke about robodebt so many times. I spoke about Mel, a woman in my electorate who worked part time and who had a $5,000 debt raised against her—an unlawful robodebt that she didn't owe. I spoke about an email I received from Mel and her husband because they just couldn't get a review. They told me: We have so little faith in the Department that we believe there is a strong possibility: no review will take place, they will ignore the evidence and claim money is owed regardless, that Mel's maternity payments will be taken, or all of the above. As a young family in the electorate of Dunkley, those payments will directly support and provide for our child. This was raised over and over again in this parliament by the then opposition. It shouldn't have had to have been, but it was. As Commissioner Holmes said, the beginning of 2017 was the point when robodebt's unfairness, probable illegality and cruelty became apparent. It should then have been abandoned or revised drastically. An enormous amount of hardship and misery, as well as the expense the government was so anxious to minimise, would have been averted. Instead, the path was taken to double down, to go on the attack in the media against those who complained and to maintain the falsehood that in fact the system had not changed at all. The government was, the DHS and DSS ministers maintained, acting righteously to recoup taxpayers' money from the undeserving. The member for Maribyrnong, Bill Shorten, prosecuted robodebt vociferously in this parliament. And no-one who sat here could possibly not know that he did that. But he shouldn't have had to. From 2017 onwards, the then government knew what was happening and turned a blind eye. The member for Flinders gave a thoughtful speech, I would like to say, and acknowledged the problems with robodebt. One thing, though, that struck a bit of a chord with me was when she talked about the Liberal Party being the party of personal responsibility. I know that's something that the Liberal Party hold dear. But I just wonder how far that extends. It often seems to extend to the rhetoric about people receiving social security benefits who are unemployed and have issues in their lives. I think it extends to the member for Flinders. I think she does believe in personal responsibility and her speech showed that. But it certainly doesn't appear to extend to her colleagues who were in the cabinet of the former government when she wasn't here. Where's the personal responsibility having been taken by anyone in the cabinet who, from 2017 onwards, doubled down, went on the attack and continued robodebt? There has been none. The commissioner says at page 102 that she 'rejects as untrue' Mr Morrison's evidence that he was told that income averaging as contemplated in the executive minutes was an established practice and a foundational way in which DHS worked. Where is the personal responsibility of the member for Cook? Where is the personal responsibility of the then Minister for Human Services, Senator Payne, whose evidence was described by the commissioner as 'a series of disparate and unsatisfactory answers' that 'would have the making of a child's nursery rhyme if it were not so serious'. Where was the personal responsibility of Mr Tudge, of whom the commissioner said: Mr Tudge's use of information about social security recipients in the media to distract from and discourage commentary about the scheme's problems represented an abuse of that power. Where was the personal responsibility of Christian Porter, who the commissioner said 'could not rationally have been satisfied of the legality' of the scheme, or of Stuart Robert, of whom the commissioner said it can't be accepted that the principles of cabinet solidarity required Mr Robert's to publicly support cabinet decisions whether he agreed with them or not because he knew they weren't true. There was no personal responsibility from anyone in that cabinet, including people who are still in this parliament today. 11:24 Dr CHARLTON I8M Parramatta Two thousand, seven hundred and forty-five—that's how many people in my electorate were affected by robodebt. That's how many were taken advantage of by a callous coalition government. That's how many parents, children, brothers and sisters were victims of this illegal scheme. One of the most precious things we have in our democracy is trust in government: trust that the government is competent; trust that the government is there on people's side; and trust at the most basic level that government is not there to harm people. One of the tragedies of this scheme is not just all of the human stories of those affected by it, but the impact it had on our democracy and on the belief that government is competent and on the side of people. Mahatma Gandhi said that the measure of the greatness of a society is how it treats its most vulnerable people. In this sorry saga, we treated some of our society's most vulnerable people with egregious neglect—with a level of callousness and disrespect that calls into question the fundamental ethics of our democracy and our government. Beginning in 2015, 470,000 Australians fell victim to robodebt. It took $1.8 billion from the pockets of some of our most vulnerable Australians. It caused untold psychological, emotional and financial damage to families across the country. It eroded our trust in government, and it showed a deep disrespect for the most vulnerable people in our community. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 265979 The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned, and resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. Freedom of Speech 23 11:26 Mr COLEMAN 241067 Banks I move: That this House: (1) notes that: (a) the Government is seeking to impose new misinformation laws in Australia which are deeply flawed; (b) even before submissions closed on 20 August, the Government's exposure draft bill had already been the subject of an avalanche of criticism; (c) some of the most vocal criticisms have come from leading lawyers who have clinically taken the Government's bill apart, piece by piece; and (d) the Minister appears to have had few defenders of her plan; (2) acknowledges that, under the Government's exposure draft bill: (a) the definition of 'misinformation' is so broad that it could capture many statements made by Australians in the context of political debate; (b) authorised content by the Government cannot be misinformation, but criticisms of the Government by ordinary Australians can be misinformation; (c) nothing an academic says can be misinformation, but statements by somebody disagreeing with an academic can be misinformation; (d) good faith statements made by entertainers cannot be misinformation, but good faith statements made by ordinary Australians on political matters can be misinformation; (e) journalists commenting on their personal digital platforms could have their content removed as misinformation; and (f) if the Minister has a favoured digital platform, then that platform could be entirely removed from the application of the misinformation laws; (3) condemns the Government for delivering this appalling exposure draft of the Communications Legislation Amendment (Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation) Bill 2023; and (4) calls on the Government to: (a) admit that the Government's plan is deeply flawed; and (b) bin the bill. The government's misinformation bill is one of the most disturbing pieces of legislation ever put forward by an Australian government. It strikes at the heart of our democratic rights, and it is an absolute disgrace. I'll come, point by point, to the extraordinary things that are in the bill. But do you know what this bill has done that's extraordinary? It's united absolutely everyone, because everyone is out against this bill, whether it's the civil liberties groups, the Human Rights Commission, religious institutions, the Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance or the Law Council of Australia. I note that the shadow minister was formerly an esteemed director of the institution, and they have absolutely eviscerated this bill. And so they should, because it is just horribly bad. We only know about those submissions because those organisations have taken the step of self-publishing, because, despite these submissions closing two weeks ago, they still haven't been published by the government. I understand there are many thousands—maybe even tens of thousands—of submissions on this extraordinary bill, but we don't know what they are because the government still hasn't released them. They need to be released. The reason everyone is opposed to the bill is that it's just extraordinary. Here's what it does. It says that, 'Misinformation includes a statement which is unintentionally false, misleading, or deceptive.' Think about that. How many things do Australians say every day that someone might say were unintentionally false, misleading or deceptive? Quite a lot—thousands. Under this bill, if ACMA, the regulator, determines that digital companies aren't doing enough to remove that sort of content, and if it's capable of contributing to so-called 'serious harm', they can get massive fines—fines, potentially, into the billions of dollars. So what are those digital companies going to do? They're going to remove the free speech of Australians. They can either run the risk of falling foul of ACMA and exposing themselves to massive fines, or they can remove a whole lot of the free speech of Australians. So what are they going to do? Of course they're going to remove that free speech. You know what's remarkable? The government has included some exceptions to this rule on free speech. One of the exceptions is for the Albanese government itself. Anything the Albanese government authorises cannot be misinformation under the bill, but criticisms of the Albanese government can be misinformation. Anything that an academic says cannot be misinformation, but criticisms of that academic can be misinformation. If a comedian says something in good faith, that's okay; it can't be misinformation. But what if an Australian says something in good faith about their political beliefs? Well, that can be misinformation. The same applies to religious beliefs, too: there's no exemption whatsoever for religious beliefs under this bill. This bill doesn't only apply to the digital platforms; it applies to every Australian. As the Law Council of Australia has noted, any Australian is subject to this bill. The Law Council says: … suspected authors or disseminators of alleged 'misinformation' could be subject to the use of the proposed information-gathering powers. What that means is that if you don't show up when ACMA, the regulator, asks you to show up to talk about allegations of misinformation, you can be fined $8,000 per day—all of this in one of the great democracies on earth. This is an absolutely extraordinary piece of legislation. The Queensland Council for Civil Liberties President, Michael Cope, said: Clearly the government is not and cannot be impartial in deciding the truth in social and political debate. This puts government regulators in charge of determining what is the truth. In Mr Cope's words: … the Bill will enable the Authority to inappropriately control significant amounts of political and social speech. As a government, you don't put out legislation unless you think it's a good idea, so this government put out this legislation because they like this legislation. They want this legislation. They believe in this legislation. When the coalition will fight this legislation every step of the way. We want to bin the bill. If you're opposed to it, sign the petition at binthebill.au to stop this appalling legislation. The DEPUTY SPEAKER E0D Is there a seconder for the motion? Ms McKenzie 124514 I second the motion and reserve my right to speak. 11:32 Dr CHARLTON I8M Parramatta Combating misinformation and disinformation is one of the Albanese government's top priorities. Our democracy relies on a strong and robust economy of ideas, but around the world we've witnessed the scourge of misinformation and disinformation surrounding some of the most important issues in our time, issues like the efficacy of vaccines during the toughest days of the COVID-19 pandemic—issues where the spread of misinformation, whether inadvertent or deliberate, can cause real harm to people and to democracy. We've witnessed a change in the way that information is shared and disseminated in our national polity. The purpose of the Communications Legislation Amendment (Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation) Bill 2023 is to respond to that change. Not doing anything, not responding, would allow further decay of our democratic polity. It would enable misinformation to continue to affect our democracy. The criticisms of this bill have included that the definition of misinformation is unnecessarily broad. That is not true. The bill defines misinformation clearly as online content that is false, misleading or deceptive and that is shared or created without an intent to deceive but can cause and contribute to serious harm. Hence, disinformation is the intentional spread of misinformation aimed to deceive or cause serious harm. The Liberal Party are more interested in playing politics than engaging with serious debate on this issue. Indeed, the Liberal Party website currently states that a re-elected Liberal coalition government will introduce 'stronger laws to combat harmful disinformation and misinformation online by giving the media regulator stronger information-gathering and enforcement powers'. Yet, when the draft bill was put out for consultation, instead of making constructive suggestions to improve the bill, instead of sitting down and working out how we could deliver a solution together on this important issue, all the opposition could offer up was the idea that the bill could be stopped, or binned. 'Bin the bill', the perfect three-word slogan for the misinformation age: no constructive engagement, no solutions to this real problem, just a slogan made to be shared online. Something needs to be done. Misinformation can interfere with our democratic process, and we've already witnessed the potential consequences if misinformation goes viral and unchecked. Leading democracies around the world have endured polarisation of communities, enacted by politicians desperate for power. It's been dubbed by one New York Times columnist as the normalisation of social hysteria. None of us want to see Australia go down that path, and this bill will help ensure that we won't. Not only do misinformation and disinformation threaten our democracy; they can inflict real harm on real people. Last year ACMA released research revealing that four out of five Australians had been exposed to misinformation about COVID-19 since the start of the pandemic—four out of five. This was mostly experienced on digital platforms like YouTube and social media. One paper published by the US National Center for Biotechnology Information described misinformation as: … a powerfully destructive force in this era of global communication, when one false idea can spread instantly to many vulnerable ears. Who knows how many lives could have been saved here in Australia and around the world if not for the scourge of misinformation? I commend the Minister for Communications for her work in this space. This bill would give greater powers to ACMA, and under these proposed changes ACMA would be able to gather information from digital platform providers and keep records on misinformation and disinformation, they would be able to enforce a code of practice to reduce misinformation and disinformation shared on these platforms and they could establish even stronger regulation through an industry standard if a code is deemed inadequate. The bill also follows recommendations by ACMA to improve transparency and hold digital platforms to account. There is a consensus in the community that there needs to be a joint effort to combat misinformation and disinformation, and ACMA's 2021 misinformation report also uncovered that Australians see joint responsibility in doing this. This responsibility is shared between government, platforms and their users. That's why this bill is important. That's why the government is taking action in this vital area. 11:37 Ms McKENZIE 124514 Flinders I rise to speak in support of the motion moved by the member for Banks. Misinformation will be one of the greatest issues of the current century, and while misinformation and disinformation have always existed, the internet has put the power and impact of misinformation and disinformation into the hands of every man, woman, girl and boy. With each year, fewer young people can distinguish between trusted and non-trusted sources of truth, and even then, trust in traditional media is at an all-time low. As the Minister for Communications has been at pains to point out, the Communications Legislation Amendment (Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation) Bill 2023, which was released as an exposure draft in June, is a reform that was in fact begun by the previous coalition government. Four years ago the coalition released a report titled Regulating in the digital age, which set out a road map for action responding to the ACCC's Digital Platforms Inquiry of July 2019. In that report the coalition recognised: The risks posed by disinformation and an erosion of news quality highlight the importance of collective and coordinated action by industry, civil society and governments. This includes the creation of a strong and sustainable news media ecosystem alongside educational initiatives for citizens to improve their ability to engage critically with online news and information sources. It went on: The Government recognises the need to balance any interventions that might target media literacy and disinformation with rights to freedom of expression and speech. It is important that Australia's approach aligns with and supports global initiatives. That report committed: The Government will ask the major digital platforms to develop a voluntary code (or codes) of conduct for disinformation and news quality. It provided that: The Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) will have oversight of the codes and report to Government on the adequacy of platforms' measures and the broader impacts of disinformation. Importantly, it went on: The codes will address concerns regarding disinformation and credibility signalling for news content and outline what the platforms will do to tackle disinformation on their services and support the ability of Australians to discern the quality of news and information. The codes will be informed by learnings of international examples, such as the European Union Code of Practice on Disinformation. The Labor Party has picked up this work, post the election, and taken it down a heavy-handed, authoritarian and unthoughtful route. While the coalition believes there is an issue to be tackled, this bill is not how it should be done. Lazy in its wording, the bill would operate to have significant negative repercussions on industry, public discourse and the inherent values of freedom of speech which we hold dear to our way of life. The government has succeeded in something I thought impossible: unifying commentators in declaring this bill to be ill-thought out, utterly unfit for purpose and a danger to the freedom-of-expression based democracy in which we live. In its current wording, the bill states that misinformation is 'false, misleading or deceptive' conduct that is reasonably likely to cause or contribute to serious harm, and yet there is no definition for 'serious harm'. For 'misinformation' there is no requirement for someone making this content to understand that it is false or have an intention to deceive. This is unlike 'disinformation', where there needs to be a proven intent to deceive. In other words, if you believe something is correct but it is not by the definition of what is correct according to this bill it could be characterised as 'misinformation'. As the Law Council of Australia says in their submission on the bill: … the everyday experience of the courts or commissions of inquiry shows that discerning truth from falsehood in a procedurally fair manner may be an elaborate, costly and time-consuming process. The statutory supposition that this can be done readily, uncontroversially, and with little effort by ACMA or by digital platform services seems unrealistic in light of real-life experiences … What is more concerning is the classification of what is 'correct information'. Under the proposed wording in the bill any authorised content from the government is considered not to be misinformation, but it's very utterance by government defines it as being correct. Any statement critiquing the government authorised content, including statements made by member of the public or other politicians in fact, could be considered to be misinformation. ACMA, best known for its deft management of spectrum, has been given significant powers, including to be able to have information-gathering powers on not just digital platforms but on individuals who express their views on digital platforms. Only exempted voices are able to contradict an official government statement, limited to professional news content sources, educational institutions or for the purposes of satire or entertainment. This sounds draconian because it is. The bill should be binned. 11:42 Dr ANANDA-RAJAH 290544 Higgins Thirty-three billion dollars. That's what a constituent believed was being spent on First Nations programs per year. I corrected him with the figure of $5.3 billion spent specifically on First Nations programs. I obtained that figure from the Parliamentary Library. In the time it took me to have that conversation on his doorstep, how many eyeballs had viewed this misinformation, or is it disinformation? He had received this from a friend, and the question is: where did she get it from? Was it a threat actor pushing an agenda to skew the results of the upcoming referendum? During the pandemic, while I was caring for sick patients in hospital, I was being asked if Ivermectin or oxygen therapy were protective against COVID. The people who ended up on ventilators had rejected vaccination in favour of crack-pot theories circulating online. In both scenarios, harm is the outcome and it's not trivial. A 'no' vote based on misinformation is a vote for more of the same. An acceptance of premature death. An acceptance of rheumatic heart disease in children when it's been eliminated elsewhere in our community. An acceptance of double the suicide rate. An acceptance of incarceration rather than university as the destiny for young Indigenous men. These are not abstract concepts for First Peoples, they are realities. How would Australians feel about being manipulated to vote 'no' by malicious actors, foreign or domestic? How would they even know? Misinformation and disinformation left unchecked is a threat to our safety and wellbeing, our economy and our democracy. It can tear at the social fabric of our society; undermine public trust in our institutions, public health and safety; and disrupt our economy. Foreign interference is a significant national security threat, and generative AI with its near-realistic images and proficient chatbots has only exacerbated the challenge. Social media platforms are not just key communication channels, they are now the public square but with limited moderation. Despite Australia's world-leading efforts to counter foreign interference, initiated under the former government, it is evident that there is more to do, especially with AI bearing down on us and the geostrategic landscape shifting beneath our feet. Industry has made some progress. Digital platforms, including Apple, Google, Microsoft, TikTok and Twitter, have opted into a voluntary self-regulatory code of practice developed by industry, but the ACMA's report card in 2021 and 2023 found that additional regulatory power was needed, complementing the ACCC's recommendation in 2019. Principally, this legislation is about encouraging digital platforms to better counter the spread of misinformation and disinformation, rather than the ACMA overtly regulating the content itself. The proposed bill will enable the ACMA to gather information or require digital platforms to provide those records to the ACMA; enable the ACMA to request that industry develop a code of practice, which the ACMA would register and enforce; and allow the ACMA to create and enforce an industry standard, should a code of practice be deemed ineffective. Importantly, the ACMA does not have power to request specific posts be removed, nor will it have a role in determining what is considered truthful. The DIGI managing director said: … it formalises our long-term working relationship with the ACMA in relation to combatting misinformation online. The former chair of the ACCC Rod Sims said: Claims the government's bill is about censorship of opinion not only misunderstands the legislation but also illustrates a naive understanding of the threats to our society and our democracy. It seems that the Liberals agree. On their website they have stated that a re-elected Liberal coalition government will introduce 'stronger laws to combat harmful disinformation and misinformation online by giving the media regulator stronger information-gathering and enforcement powers'. But, now, in their desperation to crawl back to power, they fall back on familiar habits: the scare campaign. In saying that the government should bin the bill, are the Liberals saying that we should do nothing? Are the Liberals suggesting that we should leave the Australian regulator powerless in the face of this evolving threat? Are they suggesting we sit idly by as foreign interference infects our devices, hearts and minds? Are the Liberals suggesting that we should just leave digital platforms to make up their own rules? They would rather go soft on big tech and give foreign interference a free pass than work in the national interest. While '$33 billion' was wrong, there are 26 million reasons to get this right. 11:47 Mr BOYCE 299498 Flynn Labor's proposed Communications Legislation Amendment (Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation) Bill 2023 is deeply flawed. The bill gives the regulator, the Australian Communications and Media Authority, very substantial powers. The ACMA's key power under the legislation is the ability to impose massive fines on digital platforms if it thinks that they are not doing enough to stop misinformation or disinformation. The definition of misinformation is so broad that it could capture many statements made by Australians in the context of political debate. Authorised content by the Albanese government cannot be misinformation, but criticisms of the Albanese government, made by ordinary Australians, can be misinformation. Nothing an academic says can be misinformation, but statements made by somebody disagreeing with an academic can be misinformation. Good faith statements made by entertainers cannot be misinformation, but good faith statements made by ordinary Australians on political matters can be misinformation. Journalists commenting on their personal digital platforms could have their content removed as misinformation. If the minister has a favoured digital platform, then that platform could be entirely removed from the application of misinformation laws. Just recently, I posted a video on my Facebook page of electric vehicles exploding on a highway overseas, exposing the risk of lithium batteries. Within 10 minutes of it being posted, Facebook took it down and claimed it was false information. When I clicked on the source of the fact check, it was an article written in a different language. What was the ACMA's response when I wrote to them about this specific scenario? Very little—even saying, 'Digital platform services are responsible for the content of their service and for minimising disinformation and misinformation while balancing freedom of expression.' So what exactly does that mean? As the federal member for Flynn, I know that freedom of speech and expression are fundamental principles in a democratic society. Changes to the laws in this area involve a complex area of policy, and overreach by the Albanese government must be avoided. The public will want to know exactly who decides whether content is misinformation or disinformation. I would like to thank the many constituents who've contacted me about Labor's proposed misinformation bill and their concerns about what changes this will mean for the freedom of speech. Under the planned legislation, there would be one rule for government MPs and another for everyday Australians who just want to have their say, including the members of the opposition. I've been raising this issue with my colleagues, and we have agreed that this is a bad bill which should be torn up and thrown in the bin. I commend the member for Banks for raising this private member's motion. Freedom of speech is a fundamental thing in our democracy, and the coalition will always fight for it. This bill was clearly dreamed up in Canberra, but it would have terrible impacts on freedom of speech in local communities around Australia. This is not a Left versus Right issue. Criticism has come from all corners: from leading legal bodies to the Human Rights Commission, civil libertarian groups and even the media union. In the meantime, we have already seen the Labor Party freely use the term 'misinformation' to try and silence those who do not want to share their political views. We know that the government has been overwhelmed by a large number of submissions on this bill. They are cynically delaying the releasing of them publicly to a timing of their choosing. The significant penalties associated with this legislation potentially place substantial power in the hands of government officials. The coalition will engage with stakeholders and carefully examine the proposed legislation. Whether you are conservative, on the left wing, or somewhere in between, you should be concerned about this bill. It directly involves the government in political communication. It gives immense powers to ACMA. It creates huge financial incentives for tech platforms to remove statements made by Australians, even if they were made in good faith. The government has badly misfired on this issue. I encourage everyone concerned about this legislation to sign up for the Bin the Bill website, to counter Labor's misinformation bill. Our primary message to Australians is that they have the right to freedom of speech. This is a bad law. It must be stopped. Bin the bill. 11:52 Mr RAE 300122 Hawke The threat posed by the spread of misinformation and disinformation is significant. While false, misleading and deceptive information has been around for centuries, the rise of digital platforms over the last 15 years has added a new and dangerous dimension. Misinformation can now be spread more widely and more easily through these platforms with less scrutiny and without the checks and balances of an editorial process. The Albanese Labor government is committed to combating misinformation and disinformation. The powers proposed in the draft legislation would enable the Australian Communications and Media Authority to register and enforce a code of practice covering measures to combat misinformation and disinformation on digital platforms. Importantly—and despite what some of those opposite would lead you to believe—ACMA will not have the power to request specific content or posts be removed from digital platform services. This draft legislation is not about having government regulation of individual pieces of content but simply about ensuring that digital platforms have adequate systems in place to address misinformation on their systems and their services. Like all businesses, digital platforms have a responsibility to ensure that the operation of their businesses does not cause serious harm to the community. Digital platforms cannot simply turn a blind eye to the content posted on their platforms under the guise of free speech. Many of the largest platforms already understand this and take down misinformation and disinformation content, at scale, every day. In fact, eight of the largest digital platforms in Australia have signed up to a voluntary, self-regulatory code of practice, to respond to mis- and disinformation. It is very disappointing that those opposite are hesitant to support these measures—that they would prefer to play politics than to focus on keeping Australians safe online. The motion goes so far as to call for the bill to be binned. But what is the shadow minister actually suggesting? Is he saying that the Australian government should do nothing to combat misinformation and disinformation? Is he suggesting we should leave the Australian regulator powerless in the face of this modern-day threat? The motion says the definition of 'misinformation' is so broad that it could capture many statements made by Australians in the context of political debate. In fact, the definition sets a high bar and does not include all misinformation and disinformation. The definition covers content that is false, misleading or deceptive, that is likely to cause or contribute to serious harm, that is provided on a digital service and spread at scale. The motion also notes: authorised content by the Government cannot be misinformation, but criticisms of the Government by ordinary Australians can be misinformation … The draft bill contains a number of exemptions to balance keeping Australians safe from serious harm with freedom of expression online. Those exemptions include content authorised by governments in Australia—by the Australian government or by a state, territory or local government. For example, state governments providing advice on social media to evacuate during a bushfire period would not be captured. The motion also states that 'nothing an academic says can be misinformation', but' good faith statements made by ordinary Australians on political matters can be misinformation'. That is plainly incorrect. In fact, the proposed powers would exempt educational content produced for all by accredited education providers. The motion states: journalists commenting on their personal digital platforms could have their content removed as misinformation … Professional news content is exempt from the proposed powers. The same definition for professional news as is used in the news media bargaining code has been applied in the draft bill. Finally, it states: if the Minister has a favoured digital platform, then that platform could be entirely removed from the application of the misinformation laws … Designation of digital platforms in the communications portfolio isn't new. It was actually the Liberals and Nationals who introduced similar designation powers under the news media bargaining code legislation. What is the shadow minister suggesting about favoured platforms and the designation approach? This draft legislation is not about censorship. It is about responding to a broadly recognised need to combat misinformation and disinformation and the harm that it causes to our kids and our communities. We understand that there is a balance to strike to ensure that any measure in the final legislation doesn't unduly impinge on freedom of speech. That's why the government put the draft bill through a thorough consultation process, encouraging submissions from the public, industry and the broader community. While we can't yet speak to what changes may be included in the updated draft, we remain committed to delivering a sensible, effective bill that combats the spread of misinformation and disinformation and the harm that they cause to our communities. 11:57 Mr BROADBENT MT4 Monash I can't believe that the government of the day, with this misinformation-disinformation bill, will not allow the Australian people to think for themselves. Do you think the Australian people are incapable of thinking through what is right and what is wrong in what they hear? They've done it for thousands of years. They've done for 200 years here, since the arrival of the First Fleet. They've done it throughout world history. People have sorted through what is misinformation and disinformation. Some of that proved to be absolutely correct. It was claimed to be misinformation, and it wasn't. It happened to be the truth, and any scholars, like those sitting opposite, would know that that is the case from history. But don't listen to me. Listen to the Human Rights Commissioner, Lorraine Finlay, in an unprecedented intervention—and I know it is because I've been on the human rights committee of this parliament on a number of occasions and I'm currently deputy chair. So I know when there's an unprecedented intervention, and this is an unprecedented intervention by the Australian Human Rights Commissioner. What on? On the misinformation and disinformation bill. This is what the highly respected Australian Human Rights Commissioner said. Lorraine Finlay warned that 'Labor's proposed laws to combat online misinformation could undermine democracy, erode public trust and jeopardise free speech'. Can that be any clearer? I'll read it again in case you missed it or you're being treated by this government in such a way that you can't think for yourself. I'll just read it again. She says, 'This bill could undermine democracy, erode public trust and jeopardise free speech.' That's a big call, and she's spot on. The DEPUTY SPEAKER E0D Order, Member for Monash. I'm sorry to tell you that the time allotted for this debate has expired. Mr Broadbent MT4 That's very disappointing. The DEPUTY SPEAKER E0D I understand. There'll be further slots for you to talk on this another time. The debate is adjourned, and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. BILLS 30 BILLS Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Amendment Bill 2023, Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Strengthening the Safety Net) Bill 2023, National Security Legislation Amendment (Comprehensive Review and Other Measures No. 2) Bill 2023, Jobs and Skills Australia Amendment Bill 2023, Inspector-General of Aged Care Bill 2023, Inspector-General of Aged Care (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2023, Aboriginal Land Grant (Jervis Bay Territory) Amendment (Strengthening Land and Governance Provisions) Bill 2022, Australian Organ and Tissue Donation and Transplantation Authority Amendment (Disclosure of Information) Bill 2023, Health Insurance Amendment (Prescribed Dental Patients and Other Measures) Bill 2023, Student Loans (Overseas Debtors Repayment Levy) Amendment Bill 2023, Trade Support Loans Amendment Bill 2023 30

Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Amendment Bill 2023

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

National Security Legislation Amendment (Comprehensive Review and Other Measures No. 2) Bill 2023

Jobs and Skills Australia Amendment Bill 2023

Inspector-General of Aged Care Bill 2023

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

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

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

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

Student Loans (Overseas Debtors Repayment Levy) Amendment Bill 2023

Trade Support Loans Amendment Bill 2023

Assent 30 COMMITTEES 30 COMMITTEES Economics Committee 30 Membership 30 12:00 The DEPUTY SPEAKER E0D I report to the House that on 11 August 2023 the Speaker received advice from the Chief Government Whip nominating Ms Templeman and Mr Neumann to be supplementary members of the Standing Committee on Economics for the purposes of the committee's inquiry into insurers' responses to recent natural disasters in Australia. In accordance with standing order 229(b), as the House was not expected to sit for several weeks, the appointments became effective on that date. 12:01 Mr THISTLETHWAITE 182468 Kingsford Smith by leave—I move: That Mr Neumann and Ms Templeman be appointed supplementary members of the Standing Committee on Economics for the purpose of the committee's inquiry into insurers' responses to recent natural disasters in Australia. Question agreed to. Economics Committee 30 Membership 30 12:01 The DEPUTY SPEAKER E0D The Speaker has received advice from the Chief Opposition Whip nominating members to be supplementary members of the Standing Committee on Economics for the purposes of the committee's inquiry into insurers' responses to natural disasters in Australia. 12:02 Mr THISTLETHWAITE 182468 Kingsford Smith by leave—I move: That Mr Gee and Mr Hogan be appointed supplementary members of the Standing Committee on Economics for the purposes of the committee's inquiry into insurers' responses to recent natural disasters in Australia. Question agreed to. BILLS 30 BILLS Higher Education Support Amendment (Response to the Australian Universities Accord Interim Report) Bill 2023 30

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

Second Reading 30 12:03 Dr LEIGH BU8 Fenner There are hundreds of thousands of 18-year-olds who began university this year. Those people were born in 2005, and they'll be at university from 2023 to 2025 if they do a regular, three-year bachelor's degree. Those people won't be eligible for the pension until 2072. At the end of their working lives, they will be dealing with the advanced technology of a workplace in 2072. We don't know the exact contours of what that labour market will look like, but we do know that it will be the sort of labour market which will reward high levels of skills. Just as the level of skill in the Australian economy has steadily increased over the last couple of generations, it will continue to do so for the current cohort. That means that, to a school leaver today, who was born in 2005 and who isn't eligible for the pension until 2072, university looks increasingly attractive. University won't be for everyone, but, in an age in which artificial intelligence is increasingly taking more routine jobs—automation of mobile services and factory automation are filling niches once filled by workers—higher levels of education are valuable. Our crystal ball for forecasting the precise jobs that will rise is a bit cloudy, but we do know that it's a very good bet that the jobs of the future will require higher levels of formal education than the jobs of today. Where will those new university graduates come from? They'll tend to come from groups that are currently underserved. At the moment around half of Australians in their late 20s and early 30s has a university degree, but that level differs quite markedly across Australia. In the outer suburbs of major Australian cities, only 23 per cent of young Australians have a university degree. In the regions, only 13 per cent of young Australians have a university degree. Among young adults from poor families, only 15 per cent have a university degree. Among Indigenous Australians, only seven per cent have a university degree. For a young Indigenous man today, you're more likely to go to jail than you are to go to university. Right across the population, 36 per cent of Australians have a university qualification today, and it's been forecast that by mid-century it's going to be necessary to have 55 per cent of the population with a university qualification. Labor is committed to ensuring that we provide more opportunities to get to university for those who currently struggle to find a pathway into university. This bill flows from an interim report by a panel which is chaired by Mary O'Kane and whose other members are Barney Glover, Shemara Wikramanayake, Jenny Macklin, Larissa Behrendt and Fiona Nash. Commissioned by Education Minister Jason Clare, this is the most important higher education review in 15 years—that is, since the Bradley review. Among its recommendations are recommendations contained in this bill. One of those is to remove the 50 per cent pass rule and to improve student support. At present, students are required to pass at least 50 per cent of the units of study they undertake to continue eligibility for Commonwealth assistance. These pass rate requirements were brought in at the beginning of 2022 under the former coalition government's Job-ready Graduates Package. Their aim was to dissuade students from continuing in courses that they're not academically suited for, but the practical effect has been overly punitive. We should be helping those students to succeed, not forcing them to quit. Western Sydney University this year alone has seen 1,350 students lose their funding and withdraw from their courses. The 50 per cent pass rule affects a disproportionate number of students who are Indigenous. It pushes out of university a disproportionate number of students who are first in family. It forces out of university a disproportionate number of students who are from poorer backgrounds. These are the very students that we need to continue on in university if Australia is to ensure that the education of the population matches the technological demands of the labour market. If we don't manage to do that, inequality will worsen. In their book The Race Between Education and Technology, Claudia Goldin and Larry Katz lay out a simple way of thinking about inequality. That is that inequality worsens at times when education stagnates and technology advances. Their theory is that only by education keeping up with advances in technology can we ensure that the gap between rich and poor doesn't widen. But the benefits go, too, to growth. We know that attending university boosts the productive capacity of those who get further education. It doesn't just benefit them; it benefits their coworkers. There's a positive spillover from higher levels of education. The earnings benefit is somewhere in the order of 10 per cent additional earnings for every additional year of further studies, meaning that a three-year bachelor's degree delivers something in the order of a 30 per cent wage gain. Then, on top of that, we see the benefits to those who work around university graduates. By scrapping the 50 per cent pass rule, we're going to ensure that there are more students who are able to get support, rather than simply be forced out. The rule has hit more than 13,000 students at 27 universities. Its scrapping has been called for by universities right across the country, including the University of Adelaide, Monash University, the University of Technology Sydney, the University of the Sunshine Coast, the University of New England, Queensland University of Technology and Western Sydney University. This bill introduces requirements on universities and other providers to have policies in place to help students successfully complete their studies. Those policies will identify students who are struggling and connect those students with support services. The Department of Education will issue a discussion paper to consult with universities and providers on the content of those policies, including how they're going to identify students and connect them up; provide non-academic supports, including financial assistance, housing assistance and mental health supports; have crisis and harm response arrangements in place; identify trained academic development advisers; and ensure that those supports are culturally appropriate. It's also important that universities consider proactively offering special circumstances arrangements, where a university is aware of a significant life event for a student, and that they provide targeted literacy, numeracy and other academic supports. It's important, too, that these interventions be properly evaluated. We have set up, within Treasury, the Australian Centre for Evaluation, which will work collaboratively right across the Commonwealth in improving the quality of evaluation and carrying out more rigorous evaluations, including robust randomised trials. In the area of student support, a randomised trial carried out by Alfred Paloyo, Sally Rogan and Peter Siminski looked at the impact of peer assisted study sessions at a major Australian university. They did that through an encouragement design. All students were eligible for the peer assisted study sessions, but the study sessions were randomly marketed to a subset of students. That then increased uptake and allowed the researchers to look at the causal impact of peer assisted study sessions on student achievement. It is that sort of careful, rigorous evaluation which needs to be conducted on these programs, on the programs which are providing academic supports and on programs that are providing non-academic supports. The other key measure in the bill that I want to draw the House's attention to is extending demand driven places to all Indigenous students. The existing demand driven measure applies to regional First Nations students. Under this bill, the eligibility for demand driven funding will cover metropolitan First Nations students studying bachelor and bachelor honours courses, except medicine at a table A university. That goes towards Closing the Gap outcome 6: to increase the proportion of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people aged 25 to 34 who have completed a tertiary qualification—that is, certificate III and above—to 70 per cent by 2031. It means there will be no cap on the number of First Nations students who can enrol in Commonwealth supported places. The Department of Education estimates this may double the number of Indigenous students at university within a decade. The measure has received support from Universities Australia, the Australian National University, the University of Queensland, Western Sydney University, Macquarie University, James Cook University, the University of Southern Queensland, the University of Melbourne, the University of Adelaide, the University of Queensland and the University of Technology Sydney. It builds on the government's election commitment to deliver up to 20,000 Commonwealth supported places and fee-free TAFE. It is vital that we increase the number of Indigenous students at Australian universities and that we create more of those opportunities that we know come from higher levels of education. We understand, as a government, the damage that was done to students, and to the sector more broadly, by the former coalition government's ill-conceived Job-ready Graduates Package—a package which did nothing to redirect student enrolments in the way the former government intended but simply disproportionately loaded more debt on students in disfavoured courses. The former government's scrapping of the demand-driven system has meant that fewer Australians can get the benefit of attending university. It's exactly the opposite of what Australia needs at a time when technology is racing ahead. As technological advances improve, we have to give more Australians the opportunity to attend university. I want to commend the Minister for Education, Jason Clare, for thinking big in this space and thinking about questions such as whether we will ultimately require new universities. The number of universities per capita in Australia is significantly lower than that, for example, in the United States. New institutions can provide fresh opportunities and place useful competitive pressure on other universities to ensure they're doing their best job of serving their students and the broader community. When I look to the example in the United States, where I was fortunate to study for a bit, the liberal arts college model in the north-east in particular is one which seems to be largely absent from Australia—the notion of a university that prizes teaching above all else and whose faculty members are often researching effective teaching practices. That is, they are the leaders for the nation in improving the quality of academic instruction. Institutions along the lines of a US-style liberal arts college could be a benefit to the Australian higher education ecosystem. The minister is also thinking about the idea of a universal learning entitlement; more work integrated learning and courses; a jobs broker program; a national student charter, akin to the New Zealand model; and a national skills passport that would include all of your qualifications, microcredentials, prior learning, workplace experience and general capability. We know that it is going to be essential to continue to learn through one's career. The old-fashioned model of a block of education at the start of a career which you draw down through the course of the rest of your career has gone out the window. When I visit mechanics workshops, as I did a lot when we were campaigning for mechanics to get the data they need to fix modern cars, I was struck by the degree of ongoing learning that's happening in those workplaces—mechanics learning to fix new electric vehicles and also tapping in to be able to update the software on new cars. Sometimes that learning was happening formally; sometimes it was through watching a YouTube video. But it was very clear that those mechanics who weren't engaged in continuous learning would be struggling in a decade's time. That's the approach we need to take right across education, creating continuous learners who are able to adapt and adopt new technologies to thrive in the modern age. 12:18 Mr CHANDLER-MATHER 300121 Griffith The Greens of course think that the 50 per cent rule, which saw students lose government funding if they failed more than half of their subjects, should be scrapped. It was punitive and unfair and hit students who lacked support the hardest. And the Greens support improving access to universities for First Nations students. But, really, if the government were serious—if Labor were serious—about improving access to universities, they would do two things: take a leaf out of Whitlam's book and bring back free university education; and wipe the scourge that is the skyrocketing and surging student debt. Indeed, we know that free university education would be transformative for millions of Australians. In countries like Germany that provide free university education to both domestic and international students, we see a population highly trained in the most successful economy in Europe, where, regardless of your circumstances, your income or your fear of debt in the future, you can get a good-quality university education. In a wealthy country like Australia, there is absolutely no reason why we shouldn't be able to do the same here. Student debt has become a giant, huge problem for millions of Australians right now, and it is, frankly, destroying many of their lives. On 1 June 2023, student debts were indexed by a staggering 7.1 per cent, effectively an interest charge on debt of 7.1 per cent. It was 3.9 per cent the year before. That means for many students their debt is rising faster than they can afford to pay it off. In fact, for those on low incomes it is worse. Take this from the Australia Institute. For someone with a debt of $24,000—that's the average debt—and earning $50,000 a year, their debt will increase by $1,259 after repayment of $500, which means that their debt is going up faster than they can afford to pay it. For someone on $50,000, they are copping a $500 hit to their income come tax time and at the end of it their debt will be higher. In fact, using the average debt, anyone earning between $48,000 and $62,000, roughly, will go backwards this year because of indexation. That is remarkable. That's just on the average debt. But, of course, the higher your debt is, the higher income you need to avoid going backwards. Take Zoe, whose story was reported in the Guardian. Despite earning a salary of $100,000, she was forced to pay back $10,000 in student debt payments this year. But the kicker is that indexation saw her debt increase by $9,000, which means that in the end she was able to take only $1,000 off her debt. Her total debt of $124,000 has only reduced by $4,000, despite spending $15,000 in the last five years paying back against her student debt. We already know that only 13 per cent of houses in Australia are now affordable for people on $103,000. For people on lower incomes it is even worse. But what's worse is that larger student debts make it harder to even get a home loan in the first place. Student debt held by the government is now $74 billion, and with indexation they will get an extra $5 billion on that student debt. In comparison, their so-called tax on gas operations will raise only $2.5 billion over the next four years, which means that Labor are raising more money off indexing student debt than they are from taxing massive gas operations. Of course, student debt could be wiped and we could bring back free university education, especially when you compare it to the cost that the government is going to incur on the stage 3 tax cuts and the nuclear attack submarines alone. Over the next 10 years Labor will spend $313 billion on tax cuts for politicians and billionaires via the stage 3 tax cuts and Labor will spend $368 million over the next few decades on the nuclear attack submarines. For a fraction of that, we could bring back free university education, wipe student debt and transform millions of people's lives. How many working people right now are deciding not to go to university because they do not want to incur a student debt? It's money that could have been used to help cover the rent increase—and that, I think, is crucial. Think about what that extra $500 means for someone on $50,000 a year. For someone on even $100,000 a year, think about what $10,000 could cover. It could cover the rent. It could mean you are able to buy the fresh vegetables that have been price-gouged by Coles and Woolies. At the end of the day, we have a financial and political system completely rigged against people who haven't already been able to buy a home or certainly investment properties. And you wonder why people are upset and frustrated by politics. Not only are real wages going backwards, not only is it becoming almost impossible for many to buy a home and not only are more people being trapped renting for longer than they would like and being smashed by skyrocketing rents; at the end of that, three million Australians also have a giant student debt that, in many cases, is increasing faster than they can afford to pay it off. This is a student debt incurred for what? It's for doing what we are told these days you basically need to get to get most jobs or an increasing number of jobs in the Australian economy, which is a university degree. We just had Labor members previously speak about the fact that, with a changing and shifting economy, being able to access a university education is crucial to being able to get many of the jobs of the future, and yet now we have a system where, if your parents can afford to pay for your university education, you can avoid that massive student debt but, if you are in the vast majority of people who have to cop a massive debt just to get it, it then sticks with you potentially for decades, often increasing faster than you can afford to pay it off. We essentially have a two-speed economy where, if you were lucky enough to be born into a wealthy family, you can get that start you need to go and live a good life. But, if you're from a middle- or lower-income family, you have to cop an average debt of $24,000 that often increases faster than you can afford to pay it off, be denied access to ever being able to afford to buy a home and be stuck renting in a rental market that sees rents go up by as much as a landlord wants. I think the gall of it all, the thing that frustrates so many people, is how many politicians in this place got to go to university for free, how many politicians in this place got to buy a house for a fraction of what it costs to buy a house today and how many politicians in this place—Labor members in particular—have the power to change that system. They could, for instance, introduce a bill into this place to scrap student debt and bring back free university education. They could phase out the stage 3 tax cuts and spend those hundreds of billions of dollars in building good-quality public homes, providing relief for renters and providing the sorts of things that previous generations, including the Prime Minister's generation, got to enjoy, like free university education and cheap and affordable housing. The bottom line is that education should not be a debt sentence. In a wealthy country like this, we should be able to provide a free university education to anyone who wants one. Indeed, if you think about it, it is deeply illogical that in a fast-changing economy we put giant debt barriers in front of people who want to retrain. Germany, which has a very successful economy with a very high tech manufacturing base, understand that it needs to provide the opportunity to its population without any barriers to go and retrain. It has enormous flow-on social benefits. The bottom line is thinking about the benefits to those individuals. How many people, if we were to wipe student debt right now, would get that little bit of extra money and maybe that slightly bigger home loan to go and buy a house? How many more wouldn't have to choose between feeding their kids and paying the rent? How many more, come tax time, wouldn't be lumped with that extra $500 or $1,000 to pay off from their student debt, which ends up rising faster than they can pay it off anyway? What could that money be spent on? We're an enormously wealthy country with an abundance of resources, and the fundamental question for us in this place is: how do we distribute those resources? How do we spend them in a way that maximises them and ensures that the greatest number of people get the things that they need to go on and live a good life? It's hard to think of something more grossly unfair, and more representative of how rigged our political and economic system is against the vast majority of people, than student debt. They have to pay for something that so many politicians in this place got for free. For so many today, student debt means tens of thousands of dollars of debt that is almost impossible to pay off. It makes it harder to buy a home, harder to make ends meet and harder at the supermarket, and it makes their lives and the lives of future generations harder. I couldn't think of anything more grossly unfair than student debt and the price of a university education. 12:28 Ms COKER 263547 Corangamite Today almost one in two Australians in their late 20s and early 30s has a university degree. This is true for major cities, but for regions like mine it's a different story. In the outer suburbs of our major cities, it's only 23 per cent of young adults who have a university degree. In the regions, it is almost half that, at 13 per cent, while only 15 per cent of young adults from disadvantaged families have a degree. If you're a young Indigenous Australian it's even lower again—only seven per cent. If you are a young Indigenous man today, you're more likely to go to jail than to university. These statistics are alarming. They're a red flag to the serious challenges we face. The Albanese government understands this and recognises that quality education is vital for our workforce, our productivity, our international reputation and our capacity to advance as individuals and as a nation. That's why I stand today in support of the Higher Education Support Amendment (Response to the Australian Universities Accord Interim Report) Bill 2023. This bill is all about taking the first important steps to overhauling our tertiary education system. It builds on our fee-free TAFE reform and ensures better access and outcomes after nine years of neglect and incompetence by the former coalition government. An OECD report released last year reveals just how woeful the coalition's education policies were, resulting in one in five Australian adults having low literacy and numeracy skills. This is unacceptable. Over the past decade, we have also seen an alarming decline in employment rates of university graduates and a growing level of employer dissatisfaction with the quality of graduate skills, adding to our current acute skills shortage. The bill before us today includes key recommendations from the Universities Accord interim reportthat directly respond to these challenges. In acting on these recommendations, and in taking guidance from experts like Professor Mary O'Kane and her amazing team who led the Universities Accord, we are creating a strong foundation for our future prosperity. The interim report recognises that we need better representation and equity in our student university admissions, that we need to encourage Australians from regional areas, from First Nations communities and from lower socioeconomic backgrounds to pursue further education. That's why the Albanese government has committed to enacting each of the five priority recommendations ahead of the accord's final report later this year. These five recommendations of the interim report include that we create more university student hubs—that makes sense—not only in our outer suburbs but throughout the regions; that we scrap the 50 per cent pass rule and require better reporting on how students are progressing; that we extend the demand-driven funding currently provided to Indigenous students from regional and remote areas to cover all Indigenous students; 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 disadvantaged students; and that we work with state and territory governments, through the National Cabinet, to improve university governance. This is important work, and that's why our government will act on all priority recommendations as soon as possible. In response to recommendation 2, the bill amends the Higher Education Support Act to remove the requirement that students pass 50 per cent of the units they study to remain eligible for the Commonwealth supported place and FEE-HELP assistance. It was the now opposition that introduced the 50 per cent pass rule, as part of its Job-ready Graduates Package, which has had dire consequences, with a disproportionate number of students from poor backgrounds being forced to leave university. More than 13,000 students at 27 universities have been hit by this in the past two years, mostly from disadvantaged backgrounds. We should be helping these students to succeed, not forcing them to quit. A uni student, Jack, from my electorate of Corangamite said this to me just recently, when he approached me at a market stall to raise his concerns about our tertiary system. We had a very interesting conversation, and Jack said to me: 'Universities can't seem to keep up. They recycle lectures. They consistently re-use old content and don't often chase up students who are struggling with workloads. I've seen too many of my mates drop out because they don't have academic support. They can't afford to move to the city for study. They find it too hard to juggle part-time work to pay the bills and study full time.' These challenges that Jack identifies are real. I acknowledge some universities do well to address them. Others must do better. It is our government's job to go on this journey, to work with universities and equip them so they get the best education outcomes possible. As part of that journey, and in response to the second recommendation of the report, the bill will require universities and other providers to have a dedicated plan—a robust support-for-students policy—that will proactively identify students who are at risk of falling behind in their studies and set out what they will do to help them to succeed. These student support policies will make sure universities assess students' academic and non-academic suitability for continuing study; connect students to support, and identify students who are not engaging with that support, before their census date; and provide sufficient non-academic support for students such as financial assistance, housing information and mental health supports. It will also ensure universities have appropriate crisis arrangements and, importantly, provide access to advisers who can help students to identify what's holding them back in their studies; proactively offer special circumstances arrangements where a provider is aware of a significant life event for a student; and offer access to targeted individual literacy, numeracy and other academic and peer supports. And, finally, it will provide targeted in-course support from academic staff such as check-ins and flexibility on assessment arrangements. Further to this, the bill provides the removal of the 50 per cent pass rule. This reform has been called for by universities right across the nation: universities like the University of Adelaide, Monash University, the University of Technology Sydney, the University of the Sunshine Coast, the University of New England, the Queensland University of Technology and Western Sydney University. Universities Australia has described the 50 per cent pass rule as a 'punitive measure widely regarded as being unnecessarily harsh' and noted that students most likely to fall foul of the 50 per cent pass rule are first-year students from lower socioeconomic status backgrounds. Universities Australia has welcomed this recommendation and the government's plan for action. Innovative Research Universities also called the rule 'punitive' and congratulated our government in moving to abolish it. The other priority action addressed in this bill is recommendation 3, which will ensure all Indigenous students are eligible for a funded place at a public university if they meet the entry requirements for the course. This means those students will be able to access support in the form of a Commonwealth supported place, and a HELP loan. Since the Hawke government, this has increased access to university for underrepresented groups. Under current legislation, only Indigenous students from regional or remote Australia can access demand driven places. This bill means demand driven places for bachelor level courses will now be available to all Indigenous students wherever they live. The Department of Education estimates this could double the number of Indigenous students at university within a decade. It should be noted this is another reform strongly supported by universities. Universities Australia said this about the reform: 'Universities have long called for uncapped places for all Indigenous students and the removal of barriers to a university education for students from underrepresented backgrounds. The creation of more study hubs will help to facilitate this.' On that matter, and in response to recommendation 1, we will double the number of university study hubs. There are currently 34 in regional Australia. The Albanese government will establish 20 more in the regions and, for the first time, introduce 14 into outer suburbs of our major cities where the percentage of people with a university degree is alarmingly low. In response to the fourth recommendation, we will extend the higher education continuity guarantee into next year and the year after that. And finally, in response the fifth recommendation, we will work with the states and the territories on improving university governance. Our Minister for Education has already written to the ministers responsible for higher education in each state and territory to convene a working group. Its job will be to provide advice to our minister and to others ministers on the immediate actions we must take to improve university governance. There are three areas this working group will focus on: firstly, ensuring that universities are good employers providing a supportive workplace; secondly, making sure governing bodies have the right to expertise, including in the business of running universities; and finally, making sure our universities are safe and supportive for all students and staff. In closing, we recognise that after nine years of the coalition government undermining and eroding the tertiary system, it requires a substantial rebuild to make sure that all Australians are given every opportunity to go to university if they wish to. Whether you're from Geelong, the Bellarine, the Golden Plains or the Surf Coast, and whatever your cultural background, gender or finances, we want to see every Australian have the opportunity to further their education, and that is what this bill is about. That's what this report is all about. And, thanks to the accord panel, we now know the scope of the problem. For millions of young Australians, it is time to act. To quote former Labor prime minister Bob Hawke: We cannot continue to waste the talents and destroy the hopes of our young people … We cannot afford to lose so many able students from our …universities. Like the Hawke government before it, the Albanese government is committed to this cause not only because it builds productivity and capacity but because it means today's young people and those transitioning to new careers will be able to secure rewarding work and a decent wage. These are the building blocks of a strong, dynamic country. I thank the Minister for Education for introducing this bill and I commend it to the House. 12:41 Ms STEGGALL 175696 Warringah I rise in support of the Higher Education Support Amendment (Response to the Australian Universities Accord Interim Report) Bill 2023. I commend the minister for commissioning the important work of the Australian Universities Accord. This work, being led by Professor Mary O'Kane, is tasked with looking at higher education holistically to set Australia up for the future with the skills and knowledge we need to continue to grow our economy and capitalise on the changing nature of work. The transition to a green economy will require a range of new tertiary skills and trades. We're also witnessing the emergence of artificial intelligence, and the world is making progress towards quantum computing. All these changes will require new skills and knowledge sets, and we need to ensure our higher education system is equipping future generations with the skills and wherewithal to capitalise on the opportunities. In Warringah in the next five years some 90 per cent of new jobs will demand tertiary education, yet we are seeing a decrease in the completion of bachelor degrees, to the lowest level since 2014, and a worsening skilled worker shortage looms. I know businesses in Warringah and around the country are already feeling the shortage of skilled workers, and I have advocated previously more aggressive policies to support innovation in this country. To meet Australia's needs and create the future we want for our society, our education system needs to be equitable, especially for marginalised groups. Thirty-six per cent of my electorate have a bachelor degree, 10 per cent more than the national average—I acknowledge that—because there is opportunity and access. So we need to ensure that higher education is more accessible, regardless of socioeconomic or geographic location. It's a national shame, as stated by the current Minister for Government Services, that an Indigenous teenager is more likely to go to jail than university, or even finish high school. It really highlights the inequities we still very much have in this country. This interim report is important. The Australian Universities Accord interim report recommends initial tweaks to Australia's higher education system to align with national needs. This bill addresses two of the five recommendations from the interim report—specifically, to cease the 50 per cent pass rule which disproportionately disadvantages students from equity backgrounds and really was acting as a deterrent to young people getting into and completing their tertiary studies; and expanding eligibility to all First Nations students, including those in metropolitan areas like Warringah, not just those in regional communities, because it's important we up the percentage of completion when it comes to tertiary education. These two provisions are important to restoring equality, and they enhance the accessibility of higher education. The first provision, the 50 per cent pass rule means—or meant, because we are now hopefully getting rid of it—that any student who fails to pass at least 50 per cent of their subject in a year of study is denied the ability to study further. These kinds of one-size rules just don't work and don't take into account the circumstances students might find themselves in and need to address. It's an incredibly punitive measure that disadvantages those that can least afford it. It expels people from university without the opportunity to course correct and puts no incentive on the universities to assist students through those early years, which might be difficult. I strongly opposed it when it was implemented under the previous government, so I strongly support the repeal of that provision. The second provision introduced aims to increase the access of Indigenous students to higher education. In light of the debate on Closing the Gap outcomes, it's incredibly important for this amendment to pass. The practical impact of this amendment would extend the guaranteed funding for students in remote and regional areas to students in metropolitan areas. It will assist in reaching the ambitious Closing the gap report target of 70 per cent of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander young adults having a tertiary education by 2031. Access to higher education has many positive flow-on effects on broader First Nations families and communities, as well as individuals, embedding generational accessibility to tertiary education. There are recommendations from the report that aren't included in the bill, so I call the government to implement the additional recommendations of the interim report, including those that address safety on campuses, particularly for women. In particular, in this place we have had a debate and have seen what the outcomes are when we don't have safe enough practices. It's incredibly important that universities very urgently engage with this problem. I've previously spoken in this place about the scourge of sexual harassment and violence on university campuses and in workplaces around the country and the need to urgently intervene with targeted programs to improve safety on campus. It's incredibly important to remember that tertiary education at university level is where these young people are starting their independent adult journey, and the statistics of the occurrence of sexual harassment, violence or assaults on university campuses are just unacceptable. The statistics are devastating. Some 85,000 students have experienced sexual assault on campuses since 2017. As a parent, that is just staggering. These are our children that we send to universities in the hope they are going to learn and develop the skills to be the leaders of tomorrow, and so many of them are having such a negative experience. I welcome the government's commitment to address the issue and its willingness to engage with those with lived experiences, such as the STOP Campaign and Fair Agenda. But I should note that it took for young people to come into this place, meet with so many of us and raise it on social media to pressure the minister to meet with them and include them in this process. They still report a process to me, though, whereby universities are not facilitating the programs they are trying to put forward, they are not making rooms available and they are putting obstacles in the way of these very good programs that are student led and for students, to keep them safe. I urge universities to engage proactively in the process and take action on the ground now. Don't wait. It's already gone on for too long. Facilitate prevention programs and recovery programs for those already impacted. The interim report also recommends providing funding certainty through extending the Higher Education Continuing Guarantee to 2024 and 2025. We need to look at funding for the sector to ensure that it is sustainable and adequately supported by government, to ensure that we don't end up with a US-style education debt burden for future generations. The recent Intergenerational report shows that this generation has a huge burden on its shoulders. We will be the generation retired when they will be expected to carry the load, and they will be burdened by massive student debts. I recently wrote to the Minister for Education expressing my concern about the sudden spike in HECS debt due to the high rate of inflation this year. HECS debts were indexed to 7.1 per cent. That is a huge increase in burden for many people, and I fear numbers like that will both add to the anxiety for those who have already accumulated debts and deter others from entering university. I believe that indexation should be linked to the wage price index, as it is in the United Kingdom, or the lower CPI or the official cash rate. We must ensure we are not burdening students with unrealistic interest rate hikes on their HECS debts. That way we will ensure that student debts rise incrementally rather than astronomically if inflation gets out of hand once again. Students with debts should not be paying the price for poor government control from the past government in allowing inflation that really has got out of hand. In conclusion, I welcome these initial moves and urge the government to commit to the full implementation of the remaining recommendations of the interim report. I look forward to the outcomes of the final report and trust that it will address two key areas: the long-term funding arrangements for universities and indexation, and the balance of funding allocated by government to humanities degrees as opposed to STEM. As someone who has studied a humanities degree, I strongly oppose and reject the previous government's attempts to disadvantage some students over others. We need all areas of tertiary education to advance us as a society and to develop young people with the skills to come up with solutions. Picking areas that you want to support over others is not the way to guarantee a strong and productive Australia of the future. The interim report begins with a mission statement for higher education. Higher education's mission is to make a better future possible for Australia. Let's work with the sector and future students to make sure that mission is achieved. We need to ensure we hear the voices of young people a lot more in this place. We need to make sure the education minister is hearing the voices of young people, because the decisions that are being made by government are going to impact on the future of those young people. We have a number of big challenges ahead, but we also have amazing opportunities. As a parent of a number of students at university myself, I know what an important opportunity this is. It is an incredible privilege and opportunity to do this, to study for qualifications for jobs. But we need to ensure it's a safe environment. That should be an absolute necessity. The university sector needs to be a safe one. And it should be forward thinking. It needs to address future challenges. So I look forward to further discussions with the minister to ensure we keep progressing in this area. 12:52 Mr GOSLING 245392 Solomon I want to start by congratulating the Minister for Education on the excellent job that he is doing. He informed me just a little while ago that, in my electorate of Solomon, in Darwin and Palmerston, the capital of the north, 29 per cent of people 15 years and over have completed higher education, which is a bit higher than the national average of 26.3 per cent. But, at the same time, I think it is important to point out that that figure that is than the national average hides a truism, which is that for many people, young people in particular, in my electorate higher education is but a pipe dream. The Higher Education Support Amendment (Response to the Australian Universities Accord Interim Report) Bill 2023 is going to make it easier. It's going to provide more support for young Territorians in my electorate to get higher education. What will also help is the referendum that we have coming up. The establishment of an advisory body to give advice on things like higher education will undoubtedly continue the good work in this bill because it will give feedback directly from those elected representatives in that advisory body to the parliament and to the government. So I welcome it and encourage all honourable members to support a 'yes' vote at the referendum. I rise to speak on this higher education support amendment bill and, in doing so and having pointed out the situation in my electorate with regard to higher education, I want to acknowledge the hard work of vice-chancellor Professor Scott Bowman and all the good folk at Charles Darwin University, including those at the new CDU TAFE, and congratulate them on a great open day at the Palmerston campus on the weekend. This bill implements priority recommendations of the Australian Universities Accord Interim Report, which was released by the minister on 19 July. The accord team, as honourable members would know, comprised pre-eminent Australians with enormous experience across our universities, in industry and in public policy, and it was bipartisan in its composition. Hopefully, honourable members have had a chance to speak with some of the member of the panel. They include Professor Mary O'Kane AC, former vice chancellor of the University of Adelaide; Professor Barney Glover AO, Vice-Chancellor of Western Sydney University and a former vice-chancellor of Charles Darwin University in Darwin; Ms Shemara Wikramanayake, the first female managing director and chief executive officer of Macquarie Group; the Hon. Jenny Macklin AC, former minister for families, community services and Indigenous affairs, a former member of this place and a friend. I spoke with Jenny just recently about a range of issues, including the disease MJD, which she is a passionate advocate for. Another member of the panel is Professor Larissa Behrend AO, the first Indigenous Australian to graduate from Harvard Law School, a professor of law and the Director of Research and Academic Programs at the Jumbunna Institute of Indigenous Education and Research at the University of Technology, Sydney. That has prompted me to acknowledge the good folk at Bachelor in the Northern Territory who do excellent work in training our First Nations students, not just from the Territory but from other places in Australia. The last but certainly not least member of the panel is a former member of this place, the Hon. Fiona Nash, who was a senator for New South Wales, a former minister for regional development, regional communications, local government and territories and is now Australia's first Regional Education Commissioner. I met with Fiona in Darwin just recently, and we had a great conversation about how we need to include regional universities like Charles Darwin University in the national picture and in the national ecosystem of universities in this nation if we are to develop our greatest resource, which is our people, in regional areas of Australia. I thank Fiona for her time and for her work. Our government is committed to opening the door of opportunity for more Australians to go to university, including Australians in regional areas of Australia like the one that I represent. Part of this means acting on the priority actions of the interim report. These actions are: creating more university study hubs; scrapping the 50 per cent pass rule; requiring better reporting on how students are progressing; extending the demand-driven funding currently provided to First Nations students from regional and remote areas to cover all First Nations students around the country; providing funding certainty during the accord process by extending the Higher Education Continuity Guarantee into 2024-25 with funding arrangements that prioritise support for equity students; and, lastly, working with state and territory governments to improve university governance. The government has confirmed it will implement each of the interim recommendations. Recommendations 2 and 3 need legislative amendment, which this bill provides by amending the HESA. These amendments extend the current demand-driven funding for regional and remote First Nations students to all First Nations Australian undergraduate students studying bachelor or honours levels courses, other than medicine, from 2024. They also remove the pass-rate requirements for students to remain eligible for Commonwealth assistance, which we know is so vital. The amendments also introduce new requirements on universities and other providers to support students to successfully complete their studies. The removal of the 50 per cent pass rule is a major reform. Students are currently required to pass at least 50 per cent of the units of study they undertake to continue eligibility for Commonwealth assistance. The pass rate is assessed after they have completed eight units in a bachelor's degree or higher or four units in a shorter course. Students who fail more than half currently lose eligibility for Commonwealth assistance. The pass rate requirements were originally introduced in January 2022 by the former coalition government as part of its Job-ready Graduates program to dissuade students from continuing in courses they are not academically suited for. However, the practical effect of these measures has been overly punitive for students. We need to be helping our students more, supporting our students more, to get them across the line. The impact of the pass rate requirement disproportionately affected students from First Nations, low socioeconomic status and other underrepresented or educationally disadvantaged cohorts. More than 13,000 students at 27 universities have already been hit by the rule. Removal of the rule has been called for by universities right across the country, and we have listened to those calls. They are universities like Adelaide, Monash, University of Technology Sydney, Sunshine Coast, New England, Queensland University of Technology and Western Sydney University. They made the calls to overturn that ruling, and we have listened because we should be helping students succeed, not forcing them to quit. The bill introduces requirements on universities and other providers to have policies in place to help students successfully complete their studies. Under these policies, universities and other providers would be required to demonstrate how they will identify students who are struggling, connect to those students and provide support services to help those students. The Department of Education will issue a discussion paper to consult with universities and providers on the content of these policies. It is expected to contain measures such as processes for identifying students who need help, as well as assessing a student's academic and non-academic suitability for continuing study, particularly where they have triggered an alert. It is also important to connect students to support, identifying students who are not engaging with support before their census date wherever possible, to keep them in the game, to keep them on a pathway to education or to quickly identify whether another pathway may be. We need to consider whether there is sufficient non-academic support for students, such as financial assistance, housing information and mental health supports. That's so important because many students can struggle because of non-academic issues, so we need to have an academic approach and a non-academic approach, helping the student in a holistic way. We also need to have appropriate crisis and critical harm response arrangements. That's also really important. We need to provide access to trained academic development advisers who can help a student identify what's holding them back and come up with the right response for that student. The theory here that we will put in practice is that no-one gets left behind. We give the supports that wrap around those students to keep them in the game of education. The idea of proactively offering special circumstances arrangements where a provider is aware of a significant life event for a student is so important. When I reflect back on my job and the situations you come across, we had a situation where several international students were killed in a tragic car accident just outside of Darwin. That had a massive impact on their fellow students. Special considerations were assessed locally by the university team, but making that more of a part of the arrangements for everyone in the sector going forward is a very good thing. We also need to provide access to targeted individual literacy, numeracy and other academic supports. Provider-driven and evidence based additional support, such as peer support, is also important, as is targeted in-course support from academic staff, such as check-ins and flexibility on assessment arrangements. Universities and other providers will be required under this legislation to comply with their student support policies, and civil penalties will apply for compliance breaches. That is an example of how seriously we take this issue. There have to be consequences for those that show such disregard for keeping students in the game. They need to have a policy to support students and they need to stick with it. The existing demand driven measure was implemented in 2021 in response to the National Regional, Rural and Remote Tertiary Education Strategy, which was also known as the Napthine review. The proposal aims to increase First Nations enrolment numbers by expanding the eligibility of demand driven funding to include metropolitan First Nations students studying bachelor and bachelor honours courses—as I mentioned earlier, except for medicine—at Table A universities. This measure directly supports 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 a tertiary qualification—that is, certificate III and above—to 70 per cent by 2031. We believe we can do that. This means there will be no cap on the number of First Nations students that can enrol in Commonwealth supported places, and Table A providers will receive Commonwealth funding for all First Nations students under part 2 of the HESA. The Department of Education estimates this may double the number of First Nations students at unis within a decade, and the measure has strong support across the university sector. The measure builds on the government's election commitment to deliver up to 20,000 Commonwealth supported places and fee-free TAFE places. In the time remaining, I want to give a personal reflection on the power of education to improve lives and improve livelihoods. In the Northern Territory, around 30 per cent of people identify as First Nations Australians. Aboriginal Australians who have a multigenerational—going back up to 2,000 generations. I'm the first in my line, on both my mum's and my dad's side, to go to university, and it has given me incredible opportunities. You could argue that if I hadn't been to university I wouldn't be here. What we want to do is provide, for First Nations Australians, the opportunities that so many other Australians have had. This bill goes towards that. That's why I recommend to all honourable members to support this and the referendum. 13:07 Ms THWAITES 282212 Jagajaga I couldn't do any better than begin by echoing the sentiments that the member for Solomon gave just there about the transformational power of higher education and the need to extend that opportunity to as many people as possible in our country, particularly those people who, in the past, haven't had the access to higher education that they should have had, people from First Nations backgrounds and from socioeconomic disadvantaged backgrounds. We know that higher education transforms lives, and, in fact, this bill sets out to do some of the work we need to do to make it accessible to more people. I, like so many other people in this place, have the advantage of a higher education degree; in fact, I'm fortunate enough to have two. I know personally how important access to higher education is for setting you up later in life. It is important on a personal level, but, as I was just explaining and as the member for Solomon was explaining, it is also important for our communities and country. We know that in the decades to come more and more jobs will require a university qualification. The transformations we are seeing across our country, across our economy and across industries; and the investments in new green energy and new technology mean there will be a number of new jobs with new skills required. What we want is for those jobs to be filled and to be available to all. We want them to be jobs that young people in my community, in the north-east of Melbourne, are able to access and that young people in the member for Solomon's electorate, in the northern parts of this country, are also able to access. We want to open up university education so that these jobs of the future that are going power our country forward are accessible to all, setting our country up for the best possible future and setting up young people in my community and communities around the country for the best possible future. That's what this government is focused on and that's what this bill is focused on. We are fortunate in my electorate of Jagajaga to have a wonderful university, La Trobe University, located right on our doorstep. At that university they do a very good job of trying to be as inclusive as possible, of trying to draw a broad demographic of students and support those students through their higher education journey. We as a government are aiming to support more and more universities to do that and to do it better. I know that La Trobe is a destination of choice for many young people in my community to access higher education. I'm fortunate enough to visit it frequently. Most recently, I went and saw some students training in allied health, learning how to give remote consultations, helping people with speech difficulties—a really important skill that is vital to so many in our community and something that we need more and more people to be working in. La Trobe also does great work when it comes to developing a food hub and agribusiness—again, crucial industries for the future of our country—working together with organisations like the CSIRO, building the industries and the job opportunities of the future. I know that it, as a university, is seen by local students as an excellent, accessible option that sets them up for their lives and careers. It is a university that will benefit from these reforms, and I hope that others around the country will as well. The bill before us is based on the work of the Australian Universities Accord Panel and the interim report they produced. Unlike previous approaches, our government's approach is to want to do things that actually make a difference. In planning these changes, we brought together a group of experts to do the hard work, to come together and put the experience they have together to inform us on how best to shape our university sector into the future. That panel has found that 36 per cent of the current Australian workforce have a university qualification today, but its estimates were that that could jump to 55 per cent by the middle of this century. That gives us, as a government, and as a country, an idea of the skills challenge that we are facing in the years and the decades to come. As a result of that work, the report that the panel gave us put forward five priority actions, all of which our government has committed to implement. In those five priority actions, we are extending access to tertiary education in regional and suburban locations, ceasing the ridiculous 50 per cent pass rule put in place by the previous government, ensuring all First Nations students are eligible for a funded place, providing funding certainty through the extension of the Higher Education Continuity Guarantee into 2024 and 2025 and, through National Cabinet, engaging with state and territory governments and universities to improve university governance. That last part is very important. We want universities that are run well, that have good governance in place. I am also really pleased about an important piece of work that our government has also announced, a working group that will be providing advice on making universities safe places for both staff and students. We know that there is still a lot of work to be done on making universities safe places for staff and students. That has been raised time and time again by students. Universities have taken some action to address sexual assault and harassment on campuses to date, but it is very clear that that hasn't done the job yet. The complete job is not done, and this needs to change. Our government believes that education should be not just accessible but it should also be safe and fair. That is a really important part of that reform. I mentioned earlier that one of the recommendations of the panel, and a recommendation that this bill addresses, is taking away the 50 per cent pass rule put in place by the previous government. That rule was introduced by the previous coalition government as part of its Job-ready Graduates Package. It was a harsh rule. It was introduced to try to dissuade students from continuing in courses that they were 'not academically suited for'. The government pulled together a list of what it considered 'job ready' or 'national priority' subjects and lowered student contributions to attract students to those subjects. Other subjects were set at prices at neutral or increased levels to deter them. We've seen that the changes have had little impact on what subjects students are choosing to study, but what they are doing is making it very unfair. They do mean that if you've got more money you've got more choice, and if you don't have the money you're being deterred from getting an education that you might need or deserve to get based on what a previous government deemed worthy or unworthy. The 50 per cent pass rule disproportionately disadvantaged students from poor backgrounds and the regions. Those students are more likely to be in difficult circumstances and to have unexpected things happen that may interrupt their ability to study and pass exams. These people are the people who can least afford to be slugged with higher fees. This was not a well-thought-through reform. It has not had a positive impact on our higher education system, and our government is doing the sensible thing in taking this away. As a country we can't thrive and we can't get people ready for the jobs of the future if we are in fact penalising people who need support the most and preventing them from being able to take up those opportunities. In changing this we will be able to change our focus so that we are improving the success rates of at-risk students, not punishing them, not saying, 'That's it, you're done,' or 'You have to pay more.' We will work on how we help those people to be able to have the success they should have at university. We know that for all these students life isn't one thing at one time. They are juggling a lot. This rule meant that those students were facing undue pressure, and it is important that we change that. The advice we have suggests that more than 8,000 students have been or are at risk of being affected by this rule, and clearly that is 8,000 too many. We are asking universities to have a plan for these students, requiring them to proactively identify students at risk of falling behind and to set out a plan to help them to succeed. This plan might be connecting those students to support or providing them with available financial assistance. It could be arranging crisis response or offering special circumstances arrangements, a much more sensible approach going forward and an approach that will see these students able to complete their degrees, rather than saddling them with unfair debts, higher costs and dissuading them from being part of our higher education system. One of the other actions in the bill relates to priority action 3 from the panel report, which is extending demand-driven funding to metropolitan First Nations students, recognising that in some ways these First Nations students haven't had the emphasis that should have been put on them in supporting them to get a university degree by ensuring that all First Nations students are eligible for a funded place at university. Currently, this particular measure only applies to First Nations students in regional and remote Australia. Going forward it will apply to all First Nations people undertaking higher education, including in metropolitan areas. The Department of Education estimates that this change could double the number of Indigenous students at university within a decade. This measure directly supports efforts achieving Closing the Gap outcome No. 6. Broadening this funding will have flow-on benefits for all First Nations communities across Australia by increasing the number of First Nations graduates in the workforce, so there are positives that come from creating more culturally safe and diverse workplaces by increasing the delivery of professional services and supporting other enterprises requiring university educated workforces. Again, this is good not just for these individuals who will benefit from this opportunity to have greater access to higher education but for our country and our communities. It is good for making sure that we have people who are qualified to do the jobs we need to make our communities run as strongly as they can. It gives First Nations youth role models in communities, and it means that First Nations young people can look around and say: 'That person did it, I can do it too. That can be my future. That's the trajectory I can be on.' This will help our country by developing the crucial knowledge and skills we need going forward and, more broadly, help us take an important step forward towards equality between First Nations people and our broader community and towards the reconciliation that we are working towards. Interestingly, the report told us that too few Australians are beginning and completing their qualifications in higher education at the moment. It is predicted that 90 per cent of the jobs created over the next five years will require a post-secondary education and 50 per cent will require a higher qualification. But at the same time completions and demand for places at universities are falling, and completion of a first bachelors degree is currently at its lowest level since 2014. If we combine this with the skills shortages we already have in our country, you can see the sense of urgency and why our government is bringing these changes forward and why we are taking expert advice to fix the mess that we were left with in higher education. It is to make sure we are building the skilled workforce of the future and giving young people in our communities the opportunities that they should have. Again, the evidence shows us that students from underrepresented groups at university make up most of those people who were affected by that 50 per cent pass rule that I spoke about earlier, and First Nations students are around twice as likely to be affected as their non-First-Nations counterparts. Fixing these problems means we will have more students enrolled in higher education. It will mean we have a fairer system of higher education that does ensure that we get those levels of access and attainment that we need, and a system that better meets our national job and skill needs. We also know this will be good for people's wages because obtaining a university education is one of the biggest things you can do to increase your wage. The evidence shows us it leads to a 38 per cent increase in men's wages and a 37 per cent increase in women's wages. So, unlike those opposite—who when they were in government did not value our higher education system, did not look at these issues around equity and attainment and around making sure that we had a system that was set up to prepare students for the jobs of the future—our government is interested in making sure that we support individuals both for their growth and for the growth of our country. We do know that those opposite—in fact, at a number of points—actively attacked the higher education system in this country. When they refused to provide JobKeeper to public universities, it was a very pointed attack and it caused at that time a lot of difficulties for universities and, of course, for the staff there. I'll end where I started, which is by saying that many of us in this place benefited from a higher education. We need to extend that to as many people in our community as possible. That's what this bill does. It's what our government is doing—setting up a higher education system that is accessible, that is fair and that puts our country in a place where we are creating people who can do the jobs of the future. 13:22 Mr DAVID SMITH 276714 Bean I commend the speech just made by the member for Jagajaga. I also rise today to speak on the Higher Education Support Amendment (Response to the Australian Universities Accord Interim Report) Bill 2023 and to give my full support to it. I'm proud to be a member of a government and a member of a party which places education at the core of our policy efforts. The Labor Party has always understood the importance of training and skills for all Australians. That is why, through this bill, we are implementing the recommendations of the Australian Universities Accord interim report. I would like to extend my thanks to the authors of the report, especially Professor Mary O'Kane AC, who has been successful in leading the largest review of tertiary education in 15 years. I look forward to the release of the full and final report. The interim report, which forms the basis of this bill, makes a number of recommendations for improving Australia's higher education sector. They are that we create more university study hubs, particularly in regional areas; that we scrap the 50 per cent pass rule and require better reporting on how students are progressing; that we extend the demand driven funding currently provided to Indigenous students from regional and remote areas to cover all Indigenous students; that we provide funding certainty during the accord process, extending the Higher Education Support Continuity Guarantee into 2024 and 2025; and that we work with state and territory governments through National Cabinet to improve university governance. This is all part of our work to undo the higher education policy failures of the former government, and it is essential to put education in Australia back on the right track. The shadows of past policies loom large, reminding us of missed opportunities and unfulfilled policies. It's a shame that the former government couldn't or wouldn't recognise the importance of higher education for the benefit of our country. The former government revealed themselves, time and time again, to be against giving all Australians their fair go in higher education. By making degrees both more expensive and more precarious, they denied young Australians their turn to have a fair go. By further marginalising already marginalised groups, they did nothing but increase inequality in our country. I'd be remiss not to mention that many of those sitting in this parliament received their higher education for free, thanks to Labor policy. This bill is a reminder to all that we must reflect on the true purpose of higher education in our lives. It is through education that we uplift individuals, families and communities. It is through education that we unlock the potential of every Australian and provide them with the tools for their future. It is through education that we will solve the problems of the future. Education should never be a barrier but, rather, a pathway to greater opportunities. That's why it's so important we pass the Higher Education Support Amendment (Response to the Australian Universities Accord Interim Report) Bill. We envisage a university sector that fosters a culture of compassion and one that is supportive to students. Education is not a solitary endeavour. It's a collaborative journey, where institutions, educators and policymakers share the responsibility for nurturing the minds of the future. Here in the ACT, tertiary education has been a cornerstone of our contribution to the nation. We're not just the home of the parliament and the Public Service, but home to Australia's only national university. Established in 1946, the Australian National University is the only university to have been created by the Parliament of Australia. It represents a long-term vision that Labor had for Australia. We simply could not have achieved our postwar prosperity without the skills that our National University was able to provide us with. Our nation's best and brightest have all, at some point, had an association with the Australian National University. For high-achieving school students across the country and the world, the ANU has been the light at the end of the tunnel—the reason they've pushed themselves. It's been the goal that has driven them. Our country would not have the knowledge, skills and curiosity we have today without the Australian National University. Many in this chamber are, and many in previous parliaments have been, proud alumni of the ANU, myself included. But just down the road from the ANU is the University of Canberra—which is really the better one, according to my staff. It sits at No. 17 in international rankings for young universities. It was, this year, named in the top five for reducing inequalities in the world, and it produces some of the best teachers in the country—not bad for a university than just recently celebrated 30 years. These universities, along with the Australian Catholic University and the University of New South Wales, are contributors to local, national and international skills and knowledge. However, they are all located on the north side. In my electorate of Bean, there are no undergraduate university campuses. MacKillop College hosts postgraduate teaching classes. The Canberra Institute of Technology has campuses on the south side. In fact, my electorate office is in the same building as the Tuggeranong CIT campus. If you are a school-leaver or are looking at furthering your qualifications and you live south of the parliament, your only option is to travel north. For some, this is no problem, if they own a car and can afford the fuel and parking costs. But, if you are reliant on public transport and a schedule that doesn't necessarily complement your class timetable, or rely on active travel or sharing a car, this is a major barrier. That's why I am particularly interested in seeing the potential that will come from this bill's provisions to expand local access through the establishment of regional university centres and to establish a similar concept for suburban metropolitan locations. I'm not arguing for a joint UC, ANU, ACU or UNSW campus in Tuggeranong, right now—although I would not oppose that if it did come. But if this is a barrier in Canberra, I can only imagine that, in our larger cities or rural communities, this is magnified, at times, tenfold. Rural university centres and their suburban or metropolitan equivalents will go far in reducing those entry barriers. I'd like to give a quick shout-out to all those students in the ACT that will be doing their AST exams this week. I wish them the best as they deal with the stress that occurs on their pathway to, hopefully, getting better access to universities as well. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 I'm sorry, but the debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour. Given your speech was interrupted, you will be granted leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed. STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS 44 STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS Men's Shed Week 44 13:30 Mr VIOLI 300147 Casey It is Men's Shed Week, celebrating 30 years of sheds. For many Australian men, the local men's shed offers somewhere to go, something to do, and mates that make it all worthwhile. We're lucky in Casey to have 11 amazing active men's sheds. I want to pay tribute and acknowledge the men and all the volunteers that make up those sheds: Boorndawan Men's Shed in Lilydale; Morrison Men's Shed in Mount Evelyn; The Gully Men's Shed in Upper Ferntree Gully; Ben's Shed in Yarra Junction, who I had the pleasure to visit last week for lunch; Mooroolbark Men's Shed; Montrose and District Men's Shed; Yarra Glen and District Men's Shed, who I also had the chance to visit and talk to last week; Monbulk District Men's Shed; Upway Men's Shed; Belgrave Men's Shed; and Badger Creek and District Men's Shed. I've had the chance to visit many of these amazing organisations over my time as the member for Casey, and it's wonderful to see the camaraderie and the spirit. There's one key theme that comes through, and it's the sense of being with your mates and building things to support the community. Every men's shed in Casey spends time on projects that support schools and community groups. They raise money for their own shed but also for charity. It's such an important institution, and it gives these older men something to do when they've retired. It's a big part of their life, and I'm really proud to be able to support them. William Carey Christian School 44 13:32 Ms STANLEY 265990 Werriwa Last Saturday afternoon, in my electorate, it wasn't just Charlie who won a golden ticket; it was the whole of the packed audience at the William Carey Christian School performance of the Roald Dahl classic, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. I was very lucky to be in the audience. I've been to many live performances, including those by professional companies, and this was certainly up with the very best of them. I have to admit: Augustus Gloop was my favourite on the day; perhaps it was all the sausages around his neck. In truthfulness, the whole cast was outstanding. The audience left the auditorium to the sounds of The Candy Man and a simple message of hope and optimism in their hearts. I congratulate the school on their wonderful effort. The band, the lighting, the props, the costumes, the singing, the choreography and the acting were brilliant. It was a real team effort and, after the past few years, and a wonderful celebration of all that is great in our schools. Charlie did indeed win the golden ticket and the Wonka chocolate factory, but I got something better: wonderful memories and a terrific afternoon's entertainment. I thank the principal of the school, Keith McMullen, for the invitation, and I look forward to future shows under his leadership. Fisher Electorate: Cost of Living 44 13:33 Mr WALLACE 265967 Fisher Just over a week ago I completed my sixth annual Tour de Fisher. I know some of you may be thinking, 'What's the Tour de Fisher?' It's not quite like the Tour de France— Mr Violi 300147 It's better! Mr WALLACE 265967 Yes, it's better! It's better because I get to tour and visit 21 towns in my electorate, riding my pushbike, in my lycra. Everybody loves it! It's a great opportunity to talk to my constituents. What they came to talk to me about was not just their opposition to the Voice—though, to be fair, I did have some people come and talk to me about their support for the Voice. What they really wanted to talk to me about was the cost-of-living crisis that this government is forcing upon Australians across this country. They told me about their struggles to pay their electricity bills, their gas bills, petrol, rents, mortgages—you name it. They're all going up. Average people in my electorate, and even in places like Fremantle, are saying to me that they are really struggling under this cost-of-living crisis. Labor talked the big talk about reducing costs prior to the election. But what we are now seeing is the true Australian Labor Party, and that is one that knows nothing other than to drive the costs of living up for Australians. Piotrowski, Mrs Joy 45 13:35 Mr LAXALE 299174 Bennelong I'd like to take this opportunity to remember and commemorate the life of a remarkable woman, Joy Piotrowski, who sadly passed away in August. Joy was not only a former Ryde Citizen of the Year but also a true local legend. Her legacy of selflessness, dedication and unwavering commitment to making Bennelong a better place to live in should serve as an inspiration to us all. Joy's journey in Bennelong began long ago when Epping Road was nothing more than a single-lane unsurfaced road. In those early days, the surrounding blocks were orchards, and North Ryde was a very different place to what it is today. As the years passed, Joy became a cornerstone of our community. She was a steadfast member of the Macquarie branch of the Labor Party, where her unwavering commitment to Labor values and her community shone brightly. Joy's tenacity remained even in her later years. When many would have chosen to rest, she insisted on participating in election campaigns, even as her eyesight worsened and even if it meant doing so from a wheelchair. Joy's presence and support were felt in countless campaigns throughout the years. I was personally blessed to have her wisdom and unwavering support during council elections, state elections and, most recently, the federal election. Knowing that Joy's final campaign efforts were to help put me in this place and help me win John Howard's seat of Bennelong would have put a smile on her face. Thank you, Joy, for your tireless support of our community. Climate Change 45 13:36 Dr RYAN 297660 Kooyong 'Climate risks will affect the economy through several channels. Hotter temperatures and more extreme weather will disrupt businesses, damage property and lower productivity. Unemployment could be persistently higher if people are unable or unwilling to live in a region that has suffered from extreme weather and related job losses. These are not the words of a woke activist. These are the words of Michele Bullock, the governor of our Reserve Bank, the authority charged with ensuring the sustainable growth of our economy. In the past few weeks alone, we've seen heatwaves, floods and hurricanes across the globe, loss of Antarctic sea ice and warnings about the risk of devastating fires in this Australian summer. Last week, the IMF reported that Australia subsidises our fossil fuel industries by $65 billion every year. The government needs to listen to the RBA governor. The government needs to listen to our business communities and to the warning of its own Intergenerational report. Our economy is already being battered by climate change. Rather than subsidising fossil fuel industries, we need to hold them to account for the super profits that they reap, for the species that they render extinct and for the damage that they cause. Our health, our environment and our economy depend on it. Australian Capital Territory Scaling Test 45 13:38 Mr DAVID SMITH 276714 Bean This week marks the start of the ACT's scaling tests, or ASTs, here in Canberra. I can only imagine that this will be a week of high stress and anxiety in households across my electorate of Bean and across Canberra, not just my own household. If I can, I will put my dad hat on for a second and offer four bits of advice to students getting ready to sit these exams: firstly, it's not unusual to feel anxious on exam day. It's normal; embrace it. Try and arrive at least 15 minutes early for your exam, and make sure you have the equipment needed and allowed for that exam. Check, check and check again. Before you are told to finish, spend your time checking you have answered each question and looking over all your responses. When the exam is over, avoid speaking with know-it-alls who want to discuss the exam in detail and tell you how they approached each question and their answers. Most importantly, remember to do your best. These tests are not the be-all or end-all. There are many pathways to what you want to achieve. University next year is only one of them. I wish all year 12 students sitting the ASTs in Bean and ACT all the best this week. Good luck. Housing 45 13:39 Mr BATES 300246 Brisbane There are two racecourses across the road from one another in the eastern part of my home constituency of Brisbane. One of them, Eagle Farm, is a massive 49-hectare site just five kilometres from the CBD on flood-free land. The Brisbane Racing Club was gifted this land by the state government back in 1863 for the sole purpose of horseracing. But now the LNP council and Labor state government have allowed them to sell off big chunks of the land they received for nothing, for private, luxury high-rise apartments to cross-subsidise their main business, betting on horse racing. Attendance numbers have plummeted at Eagle Farm and do not come close to pre-pandemic levels. There are just 71 race meets per year, meaning an average rate of use of just 1.4 days per week. It's a ridiculous waste of land when we're in the middle of a housing crisis. The Greens are calling for public feedback on a proposal to transform Eagle Farm Racecourse—to build parkland, native forest, public infrastructure and 4,000 publicly owned new homes right next to an established train station. Our proposal will help end the special treatment of the Brisbane Racing Club and cut out profit-hungry developers. By standing up to big business, we can rectify decades of poor urban planning, start tackling the housing crisis and transform our city for the better. Petition: Live Sheep Exports 46 13:40 Mr JOSH WILSON 265970 Fremantle I rise to table petition EN5323, on the subject of the government's commitment to manage the end of the live sheep export trade. The petition read as follows— Live sheep export by sea must be phased out because of its inherent and unfixable animal welfare consequences, both during lengthy sea journeys and in importing countries where fully conscious slaughter is common. No amount of regulation can fix these issues that have caused considerable and unacceptable animal suffering. A phase out is also what the majority of Australian citizens want, regardless of where they live. Legislating an end date in this term of Parliament is vital to ensure the phase out occurs; to avoid prolonged uncertainty for Australian farmers; and to advance Australia's international reputation through improved animal welfare policy. We therefore ask the House to legislate the date, within the 47th Parliament, to phase out live sheep export from Australia by sea within the shortest possible timeframe. from 43,758 citizens (Petition No. EN5323) Petition received. Mr JOSH WILSON 265970 It is completely understandable that the Australian community is now calling for certainty when it comes to how and when this cruel and out-of-date industry will cease. And, having campaigned with my community and worked consistently in this place to see the back of a marginal trade that involves acute and endemic animal welfare failure, I absolutely support that call. Last week the 7.30 program revealed that, despite the regulatory system that is supposed to guarantee the humane treatment of sheep, thousands of animals have been subject to crude, agonising, backyard slaughter. It's just the latest sickening revelation about an industry that has produced a conveyor belt of atrocities over the years—an industry that has never taken responsibility for those failures and instead has fought sensible regulation and, at every turn, blamed those who reveal the truth. This industry has declined 92 per cent since the turn of the century, without any manifestation of the doom-and-gloom predictions about job losses or flock size reduction in WA. Instead, there has been a surge in high-value chilled and frozen meat exports. It's past time for this trade to end. The Albanese government is taking responsibility for managing that transition through the excellent consultative work of Minister Watt. This RSPCA petition, with more than 43,000 signatures, calls for a legislated timetable as the next step in a careful but resolute process to end the— (Time expired) Dunlea Centre 46 13:42 Ms WARE 300123 Hughes I rise to speak about an organisation in my electorate of Hughes doing tremendous work to help and support our youth and families at risk: the Dunlea Centre in Engadine, formerly known as Boys' Town. Teenage years are challenging for the teenagers themselves as well as for their families. Some teenagers find it harder than others. That is why Dunlea is such an important organisation. Since 1939 the centre has been helping teenage boys at risk and, since 2010, teenage girls as well. I recently had the privilege of touring Dunlea, where I met with acting principal Samantha Dennis and her staff, as well as some incredible young people turning their lives around. Dunlea empowers adolescents through therapeutic and educational services in a supportive residential program. Last year, the centre had its first cohort of HSC students. Many of them had not attended school for over a year before they went to Dunlea. This year's school captains, Ashly and Victoria, told me that they came to Dunlea with self-proclaimed 'toxic behaviour' and were disengaged completely from school and from their families. They will be completing their HSC over the coming months and looking at attending university next year. Dunlea—changing lives, empowering teenagers and restoring families. Well done, Dunlea. Braund, Mr Murray 46 13:43 Dr REID 300126 Robertson I rise to acknowledge Murray Braund, one of Australia's most successful surf ski competitors and one of my constituents in Robertson. Mr Braund will this year be inducted into the Surf Life Saving Australia Hall of Fame in recognition of his outstanding achievements and contributions to surf lifesaving over 50 years. Mr Braund is a distinguished surf ski paddler and competed at three world championships, seven Australian championships, five interstate championships and 13 New South Wales championships. He also captained the Australian surf lifesaving trans-Tasman team in 1982 and the New South Wales interstate team in 1974. In 1967, at the Australian championships, Mr Braund won both the single and double ski titles and went on to do the same in 1972, 1973 and 1974. His double ski partner, the late Greg Jarmaine, was also a Central Coast resident and a member of the Avoca Beach Surf Life Saving Club. Both continued to be lifelong friends outside the surf. In 1972, Mr Braund was awarded the Royal Humane Society of New South Wales bronze medal for bravery, after saving the life of a young girl caught in dangerous surf. Mr Braund moved to the Central Coast in 1976 and joined the mighty Avoca Beach Surf Life Saving Club. He went on to help establish the club as one of Australia's strongest. I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate Mr Braund on this immense honour, of being recognised in the hall of fame, and I would also like to thank him for his dedication and service to surf lifesaving and his community over many years. Renewable Energy: Protests 47 13:45 Dr WEBSTER 281688 Mallee A few weeks ago I joined Victorian farmers in Melbourne for a protest on Spring Street with the Leader of the Nationals, David Littleproud. Farmers from my electorate of Mallee and beyond protested Labor's reckless renewables rush and plans for thousands of kilometres of 500-kilovolt transmission lines through prime agricultural land, pristine native bushland and wetlands, and culturally significant sites for local Aboriginal people. I was proud to have worked with these farmers to make this protest a reality. The 50 tractors and 10 prime movers rolling around Spring Street were a sight to behold. One sight we didn't see was regional Labor politicians. People in my electorate were intensely disappointed they did not stand with their communities. Renewables are their priority, not the threat to production of food and fibre for Australia and the world. My constituents are deeply distressed by the new VNI West route selected by the Australian Energy Market Operator functioning as Transmission Company Victoria. Social licence has not been given by Mallee people, but Labor is disgracefully ploughing ahead anyway. They dishonestly pit neighbour against neighbour, dividing communities. They are disingenuous about the cost and the harm to the environment, wildlife and long-term productivity in their anxiety to get the job done. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 Member for Hunter. Bailey, Ms Georgia Rose 47 13:47 Mr REPACHOLI 298840 Hunter I rise to congratulate an incredible young woman in my electorate: Georgia Rose Bailey. Georgia was recently named the 2023 Lions Australia Leo of the Year. Georgia reminded Lions of the value of Leos, particularly when it comes to technology and social media use. She said in her first speech, 'Leos understand all of this; make use of us.' In a world that often presents challenges and obstacles, we are fortunate to have among us individuals who refuse to succumb to adversity. The Lions Leo of the Year awards celebrate more than just an individual; they symbolise the embodiment of the Lions characteristics: resilience, leadership and commitment to service. Over the next 12 months, Georgia will visit Lions clubs across the country with hopes of opening more Leo clubs. I offer heartfelt congratulations to an individual who exemplifies strength, courage and the unwavering spirit of our community and who is our very own Lions Leo of the Year. In a world that sometimes feels divided, Georgia reminds us that unity and compassion can bridge gaps and create a brighter future for all. Her achievements serve as a beacon of hope, encouraging us to strive for excellence in our own endeavours. Congratulations on your award, Georgia. May your legacy continue to inspire generations to come. Royal Automobile Club of Queensland CQ Rescue 47 13:48 Mr WILLCOX 286535 Dawson I rise today to highlight the important work done by the RACQ CQ Rescue helicopter in North Queensland. I've been a huge supporter of the CQ Rescue helicopter since my tenure as mayor of the Whitsundays and was fortunate enough to attend their charity event last month to raise vital funds to keep their choppers in the air and their crew saving lives. Based out of Mackay, the team is an invaluable life-saving service for the people of my electorate of Dawson. From outback to offshore, the rescue chopper reaches regions between Townsville and St Lawrence, stretching out west to the Bowen and Galilee basins and out easterly to the beautiful Whitsunday Islands, and more than 20 kilometres offshore to the Great Barrier Reef. The area of their operation is four times the size of Tasmania, and their crew are on call 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 365 days of the year. By September 2022, after 26 years in operation, they had completed more than 11,000 missions. The crew at RACQ CQ Rescue have seen and done it all, from attending car accidents, to vessels in distress, workplace incidents and conducting search and rescue missions. Well done to the team of RACQ CQ Rescue. I salute you. Sport 47 13:50 Mr GOSLING 245392 Solomon Sport unifies Australians like nothing else. As honourable members would know, the Australian National Internships Program gives students opportunities to undertake research projects in parliamentarians offices. Earlier this year, Francesca Lambert, an ANU student, interned in my office. We researched DFAT's role in shaping Australia's strategic environment in the Pacific via sports diplomacy. The government is investing $15.6 million non-ODA funding and $2.5 million ODA funding per annum into this program. We're also investing $6 million of overseas development assistance per annum in Team Up, which transforms communities through sport. Australia is working with Pacific countries to help deepen sports diplomacy within our Pacific family. When visiting the Pacific in June, I raised the special role of sports, and especially rugby, with Samoa's Prime Minister. And last week, in Fiji on a delegation, I spoke with Fijian parliamentarians and Fiji Rugby about the incredible value of our Vuvale, which means 'family' in Fijian, program and the role that rugby plays in building ties of trust between our two nations. May the best team win on 17 September, Australia versus Fiji. Lyne Electorate: Community Events 48 13:51 Dr GILLESPIE 72184 Lyne I would like to congratulate Maree and Mac of the Myall River Camp at Hawks Nest for taking out the recent gold award at Destination North Coast Tourism Awards for excellence in camping, glamping and caravanning. This comes on top of their 2023 travellers choice award and caravanning excellence award in 2022. I'd like to congratulate Kyle Polidano of Marlee, who's aiming to win a gold medal at the next WorldSkills Australia championship as the nation's best electrical apprentice. I would also like to give a giant shout-out to Ted Bickford, affectionately known in Foster-Tuncurry as the 'graffiti buster'. He's still going, after years and years as a volunteer, responding to graffiti callouts and educating youth in our local area about cleaning up graffiti. He had been doing this by himself but is now supported by the MidCoast Council. Another shout-out to local Lorne residents Shaun and Liz Silkman, whose Silkman Wines recently won the trophy for best small wine producer for their 2022 reserve chardonnay at the Sydney Royal Wine Show. Congratulations on great achievements by my Lyne residents. Paterson Electorate: Rugby League 48 13:53 Ms SWANSON 264170 Paterson On Saturday just gone the mighty Maitland Pickers blew South Newcastle Lions out of the park by 46 points to 10 to win the 2023 Denton Engineering Cup in the Newcastle Rugby League for the second consecutive time. They'll be trying to back up for another hat-trick as they have done in the past. It was only last weekend when the Maitland Blacks took out the premiership in the local rugby competition. We always say that the beautiful rich Maitland soil could grow babies; it certainly grows great footballers of all kinds of different codes. I want to acknowledge their coach, Matt Lantry, and his coaching staff. It's no mean feat to go back to back, but here the Maitland boys have done that. Now they've all got a well-deserved break. I also want to pay my condolences to the family of Brett Christiansen. He recently passed away, in fact on Friday night. He was a great Picker; he was a rugby league champion. May he rest in peace. We'll deeply feel his loss in rugby league communities throughout Maitland. On more positive news I just want to say: nine on the trot, Newcastle Knights! Go! Home elimination final this Sunday against the Canberra Raiders at McDonald Jones Stadium. Kick off at four o'clock. 'Ken Behrens' won't know what hit them! Menzies Electorate: Heatherwood School Fire 48 13:54 Mr WOLAHAN 235654 Menzies We all have memories, and some memories are core memories because you never forget them. A core memory for me was when my school saw a fire burn down classrooms in year 7 and year 11. Last Saturday, 26 August, when I saw smoke rise from the Heatherwood School in Donvale, my heart broke for the community. It was a devastating fire that destroyed six classrooms. The local emergency service providers responded promptly and with courage, and I thank them. I also thank the parents, teachers and local businesses who have rallied around the school. A person has been arrested, and that is a matter for the justice system. But what happens from here is for the students, the parents and the community to rally around the school and help them rebuild. This is a school that has seen a builder go into liquidation, and they're already 20 classroom short, with students sitting in the library and in a garage. They're sharing portaloos with the builders. That isn't good enough, so we need to help them right now. The school is understaffed, and the staff are doing the best they can. I spoke with the principal, Paul Hills, earlier today, and he told me that this school is unlike any others. Families travel from Warburton and Hillsborough, in the electorate of the member for Casey, because it is a unique school. One of the values of the school is resilience and persistence. I remember when I was a student that we all rallied around our teacher and our parents and everyone to rebuild. I know you will do that, and we will be here for you. Boothby Electorate: SALA Festival 49 13:56 Ms MILLER-FROST 296272 Boothby On the weekend I popped in to see Alwyndor Aged Care, which is based in Hove in my electorate. It is a beautiful aged-care facility that is run by the local council, and it has beautiful gardens. It is a special place for me and my family because it is my husband's former family home, which was bequeathed to the council. We pop down there and look at the statues that his grandfather built. They are cement statues of deer, lions and frogs, and there's a sunken garden that many of the local kids actually remember playing in when it was a working farm. This weekend they had the SALA Festival, the South Australian Living Artists Festival. As well as the statues that we usually go and see, we were treated to some spectacular cast-iron and other metal really modern statues in such a beautiful garden. This is an important part of the aged-care service that people can visit. They can pop out there with their families and friends and spend time in a beautiful environment, rather than the somewhat clinical area of a nursing home. Congratulations to the South Australian Living Artists Festival. It was on all last month, and I attended a number of different events. But I have to say this one at Alwyndor was particularly special. Afghanistan: Human Rights 49 13:57 Mr WOOD E0F La Trobe I rise to speak about the very concerning treatment of women and girls in Afghanistan. Since the Taliban took over in August 2021, women have been excluded from public office and the judiciary, depriving them of essential roles in decision-making processes in their country. Unbelievably, restrictions prevent women and girls from enjoying basic freedoms such as visiting an amusement park or participating in sport. Girls cannot participate in sport, girls are denied access to secondary education, and women are barred from tertiary education. A strict code is enforced and limitations are placed on travel unless with a male chaperone, effectively confining women, unless they go out with a male, to their house—disgraceful. Last week the Australian reported that the Taliban have now banned women from the popular Band e-Amir National Park because female visitors had failed to wear traditional Islamic clothing. These disgraceful restrictions must be called out, and that is what I have been asked to do by our Australian Afghan community, particularly the women. We have so many Afghan people in my electorate, and sadly, when it comes to visas, many are waiting for visas to be processed. I look forward to working with the minister on this because it is a very tough time for all those Afghan Australians with relatives in Afghanistan. (Time expired) The SPEAKER 53517 In accordance with standing order 43, the time for members' statements has concluded. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 49 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Minister for Defence 49 14:00 Mr HASTIE 260805 Canning My question is to the Minister for Defence. Can the minister confirm whether he has taken his golf clubs with him on any defence VIP special-purpose aircraft flights and, if so, on how many flights? The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Paterson will cease interjecting. 14:00 Mr MARLES HWQ Corio I thank the member for his question. Let me be clear: every place I have been and everything I have done have been in pursuit of my duties as Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Defence on behalf of this country, and I stand absolutely by every flight I have ever taken on the special-purpose aircraft or, for that matter, any flight I have taken commercially. This issue is being kicked along because of a dodgy spreadsheet which was peddled and developed in the Leader of the Opposition's office. The SPEAKER 53517 I call the member for Canning on a point of order. Mr Hastie 260805 Back to relevance, the question was very specific: whether or not the minister had taken golf clubs— The SPEAKER 53517 The minister is being relevant, and I'll make sure he returns to the question. Mr MARLES HWQ The question goes to the use of the special-purpose aircraft, and this is being kicked along because of a spreadsheet which was produced by the Leader of the Opposition's office and which is riddled with errors. The fact is that this is in the public domain because this government released information about the use of the special-purpose aircraft. During the period of time that the now Leader of the Opposition was then Minister for Defence, absolutely no information was released about the use of the special-purpose aircraft during the time that he was the Minister for Defence—not one piece of information at all. It begs the question as to what the Leader of the Opposition has to hide. But we have something of an inkling in relation to that by virtue of his behaviour since he has been the Leader of the Opposition because, as the now Minister for Defence, my office has logged numerous requests from the Leader of the Opposition about him going on special-purpose aircraft—including, in the last six weeks, two times at least, in writing, to go to a game of the Matildas. The SPEAKER 53517 The Leader of the Opposition on point of order. Mr Dutton 00AKI I seek clarification from you. Is it your ruling that the minister is in order, given the question was particularly tight: Can the minister confirm whether he has taken his golf clubs with him on any defence VIP special-purpose aircraft flights and, if so, on how many flights? It could haven't been a tighter question— The SPEAKER 53517 The Leader of the Opposition knows there is only one point of order on relevance, which was taken before. The minister is talking about special-purpose flights. I am just going to make sure his answer is relevant to the question. Mr MARLES HWQ It is just a little revealing of what hurts them the most about the fact that they are now in opposition. As sincere public servants we might think they regret the fact that they don't have the opportunity to serve the Australian people, but we know in their darkened rooms the only conversation they're having is about how they get back on the planes. If the requests from the Leader of the Opposition to my office are any indication, it has been their singular focus. The special-purpose aircraft are an important capability which facilitate government travel. We use it appropriately. Those opposite know it. Their attempt to politicise it is pathetic, but worse it reeks of hypocrisy. Aboriginal And Torres Strait Islander Voice 50 14:05 Mr BURNELL 300129 Spence My question is for the Prime Minister. The date for the referendum for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander recognition through a voice has now been set. What is the significance of this referendum for our country? 14:05 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I thank the member for Spence for his question and for, indeed, hosting the event last Wednesday where we set 14 October as the day when every Australian will have a once-in-a generation chance to bring our country together and change it for the better, to vote for recognition and listening so that we can get better results and to say yes to an idea that has come from Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people themselves. With the support of over 80 per cent of Indigenous Australians, people from all sides of politics, all faiths and all walks of life have come out in support of the 'yes' vote. Last night, we saw a true Australian hero, John Farnham, lend his voice and his iconic song to the 'yes' campaign and an inspirational ad showing the moments that have united our country and taken it forward. As he sang: We're not gonna sit in silence We're not gonna live with fear Those opposite have now committed to a second referendum. They say that, if Australians vote 'no' on 14 October, they will be subject to another referendum during the next term if they're successful in winning the next election. They're already planning the sequel while doing everything they can to sabotage the original. The second referendum, though, won't be on what Indigenous people have asked for. It'll be just on recognition, not a voice. But then they say they're going to legislate for a voice as well. So let's get this right. Beneath all of this fear campaign, both sides are saying that they support recognition and both sides are saying they will legislate for the Voice. The difference is, though, that they don't want it enshrined in the Constitution, as Indigenous people have asked for. They know better. The Leader of the Opposition says he will acknowledge that Indigenous people are here and that our history goes back and that it should be acknowledged, but he won't talk with them or listen to them. That is what this is about. It shows that it's all about politics, not about the substance that is before this referendum. Australians will have the opportunity to vote for recognition through the form that has been asked for, a voice, so that we can listen and so that we can get better results. When you listen to people who are directly affected by an issue, you will, of course, get better outcomes. Minister for Defence 50 14:08 Mr HASTIE 260805 Canning My question is to the Minister for Defence. Can the minister confirm whether anyone outside of his family, personal staff or departmental staff have travelled with him on his defence VIP special purpose aircraft flights? 14:08 Mr MARLES HWQ Corio I can confirm that there are those who have—ministers from other governments, representatives of other governments and representatives of the media. But let me again be clear that there are legitimate reasons why those who are not on our staff or in the department would be aboard a special purpose aircraft. The guidelines that are in place I completely comply with and so does every other person in the government who uses the special purpose aircraft. I absolutely stand by the way in which all persons on this side have complied with those guidelines. Again, let me be clear: the special purpose aircraft has a critical function, as those opposite well know, which facilitates government travel. The degree to which the Leader of the Opposition has been desperate to get back on that special purpose aircraft ever since he lost government says everything about what he misses most about being in government. Workplace Relations 51 14:09 Ms FERNANDO 299964 Holt My question is to the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations. How is the Albanese Labor government closing loopholes that undercut pay and conditions for working Australians? 14:10 Mr BURKE DYW Watson I thank the member for Holt, who has spent all her time, both in this parliament and beforehand, trying to make sure that wages are moving for some of the lowest-paid Australians. Last year this parliament legislated for secure jobs and better pay. This year—today, this afternoon, immediately after question time—this government will introduce legislation designed to close the loopholes that undercut wages and conditions in this country. There are four main loopholes that need to be closed. The first relates to the gig economy. The others relate to wage theft, casuals and labour hire. On the gig economy, at the moment, for all those people working in the gig economy, because they are not technically employees, every single one of their rights falls off a cliff. They have no minimum rates of pay. They have no guaranteed conditions. Every one of their rights falls off a cliff because of the method of engagement. This government's legislation will accept the flexibility—Australians want the technology; people want the flexibility—but you have to be able to have 21st-century technology without having 19th-century working conditions going with that. That will be reflected in today's legislation. On wage theft, it has always been the case, as it should be, that, if a worker steals from the till, it's a crime, but it should also be a crime if the employer deliberately steals from the worker. We saw, under those opposite, time after time after time where they'd make tough words about wage theft but then do nothing about it in this parliament, till a point where they went through the charade in this House of introducing legislation to make wage theft a crime, voting for it here and then voting down their own legislation once it got to the Senate. On casuals, many casuals—most casuals—want to retain the form of engagement that they currently have, but let's not forget that 40 per cent of casuals are over the age of 35, and, if you're in a position where you are maintaining household expenses, your bills aren't casual, your rent is not casual. Try getting a mortgage if you're casual. A number of these people will want to have a right, if their hours already reflect permanent work, to be able to shift to a secure job. Today's legislation will give them that. Finally, for the labour hire loophole, most businesses don't have enterprise agreements in place, but, where they do, the employer has agreed to minimum rates of pay. Those rates of pay should be the minimum at that workplace; they shouldn't be undercut by the labour hire loophole, where suddenly everything that's been registered and agreed to can be forgotten. Those loopholes have been hanging around for years. The step to close them happens immediately after question time today. (Time expired) Western Sydney: Infrastructure 51 14:13 Ms 295676 Fowler LE () (): My question is to the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government. Last year the government appointed a so-called expert panel to review Western Sydney's transport infrastructure needs, which the Prime Minister stated would take the politics out of planning. The report was completed in April and recommended $200 million in urgent infrastructure investment across Western Sydney. Why has the government not made the report publicly available? When will it be released, considering that the government appointed the expert panel who made the recommendations? 14:13 Ms CATHERINE KING 00AMR Ballarat I thank very much the member for Fowler for her question and for her championing the cause of Western Sydney, alongside so many of those on this side of the House who know what an important economic powerhouse it is for the nation. Can I just say a few things in relation to this. The Australian government of course are committed to ensuring appropriate infrastructure is in place for Western Sydney's growth, prosperity and livability. The Australian and New South Wales governments are investing $4.4 billion already in the Western Sydney Infrastructure Plan, with the Australian government committing over $3.5 billion to that. In fact, just last week I was there with the New South Wales Minister for Transport, alongside a number of the members of this place, as Peggy the tunneller tunnelled through on the Western Sydney international airport rail link. It was terrific to see that that investment was there. We will continue to work in partnership with the New South Wales government. As you know, they are a new government, and they also are undertaking a review of their infrastructure pipeline at the moment. We've provided the report from the Western Sydney transport infrastructure panel to them, and we'll continue to work through that. The report is not public, but, as you know from media reports, it has made a number of recommendations around business cases, which is the right thing to do to start that planning for future investment over the next decade, and we'll be making decisions about that alongside and in partnership with the New South Wales government. Cost of Living 52 14:15 Ms ROBERTS 157125 Pearce My question is to the Prime Minister. Since parliament last met, how has the Albanese Labor government been addressing cost-of-living pressures and delivering for Australia? 14:15 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I thank the member for Pearce for her question. I was with the member for Pearce just last week in the great state of Western Australia, where I visited Karratha and Perth over a three-day period. We are working for Australia every single day. Relieving cost-of-living pressures is, of course, our No. 1 priority. Since the last sitting of parliament we have delivered, from housing right through to health. We have, through the National Cabinet, announced the most significant housing reforms in a generation: a new national target to build 1.2 million homes; a National Planning Reform Blueprint for planning and zoning so that people can live close to their work and their families; and the $3 billion New Home Bonus to incentivise state governments and territory governments to get homes built. We've secured a better deal for renters, making renting fairer, and we're working with states to deliver Help to Buy, which will help people to purchase homes of their own. We also began on 1 September the second round of our cheaper medicines policy—two months worth of medicine for the price of one. I noticed on 1 September Senator Ruston put out a media release saying the coalition support sixty-day dispensing. They'd been opposing it ever since it was announced, but they've put out a release saying they're supporting it now. It will make an enormous difference. We are also working with community pharmacies to make sure that their interests are looked after. An incident having occurred in the gallery— Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The Prime Minister will pause. I remind all visitors today there are established forms of behaviour. You are here to observe and not to participate. I ask all members in the galleries to refrain from interjecting, conversing and signalling. Mr ALBANESE R36 And, of course, we have our fee-free TAFE target. That target was for 180,000 spots, but instead fee-free TAFE enrolments have hit more than 214,000. I met with many of the young apprentices, people training in everything from nursing to hospitality to construction, today. This is the one-year anniversary of the Jobs and Skills Summit, where that policy came from. We've opened five urgent care clinics since the last sitting of parliament, taking pressure off the public hospital system. While we were in WA, we signed a Rewiring the Nation deal to secure WA's energy supply. Whether it is energy policy, housing policy, health policy or skills policy, we are working each and every day for Australia with positive plans—the ones we took to the election and more—and making sure they are implemented. Health Care 52 14:19 Ms LEY 00AMN Farrer My question is to the Minister for Health and Aged Care. Today, hundreds of pharmacists have come to Parliament House to try to meet with government members. Many of them are in the gallery now. Minister, why have government MPs refused to meet with their local pharmacists? And can the minister confirm that the government has brought forward the next community pharmacy agreement by 16 months— Government members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! Order! Members on my right! Ms LEY 00AMN to now commence— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The deputy leader will pause. Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Members on my left and right— The SPEAKER 53517 The Deputy Leader of the Opposition, I'm trying to help. Just pause. It would be really helpful if the Deputy Leader of the Opposition— The SPEAKER 53517 The Prime Minister will cease interjecting. The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The member for McEwen! I've just reminded members of the gallery not to be interjecting. I'll do the same thing for people on my left and right. I want to hear the question in silence, and I'd like respect shown to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. I give her the call. Ms LEY 00AMN My question is to the Minister for Health and Aged Care. Today, hundreds of pharmacists have come to Parliament House to try to meet with government members. Many of them are in the gallery now. Why have so many government MPs refused to meet with our local pharmacists? Can the minister confirm that the government has brought forward the next community pharmacy agreement by 16 months, to now commence on 1 March 2024? And will this government finally listen to the voices of community pharmacy? Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order. The deputy leader was heard in silence. The minister will be given the same courtesy and the same respect. 14:21 Mr BUTLER HWK Hindmarsh I thank the member for her question. Members of the Labor caucus have been meeting with pharmacists for the last several months. I've been engaging with my caucus and with members of the crossbench, the crossbench parties, about the feedback that they've been receiving from pharmacists now for several months. I can also say: they've been meeting with doctors and the doctors' groups, and, most importantly—I say this as a reminder to those opposite—patients and patient groups. The measure that we delivered on Friday, as the Prime Minister has already alluded to, delivers cheaper medicines for almost four million Australian patients—those with ongoing health conditions, like heart disease, high cholesterol, high blood pressure, osteoporosis and so many others besides. This is delivering on advice that those opposite received five years ago—five years ago! The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Riverina. Everyone just needs to cool it. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition on a point of order? Ms Ley 00AMN There is an important and relevant part to my question, Minister: can the minister confirm that the government has brought forward the next community pharmacy agreement by— The SPEAKER 53517 Resume your seat. The Leader of the House. Mr Burke DYW A point of order: the relevance point of order that can be taken once during an answer is not there for the questioner to say there was one bit of her question that was relevant, which is what has just been put to the chamber. The SPEAKER 53517 The minister was asked about meetings. He was asked about timings. He is listing who he's met with, when he has met them and who—everything else. So of course he is being relevant. I appreciate the deputy leader would like him to be relevant to a certain part of the question, but, under the standing orders, he is being directly relevant, and I ask him to continue. Mr BUTLER HWK I'm simply pointing out that members on this side have been meeting with all interests in this area: with pharmacists; with the pharmacists' lobby; with individual pharmacists in their electorates; but also with doctors' groups and patient groups. And have a look at what patients' groups said on Friday about the delivery of this measure. I've been asked question after question by those opposite about this measure, and not one of them has ever alluded to the interests of patients—not one of them has ever alluded to the interests of millions of patients who'll benefit from this. I can say confidently that those on this side have met with pharmacists, time and time again, to understand their view of this measure. Now, to the second part of the member's question—that is, about the new funding agreement, or what we call the community pharmacy agreement: I did confirm last week that we had agreed to a request from the Pharmacy Guild, the main pharmacy lobby group, to bring forward negotiations for that agreement, with the aim, if possible, of securing a new funding agreement by 1 March. That commitment was contingent upon a decision by the guild to stand down their campaign against this measure. A reasonable person in this building might question whether that commitment is being delivered upon, but that is a commitment that we have made. We intend, if it's reciprocated by the other side in negotiations, to deliver on it over the coming months. Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Casey is getting close to being warned, and so is the Leader of the Nationals. Vocational Education and Training 54 14:25 Mr REPACHOLI 298840 Hunter My question is to the Minister for Skills and Training. What have been the results of the Albanese Labor government's fee-free TAFE program in its first six months? 14:25 Mr O'CONNOR 00AN3 Gorton I thank the member for Hunter for his question and his strong advocacy for tradies and the TAFE sector in his electorate and beyond. As the Prime Minister said, just over a year ago today the Jobs and Skills Summit was convened and the first announcement arising out of that summit was the announcement of 180,000 additional fee-free TAFE and VET places for 2023, in order to make sure we supply the skills to our economy. Upon election we realised that not only did we inherit a trillion dollars of public debt from those opposite; we inherited a massive skills deficit across the entire economy. It didn't matter what trade, what profession or what sector of the economy, there were shortages and we needed to attend to them. I'm happy to say, as the Prime Minister already indicated, that we have exceeded the target in both time and numbers when it comes to this initiative. We've now delivered, to 215,000 Australians, courses in areas where they can acquire skills in existing and emerging demand. That's exactly what we need. It's what those students need. It's what workers need. It's what our businesses are crying out for. We've done that by working with industry. We've done that by working with employers who have told us what they've needed. We've done that by talking to state and territory governments. In fact, last week I was with the Prime Minister and the member for Swan, at Bentley TAFE, where we met students. They told us that the cost barriers being removed provided opportunities for them to enrol in areas that they wanted work in but had difficulties affording to enrol in. This is meeting the needs of those students. I have spoken to employers who've said that they were paying, in some instances, the fees of those students, and all of a sudden the cost barrier was removed for those employers and they, therefore, increased the number of apprentices that they put on as a result of the removal of that cost barrier. There are lots of good reasons why this is very good policy. To that extent it is very disappointing that those opposite call this wasteful spending. I don't believe that students think this is wasteful spending. I don't think that businesses believe this is wasteful spending when they can get the skills that are in demand. I certainly don't think that others who have spoken with us believe it's anything other than a very important initiative to supply skills that are in need. A number of students from Canberra Institute of Technology who met the Prime Minister and I this morning are in the gallery. We met with Archie, who said fee-free TAFE is allowing him to study a Certificate IV in Cybersecurity, an area in much demand, and Megan, who is studying hospitality. These are the skills that our economy needs, and we'll continue to work with state and territory governments and employers to make sure that we deliver them. Aviation Industry 54 14:28 Mr DUTTON 00AKI Dickson My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister detail discussions he or his office has had with Qantas CEO Alan Joyce, or with other senior Qantas directors or executives, concerning the sweetheart deal that has blocked Qatar Airways from additional flights to and from our country, forcing Australians to pay thousands more for their air travel? 14:29 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler The premise of the question is wrong because Qatar Airways can add more seats into Australia today—right now. It comes from a complete failure to understand the way that the international aviation system works, which is through agreements between nations, not with airlines—agreements between nations are what occur. They are certainly welcome to do so, and they can fly as many flights as they like into Adelaide, into the Gold Coast, into Avalon, into Hobart and into Canberra, where there used to be international flights. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition should know about flights to the Gold Coast. They can also, today, change the 777s into A380s and fly more people in here. What happens with agreements between nations—and former transport ministers will know this—is that there is nothing unusual whatsoever about agreements not just being ticked and flicked between countries. When we talk about international flights— Mr Dutton 00AKI Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order on relevance. This is another slippery answer from this Prime Minister. Can he give one straight answer? The SPEAKER 53517 Order! Resume your seat. Mr Dutton 00AKI Slippery and slimy—you really are. The SPEAKER 53517 The Leader of the Opposition will cease interjecting immediately so I can hear from the Leader of the House. Mr Burke DYW Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order on two matters: (1) that point of order was an abuse from beginning to end and (2) the Practice makes completely clear that, when you leave the dispatch box, continuing to interject out of your place is highly disorderly. The SPEAKER 53517 The Leader of the Opposition knows that was an abuse of standing orders. We are just going to move on. Sorry, Prime Minister, but there'll be no more to that. The Prime Minister has the call. Mr ALBANESE R36 My government supports competition, but global aviation is not a free-for-all, which is why Qantas, when it decided to fly from Perth to London, had to get QF9 to go from Melbourne to Perth and into London. They're restricted to just two slots. That's why Qantas, or any Australian airline, can't fly into Paris whenever they like. There are restrictions on flying into Rome. There is no air services agreement with Europe. We have the most competitive aviation market in the world, bar none. I see the former minister shaking his head to agree. We have Singapore Airlines, Emirates, Etihad, Malaysia, Cathay Pacific, British, Asiana, Korean, Air China, Beijing Air, China Eastern, China Southern, Xiaman Air and more all flying under international agreements between Australia and Europe via another destination. The truth is that, when agreements come forward, ministers can make decisions to defer. Indeed, the former minister, Mr McCormack, has made comments about the decision that he made in February 2018 to put on hold an application by Qatar Airways. That only came into practice in January 2022. They waited four years under the former government. But they did something else as well. (Time expired) Mr Albanese R36 I seek leave for an extension of time. Leave not granted. Cost of Living 55 14:33 Mrs PHILLIPS 147140 Gilmore My question is to the Treasurer. How is the Albanese Labor government addressing cost-of-living pressures and inflation, and what approaches has the government rejected? 14:34 Dr CHALMERS 37998 Rankin I thank the member for Gilmore for asking the question that those opposite dare not ask. They never ask us about cost-of-living pressures on the economy. We know Australians are doing it tough, and that's why our highest priority is rolling out billions of dollars in cost-of-living relief in ways that take the edge off inflation rather than add to it. We are making welcome progress in the fight against inflation, but we know that people are still under pressure. Higher interest rates, which began rising before the election, are putting people under pressure and slowing our economy substantially. Wednesday's national accounts are likely to show the combined impact of higher interest rates as well as all of this global uncertainty on our own economy. Inflation is moderating, but not as fast as any of us would like. But it's moving in the right direction, and we saw that in the numbers for July. The numbers for July showed that monthly CPI has come down to 4.9 per cent, from 5.4 per cent, and the quarterly numbers have also shown inflation moderating. What those opposite don't want people to know is that the highest quarterly CPI was 2.1 per cent in March last year, before the last election, and now it's less than half of that, at 0.8 per cent. Our economic plan is all about addressing inflationary pressures, and it's working. We saw that in the inflation numbers for July. There were two numbers which were particularly interesting in the monthly inflation data. One number was six; the other number was 19.2. Six per cent is the inflation we saw in energy prices in July; 19.2 per cent is the inflation we would've seen in energy prices if those opposite had had their way and we weren't helping people doing it tough. It was right there in black and white from the ABS. They said: If we exclude the impact of rebates from the July 2023 figures, electricity prices would have recorded a monthly increase of 19.2 per cent. The difference between six and 19.2 per cent is our energy plan, which is taking some of the sting out of higher energy prices when people need it. This is the plan those opposite voted against. When they voted no to helping people with high energy prices, they voted yes for even higher electricity prices. This is the price those opposite would have Australians pay, always saying no to everything, even voting no to helping with people's electricity bills. No wonder they don't ask us about inflation anymore. No wonder the shadow Treasurer doesn't get a question. He helped create the problem with a decade of chaos, he kept power price rises secret until after the election, and then voted against helping people doing it tough. This is the Taylor trifecta. This is the mess that we were left with. We take responsibility for cleaning it up. We are working for Australia, and our inflation plan is working. (Time expired) Dr Chalmers 37998 Ask me a question, genius! Mr Hogan 218019 Thank you! Dr Chalmers 37998 You're welcome. Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! Members on my right! The Treasurer will cease interjecting. The member for Page will wait until he is called. Members on my left will cease interjecting. The member for Page has the call. Aviation Industry 56 14:37 Mr HOGAN 218019 Page I thank the Treasurer for his compliment! My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister detail discussions he or his office has had with the Qantas CEO Alan Joyce or with other senior Qantas directors or executives concerning the sweetheart deal that has blocked Qatar Airways from additional flights to and from Australia, affecting exporters and Australians, who have to pay thousands of dollars more for air travel? Honourable members interjecting— Ms Catherine King 00AMR I don't know the answer to that. Mr Joyce e5d We know that, Catherine! Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! Members on my left and right! The minister for infrastructure will cease interjecting. The Prime Minister will be heard in silence. 14:38 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I thank the shadow trade minister for his question. The shadow trade minister doesn't know that freight is unlimited. It's unlimited on any airline, anywhere, any time, and he asks a question about the impact of— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The Prime Minister will pause. The Member for Page has asked his question. He is warned. He will not interject on the Prime Minister for this answer, or he'll leave the chamber. Mr ALBANESE R36 As I was saying before with regard to this question on this issue of Qatar, I'll make two points. One is that the deal that was asked for in February 2018 took not that term but till January 2022 to come into place. That was an interesting deal because it wasn't just over flights. What they did on that deal was put in a safeguarding mechanism, a special thing which other countries did not have to do, to safeguard Australia's national interest. That was put in the agreement between Australia and Qatar. Unlike any agreement that was made during the six years in which I was a minister, there was a special agreement put in, and I agree with the actions of the transport minister. The SPEAKER 53517 The Prime Minister will pause. The Manager of Opposition Business? Mr Fletcher L6B It was a very specific question about the discussions the Prime Minister has had with Qantas's chief executive, senior directors or executives. The Prime Minister is conspicuously avoiding dealing with that matter. If he doesn't have an answer, he should be— The SPEAKER 53517 Resume your seat. The Prime Minister is being relevant under the standing orders. He's speaking in great detail about the arrangements of deals regarding the airlines mentioned. You mightn't like the answer, but the Prime Minister is being relevant. Mr ALBANESE R36 This updated deal was a special arrangement between Australia and Qatar, because the Australian government at the time was clearly concerned about an abuse of market power. I assume that's why it was put into the agreement. That is something that I do not think has been put out there—I don't think there was a media release done at the time—but that was done because of the special circumstances which are there. If you want to keep asking questions about this, I'll go through the whole answer. I had one extensive conversation with someone about Qatar. It was not someone from Qantas. In terms of the arrangements that are made, the truth is that a lot of the time, when these agreements are put in, they are deferred. There is nothing unusual about that. Indeed, when I was a minister, Qatar had their access doubled from seven to 14 flights in February 2009. There's an aviation green paper process underway to make sure that we get all of the settings right, just as, when I was a minister, I put in place the green paper and white paper which set Australia up with the most competitive aviation market in the world, bar none. The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The Treasurer and the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government will cease interjecting. Natural Disaster Management 56 14:42 Ms TEMPLEMAN 181810 Macquarie My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Emergency Management. Today's declaration of catastrophic fire danger weather in Queensland is a sobering reminder that the high-risk weather season has commenced. What is the Albanese Labor Government doing to prepare for the summer ahead? 14:43 Ms O'NEIL 140590 Hotham I thank the member for Macquarie for her question. I think many in this House will be aware that her community has been more or less relentlessly hit by natural disaster for the time she's been at this parliament. She and her family also lost their own home to natural disaster, and she's chosen to take that tragedy and come here to parliament, in part to represent communities around this country who experience these great losses. I just want to say what a privilege it is to work with her. Last month the Australasian Fire and Emergency Service Authorities Council, the national council for fire and emergency services, released their Seasonal bushfire outlook for spring, which indicates a higher-than-average level of risk for the Northern Territory, Queensland and northern New South Wales as well as areas of south-east New South Wales and eastern Victoria and along the Victorian and South Australian border. We know that many of the areas of heightened fire risk are the same communities that have been impacted by significant floods over the last two years, and we also know that, for many of these communities, this will be the first significant fire season since the devastating fires of 2019 and 2020. The Black Summer fires were a pivotal event for our country. To see such significant and tragic loss of life, to see Australians huddled on beaches in the darkness during the middle of the day, to see our major capital cities shrouded in thick black smoke—these are things that most Australians will never forget. As a government, it's our job to make sure that we do everything we can to prepare properly for the forthcoming fire season. To that end Minister Watt has been convening the National Emergency Management Ministers' Meeting, and last week they received a briefing on the long-term forecast for this season, which tells us that, because of the weather patterns, there is not only increased risk of bushfires but also increased chance of heatwaves and cyclones. All federal, state and territory ministers who are engaged in this task endorse the second national action plan on disaster risk reduction, and this is part of the Albanese government's national commitment to driving down natural disaster risk and building resilience. It is very obvious that climate change is increasing the frequency and severity of natural hazards and disasters. As a government we're not going to sit on our hands, and that's why we are taking such significant action on climate change under the leadership of the Prime Minister and the Minister for Climate Change and Energy. It's not just about this summer or the next. The weather in our country is changing, severe bushfires will come more common and we have to respond to that as a country. Through the National Emergency Management Agency we are working closely with states and territories to make sure we've got plans for this, and NEMA's preparedness measures include a summit which will bring together 250 experts in this field to assist this government in this very important national endeavour. Our attitude is that we hope for the best but we always have to prepare for the worst. Climate Change 57 14:46 Mr BANDT M3C Melbourne My question is to the minister for the environment. It's very early spring, but parts of Queensland are already facing a catastrophic fire warning. The climate crisis is getting worse, but since coming to government you've already made five coal project approvals. Minister, instead of bragging about stopping one or two projects while approving many more, when will you do what needs to be done to fight the climate crisis and stop expanding coal and gas? 14:46 Ms PLIBERSEK 83M Sydney I thank the member for his question because it gives me an opportunity to say once again that this government is absolutely committed to action on the climate crisis. In fact, those opposite had 10 years to act. They had 22 separate climate and energy policies and didn't land a single one. What we've done, in contrast, in the 15 months or so since we were elected, is legislate a pathway to net zero, with an interim pollution reduction target of 43 per cent. We've set aside $20 billion for rewiring the nation, $2 billion for green hydrogen, $1.6 billion to electrify our homes and businesses, a national electric vehicle strategy—the list goes on and on. What the Greens don't like to talk about is the number of renewable energy projects which we have approved. Of course, to get to 82 per cent renewable energy is an enormous task. This is probably the biggest industrial change this country will face in its history, to get to 82 per cent renewable energy. I have doubled the number of renewable energy projects approved, 11 renewable energy projects, with more than 100 renewable energy projects in the future already under assessment. What's interesting about those opposite is they're very keen to encourage me to approve renewable energy projects until there's a particular solar farm they don't like, a particular wind farm they don't like or a particular transmission line they don't like. This is an enormous change for our country. Mr Bandt M3C On relevance, point of order: we're two minutes in, and the minister hasn't mentioned coal and gas, the causes of climate change, once. I ask that she be relevant to the question on the approval of new coal and gas projects. The SPEAKER 53517 The minister is talking about energy projects. I'm listening to her carefully. It's not an excuse, that standing order, to rephrase the question or put your interpretation on it, but the minister is at this stage being relevant. If she strays too far, she'll be asked to return to the question. At the moment she's being relevant. I'm listening to her carefully, with one minute remaining. Ms PLIBERSEK 83M I think it just tells you everything you want to know. The transition is about getting more renewables into the grid. That's the change that we need to make as a nation. That's the change that we're committed to because of course it reduces pollution. But it also delivers cheaper energy into our homes and businesses, something we know Australian families back. They've decided for themselves by putting millions of solar panels on their roofs. They have worked it out. We know that this transition is a vital one for Australia. It's a vital one for the world, and I'm proud of the action we have taken in stark contrast to those opposite. And I do remind the Greens that they were the ones that teamed up with the Liberals to block action on climate change last time we were in government. Health Care: Pharmacists 58 14:50 Ms THWAITES 282212 Jagajaga My question is to the Minister for Health and Aged Care. How has the Albanese Labor government delivered cheaper medicines for Australians while supporting a vibrant community pharmacy sector? What obstacles has the government encountered in delivering cheaper medicines? Opposition members interjecting— The 53517 Order! Members on my left. I couldn't hear the question. Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! Members on my left. The member will restate her question, and, if people interject, they won't be here to hear it either. I give the call to the member for Jagajaga. Ms THWAITES 282212 My question is to the Minister for Health and Aged Care. How has the Albanese Labor government delivered cheaper medicines for Australians while supporting a vibrant community pharmacy sector? What obstacles has the government encountered in delivering cheaper medicines? 14:51 Mr BUTLER HWK Hindmarsh I thank my friend and colleague the member for Jagajaga for that question because she at the last election promised cheaper medicines to her community, and in just our first 12 months we have delivered three waves of cheaper medicines reforms, which are saving hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars for those patients. On Friday we delivered the fourth wave, allowing almost four million Australian patients to ask their doctor for a 60-day script for almost a hundred common medicines for ongoing health conditions, things like heart disease, high cholesterol, high blood pressure, osteoporosis and much more. Two scripts for the price of one are effectively halving the cost of medicines for almost four million Australians. This isn't just good for their hip pocket, because we know from overseas evidence it's also good for their health, improving medication compliance by as much as 20 per cent. Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The health minister will pause. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the Nationals are now warned. Policy is, once you're warned, if you interject again you leave. The minister in continuation. Mr BUTLER HWK It's good for the hip pocket, good for their health, but it will also free up millions of GP consultations, instead of just having to issue routine repeat scripts, which are, as we know, desperately needed out there for more serious health conditions. It's good for the cost of living, and it's good for the health system. The SPEAKER 53517 Member for Riverina! Mr BUTLER HWK That's why so many other countries have been doing this for years, and that's why every doctors group, every patient group, has strongly supported the policy of 60-day scripts. But I'm asked who stood in the way of this policy. Well, five years ago those opposite stood in the way of cheaper medicines by refusing to accept exactly the same advice from the medicines experts as we received last summer. The SPEAKER 53517 I think I know where this is going. I give the call to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. Ms Ley 00AMN My point of order is on relevance. How can this possibly be relevant when the government is ripping out thousands of dollars from community pharmacies and making patients pay? You know it. The SPEAKER 53517 I'll hear from the Leader of the House, but I think we know where all this is going. Mr Burke DYW Just two things, Mr Speaker. The first is that was clearly an abuse of a point of order. Secondly, the deputy leader has already been warned. Government members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! Members on my right. It's the first day back, and I know everyone's a little excited. The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Riverina is not helping, trust me. Of course, I'll hear from the member for Wannon. Mr Tehan 210911 Why was it abuse when the deputy leader was asking a very legitimate question around— The SPEAKER 53517 Resume your seat. Resume your seat or you'll be going the same way. Standing orders are there for a reason—to maintain the dignity of the House. That interjection, that intervention, was not within standing orders. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will remove herself from the chamber. The member for Farrer then left the chamber. Mr BU HWK I am just reminding people who stood in the way of cheaper medicines for millions of Australian patients. They stood in the way five years ago, and four weeks ago they voted in the other place time and time and time again. It's very clear, Mr Speaker. Those are the savings the Leader of the Opposition— Opposition members interjecting— An incident having occurred in the gallery— The SPEAKER 53517 The minister will pause. Order! Members will leave the galleries quickly and quietly. The Manager of Opposition Business will resume his seat. The minister still has 50 seconds. Before I call him, I want to hear from the member for Warringah. Ms Steggall 175696 Mr Speaker, I'd like to raise a point of order under standing order 91(e), disorderly conduct, from the members of the opposition and the members in the gallery. I'd ask that security take care of these elements, because, when we have had climate protesters, they have been removed. Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Members on my left will cease interjecting. The member for Warringah is on her feet and will be heard in silence. It's not an excuse to start yelling while another member is on their feet. Ms Steggall 175696 Mr Speaker, I simply say that it's important that we are consistent in this place in how disorderly conduct is treated and that the encouragement from the opposition for this conduct shows a great disrespect for your position and the orderly conduct of this House. Also, they entered the chamber in a clearly intentional way, being dressed in white coats, to bring attention to what they are. Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! Members on my right and members on my left will cease interjecting. The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Cunningham will leave the chamber under 94(a). The member for Cunningham then left the chamber. Mr Fletcher L6B On that point of order, Mr Speaker: there was a reflection on the opposition in that point that was completely baseless and should be withdrawn. Honou rable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! I'm going to ask the House to be silent. The member for Warringah was raising a point about conduct within the House. I warned those in the gallery early in question time today that they were not to participate and were not to interject during question time. As a result of their behaviour, they have left the chamber, but I want to say this going forward: there will be no interjections from the gallery. There will be no movement noise from the gallery, out of respect for this parliament but also the other Australians that are in the gallery. For the rest of this week and for the rest of the time that I'm Speaker, that will not happen again. The member has been asked to withdraw a reflection. I'm going to ask her to do that. An honourable member interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 The Manager of Opposition Business took offence. An honourable member interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Yes. Resume your seat. I want to hear from the Leader of the House. I couldn't hear what the member was saying, but, if someone has taken offence, my policy is for someone to withdraw, on both sides of the chamber. Mr Burke DYW I respect that. I simply want to draw your attention to the fact that what the member for Warringah did was draw your attention to conduct of members. That's different to name-calling or what is normally considered a reflection on members. If it is impossible to even take a point of order reflecting on the conduct and drawing to the attention of the chair the conduct of speakers, then a whole lot of points of order can't be taken. What the member for Warringah did is a completely legitimate way of drawing the attention of the chair to how members are behaving. That can't be considered a reflection. Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 I'm going ask the front bench on both sides to cease interjecting so I can hear from the manager. Mr Fletcher L6B The statement from the member for Warringah was words to the effect that the opposition had been complicit in what had occurred. That is an offensive remark, and she should withdraw it. The SPEAKER 53517 I think the point has been made. I'm just going to ask the member to withdraw, so we can move on with question time, to assist the house. Ms Steggall 175696 I withdraw, and I also request that the members of the opposition cease calling out— The SPEAKER 53517 We're going to continue with question time. Trust me, if people interject on the minister in his remaining answer, they won't remain here either. Mr BUTLER HWK Amid all of that what is clear is that these savings the Leader of the Opposition was determined to do everything possible to block. Well, we're just as determined to back patients in right to the hilt. We are determined for there to be a vibrant future for the community pharmacy sector. That is why we're reinvesting every single dollar the Commonwealth saves from this measure, and that is why, as I said in an earlier answer, we've agreed to bring forward the negotiation of the next funding agreement with the sector, with the aim of getting an agreement by 1 March. Ultimately, be clear about this: from our perspective good health policy is about the interests of patients, and that is what cheaper medicines deliver. Qatar Airways 60 15:02 Mr FLETCHER L6B Bradfield My question is to the Prime Minister: did the Prime Minister discuss the Qatar application with Mr Alan Joyce prior to the government's decision? 15:02 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I've gone through the one substantive conversation that I had. I've said that was not with Qantas, and I received no lobbying from Qantas about this issue. I cannot be clearer than that. Mr Dutton 00AKI Very tricky— The SPEAKER 53517 The Leader of the Opposition will cease interjecting. Mr ALBANESE R36 This issue goes to the way global aviation operates, and I've said that in my time as minister there was one doubling of Qatar Airways eligibility into the gateway airports and one rejection of another application that Qatar put whilst I was the minister. But the specific agreement that was put into the Australia-Qatar government-to-government agreement was proposed by the then Deputy Prime Minister, Minister McCormack, prior to the second arrival, the sequel no-one asked for, Barnaby Joyce's election as Deputy Prime Minister a second time. That introduced a safeguards article for Australia, making sure there wasn't any abuse of market power put in there by any entity, and of course there's only one airline based in Qatar, which also operates the airport at Doha. The SPEAKER 53517 The Manager of Opposition Business, on a point of order? Mr Fletcher L6B Mr Speaker, on relevance: the Prime Minister did come to a direct answer; he's now off on ancient history, and frankly he's got no more— The SPEAKER 53517 The Prime Minister is being relevant. He was asked a question about the Qatar application. He is talking directly about the Qatar application. Mr ALBANESE R36 They ask questions, but I'd suggest that they actually should have asked questions to people on their side who understand the aviation sector. If they'd done that, then they wouldn't have gone down this rabbit hole, because there are people on that side who understand the way the air services agreements work and the way that global aviation works as well, which is not a free-for-all. Australia seeks access to international markets. Whilst I was the minister, we weren't successful in getting a European air services agreement, and that has restricted our access substantially. Whilst I was the minister, we made sure that we did have that access to the US for Virgin as well as Qantas, and for the US airlines to be able to fly to Australia as well. We have the most open aviation market in the world bar none—bar none. There isn't another country in the world that has the access that we do. Qatar can increase the number of passengers, tomorrow, coming into Australia, either at the gateway airports by flying different aircraft or by going into other airports. (Time expired) Housing 61 15:06 Mr BURNS 278522 Macnamara My question is to the Minister for Housing and Minister for Homelessness. How is the Albanese Labor government delivering housing reforms for Australians right across the country? 15:06 Ms HWM Franklin COLLINS (—) (): I want to thank the member for Macnamara. I know he understands that we were elected with an ambitious housing policy, and we've added to it at every opportunity. I know that he's also concerned about the number of renters in his electorate, particularly given that 30 per cent of Australians now rent. We are working hard for Australia to turn around the housing challenges that we inherited. Last month we announced the $3 billion new home bonus and the $500 million Housing Support Program out of the National Cabinet. This is bringing states and territories together to actually do the planning and zoning reforms to add to housing supply right across the country. The new national target is 1.2 million homes over five years from 1 July 2024. We know that this is ambitious, but what we want to do is get supply on the ground right across the country because we understand that the answer to the issues, whether you are trying to buy a home or rent a home, is supply. For the first time in history we've also had some progress on renters' rights. We're now working towards national consistency for renters so that, whether you're a renter or a landlord, right across the country you'll understand your rights and obligations. And we want to make sure that no renters anywhere in the country lose any existing rights. We're taking important steps to make sure that rental increases can occur just once a year in every jurisdiction. We're moving towards nationally consistent policies to require genuine, reasonable grounds for eviction and we're phasing in minimum rental standards across the country. These are significant, and they will make a real change for renters right across Australia. Indeed, it's not just us saying this but experts and those working in the housing and homelessness area who say this. Our announcements have been welcomed, particularly by the Community Housing Industry Association, who described them as 'a real policy breakthrough'. National Shelter said it was 'long overdue reform'. And the Grattan Institute's analysis of our plans was headlined 'National Cabinet's new housing plan could fix our rental crisis'. In fact, the Grattan Institute said we could save renters $32 billion over the decade if we meet this target with our reforms—$32 billion over the decade in savings for renters. We're getting on with the job now and we're planning for the future when it comes to housing in Australia. We've already unlocked $575 million; we have houses on the ground today because of that decision. We of course know there will be thousands more because of the $2 billion in social housing through the social housing accelerator. We are of course boosting rental assistance. Just this month, for those people who get CRA at the moment, we've funded a $1.7 billion one-year extension to the housing and homelessness agreement. And we've helped more than 67,000 people into their first home since the election. We're getting on with the job, working to turn around the housing challenges for Australians. Energy 61 15:09 Ms TINK 300124 North Sydney My question is to the Minister for Climate Change and Energy. Australians are worried. Not only are they dealing with the rising cost of energy, but they're also trying to make sense of headlines that warn us of an unreliable grid that is likely to lead to energy shortages. Why isn't the government doing more to get solar on individual homes and to incentivise landlords to add solar wherever possible? And why aren't we lifting the cap on the Small-scale Renewable Energy Scheme from 100 kilowatts to 1,000 kilowatts to accelerate the distributed energy resource? 15:10 Mr BOWEN DZS McMahon I thank the honourable member for her question, although I must disagree with the premise that she put to the House because, in the budget, this government delivered a $1.7 billion package to help Australian businesses, households and councils make the transition to renewable energy. And $1.7 billion is not a small amount of money when you put it to such a cause. It enables households, small businesses and local governments to make the sorts of investments they want to, with some government assistance through low-interest loans and grants, as appropriate, to make those decisions. The honourable members refers to, in effect, the Electricity statement of opportunities out last week, and it does underline the importance and the urgency of the transition to renewable energy, which is something that some honourable members in the House understand, as the honourable member for North Sydney does, and others do not. These warnings from the energy market operator, as were contained last week's statement of electricity opportunities, are not new. There were similar warnings given in the same statements in 2019, 2020 and 2021—almost exactly the same wording in many instances. The difference is that, in this instance, this government is acting. The previous government had 21 energy policies but couldn't land one, and as a result we saw four gigawatts of dispatchable power leave the grid and only one gigawatt come on—a situation we are remedying. Australian Constitution: Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice 62 15:11 Mr BRIAN MITCHELL 129164 Lyons My question is to the Attorney-General. Can the Attorney-General update the House on the referendum for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander recognition through a voice? 15:12 Mr DREYFUS HWG Isaacs I thank the member for Lyons for his question. It's timely to remind those opposite and all Australians what this referendum is actually about, because, as the member for Berowra and many others have commented, the 'no' case wants to debate every issue imaginable, except the one that's on the ballot paper. The issue on the ballot paper is the addition of three very straightforward sentences to the Constitution. The proposed amendment is this: In recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the First Peoples of Australia: (i) there shall be a body, to be called the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice; (ii) the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice may make representations to the Parliament and the Executive Government of the Commonwealth on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples; (iii) the Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws with respect to matters relating to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice, including its composition, functions, powers and procedures. That is it. Unlike the Leader of the Opposition's announcement over the weekend calling for a second referendum, the constitutional recognition through a voice that is currently before the Australian people does not come from politicians. It came directly from Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people themselves. We know that when governments listen to people they get better results, they get better outcomes and they use funding more effectively. We all know that the current approach is not working. The gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians is not closing in health, education, housing and just about every other measure. There is an eight-year gap in life expectancy. The suicide rate for Indigenous Australians is twice as high as the rate for non-Indigenous Australians. Rates of disease and infant mortality are higher for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. After years of failed programs and policies, Indigenous Australians are not seeking a purely symbolic form of constitutional recognition, which would not do anything to turn things around. What is needed is a practical form of constitutional recognition. What is needed is a Voice. Mr Albanese R36 Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper. QUESTIONS TO THE SPEAKER 62 QUESTIONS TO THE SPEAKER Parliament House: Security 62 15:15 Mr BURKE DYW Watson Mr Speaker, while the House itself will be, understandably, a robust place, we all have a special obligation to make sure that the people who are employees of Parliament House have a safe workplace. Following the incidents that happened during question time today, it's been reported that some of the parliamentary staff have been subjected to verbal abuse by people who were in the public gallery. I'd simply ask you—and I'm sure it's the wish of members in making sure that this is a safe workplace—to review available footage, including, if it is found that what has been reported is accurate, checking whether any of the people who have behaved that way had been personally signed into this building or to the Speaker's gallery. 15:16 The SPEAKER 53517 I thank the leader. I want to make it clear, as a presiding officer, that I shall take action if there is any abuse towards security staff or, indeed, any staff in this building. I'll review the relevant information. The SPE 53517 The member for McEwen will cease interjecting while I am talking! I shall review the information and indicate to the House if any action is required. Parliament House: Assistance Dogs 62 15:16 Mr CHESTER IPZ Gippsland Mr Speaker, I'm seeking your guidance in relation to the possibility of utilising therapy or welfare dogs in the Australian Parliament House workplace. As a former minister, I was very heavily involved with the role of psychiatrically-trained assistance dogs supporting veterans in their recovery from mental health issues, and that training does occur here in the ACT. I'm wondering whether it maybe possible to consider regular visits to Australian Parliament House of such dogs as they're doing their training and whether you'd consider such a trial. I guess my question is: would the Speaker be willing to investigate this idea further and report back to the House? 15:17 The SPEAKER 53517 I'm happy to report back to the member, and I thank him for that question. I will raise the matter with the President of the Senate and report back to the member directly. DOCUMENTS 63 DOCUMENTS Presentation 63 15:17 Mr BURKE DYW Watson Documents are tabled in accordance with the list circulated to honourable members earlier today. Full details of the documents will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings. AUDITOR-GENERAL'S REPORTS 63 AUDITOR-GENERAL'S REPORTS Reports Nos 1 to 4 63 15:17 The SPEAKER 53517 I present the Auditor-General's Audit reports Nos 1 to 4 for 2023-24. Details of the reports will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings. Documents made parliamentary papers. DOCUMENTS 63 DOCUMENTS Australian National Audit Office 63 Presentation 63 15:17 The S 53517 PEAKER (): I present the Australian National Audit Office annual report 2022-23. Document made a parliamentary paper. BILLS 63 BILLS Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes) Bill 2023 63

Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes) Bill 2023

First Reading 63 Second Reading 63 15:19 Mr BURKE DYW Watson I move: That this bill be now read a second time. Last year, with the Secure Jobs Better Pay Bill, the parliament passed legislation to improve job security, increase wages and close the gender pay gap. It worked. We have had the strongest jobs growth for the first year of any Australian government. Half a million jobs have now been created, and 85 per cent of those jobs have been full time. Wages are growing at their fastest rate for a decade. The gender pay gap has fallen to its lowest level ever, and the number of days lost to industrial action has fallen sharply. But many Australians are not receiving the full benefit of these changes, because of loopholes that allow pay and conditions to be undercut. For these workers the minimum standards in awards and enterprise agreements are words on a page, with little relevance to their daily lives. The businesses which use these loopholes are able to undercut Australia's best employers in a race to the bottom. If we want workers to be paid properly we need to close the loopholes. If we want casuals to have a pathway to secure work we need to close the loopholes. If we want enterprise agreements to determine minimum rates of pay at a workplace, we need to close the loopholes. If we want gig workers and those in road transport to have minimum standards, we need to close the loopholes. Those workers have waited long enough, so today I ask the parliament to come together and close the loopholes that undercut pay and conditions this year. In relation to wage theft, it is already a crime for a worker to steal from an employer, as it should be. But it's not a crime for an employer to steal from a worker. We will close this loophole. An employer convicted of intentional wage theft could face up to 10 years imprisonment. Significantly, courts will be able to impose fines of up to three times the amount of the wage underpayment in both civil and criminal contexts, allowing penalties to be proportionate to the scale of the misconduct. Employers who take reasonable steps to pay the correct amounts, or who make honest mistakes, will not be criminally prosecuted. The Fair Work Ombudsman will be able to enter cooperation agreements with employers who come forward, and, as was requested by COSBOA, a new Voluntary Small Business Wage Compliance Code will provide assurance to small-business employers that they can't be pursued criminally if they take appropriate steps to comply with the law. Maximum civil penalties for wage underpayment, including reckless wage underpayment, will be increased, implementing recommendation 5 of the Migrant Workers' Taskforce. There are two key challenges in stamping out wage underpayments: one is how you detect the problem early, and a second is how you help workers—often very vulnerable workers—to speak up in the workplace. We are making two changes to address these issues. The first is an amendment to the current process allowing worker representatives to access workplaces to support workers. Currently, the Fair Work Commission can decide to allow a representative to enter a workplace without 24 hours notice if there is a reasonable prospect of the destruction or concealment of evidence. We will give the commission the capacity to also grant right of entry where it is satisfied there is a reasonable suspicion of wage underpayment. There can be cases where the paperwork is impeccable but wage theft is occurring. For example, if a worker is being directed to clock off but is still required to work after that, you will only uncover this by attending without notice. Existing safeguards applying to right of entry will continue. This bill makes no changes to section 483AA for access to non-member records and keeps the prohibition on accessing residential premises. Secondly, a common feature of many high-profile wage underpayment cases is that, when they are discovered, we find the problem has been going on for years and years. People are too afraid to speak up, and there are no processes in place to help them do so. We need to make sure that, if someone is not being treated fairly at work, it's discovered early. That's why this bill contains important new protections and rights for workplace delegates, including paid access to relevant training—with small businesses exempt from this requirement. These changes make it more likely that there is a fellow employee at the workplace who is trained and knows the rules. This means more underpayment issues will be resolved early and quickly without involving anyone from outside the workplace. The next loophole involves casual employment. Casual employment suits many Australians and plays an important role in our workplaces. But when someone is called 'casual' on their pay slip or their contract yet is rostered like a permanent worker, expected to accept shifts like a permanent worker, and has a job likely to continue into the future indefinitely, then there's a clear loophole. A worker like this should be able to choose secure employment if they want it. The ability to treat someone as a casual against their wishes, even if they are working like a permanent worker, is an unfair loophole. And we will close it. A casual will still be defined as someone who does not have a firm advance commitment to continuing and indefinite work, but the bill will enable employees and their employers to look at what's really happening, not just what their contract says. Employees will be able to notify their employer that they wish to be permanent if they believe they no longer meet the casual definition. Providing certainty to business, casual employees will remain casual unless they actively choose otherwise; and where an employee chooses to become permanent, no back pay will accrue. Most casuals who are eligible won't want to convert. Most will prefer to keep their loading. But those casuals who maybe are supporting a household with that job are more likely to want security. Their rent isn't casual; their bills aren't casual. They need a better option for security. The Fair Work Commission will have the ability to resolve any disputes, including through arbitration as a last resort or in exceptional circumstances. The bill also prohibits 'sham' casual arrangements, which will stop employers deliberately and unreasonably misrepresenting to an employee that their employment is casual when it is not. The next problem is the labour hire loophole. There's a legitimate role for labour hire in Australia—for surge work, for specialist work, or to provide temporary replacement workers. Because of the inherent insecurity, labour hire workers are usually paid higher rates of pay, and those cases are completely unaffected by this legislation. But when a business agrees on rates of pay in an enterprise agreement, and then asks labour hire workers to work for less—this is a labour hire loophole and this bill will close it. On application, the Fair Work Commission will be able to make an order requiring labour hire workers to be paid at least the minimum rates in a host business's enterprise agreement. The Fair Work Commission must not make the order unless it is fair and reasonable to do so, for example where it finds an arrangement is for the provision of services rather than labour. Orders can only apply to pay rates; not to non-monetary conditions. To be very clear—this reform does not prevent employers paying their employees more in recognition of their skills, qualifications and experience. It does not apply to hosts who are small businesses; or to independent contractors; or to training arrangements. The bill contains broad anti-avoidance protections that will stop businesses deliberately changing and manipulating their operations to try to get around these new obligations. The Fair Work Commission will help businesses to implement these obligations, including through developing guidelines. In relation to employee-like workers, the road transport industry, and unfair contracts: a definition of employment is needed. Avoiding paying worker entitlements by calling a relationship 'independent contracting' when it is in reality an employment relationship is not appropriate and must end. Courts will now be required to look at the totality of the relationship, not only what's on paper, to work out what is really going on. And we need fair minimum standards for employee-like workers and the road transport industry. Currently gig workers have no minimum standards at all. This is a loophole causing serious harm to workers and it must be closed. At the moment if you're a worker wanting assistance, you turn up to the Fair Work Commission or the Fair Work Ombudsman and question 1 is: are you an employee? If the answer is yes, the Commission or Ombudsman works out where you fit into the system and a whole host of entitlements and rights follow. If the answer is no, all of those rights fall off a cliff. The amendments in this bill will close the loophole and turn that cliff into a ramp, allowing the Fair Work Commission to make minimum standards orders for workers on digital platforms who do not meet the definition of employee, but nonetheless have low bargaining power, or low authority over their work or comparatively low pay—for example, people doing work via digital platforms in the NDIS, working in aged care, delivering food to people's homes, or transporting us around. In many countries, the answer for these types of workers has been 'just make them an employee'. We are not doing that. We are going to accept the form of engagement. But what we're asking is, within that form of engagement, surely there are some minimum standards that are appropriate. For example, the Fair Work Commission might come up with a minimum rate of pay. In relation to rideshare, it might go for a 5-minute or per-minute rate rather than an hourly rate. Why? Because it would need to be a rate appropriate for the form of engagement. Things like insurance, working time standards—these are possible without changing the form of engagement. Things like rostering and overtime, though—these would change the form of engagement and are not permitted under the bill. Similarly you couldn't logically pay somebody for all the time that they're just on the app, because that would wreck the form of engagement. Gig workers will have new rights to seek reinstatement if they've been unfairly deactivated from the platform. Gig workers have the same financial obligations as other workers and should not have their platform access and livelihood unfairly cut off without any chance of redress. The road transport industry is currently operating in a way that is putting businesses, workers and their families under immense financial pressure and undermining the safety, sustainability and viability of the industry. The problems are starkly illustrated in the Without trucks Australia stops inquiry by the Senate Standing Committee on Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport chaired by Senator Glenn Sterle, who joins us in the chamber now. Acting on calls from the industry to make an urgent change, the bill will allow the Fair Work Commission to set minimum standards for the road transport industry and to hear disputes about unfair contract terminations. The bill contains a number of guardrails to ensure that the mistakes of the Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal are not repeated. A 'notice of intention' process gives parties an extended period to consider draft minimum standards orders before they become binding. Particular issues that are already comprehensively covered by other laws cannot be regulated. The Fair Work Commission must be satisfied that any order will not have an unreasonable adverse impact on the viability or competitiveness of drivers. Parties affected by a potential order will have the right to be heard before the order is made; and a fail-safe process will allow an employee or employer organisation or the minister to apply to suspend the operation of an order in order to enable a full merits review to take place. Importantly, the order will be made by an expert panel within the Fair Work Commission, which must take account of advice from a road transport advisory group, with subcommittees able to provide additional expertise—a group formally established under this bill. This is a clear requirement to ensure orders acknowledge the practical realities of the road transport sector. We know that the challenges that drivers face are made worse with complex contractual chains in the trucking industry. To address this, the bill will provide for regulations to empower the Fair Work Commission to make minimum standards for participants in road transport contractual chains. The government will continue to work with industry and union representatives to craft these regulations to ensure they are appropriate and effective in addressing pressing challenges, such as fair payment times. And we need better protections against unfair contract terms for independent contractors. Existing protections against unfair contract terms under the Independent Contractors Act have not worked. This bill creates a new, low-cost and efficient jurisdiction at the Fair Work Commission for resolving disputes about unfair contract terms in services contracts, for independent contractors below a high-income threshold. The next problem we are dealing with is fundamental. Every worker has the right to go to work and come home safely. Currently, manslaughter is a crime; but the same kind of culpable conduct is not prosecuted as manslaughter if it happens at work. We will close this loophole. This bill makes industrial manslaughter an offence—a long overdue recommendation of Marie Boland's 2018 review of the model work health and safety laws. The offence includes penalties of $18 million for bodies corporate and 25 years imprisonment for officers. The most serious penalties should apply to recklessly or criminally negligently causing the death of a worker. This part of the bill became essential because of the advocacy of the families of workers who never came home; some of whom are in the gallery right now. This bill is for Kay Catanzariti and Barney Catanzariti, whose 21 year old son Ben was killed on a construction site at the Kingston foreshore here in Canberra when a concrete boom collapsed on him and two other workers. This bill is for Shauna Branford and her husband, Peter Branford. Shauna's 39-year-old brother, Glenn Biddle, was killed at work in an explosion in North Ryde, New South Wales. You have been tireless, resolute and courageous in advocating for reform over many years. The Albanese government acknowledges you and your work on these important changes to the law; and we pay respects to your loved ones who are not here with us today to see this bill introduced. The bill will also deal with other loopholes. It will expand the Asbestos Safety and Eradication Agency to eliminate silica related diseases in Australia. It will simplify workers' compensation for first responders with post-traumatic stress disorder, including firefighters, Australian Federal Police employees and ambulance officers in the Commonwealth jurisdiction. It will further improve bargaining by giving the Fair Work Commission the power to make enterprise agreement model terms, allowing franchisees to bargain together in the single-enterprise bargaining stream and allowing employers covered by a multi-enterprise agreement to bargain with their employees for a replacement single-enterprise agreement at any time. It will strengthen protections against discrimination for employees subjected to family and domestic violence. It will make sham contracting laws fairer. It will clarify the operation of Fair Work Ombudsman compliance notices. It will simplify registered organisation demerger provisions. It will clarify rules for the small business redundancy exemption in insolvency contexts. The debate about these laws has now been raging for years, ever since we announced these policies from opposition. Three arguments are always made when people don't want to argue the merits of an issue. They will complain about consultation, they will talk about something that the issue is not or they will ask for a delay. But my request in the debate we are about to have is simple—anyone who intends to vote against closing the loopholes should defend the loopholes. Defend them. If someone thinks it's reasonable that wage theft not be a crime, defend it. If someone thinks it's okay that someone who could easily be converted to secure work shouldn't have the option to do so then they should say so. If someone believes that low-paid workers in the gig economy should have absolutely no minimum standards, they should make that case. If someone's position is that it's fine for certain companies to agree to minimum rates of pay in an enterprise agreement and then use a loophole to completely undercut them then they should defend the loophole and make that case. If anyone thinks it is reasonable that recklessly or negligently causing the death of a worker not be a criminal offence, they should explain why. If these loopholes had been closed years ago our workplaces today would be safer and fairer than they are. Nothing leaves me more convinced of the need for this legislation than the refusal of its opponents to step up and defend the loopholes that we are closing. They know that their arguments don't stack up. In presenting this bill to the House, I want to acknowledge the advocacy of workers, of union delegates and organisers, of academics, of community sector organisations and of employers who are frustrated that their competitors use these loopholes—all of whom have said, 'Enough is enough.' While the opposition to closing loopholes has wandered from the selfish to the absurd, at one level the political debate isn't what any of this is about. This is about the many responsible employers—small, medium and large—who work hard every day to contribute to this country and are tired of unfair competition from those employers who do the wrong thing. This bill is about all those members in the road transport industry who want to make a great contribution to a great industry and come home safely at night to their families. This bill is for owner-drivers like Frank Black, Tony Matthews and their trucking colleagues and industry representatives who have joined us today. This bill is for gig workers from rideshare and food delivery who want fair minimum standards at work—people like Rosalina, Nabin and their colleagues who are with us today. This bill is for Yavuz Cikar, whose 30-year-old nephew, Burak Dogan, was killed in Sydney's inner west while working as a food delivery rider. We are closing the loopholes for gig workers; and ensuring that the road transport industry is safer, more sustainable, more viable into the future. This bill is for people like Chris—a cleaner who has worked here in Canberra cleaning government buildings for almost 40 years. Chris, who is here in the gallery today, has worked for six employers, and during that time every single one of them has underpaid Chris in one way or another. She got her money back eventually each time with the help of her union, and a struggle each time. Chris, we are closing the wage theft loophole for hardworking people like you. This bill is for people like Sanjeev, a migrant worker with two children in high school. He was planning to be here today. He can't because he's caring for an ill family member. Sanjeev is a pathology courier. For the past five years, he's worked 30 to 40 hours a week and always been employed as a casual. Despite requests, his employer has refused to convert him to permanent employment, leaving Sanjeev without the job security that he needs for his family. We are closing the forced permanent casual loophole for people like Sanjeev. This bill is for Brodie, who is with us in the gallery today. Brodie works for BHP Operations Services in Queensland as an operator in production. Brodie and his directly employed workmates all work full time, all within the same part of the business, performing the same operator role. Except that Brodie gets paid less. This bill will close the labour hire loophole for people like Brodie. This bill will close the loopholes which undermine and weaken our workplace relations system, and it will make Australian workplaces safer and fairer. The loopholes that have been harming workers, families, employers, and our community can be closed here, this year—with this bill. Let's get this done. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 The debate must now be adjourned. The question is that the resumption of the debate be made an order of the day for the next sitting. 15:42 Mr FLETCHER L6B Bradfield I move: That all words from "the next sitting" be omitted and substituted with "16 October 2023." For the benefit of the House, I just want to explain the purpose and the objective of the motion that I am moving. I do want to be clear to members of the House that Practice requires me to confine my remarks to the question that is now before the House, and that question is about when debate should be resumed. I'm unable to and I will not be making reference to the substantive terms of the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes) Bill 2023 moved by the minister, because the motion that is before the House right now is concerned with the programming of debate. It is not in and on itself a motion which expresses an opinion of the House with respect to the bill. So, while—as is no surprise to anyone in this House—the opposition certainly does object to the bill, and there may be others who feel similarly, this is not the time for those arguments to be put or for a consideration of the substantive merits of the bill. Instead, this amendment to the motion that's before the House is moved by me with the objective of upholding parliamentary accountability and protecting transparency against yet another attempt by the government to undermine this parliament. A legislative smash-and-grab raid is effectively what's being attempted here, and I'll return to that substantive point shortly. Let me first speak to the procedural aspects of this motion and the amendment that I have moved to the motion. Again, I make clear that the question which is before the House—which, Deputy Speaker, you've just stated—should not be confused with the question that debate be adjourned, which is often put on the conclusion of the minister's speech. That's a question that cannot be amended or subject to debate. Instead, the question which is before the House right now is a question going to when the House wishes to resume debate on this bill. In the normal course of proceedings that would not typically be a controversial issue, because the House, in general, is not dissatisfied with programming decisions of the government. It is very clear from the standing orders, however, that it's open to any member to amend the motion which is before the House. In this case, the motion before the House is that the resumption of the debate be made an order of the day for the next sitting. On this occasion, I have moved an amendment, which will be seconded by my good friend the member for Page, that all words from 'the next sitting' be omitted and substituted with '16 October 2023'. That amendment has been worded in specifically the language that is required under Practice and under the standing orders, because the requirement is that the amendment must substitute a specific date or day. Let me turn now to the substantive question of why the opposition is moving this amendment. As Senator Cash has said in the other place and in public and as I have also said in the media, the opposition is deeply concerned that this minister is once again attempting to ram through this parliament radical changes to Australia's industrial relations system. Let's examine for a moment the government's legislative program and what is being proposed here. What the government wants to do is to commence debate on this bill tomorrow. This leaves the opposition and all of the crossbench members of this House less than 24 hours to properly consider this voluminous bill and formulate a response. I make the point that nobody on this side of the House has seen, previous to about 15 minutes ago, this voluminous bill. It looks like a house brick. That's not entirely surprising. We've all been expecting that, and those expectations have been fully satisfied by the voluminous size of these hundreds of pages of legislation which are now before us on the table. We've had the opportunity, it must be said, thanks to the generosity of the minister, to look at that house brick of a bill, but we've not been given the opportunity to consider it, to review it, to assess it, to examine it, to study it, as would normally be good practice in this parliament. Of course, the opposition has internal processes, and no doubt other parties and other organisations or groupings within this parliament have their own internal processes. It would not come as any surprise to the government to know that the opposition has a process to properly examine and consider a bill through shadow cabinet processes and through party room processes. There has been a time-honoured and well-regarded convention in this place that there should be sufficient time allowed after a bill being introduced by the minister, as has just occurred now, for others in this parliament, including the opposition but also including crossbenchers, to have the opportunity to examine the legislation. Tragically, disappointingly, this time-honoured convention is being wantonly disregarded by this minister for what can only be assumed to be political reasons. I am advised that Senator Cash, the shadow minister, the opposition spokesperson on industrial relations matters, is only now as we speak receiving a briefing from the government on the contents of this bill. It's clearly a ludicrous and laughable proposition— Mr Burke DYW That's pretty soon after I've moved it! Mr FLETCHER L6B The minister at the table giggles and suggests that he's meeting best practice in so generously briefing the shadow minister at this time. The fact is, as we know, there's been a policy development process underway for months, but the minister has, in quite a calculated and deliberate fashion, very specifically decided to only now make available the terms of the bill, the several hundred pages we can see weighing down the table in a considerable fashion. That has only been shared with the House in the last 30 minutes, and the timetable that the government has put is that all others in this parliament should be required to get across these hundreds of pages and to begin participating in the debate tomorrow. There is absolutely nothing to stop the minister demonstrating his bona fides, demonstrating his reasonableness by indicating right now that what he will do is agree to the amendment the opposition has moved and program this bill for debate in this House from 16 October 2023. That would be the first day of the next period of sittings. That would allow appropriate time for the opposition and for others in this parliament to study the extensive detail, the many hundreds of pages of wording in this bill, to consult with appropriate stakeholders and to then participate in a deliberative legislative process in a serious way. Unfortunately, what we've seen from this minister instead is what can only be described as a legislative smash and grab exercise. And this isn't the first time this minister has done just this. He did this with the legislation he introduced last year—indeed, last year, we saw a threat from the minister that parliament would return on a Saturday, at extraordinary expense to taxpayers, as part of— Mr Burke DYW Imagine having to work on a Saturday! M 129164 Welcome to shift work, mate! Mr FLETCHER L6B I will dignify the calls from across the table by saying we all know that in this place we work at many different times of the day throughout the week and the weekend, and we all know that it is a privilege to serve our constituents. We also know that good parliamentary process involves and requires parliamentarians being given an appropriate amount of time to consider the details of what is being put before them. The chaotic way in which the minister is proposing to advance debate on this particular bill is, frankly, not worthy of him, not worthy of his party, not worthy of this parliament, not worthy of our parliamentary democracy. It's for all of these reasons that I have moved, in the amendment to the motion that's before the House, that debate should resume on 16 October. I want to be clear in response to the minister's pre-emptive rebuttal points which have not even been made, this is not an attempt to push the bill off into the never-never, it's not an attempt to needlessly run interference. Of course it would have been open to me to move a date next year, but the opposition respects that this is a matter which is on the government's legislative agenda. We don't agree with it, but we respect that fact. What we also ask for is the basic respect for legislative processes which allow opposition and crossbench parliamentarians the time to properly consider what is an extremely complex matter, a matter which I might say— (Time expired) The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 Manager of Opposition Business, your time has well and truly expired. I will check we have a seconder, but, first, I do want to make abundantly clear that the debate must be adjourned. We are simply discussing resumption of debate here. 15:53 Mr HO 218019 Page GAN (—) (): I second the motion. I'm seconding this motion because this is a question of transparency. Can I begin by giving the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations a compliment? I've just googled you, Minister. You're a very good speaker. He was awarded the Martin Sorensen Trophy for being the best speaker at the 1994 Australasian Intervarsity Debating Championships, which is quite an achievement and I congratulate him on that. Why am I seconding the motion? What I've learnt from this minister is that when he gets up and says something like, 'This is a very modest proposal,' it's usually complete overreach. When this minister gets up says, 'We've consulted widely,' it's normally been with a few union movement officials and stakeholders who've signed confidentiality clauses. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 We're not introducing argument here. Mr HOGAN 218019 No, I just wanted to pay the minister a compliment. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 This is a debate about the motion before the House. Mr HOGAN 218019 This parliament needs to be given time to look at the detail of this very technical bill—just with the process that this government has taken with the bill to date, as the Manager of Opposition Business said. This government said it would be very transparent, but what its modus operandi has been—and it's been the case with this bill as well—is to gag everyone who's been part of the consultation with legally binding non-disclosure agreements. What that means is that we get this bill, but nothing about this bill has come into the public discussion before the bill got here—which is normal!—because everyone has signed a non-disclosure agreement. While Minister Burke can speak freely about it—and the government spoke about these things when it was doing the consultation process—anyone who's been opposed to this or been consulted haven't been able to speak about it. That's why this parliament needs more time to consider this, because it's disrespectful to the chamber and to the Australian people. Ms Murphy 133646 What's that got to do with the motion? Mr HOGAN 218019 Lots—I'll keep going. The bill changed names, which was interesting. I think the bill was originally going to be called 'same pay, same job'. It's been changed now to 'closing the loophole'. There are concerns about the bill, with the cost-of-living. There are concerns about same job, same pay: how do we do this, and how do you measure that? Again, there are lots of problems with this bill, or lots of issues with this bill that need time to be discussed. While the Manager of Opposition Business's amendment to move it to October is very modest, I would like to see a comprehensive Senate committee as well, with an inquiry into this which would travel the country. If the bill is very important and so desperately needed, as the minister said, we'd like to see modelling from the Treasury before we debate this. What is the potential cost? Has the government gone to Treasury? Has it gone and got economic modelling about what this would be about? Again, there are lots of questions about this. This isn't the first time. We saw this with other bills. We've seen that this is a modus operandi of this government with lots of legislation. They say they consult, but it's with a very select, very small number of people that are signed to confidentiality and non-disclosure agreements. They introduce it into parliament, and then they gag it. They have their new changes to standing orders that they move as well, which mean you can only debate the bill for 24 hours. We saw it on the gas policy. We saw it on other bills. This government went to the last election and promised the Australian people, this chamber and the crossbenchers that this would be a really transparent government. This is again showing they're not. If you consulted, you're holding people to non-disclosure agreements, you're introducing a bill that has huge ramifications and unintended consequences that you probably don't know yet and you're holding the bill up and putting it through as quickly as you can without the committee inquiries—or the fact that we could go out and talk to the stakeholders who were consulted. As an opposition, we should have time and should be allowed to go out, consult stakeholders who have been involved in this process for the last few weeks and months and get their insights into this. That's very difficult to do when the government proposes to bring this forward tomorrow, and they will close the debate on the day that it's being debated because they wants to ram this through. The Australian public and Australian businesses that I know want to know that this bill isn't just about paying the union pay masters and that we have a transparent process, a process that has been longstanding and tried in this parliament. I fully support what I think is a very modest proposal from the Manager of Opposition Business to extend the adjournment of this debate. 15:58 Mr BURKE DYW Watson I can never work out if they try to make mistakes like this, if it's incompetence or what it is, but it's consistent, and I'll give them that. First of all, whenever a member of parliament was giving a first speech, we would make sure that, from opposition, even if it was a government member giving their first speech, we didn't run procedural interference, because their first speech was scheduled for a particular time, they had family members there and it was a big moment in their career. It never occurred to me that the opposition might run interference on the first speech of one of their own members, but that is what they've decided to do now on this motion. It's something I've not seen before. I wish the member for Fadden well in his first speech. He will get to give it eventually. I wish him well in that. Now, what is being moved is actually quite extraordinary because what they have said is not that they want to debate it next week; they've said they don't want to debate this bill at all until 16 October, and they've said part of the reason they need to wait for 16 October is that they want to go through their party-room processes. Of course, in that week, their party room meets on 17 October—their party room meets the following day. So what this motion actually says is: they will take the bill, probably, to their party room meeting tomorrow, because it's been made clear that Senator Cash is being briefed right now—and I don't know of another situation where a shadow minister is being briefed on a bill as it's being introduced to the parliament, but that's what we made sure we did today, at the earliest possible moment. We made sure that there was still time for parties to be able to go through their party processes, which will happen in the meetings tomorrow. I presume they'll go through it then. So what's proposed in this motion? Is it that the Liberal and National parties will consider this bill on 5 September, but we're not allowed to talk about it until 16 October? What would that then mean? That would then mean that, in order to get this bill across to the Senate, we would have only two weeks of debate available in the House of Representatives. And what do you reckon they would do, the moment I brought forward a debate management motion to make sure we got through in those two weeks? Of the 151 members around the House, almost everybody wants to speak on a bill like this. It's always the case. So what would happen if we had the late-night sittings and we moved speaking times down to five minutes? Does anyone think those opposite would be voting for those debate management motions—even though the only reason for doing it would be because of the game they played this morning? What the government intends to do is this: to have four weeks of debate. What they are proposing will mean only two weeks of debate. What the government is proposing on this bill is that we try to schedule as much time as possible, in the hope that we can avoid late-night sittings, and certainly to be in a situation where we can avoid shortening speaking times. Their motion guarantees consecutive late-night sittings and shortened speaking times. This resolution, if carried, will guarantee that the parliament, in the two weeks we will have left to debate it before the Senate will require the bill, does every single thing that up until now the Manager of Opposition Business has told us he opposes—everything. He'll always get up and give his reasonable-voice speech. He'll get up and say: 'You know, this is being rushed through, rammed through.' And today, he has the resolution designed to make sure the parliament is in that situation. Today, what he's doing—and I haven't seen an opposition try this one on before—is to actually try to block debate. It wasn't enough for them to move that the member be no further heard, one at a time. They wanted to move that the entire parliament not be heard on this bill, for an entire two weeks; that we wait until we come back on 16 October—even though their party room, they acknowledge, will have met in September and made a decision on this—just for the sport of delaying it, so they can then get angry about the consequences of the delay, which will be late nights and shorter speaking times. Well, in a debate where, so far, those opposite have been willing to participate, and given that the Leader of the Opposition on the weekend described this bill as an 'economy-destroying piece of legislation', I reckon they know what they think of it. I reckon they already know which way they're going to vote on this bill. I reckon, as soon as they heard it was called 'closing loopholes', they knew they were opposed to it. That was enough. Just the title page would have got them onside to be the opponents of this bill. They know what their position is, and they've known from the moment we started talking about closing the loopholes. They will consider this at their party room tomorrow. Senator Cash is being briefed on it now. And every one of the measures in the bill has been ventilated publicly in the lead-up. The comment that we heard from the member who gave the previous speech, I've got to say, really blew me away, when he said, 'People have been prevented from talking about this bill over the last few weeks.' I don't know; maybe I imagined the ads, the public debate and all the arguments that came forward. The debate has been happening out in the community. The debate has been happening in the newspapers. The debate has been happening on radio and on TV, and it's time now for the debate to happen on the floor of parliament, because the people who are affected by these loopholes have been waiting long enough for this parliament to recognise what's really happening in their lives. Those opposite might think it's a bit inconvenient for them to have to prepare a speech so quickly. Well, it's a bit inconvenient for the casual who has been a casual working 30 to 40 hours a week for six years to not be given security of employment. Those opposite might think it's a little bit inconvenient for them to have to put their submission to shadow cabinet through tonight so it can be ready for the party room tomorrow. Well, there are a whole lot of workers in the mining sector who have suffered the inconvenience of being paid less than the people they've worked side by side with for years. Maybe their inconvenience can be the priority this time. Let's give the casual worker the priority. Let's have a little bit of inconvenience around preparing speeches here in order to deliver a better workplace for the casual worker, a better workplace for the gig worker, who currently has no minimum standards, and a better workplace for the people who are currently in the road transport industry who have been working for this reform for years. Let's make those sorts of changes now, instead of making the ridiculous argument that, as I say, is the exact opposite of everything the Manager of Opposition Business has argued since he took on that title. The effect of this motion is to reduce the House of Representatives debate on the closing-loopholes bill from four weeks to two weeks. The impact of this amendment is to cut short the participation of members of this House in debate on the bill that has just been introduced. The impact of the motion that has been moved by the Manager of Opposition Business would be to allow you to run away and hide and try to get away with a few more weeks where you can just try to dodge the issue and not be forced to defend the loopholes that you plan to vote against closing. The people affected have had enough of being told, 'Can we have a delay?' They've had enough of being told, 'Can we just pretend the issue is about something else?' They've had enough of being told, 'Consultation hasn't been good enough,' even though there has been more consultation on this than on any workplace relations bill in years. People have had enough of those excuses, and this motion is one of the most pathetic excuses I've seen to hide the reality that the day has come when, if you go to vote against closing the loopholes, it will be time to front up and defend the loopholes. If those opposite aren't ready to defend the status quo, to defend the rotten deal for casuals, to defend the rotten deal for people who are affected by the labour hire loophole, to defend the rotten deal that gig workers have at the moment—well, if those opposite aren't ready, we are. Members on the government benches are ready to have this debate. We're ready to have this argument. We're ready to close the loopholes. If there are some members opposite who think, 'Maybe I would rather hold my personal speech until October,' guess what? We'll still be debating it in October. You'll still get to make your speeches then. Those two weeks of debate are still there. They're still available. The only effect of this amendment is to cut out this week and next week and to mean that fewer members of parliament will get to speak, and speaking times will get cut short. It's the sort of amendment you only move when you're scared of the debate you're about to walk into. The SPEAKER 53517 The question is that the amendment moved by the Hon. Manager of Opposition Business be agreed to.    

The House divided. [16:14]
(The Speaker—Hon. Milton Dick)

62 AYES Andrews, K. L. Archer, B. K. Bell, A. M. Birrell, S. J. Boyce, C. E. Broadbent, R. E. Caldwell, C. M. Chaney, K. E. Chester, D. J. Coleman, D. B. Conaghan, P. J. Coulton, M. M. (Teller) Daniel, Z. Entsch, W. G. Fletcher, P. W. Goodenough, I. R. Haines, H. M. Hastie, A. W. Hawke, A. G. Hogan, K. J. Howarth, L. R. Joyce, B. T. G. Landry, M. L. Le, D. 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) Ryan, M. M. Scamps, S. A. Sharkie, R. C. C. Spender, A. M. Steggall, Z. Stevens, J. Sukkar, M. S. Taylor, A. J. Tehan, D. T. Thompson, P. Tink, K. J. van Manen, A. J. Vasta, R. X. Violi, A. A. Wallace, A. B. Ware, J. L. Webster, A. E. Willcox, A. J. Wilson, R. J. Wolahan, K. Wood, J. P. Young, T. J. 80 NOES Albanese, A. N. Aly, A. Ananda-Rajah, M. Bandt, A. P. 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. Charlton, A. H. G. Chesters, L. M. Clare, J. D. Claydon, S. C. Coker, E. A. Collins, J. M. Conroy, P. M. 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. Hill, J. C. Husic, E. N. Jones, S. P. Katter, R. C. Kearney, G. M. Keogh, M. J. Khalil, P. King, C. F. King, M. M. H. Lawrence, T. N. Laxale, J. A. A. Leigh, A. K. Lim, S. B. C. Marles, R. D. Mascarenhas, Z. F. A. McBain, K. L. McBride, E. M. Miller-Frost, L. J. Mitchell, B. K. Mitchell, R. G. Mulino, D. Murphy, P. J. Neumann, S. K. O'Connor, B. P. J. O'Neil, C. E. Payne, A. E. Phillips, F. E. Plibersek, T. J. Rae, S. T. Reid, G. J. Repacholi, D. P. Rishworth, A. L. Roberts, T. G. Rowland, M. A. Ryan, J. C. Shorten, W. R. Sitou, S. Smith, D. P. B. (Teller) Stanley, A. M. (Teller) Swanson, M. J. Templeman, S. R. Thistlethwaite, M. J. Thwaites, K. L. Watson-Brown, E. Watts, T. G. Wells, A. S. Wilkie, A. D. Wilson, J. H. Zappia, A. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

 16:20 The SPEAKER 53517 The question now is that the motion that the resumption of the debate be made an order of the day for the next sitting be agreed to. Question agreed to. BUSINESS 73 BUSINESS Suspension of Standing and Sessional Orders 73 16:21 Ms WELLS 264121 Lilley by leave—I move: That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the Member for Fadden making a statement immediately and that the Member speak without limitation of time. Question agreed to. The SPEAKER 53517 Before I call the honourable member for Fadden, I remind the House that this is the honourable member's first speech, and I ask the House that the normal courtesies be extended to him. 16:22 Mr CALDWELL 306489 Fadden It is one of the great honours an Australian can receive to be elected to this place, and I am humbled every day that the people of Fadden placed their faith and trust in me. As I rise today for the first time to speak in this place, I am conscious that this opportunity is the gift of the electorate to me personally, and one which carries great responsibility. I can tell you that I feel that deep sense of responsibility today. I often say that it takes a lifetime to become an overnight success. The result in the by-election on 15 July 2023, whilst visible on that day, was built on endeavour and endurance my whole life. I pledge that I will apply that same endeavour and endurance in my new role as a federal member of parliament and fight every day for the people of Fadden. Throughout my life I've been motivated by part of a famous speech by Theodore Roosevelt in Paris, on 23 April 1910: It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat. In 2006, at the age of 26, I started my own business, a small law firm at Hope Island, Caldwell Solicitors. I had what you might describe as an ambitious tagline: 'Experience on your side'. I had some enjoyable times but I also had some challenging times. I got stuck in the middle of the GFC, but I managed to grow the business over the next 10 years. I will never forget the stresses of making payroll and paying rent and the fact that, in all of those years, I paid everyone else's super but my own. The Gold Coast is the small-business capital of Australia. My experience of the sacrifice and stress is felt by many Gold Coast families who are having a go, whether as a tradie, a cafe owner, a hairdresser or a butcher. I will never forget my roots in small business and in the private sector. To all of those small businesses out there, I pledge my support to you. I will always remember the people I helped in my profession as a lawyer. During the election, one former client came through the polling booth. I hadn't seen her for more than a decade. She was carrying with her her youngest child, about the same age as my daughter Clementine. She said: 'I don't know much about politics, but what I do know is that, when I needed it, you really, really helped me a lot.' And she said, 'I know you will do a great job of this.' And that was just one example. In 2012, I felt I could do more, and I was motivated to contribute to the local community at a council level. It was time to put up my hand to serve the northern Gold Coast on council, to make our city a better place. I was fortunate to be re-elected in 2016 and 2020. To the people of Fadden, and to every single Australian who I work for in this place, all of these years later, I can truly say: I now have the experience, and I'm on your side. I'm a proud Gold Coaster. We are a city of youth and enthusiasm. Sometimes we're misunderstood, but we are always loved by those who holiday with us and ultimately retire there. I was proud to serve on the Gold Coast city council for almost 12 years, and I want to make special mention of the locals in divisions 3 and 4, who I've always worked hard for and who have supported me in return. I want to share an experience that I had along the way, of how anyone can serve their community if they want to, and, if they want to, achieve a personal goal if they set their mind to it. I'd always wanted to get my bronze medallion and patrol the Gold Coast beaches. I thought that, like some of my friends, you needed to be a serious athlete to achieve this, but I looked into it and I thought, 'This won't be easy, but I'm going to have a go.' At the age of 35, I did a very slow qualification swim. But I completed the course and passed, and went on to patrol at the Southport Surf Lifesaving Club. I have never been prouder of that personal achievement or that particular service to my community. I'm a proud Queenslander. I was born in Mount Isa. I grew up in Redcliffe, where I went to primary school. I went to school at Nudgee College, like one of my colleagues here, and I went to uni at QUT. I've now resided at the Gold Coast for more than 20 years. It really doesn't get much more Queensland than that. I understand our state, and I understand Queenslanders. I will never forget the early generations of my family, from regional parts of our state, and the contribution they made. I make special mention of my grandfather Vince Caldwell, who started his life as a miner and went on to be a citrus farmer on the highway in Howard, in Queensland. Vince died when I was just 21, but I appreciate the impact that he had on my life, and I know he would have been incredibly proud of this moment today. I am a proud Australian. To say that we are 'the lucky country' is to understate the real essence of our being—and that is that we are the land of opportunity. That opportunity is founded on the freedoms we enjoy and those freedoms which have been fiercely defended. John Howard said on 24 January 1997: There is a very identifiable Australian character and Australian identity. And he went on to say: When we examine our national identity we should always remember that the symbols that we hold very dear as Australians and the beliefs that we have about what it is to be an Australian are not things that can ever be imposed from above by political leaders of any persuasion. They are not things that can be generated by self appointed, cultural elite who … tell us what our identity ought to be. Rather they are feelings and attitudes that grow out of the spirit of the people. I am not here, in this place, to impose change on our nation. I am here to allow each and every Australian to choose who they want to be, and who, collectively, we want to be as a nation. I will use every opportunity available to me to ensure that the safe, stable, Australian way of life is here to stay. The namesake of the seat, Arthur Fadden, was born in Ingham in North Queensland, opened a small accounting practice, was elected to council, moved to Brisbane and ultimately was elected to federal parliament in the seat of McPherson on the Gold Coast. The parallels to date at least seem pretty close. As he was a former Prime Minister, albeit for 40 days and 40 nights, and having been the second-longest-serving Treasurer, I feel that as the member for Fadden I have big shoes to fill, but I commit myself to the task. Speaking of Fadden, it's an electorate at the northern end of the Gold Coast, and because no-one here is yet of retirement age and I know you're all wanting to escape the Canberra winter I will take you on a short journey through what is a beautiful part of our country. From Labrador in the south you head north through Biggera Waters to Runaway Bay and then via my home suburb of Hollywell to Paradise Point, where you can enjoy the best park-run course in Australia or you can listen to the iconic Sunday Sounds in the Parklands. In Hope Island and Sanctuary Cove you might enjoy a round of golf. This is the coastal strip where connection to water and our natural environment is everything to us. Moving west, residents enjoy our inner-green suburbs of Arundel, Parkwood, Helensvale, Gaven and Pacific Pines—the suburb where I bought my first home on the Gold Coast. To the north we have the emerging growth corridor of Coomera, Pimpama and Ormeau. It is in these suburbs in Fadden where you will find the homes of many young families establishing themselves in this world. These suburbs personify the aspirational and hardworking Gold Coast resident. Fadden is a diverse landscape. It's a beautiful place but with even better people. I reflect with pride on the fabric of our community that I have spent the last 20 years serving as either a lawyer or a councillor. I think of the Labrador Tigers AFL club and the Runaway Bay Little Athletics, with nearly 400 kids involved, the Paradise Point Bowls Club, which is a gathering place for families and retirees, the integral role that our Neighbourhood Watch groups play in Coombabah and Runaway Bay, the Rotary clubs of Hope Island, Coomera Valley and Ormeau-Pimpama, the Coomera Cutters Junior Rugby League Club, who started with a bare field and through true community spirit delivered a clubhouse, and the Runaway Bay and North Gold Coast RSL sub-branches. All these people are the fabric of Fadden. The northern Gold Coast is also a significant economic powerhouse for the Gold Coast, with everything from generation-old caneland agriculture to cutting-edge space technology. Our area has been the driver of the marine industry for decades. The marine and shipbuilding sectors are crucial for Queensland's ongoing growth and the diversification of our important tourism and export sector. These provide employment for Gold Coasters and it's something I feel incredibly passionate to represent, knowing it has such great potential. I look forward to working with the local marine industry, knowing it's flow-on impact to the tourism and export sectors, to keep driving economic growth and creating more jobs for northern Gold Coasters and Australians. Tourism is a key pillar of the Gold Coast economy. In addition to the beaches of the Gold Coast, the theme parks are a significant driver of that economy. Fadden is home to theme parks and movie studios. The contribution of the Gold Coast's film sector, primarily via the stages next to Movie World at Oxenford, is not only as a major Queensland employer; they are a driver of the Gold Coast's cultural contribution to cinema. The success of this thriving sector came through a significant contribution from the former coalition government's policy and funding, and I hope to be part of its further growth. Tourism and the Gold Coast go hand in hand and our city has always understood what it takes to drive the economy and welcome visitors to enjoy their stay. Tourism provides more than 33,000 jobs in our city and over the last 10 years has contributed $48 billion to our economy. The latest data for the year ending March shows that the Gold Coast welcomed 12.7 million visitors, who generated a record $7.5 billion in expenditure, including a record 4.2 million domestic overnight visitors. The return of international tourism, though, has been slow, with the international spend at around $744 million, compared to pre-pandemic levels that were over a billion dollars. This has been caused through aviation connectivity challenges, as airlines battle aircraft and staff availability. Higher than usual airfares, through a lack of competition, are also contributing to this slower return. Our objective of more tourists coming more often, staying longer and spending more is a simple approach to growing the sector. There has never been a more obvious but important time to make a related point. More planes arriving means more tourists and a stronger tourism economy. To the one in six businesses on the Gold Coast and those across Australia that rely on the tourism industry: I understand your needs, and I pledge to support you. I was fortunate enough to buy my first property during the time of the Howard government, but I fear that the great Australian dream is being snatched away. We must strive, as a nation, to increase homeownership. There is no better way to illustrate the collective ambition of our nation to have individual freedom and responsibility than to have people own their own home. Give as many people as possible the opportunity to have a stake in our nation. In preparation for today, I again yesterday visited the national War Memorial. There is no better place to reflect on our nation. I pay tribute to all those men and women who served our country—making special mention of my grandfather Thomas William Hewett, who served in World War II, and his uncle Thomas Walsh, killed in action in Gallipoli in World War I. The safety we feel as a community begins at our front doors, and the security we feel as a nation relies on defending our borders. In my role as a local councillor, I supported initiatives like the Runaway Bay Youth Centre, CCTV and better park lighting—all in an effort to improve our local safety. I believe in a safer and better society through targeted local initiatives, and in national defence capabilities to keep Australia safe, with investment that supports the men and women of the Defence Force. As I get towards the end of my speech, I must reflect on the fact that politics is a team sport and I have the best team. I want to pay tribute and thank my wife, Lauren. Many of you know, the timing of the by-election was not without its challenges for our family, and Lauren, in her true, supportive and selfless role in my life and in our family, gave her support and gave her all. I know that her keen political competitive streak was enlivened by the campaign and, babe, we delivered the win, and you delivered the baby! Many people say that it's hard to have a family and to serve to this place, and I'm sure that is true. But it is also the single greatest motivation for me to be here. To my daughters, Mackenzie, Clementine and Marigold: I love you so much. I am here for you. I'm here for your future, for your generation of young Australians and for those that follow. To my parents, Warwick and Therese, also here today: I'd have not achieved in my life what I have without the opportunities that you provided me, the love that you have given me and the foundation of values that you instilled in me. My sister and brother, Anna and John, are both here today. Thank you so much for being the best siblings anyone could ask for. Anna, I still recall vividly the games of backyard cricket we would play, and I think how much you would've loved to have been able to play in a professional team, which is now available to so many young girls. And, JC, as the planning chair for almost 12 years, I do think myself to be an expert in architecture, and landscaping, and traffic impacts, and planning. But I really do bow to your professional abilities and what you've achieved as an architect. To my in-laws, Tina and Martin, I doubt that when I married your daughter you would have thought you would find yourself part of a political family to the extent that we now are. To both of you and to Lachlan, thank you for your support of our family, much of which has allowed me to achieve my election in this place. To Brett Anderson, you are literally the best friend anyone could ask for. One of my failings in life, which I don't like to talk about, is that I can't drive a manual car, so regrettably Brett does more trips to the dump in his ute than he probably should. For that and all the chats and all the signage runs during the election, thank you. Of my council colleagues who I count as friends, I make special mention of Hermann Vorster, whose sense of politics and people is impeccable and who has been a great support during testing times in council and now on the recent by-election journey. To you and Melissa, thank you. Some of you may have noticed that I'm here because we had this little thing called by-election. Yes, there was bit riding on it. The campaign we ran was disciplined and competent and spoke to issues that are important to the people of Fadden. My sincere thanks goes to Andrew Hirst, Simon Berger and the team from Liberal Party fed sec, many of whom are here today. I just love it when a plan comes together. To Ben Riley, Matt Chadwick and the team from LNP HQ, thank you. To my ground team, Justin, who's here today; Angus; and Valeria, who's also here today—you were literally the best support that a candidate could have. Thank you both. To the volunteers locally from the Fadden FDC and more broadly, it was the commitment to our cause and the teamwork that laid the pathway to victory. To the Young LNP, you are a force to be reckoned with in politics. I must make special mention of Lachlan, Jordan, Piper and Bronte. Thank you so much. To Katika, from my division office, thank you, and best wishes with the upcoming delivery of your first child. To James in my electorate office, thank you for getting us to today, and a special mention to Emily Bradfield from my office, who worked with me in council and has now joined me in this federal space. Thanks for everything. To my now parliamentary colleagues who came and supported my campaign, thank you. I'm genuinely excited to be part of the team. And finally to our leader, Peter Dutton, you were engaged and supportive during the campaign, you're a genuine, thoughtful and decent individual and I thank you very much for your support. My life experiences in work, family, professional and community service have instilled in me certain values, and those are values that I share with the Liberal and National parties. To the people of Australia, the values of Sir Robert Menzies are the reason I sit in this party and in this House. I truly believe that those values are aligned with your values. They are the Australian values, and they are as valid today as when the Liberal Party was formed. The values are reflected in the Fadden community. Whilst there is an alignment that has lead to my election, leadership and representation locally and nationally must be dynamic, and I will work hard to maintain the trust and confidence of the electorate. The people of Fadden support the Liberal and National parties and want us back in government. They want to see me sitting over that side, and that's what I want too. To the people of Australia that I serve in this place: when you want to get ahead in life, I will support you. When you want the freedom to the best you want to be, I will do my best to enable you. When you want to provide for your family, I will help lift you up. When you want to stand with your family and your country to be safe and secure, I will stand with you. I am here for you. BILLS 77 BILLS Crimes and Other Legislation Amendment (Omnibus) Bill 2023 77

Crimes and Other Legislation Amendment (Omnibus) Bill 2023

Consideration of Senate Message 77 16:46 Mr DREYFUS HWG Isaacs I move: That the amendments be agreed to. Question agreed to. Biosecurity Amendment (Advanced Compliance Measures) Bill 2023 77

Biosecurity Amendment (Advanced Compliance Measures) Bill 2023

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

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

Second Reading 77 16:48 Mr DAVID SMITH 276714 Bean I congratulate the member for Fadden on his first speech and wish him well in this place. There's a great opportunity for all members in this place to support important legislation, such as the Higher Education Support Amendment (Response to the Australian Universities Accord Interim Report) Bill 2023. This will end the 50 per cent pass rule that was introduced by the previous government as part of the Job-ready Graduates Package. Rather than supporting students who are struggling with the demands of academic life and getting them ready for life after university, this rule was intended to dissuade struggling students from continuing their studies. The statistics speak for themselves. Since the 50 per cent pass rule was implemented, more than 13,000 students at 27 universities have been affected. According to research from the Department of Education, many of these students come from a disadvantaged background. In the Albanese Labor government's vision of education, students who are struggling and/or are from disadvantaged backgrounds should be supported to complete their studies rather than be penalised for struggling. On the passing of this bill, universities will be required to demonstrate how they will identify students who are struggling and how they will connect those students with the support services to help them. Universities will be required to provide sufficient, non-academic supports for students, such as financial assistance and mental health supports. This is also why we are implementing the third recommendation of the report. As recommended by Professor O'Kane and her team, this government must extend demand-driven funding currently provided to Indigenous students from regional and remote areas to cover all Indigenous students to close the education gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians. We cannot ignore the historical and systemic challenges that have perpetuated the gap, hindering the access and opportunities for Indigenous students to receive quality education. By taking action in line with the recommendation, we are demonstrate a commitment to rectify past injustices and build a foundation of empowerment for Indigenous Australians through education. This measure directly supports efforts towards achieving Closing the Gap outcome 6, to increase the proportion of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people who've completed a tertiary qualification to 70 per cent by 2031. Universities Australia, the peak body representing Australia's universities, has said that the 50 per cent fail rate measure was unnecessarily punitive on students and that universities have long called for uncapped places for all Indigenous students and the removal of barriers to a university education for students from underrepresented backgrounds. This measure builds on our government's election commitment to deliver up to 20,000 Commonwealth supported places and fee-free TAFE. Australian universities also contribute to economic activity and jobs in our country. Education added more than $29 billion to the economy in 2022. This is a tangible demonstration of the relationship between education and economic development. The importance of our universities transcends their immediate academic function. They are dynamic engines of progress, shaping the next generation of skilled professionals who address the challenges and opportunities that lie ahead. In acknowledging the existing skills crisis in Australia, we must recognise that the solution lies within a robust and resilient education system. The demand for skilled professionals, whether they be nurses, doctors, engineers, scientists or in other vital roles, cannot be met without a strong and capable education foundation. From the earliest stages of primary school to the halls of higher education, Australian students deserve nothing less than the best-quality education that not only imparts knowledge but also cultivates critical thinking, creativity and adaptability. Our education system should be a nurturing ground for future leaders, innovators and problem-solvers. This is something that we have focused on and will continue to strive to achieve. The Labor Party's dedication to education reflects our collective understanding that an empowered, educated population is the cornerstone of a resilient democracy. In our pursuit of progress, let's also remember that education equips individuals with more than just knowledge. It empowers them to be empowered, engaged citizens who contribute positively to society. Education is a policy space where we have always demonstrated our dedication to creating fairer and more equitable societies where every individual can reach their potential. It has been Labor that has led this country in advancing higher education, and no doubt it will be Labor that continues to lead this country in ensuring that our nation has a higher education system that encourages Australians, no matter their socioeconomic status, to advance their education. I would like to acknowledge the hard work and dedication of our Minister for Education, the Hon. Jason Clare, for bringing this bill before the House. The Albanese Labor government understands that if you want to upskill, it's in the national interest for the government to do what it can to facilitate this. But this is just the beginning. As we look to the future, we must continue to work together, united in our purpose, to build a society where every Australian has a chance to unlock their potential and fulfil their aspirations. All members of this parliament should be able to recognise the important place of higher education and therefore the importance of this bill. I commend this nation-shaping legislation to the House. 16:54 Ms BYRNES 299145 Cunningham I rise to make a contribution to the Higher Education Support Amendment (Response to the Australian Universities Accord Interim Report) Bill 2023. The bill, which makes amendments to the Higher Education Support Act 2003, HESA, is part of the government's implementation of the priority recommendations of the Australian Universities Accord Interim Report, which was released by the Minister for Education on 19 July 2023. The Australian higher education sector has travelled through an agonising period of policy and funding uncertainty, including extraordinary ministerial vetoes and interventions into research funding over the last decade. However, the election of the Albanese Labor government is an opportunity for a reset for so many sectors in Australia. Most certainly, a reset was needed between the Commonwealth and the Australian higher education sector. I note in the break the minister released the government's response to the Australian Research Council review, agreeing with the key recommendations to establish an ARC board that will be responsible for the appointment of the CEO and the approval of grants within the National Competitive Grants Program. This will improve the governance of the ARC and strengthen the integrity of decision-making processes. This is about a reset, not only with the institutions but also with the academic staff, researchers and students. In the decade under the previous government, we saw it become harder and more expensive for Australians to go to university. We saw legislation come before this place that caused students to pay more to attend university, saw thousands of students have their fees double, saw billions of dollars cut from universities and saw legislation that did nothing to get young people into high-priority courses or jobs. It is these reasons why the Albanese Labor government has taken the approach to work with the community to rebuild our higher education sector. Initially this is being done through the Australian Universities Accord. At its core, the accord is about a reset, an opportunity to build a long-term plan for our universities together, without any partisan political games which ultimately only sees the prosperity of our country suffer. The Albanese government is committed to opening the door of opportunity for more Australians to go to university. This is why we are acting so swiftly to implement the priority recommendations of the accord interim report. I must acknowledge at this point the hard work of the accord team, led by Professor Mary O'Kane AC, chair and former Vice-Chancellor of the University of Adelaide; Professor Barney Glover AO, Vice-Chancellor of Western Sydney University; Ms Shemara Wikramanayake, the first female managing director and chief executive officer of Macquarie Group; the Hon. Jenny Macklin AC, former Minister for Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs; Professor Larissa Behrendt AO, the first Indigenous Australian to graduate from Harvard Law School and a professor of law and the Director of Research in academic programs at the Jambana Institute for Indigenous Education and Research at the University of Technology Sydney; and the Hon. Fiona Nash, a former senator for New South Wales, a former minister for regional development, regional communications and local government and territories, and now Australia's first Regional Education Commissioner. As other speakers have already outlined, the interim report makes five priority recommendations: (1) that we create more university study hubs not only in the regions, but in our outer suburbs; (2) that we scrap the 50 per cent pass rule and require better reporting on how students are progressing; (3) that we extend the demand-driven funding currently provided to Indigenous students from regional and remote areas to cover all Indigenous students; (4) that we provide funding certainty during the accord process by extending the Higher Education Continuity Guarantee into 2024 and 2025 with funding arrangements that prioritise support for equity students; and (5), that we work with state and territory governments to improve university governance. The bill that we see before us today is about recommendations 2 and 3, which require legislative amendment. But all of the recommendations speak to the lived experience in my community. Our local university, the University of Wollongong, engages with the community from the south-western Sydney regions all the way to the Victorian border. As the university outlined in its response to the accord discussion paper, around 50 per cent of UOW students are first in family. On a personal note, this was the case for me. Leaving school after year 10, I did a business administration course and then entered the workforce here in the parliament. It was not until my 30s that I went to university as a mature-aged student while working as a full-time adviser in this place. I was the first in my family to complete university and I am a proud University of Wollongong alumni. So is Flying Officer Julia Cronan, who is participating in the Australian Defence Force Parliamentary Program in my office this week. Flying Officer Julia Cronan completed her degree in international relations at UOW. In many schools across Australia, in excess of 65 per cent of students are still going directly into employment after school and are not accessing higher or vocational education. When education is a key to Australia's future prosperity and development, we must do all we can to support Australians to acquire the skills that our future workforce needs. Locally, UOW is striving to provide that support with a dedicated team that has been committed to widening the participation of individuals from underrepresented backgrounds in higher education for more than 15 years. Despite its name, the activities of UOW are embedded in the Wollongong, Bega Valley, Eurobodalla, Shoalhaven, Sydney CBD, Southern Highlands, Sutherland Shire and south-western Sydney regions, where UOW has regional and metropolitan footprints. More than 3,500 students have graduated from UOW's regional campuses. We must be more innovative when it comes to supporting the options of education in our regions. One example is UOW's coordinated aged-care traineeship programs in Bega, where the university works with local aged-care providers to offer cohort based traineeships whereby students gain paid employment with certificate IV level study in a face-to-face cohort model with mentorship as well as a guaranteed pathway into a local Bachelor of Nursing degree. The vice-chancellor has put to me that this model is proving very successful in terms of retention of the workforce and completion of qualifications, and industry groups have sought to replicate it in other regions. The work that UOW has been doing in my community is very much consistent with where the accord recommendations are. However, as previously mentioned, this bill is making only two legislative changes: extending the current demand-driven funding for regional and remote First Nations students to all First Nations Australian undergraduate students studying bachelor or bachelor honours level courses other than courses in medicine from 2024 and removing the pass-rate requirements for students to remain eligible for Commonwealth assistance and introduce new requirements for universities and other providers to support students in successfully completing their studies. The pass-rate requirements were originally introduced in January 2022 by the former coalition government as part of its Job-ready Graduates program to dissuade students from continuing in courses that they were not academically suited for. However, the practical effect of these measures has been overly punitive for students. I want to be clear that these changes to the pass rate are about increasing support, not about lowering standards. More than 13,000 students at 27 universities have already been hit by the rule. The pass-rate requirements have disproportionately affected students from First Nations, low-socioeconomic-status and other underrepresented or educationally disadvantaged cohorts. Those are the groups that achieve the most, particularly in social and economic development opportunities, when it comes to undertaking higher and further education. We must be helping students succeed, not forcing them to quit. Students come from all walks of life and experiences. Undertaking higher education is in many cases a leap of faith for students who don't back themselves, their skills and their abilities. We must have institutions which can support students to learn, develop and meet the standards of a world-class education and more. For a lot of people, especially in my community, this is a balancing act of competing priorities, including work, family and caring responsibilities. Under these policies, universities and other providers will be required to demonstrate how they will identify students who are struggling and how they will connect those students with support services to help them. The extension of the demand-driven places to metropolitan Indigenous students is a measure that will directly support efforts towards achieving Closing the Gap outcome 6 to increase the proportion of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people aged 25 to 34 years who have completed a tertiary qualification, cert III and above, to 70 per cent by 2031. I note that the Department of Education estimates this may double the number of Indigenous students at university within a decade, and it has strong sector sport. The measure builds on the government's election commitment to deliver up to 20,000 Commonwealth supported places, including 936 at the University of Wollongong, and fee-free TAFE places. This bill is the first part of the accord reset process and seeks to reduce the narrowing of options that we have seen occurring in Australia's higher education system for far too long. 17:05 Ms CHESTERS 249710 Bendigo I rise to say a few comments in relation to the interim report and the Higher Education Support Amendment (Response to the Australian Universities Accord Interim Report) Bill 2023. It gives me an opportunity to speak about the importance of higher education, particularly to regional electorates like my electorate, the electorate of Bendigo. We are proud to be the home of the Bendigo La Trobe campus, but our higher education didn't start with Bendigo La Trobe. Our higher education history goes back 150 years—we're celebrating this year—with the School of Mines that was opened back in the day of the gold rush. Since then we've seen the growth of higher education in our city. We've had the very successful teaching colleges, and I do, for the moment, forget the name. My partner will not forgive me! He, like many people in Bendigo, started their education to be a schoolteacher through that forum, only to graduate with a degree from La Trobe uni. There has also been the growth of the Bendigo TAFE campus, another proud higher education institution. Both of those institutions have had input into the accord process and are keen to encourage the government to look at how we can foster a greater pathway between vocational and higher education studies. The ability to start at Bendigo TAFE campus and go from certificate, to diploma and to bachelor should be easy and the norm, not the exception. But far too often it's been too hard to complete. Quite often you hear from institutions that they spend hours, if not days, in multiple meetings trying to work their way through a complicated state-federal system to achieve that outcome. It's just one of the many areas that they are hoping this accord looks at, and I know that the accord and its committee members are keen to do so. This quote I think sums up where we're at in terms of Australia's higher education sector; it's the last line in the summary of the interim report: In short, the Australian higher education sector lacks the institutional resilience and 'metabolic rate' needed to prepare our nation for the future. There is so much that needs to be done and higher education policy must respond. They have laid down the challenge to us to do better, to do more and to work quickly at addressing the issues that we have. Also, the summary of the interim report talks about how employment conditions for university staff are often precarious. There's high casualisation, which impairs future teaching and knowledge creation. We know this to be the case. Wage theft is quite often talked about when we think about people working in the higher education sector. With the high casualisation rates and the tenure rates, it's getting further and further away from what people imagine higher education work to be. The interim report also talks about students sometimes experiencing poor-quality learning and teaching, and encountering risks to their health, safety and wellbeing. It talks about the lack of support services and those services quite often being insufficient to enable people to achieve their best. Again, this is not new. It's what any member of parliament who has visited a university campus or spoken to university students would have heard on a regular basis. University has changed a lot since many of us went to university. I went to university in the late nineties and early 2000s. I was the first in my family to enrol to go to university but wasn't the first to graduate; I did get involved in various campus activities along the way. My mum was actually the first in our family to graduate—last to enrol but first to graduate. She was a very dedicated student and stuck to her studies and her time. She's now working in the sector and is a very proud lecturer and associate professor at Melbourne university. Dr Leigh BU8 She's amazing! Ms CHESTERS 249710 She is amazing! She used to work for the assistant minister at the bench here. But her story is one that reflects a lot of people in Australia and one that we want to encourage, regardless of age. Mum was in her late 40s when she first enrolled to go to university. She'd always dreamed she could go to university, and, when her youngest child finished high school, she said, 'It's my turn.' She did undergraduate, honours and then her PhD. Then she moved to Canberra to start working. She continued to work and research in the sector, and that is where she is today. She's overseas at the moment speaking at a conference. That's how her career has progressed. That story should be the opportunity for every Australian, but what we're seeing is more and more people from a working-class background or people who are first in family not enrolling to go to university. You have to ask: why? That's what the interim report seeks to highlight. The lack of student support services is one issue. Cost is becoming another issue. We've also seen mentioned in the interim report that workforce shortages are a crucial issue. The lack of forward planning in relation to jobs and skills is a concern. The report also says: Australia's research excellence is well known, but it is built on uncertain financial foundations. These threaten Australia's sovereign capability and cause us to miss opportunities to adapt, develop and localise knowledge to the benefit of industry, communities and the wider economy. That's part of our challenge here. If we keep saying we want to be a skilled nation, a nation that builds things and a nation that is at the forefront of thinking, we need strong research universities. We need a situation where we're not always demanding an immediate outcome but allowing time to think, to work through and to research, as they say. The interim report also talks about: While the importance of lifelong learning has been well understood for some time, our system needs to be better at providing a more flexible and adaptive approach to learning. By that I don't believe that they just mean 'go online'. It shouldn't just be about 100 per cent online. I acknowledge that that works for some students. Doing the night class online and being able to do lectures at a time that works for them could suit some students who might be upskilling, who might have a family or who might want that work-life balance, but it doesn't work for everybody—particularly for students who might be from disadvantaged backgrounds, particularly for students who might need that extra support and particularly, too, for students who learn through engaging, through interacting and through being able to discuss, debate and test ideas with their peers. They learn from being able to do lab experiments with their peers and from being able to do that hands-on learning. That is why we need to have a really good look at higher education. I mentioned cost a moment ago. I think this is an issue that we really need to look at in this country, and I'm hoping that in the final report we start to see some recommendations about the fair cost of a higher education degree. I don't agree with the Greens when they say, 'Just make it free for everybody.' I believe that all Australians see that there is some contribution that they should be making towards their higher education, but for many students it's become quite unaffordable. Well into their 40s and 50s, they are still paying off a debt to our government in terms of their higher education. I believe that we've stepped quite a way from the original idea about what HECS was and what was first envisaged by Dawkins and by Hawke when it was introduced many years ago. I have some sympathy for people who are saying, 'My debt is increasing with CPI.' We need to look at the impact that their HECS-HELP debt is having on other aspects later in their life. We have to be really conscious that young people today going to university are making a decision—whether it's informed or not informed and whether it's right or not—of: 'Do I buy a home, or do I get a university degree?' because the cost of both is quite high. When you're going for a loan, the bank asks you, 'Do you have a HECS-HELP debt you have to pay back to the government?' At this point as well is where we start to talk about HECS. We have to have a really honest conversation about who pays it back, how much gets paid back and the proportion of women who actually pay back their HECS debt. Believe it or not, 30 per cent of women will never pay back their HECS debt to the Commonwealth, because of the jobs they have, the interrupted wages they earn when they take time off to care for young children or for elderly relatives and the fact that some, like my mum, started university late in life and have shorter careers. The fact is that we have such a high proportion of women who will never pay back their HECS debt. It's not income the government will get, and I think that's where we have to have a really honest conversation about the debt we expect people to pay back. What is the contribution we do seek students to pay? I also do believe we need to be more targeted. We need to have a really honest conversation about the skills and the kinds of work we're looking for. Another criticism that came up in the interim report did focus on the Job-ready Graduates changes, saying that funding and finance arrangements risked damage to the sector if left unaddressed, and I think that's a really important point. The interim report is saying not only that we are falling behind and don't quite have the structure or the vision for higher education we need for the future but that further damage was done to an already vulnerable sector by decisions made by the previous government. We all know the stats. We all know what skills we need going forward. The analysis prepared by the BIS Oxford Economics review suggested that, by 2050, approximately 55 per cent of all jobs will require higher education qualifications, yet to meet this need we don't have the system in place. To meet this demand we need to grow the sector significantly, making sure we've got not just the capital infrastructure but the places and the support services required to get the skills and the workers we need. Skilled migration absolutely will always be part of our Australian make-up, but we can't rely solely on skilled migration to fill all the skills gaps we need. We should be giving an opportunity to everybody in Australia who wants to have access to higher education. That is why I support the measures in this bill. Ceasing the 50 per cent pass rule will give students an opportunity, if they have had a tough year, to keep studying. They may have a better year the year after. Extending the demand-driven funding for metropolitan First Nations students, not just for remote and rural students, will give every First Nations student the opportunity to study. Given we know an Indigenous man is more likely to end up in jail than to have a university degree, this measure should be noncontroversial for everybody in this place. Let's encourage every First Nations Australian to access higher education if they choose to do so. The ones in my part of the world are studying degrees that will lead them straight back to their community. They're studying to be nurses. They're studying to be teachers. They're studying criminology. They're studying courses where they want to gain the skills to work back in their community, and it's not just them. This is the same for migrant communities and the same for many people who are first in their family to be studying, most of whom pick a career course that will lead them back to their communities to help, whether it be social work or nursing, just to name a few. These measures before us are just two of the many things we need to do to get higher education in our country back on track. Our government are ready and willing and want to see the final report because I do believe we have the right team in place to bring about the big reforms needed. It's long overdue. The idea that we can keep cutting, sticking and gluing back together higher education just isn't working. The sector is in trouble. We need to act. It starts from the foundation of what kind of higher education system we want in Australia. What is its purpose? Where should we go? We need well-funded research that's supported. We need good university degrees and opportunities for all students, regardless of their postcode, to access. We need to make sure that the staff, the teachers and the support staff working in that sector have that continuity of employment that they so deserve. 17:20 Ms PAYNE 144732 Canberra I rise to speak on the Higher Education Support Amendment (Response to the Australian Universities Accord Interim Report) Bill 2023. Universities are a major part of our economy. They educate our citizens, conduct groundbreaking research, drive innovation and employ many thousands of workers. In my electorate of Canberra, there are five universities: the Australian National University, the University of Canberra, the University of New South Wales at the Australian Defence Force Academy, the Australian Catholic University and Charles Sturt University. UNSW is also building a second campus in Reid, close to the civic centre. I'm not totally certain, but I'd be surprised if there was any other electorate that had more university campuses than mine. In the 2021 census, approximately 4.2 per cent of people in the Canberra electorate were employed in the higher education sector compared to a national average of 1.3 per cent, which makes higher education the second-largest industry of employment in my electorate, following the Public Service. Fifty-three per cent of my constituents have attained a bachelor's degree or above, and 37 per cent of my constituents are currently attending a university to further their education. I think it's safe to say that Canberra is a university town. Unfortunately, however, our university sector is not currently fit for purpose and requires serious reform. Fortunately, we've got a government and a minister who are very much up to and focused on that task. How refreshing it is to be standing here today talking about the positive changes coming to the university sector rather than having to defend it and trying to draw attention to the attacks from those opposite under the previous government. For a decade we saw attack after attack—ideologically motivated—on our universities, often because they told the government inconvenient truths. We saw the previous occupiers of the education minister's office launch warfare on the humanities. They picked up and chose the disciplines which would not receive extra funding be would be so lucky as to not have their funding levels cut. We do things differently on this side of the House, and this bill is just one example of that. This bill implements a number of recommendations from the interim report of the Australian Universities Accord Panel. I want to commend the accord team, consisting of the chair, Professor Mary O'Kane AC, Professor Barney Glover AO, Ms Shemara Wikramanayake, my former boss the Hon. Jenny Macklin AC, Professor Larissa Behrendt AO and the Hon. Fiona Nash, for their work on the review to date. They're all eminently qualified, with experience from the university sector, from business and from the political sphere. This report outlines a vision for the future of Australians' higher education system and is a significant milestone in the accord process, which will release its final report at the end of this year. The interim report makes five recommendations for priority action which the government is committed to implement. Two of those recommendations require legislative amendment, and it is that that this bill provides. The first recommendation being addressed in this bill is scrapping the 50 per cent pass rule. The 50 per cent pass rule is a requirement that students must pass 50 per cent of the units they study to remain eligible for a Commonwealth supported place and FEE-HELP assistance. This was a rule introduced under the previous government as part of the Jobs-ready Graduates Package. Unfortunately, the consequences of this rule have been that students from equity backgrounds have been disproportionately disadvantaged. Unfortunately, our higher education system is inequitable. Opportunity and attainment are influenced by location and student background. Since 2016, participation rates for students from low-SES, regional, rural and remote student backgrounds have actually gone backwards. While First Nations' participation has increased, it still languishes at around 40 per cent below non-Indigenous rates. When the Jobs-ready Graduates package was introduced, higher student contributions compounded the barriers to education for disadvantaged students, and the 50 per cent pass rule made it even worse. It doesn't take a genius to work out why. For a student from a low-socioeconomic background, consider the need to move out of home in a regional or rural area to attend university in an expensive capital city like Canberra or Sydney or Melbourne or Brisbane. They might need to work multiple jobs to support their studies, and then they don't have the same time to study as their peers who don't have to go to such efforts to support themselves, particularly with the cost of living as it is at the moment. Therefore, they don't achieve the same grades as someone from a more privileged background, and they are probably under a great deal of stress. Then you have the Commonwealth saying, 'Actually, sorry, you're not trying hard enough, and we're going to take away your support.' Can you imagine the impact of that on a young person? It makes sense then that this rule has had a serious impact on the equity of enrolment, and more than 13,000 students across 27 universities have been impacted by that rule. Universities across the country have urged us to scrap the rule, and that's exactly what this bill does. We should be helping students to succeed, not forcing them to quit because of an arbitrary punitive rule. Instead of this rule, the government is introducing measures to support students to complete their studies. This bill will introduce for universities a requirement to demonstrate how they will identify students who are struggling and how they will then connect those students with support services to help them. This bill also extends the current demand-driven fundings for regional and remote First Nations students to all First Nations students studying bachelor-level courses. The existing measure, which these changes are expanding, was implemented in 2021 in response to the Napthine review of regional, rural and remote education strategy. This measure will aim to directly increase First Nations enrolment. It is a national shame that young Indigenous men are more likely to end up in prison than to graduate from university. That's an issue which is a direct result of government policy failures, and this measure will hopefully change that trajectory. This measure means that there will be no cap on the number of First Nations students that can enrol in Commonwealth supported places. All institutions will receive Commonwealth funding for all Indigenous students. Modelling from the Department of Education estimates that this could double the number of Indigenous students at university over the next decade. There's a lot more to the accord's interim report than just these issues, and there is plenty to discuss. There is nowhere near enough time in this speech, but I want to briefly talk about some of the incredible work of the universities in my electorate, which I have the privilege of visiting quite regularly. I was incredibly fortunate to work at the University of Canberra for a number of years before entering this place. I worked at the National Centre for Social and Economic Modelling, which was instrumental in how we understand the impacts of social policy and economic policy on Australian households. The microsimulation methods developed at NATSEM continue to be used by the Commonwealth Treasury and also by other academics in social policy modelling to this day. The University of Canberra has been ranked as one of the top universities in the country on metrics such as graduate employability and student experience. It ranks as the second-best young university in the country and 18th in the world. This year the university rose a huge 81 places in the resent QS World University Rankings, an absolutely incredible achievement for a great Canberra institution. At the ANU, which is just over the bridge from this place, we see some of the most groundbreaking research done anywhere in the world. At the John Curtin School of Medical Research I recently had the opportunity to launch the Shine-Dalgarno Centre for RNA Innovation. It is 50 years since John Shine and Lynn Dalgarno discovered what became known as the Shine-Dalgarno sequence. That sequence is far too complex for me to understand or try to explain here, but what I can say is that much of what humans know today about molecular biology and about RNA and gene expression came from right here in Canberra. Obviously, many of us hadn't heard about RNA until the COVID pandemic, but this was key in identifying vaccines. It's a great example of what science means for humanity that that was what gave us comfort and gave us a way through the pandemic. Also at the ANU I saw the incredible research that the Research School of Earth Sciences is doing into the extraction of rare-earth elements like lithium, which are necessary to fuel the renewable energy revolution. And, at the Research School of Physics, I saw the huge heavy ion accelerator, which attracts researchers from all around the world, including from the CERN accelerator in Switzerland. Also at the school of physics I joined Professor Jodie Bradbury to smash diamonds together. It sounds fake, but I can assure you that it's true. The end result is a material which has a huge range of applications, including for the construction of solar panels and computer processors. These are just a few examples of the vast amounts of path-breaking, mind-blowing research that is occurring not just here in Canberra but around the nation thanks to the brilliant academics at our universities. I want to take this opportunity to say that I and, I'm sure, many members of this place, when we have the opportunity to meet with academics at our universities, across a whole range of fields, are blown away by the things that they are grappling with day to day—the problems they are solving, the innovation they are driving and their role in teaching and educating university students, who are the future of this country and of the world. So it's always concerning to hear, when you speak to them, about things like job insecurity for some of the brightest minds in our country and how difficult it can be for academics, who are often incredibly highly qualified people, to go from contract to contract and, in many cases, to have unmanageable workloads of marking and other parts of their job. It would be good to see more sustainable support for these academics so they can get on with what they do best, which is making the discoveries, doing the research and teaching university students around the country. Back when I was working at NATSEM, all those years ago, I got to author a report which was commissioned by AMP called What price the clever country? This looked at what students gained by getting a university education or a vocational TAFE qualification. All the numbers would obviously be vastly out of date by now, but it showed that it really was so worthwhile for people to pursue education post school and that it would make an immense difference to their lifetime incomes. It showed that, for students—and, as I've talked about, particularly students from rural and regional backgrounds—the costs of living are perhaps the biggest barrier to being able to pursue their studies. As I've said, our cities are expensive. Rent is expensive. Food is expensive. Often people are working multiple jobs to keep themselves able to pursue their studies, often at the cost of their studies and certainly at the cost of their wellbeing a lot of the time. Supporting yourself while studying is something that many students enjoy and want to do, but it can become so onerous that you really can't focus on the study that you have moved to the city to do. That is to the detriment of the objective, which is to encourage people to take up these opportunities, with the great gains that has for our future economy and society. So I feel that the costs of living for students are something that needs to be looked at more closely, to see what we can do to better support students as they embark on studies, be it in university or TAFE. Our fee-free TAFE is a fantastic example of this. I had the great opportunity to meet with some students from the Canberra Institute of Technology who were meeting with Minister Brendan O'Connor and the Prime Minister today and to hear about the difference that being able to access fee-free TAFE has made to them. They were studying in a range of priority areas such as early childhood education, cybersecurity and hospitality. It is so important that people have a range of options when they finish school to pursue these things, so I wish those students the best again. As I've talked about, part of this bill is also about supporting students to be able to study while they're at university. I'm so proud to be part of a government that values our university sector and what it can offer for all Australians. I commend this bill to the House. 17:35 Mr BURNS 278522 Macnamara I'm very pleased to speak after the member for Canberra. It's always good to be in the chamber listening to the member for Canberra. It was a thoughtful and considered response by the member, and I know that she cares deeply about this important reform, as we all do in this place. Regarding the Accord interim report, I'm going to start my remarks by making some broader comments about the process and about the challenges that many people face in our university sector, as well as the importance of it. Then I will go through some of the details of the Higher Education Support Amendment (Response to the Australian Universities Accord Interim Report) Bill 2023. The first thing to say is that the Universities Accord comes at probably one of the most important times in our university sector's history. The changes that are on the table and the reforms that are being led by the Minister for Education are crucial because we need, in order to develop the economy of the future, skilled Australians who are able to attain qualifications from university. We know that Australians are facing extreme pressures around the costs of living, and the cost of attaining education cannot be a deterrent for people. We want to make sure that education is accessible for every single Australian who wants it. We want to make sure that education, the great enabler of social mobility, is available for as many Australians as possible. That's why we are having a deep-dive look into our university sector—not only the courses that are available and the priority that some of the courses get but also the affordability of life after university and the affordability of Australian students to participate in and access university. Fundamentally, probably the most important question is about access to university and ensuring that there are enough places in Australia that are available to people from a range of socioeconomic backgrounds so that, no matter what postcode you were born in, you have a chance to study. In my own family, both of my grandparents on my father's side left school when they were 13 years old, and they never had the chance to go to university. My grandmother, before she passed away, loved to read. She would consume books, fiction and non-fiction, and she was an extremely academic person. But, due to her socioeconomic background and the world she was born into, she never had the opportunity to go to university. We need to ensure that that's not the experience for Australians today. This interim report comes at a time when we need to make sure that we are providing access to universities for younger Australians. We need to make sure that, when they are in university, they are supported, which goes to some of the recommendations that I'll outline in a moment, and also, when they leave university, they are able to manage the accumulation of government debt. We all know that in a high inflationary environment, the HECS debt, which has traditionally always been a very low interest loan, has been more expensive for students over this period, which is another reminder of why we need to get inflation down as low as possible. But the HECS system has served Australians really well. It has meant that, for the amount that governments are putting into university, we've been able to open the doors to university far wider, for more students across the country. The bill that's before the parliament at the moment implements priority recommendations of the Australian Universities Accord interim report. This report was released by the Minister for Education in July this year and brings together the ideas and expertise of some of our country's leading experts in academic, business and public policy. Personally, this bill demonstrates why this Labor government is committed to ensuring that every Australian has the opportunity to access and benefit from higher education. The interim report shows us just how powerful education can be in shaping not only one person's journey but that of whole communities and our entire nation. Education isn't some secret club meant for only the chosen few. It's a game changer. It's a great enabler of social mobility that provides people with life-changing opportunities. The government has confirmed that we will implement each of the recommendations of the interim report. With this bill we endeavour to reaffirm the belief that every individual, regardless of their background and circumstances, deserves the opportunity to pursue higher education and unlock their full potential. In my own electorate, I'm lucky to have two great universities: the Caulfield campus of Monash University and the Southbank campus of the University of Melbourne. We also have the wonderful Victorian College of the Arts and other institutions, including NIDA, which enable higher education. Macnamara has one of the highest concentrations of tertiary students of any electorate, and I am very proud of that. I'm very proud of the fact that many people in my electorate have gone to university and that they are able to use those skills to add to the Australian story. We need highly qualified people to come and contribute to the Australian economy. Let me say that we are also extremely proud of our TAFE graduates, we're extremely proud of and reliant on our skilled workers, and we're extremely proud of our tradespeople. We are home to all and we need people from all different skills backgrounds. Whether they're in the creative sector or the financial services sector, or anything in between or connected, we are very proud to have people in our electorate of Macnamara. The interim report of the Australian Universities Accord recommended that we create more university study hubs in the regions and in the outer suburbs. I recognise that not every part of Australia has the concentration of university graduates that I do in my electorate, and we need to make it as fair and accessible as possible. As a member proudly representing an inner-city seat, I certainly agree that people in the outer suburbs and the regions deserve the same access to university education as anyone else in the country, certainly the same as people inside the cities. Concentrating higher education in the cities creates pressure on the rental housing market, which is something that's playing out in my electorate at the moment. One of the report's most important recommendations concerns the so-called 50 per cent pass rule, which a number of speakers have spoken about. Under this rule, students are currently required to pass at least 50 per cent of the units of study they undertake to continue eligibility for Commonwealth assistance. The pass rate is assessed after they have completed eight units in a bachelor degree, or higher, or four units in a shorter course. Students who fail more than half will lose their eligibility for Commonwealth assistance. This rule was introduced in 2022 by the previous coalition government to dissuade students from continuing in courses that they are allegedly not academically suited for. Let's break this down. The practical effect of these measures was to discourage students and increase the dropout rate. As Labor warned at the time, the impact of the rule disproportionately affected students from First Nations, low socioeconomic backgrounds and other underrepresented or educationally disadvantaged cohorts. More than 13,000 students at 27 universities have already been affected by this rule, and the removal of the rule has been called for from universities right across the country. We should be supporting students, not forcing them to quit. That's why this bill scraps the 50 per cent rule, but it does more than that. It introduces requirements on universities and other providers to have policies in place to support students to successfully complete their studies. The report also recommended that we extend the funding currently provided to Indigenous students from regional and remote areas to cover all Indigenous students. In Victoria, the majority of First Nations people live in Melbourne. If we want to help them get a higher education, as we certainly should, we need to even the playing field and ensure that this funding is available to all Indigenous students. This funding was implemented in 2021 in response to the National Regional, Rural and Remote Education Strategy. Of course, assisting First Nations people living in rural, regional and remote areas to have better access to higher education is a very, very good thing, but there's no real reason why all Indigenous students should not get the benefit of this support. Accordingly, the bill aims to increase First Nations enrolment numbers by expanding the eligibility of demand driven funding to include metropolitan First Nations students studying bachelor and bachelor honours courses. This measure directly supports efforts towards achieving Closing the Gap outcome 6: by 2031, to increase the proportion of First Nations people aged 25 to 34 who have completed a tertiary qualification to 70 per cent. This means there will be no cap on the number of First Nations students that can enrol in Commonwealth supported places, and providers will receive Commonwealth funding for all Indigenous students. The Department of Education estimates that this will double the number of Indigenous students at university within a decade. This measure is strongly supported by the universities. We know that investing in education is investing in the very foundation of our nation's growth and prosperity. This bill shows the dedication of the Labor government to shaping a higher education landscape that is based on the values of inclusivity, innovation and access to opportunity. It reflects our commitment to collaboration between government, the university sector and industry, forging a future where education is not a privilege for a few who live in the right suburbs and go to the right schools but is available to all Australians, regardless of their background. The work going on as part of the interim report is important. It will determine whether or not young people in Australia have access to a future beyond their postcode. It will ensure that Australians are not disadvantaged just based on whether or not their parents are able to afford a particular path in life. We need to make sure that public education is invested in constantly and we need to make sure that access to our quality universities is invested in constantly. It changed my family's life—a classic migrant family's story of coming to this country with nothing, but, within a couple of generations, able to have access to higher education and create a wonderful life for our family and for the generations to come. University is great enabler. It's a great tool to enable social mobility, and this universities accord is going to be the defining policy work that will determine how many Australians are able to access affordable university education that literally changes their life. I am very pleased to be involved in this policy area with the Minister for Education. I know how much he cares about and values our university sector. I know that he has been working closely with all members of the committee that has been leading the universities accord. We thank them for their work. We thank them for their diligence. We thank them for the interim report. This bill is the response to the interim report and implements its recommendations, and I commend the bill to the House. 17:48 Mr THISTLETHWAITE 182468 Kingsford Smith The most profound gift that can be bestowed upon a human being is the gift of a decent education. The difference that a good education makes to a person's life is quite remarkable—their quality of life, the income that they'll earn during their career and their health. But the outcomes for their family members and, in particular, their children will be fundamentally different for a person who receives an education compared to one who doesn't. That's why I think that people across the world, international forums and nations have recognised that access to a decent education is a fundamental human right—because of the difference that it makes to a person's quality of life and the difference that it makes to the quality and standing of a nation in terms of how well it treats its citizens. When it comes to education, the most important principle that governments should operate around and legislate for is equality. Equality of access to education should be the fundamental principle of any education system in a modern-day democracy. That is the premise behind this important piece of legislation: ensuring that we deliver equality when it comes to access to higher education throughout Australia. To achieve this, once we were elected, we set about looking at that issue and that notion of equality in our higher education system, particularly at the university level. I want to congratulate the Minister for Education, the member for Blaxland, who put in place this Universities Accord and asked eminent Australians who have experience working in government and in education—particularly in the equality realm—to put together the interim report around the Universities Accord. We're acting on their recommendations because we see equality of access to education as a fundamental human right and as vitally important for the future of our nation in so many areas—in the health outcomes of Australians, in the social outcomes of Australians, in the efficiency and effectiveness and productivity of our economy moving forward, and ultimately in the wealth of all Australians and our nation. We're taking this action because the report makes it abundantly clear that more and more occupations and careers in the future will rely upon higher education, particularly a university qualification. This report outlines five priority areas where we, as a government, can work towards achieving greater equality in university education and greater access to that equality, with greater numbers of Australians being attracted to and offered university positions and greater numbers graduating with a university qualification in the future. There are five priority areas for action that are outlined by this report, and the government is committed to implementing all of them. Two of the priority action areas require legislative change, and that's what this bill is all about. The first one abolishes the 50 per cent pass rule, introduced as part of the Job-ready Graduates scheme, which has had a disproportionately negative impact on students from poor backgrounds and those in rural and regional Australia. More than 13,000 students at 27 universities have already been hit by this. Instead of forcing them to quit, we want to make sure that we're helping them to pass. We know that, generally, when students get access to the assistance they need—perhaps to overcome learning difficulties; to overcome personal issues; to overcome access issues; to overcome issues associated with balancing work, family commitments and studies—that you can help people pass their university courses. And this bill will provide the chance for that to happen. This law will make a change and ensure that can occur. As well as abolishing the 50 per cent pass rule, the bill strengthens accountability and reporting requirements for higher education providers, to ensure that students are properly supported to study and complete their courses. Higher education providers that fail to meet these new requirements will face some actions as to compliance and possible penalties. The bill also delivers demand-driven funding for all Indigenous students to attend university if they're qualified for admission to the course. At the moment, this requirement applies only to Indigenous students who live in regional Australia. In the New South Wales context, that's passing over where the largest number of Indigenous Australians live in New South Wales, and that's in the cities. Most of them will live in a city environment, like the rest of the country. So having a policy that deliberately excludes where the majority of Indigenous potential students will live is counterintuitive. We're removing that rule and ensuring that it will now apply to all. Doing this could double the number of Indigenous students at university within a decade. I have witnessed, in the community that I represent, the difference that higher education can make to the lives of younger local Indigenous community members. I'm proud that our community is home to the University of New South Wales, where they're building on the success of the UNSW Indigenous Strategy. This was launched in 2018, and UNSW's strategy represents a commitment to creating an environment for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students, researchers and staff to thrive. It's a successful approach that's emphasised recognising the importance of country, community and culture at UNSW. It's led by Professor Megan Davis, the Pro Vice-Chancellor Indigenous, and it provides an overarching framework for Indigenous education, employment and research. That means the strategic vision is implemented across all aspects of the university's operation. It's not just a strategy about increasing the Indigenous student body and workforce; it's also about developing Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander researchers and academics who will make an impact in communities across the nation. I've often spoken quite proudly in this place about a project that's happening in the south of my electorate in Botany Bay, or Gamay as it's known to the local Indigenous community, where researchers from the University of New South Wales—marine biologists—are working on a seagrass restoration project for Botany Bay. They're working on that project in collaboration with the local Gamay Rangers, the people who know the bay best because their ancestors have fished and lived on the shores of Botany Bay for thousands of years. They're working closely with that group to care for and to restore that important natural environment for their local community. It's a classic example of a nature-positive project in a partnership between the university and the Indigenous rangers. These will operate side by side with the carbon market, with a shared regulator, and the market will encourage carbon farming projects that also deliver biodiversity developments. Most importantly, some of those Gamay Rangers have now been attracted to further study, and a couple of them are now studying degrees in marine biology. What a wonderful example of a university working in collaboration with local Indigenous populations to get better outcomes not only for our wider community but for the individual young Indigenous men and women who work on that project. I'm very proud that UNSW is also actively supporting the Voice to Parliament. It became the first Group of Eight university to officially support a First Nations Voice to Parliament, and that's something that we're very proud of. The changes in this bill will make a real difference to access and equity for underrepresented groups at Australian universities, including for Indigenous Australians. In addition to the immediate priority actions, the interim report has identified more than 70 policy areas that the accord panel is considering including in their final report. The Australian Universities Accord interim report makes it clear that more and more jobs will require a university qualification into the future. This government wants to make sure that, if that is the requirement—if that is the entry ticket into the future—that all Australians have access to that quality education to fulfil their dreams of a better life in Australia. As I said at the beginning, the most profound gift that we can give a human being is the gift of an education. The fundamental principle to providing that gift is equality, and this bill is all about equality—delivering equality of access, particularly for disadvantaged groups of Australians who might be from low income families or who may be Indigenous or from rural Australia. Providing them with that equality and that access is fundamental not only to their human development but to the development of our nation and in particular the efficiency, effectiveness and productivity of our economy into the future. 17:59 Mr GORMAN 74519 Perth There's something really powerful about being the first whatever it is. But, when people are the first in their family to go to university, that sends a message through the generations to open those doors of opportunity a little bit wider. Recently I spoke at the NAIDOC Ball in Western Australia, and I shared the story of Irwin Lewis who, way back in 1957, walked onto the campus of the University of Western Australia for the very first time. Most students, when they walk onto campus, are nervous. They are worried about whether they're in the right place, whether they're there for the right reasons and how they're going to go. Maybe they're worried about if they're going to make any friends and all the rest. But I reckon it's possible that Irwin Lewis would have been one of the most nervous students walking onto that campus that year, 1957. He was the first Aboriginal student to attend university in Western Australia. He was attending university just three years after what was then called the 'native pass' system, which would have prevented him from being able to visit that very institution in Perth. From his home in Morawa, he went on to be dux at Christ Church Grammar School and he studied at the University of Western Australia. He helped win a WA Football League premiership with Claremont in 1964, and he went on to a great career as a leading public servant in Western Australia. Indeed, the SBS obituary for Irwin Lewis said he was a 'Western Australian Aboriginal footy legend', and in many ways his story itself is legendary—that these institutions that had kept their doors closed for so long to too many finally opened them up and that the university itself was all the richer. What I didn't know when speaking at the NAIDOC Ball was that, at an event of 1,100 people having a great time at Crown, just over the border from my electorate, at the next table was Irwin's son Chris Lewis, who himself was a great player for the West Coast Eagles. He came up to me afterwards and said, 'Nice words about my dad—thank you.' It was a real honour to be able to share his story. But I've continued to have people contact me about this incredible Western Australian. Pat Pearce reached out. Pat started working at the UWA bookshop in the 1950s after moving from Collie in her 20s. She worked there for decades until she retired. She's now 94 years old and still an avid politics watcher, and she shared this. I'll put it in her words, which I think just talk to what it means when we do our work in this place to open those doors a little bit wider. These are Pat's words: 'I was on the UWA campus the day Irwin Lewis started at uni. The buzz was everywhere. People were talking with excitement about the news of the first Aboriginal student on campus, when they came into the uni bookshop, where I worked. Everyone expressed surprise, and they were happy that he had come so far, expecting that he would be the leader of a new beginning. People were keen to see him.' He himself, she reported, seemed unmoved by all the fuss. She then said: … the fuss died down pretty quickly because he'd been such a success on the sporting field that the boys from— in her words— 'those schools' accepted him as one of their cohort. I think that in that we hear just how challenging it was but also how important it was that we opened up our institutions and universities just that little bit more to more people. That's, again, what this amendment we move today seeks to do: make sure that more people can go to university, stay at university and have all of the opportunities that come from that. I've talked about Irwin Lewis attending UWA in 1957, but what also happened in 1957 was that my dad was born. He attended Claremont Teachers College in the 1970s and spent decades as a teacher. Just last month, my dad, Ron Gorman, finished up after 24 years at the Association of Independent Schools of Western Australia, where he had worked for decades making sure that we give more opportunity to more young Western Australians to fulfil their dreams. What really touched me about dad's farewell at Clancy's at Fremantle, where he was joined by people who had worked with him across his entire professional career, from teachers, academics and all the rest, was that dad singled out the fact that universities were opened in the 1970s to kids like him. Dad was the son of a single mum who lived in public housing. If it hadn't been for the decision of the Whitlam government to make our universities more accessible, his life would have been completely different. He felt that even after all that time, all that professional success, he needed to highlight to those who were there to celebrate him that it wasn't just because of what he'd achieved; it was because of the opportunities that were built for him. We continue, decade after decade, to make sure that more and more people can have access to those opportunities. I have been fortunate enough to attend university myself. In February 2003 I rocked up at Curtin University as a student who didn't really know what I wanted to do with my time. 'I'll go to university, figure it out while I'm there.' I had a of job that I loved working at McDonald's. It had to compete with my question: what did I enjoy more? What university gave me apart from a great education at Curtin University, which also produced excellent academics such as Dr Anne Aly, was I found what I was passionate about. If university is what you need, attending university helps you to find that course in life. Going to university also gave me life-long friends, including the person who now serves as the member for Swan and David Gonsalves among others. While at university I found my passion for ensuring that we do make our universities as accessible and as welcoming as possible so that everyone who wishes to can have the opportunity of getting a great world-class Australian education. When it comes to what universities we have in Western Australia, we have terrific WA universities like Murdoch University, Curtin University and the University of Western Australia. I have visited its Crawley campus and also some of the other campuses, including in Albany and elsewhere. We also have Notre Dame in Fremantle. I grew up in Fremantle as Notre Dame was growing and growing. My little primary school on Henry Street was at one end of the street, and the ever-growing empire of Notre Dame was at the other end of the street. It's a great university, and makes me think about the future of the other great University in Western Australia, that being Edith Cowan University. I was fortunate enough to visit the newest campus of the Western Australian university network, so new that it's still being built in my electorate. I visited with the Minister for Education last week, on 29 August. What is being built in the heart of Perth, atop the Perth City Link, is a project championed by the now Prime Minister when he was infrastructure minister. It will be a future home for some 2,000 academics and university staff and some 10,000 students at the ECU Perth campus. I was there for the ground-breaking ceremony back on 20 February this year. What we saw then was dirt, a bunch of politicians in hard hats and some shovels. A few things have changed since then. I was there with then Premier Mark McGowan, and that has changed. But what has also changed is we already have three what they call superstoreys. They're not just your normal storey but superstoreys beaming out of the ground for this campus that will soon be a real jewel in the crown of Western Australia, reminding everyone of both Western Australia's proud heritage as the place that elected the first woman to parliament but also somewhere that truly values both the immediate and the long-term economic and social benefits of a university education. I want to thank all of construction workers who are helping build that dream into a reality. It is so very exciting. But this legislation is not just about what we build. It's about making sure that, once people enter those buildings or indeed online universities or study remotely, which I have also participated in, the quality of that education is incredibly high. As we seek to open those doors of opportunity just a little wider for more Australians to go to university, we're doing some of the priority actions from the interim report. The minister has outlined from this dispatch box that we're creating more student study hubs not just in the regions but in the outer suburbs because this is something that's proven to work. It's proven to make it easier for students to stay engaged in university, to give them the support they need, to provide the network to get new students in, and when you've got something that's working—particularly working in the regions—why not do more of it? That's exactly what we're doing. We're going to scrap what is known as the 50 per cent pass rule and instead get better reporting on how students are progressing. Again, we know that once you've invested thousands of dollars in a university student's education, and you know that student probably can get through the course, we're better off to help them through because we've already put the investment in, rather than to just penalise them and kick them out. We will extend the demand-driven funding that is currently provided for Indigenous students from regional and remote areas to cover all Indigenous students. Again, it makes a huge difference in my electorate of Perth, ensuring that Indigenous students, the Irwin Lewis's of the next generation, can have access to a Commonwealth-supported place based on their capability not based on where they live. That is something that I think we can all welcome. Of course, we have continued to commit to providing funding certainty during the accord process by extending the Higher Education Continuity Guarantee through 2024 and 2025 because we want to make sure that our universities, and their management, continue to deliver those world-class education products. Of course, we'll continue to work with the states and territories to improve university governance. That's a little bit about what we want to see. We are conscious that what we have commissioned is the largest review of Australia's higher education system in 15 years. We have seen our higher education system tested in many different ways over that time. We saw what happened during the pandemic. We've seen the demands for new skills. We've seen our universities, in the time since then, rapidly expand the sorts of skills they're delivering, particularly when it comes to ensuring cybersecurity, and ensuring that we have the quality teaching and research that is needed for the challenges of the century that lies before us, while maintaining the rigour and tradition that comes from our higher education sector, and that we do recognise that these are essential institutions for the Australian economy. They train so many people who take on important roles. They also provide incredibly important, secure work for many people in my community who deserve to know that their work is both valued and appreciated, and also secure. When we think about how to put it in really simple terms, in terms of the transition that we're going to go through, currently 36 per cent of the Australian workforce has a university qualification. The interim report estimates that that could jump to some 55 per cent by the middle of this century. We know that we need to invest in change. We know we need to help more people engage in our higher education system. Deputy Speaker Vasta, I'm sure you'll allow me to do this, as a friend. In the final minute of this speech, I've got to give a shout-out to one particular university student, my wife, Jess Bukowski. Jess is currently in the last two months of her Master of Business Administration which she's studying at the University of Western Australia. Jess, the kids and I are incredibly proud of you making that decision to study. We're so excited that you are almost at the end of it. And because I will be doing the important role of spending time here with you, Deputy Speaker, and many other colleagues, I'll also say a very happy wedding anniversary for tomorrow, which I will not be home for. Thank you. 18:13 Mr REPACHOLI 298840 Hunter I rise today to contribute to the debate on the Higher Education Support Amendment (Response to the Australian Universities Accord Interim Report) Bill 2023. The value of education cannot be understated. It opens doors for people to achieve all that they want to achieve. I would like to think that, in a country like Australia, there are no limits on how big someone can dream or how wild a young person's goals may be. Certain professions require a university degree, which is a necessary requirement for those whose dreams may be to work in one of these professions. This means part of being a country where people's dreams and goals are limitless is also that university is accessible, affordable and something students can look towards as being achievable. University is not for everyone, and that's fine as well. I didn't go to university, and I wouldn't change a thing about my life. But for those who want to study at uni or need to study at uni to achieve their goals, it is vital they are able to and see that as an option for themselves. Sadly, this is not always the case for many in my electorate. Uni is not something seen as a common pathway. In the Hunter electorate only six per cent of people have achieved a bachelor's degree as their highest level of education. This is well below the 23.4 per cent in New South Wales and the 22 per cent nationally. This means often young people in my electorate grow up not knowing what options are available for them in life, not knowing what opportunities and pathways they could take. The result of this is that their dreams and goals are limited. This is not any fault of their own. But the fact is that it's hard to be someone or achieve something you don't see around you already. This has real impacts: 13.94 per cent of my population live in the most disadvantaged socioeconomic areas of the country. My hope is that, if young people in my electorate can see what opportunities are available to them through higher education, even if the number of six per cent only slightly creeps closer towards the state and national figures, we will see fewer and fewer people disadvantaged and more and more young people dreaming big and achieving great things. This is what motivates me to give my all to the people of the Hunter, and this is why I'm speaking on this bill, which amends the Higher Education Support Act 2003 to implement priority recommendations of the Australian Universities Accord interim report released by the Minister for Education on 19 July 2023. We are a government committed to opening the doors of opportunity for more Australians to go to university. We are focused on people like those in my electorate, who I know can achieve anything they want to if they just have the chance we are now providing them. While this bill aims at opening the door to go to university, in my electorate it will open many more doors. It will open the door for young people to dream. It will open the door for young people to live a different way to what their parents may have lived. It will also open the door for a better future. There are five priority actions in the interim report this bill focuses on. The first is to create more university study hubs in the region. I know my electorate of the Hunter would hugely benefit from more study hubs. In my electorate we have Avondale University at Cooranbong, and the University of Newcastle sits just outside my electorate boundary. For some these are accessible by road or public transport, but for others who live further away from Newcastle—in Cessnock, Singleton or Muswellbrook—travel can exceed an hour and sometimes can span more than two hours. For students in these parts of my electorate to go to uni to follow their dreams, too often the only option is to move away from home and live closer to campus or on campus. This is not a practical solution for many, especially when only six per cent of the electorate have previously attended a university. Moving hours away from home is difficult financially but also means they are in a foreign environment away from the support of home. It's not hard to see how this may not be an appealing option for many in my electorate. This is why providing more study hubs is so important to electorates in regional areas. It will mean students in these parts of my electorate have a more practical way to attend university. Suddenly what once seemed too far away to be a reality is now achievable and a door is opened. Another priority of the interim report is to extend the demand-driven funding currently provided to Indigenous students from regional and remote areas to cover all Indigenous students. We're also providing funding certainty during the accord process by extending the higher education continuity agreement into 2024 and 2025, with funding arrangements that prioritise support for equity students. In order to make university in this country more accessible, it is also important that we work with the state and territory governments to improve university governance. One of the biggest changes being made by this legislation is the removal of the 50 per cent pass rule, as well as improving student support. As it stands now, students are required to pass at least 50 per cent of the units of study they undertake to continue to be eligible for Commonwealth assistance. The pass rate is assessed after they have completed eight units in a bachelor's degree, or higher, or four units in a shorter course, and currently students who fail more than half lose their eligibility for Commonwealth assistance. Without government assistance, the majority of students at university wouldn't be able to attend. To put it bluntly, higher education would be an exclusive luxury for the top end of town, and it would be closed off to those who come from lower socioeconomic backgrounds. That's why government assistance is needed. The pass rate requirements don't make sense. Just because somebody is finding university difficult, not passing some courses, does not mean they should be discouraged from continuing their education by having to find a way to cover the costs themselves. It's not as if this requirement is a longstanding feature of government assistance for university students. The pass rate requirements were originally introduced in January 2022 by the former coalition government as part of the Job-ready Graduates program. The rule has already taken a toll. More than 13,000 students at 27 universities have already been hit by this rule. That's 13,000 students, trying their hardest to graduate with a degree to set themselves up for a future, having financial pressures piled on top of them amid an already stressful uni life. This is not helping Australians to achieve their potential. This is not encouraging our young people to dream big and chase their goals. This is branding individuals as being not good enough to do what they desire to do. This is wrong. Just because a student is struggling does not mean they are not good enough. In fact, some of the best in the workplace were not top of the class at university or school. We should be helping students succeed, not forcing them to quit. The impact of the pass rate requirements has affected students from First Nations, low socioeconomic backgrounds and other underrepresented or educationally disadvantaged cohorts. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that this was bound to happen. What did the former government expect the result would be when they removed support from those who usually need it the most? This is why the bill introduces requirements for universities and other providers to have policies in place to help students successfully complete their studies. Under these policies, universities and other providers will be required to demonstrate how they will identify students who are struggling and how they will connect those students with the support services needed to help them. Education opens doors, whether it's university, TAFE or other forms of study, and these doors should be able to be accessed by all across our country, whether you live in a regional area or in a city, near a university or further away, regardless of your financial situation or your socioeconomic status and regardless of your race and your background. This bill opens doors for all, and I know, if this bill is passed, many in my electorate of the Hunter will be able to walk through newly opened doors. I commend the bill to the House. 18:24 Ms SWANSON 264170 Paterson Tertiary education is vital for a robust society that wants to make the most of the capacity of its people, and it should be available for all people who seek it. For some, it's a rite of passage. For others a little bit like me, it's a complete privilege. I was the first person in my family to go to university. I so desperately wanted to go. I can't really explain why it meant so much to me. Was it because no-one in my family had been before and I saw it as something that would be a bit of a tick against my name? Was I flexing against my family? Absolutely not. I wanted to do it because I knew that it would open doors for me, as the member for Hunter has just explained, that might not otherwise be opened. I knew that if I wanted to get the job that I so desperately dreamed of, that was the way to do it. Our local university is the University of Newcastle. The main campus is located in the outer suburb of Newcastle called Callaghan, around 12 kilometres from the city proper. The beautiful campus is called the 'bushland campus' for good reason. It sits on an impressive 140 hectares, or 346 acres, of natural bushland. Although I have to tell you that sometimes the Hexham grey mozzies are huge! More recently the University of Newcastle opened a city campus, offering an alternative location for more students to attend studies in the arts, legal and business areas. They also have other campuses located at Ourimbah on the Central Coast, in Sydney and one overseas in Singapore. The university is certainly blossoming from what it was when it was first dreamt up by the people who worked at the BHP steelworks who didn't want to have to have their children travel to Sydney to achieve tertiary studies. They fought so hard to get that university started so that steelworkers' kids could be just as well educated as their Sydney cousins. As you can see, I have a love for the University of Newcastle and I am a proud alumni. I'm a big believer and advocate that tertiary education should be accessible for all Australians at all times, provided that uni is what they want to do and it's the best thing for them at that point in their lives. You don't have to go to uni. I tell you what: there are a lot of electricians and plumbers that are charging a hell of a lot more per hour than people with degrees at moment. So there are many, many ways to deem yourself doing well in life. But I am really proud to say that my own daughter is following in my footsteps. She attends Newcastle uni, where I had such rich and rewarding experiences. I think she can probably drink a little better than I did at uni as well. This in fact highlights one of the major precursors for students' willingness and ability to attend university or higher education in some form—not the drinking or the social aspect but the idea that, if your parents went to uni, it's much easier for you to get there. Statistics show that, if you have a parent who has attended university, you're more likely to be in a position due to their tertiary education and subsequent financial standing, due in large part to their employability following graduation, to attend university yourself. I know that there are plenty of people with degrees—multiple degrees, in fact—that have found it hard to get jobs, but the statistics really don't lie. My electorate of Paterson encompasses quite a large area. Many of our constituents are classed as rural, regional or, for some, even remote. We aren't really all that far from the city of Newcastle, however. The distance to travel from place to place can be a challenge regionally, especially for those who have to rely on public transport alone. It is really hard to get there if you haven't got a car, and not everyone is fortunate enough to have that car. This is just one constraint for young Australians when it comes to being able to attend uni. Our population in Paterson, according to the 2021 census data, sits at around 175,574. A total of 4,921 people currently attend university. A further 4,600, attend vocational tertiary education, such as TAFE and other training providers. I am so delighted to be part of a government that is providing free TAFE places so that people can get the training they need. This number needs to increase substantially if we are to prepare our country for a greater, more sustainable, economically-secure future. But how do we do that? Well, we do that by supporting the proposed changes that the Australian Universities Accord will develop. Higher education is transformative for individuals and for the nation. It brings numerous benefits, not only in the economic space but in preparing and establishing our future generations, through high-quality education—pivoting, when required, to adapt to new and emerging technologies; embracing change; and creating a substantial landscape where generations of Australians can thrive. One immediate example that springs to my mind that is happening right now at the University of Newcastle is aeronautical engineering. We know that we have a military base, Williamtown, where the F-35s are located, and, of the 72 planes that Australia will eventually have, 54 of them will be located at the Williamtown RAAF base. We need people to maintain those planes. We need people to understand the incredible systems that wrap around them. We need people to be able to build those systems and repair them. There is so much componentry and expertise that goes into that, that the University of Newcastle, in the last couple of years, has started an aeronautical engineering course. I was fortunate to meet a couple of the students at that course last week at the Hunter Defence Conference, and they are loving their course. It is really an adaptive situation, where the region calls out for a skill set and the university steps in. In a couple of years, we'll have graduates who will be able to work on those planes and all of the other platforms and systems that wrap around them. So when I say 'pivoting, when required, to adapt to new and emerging technologies', there's a prime example. But there are many others—indeed, there have been in the medical space over the years. The University of Newcastle, actually, is one of those beacons when it comes to medical study. We had the first experience based learning modules for medicine in Australia. We had the UMAT exam that—I won't say 'made it easier', but opened the doors to medicine to people who had different skill sets; who would have a great bedside manner; who'd have not only the smarts but also the personality. The University of Newcastle realised that they were the sorts of doctors that we would require in the future, and, again, they stepped into that void. So what are our immediate priority actions? We're extending visible, local access to tertiary education, by providing further universities in regional areas—well, in 'regional university centres'. I should clarify that, because there is an important difference. And we're establishing a similar concept for suburban and metropolitan locations. We might not be building brand-new universities, but, as Newcastle has done, we might be opening newer, more bespoke campuses, in locations where we need to get people along to learn in those environments. We'll also do away with the 50 per cent pass rule, given its poor impact on students. Rather than saying to them, 'Look, you need to pass 50 per cent of your courses to get your Commonwealth support,' we need to actually monitor those students much better, with reports that check their progress as they go, rather than just getting to the end of a year and saying: 'You've failed. You haven't passed the 50 per cent rule.' We need to find out what they're doing and where they're tripping up and why they aren't passing or doing the best that they could in those learning environments. We need to ensure that First Nations students are eligible for a funded place at university, by extending demand-driven funding to metropolitan First Nations students. We need to provide funding certainty, through the extension of the Higher Education Continuity Guarantee into 2024 and 2025, to minimise the rise of unnecessary structural adjustment to the sector. Interim funding arrangements must prioritise the delivery of supports for students in need, to accelerate reform towards high equity and high participation. Through National Cabinet, we must immediately engage with state and territory governments and universities to improve university governance as well. These measures will ensure that Australia's higher education system is robust and is sustainable well into the future. Basically, what I've just said, in a whole range of words, is that we need education in university settings to service the needs of those students, who are paying for it. When they're being supported in Commonwealth places, we need to ensure that that money is being well spent and we need to give them the support they need to see that they do well, not just say, 'Well, if you don't do well then too bad.' We need to ask, 'Why aren't you doing well, and how can we help you to do well?' These measures will ensure that Australia's higher education system is one that does have the governance it requires, and that that governance goes to the administration of universities. I do understand the arguments where people say we can't be handing money over constantly. Indeed we can't; the governance must be right, and it must be well-targeted money. We must meet Australia's growing skills needs and pivot when necessary to meet new and emerging technologies. Our goal must be growth in skills through greater equity, and our government must provide pathways to access tertiary education. We do have a big ambition. Is it achievable? Absolutely. Talking about these ideas will certainly encourage more conversations and better development of initiatives, which will ensure the future for all Australians. How do we do it? We ensure that we prepare our tertiary students through better access to work-integrated learning, and I am a big fan of work-integrated learning, which is going to ensure that our graduates are job ready. There's no point in people going along to universities and learning skills that they'll never need on the job. I understand that from a research perspective it is important that we extend the thinking of our students and we get them to push those boundaries, and in research settings I think that is absolutely vital. But I do think in courses that are skills reliant and where we have industries that are reliant on getting those students to qualify, they need to be work integrated. They need to be job ready and thinking in the way that a potential employer will need them to be thinking. That doesn't stifle their thinking; it just supports them and gets them better prepared to contribute. Preparing the next generation is an imperative. Removing constraints such as availability and access to study through the creation of regional university centres will ensure that all Australians, regardless of where they live, will have access to centres of excellence and tertiary learning opportunities. If you live in one of the remote parts of my electorate of Paterson and don't have access to transport, be it public or private, getting to university and staying at university can be seriously compromised. If you cannot afford to live away from home and you still have to get to uni, it can be really difficult. We have also got to open up the opportunities for kids to get jobs like the ones I had when I was at uni. I washed dishes and did waitering to put myself through uni. I was fortunate to live with my parents still, which made it a bit easier. But these things can be tough, especially for families who are doing it tough. Making tertiary education more available and accessible to those who live in rural and remote areas will increase the likelihood of those in rural and remote areas continuing their higher education and being supported where they choose to study. Australia is an enormous place, and, let's face it, we don't all live in big cities. Making learning hubs available to students in regional and remote areas will increase participation. Currently, living in a remote area is a huge barrier to accessing higher education. These learning hubs will not be restricted to regional areas as students in some outer metropolitan areas have identified the significant constraints that they face as well. This is not a city versus the bush argument; this is a true access argument where we need people who are skilled, thinking, studying and ready to contribute. Establishing university centres for suburban and metropolitan locations will further enhance availability and, let's face it, access for students as well because that is where a lot of them live. The Australian universities accord aims to create a larger and fairer higher education system delivering equal access for all irrespective of their location, their financial circumstances, their cultural background, their gender or any other factor. At the end of the day people are people. We need them to be educated, and we need them to be thinking and contributing not only to society but also to our economy and to our tax base. When people go to uni, they earn more money and pay more tax. That is one of the big reasons we should be supportive of this bill. We should also support it because it will make our country a smarter and better place to live. 18:39 Mr KHALIL 101351 Wills My electorate of Wills, which is in the inner-northern suburbs of Melbourne, is home to a large number of students and staff that study and work in the university sector. I speak to many of them regularly, as you would, and the issues they identify are pretty clear cut. They talk about access. They talk about quality. They talk about affordability of higher education. We know and we've heard in this debate that higher education is becoming more expensive whilst quality is declining. Class sizes are ballooning. Staff face impossible workloads, limiting access to feedback, and navigating university bureaucracy is often a nightmare. These are significant issues that are all too common for students and university staff across this country. They are symptomatic of a higher education sector looking more like a corporation than an institution that should be dedicated to delivering quality education and quality working conditions. The model that we see now is simply not sustainable. The issues facing the sector are not sustainable. Our higher education system must be both equitable and high quality in order to best serve our country's interests. When higher education is systematically discouraged, it leads to lower skilled workers, a less competitive labour market, lower productivity and overall less innovation in the Australian economy. This is the key issue that this Labor government, the Albanese Labor government, is tackling. Of course, it is one of the great Labor traditions to work on policies to ensure that university education never remains out of reach for any Australian wanting to obtain one. That is why the Minister for Education is leading the Australian Universities Accord. I know that he is deeply committed to reforming Australia's higher education sector for the better. He knows the power of education to change lives for the better. I think we all share an understanding that education is the key that literally opens the door to opportunity. Whatever your socioeconomic background, whatever your diverse background, whatever your identity and wherever you've come from, getting access to a quality education opens up so many doors to opportunity to allow an individual to make a contribution to their community and to their society, a significant contribution that also fulfils their potential as a person. The minister knows, as this government knows, that education is of critical, fundamental importance to so many people in our community. In November last year, Minister Jason Clare appointed a panel to conduct a thorough review to reform Australia's higher education system and ensure that it meets the current and future needs of the nation. In its interim report, the panel calls for five modest but sensible priority actions to be considered immediately. The panel's recommendations were made by a bipartisan group of Australians with unparalleled experience in higher education, business and public policy. The Albanese government has accepted all five of these recommendations. Two of these recommendations require legislative amendment to the Higher Education Support Act, the HESA. The first is to extend the current demand driven funding for regional and remote First Nations students to all First Nations Australian undergraduate students, regardless of where they reside. Thirty-eight per cent of Indigenous Australians live in major cities. Most young Indigenous people live in non-remote areas of Australia. The system that we have now leaves a large portion of that population ineligible for funding. Indigenous students who come from regional and remote areas to metropolitan areas, which is common in my electorate, are already faced with housing and relocation costs. These students must also deal with the challenges of isolation and being away from their families, their communities, their culture, their homes. Without the same Commonwealth support that we provide to rural and regional Indigenous students, metropolitan Indigenous students are placed at a significantly disadvantaged starting point compared to their non-Indigenous peers. Expanding eligibility provides immediate material support in ways that matter the most. Indigenous students make up only 1.8 per cent of the higher education student population. One of the top reasons for Indigenous students not studying for another educational qualification in the last 12 months was that it was too expensive, basically. Other barriers include not feeling like they belonged, moving away from family, and internet access. There's a lot of work to be done, but this bill addresses the biggest barriers to accessing higher education. Evidence has shown that providing access to support in the form of a Commonwealth supported place and a HELP loan has led to increased access to university for underrepresented groups. They help break down barriers to higher education for those that need it most. We know that higher education is linked to better quality of life, higher lifetime earnings, and increased contributions to the overall Australian economy. If we are to meet the goals of the Closing the Gap initiative, we must expand funding to all Indigenous students. Secondly, we must remove the 50 per cent pass rule that punishes and abandons struggling Australians. This rule targets HECS recipients only. It does not dissuade all students; rather it discriminates based on socioeconomic status. It privileges those that are able to afford to fail while financially straining those that cannot. Since its implementation, more than 13,000 students at 27 universities have been hit by the rule. Within a span of less than two years, it has wiped out an entire university's worth of students. The scale of the harm caused by the 50 per cent pass rule is unfathomable. Universities Australia said that this rule was unnecessarily harsh. It has disproportionately targeted underrepresented students, including Indigenous Australians. Innovative Research Universities called it punitive. If we continue to enforce the 50 per cent rule, we would be ignoring the voices of our future skilled workers. We've already lost so many high-skilled workers. We must prevent further harm on the Australian economy by abolishing the rule. The Albanese government is committed to opening the door of opportunity for more Australians to go to university. We are working with the state and territory governments to improve university governance. This requires that university governing bodies include more people with expertise in the operation of universities and a focus on student and staff safety to ensure universities are good educators and good employers. We are extending the Higher Education Continuity Guarantee for a further two years to provide funding certainty to universities as the accord process rolls out. As part of this, universities will be required to invest remaining funds from their yearly grant on additional academic and learning support for students from poorer backgrounds, regions and other underrepresented groups. The panel is also assessing the current HECS repayment scheme, including indexation arrangements, to ensure that it is fair and efficient and does not unduly burden those who made the wise decision to pursue higher education. I enthusiastically await the final report of the Universities Accord panel. But I think it is true to say that we are not wasting time as a government. We're not wasting a moment. With this amendment today, we are acting on the recommendations that have already been made. The Albanese government is committed to removing barriers and supporting more people to access higher education, including those from disadvantaged backgrounds, First Nations Australians and those based in the regions. Our future as a diverse and modern society depends on students from all walks of life being afforded the opportunity of a higher education if they choose so. Not everyone will go to university, but everyone should have the choice. That is what equality of opportunity is about. Every person should have that same opportunity, regardless of whether they live in my electorate—in Fawkner, Glenroy, Coburg or Brunswick—or in remote or regional parts of Australia. The great thing about this country is that everyone should get—at least, we should aspire to everyone getting—the same access to a quality education. As I said earlier, that access to a quality education gives so many of us the opportunities to fulfil our potential and make a meaningful contribution to our community and to the society that we live in. It is about fairness, and it is about equality of opportunity, because education is such a fundamental part of our lives in making the contribution that we seek to make. That's why the Albanese Labor government is so committed to these reforms. Before I finish, I want to take the opportunity to recognise the staff, the students and the NTEU members at the University of Melbourne, many of whom live in my electorate, who went on a week-long strike last week. The staff and students from the Faculty of Arts, Melbourne Law School, the VCA school of art, student services and the library joined together to call for fair pay, more secure work, manageable workloads, better access to parental and carers leave, greater flexibility in work arrangements and restricting rolling restructures which cause instability. I stand in solidarity with you in your efforts because I know that staff working conditions are student learning conditions. They are key to delivering a quality higher education sector in this country and ensuring equality of access for Australians, no matter their background, where they come from or who they are. 18:49 Ms RYAN 249224 Lalor It's with great pleasure that I rise to make my contribution on the Higher Education Support Amendment (Response to the Australian Universities Accord Interim Report) Bill 2023. The legislation before the House acts on two key recommendations from the interim report of the Australian Universities Accord panel, commissioned to review Australia's higher education system. After a decade of sitting on the opposition benches and seeing the former government unpick things that had been carefully put in place to support our university sector, to ensure that our students were being given every opportunity to reach their potential, to engage in meaningful education for life, in a lifelong journey, the impotence that I felt over there can only be eclipsed by having the opportunity tonight to speak to this piece of legislation and to celebrate the actions so far of the Minister for Education, the member for Blaxland, and the speed at which he has moved in the higher education space. I spent 27 years in classrooms, and I know that in the first decade of my teaching life I was very focused on the students I taught. I was an English teacher, with five sessions a week, five classes of 25 kids, generally speaking. I was intimately focused on those students that I was teaching, intimately focused on being ambitious for them and supportive of them, because I wanted all of those students to achieve their potential. After years in education, you start to look up and look across the school. Becoming a year level coordinator will do this for you. You start to worry about the 250 kids in the cohort that you're responsible for. A few more years, and you're starting to look across the school. A few more years, in the principal class, and you're starting to look at the region, at the system, at the state. It was with great pleasure that I came to this parliament to look at the national progress that we're making in education, and the higher education piece is obviously critical to that. My life's work has been about supporting individuals to meet their potential, and what this interim report addresses is exactly that. Its crucial function is to look at our higher education system, what challenges are before it and what things we can improve. The interim report has been tabled. The report was commissioned last November. The review is the biggest and broadest in 15 years, looking at access, affordability, teacher quality, research, governance, employment conditions and how the elements of post-secondary education—that is, higher education and vocational education and training—can and should better work together. The accord panel is led by Professor Mary O'Kane AC, a former Vice-Chancellor of the University of Adelaide and the first woman to become the dean of engineering at any university in Australia. She is doing this work with Professor Barney Glover, Ms Shemara Wikramanayake, the Hon. Jenny Macklin AC, Distinguished Professor Larissa Behrendt AO, and the Hon. Fiona Nash, once a senator in this place. This group of people have heard from people all over the country, experts in the field as well as parents, students, people interested in higher education. Their recommendations in this interim report ring true to me. When I read the report, when I listen to them and when I think about the five things that they're calling for urgent action on, they speak to me. The first is that we create more university study hubs, not only in the regions but also in our outer suburbs. As someone who represents an outer suburban region in the south-west of Melbourne, this rings true to me. We have gone, in my lifetime, from a country town of 13,000 people to a metropolis of over 300,000 people. That is an enormous number of young people who need opportunity, who need the support to make the most of that opportunity. So I welcome the outer suburban hubs. The second is that we scrap the 50 per cent pass rule and require better reporting on how students are progressing. This speaks to the teacher in me. I was appalled when those opposite introduced this rule, because it was highly predictable what the outcome of this was going to be and which Commonwealth supported students were going to fall foul of this rule. They were going to be the students that I represent, people in my electorate. As it happened, that's exactly who did fall foul of it—people from the outer suburbs, young people from the regions, our Indigenous students. So the worst came to pass. The third is that we extend the demand-driven funding currently provided to Indigenous students from regional and remote areas to cover all Indigenous students. The fourth is that we provide funding certainty during the accord process by extending the Higher Education Continuity Guarantee into 2024-25, with funding arrangements that prioritise support for equity students. The fifth is that we work with state and territory governments through National Cabinet to improve university governance. I'll echo the words of the member for Wills, who preceded me in this debate. The notion is that we are going to pay attention to having people in the governance of our universities who understand the business of universities as much as they understand universities as a business, to put it bluntly. The balance has swung too far away from those who understand education. The report outlines the current state of play in terms of who makes up the 36 per cent of Australians with university qualifications. This includes, currently, almost one in two Australians in their 20s and 30s and where they live—or, rather, where they are least likely to live. It gives us insight into where we will find the increase in degree educated Australians that this report tells us is going to be required, and the projections are almost staggering. In 2035 we are going to need 1.2 million Commonwealth supported students, an increase of 300,000 on today's figures. By 2050 we'll need 1.8 million Commonwealth supported students, an increase of 900,000. If we look at that data, it's pretty simple. To find people to fill those places, we're going to have to look at those who are not currently represented. We're going to have to look to our underrepresented demographics, and they are in the outer suburbs, where only 23 per cent have a university education; they are in remote and regional communities, where only 13 per cent have a university education; they are Indigenous Australians, of whom only 17 per cent have a university education; and they are poor families, low-socioeconomic families, across the country, of whom only 15 per cent have a university education. Those underrepresented groups are where we will find the increase in students that we need, and every corner of our country will benefit if we get this right. This piece of legislation acts on two of those things immediately that require legislation. The first is the 50 per cent rule, which the report calls for to be scrapped. For me and for Labor this has always been a moral imperative: equity and access—not just because it's the right thing to do, not just because it's the fair thing to do. We've always understood the moral imperative. This report outlines for us a practical imperative, a fiscal imperative, a productivity imperative, that we need to act on now. As I say, I'm a firm believer—because I've lived it every day of my working life—that postcode does not determine talent. It does not determine potential, nor does it determine inherent persistence. What it does is determine opportunity, and we need to change that to ensure we have the skilled population we need to create the prosperity we all desire and to be successful in a competitive global environment. When you think about the changes in terms of energy, when you think about clean energy and that transformation, and you look at it from the perspective of the requirements for that, it is going to need a skilled workforce—not just skilled through a university degree but skilled through vocational education and training as well. The people that are underrepresented are clearly where we will find the students we need as a country, and this bill enacts the two things that the panel recommends and that common sense prescribes require immediate action. All the 50 per cent pass rule, as a point, did was punish students who perhaps had potential but perhaps had complicated lives. If you look at the figures, that's what we find. Thirteen thousand students fell foul of that rule. It's pretty easy to fall foul of a study requirement to meet 50 per cent if you're travelling 2½ hours a day to get to university and 2½ hours to get back from university. It's pretty easy to fall foul of that rule if you're the only person in your family who happens to be working, as well as studying full time. In my time here I've heard many of those opposite, when they were in government, talk about students, and they see students as something out of the 1950s, as though they've got a nice little job in the coffee shop or the hotel down the road and then they're studying full time. Guys, wake up! I have young people who work in my office who work full time and study full time. In my community, in the middle of COVID, I had principals telling me that, in families in my electorate, 16-year-olds were the only people earning an income. They were doing night shifts at McDonald's to keep families afloat. Those same children could be at university now and could fall foul of this 50 per cent rule, not because they don't have potential, don't have capacity or don't have perseverance or persistence; they demonstrate that every day. What's missing? Support. What's missing is universities actually being held accountable and asked to do the job of every teacher in the country, which is to support the potential of that student, put the supports in place, know where the students are, know how they're coping and know whether they're on track to pass or fail—and to do it regularly. That's what this bill asks of universities. It asks them to do that and it provides them with support to give the support to the students that need to complete their degrees. This measure was introduced by the former government under its job-ready graduate package, and it'll be removed by this bill. I celebrate that and I know that most teachers that I have worked with in my lifetime in schools would equally celebrate it because teachers understand, as do the universities, that students will meet their potential if they're given the appropriate supports to do so. The new measure will see the universities supported to support students to achieve, make them accountable for that success and make the universities part of the success. It shifts the goalposts and asks universities to fulfil their social contract of providing higher education to Australian students and to live their mission of demonstrating the power of education to enhance life outcomes and create a more educated population. Let's face it; our universities run because we ask them to run. Our universities are there to provide education for our domestic students as much as they are there to provide education for international students. Universities should be the exemplar in terms of educative practice, and government should support them in this role, as well as hold them to account, just as it do in other sectors. I'll go back to some of the points the member for Wills was making. I know in my electorate that I have many people who work in the university sector. What we have seen in our university sector across the last decade under that government, without any breaks on this downhill run, has been a casualisation of its workforce. Universities have been denuded of professors. How are you going to maintain international rankings without professors on board at universities? Universities are supposed to be the bastion of education. They're what we should be looking to. To be that you need to value those you're asking to educate. In this country we demonstrate value by giving people permanency, by giving people what they earn and by showing them that we value their work and we value the support they're giving students. On those opposite's watch they introduced this ridiculous 50 per cent fail rate and then allowed universities to not give support to students. As a result, 13,000 students fell foul, many of them exactly the students that we as a country need to engage—not just this generation but the generation after that. I commend this bill to the House. 19:04 Ms ROBERTS 157125 Pearce As someone who has worked in the education sector for many years, I rise to support the Higher Education Support Amendment (Response to the Australian Universities Accord Interim Report) Bill 2023. In November 2022, the Minister for Education announced the Australian Universities Accord panel and terms of reference, and the discussion paper was released in February 2023. Following this, the expert panel released an interim report in July 2023, with a final report due to government in December of this year. The interim report proposed five priority actions to be considered immediately, and the bill implements priority actions 2 and 3, which require legislation, with Minister Clare stating the government would implement all the recommendations. The purpose of the bill before us is to amend the Higher Education Support Act 2023, HESA, to do the following: remove the cap on the number of Indigenous students who can enrol in a Commonwealth supported place by extending eligibility to all Indigenous students no matter where they live, remove the requirement that students successfully complete at least 50 per cent of their first eight units of study of a bachelor degree to be able to continue as a Commonwealth supported student and be eligible for FEE-HELP assistance and encourage universities to provide appropriate levels of support for students identified as at risk of falling behind and to support them to complete their units of study. In the minister's second-reading speech he stated: … the only way to so significantly boost the percentage of the workforce with a university qualification is to significantly increase the number of students who are currently underrepresented in our universities: students from our outer suburbs— like my electorate of Pearce— and the regions, students from poor backgrounds, students with a disability and Indigenous students. Further, the minister pointed out: In the outer suburbs of our major cities it's only 23 per cent of young adults who have a university degree. …   …   … Only 15 per cent of young adults from poor families have a degree— and only seven per cent of young Indigenous Australians have one. According to the 2021 census, in the Pearce electorate 7.4 per cent of students were attending TAFE or training by a private provider, 12.4 per cent were attending university and 18 per cent had achieved bachelor's degree level and above. Pearce, like other outer metropolitan areas, is indicative of why we need to increase the number of students from the outer suburbs, as they are underrepresented in our universities. We have a growing industrial base within my electorate, and if we do not address this issue we will find we lack the skills and workforce required for the future. The government has confirmed it will implement all five recommendations from the interim report, and this legislation is necessary to implement two of these. The five recommendations are: (1) that more universities study hubs are created in the regions and outer suburbs, (2) that the 50 per cent pass rule be scrapped and better reporting required on how students are progressing, (3) that the demand-driven funding currently provided to Indigenous students from regional and remote areas be extended to cover all Indigenous students, (4) that funding certainty be provided during the accord process by extending the Higher Education Continuity Guarantee into 2024 and 2025 with funding arrangements that prioritise support for equity students and (5) that we work with state and territory governments through national cabinet to improve university governance. In relation to the university study hubs we advise there are currently 34 in regional Australia, and the government plans to establish 20 more in the regions and 14 in the outer suburbs of our major cities, where the percentage of people with a university qualification is low. I would certainly welcome a university study hub, definitely, within the electorate of Pearce. The minister has announced the government will extend the Higher Education Continuity Guarantee into 2024-25, as mentioned in recommendation 4, noting that universities will be required to use any funding remaining from their grant each year on areas such as enabling courses and extra academic and learning support for students from poor backgrounds, from the regions and from other underrepresented groups. The government has also committed to the fifth recommendation to work with states and territories on improving university governance. Importantly, one of the three areas to focus on is making sure our universities are safe for students and staff. It was deeply disturbing to learn that in 2021 the National Student Safety Survey found that one in 20 students had been sexually assaulted since starting university and that one in six had been sexually harassed. This is unacceptable, and a proper and transparent process must be in place to deal with complaints in a respectful and timely manner. However, we must also ask ourselves how we got to this point in the first place. A substantial number of students come to university straight from high school, at a young and vulnerable age, keen to learn and looking forward to university. Both those students and their parents would have every expectation that the university would have a duty of care to ensure their safety whilst on campus. As stated previously, the bill implements recommendations 2 and 3. Recommendation 2 amends the Higher Education Support Act to remove the requirement that students must pass 50 per cent of the units they study to remain eligible for a Commonwealth-supported place and FEE-HELP assistance. Currently, students who cannot maintain this pass rate lose eligibility and must either pay for their course upfront, transfer to another course or withdraw from their studies. The pass-rate measures were originally introduced with the intention of dissuading students from continuing in courses that they were not academically suited for, to avoid accruing large Higher Education Loan Program, or HELP, debts without successfully gaining a qualification. However, we now know that the practical effect of these measures has been overly punitive for students and has not necessarily motivated higher education providers to provide better support to students experiencing academic difficulties. The impact of these measures has also fallen disproportionately on students from First Nations, low socioeconomic status and other underrepresented or educationally-disadvantaged cohorts. The minister advised that more than 13,000 students at the 27 universities had been hit by this in the past two years—mostly, those from disadvantaged backgrounds. I agree with the minister wholeheartedly: we should be helping our students to succeed, not forcing them to quit. I note here the accord panel's priority action 3, which is to ensure that all First Nations students are eligible for a funded place at university by extending demand-driven funding to metropolitan First Nations students. This is consistent with the principle behind the introduction of guaranteed funding for First Nations students from regional and remote areas in 2021. This funding arrangement should apply to all First Nations people undertaking higher education, including in metropolitan areas. Our country prides itself on the notion of giving everyone a fair go. All disadvantaged students, no matter where they live, deserve that chance. The amendments in part 2 insert a new requirement that higher education providers must have, and comply with, a policy that addresses support for students—a policy that will proactively identify students who are at risk of falling behind and set out what they will do to help them succeed. The accord panel has been clear about increased accountability and reporting processes to support student progress, as this will focus on improving success rates of at-risk students. We have five universities in Western Australia: University of WA, Curtin, Murdoch, Notre Dame and Edith Cowan, the latter of which is located close to the Pearce electorate and therefore attracts a large number of students from the northern suburbs. Many of these universities have in place or have commenced programs to support students, so the requirement of the bill should come as no surprise and help bolster their existing endeavours. Whether it be providing peer-to-peer support or additional online academic support, there is much more to be done. A friend of mine attended a session for staff and interested stakeholders at one of our universities a few years ago where the speaker addressed the group using a Domino's pizza analogy about offering tertiary education in a modern world and the need for change. It went something like this: you can make a call or order a pizza online and decide what size, what type, what individual toppings you would like, and when and where you want it delivered. He then asked: 'What do we give our students for their $100,000 degree?' He asked a valid question to challenge them to think outside offering more of the same, and to ask how they were going to support their students going forward. My nearest university, Edith Cowan University, has a student success team to assist students make a smooth transition to university and help them stay on track with their studies so they can reach their full potential. This includes supporting study progress, health and wellbeing, assessing personal challenges and developing action plans to overcome them and providing referrals to specialist support services, both at Edith Cowan University and in their community. The ECU student success team offers support to all students—domestic students and onshore international students. The Kurongkurl Katitjin is ECU's Centre for Indigenous Australian Education. Their student success team are responsible for providing dedicated support and guidance to the Edith Cowan University's Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students. ECU also has a uni prep student success team specially trained to assist commencing students and help them to succeed in their courses of choice. This is just one example of what universities are doing in Western Australia. The recommendations outlined in this bill are incredibly important if we are to truly help disadvantaged students in my electorate and across the nation to fulfil their potential. I commend the bill to the House. 19:16 Ms MILLER-FROST 296272 Boothby Education is life-changing. It can change your trajectory in life. It can change your entire family's trajectory. We know that people with more education tend to have higher income and all the opportunities that having additional income brings. They also tend to have better health outcomes. Their children are healthier and more likely to complete education. Education can also change the trajectory of an entire country. A higher educated, higher skilled workforce is necessary for higher-income-generating industry and manufacturing, for the production of goods and for the services that bring wealth to a country. We absolutely want good-quality, high-paying, secure jobs for Australians, and we are committed to rebuilding the manufacturing services and supply chains onshore to achieve this. We, therefore, need Australians who are educated, skilled and qualified to take these jobs and also to create these jobs and to develop new knowledge, new research, new skills, new businesses and new industries. Education is a key to opportunity. When my grandparents left poverty in Northern Ireland to seek a better life for their family and when my parents left the UK to seek a better life for their family, for me and my brother, here in Australia, they knew that education was the key to accessing the opportunities of their new homes. I, like many in this place, was the first in my family to go to university, and it certainly changed my life. It gave me career opportunities that I would otherwise not have had. I was lucky that my family had a culture of valuing education. I was trained from kindergarten to expect that I would concentrate at school and achieve, that I would finish high school—there was no question—and that I would go to university. I was taught that this was the normal course of education, and I was taught that it was achievable for me. I was one of the lucky ones. But, if we're going to change this country to the economic powerhouse, advanced manufacturing hub, leading scientific nation and country with world-leading health and other services that we know it can be and that it needs to be in the future, we need to ensure education is available to all and that that education is world class. There are too many that get left behind, too many whose families don't see that education is achievable for them, that it is something that they can do in their family. There are too many that face barriers that I didn't face, and we need them to be able to see that education is achievable for them as well. That was why Minister Clare commissioned three reviews on education—early childhood, schooling and the tertiary sector—which resulted in the Australian Universities Accord. This Higher Education Support Amendment (Response to the Australian Universities Accord Interim Report) Bill 2023 is a response to the Australian Universities Accord interim report. They are priority recommendations, and we have a final report expected in December 2023. The Albanese Labor government is committed to opening the door of opportunity for more Australians to go to university. Whether or not you see university as an option for you shouldn't depend on your postcode or your family background. We need to ensure that students who don't come from a university educated family can thrive and succeed in tertiary education. The following were identified in the recommendations of the interim report and addressed in the measures of the bill: firstly, that we create more study hubs, not only in the regions but in our outer suburbs—it's amazing how a simple thing such as travel, the unfamiliarity of a big city, or parking can form a barrier to someone feeling confident enough to enrol and attend university; secondly, that we scrap the 50 per cent pass rule and require better reporting on how students are progressing; thirdly, that we extend the demand driven funding currently provided to Indigenous students from regional and remote areas to cover all Indigenous students; fourthly, that we provide funding certainty during the accord process by extending the Higher Education Continuity Guarantee into 2024 and 2025, with funding arrangements that prioritise support for equity students; and, lastly, that we work with state and territory governments to improve university governance. Importantly, the government has confirmed it will implement each of the interim recommendations. Recommendations 2 and 3 require legislative amendment, which this bill provides by amending the Higher Education Support Act to extend the current demand-driven funding for regional and remote First Australians students to all First Australians undergraduate students studying bachelor or bachelor-honours level courses, other than medicine, from 2024. It also removes the pass rate requirements for students to remain eligible for Commonwealth assistance and introduces new requirements on universities and other providers to support students in successfully completing their studies. Currently students are required to pass at least 50 per cent of the units they undertake to continue their eligibility for Commonwealth assistance. The pass rate is assessed after they've completed eight units in a bachelor's degree, or higher, or four units in a shorter course, and students who fail more than half currently lose eligibility for Commonwealth assistance. The pass rate requirements were originally introduced in January 2022 by the former coalition government as part of the Job-ready Graduates program to dissuade students from continuing in courses they're not academically suited to. However, the practical effect of these measures has been overly punitive for students. Sometimes you have a bad year. Sometimes it doesn't all come together. Life outside university impacts on your ability to focus, to study and to pass. The impact of the pass rate requirements has disproportionately affected students from First Nations communities and those of low socioeconomic status and other underrepresented and educationally disadvantaged cohorts. These are the cohorts that we want to encourage to see university as something that is for them and their families; we want them to know that they can achieve. For those already facing too many barriers, who might need to work extra jobs to fund their education, who might have family duties and issues that interfere with their studies, this should not be the barrier that means that they don't have the bright future that they deserve. More than 13,000 students at 27 universities have already been hit by this rule. Removal of the rule has been called for by universities right across the country—universities like the University of Adelaide, in my home town, Monash University, University of Technology Sydney, University of the Sunshine Coast, University of New England, Queensland University of Technology and Western Sydney University. This is something that they see the value of, that they understand. We should be helping students succeed, not forcing them to quit. The bill introduces requirements for universities and other providers to have policies in place to help students successfully complete their studies. Under these policies, universities and other providers will be required to demonstrate how they will identify students who are struggling and how they will connect those students with support services to help them succeed. The Department of Education will issue a discussion paper to consult with universities and providers on the content of these policies. They are expected to contain measures such as having processes for identifying students who need help; assessing a student's academic and non-academic suitability for continuing study, particularly when they've triggered an alert; connecting students with support and identifying students who are not engaging with that support before their census date wherever possible; and providing sufficient non-academic supports for students, such as financial assistance, housing information and mental health supports. This is important when students struggle because of non-academic issues—because the rest of their life is interfering. Other measures include having appropriate crisis and critical harm response arrangements; providing access to trained academic development advisers who can help a student identify what's holding them back and come up with the right response for that student—it's not one size fits all; it's not a cookie cutter—ensuring that academic and non-academic supports are age and culturally appropriate, including specific arrangements for First Nations students; proactively offering special circumstances arrangements where a provider is aware of a significant life event for a student; providing access to targeted individual literacy, numeracy and other academic supports; providing provider-driven evidence based additional support, such as peer support; and providing targeted in-course support from academic staff, such as check-ins and flexibility on assessment arrangements. Universities and other providers will be required to comply with their student support policies, and civil penalties will apply for compliance breaches. The existing demand-driven measure for Indigenous students was implemented in 2021 in response to the National Regional, Rural and Remote Education Strategy. The proposal aims to increase First Nations enrolment numbers by expanding the eligibility of demand-driven funding to include metropolitan First Nations students studying bachelor and bachelor honours courses, except for medicine, at table A universities. This measure directly supports efforts towards achieving Closing the Gap outcome 6: to increase the proportion of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people aged 25 to 34 who have completed a tertiary qualification—cert III and above—to 70 per cent by 2031. This means there will be no cap on the number of First Nations students who can enrol in a Commonwealth supported place, and table A providers will receive Commonwealth funding for all Indigenous students under part 2-2 of HESA. The Department of Education estimates this may double the number of Indigenous students at university within a decade. The measure has strong support in the sector—for example, Universities Australia, ANU, UQ, Western Sydney University, Macquarie University, James Cook University, University of Southern Queensland, University of Melbourne, University of Adelaide, Queensland University of Technology and the University of Technology Sydney. The measure builds on the government's election commitment to deliver up to 20,000 Commonwealth supported places and fee-free TAFE. This bill in response to the interim report of the Australian Universities Accord is the first step to building a brighter future for all Australians and for our country. Education is the key to better outcomes. Education changes lives and changes futures. The link between education and employment, between education and better-paid jobs and between income and health outcomes for individuals and for their families is well established. Being able to financially support your children and family because you have a well-paid, secure job means better outcomes for your children. Children brought up in poverty are more likely to experience poverty as adults. My electorate of Boothby is home to a number of excellent tertiary institutions as well as many, many tertiary students and tertiary sector workers. Flinders University in Bedford Park is one of three major universities in South Australia. Its innovative approach to modern manufacturing has seen it establish itself within the Factory of the Future in the Tonsley Innovation Precinct, working into supply chains for the defence industry with many of the local innovative industries that have set up in that precinct. It's also a major medical school with campuses across regional South Australia and the Northern Territory and an excellent record of graduating First Nations doctors and other health professionals. We also have the Waite campus of the University of Adelaide in Urrbrae, which focuses on agriculture and ag science. Of course, South Australia has an excellent wine industry. The research this campus undertakes will be vital for our important agriculture industries as climate change changes the conditions that they're dealing with. Then we have TAFE at Tonsley, which is developing the tradies for the— Debate interrupted. ADJOURNMENT 102 ADJOURNMENT Free Speech, COVID-19: Vaccination 102 19:30 Mr MT4 Monash BROADBENT () (): 'The path I take today I did not choose. This path chose me.' It's 17 years since I made that statement when I stood against the Migration Amendment (Designated Unauthorised Arrivals) Bill 2006 because I believed it was not in the long-term interests of this country. I've never been afraid to take a stand on justice issues, even if it risks my political existence. I love this country. That's why I'm still here: to serve the people and improve the lives of all Australians. We're a nation of diverse backgrounds, rich in stories of courage and mateship and especially a fair go for all. Through the tough times our best characteristics shine. Our national anthem sings of unity: 'We are one and free.' But that is not what I am seeing. Things have changed. I see division and censorship tearing at the rich fabric that threads our nation together. Where I once saw free speech, I now see creeping censorship of that inalienable right. In our country, known for its free speech, censorship is creeping in. Even our own Department of Home Affairs had a hand in censoring over 4,000 social media posts, many of which turned out to be factually correct. The controversial and misleading misinformation bill proposed by the Albanese government will silence those who dare to speak out against the government's narrative. The government's designating itself the only arbiter of truth. The Australian Human Rights Commissioner, the highly respected Lorraine Finlay, says the proposed laws have the potential to undermine democracy, erode public trust and jeopardise free speech. I've been around long enough to know that no-one stays in power forever and that one day it might be your voice that is silenced. We all stand to lose with this indefensible bill. Having no free speech in Australia means having no democracy in Australia. So what do we do in the face of this? Just turn around and go home? No. Where once I saw unity, I now see a nation divided. The pandemic years divided the nation by health status. The directive came from the top, with state and federal governments restricting movement and the ability to work based on a person's vaccination status—all this damage to people's lives through a vaccine that doesn't even stop infection. At any other time, this would be called out for what it is: blatant discrimination against the individuals who choose to protect their own health their way. Last week we saw Queensland finally scrap these discriminatory mandates for their healthcare workers. Up to 3,000 nurses may be allowed back to work, but only after they have faced possible disciplinary action or reapplied for jobs. Meanwhile, my home state of Victoria continues with these ridiculous mandates. A person's choice to have a medical procedure—an experimental one at that—should not be pressured, coerced or manipulated. To do so is a breach of informed consent and violates the international human rights treaties to which Australia is a signatory. Shame on us! We trusted leadership to protect our human rights, and they didn't. From the thousands of conversations I've had in the wake of the mandates, I've found that there's a simmering resentment and distrust of the government such as I've never seen before. And what about the estimated 500,000 people who were affected by vaccine injury and long COVID? What is the government's response to this? Nobody's saying anything. Can someone explain why Australia is having so many excess deaths above normal expectations? The government has not responded to my questioning. They've chosen to look the other way. So I ask: is it the pandemic response, the lockdowns, the delayed medical care or, dare I say, another issue? Who knows? Where this nation's people once enjoyed tolerance of one another, I now see intolerance. Those holding opposing opinions are ridiculed and insulted. If I'm sceptical of the route to net zero, does that make me a science denier? If I have questions about the Voice, does that make me a racist? If I believe there are only two genders, does that make me a bigot? If I don't want to take an experimental vaccine—as Greg Hunt called them—does that make me a far-right conspiracy theorist? To all these things I say no. We must re-learn to disagree in a more respectful way. There's a saying in my home town of Koo Wee Rup: never forget who brung you to the party. We are the servants of the people, not the other way round. Many people in this nation are hurting and looking to their elected representatives for help. While the Albanese government focuses on ways to silence and divide this nation, our people are paying the price for incompetent leadership of this great south land. I stake my claim this day for the people of Australia: to remain free and unencumbered by further authoritarian moves against them. (Time expired) Albanese Government 103 19:35 Ms RYAN 249224 Lalor The Albanese government is working hard to deliver the better future you voted for. The government is working for Australia. We're building a stronger economy and a fairer country. Since the House last sat, the most significant housing reforms in a generation have been worked through. Australia will build 1.2 million new homes over five years. This is an additional 200,000 new homes above the National Housing Accord target agreed by states and territories last year. There will be a better deal for renters to harmonise and strengthen renters rights across Australia. This includes developing a nationally consistent policy to implement a requirement for genuine, reasonable grounds for eviction; moving towards limiting rent increases to once a year; and phasing in minimum rental standards. Starting last week, we halved the price of almost 100 common medicines. In the electorate of Lalor, this will see 20,000 locals in our community save time—they won't have to go to the doctor because there will be 60-day prescriptions for those 100 medicines—and they'll save money, because they won't be paying at the chemist. This will deliver real cost-of-living relief. We've smashed our target and delivered over 214,000 fee-free TAFE enrolments. It makes this teacher's heart sing that there are 214,000 people—the majority, I would assume, are young people, but perhaps some are retraining—who are now on a lifelong learning journey through the vocational education and training sector. We've seen multiple Medicare urgent care clinics open across Australia, with our government working with the Victorian state government to deliver the Werribee urgent care clinic. Locals are already able to see a doctor for urgent but not life-threatening issues. If a child breaks their arm, they can now go to the urgent care clinic and not wait for hours at our local emergency clinic at Mercy Hospital. This cost-of-living relief comes on top of the measures this government has already delivered: cheaper child care; cheaper medicines; support for first home buyers; electricity bill relief; secure jobs, better pay; increases to support for those who need it most; and pay rises for aged-care workers and for those on minimum wage. And we've done much more. The government understands the pressures families are under locally and nationally, but every day we're working to deliver support and relief for our growing community and everyone who calls it home. Every day, this government is working for Australia, and every day we are demonstrating that we're doing exactly that—working for Australia—not just in the immediate term but in the longer term. Our eyes are focused on the future. In contrast, those opposite are fixated on the past and just say no to anything that is future focused. I remember distinctly coming back to parliament last December to pass legislation to ensure that households wouldn't get the predicted increase on their energy costs. And what did we find out in the economic news today? We found out that that actually worked—that we've had a six per cent increase rather than the 19 per cent increase we would have had if those opposite had had their way. They came into this place and they voted against those measures. This government is absolutely focused on supporting Australians, supporting people in my community, ensuring that we've got our eye on the current cost-of-living issues as well as on the future. We've been debating in here the changes to higher education, changes that would see young people in my electorate incentivised to go to university and supported to be at university to fulfil their potential. The Albanese Labor government is about the future. It's working hard for Australia to create a better future and to create a future that all Australians can be proud of and all Australians can be participants in. Housing 104 19:40 Mr YOUNG 201906 Longman Like many communities in Australia, in Longman we are suffering a housing crisis. At a recent leaders forum hosted by the City of Moreton Bay council the following alarming stats were shared. There are approximately 1,424 people experiencing homelessness in Moreton Bay, and this is a 92 per cent increase in the last decade. Not all of these homeless people are what many people picture as stereotypical homeless people: unemployed, dishevelled individuals with substance abuse issues. Many are families and working people, in some cases with children, who cannot find any available housing. One of the issues we have around finding a housing solution in this country is that it requires all levels of government to play their individual parts. The federal government should provide the funding, the state and territory governments should build the housing and local governments should ensure developers are able to simply and affordably develop new housing estates in faster time frames. This means cutting red and green tape and government fees. My local council, the City of Moreton Bay council, to their credit announced earlier this year they have removed 100 per cent of fees in targeted areas for community housing providers and developers building community and affordable housing, and there's a 50 per cent remission of fees in other areas so that these savings can be passed on to reduce the cost of housing. I encourage other LGAs around Australia to follow suit. I was fortunate in the last term of government to be on a committee that held an inquiry into Australia's housing shortage and availability. We took evidence from developments, real estate agents, homeless organisations, local councils and other stakeholders, and without exception the only solution they all came up with was that state and local governments must release land faster so that the economic principle of supply and demand can kick in. If there is more stock then prices will drop—it is that simple. Some will say the answer is simply more funding for social housing. I would contend it's not only how much funding but how the funding is spent. I went and had a look at how in my home state of Queensland the money on social and community housing had been spent over the six years from 2015 to 2020, which is the most up-to-date data I could find. In that time the federal government had provided to the Queensland state Labor government a total of $1.7 billion for housing. In that same time period the total social and community housing stock in Queensland went from 71,183 to 71,424 dwellings. That's an increase of just 241 or 49 new dwellings per year on average over six years. This means that each home cost on average $7,344,400—that's per home. Mr Speaker, I'm in the wrong game! This is a perfect example of how managing money correctly gets outcomes, not just spending more money to get outcomes. In business, if you gave an organisation or individual $1.7 billion to provide housing that on average over that period should have cost no more than $400,000 per home and they charged you over $7 million per home, you would stop dealing with them, surely. Why don't federal governments of all political persuasions stop funding state governments that don't deliver and instead give the funding to not-for-profits and non-government organisations that I'm sure would deliver houses with a price tag of less than $7,344,400 per home. One of the attributes of leadership is prioritising tasks and issues you are dealing with. Many people in the Longman electorate are asking why at was time of economic hardship this Labor government and this Prime Minister are prioritising spending $360 million on a divisive referendum on a voice to parliament when at $400,000 per home that would provide 900 homes to help address a housing crisis that affects all Australians not just three per cent of Australians. I reckon they're asking a fair question. We also need to always be developing policies that will get people off the rental roundabout and into their own home. I'm a great believer in allowing people to use their super to get into the housing market and own their home faster. At the last election, the coalition proposed being able to use a part of your super as a deposit to get into the market for your first home. I'd like to go one step further and propose that if people transfer their money into a self-managed super fund, they could choose to offset that against their mortgage, saving tens of thousands of dollars in interest and owning their own home earlier. After all, it's their money, why shouldn't they decide how it is spent if they want to? Something must be done. I have never seen the homeless situation this bad in my entire life. Workplace Relations 105 19:45 Ms FERNANDO 299964 Holt The health of our society can be determined by how we treat our youngest and oldest Australians. After decades of the coalition's neglect of our aged-care and childcare sectors, the workers I've interacted with in these sectors during my recent visits have found the environment of reform refreshing. One of the things that I've heard most often during my aged-care visits is that aged-care workers are now feeling more valued and respected. They feel like they have a voice and that their concerns are being heard. Many observed that the government's decision to increase the pay of aged-care workers by 15 per cent did not only mean monetary reward for their hard work it was also an affirmation by the government that they and their work mattered. Delivering the largest wage rise in a long time showed that this government was serious about rectifying the unjust treatment towards them in the past. The wage rise of 15 per cent is a significant investment in the aged-care sector, and it will make a real difference to the lives of aged-care workers who are selflessly engaged in looking after our older Australians. This air of positivity extends to aged-care residents who told me they are seeing a significant difference in the quality of care. Aged-care reforms, based on the recommendations of the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety, introduced by the Albanese Labor government, are in the process of fixing systematic failure in the aged-care system. Mandating that at least one registered nurse is on site and on duty 24 hours a day, seven days a week at every residential facility brought relief to many older Australians who weren't receiving the timely care they needed due to the lack of nurses. I am also pleased with the government's commitment to investing in training and development for aged-care workers. The royal commission found that there was a shortage of qualified aged-care workers. The Albanese Labor government's reform to improve the training and education of aged-care workers will help to ensure that the sector has the skilled workforce it needs to provide quality care. I am committed to continuing to work with the aged-care sector to make sure that we continue our progress. I know that there is still more work to be done, but I am confident that we are on the right track. Similarly, I've been very impressed with the positive conversations I have had with parents about the changes introduced by the Albanese Labor government to the childcare sector. The Family Assistance Legislation Amendment (Cheaper Child Care) Act 2022 meant 1¼ million Australian families benefited from cheaper childcare costs, which kicked in on 1 July this year. This meant child care was more affordable for families, with the greatest benefit being for those on low and middle incomes, which make up the bulk of my electorate. Several mums of Holt also spoke to me about how these changes encouraged them to return to work, giving them a refreshing sense of confidence and purpose. Like this government's work in the aged-care sector, cheaper child care is a major step forward in making child care more affordable and accessible for all Australian families. I am pleased to let them know that these changes will be supported by a suite of reforms that will be introduced upon the conclusion of the Productivity Commission's inquiry into Australia's early childhood education and care system. Ensuring a strong and robust care economy has been at the front and centre of the Albanese Labor government's priorities since the very beginning. I am pleased the reforms introduced by this government are demonstrating results to the hardworking families in Holt, and I thank the House. Digital Economy 105 19:49 Mr FLETCHER L6B Bradfield I take this opportunity to talk about the proposition that technological innovation in the digital economy is key to Australia's growth in productivity and prosperity. Productivity is the measure of the amount of output you get for a given amount of input, be that input the number of hours worked or the dollars of capital invested, or what economists call total factor productivity, which is everything put together. Unfortunately, Australia has a productivity problem. Over the long run, our productivity has grown at an average of 1.5 per cent per year, but that's been slowing. Since the Albanese government has come to power, things have got much worse. In total, productivity grew by 11.4 per cent over the term of the last coalition government. Over a single year of this government, almost half of that has been lost. As the Business Council observed in its recently released report Seize the moment, 'On our current path, we face the real risk of Australia being overtaken by the rest of the world and Australians being worse off for generations to come.' But the report also highlighted the ways that Australia could boost its productivity, including through the better use of technology. In my work as shadow minister for the digital economy I've seen plenty of examples of this process at work. Consider the way the provision of small-business finance is changing. Lenders can apply artificial intelligence to the banking records of a business—contained of course in digital files—to determine factors such as the earnings and the cash flow of that business, seasonal variations, growth rates and much else. As I've heard from lenders as varied as NAB, Block and Shift, this is making it possible to provide finance to businesses when, on more traditional criteria, that might have been declined. In turn, that means more small and medium businesses are able to secure finance, pursue growth opportunities, serve customers and create jobs. It also stimulates competition, as more businesses compete to provide ultimately better products and services, and that means a productivity improvement. Unfortunately, the Albanese Labor government is getting the policy settings completely wrong when it comes to leveraging technology and the digital economy to drive productivity and growth. Part of the problem lies in what the current government is not doing. It does not have a minister for the digital economy. It does not have a clear national goal for Australia to be a leading digital economy. And, under this government, we have seen the Digital Transformation Agency being effectively nobbled. It's been shifted deep into the bowels of the Department of Finance, and projects on which this agency is supposedly working, such as a national digital identity, seem to be on the perpetual go-slow. A very big part of the problem under this government is its focus on prosecuting a union driven agenda which is deeply hostile to the kind of workplace flexibility and choice which typically is a feature of technology businesses and the technology sector. This has been on full display recently in this government's demonisation of the digital economy. We know that over the last 20 years Australians have enthusiastically taken up service offerings delivered over digital platforms which deliver greater choice and convenience, which save time and which often save money as well. That has delivered benefits both to those providing goods and services over those platforms and to those consuming the goods and services. Platforms such as Freelancer, Uber, Menulog, Airtasker and, in the disability services sector, Mable have become well known to many Australians. The Albanese government, however, is actively hostile. The workplace relations minister calls the gig economy a cancer. That is an insult to the many millions of Australians who have chosen to organise their life and work around these platforms, whether as a provider of goods and services or as a consumer of goods and services. Just today this minister, this backward-looking minister with such an affection for the rigid industrial arrangements of the 1950s, introduced draconian laws that, if passed, will adversely impact the digital platforms that millions of Australians have embraced. The reason is pretty obvious. The union bosses hate the gig economy. They want to go back in time 50 years or more to when most employment was full time, most workplaces were unionised and union bosses were all-powerful. The growth of the digital economy is key to improving Australia's productivity and to our future prosperity. To achieve this, we need the right policies settings and a government that actually believes in the benefits of digital platforms and technology. Right now we very clearly have a government which is focused on returning Australia to the past, and this is very bad news for all Australians. Bellbird Mine Disaster: 100th Anniversary 106 19:54 Mr REPACHOLI 298840 Hunter Malcolm Bailey, John Brown, George Chapman, Alexander Corns, Frederick Fone, Jack Grabner, William Griffin, William Hartley, Alfred Hines, Maurice Hyams, George Kelly, Joseph Lambert, Gordon Locking, Jeremiah McLaughlin, Charles Mills, Frederick Moodie, John Morgan, Harold Richards, Philip Roberts, George Snedden and John Stewart—these are the 21 men who perished 100 years ago in an event known as the Bellbird mine disaster. The first of September 1923 started out much like any other Saturday shift at the Bellbird Colliery. It wasn't until day shift were finishing up and the afternoon shift had entered the mine that it became obvious that something wasn't right. Thick clouds of smoke were billowing from the workings and into the haulage road. It was a similar scene above ground, with the same thick smoke pouring out of the fan shaft and across the area. Mine Deputy Frederick Moonie refused to leave his men behind and ventured back into the mine to assist with rescue efforts before ultimately succumbing to the perils of the smoke and the gas. John Brown, the manager of the nearby Aberdare Colliery and one of the men who had volunteered to enter the mine as part of the rescue efforts, was on his third descent into the mine when an explosion deeper in the mine caused toxic gas to fill the section that he and another rescuer were in. Upon realising that he was not going to make it out, Brown insisted that he be left so as to not slow the other rescuers down. When the decision to seal the mine and starve the fire of the oxygen was made, the bodies of six men, including John Brown, were still inside. It wasn't until 5 May 1924 that specially trained rescue teams were permitted to enter the mine and begin to recover the remaining bodies. Over the following nine months, five of the six men's bodies had been recovered. But it wasn't until July 1965 that the final miner, Malcolm Bailey, was successfully retrieved, some 41 years after the disaster. The local community were absolutely devastated by what happened that day, and a mass funeral was held for the 21 men who had lost their lives. The caskets were carried on the backs of trucks and followed by over 500 workers from Bellbird Colliery marching in honour of their fallen mates, while more than 25,000 people lined the streets. The disaster was a catalyst for enormous legislative change. In response to what happened at the Bellbird Colliery, the New South Wales government introduced the Mines Rescue Act and established New South Wales Mines Rescue. The disaster is part of the very foundations of our region. The Hunter was built on coalmining, and there can be no doubt that the Bellbird mining disaster changed mining forever. It shook our community at the time, and still to this day, 100 years later, stories of the disaster have been passed through generations of locals, and it continues to be remembered and spoken of. This tragedy reminds us of how dangerous the job that miners do can be, but we're also reminded of how far we have come in making sure that mining can be done safely. But, more than anything, we are reminded of how important it is that miners safely make it back home to their families after their shifts. Miners go to work to make a living for their families. Making sure that their job does not cost them their life should be the highest priority. We have come a long way when it comes to safety in mining, but, with miners still dying and getting seriously injured in their workplaces, there is still a long way to go. Here we are, 100 years after the disaster, and the legacy that has been left by the Bellbird mine disaster is bigger than anyone back then could have ever imagined and bigger than many of us realise. The legacy of the disaster, of the men who lost their lives and of those who risked their lives as rescuers lives on strongly in our community. It was an absolute honour to attend the 100th anniversary memorial service and unveil the newest part of the memorial. I would like to take the opportunity to acknowledge the Mining and Energy Union, Coal Services, Mines Rescue and the coalfields historical society for their dedication to preserving the memories of those who died that day. Ho use adjourned at 19:59 NOTICES 107 NOTICES Presentation 107

Monday, 4 September 2023

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Stevens) took the chair at 10:30.

 

CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS 109 CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS Youth Up Front, Streetwork 109 10:30 Ms STEGGALL 175696 Warringah Today I rise to speak about the very important work of community organisations in the electorate of Warringah supporting at-risk communities and, in particular, at-risk youth. The two organisations that I want to bring to the attention of the parliament and of the government are Youth Up Front and Streetwork. I recently met with Youth Up Front and Streetwork, who are doing fantastic work delivering local crime prevention initiatives for youth in our community. Youth Up Front, through its Links to Learning program and Perfect Presence Pilot Program, delivers early intervention programs for students that have been identified as at risk of disengaging from school and their learning. It's so important that we catch them early. These programs aim to support students so that they feel stronger connections to school and learning and are supported to build on personal and social capabilities. The programs were funded through a combination of New South Wales government funding and federal government funding through the Safer Communities program, but we know that that funding has now been jeopardised and has no ongoing visibility. I will touch on Safer Communities and integrity. The Safer Communities grant program was politicised under the previous government and has since been discontinued by the current government. The Auditor-General declared: Funding decisions were not appropriately informed by departmental briefings and, for the majority of decisions, the basis for the decisions was not clearly recorded. So I understand and appreciate the need to clean house of politicised grant programs. Despite this, I have written to the Treasurer and the Attorney-General to urge them not to throw out the good with the bad. New funding and long-term certainty for programs to encourage youth and young adults to re-engage with education and employment opportunities are especially important as we emerge from the isolation of COVID and deal with the impacts of COVID on young people. The isolation during final years of schooling at home could lead to increasing levels of antisocial behaviour and put further strain on government services over the long term. The calls of organisations like Youth Up Front for justice reform and a breaking the cycle fund have been echoed by the Justice Reform Initiative, who are fighting for the reform of approaches to the treatment of youth in the justice system and the prevention of detention of young people and adolescents. I support the call for the establishment of a breaking the cycle fund in the context of the wellbeing budget that the Treasurer has spoken of. I strongly support the principles of proactive intervention and preventive measures that reduce dependence on the justice system, policing and detention of young people. These are a drain on the resources of society and the state and, ultimately, are unsuccessful in achieving meaningful change and behaviour or positive outcomes for those who the system. We need the actions of Youth Up Front and Streetwork. Insurance 109 10:33 Dr MULINO 132880 Fraser I rise today to speak about genetic testing discrimination, and I acknowledge the member for Macnamara, who has placed a private member's motion for debate in this place later today. Insurance plays a critical role in our lives. The welfare system is, in effect, a vast social insurance scheme. We all pool our resources to help those who, through no fault of their own, need assistance after fate has dealt its cards. The welfare system provides insurance against risks that we all face to a greater or lesser degree: illness, old age and unemployment. A key plank of insurance is risk management: investing more in prevention than cure. As the 19th-century poem states: 'Better to put a strong fence around the top of the cliff than an ambulance down in the valley.' What happens to people who are proactive and take steps to put up a strong fence rather than relying on the ambulance but whose genetic tests results throw up a curveball? What happens if, for example, genetic test results show that a person carries breast cancer? They are then heavily penalised. They may be denied insurance cover completely or forced to pay much higher premiums. Many countries have banned the use of genetic test results by insurers to determine cover, but not Australia. Moreover, life policies are limited to providing cover of up to $500,000, but, with the average home loan standing in Australia at $584,000, according to the Bureau of Statistics, a pay-out wouldn't even pay off the average mortgage. Imagine the terrible dilemma that many people faced. You get tested to remain healthy and live long enough to see your kids grow up, while knowing at the same time you could be denied insurance because you've done the very thing required to protect your health. It is why so many are instead effectively playing Russian roulette with their lives. Genetic testing is risk management personified. Not only does genetic testing save lives; it also delivers great economic benefits, especially through prevention and early detection. It remains a conundrum that the Commonwealth has invested heavily in genetic medicine via the $500 million Genomics Health Futures Mission, yet progress is stymied because of Australia's current stance on genetic testing discrimination. In 2018, a joint parliamentary committee inquiry recommended an urgent ban on the use of genetic test results in life insurance underwriting. To investigate the effectiveness of the moratorium, the federal government funded the A-GLIMMER project, the Australian Genetics and Life Insurance Moratorium, monitoring the effectiveness and response from 2020 to 2023. The views and experiences of health professionals, consumers, researchers and financial advisers were sought, and the results show an overwhelming lack of confidence in the current moratorium. That is why I support serious consideration of a legislative ban on genetic discrimination in life insurance. Such changes would increase access to genetic testing and research, ultimately saving and changing the lives of Australians and likely contributing to savings in the healthcare system. Pacific Airshow Gold Coast 110 10:36 Ms BELL 282981 Moncrieff The inaugural Pacific Airshow Gold Coast was held over three days in the heart of Moncrieff in beautiful Surfers Paradise on 18, 19 and 20 August. There were three days of astounding aircraft entertainment never before seen in Queensland. Tourists and locals enjoyed the show, and as the Americans say, 'Folks came out in their droves'—in their hundreds of thousands. There were 150,000 tickets sold, and many more spectators lined the beach all the way from Main Beach to Miami. On the last day I was talking to a local catering company who had a food van down at Northcliffe Surf Club. They told me that over the three days they took $25,000 in turnover. They were relieved that they could pay their mortgage for the next few months. They were relieved that they had a short breather from the pressure they're facing amidst the Prime Minister's cost-of-living crisis. Kurrawa Surf Club told me they had an absolutely fantastic weekend of trade, and when I walked past Surfers Paradise Surf Life Saving Club it was bursting at the seams. Cavill Mall, with its restaurants and tourist attractions, was packed well into the evenings, and retailers, businesses and ice cream parlours were happy with the queues outside their establishments. Sadly, just a few short weeks later, it's back to the reality of the Albanese Labor government, who does not support free enterprise, who does not support reward for effort, who does not support small and family businesses. It's back to higher mortgage payments, higher electricity bills, higher food and petrol costs and more broken promises. It was the coalition government who first met with Major Events Gold Coast in October 2020 in my office on Chevron Island to discuss how and if the Gold Coast could deliver a world-class air show to Surfers Paradise with the necessary support from the ADF. Thanks to Kevin Elliott and our American friends from Code Four's Pacific Airshow Huntington Beach California. Thanks to: Jan McCormick from Major Events Gold Coast, a member of the City Heart Taskforce; the former member for Fadden; the former defence minister, Peter Dutton, now Leader of the Opposition, who approved this event to go ahead with all its complications; and to the current minister for defence for his support in the last few weeks leading up to this air show. Congratulations to all the pilots and their teams—some of them volunteers flying their own aircraft, such as the Freedom Formation. To the Australian Defence Force and Royal Australian Air Force Air Commodore Micka Gray, Head of Air Shows, thank you for your support for the Gold Coast with your C-130J, C-17A and the magnificent F/A-18F fly-past. The outstanding aerobatic displays from the Air Force Roulettes—Matt Hall, Aaron Deliu, Emma McDonald and many more—were simply breathtaking in the skies above Surfers Paradise. We have been flown into a new era of spectacular global events with the birth of Australia's pacific air show, with its professional team from Code Four locked in for four more years of sky entertainment for Gold Coasters, Australians, Americans and the world to enjoy. Surf Life Saving Central Coast, The Glen for Women, Higher Education 110 10:39 Ms McBRIDE 248353 Dobell I rise to congratulate Surf Life Saving Central Coast on being awarded Branch of the Year at the recent Surf Life Saving NSW Awards of Excellence. This award is the culmination of a successful season for the 15 surf lifesaving clubs across the Central Coast, whose members and volunteers dedicate their time to keeping locals and visitors safe. This past season the local clubs have been busy, including with a number of rescues at my club, Toowoon Bay. I'd like to recognise young surf lifesavers Aida MacDougall and Isla Carver-Wright. I am delighted to see Surf Life Saving Central Coast receive this recognition and look forward to the flags going up on the Central Coast beaches from Saturday 23 September for the upcoming patrol season. Last week I had the pleasure of attending the official opening of The Glen for Women centre in my electorate of Dobell on the Central Coast of New South Wales. The Glen for Women provides a minimum 12-week residential program in a culturally safe and supportive environment to help women recover from addiction and build practical life skills. Located on Darkinjung country, the 20-bed centre is the first Aboriginal community controlled women's rehabilitation centre in New South Wales. The centre and its success are thanks to the hard work and dedication of many local women, including Coral Hennessey, Jan McKinnon, Barbara Olson, Cheryl Bailey, Gail Savage and Minister Linda Burney. I would also like to acknowledge: Joe Coyte, the Executive Director of Glen Rehabilitation Centres; my colleague and friend David Harris, the state minister; and the former government for their contribution to this important project. I want to take a moment to highlight the importance of higher education and, in particular, enabling programs for people in communities like mine on the Central Coast of New South Wales. People who attend university in my community are often juggling work, study, commuting and family and household commitments. They are much more likely to come through an enabling program than directly from school, compared to people in other communities around New South Wales and across Australia. In fact, around 30 per cent of commencing university students at Ourimbah Campus in my community come through established enabling programs like Open Foundation and Yapug. Our government is committed to creating opportunities in the regions and outer suburbs, like the Central Coast of New South Wales, with reliable pathways to higher education and better support for students when they get there, at whatever age or whatever time of life. I'm encouraged by the support of education minister Jason Clare for campuses like mine at Ourimbah and comparable campuses around Australia to make sure that every person gets the best chance. South West Voices, Oatley West Community Festival, Baddour, Mr Tony, Hurstville Grove Infants School 111 10:43 Mr COLEMAN 241067 Banks On 20 August I visited the South West Voices choir at the church hall at Padstow Anglican Church. It was really good to talk with Gary Smith, the musical director, and all the members of the choir. I had not actually visited this choir before, so it was really nice to say hello and find out a bit more about the choir, which is unique amongst our local choirs in that the members of the choir all sing in different keys, creating a beautiful harmony in the various songs they sing. They perform at a number of different events during the year—Christmas concerts and so on—and have been getting together at Padstow Anglican Church for a number of years. To Gary Smith and all the members of the South West Voices choir: thanks very much for having me along on 28 August. The Oatley West Community Festival this year was an absolute blockbuster. It was held from 25 to 27 August, and I was able to visit on 26 August. Hundreds and hundreds of people were in attendance. This event raises tens of thousands of dollars for the Oakley West Public School community, an incredibly active and passionate community. It's fortunate to have one of the most physically beautiful school campuses you will ever come across. My thanks go to Chris Chuck, the convenor, and the whole P&C who come together and make use of the very extensive skills within that P&C. I was fortunate to be able to introduce the bands, including the first ever performance of this year's training band. It was a really nice day. Thank you, Oatley West P&C. Tony Baddour has recently been elected as the St George Chamber of Commerce president. Tony, of course, has held roles as both treasurer and secretary of the chamber of commerce in the past. He has implemented a new plan for the chamber under four pillars: collaboration; economic development; infrastructure; and purification, activation and accessibility. These are all very sensible pillars, and Tony's long history in the chamber will no doubt hold him in great stead as the president. I want to thank Allan Zreik, the outgoing president, and acknowledge the income committee, including Val Colyer, the chairperson of the Economic Development Subcommittee; Luke Kovacs, the secretary; and Rick Li, the treasurer. They are all doing great work at St George Business Chamber. Hurstville Grove Infants School is the smallest school in my electorate and one of the very few infant schools anywhere in New South Wales, K to 2. It has only about 50 to 60 kids, but it's a beautiful place, and it was great to meet recently with Kym Ferrario, the acting principal. There is some great new infrastructure in the school—a new playground, a new shared learning centre—and there are lots of great things happening down there. There are issues with traffic just outside the school, which we're working through, and I encourage the counsel to take action on that. It was great to visit Hurstville Grove Infants School. Endometriosis and Pelvic Pain Clinic 112 10:45 Ms MILLER-FROST 296272 Boothby I was delighted to have the Assistant Minister for Health and Aged Care, Ged Kearney, in my electorate of Boothby on Sunday to make an important announcement. All Australians deserve to get the health care they need. However, we know that for many women this is not the case, and on Sunday we announced South Australia's second endometriosis and pelvic pain clinic. This one is at Thrive Family Practice in Glenelg South and is part of the 22 clinics being opened across Australia as part of the Albanese government's commitment to improving health equity. This clinic will provide women centred health care with skills, expertise and experience in the management of endometriosis and pelvic pain to not only the women of Boothby but to the women in the broader metropolitan Adelaide community. Their multidisciplinary approach ensures that patients can receive all the necessary services in one location, streamlining their healthcare experience. The treatment for endometriosis varies from person to person and requires a holistic approach to care. Symptoms can be managed effectively with good primary health care. This clinic will include general practice, gynaecology, a dietician, an exercise physiologist and a practice nurse amongst others. I've heard firsthand from constituents about the struggles of women living with endometriosis. The journey to diagnosis is often long and confronting. They tell me they struggle to have their symptoms and experiences believed and taken seriously. They tell me they're struggling to access healthcare professionals who understand and can take on new patients. Endometriosis is more than just a painful period; it impacts general physical, mental and social wellbeing. It can affect their ability to work. It can affect their family and social relationships. Women are often told that severe period and pelvic pain is normal and that it's just something they should live with. But endometriosis impacts one in nine Australian women, and pelvic pain more broadly affects almost 50 per cent of Australian women. Chronic pelvic pain is a complex health problem that can be the result of many different medical conditions, only one of which is endometriosis. On average, it takes seven years to get a diagnosis. That's seven years of pain, seven years of retelling their story, seven years of struggling on. This is simply too long. Yesterday's announcement will play an important role in addressing diagnostic delay and promote early access to intervention and treatment. It will help women to manage their endometriosis and get on with their lives. Endometriosis and pelvic pain clinics are here to provide the understanding and care that Australian women deserve, and this clinic will facilitate better access for metropolitan Adelaide, making it more convenient to receive timely and tailored medical care, ultimately providing better health outcomes. They will be better able to access specialised care early so they can live their best life possible. I thank Minister Butler and Assistant Minister Kearney for understanding the needs of Australian women and responding. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice 112 10:48 Mr BROADBENT MT4 Monash The first thing I'd like to do is identify with the member for Boothby's remarks on endometriosis and congratulate her on the work that she does. I hope that the opportunities given to the people of Adelaide will be given to people right across Australia, especially the women suffering such a debilitating disease. I had the good pleasure of being on Mim Hook's ABC radio program this morning. Mim has been following me through my walk with the Voice. As many of you would know here, for five years I have spoken on the Voice and promoted the Voice. I have written essays on the Voice and had them published. But one thing I said to Mim in an interview more than a month ago was that we must firstly listen to our local Indigenous people. I was contacted by Cheryl Drayton immediately after the interview. Cheryl sat me down and told me why she would not be supporting the Voice. It didn't matter what argument I put to Cheryl and the elders in my community, I lost the debate. It was very clear that she came and asked me not to support the Voice and to not be a voice for the Voice. I said to her, 'Cheryl, can I walk out of these meetings and say that my Indigenous people do not support the Voice?' She said, 'You can surely say that, Russell.' So I had to go back to Mim this morning and tell her the story of how, at the time, when talking about Indigenous people in my electorate, I said, 'You should be listening to what they have to say on the Murray-Darling Basin, fire management in our native bush and the issues that we've made mistakes on in this country,' and then tell her, 'I don't want to make another mistake by not listening to them on this issue.' Is there another way to go about what we're trying to achieve here? I've got to tell you, I don't know. I know that what we have been doing hasn't worked and that it's insanity to keep doing the same thing over and over again with no result, which former senator Gareth Evans made very clear in his document. Is there a way forward, at the moment, that is going to be beneficial for practical outcomes? I see, this morning, that both sides are arguing that there'll be no practical outcome for Aboriginal people if we follow the other side's arguments. I leave that with you. We all get one vote, whether we be a parliamentarian or a dairy farmer like Cheryl. Health Care: Urgent Care Clinics 113 10:51 Mr BRIAN MITCHELL 129164 Lyons It was terrific to have the Prime Minister visit Tasmania to officially open the first of two urgent care clinics for Hobart last week. A third is already open in Launceston, and a fourth is in the wings for the north-west. The Hobart clinic has been seeing patients for two weeks, which led some of the local media to ask, 'Why was it opened without an announcement?' It underscores the difference in approach between the Albanese Labor government and the former Liberal government. Our focus is on the delivery of service, not the delivery of announcements. There was no way we were not going to open those doors just so we could wait to have a media event. We are delighted the PM visited to officially open the urgent care clinic, but we're even more excited about the fact that more than 400 patients have already been through its doors. That's the important bit: getting people treated. The urgent care clinics are doing the job they're meant to do: they're taking pressure off hospital emergency departments by treating people for ailments and injuries that don't require a hospital level of care. There was no better illustration of this than when the PM met young Ryder and his mum, Sarah, who live in my electorate, in New Norfolk, about 25 kilometres from the clinic. Ryder was there because he'd fallen off his skateboard and fractured his arm. His mum says that, from walking in the door of the clinic to walking out, with Ryder having been diagnosed, X-rayed and treated, and with his arm cast and put in a sling, it took all of 90 minutes and it was all bulk-billed. What a testament to the dedication and skill of the health professionals, the doctors, nurses, pharmacist, radiologist and other staff, who all had a hand in caring for young Ryder and hundreds of other Tasmanians coming through those doors. That's the difference these urgent care clinics are making by taking pressure off emergency departments, saving people, saving families, from having to wait hours for the care they deserve. It's just one element of what the Albanese Labor government is doing to repair a decade of health-system neglect. We are entering into innovative models of care with state governments to address shortages across regional Australia. I know every regional MP in here knows of the crisis in regional health. We're looking to extend the scope of practice for health professionals like pharmacists, nurse practitioners and paramedics, so they can better use their skills to deliver much needed services. We've tripled bulk-billing incentives and we've made medicines cheaper. It will take longer than one term of government to fix a decade of damage, but we are determined to get it done. Renewable Energy 113 10:54 Mr BOYCE 299498 Flynn Rural and regional Australia have had enough of mass-scale renewable projects destroying remnant vegetation, koala habitat, sugar glider habitat, bird sanctuary and carbon-sequestering trees. They've had enough of the state and federal governments not listening to their concerns, and, to be frank, I've had enough the state and federal governments' failure to implement proper regulations to protect our environment and our farming and agricultural land against these mass-scale renewable projects. In Queensland, there is no legislation to ensure the compliance of environmental protocols imposed on other industries such as the agricultural sector and the mining and resource sector. Just recently, a project has come across my desk, a 46,000-hectare wind factory near Theodore in Central Queensland, with 160 turbines up to 260 metres tall. The impact on the landscape, fire mitigation, powerline connections and all of the issues surrounding these projects needs to be addressed properly. Farmers recently rallied in Queensland against these reckless renewables outside Queensland Parliament House and at the Rockhampton Bush Summit, urging the Labor government to rethink its plans on destroying prime agricultural land, rainforest and animal habitat throughout Queensland. The farmers, from different parts of the state, are warning Labor's commitment of $200 million for wind farm projects in Central Queensland, along with plans for a $14.2 billion Borumba pumped hydro and the Forest Wind projects in the Wide Bay as well as the $12 billion five-gigawatt Pioneer-Burdekin pumped hydro scheme in Ungella and the Pioneer Valley region, will have devastating consequences. At that rally against reckless renewables, Katie McCallum from the Kilkivan Action Group said the local community 'completely objected' to Labor's plans. She said: 'Our major concern is the destruction of our stunning district and the irreparable damage to the environment where so much amazing flora and fauna live. The Borumba pumped hydro project has not met its requirements under social license, and nobody in our area wants it.' Sixth-generation beef grazier in the Flynn electorate Glen Kelly said, 'Labor's plans are not looking after the environment—they are destroying it.' The Moah Creek project will see 60 270-metre-tall wind turbines along 300-to 400-metre-high ridgetops in the Rockhampton area. These things are huge. The sweep of the blades covers five football fields. The Moah wind factory will clear 654 hectares of vegetation. The foundations for these things take up approximately 600 tonnes of concrete, which will never be removed. I stand with these people, and they need representation. United Minds Community Service, Love in Action Wallan 114 10:57 Mr ROB MITCHELL M3E McEwen What a pleasure it's been to be back home in our electorate of McEwen over these past few weeks. During that time I've taken the opportunity to see, amongst other things, the powerful impact programs like the Stronger Communities Program are having for so many community groups. It's through initiatives like this that was see firsthand how government can empower local organisations to make meaningful difference. United Minds Community Service in Diamond Creek is a shining example of what can be achieved when financial support is channelled to those who need it most. United Minds is a not-for-profit charity founded by Melissa Duckmanton in 2013 as a community-based, bulk-billing psychology service with the purpose of bridging the gap in accessing mental health by removing financial burden. Today United Minds offers the community of Diamond Creek and surrounds a comprehensive psychology clinic which provides both psychological therapy and assessment by a complete range of mental health professionals. United Minds's successful application in round 8 of the Stronger Communities Program has funded neurological assessment for children and adolescents, providing access to a service when many parents can't manage the costs for these tests. It's another example of how working with communities builds better outcomes and gets better results for people who need the support the most. Another example of a community group having a powerful impact is Love in Action Wallan. Love in Action Wallan was created by Susan and Jeremy Scrivens in their Wallan living room back in 2016. After receiving support during their son's brain cancer journey, the couple wanted to give back to community and started helping six families who were doing it tough with food and essential items, sourced from donations from other community members. Since then, they have enlisted the help of friends and volunteers who now help over 300 families a year. For the last two years they have also hosted the Don't Spend Christmas Alone event, providing a place for people alone on Christmas Day to gather and share in the joy. I've joined both of those events, and I can tell you they were amazing examples of care and compassion in our community. Love in Action Wallan represents a community helping each other. Food and essential items are donated by the community, placed in trolleys at collection points, and go out to families in need. Their successful application in round 8 of the Stronger Communities program allowed them to purchase two stand-up freezers and some much needed storage. These grants are not just about financial aid; they're about investing in the future of our communities, fostering resilience and ensuring that every Australian has the opportunity to thrive. They empower organisations to be able to assist those in need. As I said, it was great to be home and see these groups doing their important work. Our office has been very supportive; I want to point out that it was team McEwen that won the Love in Action trivia night again, beating the local newspaper by one point. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 176304 In accordance with standing order 193, the time for members' constituency statements has concluded. PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS 114 PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS Victoria Commonwealth Games 114 11:01 Mr BIRRELL 288713 Nicholls I move: That this House notes that: (1) the Victorian Government's decision to cancel the 2026 Regional Commonwealth Games is not just a significant loss to regional communities in the state, but a body-blow to the reputation of Victoria as a centre for major sporting events; (2) the stated reason for the cancellation, the cost blowout to between $6 and 7 billion, demonstrates that the Victorian Government either made a serious miscalculation in its decision to host the games years earlier than originally proposed, or is incapable of managing major projects; and (3) given the mismanagement of this major event, the $2 billion announced to be spent in regional Victoria to compensate for the loss of the games should be determined by the impacted regional communities, not the Victorian Government. I wish to talk today about one of the great scandals that's happened in Australia in recent times, one of the great examples of financial mismanagement and government incompetence in Australia that affects us all—it particularly affects us in regional Victoria—and that is the cancellation of the Commonwealth Games. The Commonwealth Games cancellation is an international embarrassment. It's devastating for regional Victorian communities, who'd thought this was going to be something really positive for them. It's an example of a state government that is treating taxpayer money with absolute disregard and disrespect, and it's a really shameful episode in our nation and in our nation's great sporting history. The idea for a regional Commonwealth Games bid was germinated in my electorate, in Shepparton, and led by the Greater Shepparton City Council. That bid was to be for the 2034 games, and there was a lot of discussion about how regional communities might be able to get themselves ready and how we could celebrate regional Victoria with the Commonwealth Games, using some new facilities and also some existing facilities. We could have had a well organised, strategic and planned out event that not only would have celebrated the great sporting achievements and great sporting facilities in regional Victoria—including in my electorate of Nicholls—but would have also showcased regional Victoria as a wonderful place to work, live and enjoy life. For a variety of reasons, the Andrews government locked in the Commonwealth Games for 2026, not 2034. They did this prior to the state election, which was last year. Shepparton, which had envisaged being one of the regional hubs, complete with athlete accommodation, was dealt out of the major playing role that was mainly focused on Bendigo, Ballarat and Geelong. That's a bit of a bugbear for people: that Bendigo, Ballarat and Geelong have been the only cities that the Victorian government has focused on. Shepparton was going to host cycling events, including BMX and road races. On 18 July, with no warning, Daniel Andrews pulled the plug on the event, and regional communities, including Shepparton in my electorate, will now miss out on the critical opportunities that the games would have brought them. Australia has taken a serious hit to our international sporting reputation. The reason for the cancellation, we are told—and when it comes to the Andrews government you have to take everything with tonnes and tonnes of salt; not just a grain—was a blowout in the budget from $2.6 billion, in the Victorian budget in May, to $7 billion eight weeks later. Not only that, the break fee for the contracts with the Commonwealth Games association is $380 million—$380 million of money just flushed down the toilet! It's a real entrepreneurial hub, the Goulburn Valley. People set up businesses, do their best and don't mind paying tax if governments use it responsibly, if they build things—like the former coalition government building the Echuca-Moama bridge. We've actually got something; we can get over a river with it. But when they flush $380 million down the toilet because of their financial mismanagement and incompetence, people get really upset about that. As the member for Whitlam said, it takes so long to earn and it's terrible to see a government gambling it away. The coalition established a Senate inquiry after months of concerns about the ad hoc preparation for the 2026 Commonwealth Games. The Victorian government has shed no light on the finances for the games. In the inquiry, most of the phrases by witnesses were, 'We can't talk about it because it's commercial-in-confidence.' It is shrouded in secrecy. I think it's really shameful that, in Australia, we have a state government that is so cavalier with taxpayers' money and has subjected the Australian sporting reputation, which was magnificent after the Sydney Olympics and many other events, to such international embarrassment. The Andrews government has got to come clean about how it stuffed this up so badly. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 176304 Is the motion seconded? Mr Chester IPZ I second the motion and reserve my right to speak. 11:06 Ms CHESTERS 249710 Bendigo I am the federal member for Bendigo and the proud representative of Bendigo. Bendigo was to be one of the host cities for the 2026 Commonwealth Games. The previous speaker is right; the key host cities were Bendigo, Geelong and Ballarat. They are the big three regional cities of Victoria. But there were some other events that would occurred in Gippsland and Shepparton, just to round out that it would have been a regional games. When it was first announced that the Commonwealth Games were coming to regional Victoria, it was predicted it would generate about $3 billion for the Victorian economy. Numbers in this debate are important: it would have generated and contributed $3 billion towards the economy. Yet we found out earlier this year—and this was the reason for cancelling the games—that it would cost $6 billion to put the games on. It is no wonder people in my electorate did not disagree with the Premier's decision to cancel the games. A $6 billion spend for a $3 billion return—the numbers just don't stack up. I repeat what I just said: not one person in my electorate has told me they disagreed with the Premier's decision to cancel the games. Since the cancellation, including on the day of the cancellation, I have met with sporting groups. The Bendigo East Swimming Club didn't blink; they said the figure was pretty outrageous. What they want is support for their swimming club. They simply wanted an electric blanket to help heat the pool so they could extend their swimming season. Other groups in my electorate—bowls, which we were going to host in Bendigo—said they are relieved the games have been cancelled because it means they can get on with the discussion about a regional bowls hub in Bendigo, like they have in Shepparton and other parts of regional Victoria. Time and time again I heard from sporting groups in my electorate—who you'd think would be the biggest champions of the Commonwealth Games—that, secretly, quietly, they're relieved because now they feel the council can focus on their clubs and infrastructure needs. This is the crux of it: what could we do with that $6 billion in terms of regional sports infrastructure? There is the upgrading of change rooms, lighting and ovals, and making sure we can actually get the infrastructure we need. Why my city is okay with the decision the Victorian government has made is all the permanent infrastructure will still go ahead. Our showgrounds will still get their upgrades. All the other facilities that have been committed to will still get their upgrades. Most importantly, the money is being advanced to build social and community housing. People in my electorate desperate for housing will no longer have to wait for the Comm Games to happen and for the athlete's village to be repurposed into social and community housing. That will no longer have to happen. People will be able to access social and community housing sooner. This is another really big reason why my electorate is relieved and not critical of the government for cancelling the Comm Games. I had people in my electorate—renters—telling me that they were really nervous about being evicted from their homes in the lead-up to the Comm Games. They were worried that their landlords might put their properties up on Airbnb, because accommodation is a real factor in hosting the Comm Games. That's what people were worried about. I held a housing forum—not about the Comm Games but four weeks prior to this decision—and the same subject came up over and over again. People were nervous. They were nervous about what was going to happen in the lead-up to the Comm Games. What that points to is my electorate, like all the other regional electorates and members, know that this is not the right time to be hosting such an expensive Comm Games. It also puts these international competitions on notice. They have to be more realistic with their price tags for countries hosting these events. These event costs are blowing out. It's something we need to have a really honest conversation about with people in our communities, internationally and as governments. What else could we be doing on the ground in terms of local infrastructure with this money? Whether it be sporting upgrades or desperately needed housing, now's not the time for a $6 billion exercise on the Commonwealth Games. 11:11 Mr CHESTER IPZ Gippsland I have a great deal of sympathy for the member for Bendigo. I give her a lot of credit for bravely coming in here and try to defend the indefensible. When she says the Commonwealth Games are blowing out, she doesn't recognise that every project is blowing out in Victoria under the Andrews government. I do have a great deal of sympathy for the member for Bendigo and the other Victorian speakers who are going to be here today, trying to justify the level of dysfunctionality and incompetence which has become emblematic of the Andrews Labor government in Victoria. Remember, this is the government which paid $1.1 billion to not build a road. By their own standards, this wasn't their personal best. We're only talking $380 million for the Commonwealth Games—so $380 million to not host the Commonwealth Games, notwithstanding the other costs they've already occurred which we'll never hear about. The most obvious point—and the member for Nicholls touched on it—is that this has been an absolute debacle for the reputation of Victoria and for the reputation of Melbourne. Melbourne used to have a proud reputation. In fact Melbourne used to be known as a sporting capital of the world. Now it's a rorting capital of the world. Ministers have resigned in disgrace over the course of Premier Dan Andrews's term. We have seen every major project blow out with no consequences and no explanation whatsoever for why these costs are blowing out. And still the Premier—the Premier with the greatest chutzpah in the world—thinks we should be thanking him. Thank you, Premier for saving us $4 billion. It's like the arsonist turning up at a fire with the fire truck and hose saying: 'Thank me for putting the fire out.' This is a premier who told us only last year, in the lead-up to the state election, that the Commonwealth Games would cost about $2 billion, but now, according to Premier Andrews, they're going to cost between $6 billion and $7 billion. Notwithstanding that no Commonwealth Games in history has ever cost more than $2 billion in the first place, this buffoon, this fool, this incompetent man they call the Premier of Victoria has the chutzpah to turn up and say, 'Thank me, Victoria; I've just saved you $4 billion,' with not explanation about how those costs blew out in the first place. We have been consistently lied to by the Premier and his senior ministers over many, many months leading up to the state election and past the state election, saying how wonderful the Commonwealth Games are going to be for Bendigo, Ballarat, Geelong, Shepparton and Gippsland. The games were meant to deliver legacy infrastructure. Now we're not getting the games at all and we risk leaving the period of 2026 completely empty-handed because who believes this Premier when he says there's going to be $2 billion for regional infrastructure? Who believes him? Surely those opposite don't believe this buffoon when he says, 'There is $2 billion in regional infrastructure coming your way.' Surely you don't believe him. They don't believe him! Not a word of support for our poor Premier. Morwell was one region which stood to gain through upgrades to sporting facilities and housing infrastructure. Then we found out yesterday that the housing infrastructure plan was for 10,000 caravans—10,000 caravans was the Premier's plan for Victoria. But it gets better! The caravan industry was meant to give them to the Premier for free. He wasn't going to buy their caravans; he was meant to get 10,000 caravans for free. Then he tells us, 'Oh, the accommodation costs have blown out.' How did the accommodation costs blow out if the caravans were free from the caravan industry? This guy is the biggest goose that's ever led a state in Australia. I want to go specifically to the impact on my region. Morwell is a town meant to benefit through housing infrastructure but also through the proposed redevelopment of Latrobe City Sports and Entertainment Stadium, which was the old home ground for the Morwell Falcons national soccer league team. The state government has made commitments to Gippsland and to the people of Morwell that that facility would be upgraded as part of the Commonwealth Games. It is a facility that is in desperate need of upgrading. It's one that used to host the national soccer league games for the old Morwell Falcons. The people in that community are now telling me there is massive uncertainty. Are they still getting an upgrade at all? Will it be done by 2026, as was originally promised as part of the Commonwealth Games agreement? I'm aware of a master planning process that went on a couple of years ago through the Shire. I'm prepared to work with the Shire and the state and federal governments to deliver these upgrades, but we actually need the Premier to show us the money. Is the money still there? Are we going to see these upgrades in relation to the change rooms, the grandstand and the drainage on the field? These are things that the people of Morwell are saying: 'Premier, you promised us the Commonwealth Games; you promised us upgrades to our facilities. Right now, we have no Commonwealth Games.' We have a massive bill for Victorian taxpayers of $380 million, plus what we've already paid staff. It goes to the absolute heart of the dysfunctionality of the Victorian government under Premier Dan Andrews. 11:16 Ms RYAN 249224 Lalor I rise to follow the member for Gippsland, who had the 'chutzpah'—he used the word a few times—to come in here today to speak about a Victorian issue, but to speak about ministers resigning because of sports rorts, but suggesting they were Victorian ministers when everybody in this place knows there was a minister who resigned over sports rorts. It was a minister who resigned over sports rorts; it was a federal minister in the previous government. In fact, it was a national minister in the former government that the member for Gippsland might want to remember. There is no-one more disappointed than me that Victoria won't be hosting the Commonwealth Games. I don't live in regional Victoria. In fact, I represent a city that has grown fast to 320,000— An honourable member interjecting— Ms RYAN 249224 Right next door to Geelong! But we weren't part of this regional development because we're outer suburban. But I was looking forward to watching the Australian Diamonds play in a Commonwealth Games in regional Victoria. My federal colleagues and I in the federal parliament share the disappointment that the Commonwealth Games won't happen in regional Victoria. We don't, however—like those opposite—want to politicise it. It seems perfectly reasonable to me that, if costs have blown to $6 billion, the Victorian government has made a tough decision in a cost-of-living crisis, where we have big build happening and where we have a focus around the need for housing. And, yes, we have a focus around the need for supporting infrastructure, a perennial issue, but it seems to me that they have made the tough decision to maintain a $2 billion spend to fulfil commitments to regional communities, including housing, but to save the state the cost of the Commonwealth Games. Those opposite omitted to talk about the fact that the Commonwealth Games itself came to Victoria and asked for help and that this is not the only place that has reversed a decision around the Commonwealth Games. We are reminded that the Canadian province of Alberta has withdrawn its support to host the 2030 Commonwealth Games, citing costs and other difficulties. Given that this is the federal parliament, we might want to talk about this federal government's commitment to sport. We might want to talk about the fabulous things that are happening now. We might want to mention the wonderful FIFA Women's World Cup event. To give credit where it's due, the former government did make a commitment to supporting the FIFA Women's World Cup. We've just had the joy of seeing that on our own shores. In my patch, we were hosts to Morocco as part of that. It generated an enormous amount of excitement in our communities and for young people. But, on top of that, this government, rather than finger-pointing, is focused on moving forward with inspirational and world-class sporting events—the green and gold decade of major sporting events being hosted in Australia, culminating in the Brisbane 2032 Olympic and Paralympic games. We're delivering record investment in boosting sports participation and developing the next generation of Australian athletes and para athletes. We've worked collaboratively with the Queensland government to reach the funding agreement to deliver the infrastructure at the heart of Brisbane 2032, with the intergovernmental agreement signed by the Prime Minister and the Queensland Premier in February. There hasn't been a lot of talk about that from those opposite. The Australian government will be central to project planning and delivery, with decisions to be made jointly by both governments as the project progresses. Not only that, as recently as the past fortnight, we announced a special grants program around women's participation in sport, and we put together—not just announced—a program. I say that because, following the previous government, who were most noted for their coloured spreadsheets around sports grants, this government is being particularly careful. I want to mention Minister Wells for pulling together the expert panel around that $200 million grant program—people who have lived for sport and people who have competed in sport at the highest levels representing Australia who are now going to be sitting at a table working with our peak sports bodies to determine where those funds go. This is a government that values sport, it's a government that understands the power of sport and it's a government that wants to see Australia compete at the highest levels and at the grassroots. 11:21 Dr WEBSTER 281688 Mallee I rise as a proud Victorian member of this federal parliament to speak on the Victorian government's body blow to the reputation of my great state. I am of course talking about the Andrews Labor government's decision to withdraw from hosting the 2026 Commonwealth Games. Not only was it a wrecking ball to the state's reputation but it also hurts regional Victorian towns. This was to be a showcase of regional Victoria—though, sadly, not for any town in my electorate of Mallee. My constituents have grown accustomed to being ignored by this state government. Premier Andrews has lowered Victoria's standing on a number of levels. Victoria has always had a great reputation as a sporting mecca. The AFL Grand Final, the Boxing Day cricket test, Formula 1's Australian Grand Prix and even the recent NRL State of Origin games have proven Victoria's ability to play host to events that the eyes of the nation and the world focus on. The Commonwealth Games would have been yet another example but with a wider lens. The events I just listed have centred around Melbourne, but the games were to broaden to regional Victoria. It was going to be a celebration of what the great state of Victoria has to offer beyond the city limits of Melbourne, and there is plenty, I can assure you. But now Victoria has been left humiliated—a state that cannot be relied on to complete what it starts. Yes, the Andrews government has failed the people of Victoria and tainted the Victorian brand. Who says yes to a major global event but then walks away due to their own planning failure? Premier Andrews has not ruled out bidding for the 2034 FIFA men's World Cup matches. I laughed when I read that. You can bet there will be trepidation the next time an international sporting body looks to Victoria under the Andrews Labor government to host an event. Premier Andrews's stated reason for the cancellation of the games was a $67 billion cost blowout. This startling figure demonstrates the incompetence of the Victorian government and its key decision-makers. Either they made a serious miscalculation years earlier in their original decision to host the games or they are incapable of managing major projects. You have to ask the question. Now taxpayers are footing the $380 million bill for Victoria to pull out of hosting these games. The fallout from 'Disastrous' Dan Andrews pulling the plug on Victoria hosting the Commonwealth Games has shown just how little regard the Victorian government has for its regions, even those that are traditionally strong Labor voting areas. Regional groups have told a Senate inquiry that they were ignored by the Victorian government as they sounded the alarm on decisions about facilities and the housing of Commonwealth Games participants. In Ballarat, requests to improve housing around the inner city fell on deaf ears as the state pushed ahead with plans for an athlete's village in an industrial area instead. In Bendigo, another Labor stronghold, the local table tennis association only learnt that their city would be hosting the sport when it was announced. The Andrews government clearly didn't feel the need to give them the respect of a heads up. In Gippsland, Morwell was chosen to host rugby sevens despite having no local union or league teams, with both the NRL and Rugby Australia raising questions about the event's value to the town. Regional communities simply were not consulted, a trend with the Andrews government. They might have actually been able to solve some of the problems that caused the government's costing blowout. When you consult, you learn and negotiate, and the Andrews Labor government has done neither. What Victorians have been left with is a state that has failed to pull off what should have been a significant event. In the eyes of the world, we have been embarrassed by the Victorian Labor government and by Premier Daniel Andrews. I stand with my fellow Victorian colleagues on this matter. We will not let our state government's failure be simply brushed under the carpet. It is not good enough. 11:26 Ms FERNANDO 299964 Holt I always note that two things bring our communities together—food and sport. So many young people and their families in my electorate of Holt are invested in the sport of their choice, spending hours in varying conditions, all for the passion of the game. But with this passion also comes common sense. It is safe to say that a player will continue to play on until the risks are too much to bear. This common sense applied on the field extends to the common sense applied off the field, especially in the case of the Victorian government's decision to not continue hosting the 2026 regional Commonwealth Games. The Albanese Labor government shares and understands the disappointing news of the Victorian government's cancellation of the 2026 Commonwealth Games. It has impacted many, particularly Australia's best athletes and para-athletes, by removing an additional competition opportunity on the pathway to the 2032 Brisbane Olympic and Paralympic Games. But Labor governments look at many things, with the sound and impartial assessment of risk and reward. All governments, be they local, state or federal, have to make difficult decisions and choices in the best interests of the communities they serve. The primary reason Victoria agreed to host the games was to deliver lasting benefits in housing, tourism and supporting infrastructure across regional Victoria. This was intended to be accomplished with a budget of $2.6 billion. Unfortunately, according to public statements from the Victorian premier, the cost of hosting the regional Victorian Commonwealth Games will exceed $6 billion, more than twice the estimated economic benefit the games would bring to Victoria. This, rightfully so, is a cost blowout. If the costs significantly outweigh the economic benefits and outcomes, it will be an injustice to the Victorian people to continue with a project that does not deliver net benefits to them. Victorian regional communities can and will continue to preserve in the absence of the games not because they do not deserve to host them but because they are more resilient than relying on a single event to showcase their greatness. Is it justifiable in this current economic climate to redirect money from other areas of the state budget to impact every day Victorians? No. This is why the Victorian government's decision to cancel the 2026 regional Commonwealth Games was a sound decision. Again, sometimes governments need to make difficult and unpopular decisions for the greater benefit of the community. Victoria can and will continue to be the centre of major sporting events. Outside of the two times over COVID, Victoria hosted the AFL Grand Final, and it continues to be the hub for many sporting events, like the Australian Open and the Grand Prix. It is silly to assume the reputation of Victoria being a centre for major sporting events will be impacted by a single decision. In light of all of this, there is a silver lining: in lieu of games funding, the Victorian government announced a $2 billion spend package for regional Victoria. This is to ensure regional Victoria will receive all benefits that would have been facilitated by the games, and so much more. The Victorian government has committed to the people of Victoria that every one of the permanent, new and upgraded sporting infrastructure projects planned as part of the games will still proceed and will be completed as planned. The Albanese Labor government is focused on moving forward. A decision has been made. We will continue progressing with inspirational and world-class sporting events. The green and gold decade of major sporting events being hosted in Australia, culminating in the Brisbane 2032 Olympic and Paralympic Games, will be spectacular. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 249710 The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. Trade with the European Union 119 11:31 Mr GEORGANAS DZY Adelaide I move: That this House: (1) notes the mature approach which has been demonstrated by the Government in the ongoing negotiation of a trade agreement with the European Union; (2) congratulates the Government for its unwavering support of Australia's interests, including those of Australian farmers, businesses, and exporters during these negotiations; and (3) supports the Minister for Trade and Tourism in his ongoing fight for a deal that defends Australia's interests and delivers meaningful outcomes for Australia's workers, businesses, and consumers. The Albanese Labor government believes in free, fair and open trade. Our focus is very clear. This government's trade strategy articulates a key concept: trade diversification. It's not just a notion; it's the very core of our approach. It's an approach where we not only strengthen but expand our trading relationships, particularly in our own backyard. This isn't just about to trade; it's about building bridges and relationships that lead to a stronger, more prosperous future. For example, in the green energy economy area, by building stronger international partnerships on green trade and investment, we can harness the potential of hydrogen and critical minerals. The goal is clear: global leadership, focusing on what's sustainable, to drive Australia to become a renewable energy superpower. By investing in green industries, we're investing in our shared tomorrow. It is a journey marked by action, not just words. For example, developing a Southeast Asian economic strategy is a vital initiative. Multilateral, rules based trading systems, defending and reaffirming the multilateral rules based trading system including the World Trade Organization, is not just a priority; it's a necessity. We have a responsibility to be responsive, efficient and capable of addressing modern challenges. The EU free trade agreement negotiations are taking place at the moment, and this government is all about paving the way for a better future, a future where a free trade agreement with the EU is a reality. In our trade landscape, the EU is Australia's third-largest trading partner. The EU is massive. It's a high-income market of around 450 million people with a GDP of around $24 trillion in 2022. The bilateral trade spanning both goods and services surged to an impressive $97 billion during the period 2021-22. This agreement could serve as a platform for addressing critical global challenges. Australia has made it clear we are committed to clean energy transitions, and so has the EU. The EU has made it clear that companies are eager to tap into Australian critical minerals. Strengthening our economic partnership will play a pivotal role in reaching the goal of working to eliminate import tariffs on critical minerals. To make this dream a reality, the Minister for Trade and Tourism is currently negotiating to secure the best trade deal possible with the EU, and we will only sign off on a deal that delivers commercially meaningful market access for Australian farmers. This government will only agree to a deal that delivers outcomes in the interest of Australian people because that is the No. 1 goal. We're very interested in protecting workers rights during these negotiations, as well. In fact, this agreement would go further to implement legally binding commitments to uphold labour rights, placing the essence of International Labour Organization conventions at its heart. So we're committed to strengthening the role of civil society engagement, including unions, because we recognise the pivotal role that they play. So, if you're still asking yourself why free trade agreements with the EU are important, be assured the answer is clear and it's big: trade doesn't merely play a part in Australia's GDP; it forms a significant 29 per cent. This isn't just about numbers; it's about lives. One in every four Australian jobs is intertwined with trade. In my electorate of Adelaide, we had some great businesses showcased right here in parliament last year which were the 2022 national finalists for the 60th Australian Export Awards. We had Avance Clinical in the international health category, Accolade Wines in the sustainability category and ODD Games in the creative industries category, and we had a great company called MyVenue, which was the winner in the emerging exporter category. All are great businesses within the trade sector in my electorate. They are great reminders that the trade industry is important locally and nationally and that jobs within export industries bring home incomes that exceed the national average by a notable five per cent. In a global landscape, this agreement with the EU isn't just a deal—it's a strategic step towards amplifying Australia's trade potential, fostering economic resilience and forging a pathway to shared prosperity. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 249710 Is the motion seconded? Mr Repacholi 298840 I second the motion and reserve my right to speak. 11:36 Dr HAINES 282335 Indi I thank the member for Adelaide for this motion. A free trade agreement between Australia and the European Union holds great potential for Australian producers and consumers. Like many in this place, I support the principle of increasing trade avenues for our industries, particularly in agriculture. But, while the agreement still under negotiation holds potential, many in my region in north-east Victoria are deeply concerned at what such an agreement could mean for them with its potential to greatly harm their livelihoods if the government was to sign onto an agreement which is bad for Australia. The fear in my electorate comes from seeing the demands by the EU when it comes to geographic indications on products, specifically the demand from Italy that grape growers and winemakers in Australia be banned from using the name 'Prosecco'. Almost 60 per cent of Australia's Prosecco is grown in the beautiful King Valley in my electorate of Indi, a key pillar of the viticulture industry, which is a main employer in my region. Prosecco is worth more than $200 million a year to Australia's economy in sales alone, with even more value added when you consider the tourism and hospitality industries as well. If the use of the name Prosecco was banned, it would cause significant economic distress to this industry, causing confusion to consumers, adding significant costs and reducing sales. Free trade agreements are supposed to increase prosperity and jobs, but a free trade agreement that sells our Prosecco would do the exact opposite. As parliamentarians we want to encourage industries which are growing and innovating, and Prosecco producers in my electorate of Indi are doing just that. They are family owned businesses putting in the work and reaping the rewards. We must not let them down. Doctor Hazel Moir, an expert in geographic indications at the Australian National University, was quoted in the Sydney Morning Herald recently. Dr Moir has empirical evidence on geographic indications, or GIs, as they're known. Dr Moir says it's clear that banning the use of names such as Prosecco or feta would hurt Australian producers, but what isn't clear, she says, is how limiting the use of such terms actually benefits consumers or producers who are able to use the protected term. What that means is the bid to stifle the use of the name Prosecco is not about creating benefits for Italian producers but about actively harming Australian producers, and such a move should not be rewarded and codified into any free trade agreement. At this point, it must be noted that we're speaking about a grape variety and not a method, such as champagne. It's very important to get the facts right because it was only in 2009 that Italy changed the name of the grape variety to 'glera' and registered 'prosecco' as a geographic indicator in the European Union. But this is not just an argument about cold hard economics; it's also about our identity as a nation, proud of its migrant history. The first prosecco vines in Australia were planted by Otto Dal Zotto, who decided to plant the variety because it reminded him of his childhood home in Italy, in Valdobbiadene. To hear Otto speak about prosecco, you know this is about so much more than the bottom line; it's about maintaining that identity, it's about growing that connection and it's about us as a migrant nation and seeing us thrive for decades into the future. Some members may be listening to this right now and thinking, 'Well, there's no prosecco in my region; this isn't a big deal.' But if GI status were to be granted to prosecco, it would create a concerning precedent for other wine varieties. In recent EU trade negotiations with China, Japan, Mexico, Brazil, Argentina, Paraguay, Uruguay and New Zealand, attempts were made to protect an expanding list of grape varieties—so this could just be the start. I understand negotiating a free trade agreement not an easy thing to do, and I am grateful to the trade minister, Don Farrell, who last year took the time to meet the grape growers and winemakers from the King Valley and hear about this issue and what prosecco means to them. I know that Minister Farrell understands deeply how important it is to remain steadfast on this point, with no backward steps. I thank the member for this motion, and I absolutely underscore the importance of protecting our prosecco industry and making sure we get the best results under this EU deal for our country. 11:41 Mr REPACHOLI 298840 Hunter We are a government who stands up for Australians. We are a government who believes in free, fair and open trade. We stand up for Australians here at home and also on the world stage. Standing up for Australia is exactly what we're doing right now by engaging in ongoing negotiation of a trade agreement with the European Union. The EU is a massive market, and this is a massive opportunity for our country. The EU has tariffs higher than Australia's. That is why this agreement is so important. Currently, Australian exports to the EU face tariffs of up to 12 per cent on minerals and metals, 10 per cent on wooden paper and seven per cent on chemicals. This agreement will mean Australia will seek the elimination of all EU tariffs on industrial goods, which will give a big advantage to Australian goods exporters. The EU is Australia's third-largest trading partner, with a total two-way trade on goods and services worth $97 billion in 2021 and 2022. There is a long list of benefits this trade agreement will bring. It will significantly improve market access for Australian exports. An agreement like this will provide guaranteed access for Australian service providers. This agreement will see the expansion of the two-way investment flows. It will also provide a more predictable and seamless business environment that will implement rules to support the digital economy and innovation. An agreement like this will help to create reduced costs and help cut through the red tape—particularly for small business and medium-sized business, who will both hugely benefit as a result of this deal. We will also help consumers by providing greater customer choice. Another benefit is this deal will lead to a higher standard, including on sustainable development. It makes sense we should have a deal like this in place with the EU. We have a lot of common interests with the EU, as we have a lot to offer the consumers over there. One common interest is wine—and my electorate has stacks of that. Members of the EU like France and Italy think they have great wine. They do, but it just doesn't quite compare to the wine from the Hunter and Australian regions. The thing with some countries in the EU is they think they own all wine. They even want to stop us from calling wines certain names like 'prosecco'. This is another thing this government is standing up for in these negotiations with the EU, because it's not right and it doesn't make sense that the best prosecco in the world can't be called 'prosecco'. Our prosecco industry is hugely important. It's worth over $200 million and, at the moment, is fetching the second-highest average grape price of any white grape variety. If we are unable to call our prosecco by its proper name, it won't be able to be sent all over the world. This will be a big hit on the industry and a massive hit on my electorate and all the producers of prosecco in the Hunter and also Australia. It's important that we put our foot down now. prosecco is a variety of grape; no-one should own the name of a variety of a grape. If the EU is able to stop us from using the name of a variety of grape from our products, who knows what other terms will not be able to be used? This is also dangerous for other varieties of wine that could also fall victim to their naming rights being taken by the EU. This trade agreement will give us the opportunity to make sure that prosecco producers in this country get a fair. It will allow us to stand up for an industry and protect Australian prosecco. By protecting Australian prosecco, we are showing our unwavering support for what is in Australia's best interests. We are looking out for Australian farmers and businesses, as well as our exporters. We are making sure that this trade agreement is good for farmers, businesses and exporters, and good for the whole of Australia. I want to give a special mention to the Minister for Trade and Tourism, Don Farrell, who is doing a great job of negotiating this deal. Not only is this good for our farmers, businesses and exporters; it will also have real-world impact on our workers and our consumers. 11:46 Mr HOGAN 218019 Page I acknowledge the member for moving this motion and agree with a lot of what is in it. This country's wealth was born in the early 1980s—I'll even acknowledge Paul Keating as Treasurer—when Paul Keating embarked on a lower taxes, lower tariff economic model. From that, and followed by the Howard government and others since, those policies have driven the wealth and the growth of this country and given us a quality of living that we have now enjoyed for over 40 years. One of the great unsung achievements of the previous coalition government, between 2013 and 2022, was in the Fee Trade Area agreement. I've just seen a former trade minister walk in. Through that time, we had goods and services that were covered by a free trade agreement go from 20 per cent to—and the minister here did the two deals; the UK deal and the India deal—80 per cent. That's been a great thing; that's been no small thing. There's a big test here for the Labor government. They don't have a good record in nailing free trade agreements. The EU trade agreement is going to be a test for them. I also note that these free trade agreements have encouraged growth in our export areas. Because we have extra markets for things that we export, there has been a hell of a lot of investment in the areas that we excel at exporting. Currently, those areas are coal, gas, iron ore and ag. Those four areas combined are probably generating, give or take, depending on the prices of those commodities--let's round it out at $400 billion. That would generate—this is back-of-envelope stuff—over $100 billion a year into the three different levels of government income, whether it be royalties, company taxes or pay-as-you-go taxes for those who work in those areas. Those areas of funding our country right now, and the investment has gone into those areas because of the free trade agreements that have been driven largely by a coalition government. I note, though, that the union movement and parts of Labor don't like free trade agreements. Last year, members of the CFMEU said before a committee that they don't like free trade agreements and they think they take Australian jobs—albeit one in four jobs is related to an export industry. Work that one out. So, I note that there are areas within Labor that do not like free trade agreements. In fact, I remember speaking to Andrew Robb, a great previous coalition trade minister, who said that his job was to do three free trade agreements in his first 12 months. The South Korean trade agreement was ready to sign because the previous Labor minister wasn't allowed to sign it because there was an ISDS provision in it. This is good news in trade for our country. I certainly wish the current minister well in negotiating a good deal. What will a good deal look like for Australia? It's always a sticking point, and I've had many amicable conversations with the minister, but he can't surrender on whole beef, sheep, rice, dairy and sugar quotas. He's saying he's not going to surrender on that. We have to get good access for our agricultural sectors. The quotas are really important, and, within that, there are things we need to look out for. Just quietly, I don't think New Zealand's deal with the EU was a great deal for New Zealand. The EU can't impose their farming practices on us. We have a very different farming sector. We have broadacre farming. We do a lot of things differently from Europe, because they don't have the space to do it the way we do. They even divide up grass and grain fed beef. We have to have access for both those different categories and not surrender the way New Zealand did. Mind you, New Zealand don't have a lot of grain fed beef. That being said, we cannot agree to some of the things New Zealand did. I've made that very clear to the minister as well. And we can't import the farming practices that the EU use, because ours are just not equivalent. Another thing that has been mentioned is GIs. I've met the prosecco growers in the King Valley in Victoria, and I've spoken to the minister. Not only do we not want to give that up; we can't grandfather it. What do I mean by grandfathering? It means allowing existing producers to use terms like prosecco or feta or any other GIs, but new producers can't. That doesn't work either. How do you onsell a business if the new owner potentially can't use that? So they have to be ruled out completely. This has to be a good deal. This deal will stand for long time. It has to be a good deal for the Australian community. 11:51 Mr LAXALE 299174 Bennelong I'd like to thank the member for Adelaide for the opportunity to speak to this motion, and I note his commitment to free and open trade, particularly in his role as chair of the Joint Standing Committee on Trade and Investment Growth. Free, fair and open trade is fundamental to Australia's place in our global economy. It underpins our economic prosperity. It underpins industry growth, resilience and innovation, and it has an important part to play in international relations. The government is committed to generating new international trade and investment opportunities to drive Australia's economy, employment and growth. In this ever-changing global landscape, trade diversification is the linchpin of our trade policy strategy. We recognise the need to deepen and diversify our trading relationships, particularly within our own region. One of the most significant trade negotiations in recent times is our ongoing pursuit of a free trade agreement with the European Union. The EU has a massive market—approximately 450 million people and a GDP of around $24 trillion in 2022. This presents a substantial opportunity for Australia. As a block, the EU is our third largest trading partner, with two-way trade, goods and services worth nearly $100 billion in our financial year 2021-2022. Our relationship with the EU is built on a strong foundation of shared democratic values and a like-minded approach to various international issues. Therefore, securing a comprehensive trade deal with the EU is not merely an economic endeavour but also a very important strategic one. Europe is seeking out stable, like-minded partners and, in Australia, they have one. A free trade agreement with the EU will strengthen our economic and trade links at a time of heightened geostrategic uncertainty. It will enable us to diversify our trade portfolio and collaborate with like-minded partners on critical issues facing the globe, such as climate, energy and upholding the global rules based trading system. An FTA with Europe would be good for Europe, but it also must be good for Australia. While great progress has been made on the finalisation of this agreement, understandably some negotiations have presented unique challenges, particularly in certain agricultural sectors where offers have not met Australia's initial expectations. The Minister for Trade and Tourism has been integral in ensuring that our national interests are not compromised and ensuring that the government does not settle for a deal that falls short of our community's expectations or our needs. We need an agreement that provides good outcomes, particularly for Australian farmers and businesses. Negotiating a comprehensive trade agreement with the EU is not a task that should be rushed or undertaken lightly. It's a process that demands careful consideration, strategic planning and unwavering dedication. To that end, I applaud the minister for making it clear that the Australian government will only accept a trade deal if it delivers commercially meaningful market access for Australian agricultural products. In an era where economic prosperity is deeply intertwined with international trade, the minister's resolute stance reflects his commitment to promoting Australian exports and bolstering our domestic industries. His insistence on commercially meaningful market access for agricultural products and his promotion of clean energy transition and, importantly, workers' rights demonstrates our government's unwavering dedication to our national interest. The Albanese Labor government's commitment to free, fair and open trade is unwavering. We believe in generating new international trade opportunities, defending and reforming the global rules-based trading system and building partnerships that align with our ambitions for a renewable energy future. We've got so much to give in this space. We truly can become a renewable energy superpower. It would in particular serve Europe's interests that we supplied them with our goods, wouldn't it? As we navigate the complexities of these negotiations with the EU, we must remember why it is crucial to take the time necessary to ensure the best possible outcomes for all Australians. A comprehensive trade agreement with the EU is not a transaction; it's an investment in our future and our industry. The potential benefits of this agreement extend far beyond immediate economic gains. They offer a pathway to prosperity, job creation and sustainable growth for our nation. Therefore, it's imperative that we give due diligence to these negotiations to secure the best deal for Australians. Rushing through this process would be a disservice, and I applaud the minister's efforts to date and wish him well for future negotiations. 11:56 Mr TEHAN 210911 Wannon I also congratulate the member for Adelaide for this motion, because it comes at an incredibly important time for the Australia-European Union Free Trade Agreement negotiations. It's an important time because we all have an interest in making sure that the government gets this right and, in particular, that the new trade minister gets it right. The new trade minister so far has had a pretty easy job. He's been going around basically promoting the work that was done by the previous government, saying: 'Isn't it great that we've got a UK free trade agreement, signed and negotiated by the previous government? Isn't it great that we've got an India free trade agreement, signed and negotiated by the previous government?' It's pretty easy going around claiming credit for other people's work. I must commend the new trade minister. He's been pretty good at taking credit for other people's work, and good luck to him, because those two agreements are in the national interest. But the rubber hits the road here for the new trade minister. This is where we see whether he can take his training wheels off or not. He's right in the middle now of a serious negotiation, which we have to get right. As we all know, 50 years ago the EU changed its trading arrangements with Australia and New Zealand, and they said to New Zealand and Australia, 'We'll give you some benefits.' In the end, those benefits have worked much more for the EU than they have for Australia and for New Zealand. New Zealand have negotiated an FTA with the EU, and, as has been mentioned previously, we think in the end that New Zealand probably short-changed themselves. We do not want to see that happen to Australia. So what we have to do is ensure that we get good outcomes when it comes to dairy, sheep, beef, sugar and rice. We have to make sure that EU farm practices are not exported to Australia, and we have to make sure that we get good outcomes when it comes to GI. The new trade minister understands that, and, to his credit, he stared the EU down when they tried to say, 'This is as good as it gets.' But now what we require is a significant amount of hard work to make sure that we get the outcome that we want. If we get a good outcome with the EU, it will take the proportion of our trade covered by free trade agreements beyond 80 per cent and heading towards 90 per cent. That is a huge win for our exporters, but we've got to make sure that we get the right outcome. Having negotiated with Valdis Dombrovskis, I know that the EU trade commissioner is very detail oriented and very diligent in his work. He does his homework and comes to every negotiation very prepared. What we have to ensure is that we are doing exactly the same. This will not be an easy negotiation. This is going to get in the trenches. We have to make sure that, as we have done once before, we can do it again—that we will walk away. There is too much at stake here. Fifty years of missing out on access to the EU market is at stake here, and our farmers are watching. They want to make sure that, when it comes to rice, dairy, sugar, beef and lamb, we get the access we need and deserve. They want to make sure that, when it comes to GIs, we do not give away too much that will then impact on our agricultural production here in Australia. And we should note those farm practices that the EU have for a variety of reasons—and that's ultimately up to them—and the regulation they have which kills and stifles their farmers. We have to ensure that we do not see that type of regulation kill and stifle our farmers. 12:01 Ms LAWRENCE 299150 Hasluck Berrys Creek Gourmet Cheese from South Gippsland in Victoria has been named Supreme Artisan at the 2023 International Cheese and Dairy Awards. They are the first Australian company ever to attain that great height. It's a fantastic example of Aussie endeavour, and I congratulate Berrys Creek and master cheesemaker Barry Charlton. I'll be keeping an eye out for a piece of Berrys Creek blue the next time I'm shopping. It's also an example of why the government is proceeding with great care in the negotiations for the free-trade agreement with the European Union. We have excellent manufacturers right here doing great work and, increasingly, beating the Europeans at their own game. In London earlier this year, our own Old Young's Gin from the Swan Valley in Hasluck took out the prestigious Craft Producer of the Year award, and Victoria's Four Pillars Gin's Cameron Mackenzie was named Master Distiller. Indeed, Western Australia traded $9.2 billion worth of goods with the EU last year, which accounted for 29 per cent of Australia's goods exports to the EU. While this mostly comprised gold and canola, WA has a growing range of products being exported, from wines made in Hasluck by Oakover and Garbin Estates all the way to ACUS water tanks. There is, though, a significant trade imbalance in favour of the EU. We import more than double our exports to the EU across both goods and services. It is a market of 446 million people with a nominal GDP of US$16.6 trillion. There is significant scope for Australian exports to the EU to grow. In 2022, Australia ranked as the EU's 18th-biggest trade partner in goods, while the EU was Australia's third-largest trading partner after China and Japan. The interests of our current exporters and our up-and-coming businesses for whom export will be an option are paramount, so we do need to be appropriately cautious, which is what the government is doing. At the same time, in a world in which it is imperative that we diversify our supply chains and export ties and in which we seek to attract investment for our green energy transition, Australia has much to gain from the completion of this and other agreements. There are many products already being exported to the world which could be the subject of increased exports to the EU. These include our Wagyu beef, WA malting barley, seafood, truffles and Noongar country 's own jarrah honey. I spoke on this matter in November last year and noted that one of the major obstacles to the completion of the agreement was the former government's failure to take climate change and emissions targets and legislation seriously. We are now on the same page with the EU on climate matters, and negotiations have been able to proceed on that basis. It's marvellous the difference a little bit of science can make. Organisations making submissions to DFAT on the agreement process have supported the proposed FTA. The Australian Grape and Wine Authority note significant advantages to Australian producers and exporters. The Australian Food and Grocery Council notes that the EU is the largest market not yet covered by a bilateral agreement. The Minerals Council meanwhile notes the potential benefits for the export not only of minerals but also of Australia's highly regarded mining services sector. Mining operations all over the world benefit from our expertise, with service exports by companies such as Blast Movement Technologies. Service exports are an important part of Australia's trade relationship with the EU, and there is scope for further growth. The 15th round of negotiations concluded in April and did not bring the FTA to completion. The EU's report on the process however described discussions as constructive with both sides sharing a commitment to a rapid conclusion. DFAT too noted that the substantial progress made puts us on track for an early conclusion of an ambitious and comprehensive trade agreement. Trade Minister Farrell is resolute in ensuring that Australia gets the best deal possible, particularly for the agricultural and food sectors. And I'm pleased to see the opinion piece from Tony Mahar, from the National Farmers Federation, following the minister's trip to Brussels supporting his efforts. The Prime Minister has emphasised that the FTA will only be concluded when it contains new market access for our agriculture products, and that is appropriate. Blessed are the cheesemakers, the vintners, the brewers, the growers, the farmers and the manufacturers across the nation. Their interests are being well represented by Minister Farrell, himself a vintner. We look forward to progress and to completion, in the interests of both Australia and the EU. 12:06 Mr RICK WILSON 198084 O'Connor I rise today to support and thank the member for Adelaide for bringing forward this motion on this very important issue not only to Australia as a whole but to the miners and farmers in my electorate of O'Connor in particular. I cannot speak on trade agreements in this place without mentioning the great Bert Kelly, the modest member who represented the seat of—I'm going to have to refer to people more knowledgeable than me about Bert Kelly's seat, but he was certainly a South Australian member who fought for free trade back in the 1970s when it was very unfashionable in this place. I also want to mention Labor member Peter Walsh, who was the finance minister in the first Bob Hawke government. He was from Doodlakine, near Kellerberrin in my electorate of O'Connor. He also fought very hard for a free market for Australian farmers. The current EU free trade negotiations will replace a 50-year-old agreement. That agreement was made in a very different time, back in the early 1970s, when the European Union had a butter mountain and an ocean of milk and other agricultural products that they were very much oversupplied in. The deal Australia got at that time was very poor not just by international standards but certainly by the standards compared to our neighbours, such as New Zealand. This negotiation is a great opportunity to put those wrongs to right. I applaud Minister Farrell for the work he's done thus far. To put numbers on the benefits to agriculture and the farmers in my electorate, at the moment we currently sell $4 per head of agricultural produce or food to the European Union. They sell $200 per head of food to the Australian people. The average tariff on agricultural produce is 14.2 per cent. Going into specifics, on dairy that's 32 per cent, on sugar that's 27 per cent and on meat that's 19 per cent. At the moment, with the Western Australian meat market in freefall due to the current government's policy on live exports, we're seeing animals that have virtually no commercial value at the moment. It is critically important to Western Australian farmers that we get access to sell more meat into the European Union. If all tariffs to the European Union were eliminated, that would mean an additional $31 billion in GDP to the Australian economy. What do we have in return for the European Union? Of course, we have critical minerals. That is something that Western Australia has in abundance. Last week, I was very pleased and honoured to introduce the shadow minister for resources, Senator Susan McDonald, to many of the operators in my electorate in Western Australia. We went to the Kathleen Valley lithium plant, which is nearly up and running, and we also visited the Lynas Rare Earths plant in Kalgoorlie, which is also nearing completion and moving into the production phase. These are important elements that will be required for the transition to more renewable energy, and they are also used in a lot of our high-tech gear, such as mobile phones. At the moment, the Chinese control in excess of 90 per cent of the world's critical minerals. Therefore, Australia has a very strong bargaining position. One of the things I urge Minister Farrell to be very cautious of is allowing the European Union to impose their farming practices on our farmers. We have glyphosate, which is a very, very important chemical for the Australian farming sector. Some may say it is probably the most important investment in agriculture since humans first started to plant crops. It is critically important that we don't allow the European Union to impose their values in relation to glyphosate on us, and also in relation to methane emissions and nitrogen. We have seen Dutch farmers driven to the wall and, basically, rebel against their governments. We have to be eternally vigilant about not allowing the European Union to impose those practices on our hardworking farmers. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 249710 The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and a resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. Natural Disasters 125 12:12 Mr GEE 261393 Calare I move: That this House: (1) notes that Australia has endured an unprecedented number of natural disasters in the past two years; (2) recognises the immense hardships faced by people across Australia in the aftermath of natural disasters; (3) acknowledges that the response to these natural disasters by governments and insurance companies has been, in some cases, grossly inadequate; (4) further recognises the invaluable work of organisations that support communities through natural disasters such as our first responders including the Rural Fire Service, State Emergency Service, Lifeline, Rapid Relief Team, Rotary and Lions; and (5) calls on: (a) Commonwealth and state governments to activate the full suite of disaster assistance and make it available to devastated communities across Australia, including to Central West New South Wales; and (b) the Commonwealth Government to pursue equality in disaster relief that ensures no Australian, regardless of their postcode or economic status, is left behind when disaster strikes. Ten months ago, the residents of Eugowra, Molong, Canowindra, Cudal, Manildra, Wellington and many places in between had their lives changed forever when unprecedented storms unleashed horrifying amounts of water across our region. Ten months on, and the hurt, pain and sense of loss is just as raw. Six months ago, the lives and livelihoods of residents in the Hill End area were devastated when massive bushfires tore through their homes and farms. Six months on, residents feel forgotten. The feelings of grief and loss in our communities are palpable. While the support from our fellow residents of the Central West and our fellow Australians around the nation has been extraordinary, unfortunately the same cannot be said about assistance provided by governments. For the storm and fire hit Central West, successive state governments have failed to activate joint state and federal support. I again ask in this House: why does the Northern Rivers area have access to the home buyback and retrofit scheme, but the storm and flood hit areas of the Central West do not? Why is it that other local government areas have access to the Community Assets Program to help rebuild their towns and villages, but councils in our region do not? Why hasn't a grant program similar to the Northern Rivers Commercial Property Return to Business Support Grant been announced for our storm and flood hit areas? Why is travelling on our bridges and roads still like being in a war zone? The Nyrang Creek Bridge and the road between Wellington and Dunedoo are still closed. How can it be that in 2023 we are closing roads instead of fixing them? Why are residents in the fire hit Hill End region still excluded from the $75,000 Special Disaster Grants to help them bounce back from those devastating bushfires? Today I ask: why haven't these questions been answered by state or federal government? Since the disasters struck our region, I have repeatedly called on the state and federal governments to activate the full suite of disaster assistance to our flood and fire ravaged communities. It has not been forthcoming. This has been an appalling failure by the major parties. It is a failure by the previous Liberal and National parties government in New South Wales to activate this support when they were in power, and it's also a failure on the part of their federal colleagues in the same parties—in particular, the National Party, which almost 12 months on has only just taken an interest in this issue. It's also a failure on the part of the current New South Wales Labor government, which has the means to deliver this assistance. There is failure too on the part of the current federal government for not sufficiently pressuring their state colleagues about this urgent issue. This vital support for our region needs to be rolled out without further unforgiveable delay. Our residents are being treated as second-class citizens, and this cannot be allowed to stand. Just when you thought it couldn't get any worse, along came the insurance companies. Hundreds of disaster-hit residents and business owners who were eager to pick themselves up and fight on found themselves at the mercy of these companies. From long delays and claims processing to widespread knockbacks, it has taken a massive toll on our region. Change needs to come from this. That's why I called for a parliamentary inquiry into the insurers' response to these natural disasters. To his credit, the Assistant Treasurer visited our region and initiated an inquiry. Thankfully, the community spirit and support has been nothing short of remarkable, and our flood and fire affected residents would not be where they are today if it weren't for the hardworking staff and volunteers at the Rural Fire Service, State Emergency Service, Lifeline, Rapid Relief Team, Rotary, Lions and many others. In previous speeches, I've thanked many of these community heroes. Today I'd like to particularly acknowledge the tireless volunteers from the rapid relief teams of Molong, Orange, Parkes, Cowra, Condobolin and Lake Cargelligo. These wonderful people include: Matt Sangster, Orange team leader; Malcolm Buckland, Condobolin team leader; and Kelvin Scott, Molong team leader. They also include the mighty Molong crew: Thomas Scott, Stephen Sandeman, Brenton Scott, Stephen Gibbs, Cameron Scott and Sam Pridham, Parkes team leader. Rapid Relief Team are a fantastic group of volunteers who set up mobile catering for our disaster affected towns and also fed our fireys during the Hill End emergency. On Eugowra's darkest day, I worked closely with the Rapid Relief Team to get food into the showground that night and feed at least 60 tired and exhausted evacuees. Their kindness and dedication throughout the disasters that have hit our region will never be forgotten. I sincerely thank all volunteers and organisations who have helped our region cope with this traumatic and devastating time in our history. I conclude again by calling on the state and federal governments to activate the full suite of disaster assistance for flood and fire affected residents in the Central West on the double. A failure to do so is not fair, and it's not right. My message to the state and federal governments is to get this assistance moving. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 249710 Is the motion seconded? Dr Haines 282335 I second the motion and reserve my right to speak. 12:17 Ms TEMPLEMAN 181810 Macquarie I'm very pleased to speak on the motion put forward by the member for Calare. I've spent a lot of time advocating for better support for communities who face natural disasters—in our case, fires, floods and storms. We're all too aware in the Blue Mountains and Hawkesbury that hotter, drier, higher risk weather conditions are expected during this spring and summer. Following the two years of record-breaking floods across pretty much every state and territory, we expect the main threat for summer to be fast-moving grass and scrub fires rather than those fires that we experienced in 2019-20, but we know we need to be prepared. We also know that, since Black Summer, the government has taken huge steps forward in how we prepare, respond and recover from bushfire events. Unlike the response from the government at the time of the 2019-20 bushfires, we are taking preparations for this summer seriously and bringing together around 250 crisis management response and recovery specialists from governments, industry, community and the not-for-profit sector for the first National Bushfire Preparedness Summit later this month. That's a big step forward. I want to talk about the consequences of natural disaster. It doesn't end when the smoke clears or when the water recedes. We have a government now that recognises the immense hardship faced by people across Australia in the aftermath of natural disasters. In the mountains, it has been 10 years since the 2013 fires took more than 200 homes in Winmalee, Yellow Rock, Springwood, and Mount Victoria—including mine. The memories are still very fresh for many, and the financial and emotional consequences continue. The member for Calare is right when he says it changes lives forever. For those still trying to find a new normal after the 2019 bushfires and the floods from 2020 right through to more recent times, it's even harder. For communities west of us, like Eugowra, our community understands the pain, and I know various local community groups, like Rotary, have been out west offering our assistance. I'm very pleased to be part of the flood insurance inquiry the government has established, because that is a major continual sore that festers for people who've been through disasters. Our job at a government level is to work closely with every disaster impacted state and territory to ensure recovery is appropriate for each individual community and person affected. State and territory governments have the primary responsibility, but we support them with the costs of providing relief and recovery assistance through the jointly funded disaster recovery funding arrangements—the DRFA; I have spoken about that a lot. Under the arrangements, the states determine the type and level of assistance to make available following disaster, and the Australian government co-funds it. But we know there needs to be improvements on how quickly and consistently that response is delivered. The way previous governments have politicised emergency support is a disgrace. In 2013 the Abbott government changed the rules to restrict access to emergency support the day after people's homes had burned down. In the Northern Rivers we've seen top-up payments to communities in coalition seats and buybacks offered but not consistently across the state. The former New South Wales government pork barrelled recovery funds intended for victims of the 2019 Black Summer bushfires, meaning the Blue Mountains missed out completely in the first round. Now the Albanese government has progressed a range of off-the-shelf grant programs to allow funding to get out the door faster, more consistently and fairer, but we know there is more to be done to improve the timeliness. The review underway by Andrew Colvin is really crucial in giving us the information we need. In the few moments I've got, I want to run through a couple of things that are different. There has been $94 million invested in bushfire mitigation and preparedness with state and territory governments through the Disaster Ready Fund; it's a start. We're supporting the leasing and positioning of a national fleet of highly specialised firefighting aircraft, and that is on top of the new Chinook at the Richmond RAAF base that New South Wales has bought. We've opened up an upgraded national situation room so we're better collaborating across three levels of government, and that includes having satellite imagery from partner organisations. Plus, we've got new Australia fire danger ratings—all things to try and make people safer this summer. 12:22 Dr HAINES 282335 Indi I thank the member for Calare for this motion and for his unwavering advocacy for the interests of regional Australia. My heart goes out to the people of Calare for what they've endured over the last period of time with these extraordinary catastrophes. Communities across the electorate of Indi, too, have been hard hit by floods and other natural disasters such as bushfires, storms and even landslides. Similarly, my heart goes out to the member for Macquarie, who has experienced such catastrophe herself personally and multiple times in her community with recurrent flooding. The floods of October 2022 affected many communities in Indi—in Wangaratta, Benalla, Euroa, Strathbogie, Violet Town and Acheron, to name a handful. From north to south, east to west, rising waters affected all nine local government areas I represent. Along the Goulburn River a young couple that had just purchased their very first farm found their cattle without food, their pastures destroyed and their drinking water supply contaminated. Scott, a constituent in Alexandra, saw his property severely impacted and had to buy drinking water, fodder and food. Many homes along the Murray and in and around Wahgunyah were inundated while many others across the electorate lost stock, and businesses, infrastructure and homes were damaged during these flood events. The heavy rains even induced a landslip, cutting the main road to Falls Creek Alpine Resort for six long months, with devastating economic and emotional impacts on the businesses up and down the mountains, with residents, schoolchildren and families separated. We are, sadly, very familiar with all manner of natural disasters in Indi. The majority of the 173 victims of the Black Saturday bushfires in 2009, Australia's deadliest, were in Indi. Towns across my electorate still bear the scars of that fateful day more than 14 years ago. More recently, the Black Summer bushfires impacted vast swathes of our region. Communities such as Corryong, Cudgewa and Tintaldra in the Upper Murray were deeply impacted, surrounded by fire and cut off from the rest of Victoria. Homes, infrastructure, stock and hundreds of kilometres of fencing were lost. Fires also roared through many of the magnificent alpine areas in Indi threatening localities such as Dinner Plain and the alpine resorts of Mount Hotham, Falls Creek and Mount Buller. These disasters take a psychological as well as a physical toll on individuals and communities and recovery from the trauma of natural disasters is a marathon, not a sprint. This marathon is long and hard enough in the best of circumstances, but the last thing people need after a disaster is the stress of not knowing whether they will have the funds needed to get through the immediate aftermath, let alone to rebuild and improve their resilience in the face of future events. Yet this is the situation that many are facing. I often hear stories from my constituents of insurance premiums skyrocketing to unaffordable levels, complicated insurance contracts, delays in accessing insurer payouts after disasters and difficulty accessing government assistance. Graeme from Benalla wrote to me noting that the cost of his home insurance had increased from $1,000 to $4,000. Similar, and higher, increases are common across Indi. Such situations compound the stress and cost of natural disasters on our communities. This is why I support the recently announced parliamentary inquiry into insurer responses to the 2022 floods. I support efforts to ensure Australians have access to affordable insurance with fair and simple contracts. However, I also strongly call upon the government to broaden the terms of reference of the inquiry to include insurance relating to all forms of natural disasters. We know very well that the same challenges of insurance, unaffordability, complexity and delays impact not just those seeking protection and support in the face of floods but also those in the face of bushfires, storms and more. Following the Black Summer bushfires, dedicated members of my community—and I want to particularly name Steve Belli from Mount Hotham—have worked incredibly hard to advocate for those affected by the crisis in insurance affordability. In some cases there is withdrawal of insurance offers because the risk of insurance is just too high. We need to get this right. The issue is particularly salient in my electorate of Indi, with the Climate Council's Uninsurable Nation: Australia's most climate-vulnerable places report rating Indi as the eighth most at-risk federal electorate in the country. The Climate Council finds that in the most at-risk electorates one in seven properties will be uninsurable by the end of this decade. In many cases it's the least well-off electorates that are the most at risk, and Indi rates 133 out of the average income of 151 electorates. We need to get this right. 12:27 Mr REPACHOLI 298840 Hunter We are a country which has some of the most extreme weather conditions in the world, but in the last couple of years Mother Nature has brought weather so extreme that we have experienced natural disasters in numbers that are unprecedented even for us on our harsh Australian continent. We have had weather events of all extremes. In all corners of our country we have seen events from floods to bushfires, from droughts to landslides and we have even seen severe storms bringing massive damage. My electorate knows the pain of these natural disasters all too well. The small communities around Broke, Wollombi and Singleton were hit by flooding and then, just as they started to recover, they were hit even harder by severe flooding again. This happened just as I was elected as the member for Hunter. Being on the ground with community to experience the impact of this is something that I will never forget. The community of Broke and its surrounds was where most of the damage was done. Many had to evacuate as the river rose, only to return home to find they had lost everything. The community was shattered, but what stood out above everything else was the community spirit. In some of the hardest times in their lives, the whole community banded together to support one another and make sure they all got through it. The response from the community was amazing. I was proud of our response as a government as well. Things can never be perfect in unprecedented and unexpected times of disaster, but I know that our actions as a government during this time were appreciated by many who I have spoken to. Ministers were straight onto the job, making sure that this community had everything they needed in a quick time frame as well. It was also great to have multiple ministers on the ground with me, speaking to those impacted and understanding, on a more personal level, how they could support this community. But what disappoints me most is the response from the insurance companies. People who had to put in an insurance claim were going through a time which was tough, but too often their experience of and treatment by their insurance company made their situation even harder. People, left with a house unsafe to live in and contents destroyed by floodwaters, were left waiting, sometimes weeks or even months, for an assessor to come and assess the damage for their insurance claim. When these assessments were eventually made, there was no relief for some. Constituents contacted my office to tell me stories of their damage not being assessed properly, and sometimes there were disputes about whether or not their policy covered them for the damage that they received. Insurance is supposed to provide a sense of assurance. People insure their property and their contents so that if the worst happens they can have some help to rebuild after losing everything, but the insurance companies aren't in that kind of business unfortunately. What we saw in Broke on too many occasions was wealthy insurance companies exploiting loopholes in contracts and policies to get out of covering people who had lost everything, keeping their own pockets full while not only willingly letting others suffer but adding to their suffering and distress. Even to this day, more than a year on from the disaster, I am having Broke residents contact me saying their insurance has become so high they can no longer afford to have a policy. This is a disgrace. There is also a lot of good in the world. The situation in Broke and the widespread damage was hard to comprehend, but I could not imagine how much worse it would have been if it was not for the amazing work of our emergency services. Our community is ever grateful to these services, such as the Rural Fire Brigade and the SES. It's easy to forget that many of these people, who put themselves to the point of exhaustion risking their own lives to help communities in their time of need, are actually volunteers. It's not a job; it's a passion. It's for their community. I admire every single one of these responders. It was also amazing to see everything that was done through community groups like Rotary and Lions Clubs who were there to give a hand to those impacted. I know that Minister Watt understands the frustrations expressed by the member for Calare and has raised these with Minister Dib and other officials in the New South Wales government. That is happening, and we're looking forward to a response. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 144732 The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. Genetic Testing and Life Insurance 129 12:32 Mr 278522 Macnamara BURNS () (): I move: That this House: (1) notes: (a) the field of genetics has great potential to improve medicine and public health through enabling diagnosis, prevention and early treatment of disease; (b) that increasingly, genetic information is used in routine patient care to identify individuals at risk for medically actionable conditions, and early knowledge of this risk can allow at-risk individuals to take preventive steps to reduce their risk or, in some cases, avoid developing the associated disease altogether; (c) the current ability of the life insurance industry to legally use genetic test results in underwriting can lead to discrimination; (d) that insurance discrimination fears can also act as a barrier, by deterring people from having potentially life-saving genetic testing that could match them to tailored interventions and treatments, as well as from participation in genetic research; and (e) that numerous other countries have prohibited the use of genetic test results to discriminate against individuals in insurance underwriting; (2) acknowledges that: (a) in 2018, the Joint Parliamentary Committee on Corporations and Financial Services' inquiry into the life insurance industry made recommendations relating to the use of genetic test results in life insurance underwriting, including consideration of a moratorium and potentially further legislative action or another form of regulation banning or limiting the use of predictive genetic information by the life insurance industry; (b) in 2019, the Financial Services Council introduced a partial moratorium restricting member life insurance companies from requiring applicants to disclose or using applicants' genetic test results for policies below certain financial limits, which is self-regulation by industry with no government oversight; and (c) the Australian Genetics and Life Insurance Moratorium: Monitoring the Effectiveness and Response (A-GLIMMER) Project was funded by the Government from 2020-2023 to investigate effectiveness of the moratorium as a regulatory solution to genetic discrimination in Australian life insurance, and found that discrimination fears continue to deter individuals from having genetic testing, and that the moratorium is inadequate to address and prevent genetic discrimination in life insurance; (3) recognises the invaluable work of Dr Jane Tiller, Project lead, Monash University, and the investigator team in preparing the comprehensive A-GLIMMER Project report, as well as the project's collaborators, patient/consumer and supporter groups, and the many individuals who participated in the research studies completed as part of the project; and (4) calls on the Government to consider policy changes to address and prevent genetic discrimination in life insurance and assist patients in receiving lifesaving medical care. I am pleased to rise and speak on this important motion. Many common illnesses, including potentially life-threatening ones, are strongly influenced by genetic factors. It has long been common knowledge that some medical conditions such as cancer, stroke and haemophilia tend to run in families, and we now know that this is due to a genetic susceptibility to a particular disease being passed from one generation to another. This means that it is possible to determine whether a person is likely to be susceptible to a particular condition by means of genetic testing. Advances in medical technology and decreasing costs have resulted in a rapid expansion in the scope, ability and use of genetic testing. Once at the frontier of medical research, this technology is set to become part of mainstream health care if it hasn't already done so. This means, for example, that it is possible to screen women, particularly women with a family history of breast cancer, for mutation of the BRCA gene which gives rise to the breast cancer type 1 susceptibility protein and increases the risk of breast cancer. This allows pre-emptive measures to be taken which will reduce the likelihood of that risk becoming a reality. This technology has the potential to save many lives and it should be welcomed, but, in the case of genetic testing, the issue raised is the possibility of discrimination against people found to have a genetic predisposition to a particular medical condition. The motion before us today discusses one particular issue: the impact of genetic testing on the availability of life insurance—specifically, the fact that a positive genetic test may result adversely in a person's ability to secure a life insurance policy. Currently, life insurance companies can legally require applicants to disclose all genetic test results. No doubt, this seems reasonable to the insurance companies, but it does raise some serious issues. First, it enables insurers to decide what a particular genetic test result means in terms of risk. Given the lack of data for many genetic conditions, this will result in insurers taking a more restrictive attitude to medical evidence warrants. To take the example I gave above, it may well lead to an insurer refusing to cover any woman who carries the BRCA mutation. Second, insurers are not required to give the reasons for their decision to decline insurance or charge higher premiums. Currently, the insurance policy is developed by the Financial Services Council, with no government oversight or transparency to consumers. There is currently no easy process for individuals to challenge adverse decisions. Third, and most importantly, there is an increase in evidence that fears of life insurance discrimination are deterring people from having genetic testing that could literally save their lives. In 2018, the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services made bipartisan recommendations supporting a ban on the use of genetic results by life insurance and suggested a watching brief by government to consider whether legislation would be required. The industry introduced a partial moratorium in 2019. Despite this, it is my belief that stronger intervention is still required, one which will provide protection that cannot arbitrarily be removed by the insurance industry. In particular, it is relevant to the community of Macnamara because the Ashkenazi Jewish community has a higher prevalence of several genetic disorders, and Jewish families across my electorate have the potential to greatly benefit from a ban on generic discrimination. This will allow people to make decisions about genetic testing on the basis of their health needs, not financial fears. This problem is already affecting many people. In July, I met Dwayne and Judy Honor, who have two sons. When one son was tested and found to have inherited Judy's genetic predisposition to bowel cancer, he faced insurance discrimination despite taking preventive measures to avoid developing cancer. Her other son then made the difficult choice not to get genetically tested. The fear of being denied life insurance is leading people to run an increased risk of life-threatening diseases. Families should not have to make these choices. It is unacceptable to me, and I am sure it is unacceptable to many in this House. Finally, I want to recognise the invaluable work of Dr Jane Tiller from Monash University, who is leading research and advocacy on this issue. I would not be standing here if it wasn't for Jane and her team, and I know that many other members feel the same. We don't want a situation where people are choosing between whether or not they get the lifesaving health care they need or whether they could potentially be discriminated against. We need to clean this up. I commend this motion to the House. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 144732 Is the motion seconded? 12:38 Mr ENTSCH 7K6 Leichhardt Yes. I want to add my voice to this issue of profound importance. It's an issue that merges the cutting edge of science of genetics with the fundamental principles of justice, fairness and empathy. The issue of genetic discrimination in life insurance is a dilemma that places Australia at a critical crossroads. The time to act is now. The field of genetics represents one of the most revolutionary advancements in modern medicine. Its power to diagnose, prevent and treat these diseases is unparalleled. It has the potential to identify individuals at risk of medically actionable conditions and even enable the prevention of certain diseases altogether. However, this remarkable promise is shattered by a grave concern that the use of genetic test results by the insurance industry, which, as we all expect, is likely to lead to wholesale discrimination. On the one hand, we have fantastic work with genetic testing underway and there is enormous potential to make marked improvements in the health of Australians. At the same time, there stands a very dark shadow looming over this bright promise. To date, numerous nations have already taken the decisive step to prohibit the use of genetic test results as a means to discriminate against individuals in insurance underwriting. Similar nations to Australia, like Canada and the UK, have already enacted bans on insurers utilising genetic testing, but Australia, as a nation that has always strived to be at the forefront of human rights and equality, is tragically trailing behind in this race. Imagine a young mother deterred from genetic testing that could reveal a life-threatening condition for fear of discrimination. Think of families trapped in uncertainty, unable to take preventative measures because they cannot trust that the results won't be wielded against them. The likelihood of these scenarios could become commonplace and raises profound ethical questions about privacy, autonomy, the insurance industry's priorities and our responsibility to the Australian people. We all know that the insurance industry is always trying to find ways to increase premiums and to mitigate claims. I fear that, if we do not restrict their ability to discriminate on the basis of genetics, their desires will be to get the better of them. The last thing we want is to see this country in ambiguity about self-regulation, leading to a situation where Australians are deterred from having potentially life-saving genetic testing. The existing industry moratorium is absolutely insufficient to protect consumers, and frankly we're leaving the foxes in the henhouse. A self-regulated solution is unstable and uncertain, and it can be rescinded at any moment, leaving Australians in a perpetual state of fear and distrust towards genetic testing. When the consequences of getting it wrong are so serious, I do not believe that we can proceed without a legislated framework. I'd like to take a moment to give praise, again, like the previous speaker, to Dr Jane Tiller at Monash University and her team for their valuable research and for advocating so very, very strongly on these issues. I can assure you that the work she has done has educated me in many ways on the serious concerns that we, as a country, should have on this issue. As we move forward, we must engage with the community, the insurance industry and the scientific community to learn from the experience of other countries and to craft laws that reflect our unique context. Our future depends on a vision where genetic information is embraced without fear, where medicine advances and lives are saved. The stakes are high, and I'm sure the Australian commitment to fairness, justice and securing the wellbeing of one another will prevail. Our nation stands at a crossroads, and the path we choose will shape the destiny of countless lives. Let us act without delay and ensure that all Australians can receive the life-saving medical care they need free from any level of discrimination. 12:43 Ms LAWRENCE 299150 Hasluck Genetic research offers amazing advances in the treatment of disease. A few years ago Melbourne University reported genetic research that identified vulnerability in lymphoma cells that might lead to a new approach for cancer treatment. In March this year, Minister Butler announced that Monash University will receive $50 million through the medical research fund for the mitochondrial donation pilot program. Mitochondrial disease is debilitating and potentially fatal with significant impacts felt by both patients and their families. The funding will support research and ongoing monitoring of trial participants, including children. In August, Duchenne Australia held an event here at the Australian parliament, which my office attended. Duchenne muscular dystrophy, or DMD, is the biggest genetic killer of boys. As for many genetic and other conditions, early diagnosis and treatment can make a world of difference to a child's life and a family's distress. For DMD, muscle can't be put back, but treatment can slow down deterioration. We want this sort of world-leading research and early treatment to occur in Australia. For genetic conditions, genetic screening is the obvious course, and genetic research is essential. I thank the member for MacNamara for bringing this motion before the parliament. It is not a new issue, but the motion is timely as it is important now for the government to consider, in the lead-up to the end date of the current insurance industry moratorium, whether the self-regulation in this space is sufficient or whether legislative boundaries will better achieve the ends that we agree are necessary. An insurance environment where personal screening is deterred by economic consequences or where engagement in genetic research is deterred in the same way is wholly problematic. We need to ensure that there is no chilling effect. We can multiply the examples I've referred to already by any number of conditions where early knowledge and better research will make a world of difference. I know that people across the country and in my own electorate of Hasluck are glad for the research happening here. I know they are happy about the recently extended funding of newborn testing, for example, to cover a much more extensive range of conditions, for knowledge is power. The government needs to ensure that that knowledge does not lead to disadvantage or discrimination. I met with Dr Jane Tiller of Monash University in May this year, to hear about her work and the Australian genetics and life insurance moratorium:monitoring the effectiveness and response study, referred to as the A-GLIMMER report. The A-GLIMMER report, delivered earlier this year, found that genetic discrimination in life insurance still occurs and deters people from seeking testing and engaging in genetic research. I want to share an example of disability advocate Anwen Handmer, who is also my sister-in-law. She states: 'Gene therapy is the very cliff face of medicine for us all—medicine which is not condition specific but gene specific.' Right now, a bunch of Anwen's cells are in the lab as Professors Sue Fletcher and Steve Wilton test an application which has already had a huge success with rare diseases. Anwen states that at present her cells are being used to test exon skipping therapy on exon 32 of one of her dysferlin genes. She has dysferlinopathy because of mutations in the DNA of both copies of her dysferlin gene. She says: If successful, the treatment will provide me with one effective, functioning dysferlin gene. This means I will be able to produce dysferlin, a protein which repairs fast twitch muscle after deterioration associated with normal muscle use. Progression of the disease would halt and regeneration of some muscle tissue is likely. It is not a cure, but it's a very, very much needed treatment. She goes on to say: The magical thing is that the same application targeting exon 32 on my dysferlin gene will work for someone with an entirely different condition—if that condition is caused by a mutation on exon 32 of the respective gene—it could be Motor Neurone Disease or Leukodystrophy or cancer or one of any number of diseases, rare or otherwise. Knowing the genetic sequence behind the condition will be as crucial to treatment as it is to diagnosis. The A-GLIMMER report, though, casts doubt upon the efficacy of the industry's self-regulation. Whilst the insurance industry appears happy with the moratorium and code and, presumably, would like to have it extended, I'm confident that the government will find a fair course to chart to ensure that families, researchers and the insurance industry can come to a happy medium that protects genetic research for the future. 12:48 Dr RYAN 297660 Kooyong I rise also to support this motion. Genetic information is now used routinely in patient care to diagnose conditions, guide choice and dosage of medications, and to assess our response to therapies. It can allow at-risk individuals to take preventive steps to reduce their risk or, in some cases, avoid developing diseases altogether. It has the potential to change all aspects of how we practise medicine, effectively, economically and compassionately—optimising prescribing, preventing side-effects and facilitating early diagnosis. But we have to have the confidence to engage with genetic testing to know that it won't cost us or our families the ability to insure ourselves either now or in the future. Over the past two generations, we have experienced an extraordinarily rapid evolution in the scope and complexity of the genetic testing undertaken every day in the clinics and hospitals of this country. We've adapted quickly, and we've been able to remain at the forefront of the uptake of this technology, globally. The issue that we address today is that our life insurance industry can, though, at this point, legally use the results of genetic testing in a way which is actively discriminatory. When people fear discrimination by insurers, they avoid genetic testing. This fear causes delays in diagnosis and in preventive and curative treatment. It has a significant negative impact on patient outcomes. My constituent in Kooyong, Professor Martin Delatycki, reported seeing this effect in the DNA Screen study, an MRFF funded population-level DNA screening pilot study which tested young people for genetic risk factors for cancer and heart disease. Despite having no family history of the disease, many young people declined to participate in that research once they discovered that its results could impact their ability to gain life insurance in the future. I, myself, was an investigator on a previous MRFF study which assessed the potential for ultra-rapid genomic testing for newborn babies with life-limiting rare diseases. The genetic counselling around that study, which was being provided to parents of babies who were critically ill, was more challenging because of the potential implications of those diagnoses, not just for the patients and parents but also for other family members. Imagine trying to deal with that sort of discussion when you have a newborn baby in intensive care. In 2018 the joint parliamentary committee's inquiry recommended consideration of a moratorium and further legislative action limiting the use of predictive genetic information by the life insurance industry. In 2019 the Financial Services Council introduced a partial moratorium, restricting member life insurance companies from requiring applicants to disclose genetic testing results and from using those results for policies, but only below certain financial limits. This was an industry regulated policy. It had no government oversight. It was plainly inadequate, and the degree to which it has been enforced is unclear. A recent federally funded study assessing the effectiveness of that moratorium, the A-GLIMMER project, found that fear of genetic discrimination is still deterring individuals from having genetic testing in this country. The easiest and simplest way to address this issue is via an amendment to the Disability Discrimination Act 1992. This act currently prohibits discrimination on grounds including genetic status but provides an exemption for risk rated insurers under its section 46. Amendments to remove that exemption as it applies to genetic results would be a simple and effective way of achieving prohibition without requiring a whole new standalone act, so I ask the Attorney-General to implement this important amendment in order to build public trust in genetics and genomics and to support best-practice medical care for all Australians. It is urgent that we do this now, when we're on the cusp of a time when DNA testing is becoming an intrinsic part of routine medical diagnosis and treatment. I call on the Albanese government to address and prevent genetic discrimination in life insurance in Australia. Doing so will right wrongs. It will remove injustice and assist all Australians to access the world standard life-saving medical care that our medical system wants to provide and that Australians deserve. I commend the motion to the House. 12:53 Ms MILLER-FROST 296272 Boothby I start by commending the member for Macnamara for his commitment to ensuring we have a fair life insurance system, free from genetic discrimination. Many common life-threatening illnesses are influenced by genetic factors. Most commonly known are the cancers, but there are also autoimmune, degenerative and other conditions. Genetic and genomic health technology can be used to determine whether a person is likely to develop genetic conditions later in life. This technology is reshaping the ways in which we diagnose, treat, and—perhaps most importantly—prevent heritable conditions. It has the potential to save lives. However, undergoing genetic testing does carry a risk, and it's one that might not be obvious. There is a risk that undergoing this testing could lead to discrimination in life insurance products. A positive genetic test which identifies that somebody may be at higher risk of developing a condition later in life may adversely affect that person's ability to secure a life insurance policy. This is completely counterintuitive to the concept of early diagnosis and treatment. The metaphor of the fence at the top of the cliff versus the ambulance at the bottom is one that's often used in the health sector. The fence at the top stops someone falling off the cliff and needing the ambulance. Genetic testing is that fence at the top of the cliff. Early identification of an increased risk of developing a condition empowers the person and their treating team to make rational decisions to limit the risk. The most often talked about are perhaps the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genetic mutations that put women at higher risk of breast or ovarian cancer. Knowing that she has this gene mutation enables a woman to consider options such as more frequent monitoring or even removal of the breasts and ovaries. Fear of having a genetic test might impact your ability to get life insurance or fear that it might increase the cost of life insurance works against the patient finding out early and being able to do something about it. In Australia, there is currently an industry-led moratorium that has been in place since 2019. The moratorium says that the insurance companies will allow people to take out life insurance cover up to certain limits without having to disclose a genetic test. However Monash University's A-GLIMMER report raises several issues with this moratorium—and credit to Dr Jane Tiller for her work in this area. The issues include that people may be dissuaded from getting a genetic test for fear they would be discriminated against in their life insurance policies and also that the moratorium is industry self-regulated and that this provides little certainty for consumers. Insurers do not need to provide reasons for their decisions to charge higher premiums or decline insurance. They do not need to advise if a genetic test may have been a factor. An insurer's assessment of their financial risk may be at odds with a medical assessment of risk. Ironically, by discouraging consumers from accessing genetic testing and early intervention, the insurers may in fact end up paying out more as their consumers get sicker or die from conditions that may have been preventable if they'd been empowered to get that prevention. Currently there is no government oversight of this industry-led moratorium and there is no process for individuals to challenge decisions that may have been influenced by genetic test results. The increasing evidence that fear of life insurance discrimination is discouraging people from having genetic testing is very concerning. Prevention and early intervention is better than cure, and the fear—or the reality—of discrimination is removing the ability to access that prevention and early intervention. It seems evident that the current moratorium is doing little to reassure people. In 2018 the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services recommended a ban on the use of genetic results by life insurers. There is already some form of prohibition or ban in place in New Zealand, the UK, Canada, Europe and the US, and this kind of regulation could be a vital tool for Australia as well. We must ensure that our citizens have access to life-saving testing, and we need to create a system that allows and encourages our citizens to utilise this life-saving measure freely and without fear of future discrimination. Australians should be able to make these decisions based on their health needs, not financial ones, and we have the opportunity to make that a reality. It's obviously in the interests of insurance companies to increase premiums and to limit or prevent claims, but this is not in the interests of Australian consumers or of Australia as a whole, and self-regulation is clearly not sufficient to protect our interests. I believe legislation is required and I commend the member for Macnamara for this important private member's bill. 12:58 Ms SHARKIE 265980 Mayo Advances in medical science and health care have led to greater average life expectancy and significant improvements to our quality of life. In particular, the field of genetics and genetic testing has enabled early detection of serious conditions such as cancer and heart disease, and such intervention has saved thousands of lives. However, for some these scientific advances have become a double-edged sword, as many of the previous speakers have said. This is a consequence of our legislative environment not keeping up with our scientific achievements. Australians may take advantage of genetic testing. It saves lives, and that's one edge of the sword. The other edge is that they may be discriminated against if they seek life insurance from life insurance companies that use genetic information in underwriting, consequently denying or increasing the cost of cover determined on those genetic results. The fear of genetic discrimination, particularly within families in which inherited disease is prevalent, is now deterring people from accessing that genetic testing. So what a ridiculous conundrum we have. We have genetic testing technology which can save thousands of lives, but many people say that they're reluctant to access testing in case it makes them uninsurable or increases the cost of their insurance. Australians should not have to make these life or death decisions because of their genetics, and they should not be discriminated against because of their genetics. We have a legislative failure in this country which consequently allows insurance companies to actively discriminate against policyholders or potential policyholders based on genetic information. That's not how insurance should be. It's not how it's supposed to work. As the field of genetics continues to improve, this perverse situation will only worsen. Our advancements in science should not come at the expense of the individual's ability to obtain insurance products. This is not the first time in this place that we've heard calls to act. We've got this motion before the Chamber—and I thank the member for putting it forward—but we had a Joint Parliamentary Committee on Corporations and Financial Services inquiry into this in 2018. Five years ago this was raised as a big issue. In 2019, the Financial Services Council introduced a partial self-regulated moratorium. The word 'self-regulated' always makes me concerned. This is commendable, but the moratorium does not provide the level of protection recommended by the joint parliamentary committee report. When we look into this, we find that, compared to other countries, we are laggards. Canada prohibits any entity, including insurers, from requesting or using genetic tests in the provision of goods and services. Similarly, the US prohibits health insurers or employers from using genetic information and has done so since 2006. We certainly don't hold up the USA as a beacon of virtue with respect to health cover. The UK has prohibited the use of genetic testing results across many insurance products, including travel, motor and private health insurance since 2001. Here we are in Australia in 2023, and we lack any similar legislative protections. Australia has obligations under its human rights agreements, and it has obligations to its citizens. Honestly, we waste so much time in this place. Five years ago we had findings from an inquiry. Since then we've had two different governments, and they have failed to act on this. The parliament doesn't sit long enough to get through all of the work, so we need to be judicious with our time in this place, and we need to ensure that issues such as this that have a material effect on people are given priority. I would say to the government: If not now, then when? When will you act on this? We've known this for years. Let's make this happen. We can't afford to do this to our fellow citizens. It's an easy fix. The rest of the world is ahead of us. Let's catch up. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 144732 The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned, and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. Tourism Industry 134 13:03 Mr HOGAN 218019 Page I move: That this House: (1) acknowledges the importance of Australia's visitor economy and tourism industry; (2) notes that during the pandemic, international visitation fell by over 95 per cent; (3) further acknowledges tourism industry concerns that in the first twelve months in office, the Government has: (a) cut funding to Tourism Australia by $35 million; (b) increased the cost of visitor and working holiday maker visas by 20 per cent; (c) increased the passenger movement charge for international tourists; and (d) refused Qatar Airways' request to double their flights to Australia; (4) recognises the international market for the global traveller is fiercely competitive and many destinations have returned to pre-pandemic levels of international visitors; (5) further notes that: (a) international visitor numbers to Australia for the year ending May 2023 remain down 40 per cent on the corresponding May 2019 figure; and (b) of the 5.6 million international visitors in the year ending May 2023, only 32 per cent nominated holidaying as the reason for travel, with the majority of visitors nominating visiting friends and relatives as the reason; and (6) calls on the Government to back our tourism operators and regions reliant on international visitors by: (a) reinstating funding cuts to Tourism Australia; and (b) reversing its 'tourism tax' targeted at international visitors. What the Labor government has shown over the past 16 or 17 months that it has been in power is that it is no friend of the tourism sector. I want to go through some statistics that show why the decisions the government makes are so damaging to our economy and that demonstrate exactly how important the tourism sector is to our country. Visitor numbers to Australia for the year ending May 2023 are still down 40 per cent on the corresponding figure in May 2019, which is, of course, the pre-COVID comparison. Prior to COVID, Australia's visitor economy was worth $166 billion. It was growing faster than our national GDP. It supported over one million direct and indirect jobs in 300,000 businesses. Australian tourism and hospitality operators are largely made up of small and medium businesses who were hurt when international and domestic borders were shut during the global pandemic. As members may be aware, the international market for the global traveller is fiercely competitive. Visitor numbers to European and Middle Eastern destinations and to many countries overseas have now returned to their pre-pandemic levels. They're back to where they were pre COVID. A lot of people are coming into Australia for family reunions, so they're people who are coming to see family members. They're not part of the tourism sector that we used to have. Even the numbers we are getting, which are increasing, are made up of a much higher proportion of family members coming to see family and not the international tourism market—they're the people who stay in the hotels and support the tourism sector and the tourism destinations. Let's go through what the Labor government has done. They've cut funding to Tourism Australia by $35 million, which is the agency that is tasked with getting our international tourism numbers back up. It's a globally competitive market. We're trying to improve a sector that has been damaged by the pandemic, and Labor cut funding to the agency that does that. They have increased the cost of the tourist and working holiday maker visas by 20 per cent. Visas have increased from $510 to $630. This is one of the highest priced working holiday visas among comparable countries such as New Zealand, the United Kingdom and Canada. The government has to realise that it's not a privilege to come to Australia any more—well, it's always a privilege; people always love it—it's a competitive market. The fact that they're pricing us out and that other countries are much easier and cheaper to get to is not okay. The government also increased the passenger movement charge for international tourists. A more recent decision, but, again, crazy decision, was the government's decision to reject Qatar's proposal for extra slots to fly into Australia. It would mean an extra 700,000 additional seats, which would generate tens of millions of dollars of economic stimulus to our tourism industry and the broader economy. What happens if you don't increase competition? What happens because the government rejected Qatar's application? There's less competition, which means prices will not fall as they otherwise would have. If Qatar were able to fly these slots or flights into Australia, it would obviously put pressure on lowering prices, which is damaging to the tourism sector. While we're talking about exports, those planes have big bellies that fly out exports. The fact they're not allowing those flights in is also damaging to our export sector. We've had an explanation from the Assistant Treasurer. The Assistant Treasurer told us why the government had blocked Qatar Airways flights. He said: Qantas' record $2.5 billion profit was "a good news story" and the Albanese government blocked extra Qatar Airways flights to keep the national carrier profitable … So there's some insight into how the government thinks about competition in the tourism sector and keeping air flights low. What has been the response of industry to that decision? Qatar's proposal had the support of the New South Wales and Victorian Labor governments. It had the support of our airports, travel agents and tourism bodies. Former Tourism Australia's managing director, John O'Sullivan, said that the minister's response was incredibly concerning and frustrating for the industry sector— (Time expired) The DEPUTY SPEAKER 144732 Is the motion seconded? Mr Willcox 286535 I second that. 13:08 Mr JOSH WILSON 265970 Fremantle I thank the member for Paige for moving this motion and providing us all with the opportunity to talk about the significance of Australia's visitor economy, which is absolutely recognised and supported by the Albanese government because of the vital role it plays in cities, towns and regions across Australia and in my electorate of Fremantle. Freo is a great example of the emergence of the visitor economy, which, Australia-wide, has become one of our key export earning sectors and one of two service export sectors in the top five along with international education. This month we will celebrate the 40th anniversary of Australia II's victory in the America's Cup, which happened way back in 1983. In some ways, that marked the turning point in which Freo went from being a significant port and place of arrival to being a significant national and international destination in its own right. In recent years, Fremantle has made it into Time magazine's top 50 world's greatest places and Lonely Planet's top 10 cities to visit on the basis of the city's distinctive character and heritage, physical beauty, multicultural diversity and thriving cultural and creative sector. I particularly want to acknowledge the work of the hospitality and tourism businesses in Fremantle. The Fremantle Chamber of Commerce and the City of Fremantle are working to make Freo a dynamo of the Australian visitor economy scene. Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, the visitor economy was Australia's fourth-largest export earner, generating $166 billion annually and supporting the jobs of more than a million Australians. We are well on our way to moving past the damage the pandemic caused to the sector in supporting the industry to surpass visitor numbers and related visitor spend. If you want to compare May 2019 with May 2023, the Tourism Research Australia International Visitor Survey results show the spend in Australia is now at 101 per cent of pre-COVID levels, and nights spent in Australia are at 91 per cent—well on their way to recovery. Similarly, overnight spend on domestic travel is up 37 per cent from 2019. Those are heartening figures. They demonstrate that the considered, thoughtful work of this government, led ably by Minister Farrell, is being reflected in increasingly positive results for the tourism and travel sector. The member for Page refers to the decision to increase the passenger movement charge from $60 to $70. This is a figure which hadn't been increased since 2017. It's been raised in line with inflation as part of the fiscal discipline this government has demonstrated since coming to office. It is easy for those opposite to play politics about that measure if they want; their time in government was characterised by the waste of public funds, the delivery of an unending sequence of deficit budgets and the lazy accumulation of a trillion dollars in debt. As the member for Page knows, the funding received from the passenger movement charge supports the biosecurity costs associated with international travellers. For nine years, the former coalition government was unable to deliver a sustainable biosecurity funding model; that's another mess we're prepared to clean up in the national interest. An increase in the charge of $10, or two cups of coffee, won't deter travellers but will assist in ensuring the protection of our biosecurity which benefits all Australians but is essential protection for our vulnerable agricultural industries. One of the many messes left to us by the previous government was an unbelievable backlog in terms of visa processing. The tourism travel industry has made it clear this was a massive problem. We've responded by investing $75.8 million to improve service delivery and enhance IT systems. The modest increase in costs for visa applications will help fund the costs associated with cleaning up the visa backlog mess I've described and work to improve visa processing for the benefit of both industry and tourists, and others who choose to visit Australia. As a government, we will continue to invest strongly in tourism, delivering an appropriation of $169 million to Tourism Australia in 2023-24. Of this funding, $125 million is going to support the Come and Say G'day campaign, released in October last year, to help drive the recovery of inbound visitors. That is on top of the $48 million tourism travel support package announced in last year's October budget, made up of targeted programs designed to drive demand and bring back international visitors. The Albanese government will continue to support the tourism and travel sector as that sector continues to rebound from the COVID-19 pandemic. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 144732 The member for Page will cease interjecting. Mr JOSH WILSON 265970 While the member for Page and I may disagree—and he may disagree loudly—on some of the matters contained in this motion, I have no doubt that he and I will work effectively together on a bipartisan basis to promote and support Australia's high-quality and vital visitor economy in our roles respectively as the chair and deputy chair of the Parliamentary Friends of Tourism. 13:13 Mr WILLCOX 286535 Dawson I thank the member for Page for moving this important motion in the House. The motion is a response to the Albanese Labor government's disgraceful decision to make returning to pre-COVID tourism levels even harder. The Albanese Labor government decided it was a great idea to cut funding for tourism by $35 million. They also decided it was a great idea to increase the cost of visitor and working holiday visas by 20 per cent. You know what else they decided was a great idea? To increase the passenger movement charge and to refuse Qatar Airways' request to double flights to Australia. Just like everything else the Albanese Labor government has decided to do, this is a policy disaster. It goes against the best interests of the people of Dawson, not to mention the entire nation. The electorate of Dawson relies heavily on tourism. Our nation relies heavily on tourism. Jobs filled by direct and indirect tourism businesses in Queensland accounted for a staggering 8.6 per cent. To put that in perspective, tourism employment in Queensland provided more jobs than the combined industry sectors of agriculture, forestry and fishing as well as our mining sector—and these are the lifeblood industries of Australia. In my electorate of Dawson, we ranked 11th out of 151 federal electorates for the total number of employees working in the tourism industry. I want to paint a picture for everyone in this room. The Whitsundays is ranked number 2 in the world as an international tourism destination. The Whitsundays, where I live, is home to 74 beautiful islands, and we are the heart of the Great Barrier Reef. According to Tourism Research Australia data, the number of tourism businesses in Queensland before COVID was approximately 64,000 and more than half of those businesses were operating in rural and regional areas. Does it shock anyone that the Labor government is again ignoring the people in rural and regional Australia? It shouldn't, because there is definitely a pattern there. I'd also like to bring to the attention of the House the THRIVE 2030 report that was revised and endorsed by the Labor government in March this year with no less than 24 Labor representatives committing their support. Two key action items in this report are: develop and implement a coordinated approach for direct and affordable long-haul flights to Australia, and to ensure Australia has a safe, affordable and competitive visitor visa system to maintain and grow market share, which is the exact opposite of what the Labor government is doing. Qatar, anyone? Anyone? I pose this not only to you, Deputy Speaker, but to the House as well: I can't make sense of why the Prime Minister and every single one of the Labor representatives are determined to create senseless barriers to entry for everyone in the world who wants to come and spend time in our spectacular nation. How can the Albanese Labor government keep undermining the businesses and families in rural and regional areas relying on our tourism industry to live? How can the Albanese Labor government keep making these senseless and aggressive decisions without having any consultation with the tourism industry and then say to us that it's in the best interests of all Australians? How can the Albanese Labor government support and endorse an 88-page report on the importance of needing to return to pre-COVID levels only to backflip months later and do the exact opposite of what they said they would? I am bitterly disappointed in the decisions made by the Albanese Labor government, and all Australians should be too. I urge the Labor government to back our tourism operators and back our regions that rely so heavily on this industry. We need to reinstate the funding for Tourism Australia, and we need to reverse the tourism tax targeting international visitors. 13:18 Mr REPACHOLI 298840 Hunter Tourism is a massive part of our economy in Australia— An honourable member interjecting— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 144732 The member will be heard in silence. Mr REPACHOLI 298840 and I'm proud to be a member of a party that not only understands this but a government that backs our tourism sector fully. Those opposite cry about our handling of the tourism industry, but they ignore the cold hard facts. They ripped support away from hundreds of thousands of mostly small businesses that made up Australia's visitor economy nearly a year before Australia's borders reopened. All those businesses that relied on international visitors had to cling on from 28 March 2021, when the previous government stopped JobKeeper, until 21 February 2022, when Australia's international borders reopened, and international travel from China, which before the pandemic was our largest source market of international visitors, only resumed a few months ago. And let's not forget that regional communities like mine had already suffered a severe slowdown in visitor numbers before the pandemic hit because of the impact of the Black Summer bushfires. And what was the former Prime Minister, the member for Cook, doing as these devastating fires raged? Was he overseeing a national disaster response or holding a hose? No. Was he letting our key tourist markets know that much of Australia was unaffected and open for business and ready to welcome visitors? No. He was on the beach in Hawaii, perhaps learning to play 'April Sun in Cuba' for his pre-election interview. A lot of Australians are doing it tough, but these issues we face here are also being faced by people in other countries all around the world. International travel is a luxury, and when times are tough it makes sense that fewer people are able to make the trip to Australia, regardless of how much they want to. When it comes to Australia, there is no shortage of great places for international tourists to visit. Sure, there are the capital cities and sights like the Opera House and Sydney Harbour Bridge, but in my humble opinion nothing quite beats the beautiful Hunter. Whether you want a coastal holiday or a regional escape, whether you like wine and good food or fishing and swimming, the Hunter electorate has it all. In the Hunter Valley we have vineyards that stretch as far as the eye can see. People from all over the world come to see our wine region and to experience the amazing wine-tasting and cellar door tours that come as part of the package when visiting the Hunter Valley. This is not to mention the fact that the Hunter is filled with amazing food. All over my electorate you will find world-class award-winning restaurants. Award-winning food washed down with award-winning wine—it sounds like a perfect combination to me. Why wouldn't you want to come to the Hunter? Just quietly, I've heard of one of the newest tourist markets in the Hunter. It is called burgers of the Hunter. It shot to fame after a 2023 burger calendar. People from everywhere are rushing to the burger capital of Australia and the world. But if wine, food and scenic country views aren't your thing, we also have in the Hunter electorate the largest saltwater lake in the Southern Hemisphere, Lake Macquarie. There is nowhere better to be in touch with the best that nature has to offer. Or, if you prefer to experience Lake Macquarie from the land, there are amazing walking and cycling tracks offering some of the best views you will find. But it's not only people from other countries who want to see our vineyards and our amazing lake; the Hunter is a hotspot for domestic tourism. It's played a massive role in keeping our region going and our state afloat after the tough times of border restrictions during COVID. People from Sydney frequently visit the Hunter, and it's easy to see why. When you're stuck in a fast-paced concrete jungle like Sydney that is filled with road rage, who can blame you for wanting to visit heaven, which you can find just a couple of hours up the road in the Hunter. No matter what your taste is, whether you're a domestic tourist or an international tourist, the Hunter electorate is what you're looking for, regardless of what you're looking for on holiday. Here in the Hunter we rely on tourists, and I'm part of a government that strongly supports the tourism industry and gives strong support to regions like the one that I represent. Anyone who suggests otherwise is absolutely dreaming. 13:23 Mr BOYCE 299498 Flynn The tourism industry is critical not only to the Australian economy but also to the economy of my electorate of Flynn. I often say that the Flynn electorate is the economic engine room of the Australian economy, and the tourism industry is a major contributor to that. The picturesque seaside communities of Agnes Water and the town of Seventeen Seventy offer a diverse range of activities and experiences, including iconic Queensland beaches and national parks, and access to the heart of the southern Great Barrier Reef. The townships of Rubyvale, Sapphire, Anakie and Willows—the sapphire gem fields—are only a 45-minute drive west of Emerald and cover almost 900 square kilometres. People from all over the world descend on the sapphire gem fields each year to experience fossicking firsthand, trying their luck to uncover the ultimate gem. Hidden in the rugged ranges of the Queensland central highlands is the Carnarvon Gorge. This features towering sandstone cliffs, vibrantly coloured side gorges, diverse flora and fauna, and Aboriginal rock art. Mount Morgan is a picturesque, historic town nestled in the Dee River ranges, situated approximately 38 kilometres south-west of Rockhampton. With its range of impressive attractions on show, the town offers ideal opportunities to delve into the area's early success as a goldmining community and relive its fascinating past. These are just a few of the amazing tourist destinations in my electorate of Flynn that are filled with both domestic and international visitors throughout the year. International visitor numbers to Australia for the year ending May 2023 remain down 40 per cent on the corresponding May 2019 figure. Of the 5.6 million international visitors in the year ending May 2023, only 32 per cent nominated holidaying as their reason for travel, with the majority, or 43 per cent, of visitors nominating visiting friends and relatives as the reason for their travel. In 2019, 47 per cent of international visitors nominated holiday as their reason for travel. Prior to COVID, Australia's visitor economy was worth $166 billion, and it was growing faster than the national GDP. It supported over one million direct and indirect jobs in 300,000 businesses across Australia. Australian tourism and hospitality operators are largely made up of small- and medium-sized businesses who were smashed when international and domestic borders were shut during the COVID pandemic. But what have we seen in this Labor government's first 14 months? You've guessed it, Madam Speaker Payne: in true Labor fashion, we've seen funding cuts, tax increase   s and poor decisions being made. This includes a cut in funding to Tourism Australia by $35 million, the agency tasked with rebuilding our international tourism market. The international market for global travel is fiercely competitive, and many destinations have returned to pre-COVID pandemic levels of international visitors, so we need to be investing in our agencies, such as Tourism Australia, not cutting their funding. An increase to the cost for tourists for the working holiday-maker visa by 20 per cent means the cost of a working holiday-maker visa has increased from $510 to $630 and is one of the highest priced working holiday visas among comparable countries such as New Zealand, the United Kingdom and Canada. The government has increased the passenger movement charge for international terrorism. This tourist tax is part of Labor's taxing agenda. We've seen them introduce the carbon tax 2.0, the truckie tax and the fresh food tax. They really should change their name from the Australian Labor Party to the Australian tax party. The government rejected Qatar's proposal, effectively saying no to 700,000 additional fees from Europe and the Middle East each year which would have generated hundreds of millions of dollars in economic stimulus for our tourism industry and broader economy. This decision reduces competition, keeps airline tickets at record high prices and stops international travellers choosing Australia as their holiday destination. You would think that this Labor government would want more people to come to this country and spend their money at Australian businesses. I'm proud to support the member for Page's motion today, which calls upon the government to back Australian tourism operators and the regions reliant on international visitors by reinstating funding cuts to Tourism Australia and reversing its tourism tax targeted on international visitors. I would like to conclude by thanking all of our tourist operators and businesses in the electorate of Flynn. 13:28 Mr BURNELL 300129 Spence I rise to join my colleagues the member for Fremantle and the member for Hunter in speaking against the motion moved by the member for Page, who I might add is also the shadow minister for trade and tourism. It is unfortunate that we are to do so on a subject such as tourism. As many have done during the course of this debate, we can each paint a very picturesque image of our part of this great nation and describe why our state and, indeed, our electorate is worthy of a visit both by domestic tourists and by international tourists. That is the debate I'd much rather be having, because—I'm sorry to disappoint the members present—I contend that South Australia would clearly win the argument hands down. Instead, we have the member for Page moving a motion to criticise the government, a motion that speaks of doom and gloom in the tourism sector, a motion noting that the line is drawn not from the advent of the COVID-19 pandemic but from the likely first instance where the member for Cook did not effortlessly fail upwards in life and got turfed out of government by the Australian people. I quite like my idea better. What better opportunity is there to showcase some of the many successes that South Australia has had in the tourism sector now that the worst of COVID is, hopefully, behind us and that there are now Labor governments both in Canberra and on North Terrace? Frankly, it is a debate that is entirely germane to the member for Page's motion. There is something for everyone, whether you visit Adelaide or one of our many regional centres; whether you are from South Australia or are just passing through; whether you're here to attend one of our many events—sporting, cultural, food or wine; or whether you're visiting from somewhere interstate or from overseas. The plain headline figures alone paint a very different picture from the one the member for Page is pushing, about tourism after the COVID lockdowns ended and our borders reopened. The latest available figures that I have at my fingertips show that, in the 12 months leading up to March 2023, tourism for South Australia hit $9.4 billion, which has grown from $6.1 billion in the previous 12 months. Of that, regional tourism has $4.47 billion, which is a staggering 23 per cent increase on prepandemic levels. Interstate tourism spend has hit record highs—$3 billion—which is up 18 per cent on prepandemic 2019 figures. I must admit, during the pandemic, the regions were seen as the only available option for a getaway. Once people explored some unfamiliar scenery within our own backyards in SA, the staycations were here to stay, having events like the Adelaide 500, the Fringe Festival, the Santos Tour Down Under, Tasting Australia, the AFL Gather Round and a state of origin game—which I naturally had to miss due to it being held in a sitting week. South Australia's 'Festival State' licence plates may have ceased to be issued after 2008, but, since the election of the Malinauskas Labor government, we are living examples of our old slogan instead. The extra revenue flowing through to hotels, to hospitality and to so many other industries beyond our tourism sector gives us the breathing space to steadily grow our international numbers after their heavy and abrupt crash and gives breathing space to the sectors that heavily relied upon them for income. The successful regrowth and revitalisation of the South Australian tourism industry is largely thanks to the Malinauskas Labor government—ministers such as my predecessor, Nick Champion, who is now the South Australian trade and investment minister with responsibility for Brand SA, and Zoe Bettison, SA's tourism minister. We should be thankful to know that we also have a South Australian at the helm in our government. I know that Senator Farrell, the Minister for Trade and Tourism, works tirelessly in that role to bring Australia back to the forefront of the minds of tourists across the globe. What we have from the opposition are criticisms that things aren't improving quickly enough. They've criticised the government for imposing an extra $10 on the passenger movement charge. I never thought I'd see the day when we'd have the Nationals lamenting measures that would ensure that a fully funded biosecurity regime was in place, but we saw nine years of Nationals in government and they didn't come close to doing that either. A robust and fully funded biosecurity system helps to protect and safeguard not just our ecotourism industry but also our agricultural and horticultural industries. The member for Page is either oblivious to, or ambivalent about, this fact. That said, in their time, we did have the member for New England threatening Johnny Depp's dogs, so that counts for something, I guess. The Albanese Labor government is taking the importance of our tourism and visitor economy seriously and will continue to do so during this parliament and into the future. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 144732 The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned, and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. Sitting suspended from 13:33 to 16:00 STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS 139 STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS Cost of Living 139 16:00 Mr BANDT M3C Melbourne Is the right to obscene profits more important than the right to eat? Coles seems to think so. Coles made over a billion dollars in the last year, driving up the cost of bread, milk and vegetables. Is the right to huge profits more important than the right to tell the truth? Qantas seems to think so. Qantas reportedly sold over 8,000 tickets on flights it had already cancelled, took $2.7 billion in public handouts during the pandemic and returned more than a billion dollars in profit, all while cosying up to the government. Is a landlord's right to unlimited rent increases more important than a renter's right to keep a home? Labor seems to think so. Labor has refused to put any limit on rent increases, which would give renters some breathing room from greedy property moguls who can write off their losses to the taxpayers. Everyday people are being used as cannon fodder so that the big corporations and the very wealthy can make even more obscene profits. Young people are being driven into decades of debt while Coles, Qantas and Telstra return billions more to their owners and shareholders. And, if you don't own a property portfolio, millions of shares in a big corporation, earn hundreds of thousands of dollars a year or are a CEO, Labor is letting you down. If you're renting, Labor's letting you down. If you're cutting back groceries, Labor is letting you down. If you've been ripped off by Qantas, Labor is letting you down. It's time to make the big corporations pay their fair share of tax so that everyday people can have a better life. Men's Shed Week 140 16:02 Ms PAYNE 144732 Canberra This year, the Men's Sheds Association celebrates an important milestone: 30 years of men's sheds. That's three decades of men's sheds building connections, community and inclusivity. With 1,300 men's sheds well established around the country, I want to congratulate the amazing sheds in my electorate of Canberra on their achievements including the Hawker Men's Shed, the Majura Men's Shed in Dickson, the Forrest Men's Shed, the Giralang Kaleen Men's Shed and the Hughes Community Shed. I want to particularly highlight today the Hawker Men's Shed and what they've been doing through their quarterly repair cafe, where the Canberra community can have their beloved items repaired and saved from the rubbish tip. The shed has saved 458 items from landfill since it started in 2020. Men's sheds are more than just a place to tinker with tools; they are community spaces for men to connect, converse and combat social isolation. Many men struggle with mental health issues in silence, and men's sheds provide an avenue for them to open up, share their stories and find solace in the company of their peers. I'm very proud to be part of a government that is supporting the valuable work of men's sheds with the recent announcement of $670,000 of grant funding for up to 131 men's sheds, through grants of $10,000 each, to help sheds improve their facilities, buy tools et cetera. Once again, congratulations to our men's sheds and their volunteers on 30 years of service to our community. Keep up the great work! Oil and Gas Exploration 140 16:03 Ms STEGGALL 175696 Warringah I rise to once again call on the government to put an end to the threat of oil and gas drilling off the coast between Manly Beach and Newcastle. Communities up and down the coast have campaigned for years to stop this project. Prior to the last election, the now Prime Minister stood alongside the member for Newcastle, and many other members of the government, and told us that the only way to put an end to this project was to elect an Albanese government. Yet this government has agreed to consent orders with the project proponents to once again send it back to the start of the process for reconsideration by NOPSEMA and the joint authority. There is a better solution: my Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Amendment (Stop PEP11 and Protect Our Coast) Bill would put an end to this project for good, give communities the certainty they deserve and preserve our coast for years to come. Today, this bill will fall off the Notice Paper, but I will be presenting another and another, until PEP-11 is genuinely dead in the water. The Prime Minister stood and grandstanded on the coast promising that under a government he led it would be dead in the water, yet it is still there, hanging over the heads of our communities. There is no support for oil and gas drilling off the coast between Newcastle and Manly. This project needs to be ended immediately so that our communities can get on and know that it is gone. St Peter's College Clyde North 140 16:05 Ms FERNANDO 299964 Holt I had the pleasure of representing the Minister for Education, Jason Clare, at the opening and blessing of the St Martha building at St Peter's College in the suburb of Clyde North in my electorate of Holt. This new building consists of facilities to teach hospitality, dance and music and includes a state-of-the-art commercially fitted kitchen, a separate food technology kitchen, a performing arts complex and even a podcasting suite and recording studio. This will help the school offer a wide range of courses, including VCE and VET to St Peter's students. In addition, in line with the school's service orientated mission, the hospitality kitchen will also be used for community support projects like fundraising and staff functions. The building has been designed with increasing collaborative teaching and learning experiences for teachers and students in mind. I am pleased the school received $2 million in funding through the Capital Grants Program for the construction of the new building. I am confident the staff of St Peter's College, led by Chris Black, will make great use of the new facilities and deliver quality education for those in my electorate of Holt. La Trobe Electorate: Purton Place Pre-Loved Op Shop 141 16:06 Mr WOOD E0F La Trobe I rise today to speak about the great pleasure I had in visiting Angel and Daniel Chichi, who have the not-for-profit Purton Place Pre-Loved Op Shop in Pakenham, which they've been running for the last six years. They've pretty much being dedicating their lives to running this second-hand shop. I pay tribute to and thank Angel and David for their incredible, tireless and immeasurable care they provide to the community of La Trobe. Not only does their store offer a fantastic array of preloved goods to the public but importantly—and this is where the work they do is so crucial—they provide starter packs for domestic violence sufferers and assist women and children going through a transition after experiencing bad domestic violence. They provide toys for the children and clothing. Any money which comes in when they sell things they actually provide back to the DV families and survivors. They did receive an award, the Tony Fitzgerald Award, which was presented to them at the Cardinia council's annual white ribbon event. I can't thank them enough for the work they do. They don't do it with any grants, but that's something I'm keen to change in the future. These are incredible people supporting our local community, especially survivors of family and domestic violence. Rheumatic Heart Disease 141 16:08 Mr GOSLING 245392 Solomon Back in June I attended the fantastic opening of the Heart Foundation Northern Territory's new office where they will continue to reduce the burden of heart disease that is suffered by many, many Territorians. The NT has one of the highest rates of cardiovascular disease mortality in Australia, taking almost one Territorian's life per day. Last week, I spoke with health professionals in the Pacific about their rheumatic heart disease burden, and, as embarrassing as it is to acknowledge, Australia has some of the highest rheumatic heart disease rates in the world. And, within that sad record, the NT has the highest rate of RHD with First Nations Territorians having 120 times the national average. Ending RHD is a key priority for the Heart Foundation, along with supporting First Nations cardiovascular health, tobacco related harm, food security and literacy. It is working towards eliminating the infection which causes RHD by 2031. Our government has invested $11.97 million in the Rheumatic Fever Strategy. Together, we can put an end to this entirely preventable disease, as other countries have done, before it devastates another generation of First Nations and other disadvantaged children in our nation. Qantas Airways Ltd 141 16:09 Ms SHARKIE 265980 Mayo Australians who trusted our national airline carrier have been shocked by allegations that Qantas has been engaging in anticompetitive behaviour while posting record profits. The removal of expiry dates on credits for Qantas flight cancellations may be too little too late, with current fares significantly higher— A division having been called in the House of Representatives— Sitting suspended from 16 : 10 to 16 : 24 Ms SHARKIE 265980 The ACCC reports that on domestic routes with Qantas, Virgin and Rex flights, consumers experienced up to 20 per cent reductions in fairs. Reform is clearly needed to competition laws in relation to airlines. Furthermore, Australians need fairer rules regarding cancellations. In the European Union, EU 261 requires refunds when a flight is cancelled. Similarly, American legislators have also legislated to ensure a consumer is entitled to a refund for a cancelled flight. My intern, Riannon Newton, is looking into these issues. Riannon is doing a terrific job. I have so many constituents, as I'm sure many people in this chamber do, who have had very difficult experiences with airlines and who are out of pocket. When they try to rebook flights now, they're finding them three and four times the original cost pre-COVID. I look forward to sharing Riannon's work with the House when completed so we can consider more about what we can do to protect consumers in this space. Anti-Semitism 141 16:25 Dr ANANDA-RAJAH 290544 Higgins According to a survey by the Australasian Union of Jewish Students and the Zionist Federation of Australia, more than two-thirds of Jewish students have experienced anti-Semitism at universities. Over half have chosen to hide their Jewish identity, and one in five choose to avoid campus altogether. After the cloistered environment of school, young people set foot into university aiming to aim high. They are unshackled from the oversight of teachers and parents to spread their wings, broaden their horizons and step outside their comfort zone. That should not mean stepping into harm's way. With university still split on whether to adopt the IHRA definition of anti-Semitism, it is no surprise that reporting of anti-Semitic abuse on campus remains so low. The process is onerous, and university responses are consistently poor. When Jewish students avoid self-disclosure due to fear, it only compounds the problem. The sharing of experience, of truth and of culture prematurely truncates. Without the breaking of bread, bridges are not built and the status quo remains. It is thanks to AUJS that vigilance around anti-Semitism continues, complementing the Albanese government's banning of Nazi symbols. Self education at the Melbourne Holocaust Museum and being an upstander along with reform in universities, workplaces and sporting teams are the measures that will knit us closer, making us impervious to the forces of division. Local Government 142 16:27 Mr RICK WILSON 198084 O'Connor I rise to applaud all candidates for mayoral, shire president or councillor positions in the WA local government elections that will take place on 21 October across my division of O'Connor. O'Connor houses more local governments than any other electorate. There are 57 all up, ranging from Wiluna in the WA Goldfields down to Nannup in the state's south-west. Nominations for the elections opened last week and close this Thursday. I wish all candidates well. I thank and pay tribute to those elected members who've worked so hard on their councils and who've decided to retire this year. I work closely with mayors, shire presidents and councillors, all of whom contribute so much to their communities. All LGAs in my electorate are regional or remote ones. These municipalities have especially appreciated two programs that were tailored to regional Australia. The Labor government abolished the Building Better Regions Fund and will discontinue the Local Roads and Community Infrastructure Program. Both programs allowed the Commonwealth to directly support projects that LGAs themselves nominated as important. The 57 councils in O'Connor will sorely miss them. Many members of this place started out as local councillors. They cut their political teeth developing budgets, debating issues and driving democracy at grassroots level. All candidates, be they local, state or federal, have a passion for public service. I commend local candidates of O'Connor, who, in 2023, aspire to bring the voices of their communities to their shire or city halls. Killcare Wagstaffe Trust, Putty Beach Bushcare 142 16:28 Dr REID 300126 Robertson Today I rise to acknowledge the tremendous work that the volunteers from the Killcare Wagstaffe Trust and Putty Beach bush Landcare group do rehabilitating environments on the New South Wales Central Coast. The Killcare Wagstaffe Trust has been active for 30 years and the Putty Beach Bushcare group for 15 years in the region. I recently met with volunteers David Legge and Gai Davies from the Killcare Wagstaffe Trust to learn about how federal government funding has assisted their organisation. David and Gai were able to show me the outstanding rehabilitation works that have taken place at Killcare Beach, which included weed removal, the planting of native species and other maintenance work. This work has also occurred along Putty Beach to the north, and in other areas within the Bouddi National Park. The Central Coast has a unique coastal environment, and it is imperative that all levels of government support groups that are working to preserve and strengthen our natural ecosystems. I would like to thank the following volunteers for their continued work supporting the environment: David Legge, Gai Davies, Piers Jones, Phil Matchet and Jon Charles. I note that $10,000 was provided to the Killcare Wagstaffe Trust through the Australian government's Planting Trees for The Queen's Jubilee program, which helped support this recent rehabilitation. Canning Electorate: Health Care 142 16:30 Mr HASTIE 260805 Canning Recent media reports reveal a staggering statistic back home in Western Australia. Over half of all Western Australians have lost faith in the WA Labor government's ability to fix our health crisis. Three months have passed since Roger Cook became premier, yet our health system remains broken—that's after almost 6½ years of Labor government. It's time for Premier Cook to face reality. Overstretched hospitals, exhausted healthcare workers and unacceptable wait times have become the norm, and this is not the standard of health care that Western Australians deserve or should accept. After six years of Labor the situation continues to get worse. For years I've been campaigning with my local community for Labor to upgrade our local hospital, the Peel Health Campus. My constituents cannot afford to wait any longer while Labor sits on its hands. It's time for the Premier and the three Labor state MPs in the Peel region—David Templeman, Lisa Munday and Robyn Clarke—to get on with their jobs. They were elected in 2021 to fix the hospital. They went to the election with a commitment of $152 million to upgrade the hospital, and we're yet to see anything. Now we learn of delays in the transition from private hands into public hands. In the latest update on the hospital upgrade, we were given bureaucratic speak about how the staff engagement group has been established to provide connection and learning and all the rest of it. What we need to see is real action from this Labor government now. Corangamite Electorate: Road Safety 143 16:31 Ms COKER 263547 Corangamite Every life is precious, and every journey we take on our roads should be a safe one. That's why black spot areas, notorious for accidents, need our immediate attention. By enhancing infrastructure, adding traffic signals and improving safety measures, we can prevent tragedies and protect our loved ones. It's why the Albanese government is committed to building safer roads in growing regions like mine, in the electorate of Corangamite in Victoria. It's a commitment to safety, a pledge to save lives and a testament to our dedication to the wellbeing of our communities. I recently visited Grovedale and Torquay, which will receive more than $2.3 million in federal funding to improve safety where serious accidents have happened or are likely to happen, and I saw firsthand how the Black Spot Program is making our streets safer and preventing needless injuries and fatalities. Investing in this program ensures our children can play safely and can travel to school, and our families can drive to work without constant fear of accidents as they drive. Our government recognises the importance of working with local councils—including Surf Coast, Golden Plains, Borough of Queenscliffe and City of Greater Geelong—to deliver safe roads for our families, our friends and our communities, because our government knows every life is precious and every journey should lead you home safely. Hickling, Orlando, Cyclone Training Centre 143 16:33 Mr HOGAN 218019 Page Orlando Hickling from Maclean High School has been selected to represent the New South Wales First Nations Goanna team in the Australian Secondary Schools Rugby League National Championships at the end of this month. Orlando is currently playing for the Clarence Magpies under-16s team, coached by John Elisaia. His mother Dee-Anne, father Anthony and brothers Ajay, Bronx and Roman are extremely proud of him. Orlando started playing football in the under-7s. He hopes to play for the Cronulla Sharks one day. Congratulations, Orlando, on a great achievement. At the recent National Powerlifting Championships in Adelaide, five representatives from Cyclone Training Centre in Goonellabah set seven national records and two world records. Owner of Cyclone Training, Josh Brown, broke two world and national records and will be heading to Manchester for the world championships. Alex Sipple competed in the under-15 division and set two national records. Shane Atta-Singh deadlifted 330 kilograms in his class, which was a personal best and a new national record, and Trish Tindall deadlifted 164 kilograms, also a new national record and a personal best. Maria Elpitiya Badalge also set three personal bests with her lifts on the day. I'd like to congratulate all the competitors and wish Josh the best at the world championships. Haynes Farm 143 16:34 Mr REPACHOLI 298840 Hunter At the start of April I had the absolute pleasure of dropping by Haynes Farm to meet with Haynes and Ethan. Haynes is an 18-year-old Hunter local who has just opened his own farm. Opening a farm at the age of just 18 is an extraordinary achievement for anyone, but Haynes is even more amazing than your average 18-year-old. Haynes lives with autism, but he doesn't let this hold him back at all. He always had a dream of owning his own farm, and now he does. The boys showed me around the farm. They showed me their chicken coop, the jetty, the orchard, and they showed me their plans to expand. Thank you so much for a great morning. I even got to take home my own carton of farm-fresh eggs to have for breakfast, and let me say, Mr Speaker, they were delicious. Thanks also to Maxine, who runs Strive for Autism, which is a local group of friends and families supporting others coping with autism. If you need something to brighten up your day, go and visit Haynes farm. They've recently planted a crop of veggies, so get in and support this great local bloke and pick up some farm-fresh eggs and fresh produce. I look forward to learning more and visiting the farm again, Haynes. Enjoy it, and good luck. Renewable Energy 143 16:35 Mr JOYCE e5d New England I rise today to talk about the campaign that is against people losing their property rights by reason of transmission lines and having their environment destroyed by reason of wind factories and solar factories, against having a power price that is going through the roof while reliability is going through the floor and against having overseas companies so the money goes overseas. Basically, we understand the swindle and how we're getting done over. We've now set up a national group. We've got people from Clarke Creek. We've got people from Tasmania, from Victoria and from New South Wales. I'd like to commend the people who have put their hands up to be part of the executive of that group: Grant Piper from Coolah, Hamilton Gerrand from Gippsland and Katie McCallum from Kilkivan in Queensland. This goes to show you that a spread of people across our nation is now forming together. They're getting coordinated and they're getting the capacity to have real political effect. I look forward to them coming down here—I really do. I look forward to them coming down here and protesting on the front lawn, because no-one is listening to them. At the bush summit in Tamworth, the protesters there had basically good, honest intentions, but the Prime Minister wouldn't speak to them and the minister for the environment wouldn't speak to them. They ignored them. The only way they're ever going to get heard is if they turn up in Canberra. Ferragosto 144 16:37 Ms SITOU 298121 Reid Anyone who knows the Italian community well will tell you that they are passionate about the three Fs—football, food and family. To these I would like to add two more Fs—the Ferragosto festival and Five Dock—for I believe that Five Dock and the Ferragosto Italian street festival are the heart of the Italian community in Sydney. Last month, on 20 August, more than 150,000 people came to Five Dock to take part in Ferragosto, one of Sydney's most loved festivals. It was started in 1998 with just a few stores in a car park, and it has grown to become one of the premier festivals on our calendar. There was gelato, gnocchi and cannoli. There were pizza spring rolls—but I don't think they quite worked. But all the other food was amazing. It's a wonderful celebration of Italian food, culture and traditions, and I congratulate the Canada Bay council for putting the festival on. Italian migrants were among the first waves of migrants to come to this country, and they were there when we needed them the most, building the Snowy Hydro and harvesting sugar cane in Far North Queensland. But they were also able to build this success story of multiculturalism that paved the way for other multicultural communities that came after them. Thank you very much. National Rugby League: The Dolphins 144 16:38 Mr 247742 Petrie HOWARTH () (): What an outstanding first season it has been for the Dolphins in the National Rugby League. I'm sure even the member for Blair would agree, even though his Ipswich Jets didn't get the nod. But the Dolphins have done extremely well. With a win over the third-placed Warriors in front of a packed out Suncorp Stadium on Saturday, it is no wonder that, in their first season, the number of members the Dolphins have has passed some 30,000, a feat reached by only three other NRL sides. In 2023 alone, the Dolphins community and game development team have driven over 25,000 kilometres, making 241 school visits and covering more than 200 junior clubs stretching throughout Brisbane, Moreton Bay, Sunshine Coast and Wide Bay and all over Central Queensland. With an average crowd attendance at Suncorp Stadium at a whopping 32,000 per game in their first year, the Dolphins are now No. 1 in NRL for on-field jersey sales and No. 2 for sponsorship dollars. 'Dawn of the Dolphins' on Stan was the highest-watched feature on streaming services. If you haven't watched it, get into it. The $8 million investment by the former coalition government went a long way to helping them get into the NRL. At the last election, the coalition committed $16 million for a high-performance centre, which we'll keep fighting for and will promise again at the next election. Thanks to everyone involved. You did a great job. We look forward to 2024. Lyons Electorate: Sporting Events 144 16:40 Mr BRIAN MITCHELL 129164 Lyons It's said to be a game for the ages when the Meander Valley Sunnettes and the Deloraine Football Club head off in the Northern Tasmanian Football Association, division 1, senior women's grand final this Saturday at UTAS Stadium in Launceston. Only 17 kilometres separate the home grounds of the two Meander Valley clubs, but their rivalry is strong. These two teams are the top performers in the NTFA, and it's wonderful to see their hard work pay off with their presence in the grand final. The Meander Valley Sunnettes played in the 2022 grand final, coming in second to the hated George Town in the electorate of Bass. This year, they're back with a vengeance, under the watchful eye of president Steve Saltmarsh and captain Emma Groves. With star players like Cleo Creswell, who is the NTFAW division 1 leading goal kicker for 2023, the team is operating at peak performance. Deloraine has also had a stellar year and is rearing to go for the final. They've had a field of outstanding players, including Hannah Mitchell-Grima, who not only took out the women's club 'best and fairest' but also won the Boag's MVP award for division 1. I won't be backing a winner for obvious reasons—they're both in my electorate! But what I will say is that no matter what the result, the Meander Valley is the winner and will be taking home the premiership cup! That in itself is a terrific result. Good luck to those terrific sportswomen hitting the field this weekend. Capricornia Electorate: Cost of Living 145 16:41 Ms LANDRY 249764 Capricornia Last week, I had the privilege of hosting the Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the Nationals in Rockhampton so that they could meet with local businesses to hear firsthand the impact that escalating costs are having. We paid a visit to a local business, Doblo's Farmers Market, who noted a significant increase in production and transportation costs for their produce. Families are paying the price for this government's poor policies, which are pushing prices of food and energy through the roof. Doblo's Farmers Market told us that locals in Rockhampton are paying 20 to 30 per cent more for their eggs than they were last year. Eggs, a staple in just about every household and once a cheap and nutritious option, are now becoming more expensive than ever. Our farmers are doing everything they can to meet the supply needs of our nation, yet farmers simply can't get the workers needed to produce the food and fibre our country requires. It's harder than ever for the 1,714 farmers in Capricornia to find the workers they need. This government continues to hinder the agriculture sector with a lack of practical solutions to ease the workforce shortage. The consumer price index figures show food and non-alcoholic beverages have increased in price by 7.5 per cent, with bread and cereals up by 11.6 per cent and dairy by 15.2 per cent. Many constituents in my electorate of Capricornia are feeling the hurt in their hip pockets. What they need is good policy that drives down the cost of living, not a government with the wrong priorities. Swan Electorate: Healthy Strides 145 16:43 Ms MASCARENHAS 298800 Swan Swan is the home to Healthy Strides, Perth's only research backed, evidence based, intensive therapy provider. It's a world-class leading facility that puts the latest science, tech and research into practice through intensive therapy that results in truly transformational outcomes for NDIS clients. I was proud to take the Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme to meet the Healthy Strides team, including the impressive Dayna Pool, the CEO. When you step into Healthy Strides, you see enthusiastic staff, high-tech equipment, a welcoming child-friendly environment and, most importantly, kids with disabilities loving their intensive therapy. Healthy Strides incorporates lots of cool, smart tech onsite. Similar to the way the astronauts can take a giant leap in zero gravity, kids with disability can also use world-class technology called ZeroG, which stops people from falling as they undergo therapy. ZeroG at Healthy Strides is the result of a collaboration with Mineral Resources and the Telethon Trust. Using cool tech with research based methodologies, Healthy Strides provides intensive therapy in six-week blocks to achieve real outcomes to transform the lives of clients. If you think that sounds cool, tune in to their podcast, called Research Works. Healthy Strides shows the way the NDIS is changing lives on a scale unimaginable a decade ago. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 201906 In accordance with standing order 43, the time for members' statements has concluded. PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS 145 PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS Ideologically Motivated Extremism 145 16:45 Mr BURNELL 300129 Spence I move: That this House: (1) notes with great concern that: (a) there has been a significant increase in far-right extremism and extremist activity in Australia and throughout many parts of the developed world; (b) far-right extremism is often cultivated through its overlap with various conspiracy theories, which have become a common tool to radicalise individuals, especially through misinformation on social media platforms; and (c) far-right extremism tears apart the social fabric of Australia's proud and diverse multicultural communities; (2) acknowledges the vital work undertaken by agencies within Australia's national intelligence community, in cooperation with federal, state and territory law enforcement agencies, to identify and disrupt extremist activities and to intervene and assist those who are at risk of becoming radicalised or becoming further radicalised by hateful ideologies; (3) condemns far-right extremist groups that presently operate within Australia that seek to promote fascism, ethnic and religious based hatred, and to recruit and radicalise others to ascribe to their malevolent systems of beliefs; (4) affirms that the ideologies endorsed by right-wing extremist groups have no place in the Australian community; and (5) commends the Government for taking the threat posed by right-wing extremism in Australia seriously. I rise in this place today to lead the House's condemnation of far-right extremism wherever it rears its ugly head, whether it be within our borders or abroad, and whether the actors involved originated within our borders or were imported from abroad. Far-right-wing extremism is one of the great existential challenges and threats we face in Australian civil society today, particularly in today's modern age—one beset by climate that is weighed down by post-truth politics and post-COVID lockdowns. As we know, far-right-wing extremism is a threat that is neither new nor uniquely Australian. The challenges our society faces from far-right-wing extremism are more than just existential in nature. The threat matrix it poses is very real indeed. It is a threat that is, however, manifesting itself within Australia in a number of different ways and through mediums that adapt rapidly at the pace of technological advancements, both for communicating with its audience and attempting to mask digital footprints from the prying eyes of the national intelligence community. It is an ever present threat to peace, order and good government, to constructive civil discourse and to those who find themselves targets of their fixation, whether that be the case because of the religion they follow, the colour of their skin, their political beliefs or the job or office they hold, they once held or they aspire to hold in the future. These factors and more can paint a target on the backs of individuals or entire sections of Australia's population. I am grateful this motion is to be seconded by the member for Wills. The member for Wills is not only the chair of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security Committee but also the second-most authoritative Khalil on the subject matter; I'm sure the member for Wills would agree with me on that point. Taking top spot on that particular leaderboard is the Lowy Institute's very own Lydia Khalil, a subject matter expert whose book Rise of the Extreme Right is an excellent place to start for those who want to learn more about extremism and extremist ideologies in an academic sense. Soberingly, far-right extremism has existed here and continues to exist in many guises. It's existed as posts on Telegram, inciting a call to arms and encouraging those viewing it to recruit from within the communities. It has shown itself steps away from the Victorian parliament, where Neo-Nazis burned crosses and performed Nazi salutes. Such acts so overt in nature would have been unthinkable several years ago. Now, many groups have been emboldened to act with impunity out there in the open with disturbing frequency. The extremism has even shown itself through the actions of an Australian-born man who took it upon himself to exact his twisted manifesto upon a community of innocent civilians at Al Noor Mosque in Christchurch on that one fateful day in March 2019. That day, one man, an Australian-born man, snuffed out the lives of 51 people, left 40 others injured and changed the lives of thousands throughout New Zealand, Australia and across many other parts of the globe. What was once seen as being on the crackpot fringe of beliefs and ideals has slowly but surely migrated across to the mainstream of our society. Though far-right extremists are not a homogenous group by any means, the number of common denominators within manifestos and many groups' core beliefs is starting to grow. This has been the case in all pockets of the world in the post-truth era, but the commonalities have become more apparent after the advent of the COVID-19 pandemic. It is a threat that is, however, manifesting itself within Australia in a number of different ways and through mediums that adapt rapidly at the pace of technological advancements, both for communicating with its audience and attempting to mask digital footprints from the prying eyes of the national intelligence community. In 2021, ASIO confirmed that right-wing extremism made up 50 per cent of its priority caseload. Many in the previous parliament saw it as a reason to act, but then there were others that felt personally attacked by the term 'far-right extremism'. We had, amongst others, the former senator Fierravanti-Wells even questioning the Director-General of Security on this topic. Those on the other side of the chamber who identify as being on the conservative side of politics or right wing would know already that, in anyone's mind's eye when referring to far right extremists, they are not them. But those members and senators, like all of us, are part of the solution. We cannot tolerate— (Time expired) The DEPUTY SPEAKER 201906 Is there a seconder of the motion? Ms Mascarenhas 298800 I second the motion and reserve my right to speak. 16:50 Mrs ARCHER 282237 Bass I thank the member for Spence for shining a light on this issue today, one that I've spoken about a number of times in this chamber. I share his concerns about the significant increase in far-right extremism activity in Australia and throughout many parts of the developed world. Just hearing last week that Germany may see the election of the country's first far-right party since World War II is both distressing and depressing, as the Alternative for Germany party continues to attract a record number of voters at a time when their economy is in turmoil. I also support the member's commentary that far-right extremism—defined by ASIO as 'the support for violence to achieve political outcomes relating to ideologies, including, but not limited to, white supremacism and Neo-Nazism'—is often cultivated through its overlap with various conspiracy theories. Just two years ago, an Australian Neo-Nazi had his passport cancelled on national security grounds—the first time that this has ever happened. At the time, the ASIO director, Mike Burgess, stated that 'while neo-Nazi cells are not new, they are growing and pose a grave terror threat'. Sadly, in Tasmania over the past few years, there has also been a rise in antisemitic and white supremacist symbols appearing across the state, including in northern Tasmania. I commend the Tasmanian government for its recent legislation banning Nazi symbols and salutes, sending a strong message that this hateful and offensive conduct is not welcome. In the past few years, the combination of COVID lockdowns, a changing political landscape through the rise of Trumpian-style politics and the influence of social media has become a potent mix. As co-chair of the Parliamentary Friends of Ending Loneliness, I've also pondered the effects of loneliness, isolation and the breakdown of community and what this means for our society, particularly for men who are overrepresented when looking at far-right extremism activity, though women are certainly not immune from joining in these activities, with the participation of women in right-wing extremism also on the rise. It's easy to see how some members of society who feel lost, angry and withdrawn from society may be more susceptible to far-right views and conspiracy theories. It's here, often on the internet, that they can feel a sense of belonging and united against a perceived enemy. In fact, in recent years studies have indicated that social exclusion is a leading factor in radicalisation of individuals, and in 2021 researchers at global think tank RAND Corporation found that loneliness is one of the predominant reasons people adopt extremist views and join extremist groups. Unsurprisingly, social media has become a key tool for recruitment. In 2021 a joint submission to the inquiry into extremist movements and radicalism in Australia by the Department of Home Affairs, Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade and the Attorney-General's Department stated, 'Social media is a force multiplier for the spread of abhorrent, hateful or violent material online.' Then, of course, these departments are also battling the rise of encrypted technologies that are making it easier to distribute dangerous propaganda and recruit to their cause. I commend the work overseen by the Department of Home Affairs to combat a number of these challenges through the countering violent extremism program, which is a joint initiative of all Australian governments. The focus of CVE centres on working with communities to build resistance to extremist ideologies and works by engaging with communities to support diversion, build resistance against radicalisation and rehabilitate and reintegrate those who have left violent extremist groups. Elected representatives also have a responsibility to call out dangerous rhetoric that may give rise to dangerous right-wing extremism in our communities. Sadly, as we've seen in the US and as we're seeing playing out in Europe right now, when those in positions of power and privilege play on the anger and mistrust of their constituencies, they embolden disenfranchised individuals by creating an enemy out of migrants and/or minority groups. Does this sound familiar? There is no doubt that history is repeating in ways that we didn't think were possible 10 or 15 years ago. I call on parliamentarians to consider our words and actions carefully. They do have impact and consequences. We should be seeking to protect and enhance our institutions and systems of democracy—talking them up, not talking them down, and, where we can, making them better. We have a duty to protect Australia and Australians from right-wing extremism. There is more for us to do. I thank the member for Spence, again, for moving this motion. 16:55 Mr KHALIL 101351 Wills I also thank the member for Spence for moving this very important motion because in the recent period we have seen an increase in the presence of far-right extremism. It's been observed around the world, not just in Australia. That shift has also been reflected in the threat assessments that our intelligence agencies have been making with respect to putting more resources into addressing far-right extremism. In my home state of Victoria we've seen, in recent years, Neo-Nazis marching openly in the Grampians. We've seen them spewing hatred in front of the Victorian parliament. We know, all too well, that this extremism often goes far beyond marches and demonstrations as well. It's insidious. Only a handful of years ago our friends across the Tasman Sea saw the horrific consequences of far-right terrorism in the form of the Christchurch mosque shootings. We know with the Nazis and Neo-Nazism that their fascist ideology is built on the hatred, the ignorance, the violence and the discrimination against people of various and different identities. Whether it be their race, their religion, their gender or their sexuality, it's all part of their ideological playbook to pick a minority, manipulate misunderstanding and ignorance and try and sow hatred, division and fear within the community. It's about dividing. It's an ideology that really poses a very serious and real threat to our wellbeing, our way of life and our national security. That's why our intelligence agencies and law enforcement recognise far-right extremism for the threat that it is. The AFP, for example, has stated that right-wing extremism has been spreading across the country, particularly in our rural and regional areas. In 2021 the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation—ASIO—noted that roughly half of its priority caseload consisted of far-right threats. Across the board these institutions have worked diligently to disrupt a number of plots that could have resulted in lethal consequences for innocent Australians. The AFP has advised that the rise in far-right violence is, in large part, aided by the ease with which extremists can spread their material online. Much like Daesh, these groups use the internet as a recruiting tool, picking out those who they view to be susceptible to their vile belief systems and vulnerable to those ideas. So it's important that our security agencies play a role in addressing all of those threats across the board. That's why the Albanese government is committed to providing them with the resources they need to protect Australians. We're also undertaking a wide-ranging cybersecurity review to assess and develop solutions to the challenges posed by online extremism. But we also know that far-right extremists often try to manipulate, as I said, people within the community to sow discord. So we all have a role to play; we all must play our part. We often see that the rise of the far right also occurs in the context of social and economic inequality and socioeconomic disadvantage. That disadvantage, anger and frustration is manipulated by these groups for their own advantage. As a government we are committed to addressing that disadvantage while also equipping our intelligence agencies to tackle the threats that far-right extremism poses. It's got to be a whole-of-government focus, not just of the intelligence and security agencies but right across the board, because it's about addressing inequality. It's about addressing the issues that make people ripe for exploitation. That is so fundamental to our social cohesion as a nation. We should make no mistake here. We cannot afford to become complacent with respect to this issue and this risk. History shows us what the consequences of failure look like. We know the ultimate aim of these groups is sinister, destructive and insidious. They want to break down the very foundations of a pluralistic, diverse, democratic society. That's their goal. They want to replace it—by force if they can—with one that subjugates those they view as inferior. Their whole ideology is based on a hierarchy of those who are superior and those who are inferior, based on identity. We talk a lot about multiculturalism in this country and the diversity of our nation. I've always said that multiculturalism is a strength of our nation. That's very true. But we know now that there are many people in those groups that seek to divide us based on our identity, differences and diversity. Safeguarding Australia's highest held ideals of democracy, and the diversity that makes us who we are, is so necessary to preserve our cultural identity, our economic stability and our national security. At all levels, from the individual to the community groups to the federal and state governments, we have to come together to acknowledge the threat that far-right extremism poses to us as a people and ensure that it is not allowed to take a foothold in this great nation. 17:00 Ms DANIEL 008CH Goldstein I thank the member for Spence for this motion. It's only a few weeks since pupils from a college in the Goldstein electorate were threatened by a knife carrying assailant shouting anti-Semitic abuse as they headed home from school. Not long before that, I was informed of the circulation in Goldstein and Kooyong of a Neo-Nazi flyer laden with anti-Semitism and vilifying current and former MPs with language redolent of the catchphrases of the Nazism of Germany in the 1930s and 40s. But, as the AFP informed my office, the behaviour of extremist organisations and actors is very hard to source because many of the actors are very sophisticated in covering their tracks. Violent extremism is becoming more widespread, more complex and more nebulous, driven by online actors' accessibility to exploit and activate feelings of exclusion, alienation and resentment. The digital landscape enables people to not just spout extremism but interact with each other and seduce those vulnerable to their arguments. There is a danger in pointing the finger at one cohort in the community, reflected in ASIO's 2021 decision to talk more broadly about religiously motivated violent extremism and ideologically motivated violent extremists rather than labels like Right and Left, which ASIO chief, Mike Burgess, said often distract from the real nature of the thread. There is also another 'disturbing development', as Burgess put it, in last year's threat assessment: the proliferation of extremist content online means individuals are radicalising very quickly, in days and weeks, so the time between flash to bang is shorter than ever. As Lydia Khalil, the Lowy Institute's project director of Digital Threats to Democracy Project put it in a submission to the inquiry into extremist movements and radicalism in Australia conducted in the last parliament: … conspiratorial movements or individuals who believe in a conspiracy and are connected online, are now emerging as a standalone domestic extremist threat. Khalil quotes the FBI as stating: Anti-government, identity-based, and fringe political conspiracy theories very likely will emerge, spread, and evolve in the modern information marketplace over the near term…occasionally driving both groups and individuals to commit criminal or violent acts. The 6 January US Capitol insurrection is a most telling example. AVERT, a multidisciplinary research initiative at Deakin University, argues that 6 January clearly demonstrated how a networked online conspiracy movement can migrate from the online environment to cause real-world harm and to radicalise individuals to violence. Our mainstream media has a role and responsibility here too. As a foreign correspondent in the US, I observed first hand these disturbing developments gathering pace and traction. As I and my co-author, Roscoe Whalan, noted in our book about this very matter, violent white nationalism does not begin with Donald Trump, but his failure to fully condemn it fans century-old racial hatred that festered during the eight years of the Obama administration. The Center on Extremism estimated that right wing extremists were responsible for 90 per cent of extremist killings in the US in 2019. But, if ASIO is right, extremists don't fit into neat Right, Left or indeed religious boxes. The two examples I noted at the start of this speech are among dozens I could have cited. The recent murders of two Queensland police officers and an innocent neighbour is the most recent tragic example here in Australia. In that case, the perpetrators claimed Christian faith. Neo-Nazis with their Hitler salutes infiltrating public events are another increasingly visible warning. The recent display on the steps of the Victorian parliament was a disgrace. I welcomed the Tasmanian government's recent decision to ban the Nazi salute, the first jurisdiction in Australia to do so, and Victoria has moved to follow suit. Before too long, we'll be debating legislation to ban hate symbols nationwide. Whether the legislation goes far enough is another question. The Executive Council of Australian Jewry, for example, argues that the federal legislation should follow the Tasmanian example and prescribe the public performance of Nazi salutes and similar gestures as well as a broader ban on trading in Nazi memorabilia. I do hope this is addressed in the current inquiry into the legislation. Free speech is not hate speech, and hate speech should not be defended as such. The two things are very different and should be called out, as should extremism and those who fan it for their own ends. 17:05 Ms MASCARENHAS 298800 Swan Firstly, welcome back to members and staff. It's great to be back in Canberra at the start of spring with slightly warmer weather. Spring is the symbol of a new beginning and a hope that, as a parliament and as a country, we embrace its promise of new beginnings and growth—a new beginning for Australia to grow as a nation and to vote next month for constitutional recognition for our First Nations Aussies, a new beginning that embraces diversity, respect and tolerance, and a new beginning that celebrates Australia's multicultural community. That is why it's important to stand here today and speak on the rise of right-wing extremism in Australia. I commend the member for Spence for bringing this motion to the chamber for debate. I share his concerns about the significant increase in far-right extremism and extremist activities in Australia. A rise in right-wing extremist ideology and activities is a matter of concern for our nation. Australia is not immune to the influence of right-wing extremists, thanks to the reach of social media. Unfortunately, it rears its ugly head all too often in our community, online and sometimes on our TV. It's a shocking trend mirrored all around the world. The horrific Christchurch mosque shootings in 2019, where 51 Muslim worshippers lost their lives, further underscores the global reach of right-wing extremism as it incites white supremacists around the world. We were so shocked at this in my community that, as a result of the Christchurch massacre, we ran antiracism workshops with the Vic Park collective, the Islamic College and Star Street Uniting Church. It's something that needs to be called out. In the United States of America just last week, a leader of the far-right Proud Boys received an 18-year prison sentence for his involvement in the attack on the US Capitol Hill in January 2021. This sentence marked the longest punishment handed down in this case thus far. During that attack 140 police officers were injured, and members of right-wing extremist group Proud Boys was seen inciting violence, coordinating attacks on law enforcement officers and leading other rioters to breach the Capitol building. New Zealand authorities have pointed to the unlinked but ideologically affiliated chapters of Proud Boys operating in Canada and Australia. The presiding judge in the US case rightly noted, 'If we don't have peaceful transfer in this country, we don't have anything.' These events strike at the very heart of our democracy, our safety, law and order, and the integrity of our government. It underscores the pressing need for our parliament to take the rise of right-wing extremism with the utmost seriousness. Security forces have identified a direct link between the steady rise in right-wing extremism and the ready availability of violent extremist content online. Social media provides a dangerous platform for these toxic ideologies to infiltrate the minds of those vulnerable to such views, serving as a breeding ground for conspiracy theories rooted in their fear. I recall seeing the shocking images out of Melbourne earlier this year—actions of a few inspired by hate, copying the actions of those abroad. The Victoria Let Women Speak event, a tour of speaking events which gives women a safe space to speak about things that matter to them, was gatecrashed by right-wing extremists who taunted them with Nazi salutes. These people were members of the National Socialist movement. They gave Nazi salutes, chanted 'white power' and yelled offensive slurs and held offensive banners. They marched down Spring Street, dressed in black uniforms and wearing black bucket hats. On the steps of the Victorian parliament, they stood in a line and performed the Nazi salute. This sickens me. This should sicken all Australians. The hurt and distress that would have caused those people at that event and those witnessing their actions is alarming. They must know that we, as leaders and decision-makers, will not stand for it. The Albanese Labor government stands to unite with all Australians, regardless of their identity. Diversity is one of our greatest strengths. 17:10 Mr STEVENS 176304 Sturt I thank the member for Spence for bringing this motion to the chamber. I absolutely concur with all the contributions that have been made so far. I want to touch on an additional point that this debate allows, which is the surprise I feel every year on 2 September—which was just two days ago—on the anniversary of the surrender of the Japanese aboard the USS Missouri in Tokyo Bay. The Japanese regime of the Second World War is one of the most significant examples of a right-wing extremist regime in the Asia-Pacific region, and, indeed, 2 September marked the end of the existential threat that they posed to the region we live in, including continental Australia. It surprises me that we don't make as significant an acknowledgement and commemoration of that event as, in my view, we should. We absolutely appropriately commemorate Anzac Day, as we acknowledge and commemorate at 11 am on 11 November. In Europe, they commemorate Victory in Europe Day, as they should. It's something that is significant to us because Australians served in a significant capacity in the early stages of the European conflict, including my grandfather in North Africa at El Alamein. But he, like most Australians, came back after the fall of Singapore. That was the most significant point in Australian history that we felt was a very significant threat to our own continental integrity and the risk of invasion. We talk in this chamber about some of those individual conflicts, but it is a surprise to me that we don't mark 2 September. I don't think anyone who has looked at Australia and its history would be able to rationalise why it is that the conflict that threatened our nation the most of any conflict, that the end of that conflict is one that we don't take the opportunity to solemnly commemorate. We commemorate a lot of other things, but that one is a surprise. I mention that in the context of this debate because that was a regime that was an extremist right-wing regime, and this motion appropriately talks about the important need to be ever-vigilant against ideologies that lead to things like Nazism. Of course, the actions of the Imperial Japanese forces in countries like China and Korea and on our own Australians, whether it was the Banka massacre, the prisoners in Changi or those on the Burma Railway, as we slowly but surely crawled up through the Asia-Pacific to Japan proper, and particularly the conflicts in Papua New Guinea, I think we can reflect on whether or not as a nation we could do a much better job of taking 2 September much more seriously than we do. We should commemorate it and talk about how important it was that we liberated our own nation and our region from the risk of ongoing Japanese dominance. That was on 2 September 1945, two days ago. I will quickly conclude by reinforcing the comments that have been made in this debate about the growing antisemitism in our society and in no way suggesting that right-wing extremists are not utterly guilty of upholding those abhorrent views. Frankly, this is where the hard left and the hard right basically fuse together, and the hard left have some pretty appalling views when it comes to antisemitism and the state of Israel. I think that antisemitism has always been seen as one of the most significant attributes of hard right-wing extremism and anywhere in our society where we see it we should always take the opportunity to call it out. I do that in this opportunity I am given, here in this debate. So, thank you to the member for Spence for bringing it to the Federation Chamber and thank you to all members who have contributed. I absolutely concur that we, as a parliament, and in our democracy we should always make sure that we are speaking up for and defending the tolerant society we are very proud to live in. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 265980 There being no further speakers, the debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. Black Spot Program 150 17:15 Mr PASIN 240756 Barker I move: That this House: (1) acknowledges the importance of the Black Spot Road Safety Program, which has been delivering funding continuously since 1996 to reduce the risk of road crashes; (2) notes that half of all road crashes are on local government roads, and these crashes account for 52 per cent of all casualties and 40 per cent of all road deaths; (3) recognises that local government is responsible for around 77 per cent of the road network but only collects around 3.5 per cent of the total tax revenue raised by governments in Australia, and as such is heavily reliant on road funding from other levels of government; (4) further notes that: (a) two thirds of all road fatalities occur on regional roads; and (b) the Black Spot Road Safety Program intention is to allocate funding on a half-half basis between urban and rural roads; (5) further acknowledges that not all councils, in particular rural and regional councils with lower rate bases, have the resources necessary to make applications that meet criteria for the Black Spot Road Safety Program; and (6) calls on the Government to amend the Black Spot Road Safety Program guidelines to make it easier for the local Government sector to access that fund. I brought this private members' motion to the attention of this place because I want to highlight a number of things. I want to acknowledge the importance of the blackspot road safety program, which is a program that dates back to the very beginning of the Howard era in 1996. It has run continuously since then to reduce the risk of road crashes. I want to highlight the important role that local government has in managing our road network. Some 77 per cent of the road network is managed by the local government sector. I want to highlight that many of those local governments are small in size, so, while two-thirds of all fatalities occur on rural roads, many of these councils simply don't have the resources to make very detailed and involved applications for funding under the Black Spot Program. And I call on the government to consider amending program guidelines to make it easier. The National Road Safety Strategy sets an ambitious but necessary task for Australians to reduce deaths on our roads by 50 per cent by 2026 and serious injuries by 30 per cent by the same date. Given that target, obviously investment in road safety programs is a priority. That's why governments continuously, from 1996, have invested heavily via the Black Spot Program. Indeed, this government notionally is investing $120.1 million, which has been allocated across the 2023-24 Black Spot Program nationwide, because, of course, we can't simply talk about reducing this death toll—we've actually got to do something about it. When I say 'notionally invest in', I have to point out to this place that announcements have been made around the South Australian elements of the program, the Tasmanian elements of the program and the Victorian elements of the program to date. We're waiting on other announcements, but, if I just take Victoria, notionally there was $25.6 million allocated, but—would you believe it!—there was an underspend of $5.5 million. In South Australia, the notional allocation was $.5 million and the underspend was $2.9 million. In Tasmania, they recently announced a budget allocation of $3.1 million with an underspend of a touch over half a million dollars. So, in circumstances where we're seeing road deaths increasing disproportionately and, indeed, are well above not only historical numbers but also the trajectory that would get us to the 50 per cent reduction, you'd have to start asking yourself the question: Why? Why have there been such significant underspends in this important program? Could it be that there are no infrastructure safety issues that are causing these deaths? Well, nobody would argue, I hope, that that's the case because we all know of situations that require additional road treatments. Could it be that insufficient applications have been made? Well, that could be the case, and, if that is the case, particularly from the local government sector, the feedback I'm getting is this program is just too difficult to make an application to. The program has both proactive and reactive elements—proactively, reasonably difficult, and reactively, easier. Where there's been an accident causing death, then the criteria guidelines provide that this funding is accessible. It's where there are proactive programs where it's far more difficult. Those are situations where a road authority or a local council may well know that a section of road is dangerous but they need to undertake a road safety audit. That's expensive. That takes a long time, and you're not always successful. So what I want to see is a simplification of this program, in particular, how applications are made, so that we can get all of the funding out the door. I don't want to see significant underspends. An allocation of $31 million should see a spend of $31 million, an allocation of $8½ million should see a spend of $8½ million and an allocation of $3.1 million should see a full spend. Our road safety requires it. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 265980 Is the motion seconded? Mr Chester IPZ I second the motion and reserve my right to speak. 17:20 Mr GOSLING 245392 Solomon I'm delighted to speak about the Black Spot Program, which funds safety measures—for example, traffic signals, roundabouts, barriers where serious car crashes or near misses are known to have occurred—particularly because I have the honour of chairing the blackspot committee in the Northern Territory. The Black Spot Program is a Hawke government initiative that began in 1990 and was later reintroduced by the Howard government, and I give them credit for doing that. It's one of the most important and effective federal programs for reducing crashes nationwide. One early review of the program found that, for every dollar spent on it, about $4 was generated for the Australian economy, and that's huge already, before you even consider the incalculable value of the lives that are saved by it. As of 2012, there were 1,600 blackspot projects around Australia, each preventing, on average, 1.7 car crashes. Even with a conservative estimate of two people involved in each car crash, that is over 5,000 people saved from grave injury or death across these projects. This program is central to the Australian government's commitment to building safer roads, as we work towards our vision of having no deaths at all on our roads by 2050. That's the ambition. I'm very proud that our Labor government has committed $110 million per year to the Black Spot Program, working with state, territory and local governments to improve road safety across our nation. I was particularly pleased that the Territory received $2.4 million under the Black Spot Program for this financial year. Territory roads, as you would know, Deputy Speaker Sharkie, are spread over a massive area—1.3 million square kilometres—and about three-quarters of our 36,000 kilometres of roads are unsealed. Our geography and our climate extremes make it even more important to construct safe and resilient roads. I value the contribution by the member for Barker, who moved this motion, to our current inquiry into improving road resilience. The fact is that the Territory remains the most dangerous place in Australia to be on a road, with 475 people killed and 4,242 people seriously injured on our roads in the 10 years from 2006 until 2016. Just last year we lost 52 lives. Scores of families were absolutely shattered. Of course, one road death is too many, and our goal remains zero. That's why the nine blackspot projects across the Northern Territory are so welcome, making an important contribution towards reducing serious injuries and deaths on our local roads. They build on previous investments in the Territory, and these include $144 million in funding to the Northern Territory as part of the Australian government's $3 billion national road safety program. In Darwin, which is the place I've represented with Palmerston, the blackspot projects include a roundabout to reduce vehicle speeds in Fannie Bay, as well as a left turn lane on the corner of Amy Johnson Avenue and Boulter Road in Berrimah. Those watching will know exactly where that is. And in Palmerston we are investing in intersection delineation, reducing lane width and three school zone crossings on Emery Avenue to keep families, kids, students and parents safe around Bakewell Primary School. As I said, I welcome the member for Barker's motion which acknowledges the absolute importance of this program. It's crucial that this and other road safety programs remain bipartisan and are strongly supported. I want to acknowledge that local governments are very important in this area, given that they're responsible for 77 per cent of our road network, and I note that they can seek funding under the black spot road safety program. We should always continue to work to make sure that programs such as this are as user friendly as possible so that we can get the best results out of them. I encourage those that are involved in road safety to continue to look for all those opportunities. 17:25 Mr CHESTER IPZ Gippsland I want to congratulate the member for Barker for moving what I think is a very important motion in the Chamber today. Those of us who live in rural and regional communities understand that a disproportionate number of our people, our constituents, our family and friends are killed or injured on our roads every year. You'll notice that, in my contribution tonight, I won't use the words 'road toll' because the word 'toll' suggests there's a price we have to pay, or are willing to pay, for road safety. I don't accept that more than 1,200 Australians have to die on our roads every year. When you think about this issue and the ripple effect of just one road crash, the impact it has on our communities is quite staggering. Obviously, there is the direct impact on the individuals in the vehicle—or vehicles—involved, whether they're killed or injured. It has a dramatic effect on them. But, then, the ripple goes out to their family and friends. The ripple goes out even further to the first responders, many of whom suffer PTSD for the rest of their lives from having dealt with motor vehicle accidents. Then it flows onto the health workers in the hospitals and to the long-term recovery that goes on. That's all from one road crash. I simply don't accept that that ripple effect—that trauma—is something that we have to accept going into the future. So I do congratulate the member for Barker for his contribution here today, for highlighting one program, the Black Spot Program, which is designed to target those areas with a proven crash history and take action to remediate, to make our roads safer for all. I'm concerned that governments—and I say 'governments' plural—across the board are not doing enough when it comes to reducing road trauma. This is an issue which is costing the Australian economy $30 billion per year and, as I said previously, more than 1,200 lives. There is a responsibility for all levels of government—local, state and federal—to work in partnership on these issues. It's just too easy, today, to always blame the drivers. We need a safe-system approach to this issue. A safe-system approach is all about safer drivers, safer cars, safer speeds and safer roads—and we don't talk about the roads enough. Right now, in my state of Victoria, my car has to be roadworthy, but the roads aren't 'car worthy'. We have potholes, roads with poor shoulders and a lack of overtaking and rest opportunities for drivers. The roads are simply not car worthy, and it's a direct result of a lack of investment, over a long period of time, in the road environment. When we talk about this black spot funding program, it's important to recognise that it's just one of many programs which should be directed at improving the safety of the road environment for all road users. The member for Barker was right. Once you allocate a level of funding to a program—I think it's $110 million for black spots—you actually have to get the money out the door and on the ground, delivering benefits to people in those communities who need it most. I can't help but think that the level of bureaucracy we're putting in place makes it hard for local government, with their limited resources, to apply for funding and have the capacity to deliver those road improvements on the ground. So I would suggest to the bureaucrats in charge of these programs: look for ways to simplify these programs and look for ways to get the money that's been allocated out the door and on the ground, delivering road safety benefits in our communities. The other point I'd like to make this evening is in relation to the current review which is underway into infrastructure spending in this country. The Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government announced a 90-day review more than 120 days ago. In that time, projects that hadn't started construction have been delayed for another 120 days. There is not a single road project in our country that's getting cheaper by waiting. So, while this review is going on, people are at risk of being killed and injured on our roads because we can't get the money out the door, and this is going to go on for another few months, I fear. I have projects in my electorate which were funded and announced sometimes two or three years ago. But, because you couldn't get the state government to make their 20 per cent contribution, work hadn't started before this minister announced her review process. So I call on the minister to hurry up and deliver the outcomes of this review and get the work started with the infrastructure investment pipeline projects that can deliver road safety improvements in our country. I'll say it again: we simply can't accept that 1,200 of our fellow country men and women have to die on our roads every year. The trendline for us in Victoria right now is appalling. We've had a 23 per cent increase in road deaths this year in Victoria. It's simply not good enough, and we have to do everything we possibly can, working in partnership with local government, state government, federal government and road users themselves, to improve the safety of the road environment and reduce the traumatic impacts of these crashes. What they're doing to our communities on a daily basis is something that demands an even greater response by all levels of government. 17:30 Ms MILLER-FROST 296272 Boothby I rise today to speak to the importance of Australia's Black Spot Program, and I thank the member for Barker for bringing this important private member's motion forward. South Australians have had a devastating 12 months, with 94 people dying on our roads. This is a 10.6 per cent increase on the previous year. In September 2022, the RAA of South Australia identified the intersection of Sturt Road and Marion Road in my electorate as the most dangerous in the state, accounting for 40 casualty crashes in the preceding five-year period. This is more than any other intersection in South Australia, exceeding even the notorious Britannia Roundabout, which you would be familiar with, Deputy Speaker Sharkie. Thankfully, we have the Black Spot Program, targeting the road locations where crashes are occurring or are at higher risk of occurring. We know that projects delivered through Black Spot funding reduce serious crashes by an average of 30 per cent. Programs such as these are incredibly effective in the long run. They may end up saving our communities many times the cost of relatively minor road improvements that are implemented, saving them from the trauma of loss, as well as financially. The Australian government is wholeheartedly committed to the $110 million a year Black Spot Program across the nation, and, under the Black Spot Program's 2023-24 funding round, South Australia will be receiving funding of $5.9 million and investing in 17 sites across the state. Funding under the Australian government's Black Spot Program will substantially improve 24 dangerous crash sites on South Australian roads, and I'm relieved to know that these works will mean more South Australians get home safe. An example of one of these projects is the intersection of Marion Road and Alawoona Avenue in Mitchell Park, in my electorate. The installation of a traffic signal pole and lanterns will improve visibility of the traffic signals, and projects such as these are improving road safety in my electorate and across the state and keeping South Australians safe. Of course, we know that the road toll doesn't end at the city limits. I personally have two friends who have both separately lost parents in crashes on country roads, and, having lived in rural South Australia for a period of time, I know the impact of crashes on emergency services, who are often volunteers from the local community, health services, who likewise live locally, and the local community at large. It's important that Black Spot funding goes to the areas where we know that there is a high road toll and high crashes. Road deaths are one of the most preventable public health issues we face, and the Black Spot initiative recognises this. Applications for Black Spot funding are considered annually, and anyone can apply—it's a simple two-page application. I'd say to anyone listening: if you know that a local road is dangerous, I strongly encourage you to apply. It's a simple online application that can be emailed to the relevant state transport department, who will undertake the road safety audit section of the application for you. A few minutes of your time could make a huge difference in your local community, by simply putting in the time to apply for this funding. I'm very proud to be part of a government that is wholeheartedly committed to the $110 million a year Black Spot Program and that takes road safety seriously. We will continue to fund measures right across the country that improve road safety, because we understand that these measures mean more Australians make it home to see their families. Twelve hundred road deaths a year is simply too many, and we need to do better. 17:34 Mr PEARCE 282306 Braddon I too congratulate and recognise the member for Barker in moving this very important motion. He understands the regions. As a former chair of the Tasmanian Black Spot Consultative Panel and, like the member for Barker, a representative of a large rural electorate, ensuring that our entire road network is maintained and fit for purpose is important to me. There were 1,187 fatalities on our nation's roads in the 12 months to the end of February—45 more than in the same period last year. In Tasmania this represented a 36.8 per cent increase in lost lives. It's a sad and confronting statistic that Tasmania has the highest road deaths per capita of any state in Australia. Another important statistic is that in Tasmania local government-owned roads comprise approximately 80 per cent of the entire road network—approximately 14,500 kilometres. Around 78 per cent of these roads, or 10,700 kilometres or thereabouts, are rural roads in rural areas. In terms of safety, these 10,700 kilometres of roads account for a disproportionate number, approximately one-third, of Tasmania's fatal and serious road accidents. If you had the great fortune of visiting Tasmania in recent times and driven along our national highway from Hobart through to Smithton, you would have seen significant investment in two major arterial routes, the Midland and the Bass highways. Jointly funded by the federal and state governments, this investment is welcome, important and timely. But our local roads, maintained by our local government and our local councils, are the ones I'm concerned about. They also require significant investment. This has been exacerbated in recent times by extraordinary weather events which have caused millions of dollars worth of damage to culverts and bridges and caused landslides and the like. There is no doubt that our great local councils are committed to maintaining the roads that fall within their jurisdiction, but they're struggling to find the resources and the assets that they need. We're not comparing apples with apples when it comes to road funding as local government roads tend to have a much more diverse range of road environments to manage: from high-speed rural and remote roads with diverse services to local streets, residential shopping precincts and our local schools. Local governments also tend to have a greater mix of road users, like pedestrians and vulnerable cyclists, not to mention agricultural machinery and oversized, multi-articulated, heavy vehicles which are normally laden with produce going from farm to processing. Although councils manage around 77 per cent of the national road network, they only collect 3.5 per cent of the total tax revenue raised by governments in Australia. In the 2023 pre-budget submission, the Australian Local Government Association called on the Albanese government to 'budget a fair increase to the Financial Assistance Grants' that local councils and local governments receive. This was in keeping with the election commitment made by the Labor government to local communities right across the nation. Regrettably, rather than increasing the Financial Assistance Grants to represent 'fair funding' in the May budget, they made cuts to this as a percentage of tax revenue. The Local Government Association of Queensland labelled it a 'clear failure' by the federal government—the Albanese government—to deliver fair funding to its rural and regional communities. I welcome last week's announcement of the $2.57 million which has been allocated to Tasmania through the 2023-24 Black Spot Program. I welcome the benefits that 15 sites across Tasmania will receive through this investment. I particularly welcome the $550,000 investment in the electorate of Braddon and upgrades to local roads in Devonport and Kindred. But right across our region, the state, the national and our local roads are in poor condition. They're dangerous and represent a serious risk for road safety, and it's putting a handbrake on productivity. There is inadequate funding of local places, local government areas and an unfair inequitable financial burden to local communities. I'm therefore calling on the federal government to prioritise the adequate resourcing of local councils through available avenues, including the Black Spot Program, the Financial Assistance Grants and the Local Roads and Community Infrastructure Program to ensure that our local road networks are maintained to a safe standard. 17:39 Ms CHESTERS 249710 Bendigo The black spots program—and we're talking about roads here, because sometimes people confuse it with the black spots program for mobile phone towers—as those in regional electorates know, is critical. They also know that it has been bipartisan for many years. It has existed in its current form since 1996, but we have seen a significant increase in funding flow into the program since that time. In Victoria, my home state, from 1996-97 to 2022-23, over $360 million has gone into local roads, funding individual black spot programs. My electorate has done well. Since 2011-12, we have received close to $30 million through this program for that little intersection, where it might be $250,000 to upgrade pedestrian access around a roundabout, to major intersections like Edwards Road in Maiden Gully. I mention Edwards Road in Maiden Gully because it's receiving funding in this round of the black spots program. What I've always thought is tough to stomach when it comes to this program is that you need to have fatalities or near misses to be able to qualify. It is when we start to lose lives or are at risk of losing lives. Everybody knew that Edwards Road would be a problem from the moment they started building houses on the other side of the Calder Highway. Yet, until now, there wasn't a funding source available to fix this intersection. Before I became a member of parliament--a decade ago--people were raising this issue with me. We need to do better in how we help local and state governments fund road infrastructure. This is not the only program that the federal government funds. There's also the Roads to Recovery funding, which is funding that goes directly to local governments to help with local roads, plus there's a Local Roads and Community Infrastructure fund. Our government has extended the funding for another year to focus on regional and rural road funding for local councils to do the work that is needed. What's missing from this debate is a discussion about what has happened to our road network in the last decade. The impact of natural disasters has had a significant impact on our local roads. The flood event that we had in October in my electorate washed entire roads away, not just our small gravel grade roads around Axe Creek and Axedale, but VicRoads lost entire major arterials in and out of Bendigo. Every major road into town was damaged just as much small roads. Unfortunately, we're now in a situation where we're repairing roads damaged by the previous floods into this year. This is a problem that all of us face. With increased natural disasters, the roads that were repaired last summer may have to be repaired this summer. So, yes, there are lots of challenges out there, but it's also an unprecedented experience that many of our communities are having because of the impact of increasing natural disasters. This program is a program that was, I thought, bipartisan. It was recognition that funding did need to be allocated to state government to help local government fix black spots. It was an extension and a gesture from the federal government to say, 'We are here to help you to do the work that is needed.' Yes, the process does feel a bit clunky. We, at the federal level, allocate the money to the state government to establish a panel. I got the opportunity to chair the panel in Victoria. We consider a list that's been put forward by the Victorian government. It's a panel made up of a few representatives, not just members of parliament, and then local governments put forward those projects. The program is always oversubscribed, as there is a need for it. So there could be a future review of how we go through that process. However, even the money that you might save by looking at that process isn't going to be enough to bridge the gap. Yes, we need to have a stronger dialogue between local, state and federal governments on how we fix all our roads, but we also have to look at how we adapt to climate change and the increase of natural disasters and the impact that is having on our local infrastructure. The role of local government is important, as is state and federal, in this conversation about black spots and all road program funding. 17:44 Dr HAINES 282335 Indi I thank the member for Barker for this important motion. This motion feels particularly pertinent for me today as last Thursday four lives were tragically lost at a dangerous intersection on the Hume Freeway in Chiltern in my electorate of Indi. Ten crashes have taken place at this intersection in the last 10 years, including four serious collisions. The most recent crash has sent shock waves through the small town of Chiltern, and my thoughts are with the families of those lost, who I understand come from the member for Riverina's electorate. I pay my deepest sympathy to him and his people. It's not just the families of those who are lost. There was the truck driver and the local emergency workers who were first responders to this horrific accident. It is so important that we make our roads safer for businesses, for individuals and for our community to get to work, to export our goods, to visit family, to go to the local pub for dinner, to get the kids to sport. Our roads are crucial for us to live our lives in rural and regional Australia, and they are critical in times of emergencies. But, with such long stretches and frequent use, sadly rural and regional roads are more likely to see fatalities and serious injuries occur from car accidents than metropolitan areas. The Australian Road Deaths Database, a national crash database, demonstrates that approximately two-thirds of road deaths occur in regional and remote areas, with one-third occurring in a major city area. These proportions have not changed over the last decade. The managing director of the Australian Automobile Association, Michael Bradley, has said, 'We need to understand the factors causing this metro-regional disparity and greater Commonwealth road safety leadership through improved data collection is the key to making this possible.' In Indi, some rural areas have higher accident rates than others. In 2021, Murrindindi Shire Council conducted a road trauma study which found that from 2010 to 2019 they had the highest number of road fatalities compared to other small rural shires in Victoria. Despite high road tolls, rural councils don't have a large amount of revenue to cover the cost to construct, maintain and upgrade the roads. The average income for an Indi local council is only about 16 per cent of the average income for a Melbourne local council even though our local councils are responsible for thousands more kilometres of roads and many more bridges. And, after three years of high rainfall and significant flood events which have caused extensive damage, our roads are worse than ever. In my 30-plus years of living in the electorate of Indi I have never seen our roads this bad. Bridges and culverts are completely washed away, causing lengthy detours. The potholes are bone rattling. When I'm driving across the electorate I'm on high alert for a blown tire or even a broken axle. The work already carried out to fix the roads and all the work that still lies ahead is enormous. More than inconvenience and frustration, these terrible road conditions are dangerous. Constituents are writing to my office weekly with stories of near misses. A farmer from Glenburn called Dean contacted me over the weekend about a half-metre deep pothole on a blind bend on the Melba Highway. He said a trailer's axle snapped going over the pothole. If another car was in the wrong place at the wrong time, it could have caused a serious or fatal accident. The Black Spot Program is a critical program to improve safety on roads where there is a history of accidents, but, like the member for Bendigo has just stated, we shouldn't have to wait till fatalities occur before we get action. Since 2014 the Black Spot Program has provided almost $6 million to Indi councils to undertake critical work to improve road safety—install safety barriers, re-mark lines for foggy conditions, seal shoulders and install flashing warning lights. I support the member for Barker's calls to make sure this program is accessible to local governments to help them make our roads safer. One way to do this is to support local councils to conduct the road safety audit that's required to apply for the program. These audits are expensive, but, as I said earlier, we need more data to identify where and why fatalities are occurring on our rural and regional roads, because without knowing that information, without getting that information right, we can't even begin to start the fix and make them safer. We can all agree that we want to see the road toll go down to zero. Building better roads is a key part of this. The Black Spot Program is a crucial part of the puzzle. But our local governments need ongoing support from government at all levels but at the federal level on this program. 17:49 Mr BRIAN MITCHELL 129164 Lyons As chair of Tasmania's black spot committee, I'm very pleased to be able to speak to this motion before the House. In my time as chair of the Tasmanian committee, our panel has contributed millions of dollars to projects across Tasmania, including in the regions, to ensure that our roads are as safe as they can be. Road accidents are like rocks in a pond. The trauma is most pronounced for those at the centre of the impact but the impacts ripple out and affect many, often for years, even tangentially. My own father died in a road accident, 10 years ago this year. I obviously still miss him and my kids miss their grandfather, who they will never know. The impacts of trauma, whether it's a death or injury, continue for many years and affect many people. Media reporting focuses on the deaths in road accidents, but lives also change for those who survive road trauma with the loss of limbs, brain function or ability to walk, or facial disfigurement. Recovery, if even possible, can take years; mental and emotional scars may never heal. It's horrifying to think of how many young lives are lost or changed because of completely avoidable behaviour: driving when drunk or drug affected, driving fast or recklessly, overtaking on a bend—the list is endless. The Black Spot Program can't fix everything, but it can play a part and does play a part in reducing the risk that infrastructure plays in road trauma. We know that projects delivered through black spot funding reduce serious crashes by an average of 30 per cent. Sometimes the funded projects are relatively minor in scale, but the benefit to the community is significant. Perhaps there's a bend in the road that can do with a guardrail or there's an intersection that can be made safer with a roundabout or a cycle lane that can be put in. As the member for Indi has indicated, perhaps something can be done about the notorious intersection in her electorate that has now claimed four more lives. The Black Spot Program seeks to fund projects where motor vehicle accidents are occurring or are likely to occur. I just want to address this point because I think the member for Bendigo and the member for Indi both indicated that deaths had to have occurred for a project to receive funding. I don't know what the situation is in other states. In Tasmania, my panel takes submissions from people and local governments, and considers locations where road trauma may occur, is likely to occur, or has occurred. So there are different eligibility criteria; it's not just for locations where deaths have occurred. Myriad projects are eligible: traffic signals, roundabouts, lighting, road markings, pedestrian crossings, bike lanes and more. If it can be installed to keep road users safer, it can be considered. Most applications we get are from local councils, but anyone can nominate a black spot. Nomination forms are freely available at investment.infrastructure.gov.au, and I understand there's an app—I don't know where it is, but it's been created to make it easier as well. About half the black spot funds in most states are reserved for projects in non-metropolitan areas, in recognition of the fact that more accidents occur in the regions relative to road use populations. I know my own electorate benefits from the Black Spot Program, and the 12 councils in my electorate appreciate the opportunity to put forward projects for consideration. In the 2023-24 Tasmanian black spots funding allocation, the consultative panel recommended funding for 15 projects across Tasmania, totalling $2½ million including, as the member for Braddon said, about half a million dollars for one of his projects. Across my electorate, five projects received funding this year: $560,000 for safety barriers on Highland Lakes Road in Bothwell, $440,000 for a right-turn lane on Blackstone Road in Blackstone Heights, $240,000 for resurfacing Nook Road in Acacia Hills, $160,000 for a safety barrier on Cethana Road in Moina, and $40,000 for safety barriers on Carlton Beach Road and Webb Street in Dodges Ferry. Given my electorate takes up half the state, that allocation sounds about right. I should note for the record that decisions were unanimous and no projects recommended to the panel were rejected in favour of those not recommended. The Australian government provides $110 million a year for the Black Spot Program, which is delivered in partnership with the state and territory governments, which essentially administer the program. I'd like to take the opportunity to thank my colleagues on the program panel in Tasmania who volunteer their time to help me assess recommended projects and thank the officials from the state government department, the Department of State Growth, who manage the day-to-day operations. The Black Spot Program saves lives and, I'm sure, has the support of every member of the House. (Time expired) 17:54 Mr McCORMACK 219646 Riverina At the outset, may I mourn your loss, Member for Lyons. I know your dad died about three years before you were elected to this place. He would be very proud of you, Brian. He would. Any loss on our roads is one too many. For the member for Lyons's father and the many hundreds of people who lose their lives on our roads every year, it is a tragedy. It is a tragedy not just for those families but for our nation. The economic loss is just massive, but the ripple effect of emotions that it causes cannot ever be understated. Nine News Sydney, X-ing today—or tweeting, if you like—said: 'Police are cracking down on reckless drivers, launching a blitz on Sydney roads after two recent crashes claimed young lives. More than 200 people have died this year on New South Wales roads, up 33 per cent from last year.' I know for a fact that there was another police chase through the streets of Sydney today for 90 minutes. Police had to go up on kerbs to try to get them. No black spot funding is going to stop that. This is just reckless. This is just wrong, and those people—often they are young people—ought to know better. The member for Indi is right: Wagga Wagga and Lake Cargelligo are mourning the loss of four people who were killed at Chiltern just the other day. Wagga Wagga residents Trevor and Lorraine Breen and Noel and Kerry Capes lost their lives when their car and a truck collided on the Hume Highway just south of Wodonga last Thursday. Lachlan Shire Council deputy mayor Paul Phillips knew all four. He said that Trevor and Kerry were siblings. How must that family be feeling tonight? I know the community of Lake Cargelligo—tiny as it is—in the seat of Parkes is absolutely feeling the impact of that tragedy, as are Wagga Wagga and the people whose lives they played such a part in. This motion, brought to the House by the member for Barker, speaks to the fact that black spot funding investment needs to happen. It is bipartisan. It needs to always be preserved and protected in the budget. Indeed, as the minister, I was proud to ensure that we did everything we could and that every piece of road infrastructure investment was looked at through the lens of saving lives. I messaged Brian Monaghan, the mayor of Bland Shire Council, just before I got my feet. There are 3,200 kilometres in the road network in Bland shire, 2,800 kilometres of which are unsealed. It's second only in the state to the neighbouring local government area of Lachlan, whose deputy mayor I just referenced. These are huge road networks and, sadly, because of recent weather events and all the rest, their roads are riddled with potholes. I drive around my very, very large electorate—I know other regional members do the same—and the roads are in a terrible state. They are. I'm sure they are in your electorate, too, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker Sharkie. We need to do everything we can; indeed, we need to do more. It does bother me that infrastructure projects and programs have been put on hold. We need to make sure that the investment continues, particularly, as many regional members have stated, for our country roads, because rural people and remote people are overrepresented in the road toll statistics. I know, when it comes to these sorts of debates, that there are various notes that suggest that we're increasing the number of crashes and that the percentages increase. We need to work towards zero. That's the ultimate goal. It doesn't matter whether you are in Manangatang or Melbourne, the fact is we need to address this issue. We need to address the behaviour of people when they get behind the wheel of a motor vehicle. We need to make sure that we can reduce these crashes such that we don't have any victims on our road. Again, as I said at the outset, I mourn with the member for Lyons. We need to make sure that nobody dies on our roads. 18:00 Mr BURNELL 300129 Spence I'd like to thank the member for Barker for placing a motion about the blackspot road safety program on the Notice Paper. When all is said and done, we should all care about road infrastructure, keeping our roads safe and lowering the number of fatalities and injuries that occur on roads across Australia every year. That is evident by all the contributions here in this place today. And condolences to those morning their loss, including those in the members for Riverina's and Indi's electorates. According to the Bureau of Infrastructure and Transport Research Economics, blackspot projects reduce the number of crashes causing death and injury by roughly 30 per cent. There is a good quote within the National Road Safety Strategy which I'll heavily paraphrase: it calls on eliminating the fatalistic mindset whereby deaths and injuries on our roads are just an inevitable part of road use. We can't allow that. The Black Spot Program itself was born during the time of the Hawke government, although it was put on ice by the Keating government. As the member for Barker pointed out, it has been continuously in place since 1996, when it was reintroduced under the Howard government. Being a member from South Australia too, I am aware of a number of other titles and positions the member for Barker has held from time to time; however, a title that the member for Barker once held was that of the Chair of the South Australian Consultative Black Spot Panel, a position that he held under the previous government from 2016, if I'm not mistaken. The blackspot consultative panel system extends to all states and territories in Australia, and at face value it appears to be a fundamentally sound system to have in place to better identify the areas that most need funding through the program. During the course of this debate we have heard from three panel chairs of their respective states and territories, being the member for Solomon, the member for Lyons and the member for Bendigo. They were also joined by their fellow panel chairs from this side of the chamber—the members for Gilmore; Blair; Fremantle; Canberra; and, from my home state, Makin. These panels are constituted similarly but have a few distinctions, given the local variants of infrastructure, motorists and road safety groups across the country. On the South Australia panel sits the member for Makin with delegates from the Local Government Association of South Australia; the RAA; the South Australian Road Transport Association; the SA Police; the SA Freight Council; the Traffic Management Association of Australia; the Department for Infrastructure and Transport; and a representative for South Australia's minister for road safety, Joe Szakacs. In fact, less than two months ago, I was delighted to be joined by the panel chair the member for Makin when the assistant minister for infrastructure was in Adelaide to announce 17 projects that were receiving funding under the Black Spot Program in 2023-24. We were also joined by Tom Koutsantonis, the South Australia Minister for Infrastructure and Transport; Tony Piccolo, the state member for Light; Mayor Glenn Docherty and Mayor Karen Redman of the city of Playford and the town of Gawler respectively. We all converged upon the not-all-too-quiet intersection between Dalkeith and Stebonheath roads out in Kudla, located in my electorate of Spence. This was to announce that the Black Spot Program would be funding the installation of a roundabout at this location to the tune of almost $2 million from a total of $5.9 million across 17 announced successful projects. This project is one of concern to many local residents who travel down that intersection every day. But I wouldn't be a good local member if I didn't say that this is just a drop in the ocean for the road funding that would fix many of the issues faced by motorists in the north of Adelaide. I'll even go so far as to be collegial with the member for Barker and, for that matter, the member for Grey also. It is especially important given that many road users will traverse through their electorates to get to mine or travel further onwards into metropolitan Adelaide and vice versa. A good example that comes to mind would be a heavy vehicle operator, many of whom I represented as a Transport Workers Union official before my time in parliament. However, this unity ticket waivers a bit when I see the member for Barker speaking of the need to change the rules to make the process of applying easier, yet he thought better of doing so in the many long years he was at the coalface as the chair of South Australia's blackspot panel. As a member so loud to both praise and criticise, he was eerily silent about this. He was keeping it a secret. I wonder why. The member for Barker left the chamber earlier. One thing that was pointed out to me early on, by the member for Riverina, when I was elected to this place last year was: when it's that big of a matter to you, you usually stay in the chamber as a matter of courtesy to hear the entire debate. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 282237 The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. Caravan Parks Grant Program 158 18:05 Mrs 147140 Gilmore PHILLIPS () (): I move: That this House: (1) notes that caravan parks are a popular holiday accommodation choice for Australians, particularly for families, budget-conscious travellers, and travellers who want to get off the beaten track and explore everything our country has to offer; (2) commends the Government and the Minister for Trade and Tourism for the successful roll out of the Caravan Parks Grant Program which is delivering much needed improvements to caravan parks in the regions all across Australia; and (3) encourages Australians to consider holidaying at home, all across regional Australia, and to continue to support local business owners and workers. One of the things I notice—actually, you can't miss it—is the number of caravans travelling along the Princes Highway and into our South Coast towns and villages. Yes, it's fair to say caravanning holidays and trips are all the rage. Of course, they have always been popular—lower-cost family holidays that kids and parents remember forever, and retirees getting out and about and relaxing in our beautiful area. The lessons from COVID made the caravanning dream even more of a reality as people escaped and remembered what was important: time with loved ones and friends exploring. There are so many economic benefits from tourism in our region. The tourism sector is made up of over 90 per cent small businesses—that is, businesses with less than 20 employees. On the South Coast, tourism brings massive economic benefits for our whole community. I'm proud to be part of a government that recognises the importance of supporting these businesses. That's why I'm thrilled with the Albanese government's Caravan Parks Grant Program, and I'm pleased to move this motion today. The Caravan Parks Grant Program is funding $10 million across 111 projects throughout the country. I know that caravan parks are an essential part of our tourism offering on the South Coast, and I'm proud to be supporting them. I'm pleased that, through the Caravan Parks Grant Program, we've provided over $300,000 to support and enhance four local caravan parks across the South Coast with infrastructure upgrades. I want to ensure people can continue to travel and enjoy our beautiful region, supporting our local communities along the way, because I know that the small businesses supported by tourism are the lifeblood of our local economies. They provide employment opportunities and attract visitors who contribute to the growth and stability of our communities. Caravan parks help facilitate this. They're great for families, budget conscious travellers and the grey nomads. But, really, they're popular with everyone; both domestic and international travellers who want to escape the bustling cities and explore our beautiful region flock to caravan parks. Caravan parks provide a place for visitors to stay and enjoy themselves, and play a pivotal role in bolstering regional economies. That's why we're supporting them. On the South Coast, I was happy to award grants of $100,000 to BIG4 Moruya Heads Easts Dolphin Beach Holiday Park to help them finalise their site layout and cabin layout—this new layout will be used to provide accessible accommodation for people who are less mobile or living with disability; $26,000 to BIG4 Batemans Bay Easts Riverside Holiday Park, to help them expand their operation and improve the visitor experience; $93,000 to Alamein Caravan Park in Sussex Inlet, which will use this money to install a new recreational paddle craft boat ramp, to install new and stronger concrete slabs for caravans and to construct mixed electrical and solar lighting and signage throughout the park; and $100,000 to Grady's Riverside Retreat, which will use this funding to renovate a playground, including purchasing a new giant chessboard, a jumping pillow, a putt-putt golf course and a new basketball ring. They will also be improving the kitchen facilities and adding four additional powered sites. The Caravan Parks Grant Program is already having huge positive impacts in our communities. This is an investment in the future, strengthening our regional economies and ensuring the great Aussie road trip remains an enduring tradition. The Caravan Parks Grant Program is just one part of our $48 million package of support for the tourism and travel sector as it recovers from the pandemic. These grants are already helping to attract and upskill workers, provide quality tourism products and deliver infrastructure upgrades. I'm committed to supporting small business and the tourism sector, and we look forward to hearing about, and seeing, the lasting benefit of these improvements to our local caravan parks for years to come. I want to conclude by sending a big shout-out to all our caravan park operators and staff across the New South Wales South Coast. Despite many difficult years of bushfires, floods, storms, COVID and landslips, our caravan parks have been there supporting people and helping people to relax and enjoy our most beautiful environment, towns and villages and all that the New South Wales South Coast has to offer. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 282237 Is the motion seconded? Mr Brian Mitchell 129164 I second the motion and reserve my right to speak. 18:10 Dr WEBSTER 281688 Mallee This Labor government is failing the tourism industry: increasing visa costs, blocking airlines from adding more flights and cutting funding to Tourism Australia, all on the back of a pandemic which tore the heart out of tourism. At the very time when the industry needs this government's support more than ever, Labor is turning its back on them, and we are seeing the weaponising of Aboriginal cultural heritage laws by Labor governments around the country, blocking landowners from developing their own property for tourism. The prospects for the industry just grow bleaker. As a case in point, I want to draw the attention of the Chamber to an egregious case currently taking place at Lake Tyrrell, in my electorate. Prior to the pandemic, Lake Tyrrell drew tourists from all over the world, which was a massive benefit to the local community. Landholders Murray and Maree Allan made an application to the Buloke Shire Council to develop some of their farmland into a small tourist park, to provide accommodation to visitors. This sounds like good news for the local tourism industry because it is. In 2017, as part of their planning process, the Allans were informed by the Labor Victorian state government that they did not have to prepare a cultural heritage management plan to investigate any implications around Aboriginal cultural heritage on the land. Consequently, they continued development and have so far invested over half a million dollars on the project—their retirement savings. In the meantime, the council received $2.58 million in state funding and $2.9 million in federal funding to build a viewing platform over the lake for the benefit of visiting tourists, which was opened in 2020. This platform is right next door to Murray and Maree's farming property. Around the same time, the local Aboriginal land council corporation expressed interest in the development of an ecotourism precinct to serve tourists in the area. So far so good: more infrastructure and amenities to accommodate tourists, to the benefit of everyone. But, when the Aboriginal land council's trail ran cold on the prospects of their own project, their focus fixed on the Allans. Even though the Allans had been scrupulous in following the proper processes, in June 2021 they were suddenly and unexpectedly issued with a stop work order from the state Department of Premier and Cabinet—the same department who had given them authority to proceed without a cultural heritage management plan in 2017. For reasons known only to five self-professed elders, they decided to object to the Allans' tourist park development on cultural heritage grounds, four years after it was announced. There has been no archaeological evidence of tangible Aboriginal items found at the site. In July 2022, Tanya Plibersek, the federal Minister for the Environment and Water, received an application from these same elders to protect Lake Tyrrell, under the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act, using newly published cultural heritage maps that had suddenly expanded to annex the Allans' tourist project on their land. Meanwhile, the Allans are left in limbo with more than half a million dollars sunk into the project, with roads, power and water supply already installed but every prospect that the federal minister will cancel it on the most tenuous cultural heritage claims you can imagine. No public information has been made available to the general community, and opponents of the application have until just 15 September to make submissions against it. Far be it from me to say so, but, from the outside, this application looks arbitrary, wilful and even cynical. I'm in the corner of my farming constituents on this issue and will fight the opportunistic seizure of private property rights through the double-dip Aboriginal heritage state and federal system. As we approach the Voice referendum, which, if successful, is bound to lead to calls for treaties and reparations under Labor, this case is a forewarning to the tourism industry and private landowners of what to look forward to. I urge the minister to fairly and reasonably consider this case. 18:15 Mr BRIAN MITCHELL 129164 Lyons Before I speak to the substance of the motion, I want to address the issue for the member for Mallee. There is a time and a place to raise the important issues she raised. I don't see how this motion before the House about caravan parks and caravan park grants fits in any way. Out of respect for the member for Mallee, we didn't object to her continuing, but that contribution had nothing to do with the issue before the House, and that needs to be brought to the attention of the House. I thank the member for Gilmore for bringing forward this motion. Both the member for Gilmore and I represent regional electorates with many wonderful caravan parks dotted through them. Caravan parks have long been a holiday destination for many families, and I'm sure many of us in this place can recall great memories of spending time in local caravan parks as kids. We'd make great friends, as temporary as they were, with the other holidaying kids. We'd collect shells at the beach and do all sorts of things—barbecues and campfires. I'm sure we've all had adventures to share with school friends upon our return home. The Albanese government recognises and understands the importance of caravan parks, not just for our fond memories but for local tourism and regional economies and for our culture as a nation. We're generally an outdoorsy sort of place, and caravans are a great way to get around the country. In fact, one of the very few positives—if there were any positives out of the COVID-19 pandemic—was that it forced us all to stay closer to home. I know those in mainland states were perhaps very close to home and not able to get out of their houses. In Tasmania, we were lucky enough to travel through most of our state. But we got to holiday at home, explore our state and get out and about in our own backyard. It was at this time that Australians were reminded of the value of caravan parks. It was a positive for the regional caravan parks and economies that had been hit hard by COVID. They didn't have the interstate and international tourists coming in; they relied much more heavily on locals and locals delivered. We all got out and together we boosted our economy and supported hardworking local businesses. Tourism Research Australia has found that, across our country, 95 per cent of tourism operators are small businesses with fewer than 20 employees, and that's even more true in the regions where the operations of small businesses are often the lifeblood of the communities they are in. It was because of this that Labor committed to providing $10 million to support new and improved caravan park facilities across Australia because we want to see visitors continue to travel to our regions and support those regional economies, and we want to see the culture of caravanning continue and thrive. In government, we are delivering on the commitment we made. This measure will help park operators continue to provide important, quality accommodation options for families and budget-conscious travellers. The funds will help operators in regional areas in particular and will help encourage more people to holiday in the regions, boosting local economies and ensuring we can continue to explore our own backyards. Grants from $10,000 to $100,000 are being delivered now to 111 projects right around Australia, including in Tasmania. The grants ensure new facilities and upgraded infrastructure for park operators and long-lasting memories for those who use these sites. The better the facilities, the more attractive they are to tourists and the more local economies will benefit from the influx. There are scores of caravan parks dotted throughout my electorate, which, as I like to say, takes in half the land mass of Tasmania—the better half of Tasmania; Deputy Speaker Wilke, you may disagree—and it includes some of the most iconic and beautiful landscapes and coastlines in the nation. I did a quick count in my head and stopped at 33. I'm sure there are more that I've forgotten. They range from deluxe glamping-style parks, like the one at Scamander, to budget-friendly parks down on the Tasman Peninsula. When travelling through my electorate overnight, I will sometimes stay at Tasman Holiday Park in St Helens or the Discovery Parks site in Hadspen. But there are many more that I've missed. The Hagley RV Farm Stay run by Stephen and Annette Camino is a well-loved tourist spot for grey nomads and tourists travelling through the Meander Valley. People love to stay at the farm site, enjoying the fresh air and the wide open space. The Triabunna Cabin and Caravan Park does a great job down on the east coast, particularly for people visiting Maria Island. I must give a shout-out to the White Beach Tourist Park and the NRMA Port Arthur Holiday Park, which are favourites for people looking for a budget experience or a family experience on the Tasman Peninsula. I'd like to thank all the caravan park operators for the great work they do. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 282237 There being no further speakers, the debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. Child Care 161 18:20 Ms TINK 300124 North Sydney I rise to speak to the motion moved by the member for Moncrieff calling on the government to recognise that the introduction of cheaper childcare legislation has, in many instances, increased the cost of early childhood education and care services for families, while doing nothing to increase the availability of spaces. This is because, despite the government's move in July this year to increase the early childhood education and care subsidy, the fact remains that demand for these services continues to outstrip supply, and families in my electorate and right across our country are still facing prohibitive costs to access these vital early learning opportunities. As I've stated before in this place, childcare fees in North Sydney remain the highest in the country and run substantially above the government benefit rates. In fact, families on an average household income in my electorate are having to find more than $20,000 per year—net cost after the current subsidies—to place just one child in day care for five days a week. In many instances, that's nearly 20 per cent of their average income. This assumes they can even find a space. Like many communities, availability remains a key issue in North Sydney. Quite simply, the government's initiatives today seem to have had limited impact, and I believe it's time we explored other ways of driving change. When introduced, the government's cheaper childcare policy promised three things: to provide greater support for parents and carers to enable them to have an increased choice about their workforce participation; to make early childhood education and care more affordable for more families; and to extend to more children the benefits that early childhood education and care bring to children's school readiness and long-term outcomes. Families across North Sydney are telling me that the increase to the childcare subsidy that came into effect only two months ago has been largely, if not entirely, absorbed by increased fees. It would be easy to blame greedy operators, but the truth is that the cost-of-living crisis is not limited to households. Rather, many who are offering services in this sector are under very real pressure as well, with overworked staff needing to be paid at a higher rate to be retained in an incredibly tight labour market, energy prices that continue to skyrocket, and rent inflation that remains extremely high. One long day care centre in Lane Cove recently told my office that every service in our area and many more that they're aware of were suffering immensely in respect to the dire skills shortage and staff shortages. The shortages of educators is, in their words, 'absolutely frightening'. As businessowners, they've had to consider whether they can even continue. Delivering cheaper childcare is only going to work if there are educators to provide the service. We know the childcare sector workforce is at a breaking point, with the current job vacancy rate in the sector being a massive 7,200 positions. We also know we need at least another 9,000 early childhood educators to ensure services can accommodate the increase in demand for places for children. With a workforce attrition rate of 35 per cent, it doesn't look like more places will become available anytime soon. Those working in this sector feel undervalued and fatigued, and they face their own escalating costs of living. Yet operators in this sector have solutions that we should consider. Our government just needs to listen to them. One solution is to change visa requirements, with many local providers telling me that some of their childhood educators are on student visas, the conditions of which mean they must move interstate or to regional areas to extend their visas or improve their chances of permanent residency. This required move leads to a significant loss not just to the centre but also to the community in which they live. Other ideas include ensuring that workers are paid fairly and compensated for the hours they spend not just face to face but also in preparing lessons. They suggest things like temporary wage bonuses, addressing the 30 per cent disparity with primary school teachers, and moving and updating the award structure, just to name a few. Ultimately we must recognise that workers are the heartbeat of the childcare sector. People from across my electorate have consistently voiced the opinion that the idea of a profession in this space must be something that people pursue for reasons other than just the goodness of their own heart. Ultimately, as has been seen in the last two months, the affordability crisis of child care is inextricably linked to availability. In this context, subsidies alone cannot create more early childhood education places. A childcare policy that fails to address supply-side constraints, including facilitating the availability of appropriately trained staff and ensuring affordable premises, is destined to fail, as we are witnessing in this very moment. 18:25 Ms ROBERTS 157125 Pearce I rise today as a proud member of a government that is committed to cheaper child care and better support for our working families. In my electorate of Pearce in Western Australia, child care is a major issue for our parents and carers. While the opposition may seek to politicise the cost-of-living challenges, families in my electorate are turning up every day to try and pay their bills. Many in our community are doing it tough and the Albanese Labor government is doing all it can to support them. We live in an area which is fast growing. It's an outer metropolitan growth area. Our median age is 32. Eight babies a day are born to community members and we have a multicultural community. Part of the support that's needed comes from the cheaper childcare package. Seven thousand six hundred families back home have now had the cost of their child care cut, meaning more money in their pockets and the ability to work more hours if they choose to. A family in Pearce on a combined income of $120,000 will now be saving around $1,700 a year under Labor's cheaper childcare policy. This is a much-needed boost to families' budgets and it is very much appreciated. But the impact of this policy extends far beyond money. We know that early childhood education has a huge impact on the development of our young ones. Early childhood education lays the foundations for future learning and also for the health and wellbeing of our children. Children who participate in quality early learning all go on to have better educational outcomes, and this has been clearly demonstrated. You can see the enjoyment of children when they're playing, when they're learning, when they're grappling with tying their shoelaces and when they're learning how to care and share with their fellow classmates. What we also know is that women, who often undertake primary caring responsibilities, greatly benefit from cheaper child care. Whether you're a chief executive officer, a nurse, a teacher, an office worker or a business owner, cheaper child care provides greater incentive and support for getting back into the workforce. I've long said: when women are fully engaged in the workforce, change for the better happens. I know many mums, many aunties and many grandmothers who do an amazing job juggling their caring responsibilities and work. I'm proud to be part of a government that is putting children and women front and centre of government policy. In relation to the accessibility of child care and the expansion of a childcare workforce, we know that this is an issue. Educators do important and highly skilled work preparing our children for school and laying the foundations for learning. After 10 long years of neglect, the early education and childcare sector needs a lot of support. The Albanese Labor government is working with the sector to continue to develop recruitment and retainment of a workforce. That's why this government passed its secure jobs, better pay bill and it is why we are delivering a 4.6 per cent pay rise for nearly 113,000 early childhood educators across the country. Alongside this the Albanese Labor government is also delivering more funded university places for educators. We are delivering fee-free TAFE because after 10 years of neglect we cannot simply wish a workforce into being. We need to train, we need to attract and we need to develop one. I want to thank the Minister for Education, as well as my fellow Western Australian Anne Aly, the Minister for Early Childhood Education, for their tireless work on this front, constantly engaging, constantly communicating and constantly being across the issues that many families face. On the issue of a long-term strategy—our early childhood education workforce—this government is accelerating the implementation of the National Children's Education and Care Workforce Strategy. So, while the opposition may like to talk about child care, women and the cost of living, this government is acting on it. Actions speak louder than words. We have a strong plan in place for our early childhood education sector, a plan that will help support many families in my community of Pearce and 1.2 million families right around the country. Unlike our predecessors, this government is not going to waste a day delivering for our families, and we are delivering. 18:30 Mr CONAGHAN 279991 Cowper I'm pleased to rise to speak on this motion. I thank the member for Moncrieff. It's interesting—I was just looking at the names on the list of the members speaking, and, with the exception of myself, they're all from metropolitan seats. A government member: Excuse me! Mr CONAGHAN 279991 I'll continue. From this side, we'll no doubt say there is a shortage in metropolitan seats, but I would urge the minister to come to regional seats and have a look at the waiting lists in those regional seats. If you go to Kempsey, the waiting list at one Kempsey childcare place is over 250. A government member: It's 365. Mr CONAGHAN 279991 I'll take the interjection from the member opposite. If you have 365 people on a waiting list, that member is not doing her job. That member should be standing up and going to the minister and saying: 'Okay, we've raised childcare fees for the childcare providers. Where are the additional spots for those 357 or 380 young children who are not getting the education they require?' yet that member sits there and makes comments across the floor. What that member should be doing is marching straight up to the minister's office and saying: 'Labor is not doing its job. Yes, we've pumped money into the childcare providers, but guess what? There's a thing called cost-of-living pressures.' I don't know if Labor has seen it over the past 18 months to two years, but electricity is up, rent is up, interest is up, mortgages are up. Guess what? The cost of running childcare services is up. So it's making absolutely no difference to mums and dads. I can tell you—this is true—police officers are having to look after each other's children in Kempsey so they can go to work. Nurses are having to look after each other's children because they can't find a place because members opposite won't go to the minister's office and say, 'We have no policy to provide further places for child care for children who need it.' The last speaker across the floor was saying how important it is for a two-year-old or a three-year-old to get early education, and she's right. So you're neglecting a two-year-old and a three-year-old in regional and rural Australia, and I take issue with that. I take issue that Labor ignores regional and rural Australia. Even members on this side—like the member for North Sydney—are saying how difficult it is to get a place in a childcare centre. That's in the city. It's not as easy as saying, 'Let's expand this,' because guess what? There's something else called a housing crisis in regional and rural areas. You can't just bring somebody in to Coffs Harbour or Port Macquarie or in to Victoria or Western Australia because they can't find anywhere to stay. So this ideology of 'We'll just migrate people from cities into regional and rural Australia' is fanciful. And it's typical of Labor, because they'll say, 'Look at the great job we're doing.' Minister, step outside Sydney. Step outside Melbourne. Go past Wollongong. Go past Newcastle. Have a look in regional and rural areas. There is a shortage of childcare workers. You need to develop policy to increase the numbers, to take the red tape away and make it easier for these proprietors, these business people, who are caring for our children so mums and dads can go to work and provide taxes that run our economy so you can pat yourself on the back. You need to develop policy for all Australia, not just for cities but for people in the country—for nurses, police and those people who are looking after each other's children so that they can continue to work and feed their families. To the members opposite: go down the hall, knock on the door, speak to your minister and do your job. 18:35 Ms CHESTERS 249710 Bendigo While the former speaker is present: I did meet with the minister about this issue. The minister Anne Aly did come to my electorate, and she did go to the childcare centre attached to the hospital. For the member who is leaving the chamber and not listening to this contribution, I am a regional MP and I represent a regional electorate. There are 32 early childhood education providers in my electorate, and there are two towns in particular where there is a workforce crisis occurring and where we do have access issues. One of the centres has a waitlist of 365. That is how dire it is. But this isn't a new waitlist. They've had a waitlist for a long time. In fact, it goes back a decade. It is important in this debate to recognise the history of where we have got to. What the previous member failed to recognise is that one of the reasons that we have such a shortage of available places is that we are experiencing a workforce shortage. It is highlighted in the motion that's being moved, but what this motion doesn't do is actually articulate why we have that shortage. What I've heard not just from the centres that I have visited but from employers is that it's because the wages are too low. What we have not heard from those opposite is the fact that many early childhood educators, despite having a degree, diploma or formal qualifications, are still paid award wages. They simply can't keep up with the cost of living, so they are choosing to work elsewhere. Earlier today, I heard from employers who are participating in the multi-employer bargaining process, which they have welcomed and are part of. They said that, when educators leave the sector or resign, many of them are in tears. They love their work and they love their job, but they are leaving because they simply do not earn enough to pay the bills. They can get higher pay in other areas, whether it's retail, hospitality, aged care or disability. Educators are leaving in droves not because they don't love the work and not because they're not committed to the work but because they simply don't earn enough. That is why the multi-employer bargaining process that the sector is undertaking is long overdue and needed. A decade ago, the former government abolished the start of correcting this pay issue that we are seeing in the sector. They abolished the equal pay fund that looked at starting to address the fact that educators are underpaid. Here we are, and it has taken a decade for a Labor government to get elected to introduce reforms to finally address the issue of wages. Increasing wages in the sector will help address the access issues. Of all the centres that we spoke to in my electorate, 89 per cent said they currently don't have a space for an under-three-year-old. For nought to three, they have no spaces available. But, if wages were to lift, they could attract educators back and about a third of our centres said that they could open more rooms. This is a common problem not just in my electorate of Bendigo but throughout regional Australia and in the metro. Rooms are closed. Licence capacity is not being met and rooms are closed because we don't have enough educators, and attracting skilled workers back to the sector is about increasing wages. Another comment that we heard from employers—the small businesses that the previous speaker spoke about—is that there has been an 80 per cent drop in applications to come and work as early childhood educators. They also said that they constantly have an ad up, trying to recruit educators and teachers to come and work in the sector. That is the collapse that has happened. We are working as fast as we can as a government to address this issue. That is why it is disappointing that those opposite offer no solutions on how to address the workforce issues but instead have a go at us for trying to correct the pay issue. Pay is linked to attracting talented educators back to the sector. If you work on educating our youngest Australians, you should not be paid minimum wage; you should be paid what you're worth. I want to acknowledge the employers and the employees, and their unions and their peak associations, for coming together to try and work out a multi-employer agreement to help address the issue of wages in the sector. 18:40 Mr WOLAHAN 235654 Menzies The late Christopher Hitchens was once at a forum talking about global poverty, and he said: The cure for poverty has a name, in fact: it's called the empowerment of women. We know that where we give women in particular more choice to go back to work—and it's about choice—productivity lifts and prosperity lifts. A key part of that choice is effective child care and affordable child care. Our family has been very lucky. We haven't had to spend as much on child care as other families; we've leaned heavily on parents who happen to live nearby. But not everyone has that choice, for a variety of reasons—they've moved interstate, their parents have passed on or they're not capable or able. An affordable, effective childcare scheme is key to workplace productivity, fairness, opportunity and prosperity. But, like the cost of living crisis, the housing crisis, the energy crisis—if all these things could be solved by good intentions and the headline of an act, I think this parliament would not have much work to do. That's as easy as it is, apparently: 'You want to fix housing? Come and vote for the housing bill. You want to fix energy? Vote for our energy bill. You want to fix child care? Come and vote for our childcare bill.' That seems to be the extent of the solution: just come and vote for the bill with the title. It's a PR move. It's a move driven by public relations and spin rather than actual substance in dealing with the policy. The member for Cowper, before me, was very passionate and emphasised he is from a regional area. To be fair, there are people on both sides from regional areas. As someone in metropolitan Melbourne, Bendigo is a regional area! My good friend here from South Australia is from a very large regional area. These problems are particularly manifest in regional areas. Again, people living in regional areas are less likely to draw on the luxuries I had of grandparents living nearby because, for work and other reasons, they've had to move to a particular part of Australia. The member for Moncrieff has put this motion together, and I congratulate her for it. Let's go to some key parts of it, because it's important to recognise what we are debating: That this House: (1) recognises that: (a) the Government's Cheaper Child Care policy has driven up the cost of early childhood education and care for families— That's a fact. It has driven up the costs, and it is disingenuous to claim otherwise. Again, good intentions don't lead to good policy if you haven't done the work— (b) families are reporting increases to the cost of their daily fees in excess of $20 per day; For some in this place, who earn the salaries we do—we all got a pay increase recently, but most Australians didn't. That is a lot of extra money for them to find every day— (c) the Government's inability to manage the cost of living crisis— Again, the childcare crisis is a subset of the overall inability to manage the economy, to keep interest rates down, to keep energy costs down and to keep the entire cost of living down, including food on the table— (d) the Government's inaction to address workforce shortages— Again, this isn't with the benefit of hindsight; this was all flagged by the shadow minister and members here with me. It was obvious there would be workforce shortages. The work was not done— (e) families continue to be unable to access early childhood education and care, particularly in regional and rural areas. I tell you what: even in metropolitan areas, you are seeing families struggle to find an affordable place in a childcare centre. That's not good for prosperity, productivity, fairness or opportunity, despite what the heading says. Again, the member for Cowper raised a good point—he raised it passionately—about the issue of housing. You can't solve the workforce shortages if people don't have somewhere to live, and underneath so many of the problems that Australians are facing is a government that is not seriously addressing housing. It is doing it through the headline of an act. That's it: just a headline or a bill that hasn't passed yet. So we call on the government to take this seriously, move beyond the talking points, move beyond the spin and actually solve problems for Australians. 18:45 Mr LAXALE 299174 Bennelong Despite the words of the member opposite, the member for Menzies, the Albanese government has made access to affordable early education a top priority in delivering real cost-of-living relief for Australian families. Since 1 July, more than 1.2 million families in Australia, including approximately 9,400 in Bennelong, are now benefiting from more affordable early childhood education and care services. This policy has brought about significant changes, including lifting the maximum childcare subsidy rate to 90 per cent for families earning under 80 grand and increasing the CCS rates for families earning up to $530,000. Making early learning more affordable and more accessible is a triple win: it's good for children, it's good for families and it's good for the economy. Investing in the early years benefits both children and parents. It supports children's development and helps parents and carers to work, train or study, and these benefits flow directly into the Australian economy. The early years are a critical period for cognitive, social and emotional development, and children who participate in high-quality early childhood education and care tend to be better prepared for school and perform better academically. We are all aware that child care and early education can be prohibitively expensive for many families. We know that it was expensive before the election as well. The former government spent a decade sitting on their hands while families were pushed out of integral early education programs because of financial barriers. Lowering the cost of early learning is an essential economic reform. It helps lift participation, particularly for women, and enables thousands of skilled workers to return to the workforce. I find the attacks from those opposite on our signature election policy of reducing early childhood education costs baffling. They spent nearly 10 years in government. Early childhood education costs increased by over 41 per cent on their watch. Then they come in here and make claims of prices going up, when under their watch prices increased by a whopping 41 per cent. To make matters worse, they did nothing about it. That's where we differ. Unlike those opposite, we are tackling the issue of early childhood education costs head-on. Not only have we increased the rebates; we have implemented policies such as hourly rate caps, which help put downward pressure on fees and constrain price growth. Further, and probably most importantly, we have commissioned the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission to investigate the factors that are driving the costs up in the early childhood education sector. The interim report from this investigation has provided valuable insights into prices, supply and demand and will inform future decisions to ensure affordability and accessibility. The final report will go to the minister by the end of the year and will provide recommendations to government on how to address price challenges in the industry, because we cannot start to fix the problem until we understand why it's happening. Importantly, we have also initiated a comprehensive Productivity Commission inquiry into the entire early childhood education and care system. This inquiry aims to chart a course towards a universal, affordable early learning system that is on par with other great Labor traditions such as universal Medicare and universal superannuation. We will not sit on our hands while Australian families continue to struggle. When we see issues, we'll take concrete steps and actions to fix them. We won't wait for the next government to come in and clean up our mess. It's why we're also making sure to provide support to early education workforces because we cannot unlock the social and economic benefits of universal access to early education without a well-paid and well-resourced workforce to do it. Unlike those opposite, getting wages moving in female-dominated sectors like early childhood education is crucial to meeting demand. Our secure jobs, better pay bill passed last year, despite the opposition of those opposite. That is a bill that will help workers in this sector get the pay they deserve. To get more workers into care, we need to value the work they do and pay them properly to do it. The legislation we brought to the parliament that has passed will help us do that. Instead of bogus motions like today's, the Albanese government is actively collaborating with the early childhood education sector to develop practical solutions and reduce costs. 18:50 Ms WARE 300123 Hughes I rise to speak in favour of this motion brought by the honourable member for Moncrieff. While I'm there, I want to acknowledge the excellent work she's doing in her shadow portfolio of early education and youth. This motion deals with Labor's so-called cheaper childcare policy, which, unfortunately, has turned out to be anything but. As we know, child care is absolutely essential for women to be able to return to the workforce after they have had children. The issue with child care is not just about the cost that we pay for it; the issue is also about ensuring that parents, when they are returning to the workforce, have access to quality child care. Child care is not just about childminding; child care is about educating the youngest members of our community and getting them ready for school. It is absolutely essential that when we talk about child care, we are not simply talking only about the cost. We must also be looking at the quality of the care that is being provided in these centres. Although it was touted as cheaper child care, the reality is that Labor has now spent an eye-watering $4.7 billion on this subsidy but has not addressed the underlying issues that affect this sector—that is, there have not been additional childcare places provided, particularly in regional areas, nor has there been any attempt to attract and retain staff within this sector. That is the underlying issue why we are hearing about enormous waitlists. I know that the honourable member for Cowper recently spoke about it in his regional area. I'm in a metropolitan seat. In the electorate of Hughes, we have almost 7,000 childcare places; however, it costs, on average, $127 per day, per child, to put a child into day care. That means that for parents only putting one child into day care, it's close to $30,000 per year after tax that must be found. With the cost-of-living crisis that we are currently experiencing under this Labor government, that is prohibitive for many families. Instead of cheaper child care, we have seen out-of-pocket costs skyrocket. And I'm hearing across my electorate that early learning providers are increasing their fees. They have to do that to adjust to the ordinary costs involved in running a childcare centre—for example, the additional costs needed to pay for the groceries they provide for the children within their centre. The last time that Labor was in government, childcare fees skyrocketed by 53 per cent in just six years. In the last nine months, it has been reported that, so far, they have increased across the board by eight per cent. So, while those opposite may start talking about the subsidy and how they are making child care cheaper for families, the reality is that it is not becoming any cheaper for families. There has been no plan put forward by this government to address the increase in fees. There has been no plan to address access to childcare spaces. There has been no plan to address the current workforce pressures faced by educators. In particular, there has been no plan to address the childcare shortages in remote and regional communities. When introducing the child care policy initially, the Albanese government said that this policy would get thousands of women back into the workforce. However, this has not occurred, and it has not occurred because there have been no additional childcare places provided. The underlying issue of a lack of supply has not been addressed by the government's $4.7 billion in expenditure to date. So I support this motion brought forward by the member for Moncrieff. Child care is essential to enabling women, particularly, to return to work, but the Labor government must do a lot better to address underlying issues in the childcare sector. 18:55 Dr FREELANDER 265979 Macarthur I'm very pleased to see that the Albanese government's cheaper childcare policies have come into effect since we last sat in the House. Over 1.2 million families will benefit from this policy across the country, with 100,000 of them in south-west Sydney and almost 10,000 in my electorate of Macarthur. I don't want to get into an argument about the previous government. Their policies were ad hoc. They were poorly thought through, and some of the most disadvantaged families in my electorate and around the country missed out on appropriate child care for their children, and it was a real tragedy for their education. The previous government ignored the pleas of developmental paediatricians, paediatricians like myself, calling them out on this lack of support for some of the most disadvantaged kids in our society. Under our plan, the Albanese government's plan for cheaper child care, our government have lifted the maximum childcare subsidy rate to 90 per cent for families earning under $80,000 a year and increased CCS rates for families earning less than $530,000. So pretty much across the board there are increases but particularly targeting those from the most disadvantaged families. I'm very proud to be part of a government that has done that and understands and acts on the importance of early childhood education and early intervention in child care for those most disadvantaged and those who may be having problems. I've had our ministers, Anne Aly, the Minister for Early Childhood Education, and Amanda Rishworth, the Minister for Social Services, come out and visit childcare centres in my electorate of Macarthur, and I'm very proud of the input that they've given me and my electorate regarding the childcare policy. We've worked over years to develop a policy that provides overwhelming support for our children, particularly those in early childhood education. We know that child care is expensive; high-quality child care is expensive, and that's why we've made changes to the child care subsidy. Unfortunately, as cost-of-living pressures go up, so too will childcare repayments, and that's why we, as a government, are looking into this matter and initiating policies that will further assist with the potential price increases. Our government has implemented policies such as hourly rate caps, which will put downward pressure on fees to help constrain price growth and address inflationary pressures. We've also commissioned the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission to investigate the drivers of these costs to see what we can do to reduce them. Our government is working through these issues and is ensuring that families and childcare educators receive the benefits of this policy, and I'm pleased to report we're already seeing this in my electorate of Macarthur. We're seeing our kids in preschools and early childhood education benefiting from the quality of the child care they are getting and benefiting from the increase in the number of hours of child care. As for families, we're working on improving support for early educators and making sure they're appropriately qualified. We know the importance of early childhood educators and the phenomenal work they do. I've been to many of our local childcare centres, including Squiggles and Giggles Early Learning Childcare Centre, Goodstart Early Learning in Willowdale, Raising Stars Early Learning Centre and the Exploring Tree in Oran Park to name only a few. I'm very proud of the work they do. I understand the importance of early childhood education, as do these early childhood education centres. I love going there and I love seeing some of the kids that I've looked after being there and benefiting from early childhood education. They're doing a vital job and they're doing it very, very well. The Albanese government is supporting them all the way in terms of training, wages and access for our kids. I applaud our government on our policies. I'm very proud of the work that our ministers are doing, particularly the Minister for Early Childhood Education, Anne Aly. I know how hard she has worked to make sure that kids around Australia are getting the best quality early childhood education. We've known for over half a century of the benefits of early childhood education for all our kids but particularly for those from disadvantaged backgrounds. Dr FREELANDER 265979 It shows, Bob! The Albanese government is doing its best to preserve the future of our children and to make our country one of the premier ones for early childhood education, and I'm very proud to be part of that. I recently met with a constituent in my area who runs an early childhood kinder care centre. They are very proud of the work that they do and want to do even better in the future. 19:00 Mr PASIN 240756 Barker The single most important issue facing the Australian economy today is the need to increase our productivity. I can't think of a more important public policy area than child care to address the need for increased productivity. In this public policy space, there are effectively twin challenges. There's the challenge of affordability, but there's also the challenge of accessibility. It's important that we balance both, because, for reasons that I'll explain shortly, you can have affordable child care in communities, but if there is no childcare facility then you really have no child care. Those opposite have lauded what they've been able to achieve. Their announcement of $4.7 billion is a significant investment. But, as the member for Bennelong said, this was about making child care cheaper—that's their objective—for people earning up to $500,000. It hasn't made child care cheaper because the cost pressures have meant that the increased subsidies have been more than obliterated by increased costs, but I don't want to talk about affordability. I want to talk about accessibility. I want to take up a challenge that the member for Solomon issued to me before he left the Federation Chamber. He asked: 'What did you do?' I'll tell the member for Solomon what I did over the course of the last term. I've got to take you to the regional communities of Lameroo, Pinnaroo and Karoonda. They're small settlements in South Australia's Mallee. Prior to the work that the former coalition government did, child care was delivered in those communities. It was delivered out of the back of a car. It was termed 'mobile child care.' It did half-a-day a week in one community, and, if you were lucky it was two half-a-days a week. It doesn't sound like the child care you know in metropolitan centres and these other places. It's very hard to plan your work life around a half-a-day a week of kids in child care. What I did was work with the local communities to deliver facilities: a facility at Lameroo, a facility at Pinnaroo and a facility at Karoonda for—wait for it—five-day-a-week child care. Those opposite talk about workforce shortages. This employment places were filled by—guess who? People who could put their children in the childcare places we built. So that's what we did. We built facilities. We focused on accessibility and balanced that against the need to ensure we had affordable child care. Those opposite, by putting all their eggs in the affordability basket, have turned their backs on the nine-million Australians who live in a childcare desert. 'It's not me,' I say to the member for Spence. It's a report prepared by the Mitchell Institute. If you think you know more about child care than the Mitchell Institute, then you have unfortunately misunderstood how much you understand. The reality here is we've gone from mobile child care in the back of a car—which I don't think is the kind of child care you'll find at Gawler—to a full-time service. And do you know what? We did more than that. Through our actions in Barker, we forced the Labor Party to match our commitment for a childcare facility in Barker. The only funding allocated to a childcare facility anywhere in Australia through the 2022 election campaign was because I had announced $1.8 million for a childcare facility at Kingston in the south-east, a facility that had been campaigned for for 30 years and for which the advocates had been very active on Adelaide radio. There's the key: Adelaide radio. And, lo and behold, within a couple of days the then shadow minister came out and made an announcement, which I was happy to hear, of $1.8 million for the Kingston childcare centre. But here's the sting in the tail from the members opposite: because of the delay in rolling out that funding, the cost of that project has ballooned by more than the $1.8 million and, as a result, we're now stuck back in that childcare desert. 19:05 Mr BURNELL 300129 Spence Child care and early learning are important to Australia to such an extent that I will extend an olive branch and say that I cannot fault the sincerity of the member for Moncrieff, who moved this motion and led the debate on it during the last sitting. However, with this motion, all we really have from the opposition is a list of issues and a complete repudiation of any efforts by the Albanese government to address them, without any notable suggestions of their own. Given their time in power, you would have thought they would have saved up a few ideas on policy from back when they were in government. But, no, we didn't have that at all. It can be a bit shameless at times. First, they get a shadow minister to go on a grand tour of LNP electorates along with the local members, whilst ensuring there is photographic evidence of meeting with portfolio-relevant stakeholders. Then they proceed to blame every ill that befalls them solely upon the Prime Minister and this government. They rinse, repeat and then write a motion for PMB, hoping that no members look twice at their motion, come into this place and call out their hypocrisy or their threadbare arguments, which are full of complaints and muted when it comes to either accepting any number of solutions introduced by this government or—this is a new one—putting up some of their own. The member for Moncrieff spoke of difficulties faced by families with children in child care. She also, to her credit, speaks of the difficulties faced by educators. I appreciate her use of the word 'educator'. As much as child care is an important way to assist parents in returning to the workforce after having kids and to increase workforce participation, particularly for women, this is only half of the picture. To say otherwise is selling short the role of educators that work within the sector, for the role of childcare is one that aids and helps to develop young minds, getting them prepared and ready to put their best foot forward when they start school. Some people still erroneously treat the profession as one of childminding. How wrong they are! The member for Moncrieff described many educators as overworked, stressed and burnt out. At that point, I had to get the microscope out. The member for Moncrieff was so very close to approaching the point but suddenly veered off in another direction, even after stating the obvious: that our educators should be respected and valued because they care for and educate our youngest Australians—the member for Moncrieff's own words. The member for Moncrieff seems to think that this is solely a supply-side issue and that, with more educators, the problems would subside. Despite this, the member completely dismisses offering incentivised training for those looking to become educators in the sector. Those opposite then dismiss fee-free TAFE and university placements, the reasoning being that there is no guarantee that someone will complete their course and work as an educator in the early childhood education and care sector. Frankly, I'd double down on that and say there is no guarantee that an educator might stay in the field after a few years on the job. I'm sure all of the solutions for that are lost on the opposition too. This shouldn't be the case. They appear proud of how they suppressed wage growth during their time in government. I know that those opposite, even the member for Moncrieff, are certainly against multi-employer bargaining. Though the result of the application for multi-employer bargaining by a number of workers in this sector remains unsettled, we passed the secure jobs, better pay legislation to make this sort of application possible. Can those opposite say the same? On census night, there were 1,340 child carers residing in Spence. That population amounted to the ninth-highest occupation unit group in the whole of Spence at the time. Not all of them would've worked at a childcare centre in Spence, but there's a decent chance many would have—at any of the 123 distinct childcare providers within my electorate. Now, I don't profess to have visited every single one. It would be no mean feat to do so. But from the centres I've visited, I know that developing the minds of kids in Spence is in some very safe and capable sets of hands, such as those of Kahlee Dix and Lisa Downs and their teams at Stepping Stone at Angle Vale and Blakeview respectively and, of course, Rebecca Stiles and the educators who work alongside her at Hillbank Community Children's Centre. I know they deserve better, and they certainly deserve better than the window-dressing put up by those opposite, who put up a lot of complaints but dismiss any solutions whilst offering none of their own. I can't blame those opposite for their consistency over their time in government, but I did hope they would finally see why it is vitally important to change tack and work constructively with us in this space. I won't hold my breath. 19:10 Ms LE 295676 Fowler I've recently had extensive conversations with educators and providers in the early childhood sector in my electorate of Fowler. There was unanimous agreement that the cost-of-living increase and staffing shortages have put pressure on the workers and on the sector. In addition, many workers lament the perception that they're considered to be childcare workers rather than early childhood educators, which has meant they have not been remunerated accordingly. I acknowledge the government has addressed the issue of wage increase for childcare workers through the Fair Work Commission and I have no doubt many in this sector would welcome that. However, there is still the critical issue of a lack of skilled early educators. According to the Australian Childcare Alliance, even prior to COVID there had already been signs of skilled labour shortages, with the prediction of a need for 39,000 additional educators and teachers by 2023, and we're here now. In my electorate of Fowler there is a high percentage of children from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds, which presents another layer of complexity to an already challenging role. We're asking educators to care for our most precious beings, that being our children, while at the same time we're asking them to provide a positive environment in which our children can learn, socialise and interact with other children. In Fowler, with a low socioeconomic background and with English as a second language, this can be a challenge sometimes. We must look beyond the financial costs associated with child care and consider the industry, the people, the small business owners and the essential work that our childcare workers do each day. In my conversations, it was very apparent to me that our educators are at breaking point. They're simply fed up, stressed, burnt out or feeling underappreciated. However, the community forums were also able to provide a safe space for industry owners to connect at a very local level and they allowed me to hear directly about the issues that matter to them. For them, for example, the simplification of the New South Wales staffing ratio so that it is equivalent to that of the National Quality Framework ratio of one to 10, while small, would have the biggest impact for small and medium childcare centres. Local providers would also benefit from a simplification of the early learning cadetship training model so that experienced childcare workers who wish to upskill from a cert III to an ECT degree can be fast-tracked through their degree based on the length of their career in the sector. I agree with my local providers on the issue of training. We should be helping educators grow and thrive in their careers by recognising all their qualifications. They also told me that they are left out of pocket by the government's current Inclusion Support Program, which provides $25 an hour to hire an inclusion support worker. But the actual cost, with superannuation, work cover and leave, is about $35 an hour. Staff shortages in the childcare sector have certainly forced the small business owners in my area to compete on salary. This, on top of the potential increased wages under the new IR multi-employer bargaining laws, as well as overall inflation, is crippling the industry in Fowler. I do agree that our educators deserve recognition for their amazing and tireless work through a bigger pay cheque, but we must also consider that 60 to 70 per cent of a centre's operational costs relate to payroll, which forces small businesses to increase their prices just to stay afloat, and this will affect families in Fowler. There is so much that we can change, review and discuss when it comes to child care. As policymakers, we need to consider all the implications of our decisions. I recently learned that university students who are already working in one childcare facility must leave that facility to do their practical course at another provider—in essence, taking away a valuable team member and placing additional pressure on the centre. Why are we imposing bureaucratic red tape for the small-business owners in places like Fowler? That's right, small business. After all, the childcare centres in my community are part of the 71 per cent of New South Wales providers that are small to medium-sized businesses, meaning they are facing the same challenges as any other businesses, such as bakeries, restaurants or retail outlets, whether it be energy bills, staff or loan repayments. Is there a solution to this? I believe the only way we can move forward is to continue to engage with the industry and our local community. Every state and territory must commit to easing the burden of the workforce. After all, we're talking about our children. Their welfare and wellbeing is the foundation for the future of our country. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 265980 There being no further speakers, the debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. Mahon, Mr Hugh 170 19:16 Mr JOSH WILSON 265970 Fremantle by leave—on behalf of the member for Cowper, I move: That this House: (1) recognises that: (a) prior to the passage of the Parliamentary Privileges Act 1987 the Houses of the Australian Parliament had the power to expel a Senator or Member of the House of Representatives; (b) the expulsion of a Member of this House is the most drastic of sanctions; (c) on 11 November 1920, the Honourable Member for Kalgoorlie Hugh Mahon was expelled from this House; and (d) the Honourable Member for Kalgoorlie is the only Member to have ever been expelled from this House; (2) acknowledges that the Honourable Member for Kalgoorlie Hugh Mahon was expelled: (a) by a motion brought on hastily and with limited time for debate; (b) by a vote of the House on party lines; and (c) without the due process and procedural fairness that such an important issue deserves; and (3) further recognises that: (a) it was unjust, on the limited evidence, for the institution to which Hugh Mahon had been democratically elected to reverse the decision of his constituents; (b) the expulsion of the Honourable Member for Kalgoorlie Hugh Mahon was a misuse of the power then invested in the House; and (c) for over a century the Mahon family has endured this injustice and it is time that the Parliament revisit the matter of the Honourable Member for Kalgoorlie, Hugh Mahon's expulsion. There have only been two occasions in the 122-year history of the Australian parliament where the government of the day has won a seat from the opposition at a by-election. It happened earlier this year when Labor's Mary Doyle won the seat of Aston after the resignation of Alan Tudge. It also happened 103 years ago when Hugh Mahon lost the seat of Kalgoorlie after he was effectively dismissed from parliament through a disgraceful and antidemocratic process. It was odd to observe that he was expelled on 11 November 1920, exactly 40 years to the day after Ned Kelly was hanged and 55 years to the day before the dismissal of Gough Whitlam. They were two Australian parliamentarians, in any case, with Irish heritage, Mary Doyle and Hugh Mahon, and two very different sets of circumstances. I'm not expressing a partisan view when I observe that one of those sets of circumstances could be described as fair enough, with the recent by-election and in keeping with Australia's electoral system, and one which occurred to poor old Hugh Mahon 103 years ago represented a great injustice. Hugh Mahon was dismissed as a representative through a partisan process according to a vote on party lines when the conservative government of the day took issue with Mr Mahon's views in relation to the question of Irish independence— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 265980 I need to suspend the House. Sitting suspended from 19:18 to 19:18 ( Quorum formed) Mr JOSH WILSON 265970 As I was saying, Hugh Mahon was dismissed as a representative through a partisan process according to a vote on party lines when the conservative government of the day took issue with Mr Mahon's views in relation to the question of Irish independence. He'd given a speech at an event in Melbourne in which he expressed sympathy for the circumstances of the people in Ireland who wanted to be free of British rule, and he supported calls for an Australian republic. At the public meeting, support was provided for three motions or propositions, the last of which read: That this meeting of Australian citizens, in view of the policy of oppression and tyranny pursued by the English Government in Ireland, and which has brought eternal disgrace upon the whole British Empire, of which Australia forms a part, pledges its support to any movement for the establishment of an Australian republic. It was in the next parliament sitting week that Prime Minister Billy Hughes responded by moving a motion of his own that read: That, in the opinion of this House, the honorable Member for Kalgoorlie, the Honorable Hugh Mahon, having, by seditious and disloyal utterances at a public meeting on Sunday last, been guilty of conduct unfitting him to remain a Member of this House and inconsistent with the oath of allegiance which he has taken as a Member of this House, be expelled this House. The motion was voted upon. Votes were cast on party lines, and Hugh Mahon, who was not even able to be present for the vote, was expelled. It would seem absolutely extraordinary to Australians today to think that a member of this place would be expelled for noting and endorsing the aspirations of people elsewhere, in terms of their self-determination, or that a person would be expelled for expressing support for the concept of an Australian republic. Of course, a recent prime minister, Malcolm Turnbull, was not just a supporter of the Australian republic; he was a founding member of the Australian Republican Movement in 1991. Hugh Mahon, having been expelled, lost the subsequent by-election and the injustice done to him has never been officially acknowledged. The dangerous partisan expulsion that was inflicted on Hugh Mahon, and effectively inflicted on the people of Kalgoorlie who had elected him, was a harm that was never specifically cured. Thankfully, the process by which Hugh Mahon was so badly mistreated can no longer occur, so at least it has been cured as a general ill. I say 'dangerous' because it should never be the case that the government of the day can expel properly elected members from this place simply because they choose to express opinions with which the government disagrees. That is profoundly antidemocratic. In truth, the expulsion of Hugh Mahon was a disgrace. The then Leader of the Labor Party, Frank Tudor, said at the time: Parliament is not a proper tribunal to try a charge of sedition arising from the exercise of civilian rights of free speech at a public assembly of citizens. It's also a reminder that we should take great care with respecting the rights of all Australians, including parliamentary representatives, to hold and express views that may not suit the prevailing or ruling position, providing, of course, that we participate in debate without descending to incitement, threats, accusations or other kinds of speech that cannot be considered responsible. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 265980 I thank the member for Fremantle for that very interesting history lesson. Is the motion seconded? Mr Laxale 299174 I second the motion and reserve my right to speak. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 265980 There being no further speakers, the debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next day of sitting. Federation Chamber adjourned at 19:22