2023-09-05 2 1 0 House of Reps 0 1

Tuesday, 5 September 2023

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

BILLS 1 BILLS Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes) Bill 2023 1

Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes) Bill 2023

Reference to Committee 1 12:01 Mr FLETCHER L6B Bradfield Under standing order 143, I move: That the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes) Bill 2023 be referred to the Standing Committee on Employment, Education and Training for consideration and an advisory report by 1 February 2024. For the benefit of members, I want to explain the motion that I'm moving. I'm moving this motion, as I've said, in accordance with standing order 143. This standing order provides for a motion concerning a bill to be referred to the Federation Chamber or a committee after the first reading but before the question on the motion for the second reading is put—that is, before we conclude debate on the second reading. Clause (b) of this standing order allows for the motion to be moved without notice and allows for a bill to be referred to a committee for an advisory report. The objective of this motion is to seek the agreement of the House to refer the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes) Bill 2023 to the Standing Committee on Employment, Education and Training for consideration and an advisory report. In the intervening time between yesterday, when I last moved a motion concerning this bill, and now, there's been a crucial development. This bill has finally been made public, and, on this side of the House and indeed in businesses all around Australia, it's now possible to begin considering, line by line, the contents of this bill. To the surprise of nobody who has observed the career of the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, who is now sitting at the table, over many years, his smooth assurances over a number of months are entirely unsubstantiated by the grim and troubling detail which lards this bill from page to page—all 278 pages of it. For those who find the bill itself not sufficient to occupy them, the explanatory memorandum is 521 pages long. This might possibly be amusing if it were not for the grim reality that businesses all across Australia, including small businesses, which don't have a human resources department, which don't have industrial relations professionals, will now all be required to get across this extraordinarily complex detail. The text of this bill was made public only yesterday and unless you're one of the very few people who had the opportunity to see or be briefed on parts of it before its introduction—and if that were the case then you were subject to a nondisclosure agreement—you did not have the chance to see any of this before the minister introduced it in the parliament yesterday. This is, on any view, an extremely detailed and extremely complex piece of legislation. It is not the very modest bill which the minister gave a series of smooth but we now know to be entirely meaningless assurances about in a range of venues around Australia. On the contrary, it is very clear that this bill will have far-reaching consequences for Australian workers and the Australian economy; for gig workers; for labour hire companies; for tradies; for those working in the digital economy; for independent contractors, amongst others; for Australians who want to be their own boss and appreciate the opportunity to be their own boss, to determine how they provide their services and to whom they provide them; for Australians who appreciate the flexibility of advertising their goods or their services over a digital platform and have flocked in large numbers, over the last decade or more, to do just that. This bill signals the intent of this government to block Australians exercising those choices. The process which this minister and this government have adopted in bringing this bill forward has been nothing less than a legislative smash-and-grab raid. The details of this legislation were kept quiet. They were concealed from the Australian people until yesterday. The minister now wants to force this through the parliament without giving members the opportunity to properly consider and understand the complexities of it. When the minister spoke yesterday—and I'm sure he'll say the same thing again today—he said: 'There are several weeks in which you can give your speeches.' Let's be clear: the detail and complexity of this bill, which it has taken the government many months to formulate, requires a similar amount of time for parliamentarians to responsibly do their job on this side of the House, and I include the crossbenchers within that. It requires appropriate time to consider the details and to understand the full complexities of what's proposed. There are well-established forms, processes and mechanisms in this House to do that, and one of those is to have a committee which can inquire into the matters which are of great concern to this side of the House. The minister may say—in fact, I predict the minister will say—that this is just typical Liberal rhetoric. Well, let's find out whether that's true or not. We certainly don't believe it is. We believe that the concerns of businesses around the country are very well founded, and we think their level of concern is only going to go up when they study the detail. But, if we as parliamentarians are properly to do our job in assessing the impact of this complicated, economy-wide piece of legislation, then we need to be informed by the views and feedback of those who will be affected by it on a day-to-day basis, in running small businesses, in running businesses of all kinds, in serving customers, in providing their services as independent contractors or as owner-operators of trucks. We've now discovered that this bill sees the government seek to return to what was a disastrous piece of policy when perpetrated under the previous Rudd-Gillard-Rudd government, the so-called road transport safety tribunal, which created enormous misery amongst owner-drivers and, again, reflected the basic philosophy of this government—that they do not want to allow Australians to exercise their own choices about how they engage in the workforce, engage in the economy and provide goods and services. If there's one thing we could all agree on—there is very much that we don't agree on—it is that the issues here are complex. They are complicated. They involve detail. They involve understanding of practices within businesses, within the economy, in the way that people choose to take to market the goods and services that they want to offer. If our parliament is to do its job effectively, then it is appropriate that there be time taken to consult with those affected and to consider in a systematic way the merits or otherwise of what is proposed. That is precisely why we have a system of committees in this place. That is precisely why the standing order under which I am moving this motion provides for a bill to be referred to a committee: so that these matters can be scrutinised, so that witnesses can be called, so that questions can be asked and so that a proposition being put by one side of the House—which is to say, 'There's nothing worry about here; these are only modest changes'—can be tested. Certainly we approach that proposition with enormous scepticism, but there are forms and processes of this House which are established for very good reason, to allow issues of this kind, contested issues, issues of fact, to be tested and to allow parliamentarians from all sides—those forming a committee—to hear from those who are involved and have a stake. Of course, that would include unions and workers of all kinds, as it should. It would include businesses of all kinds. It would include independent contractors, owner-drivers of trucks, operators of digital platforms and consumers of goods and services provided conveniently and efficiently over digital platforms. That would allow questions to be asked about whether there is any defensible distinction—as the minister has sought to claim—under the criteria contained in the draft legislation, between the treatment of Airtasker, on the one hand, and Mable, on the other hand. These are complicated issues. We ought to have an appropriate process so that parliamentarians—those in this place who have to vote on this legislation—can hear from subject matter experts, from people who are involved in operating and providing services over digital platforms, from those working in the labour-hire field and from those in industries which are of enormous importance to Australia's prosperity, such as agriculture, resources, finance and so many other sectors, like the health sector, which is so critical. Parliamentarians in this place should have the opportunity to hear from people operating in those sectors about how they understand this bill to affect their operations. None of that has been possible, because of the very undesirable way in which this minister, and this government, has chosen to take forward deliberations and the development of this bill. When speaking at the National Press Club earlier this year, the Leader of the House said: The consultative approach that we have applied to the Parliament itself and to the way we have governed is of itself not just a difference in the way Government functions. So the Leader of the House, the minister at the table, has been very happy to congratulate himself and to congratulate this government on what he is pleased to describe as a 'consultative approach'. I can say to the minister that it is very clear that there are many businesses and many people around Australia who certainly do not feel they've been adequately consulted. There are many people who are wondering how you could describe as 'adequate consultation' that which is conducted with the extensive use of non-disclosure agreements. There are many people who would be saying, 'What exactly are you trying to hide when you say, "We're only going to tell you about this legislation that we're proposing to introduce if you sign a non-disclosure agreement so you can't talk to anybody else about it"?' Amongst the people who would rightly be asking that question are all the people who sit in this House, who are required to deliberate on this matter and to cast a vote. Because the processes which have been adopted by this government to date are highly undesirable, what we are seeking to do on this side of the House, in good faith and with a commitment to the proper operating of this parliament, is to put forward a motion which would establish a committee, through a process which is contemplated under the standing orders, so that this parliament can do its job properly and parliamentarians can do their jobs properly. We may hear statements from the minister about urgency and how quickly this all needs to be dealt with. Let's be clear: on this side of the House, where appropriate, we have absolutely been ready to deal with matters that are genuinely urgent. We did so just in the last sitting week with the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Amendment Bill 2023. But we will not stand for this government treating the parliament, as it routinely does, with disregard for its rules, its norms and its conventions, including the convention as to the process which is normally followed when a piece of legislation is introduced and time is allowed for parliamentarians to understand what is contained in it before they exercise their vote in relation to it. We are consistently seeing this government showing disregard for the rights of members and showing disregard for parliamentary accountability, transparency and scrutiny. We saw exactly that disregard in the comments made by the Leader of the House yesterday in relation to the motion that was moved by the opposition. According to the Leader of the House, it was somehow outrageous that the opposition would ask that debate on this bill be postponed until such time as members had had a chance to properly consider its terms. Of course, he didn't hesitate to go to the threat of guillotining debate. He sought to argue to this House that the effect of what the opposition was proposing was that he would have no choice but to take advantage of the hand crafted gag powers that he enthusiastically gave himself last year. The fact is that there are options open to this House to ensure that there is proper scrutiny of the bill which is before the parliament. Australians would reasonably suspect that the legislative smash-and-grab tactics that are being used here are being used for one reason solely, which is to conceal and to try and minimise proper scrutiny. What we are seeking to do is put forward a motion which would allow for appropriate scrutiny. This committee would be free to convene public hearings, it would be free to invite submissions, and it would then provide this House with an advisory report, which would assist in informing members as to the merits or otherwise of this bill. It would enhance the consideration by this House of the bill, rather than undermine it, and of course such work would be entirely separate to the work of a Senate committee, should one be established. I do therefore wish to commend to the House the merits of the motion that I am putting. This is about allowing members to be properly informed. The time frame that's being proposed would allow the House to come to substantive debate and to a vote relatively speedily. We accept the government's proposition that it has a legislative agenda it needs to deal with. But what the government needs to respect is the importance of members of this House having the opportunity to deliberate in an informed fashion. That would be assisted by the motion that I'm moving. The SPEAKER 53517 Is the motion seconded? 12:16 Mr HOGAN 218019 Page I rise to second the motion moved by the Manager of Opposition Business to refer the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes) Bill 2023 to the Standing Committee on Employment, Education and Training. As the Manager of Opposition Business just said on legislation that goes through this parliament, there are lots of precedents set by what the Manager of Opposition Business has recommended in this motion here. As he also stated, this legislation is exceptionally complex and exceptionally technical. The minister yesterday said there's going to be a great opportunity to debate this within the chamber. Yes, that is part of the process and an important part of the process. But referring this to a committee allows a lot of stakeholders to have added opportunity to air their concerns, to ask questions and to seek clarification about how it may affect their industry and/or their business. I think this is a very important reason that we do this, especially, as I said, for legislation that is exceptionally complex and exceptionally technical. I do make the point that the minister said this is just a modest proposal on which they consulted widely. I would say, that, when this minister says 'modesty', normally it implies that he's overreaching. When he says 'consulting widely', it might have been within the union movement but definitely not necessarily with all other stakeholders. There have been some comments made about this, which I think, again, reinforce the need for this to be referred to a committee. If productivity is going to be lower, costs to businesses and families are going to be higher. We're going to be less competitive as a country. There will be more red tape, more regulation and more compliance costs. To support the fact that we need to refer this to a committee, I want to read to you a couple of comments that have already come out from people about their concerns with this legislation. These aren't my concerns; these are concerns from other people, which I think support the fact that we need to refer this to a committee. Tanya Constable, the CEO of the Minerals Council of Australia, said, 'This is jeopardising the nation's future.' She, in fact, said: Let's not sugarcoat it. These industrial relations changes are some of the most extreme interventionist workplace changes that have ever been proposed in Australia. If that's the case, from a really important stakeholder, it supports the fact that this should be referred to a committee where some of these concerns and issues can be raised. Another stakeholder, Jennifer Westacott from the Business Council of Australia, said: This will only add confusion and costs, while limiting the opportunities for people to get jobs with the flexibility they need. Andrew McKellar from the ACCI, the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, said: The only loophole this bad legislation is looking to close is that of plummeting union membership. …   …   … If you are a service provider and want to advertise online, prepare for unemployment. It's going to make you worse off. The Master Builders Association has said: 'The worst fears of the building community have been realised with the introduction of this industrial relations bill. It takes a sledgehammer to tradies right across the country.' The Australian Industry Group chief executive said: The Government is proposing major changes to core aspects of our workplace relations system. These are just some comments. This has only just come out and there are some major issues and concerns that are being asked about. This chamber and this parliament should give more opportunity to stakeholders through a committee process to air their concerns and ask their questions. Matthew Addison from the Council of Small Business Organisations Australia has said the changes would require every business to dedicate more resources, time and money towards trying to understand and implement onerous new obligations. The minister himself has made the comment that this will see costs increases, whether across food and/or transport. The NFF have come out and said: … this is a bad bill which will make it harder and more costly to run a business in this country. These changes aren't a genuine attempt to improve Australia's industrial relations laws, they are just a way for the Government to gift more power to the unions. By adding union-driven layers of red tape to our workplace laws, Minister Burke will leave a legacy of sluggish productivity and higher costs for consumers. The minister and the government are saying: 'There's nothing to see here. This is good legislation that is going to make us a more productive and better country, better for workers and better for everyone involved within the IR scheme of things.' If that's the case, then the government and the minister should have nothing to fear and nothing to hide from a parliamentary committee examining this in more detail. The unions are very, very happy with this, but every other stakeholder that I've spoken to in the last 24 hours since this has come out has raised massive concerns. We've heard some of the comments that they've made. They think this is going to be some of the most disastrous legislation they have seen for their business and/or their industry in the history of Australia. That was one comment. That is a very serious opinion and accusation to make about legislation. I hope the minister and the government don't refuse this referral. I hope they support this being referred to the appropriate committee to undergo extensive stakeholder engagement throughout the country to address some of these fears. If the minister is right when he says that these fears are unwarranted or just a scare campaign then he has nothing to worry about with a committee inquiry. When those industry stakeholders, small businesses or big businesses appear before this committee and ask their questions to get clarity about what this regulation means to their industry and/or their business, if there is nothing to worry about and there is nothing to hide it will be a very healthy committee process and everyone can say, 'We misunderstood the legislation and we are all happy now.' That's what the minister is saying. If that's the case, let's go ahead with the committee inquiry, let's ask the questions and let's do the extensive stakeholder engagement. The other side of this is what industry's fears are, what small businesses' fears are, what medium-sized businesses' fears are and what big businesses' fears are: is this just a power grab by the union movement that has been given to them by the minister? If that's the case, I can understand why he wouldn't want extensive engagement. I can understand why he wouldn't want ministers and members from all sides of parliament to be appearing before stakeholders who are asking specific questions, such as: Does this mean X for my business? Does this mean that I will have to do this for employees? Does this mean X for my legal costs and compliance costs? What do I have to do as a business owner and operator? If it does mean that then I understand why he won't want to do it. If the government votes this down and doesn't want to do this, I would say to the Australian public and to Australian businesses—small, medium and large—everything that you fear about this bill is true because the government does not want public accountability and it does not want a parliamentary process and a committee process that is going to expose all the dangers that people think are in this bill. The vote today will be interesting. Again, I reiterate: the government should be happy to go ahead with what is a precedent that has been set many times in this parliament over many, many decades for a bill that is so extensive and technical. There are lots of precedents for this. So I say to the Australian business community and every small-business owner in this country that, if this government votes down referring this to a committee to get more extensive clarification then every single fear you have about this bill that it is just a power grab by the union movement, given to them with great glee by the minister, is true. 12:25 Mr BURKE DYW Watson Before I start, I don't think the motion has been handed in. The SPEAKER 53517 I will ask the Clerk if I can have a copy of the motion. Mr BURKE DYW We have it now. Can I have a quick look? Mr Hogan 218019 Happy to help; give us another problem to solve! Mr BURKE DYW And there is the clincher: 1 February 2024. That is what this is all about. This is not about a committee. This entire motion is about delay. When I introduced the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes) Bill, I made clear that there are three things that people do when they have no confidence in an issue: they complain about the consultation, they talk about something that the bill is not or they ask for a delay. And now, for the second day in a row, the Manager of Opposition Business has come in here formally to get us to vote for delay. It's quite interesting. He'll run off now because he is meant to prepare a speech on the bill. I've never seen someone so reluctant to deliver their own speech on a piece of legislation, because the one thing that won't happen if this were to be carried—and this makes me a little bit tempted—is we would all be spared a speech by the Manager of Opposition Business. It wouldn't happen. But interestingly, he has chosen the time of day to move this. Instead of moving it yesterday, he has chosen to move it now, which means we can't have the division until after question time because we are in the no-divisions period right now. What will actually happen is he will probably end up being halfway through his speech on the bill when we vote on whether we should hear the second half after question time and after the MPI today. That is the process we are going to have. He went through a number of issues about the consequences. The consequences that he wants are for every loophole to remain, and every extra day they can get every loophole to remain is a good day as far as they're concerned. As I say, this is not about whether or not it goes to a House of Representatives inquiry. They know full well that the stakeholder organisations they just quoted don't want to have to deal with and make submissions to and appear before two separate inquiries. That is why, on every piece of legislation, we have always had the convention that we have a single committee process here, which ordinarily is done in the Senate but is sometimes done through joint committee. That is why House of Representatives inquiries don't tend to deal with legislation but deal with issues. The reason is really simple: because otherwise you just put a burden on every stakeholder organisation to have to duplicate. It is parliament creating red tape for every single stakeholder organisation, where they need to go through the exact same process twice, once for the people who sit on green chairs and then again for the people who sit on red chairs. Although the Manager of Opposition Business in his speech refers to 'the process that is normally followed', the process that is normally followed is not what he is proposing right now. The process that is normally followed is these inquiries are held through the Senate inquiry process for good reason: to avoid that form of duplication. That process will happen. They haven't set it up yet, but fair bet they will set up something this week and fair bet Senator Cash will do exactly what the Manager of Opposition Business just did, which is the critical amendment won't be for the form of inquiry. The critical amendment won't be to the issues that are being dealt with. The critical amendment will be: how long can we delay this? Well, the delay they're talking about carries a cost. The delay they are talking about carries a real cost: a cost in worker benefits, a cost in how long you let underpayments go on and, for some sections of the act where there are fixed start dates, actually crunching the time between the legislation potentially being proclaimed and the start date. To delay the process of the legislation when some parts of it have fixed start dates in fact creates a crunching of the time for the compliance burden for small business. For anyone who might have to reorganise some part of their business, based on the legislation, it makes the situation much, much tougher, because the long time frames that have been put there in the legislation disappear because of the political tactics of an opposition that sees a benefit for workers, and their instinct is this: can they stop it; and, if they can't, can they at least delay it? This legislation does not have the Fair Work Commission going out and creating new standards above what Australia has already decided should be normal minimum standards. What it does is say that, where, because of loopholes, workers are missing out on the minimum standards that would ordinarily be applied in Australia, we should close those loopholes and protect those workers. Those opposite still, to this day, have not defended a single one of the loopholes. So I say to those opposite: let's start the debate, but start the debate honestly. Don't start the debate with 'Can we have a delay? Can we do something we never do for any other bill? Because it's about the rights of workers, we'd just like to put it off for a bit longer.' Defend the loopholes if you want to keep them open. If you think it's reasonable, and maybe you do, that people who work in the gig economy, because there are not technically employees, have every single one of their workplace rights fall off a cliff and have none of the rights they would have if they were an employee—if they think that loophole is fine, then defend it. Have the debate. For all the talk of secrecy, what we're advocating is an open debate, on the floor of the House of Representatives, which as elected representatives is our job. To those opposite: don't come here with some technical excuse for a delay; do your job. We've been talking about the issues in this bill for years in this House. The concept of gig workers having no rights at all, no minimum standards at all, was an issue in the last term of government. I remember, here, where I stand now, my predecessor in this portfolio having no answer to the concept of whether there should be some workers who don't even have the guarantee of the minimum wage and just said, 'It's complicated.' It's a bit more than complicated for someone who's trying to make ends meet, running red lights and trying to drive an extra lane between the official lane of the traffic and the parked cars, knowing that if at any moment a car door opens they'll be lying underneath the traffic instead of riding through it. It's a bit more than complicated for them. But, if you think the loopholes of no minimum standards for those gig workers are fair, then start the debate and defend them. Defend them if you think it's fair that there are casuals who are working identically to permanent workers, and some of those casuals want to switch to a permanent job but have no rights to be able to guarantee that transfer. We had someone in the gallery yesterday who'd been working 30 to 40 hours a week for something in the order of six years, wanting to transfer—clearly eligible, on the face of it, for it to be a secure job—and the employer refusing to do it. If you think that loophole's fine, then come to the dispatch box during the debate and defend it. Explain why it's okay for workers needing some sort of job security because their rent's not casual, the bills they have to pay aren't casual—and try getting a mortgage if you've got a casual job. For those workers who want to transfer, who, instead of loading, would rather have the security of guaranteed hours—if you think the loophole's fine and they shouldn't have that right, then start the debate and defend it. Don't keep looking for excuses to avoid the debate. Similarly, if you think enterprise agreements matter at all—there were all the arguments when we talked about multi-employer bargaining last year, and those opposite kept coming forward and saying, 'No, the best form of agreement is an enterprise agreement.' But then they want to protect a loophole where an enterprise agreement is agreed to and every single rate of pay can be undercut by the next person through the door so long as they're employed by a labour hire firm and not by the host. So everything that was agreed to falls away because of a loophole. These loopholes have been allowed to exist, without the parliament acting, for a decade. There is no excuse for further delay. There's no casual worker wanting more security and saying 'Can you please wait?' There's no gig worker saying, 'I love this because I get no minimum standards.' There's no-one being underpaid from an enterprise agreement who likes the lower rate of pay. Those opposite might be addicted to the loopholes; we're not and we should start the debate on closing those loopholes today. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 74046 The question is that the motion be agreed to. There being more than one voice calling for a division, in accordance with standing order 133 the division is deferred until after the discussion of the matter of public importance. Debate adjourned. Higher Education Support Amendment (Response to the Australian Universities Accord Interim Report) Bill 2023, Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2023, Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Australia's Engagement in the Pacific) Bill 2023 7

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

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

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

Reference to Federation Chamber 7 12:35 Mr BURKE DYW Watson I declare that, unless otherwise ordered, the Higher Education Support Amendment (Response to the Australian Universities Accord Interim Report) Bill 2023, the Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2023 and the Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Australia's Engagement in the Pacific) Bill 2023 stand referred to the Federation Chamber for further consideration at the adjournment of the debate on the motion for the second reading of each bill. International Organisations (Privileges and Immunities) Amendment Bill 2023 7

International Organisations (Privileges and Immunities) Amendment Bill 2023

First Reading 7 Export Control Amendment (Streamlining Administrative Processes) Bill 2022, Treasury Laws Amendment (Modernising Business Communications and Other Measures) Bill 2023, Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Amendment (Industry Self-Classification and Other Measures) Bill 2023 7

Export Control Amendment (Streamlining Administrative Processes) Bill 2022

Treasury Laws Amendment (Modernising Business Communications and Other Measures) Bill 2023

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

Returned from Senate 7 Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2023 7

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

Second Reading 7 12:38 Mr BURKE DYW Watson I raise a point of order, and I'm trying to be helpful here. The speaker listed to speak on this bill is the Manager of Opposition Business, who was here and has left. There may be a good reason. There may be an emergency as to why he's had to leave. But, if we defer that speech, that's the half hour speech, which means it'll go to the Federation Chamber, and we would normally want to be able to deliver it here. I am not sure if the whip or someone is able to find out if the Manager of Opposition Business is coming. But he was here and for some reason has left the chamber. Mr Pearce 282306 In fact, here he is right now. A wizard is never late! 12:39 Mr L6B Bradfield FLETCHER (—) (): I rise in support of the Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2023. As former prime minister John Howard said, a well designed welfare system must motivate individuals to pursue employment while assisting those genuinely in need. The coalition continues to support this notion, as we know the best way for welfare to work is through incentive and to encourage Australians back into the workforce, which provides dignity and allows for financial stability of the individual. This is the ethos we have followed throughout the life of previous coalition governments. Under the previous coalition government, more than two million jobs were created and Australia's employment services system was redeveloped. I remind the House that, when the coalition came to government in 2013, unemployment stood at 5.7 per cent and was rising. When we left office in 2022, unemployment had fallen to a 50-year low of 3.9 per cent. Importantly, we saw youth unemployment reduce from 12.7 per cent to 8.8 per cent over that same time. The participation rate over the same period grew by nearly two per cent, from 64.9 per cent to 66.7 per cent. These figures are some of the most significant indicators of the progress that was made in seeing more jobseekers moving from welfare into work and being able to experience the dignity, the sense of identity and the sense of purpose that comes with work. We, on this side of the House, know how important a strong economy is to a robust jobs market, and we also know how important it is to have systems operating effectively to support Australians to enter the job market and to remain in the job market. The bill before the House this afternoon, the Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2023, is a technical bill that will make minor edits and definitional changes to better clarify the intent of a bill passed under the former coalition government, the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Streamlined Participation Requirements and Other Measures) Act 2022. That act made numerous changes, including inserting into the Social Security Act a requirement that any employment support programs provided by the Commonwealth government or state or territory governments could not be classified as income for the purposes of social security. This act also built on the work of the former coalition government to reform the employment services system and to return its focus to establishing a responsive, jobseeker-centric model. On this side of the House, we recognise that work provides dignity, a sense of purpose and a path towards financial stability. This is why the coalition has made proposals to allow those who are unemployed to take up work and to be able to do more work, and therefore earn more, by increasing the size of the work bonus—that is to say, before arriving at the point or the threshold where the JobSeeker payment starts to be reduced. This proposal would have supported and benefited many small and medium-sized businesses across the country who have been crying out for more workers. Unfortunately, their cries have not been heard by this government. The effect of our policy would have been that a jobseeker picking up extra shifts and taking home $300 a fortnight would have been able to retain the full JobSeeker allowance. This is not dissimilar to the age pension and veterans' work bonus increase announced last year by the Leader of the Opposition, which the government was forced, grudgingly, to accept. These policies are practical measures which can assist Australians who are relying on a social services payment to get a leg-up and to transition into the workforce. When in government, the Liberal-National coalition developed and implemented programs such as ParentsNext. This helped to assist parents who had been removed from the workforce for a significant period of time to find a pathway back in to the workforce. The Liberal-National coalition wants to see all Australians having the chance to participate in the workforce and enjoy the benefits and the confidence that this brings. The program that I spoke about includes helping participants to develop their skills. It offers them a chance to undertake training or work experience. It can also include the provision of financial support, so that participants in the program can develop their job-preparation skills and can undergo training, and expenses for those and other needs can be met. Giving jobseekers the tools, skills and confidence to make that transition from welfare into work is something that it makes a lot of sense for employment programs to focus on. The data is very clear: the longer somebody spends out of the workforce, the harder it is to return. One principle which, on this side of the House, we do believe is very important is the concept of mutual obligation—the concept of balancing the support that Australians provide to somebody who is out of the workforce with expectations. This is a concept, in our view, which is fundamental to a fair and equitable welfare system, a system which is fair to those receiving support and a system which is fair to those who are, through their taxes, funding that support. The coalition strongly believes in the principle of mutual obligation. If you're receiving assistance, we believe you should be looking for work or preparing for work. Now, it is troubling that we have seen this principle being relentlessly and continuously attacked by the Albanese Labor government. Time and time again, whenever given the chance, this government seeks to undermine the concept of mutual obligations. Fundamentally, this government does not support the concept of mutual obligation. We've seen powerful proof of that with the removal from the ParentsNext program of the concept of mutual obligation. We know that, in the lead-up to the national conference of the Labor Party, there were further attempts being made to weaken that party's position in relation to mutual obligation. We can look at statements made by the member for Canberra, including in her first speech, or statements made by the member for Bruce that mutual obligation is 'extreme, work-first ideology'. We saw some commentary on the Guardian in July this year, a journal of record which can always be relied upon to give good insights into the thinking on the other side of the House. The Guardian had this to say: Mutual obligations can be "punitive" and a barrier to employment, according to the Labor party's draft national platform, which advocates have welcomed as a step towards dumping requirements such as work for the dole. Just to be clear, when the article speaks about advocates, that's not advocates for taxpayers. That's not advocates for people who are actually footing the bill for this—no. These are advocates for the notion that there should be no concept, no philosophy and no principle of mutual obligation. That is a position that, on this side of the House, we are strongly opposed to. We believe in mutual obligation. The evidence is very clear: the best form of welfare is a job. I conclude by noting that the opposition recognises that this bill is largely technical in nature and seeks to make certain fairly technical amendments to an act passed under the previous government which embodied and gave effect to the policy of the previous government. I do also want to highlight that, on this side of the House, we will continue to remain vigilant and scrutinise attempts by this government to weaken the principle of mutual obligation. It's very clear that there is no real, deep or genuine support for that principle on that side of the House, from the government, and that is something that we will continue to be keeping a very close eye on. But, in the meantime, I indicate that the opposition, the Liberal-National coalition, will be supporting this bill. Debate adjourned. Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Australia's Engagement in the Pacific) Bill 2023 9

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

Second Reading 9 12:49 Mr McCORMACK 219646 Riverina The coalition supports the measures contained in the Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Australia's Engagement in the Pacific) Bill 2023 to provide assistance for family members of long-term Pacific Australia Labour Mobility scheme workers. The PALM scheme was introduced in April 2022 by the Liberal-National coalition government, allowing Australian businesses to hire workers from Fiji, Kiribati, Nauru, Papua New Guinea, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Timor-Leste, Tonga, Tuvalu and Vanuatu. It has helped fill labour gaps in rural, regional and remote Australia by offering employers access to a pool of workers—diligent workers, good workers, reliable workers. It also allows Pacific and Timor-Leste workers to take up jobs in Australia, to develop their skills and to send home income to support their families and communities. For some Pacific island nations, that money, that remittance, is a significant part of their country's gross domestic product and economic activity. During the pandemic, the coalition managed to double the size of the PALM scheme from 12½ thousand workers to 25,000 workers to support Pacific economies as well as—most importantly—Australia's food security. It is important to consider these social services amendments. We have held numerous engagements with representatives of countries which provide large numbers of PALM scheme workers and with the families themselves, including last year during the bipartisan visit to the Pacific. I went there with the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Senator Penny Wong, the Minister for International Development and the Pacific, the member for Shortland, Pat Conroy, and the Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs, Simon Birmingham. We heard genuine concerns being raised about the extended absence of family members whilst they were working in Australia. The pilot project to allow 200 families to join long-term PALM workers in Australia is welcome news. I note that in information provided by the government—and I appreciate it—it is expected that the trial will initially focus on 200 families. They are partners and dependent children of long-term PALM workers, long term being those with visas of more than 12 months and up to the four-year maximum. I appreciate the frank discussions that I had yesterday with the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs, Minister Giles, and Minister Conroy about this bill and others to make sure that we do the right thing not just for Australia but for the Pacific nations. It is reasonable to expect that many of these families that this bill covers will have younger children. The payments provided to families by this bill are those focused on the costs of raising children, so family tax benefits A and B and associated benefits and the child-care subsidy. The government has advised in briefings on this bill that Medicare will also be provided, although that is through ministerial discretionary power rather than being required in this bill. While those on family accompaniment—the partners and dependants of PALM workers will be temporary visa holders—it is important that they be provided with support to help with the costs of raising children while they are here in Australia. The coalition hopes for this pilot project's success—we really do—as it has the potential to provide benefits for all of those involved in PALM. It will help employers who rely on a stable pool of workers across a range of sectors, not least of which are horticultural and agriculture and, as I mentioned, food security in regional Australia. It will help PALM workers overcome the impact of being absent from families for long periods, something that in itself risks workers considering returning home sooner than they otherwise would, which would impact not only employers but the workers' own income streams and remittances that they send back home. Of course, for partners and dependants being together brings obvious benefits, and family is very important to Pacific nations and to Pacific communities. I appreciate that, and I know the minister appreciates that. Importantly, partners will have work rights and, depending on individual family circumstances, it is likely that employment opportunities will be available through PALM and, in many cases, at the same workplace as the primary visa holders, given that PALM employers will be involved in the pilot. PALM has been a great success, a resounding success. I would like to note a few examples of this success, not the least of which were during the Lismore floods. In March 2022, Fijian PALM workers arrived in Lismore, New South Wales, to work at a local meat-processing site. They had barely settled in when the flood warnings came. Without a second thought, without so much as even considering their own safety or anything else, they jumped in to support emergency evacuation efforts, carrying people and animals from rescue boats. That's the Pacific way. It does come down to the basic human instinct to help someone in need, but it is writ large in Pacific islanders. It is. Other examples include Australian regional and remote community services currently employing a number of PALM workers from Samoa and the Solomon Islands in Alice Springs in personal care, cooking, cleaning and maintenance roles. A cultural support staff member has helped them connect with community and culture and settle into their new jobs and lives in Central Australia. That's to be commended. A young man named Clifton joined the PALM scheme to help his family's future. An unexpected promotion has given him the skills to move in a new career direction. After just a fortnight, a sous chef suggested he be promoted to the role of pizza chef, preparing and cooking pizzas for guests in the wood-fired oven. Clifton hopes to turn these new skills into business opportunities in Vanuatu. That is just one of countless stories of how Pacific islanders called on to do a job, called on to participate in the PALM scheme, go way above and beyond their first calling to help Australia out, to help themselves out and, ultimately, to help out their communities back home and build a better future for themselves and their families. It is a credit to them that that is what happens. I've had many people come into my office and tell me of barbecues they've hosted so that employers and workers can get to know one another better, and that's fantastic. I've been told of the sharing of songs and hymns during staff meetings to ensure that Australian employers understand and respect the cultural values of our Pacific neighbours, Christianity being very strong in the Pacific region. They have played rugby league and rugby union on our local regional teams, and many of the successes and premiership triumphs belong, yes, to Australians in some degree but in some instances largely in part to the Pacific influence—the entertaining way they throw the ball around and the amazing robust ability they have to push those scrums and to get that ball across the line. Mr Pearce 282306 I bet it reminds you of your youth! Mr McCORMACK 219646 Does it remind me of my youth? It doesn't at all! I was probably the worst footballer that Junee ever exported, Laurie Daley being the best. But I'll move on! The things that bring our nations closer together are our love of rugby league and rugby union and our shared culture and religion. They are the things that bind us together. It is something that makes us uniquely Australian and Pacific. Of course, the Pacific islands love the State of Origin. Unfortunately, all too many of them support Queensland! PALM is providing enormous benefit to Australia—to workers, families, wider communities and workers' home countries. We've heard many stories about how PALM worker remittances help build housing for families and improve access to health and education services in home countries. Health is so important. I know when I went to PNG it was such a struggle for women to get cervical cancer treatments. I was glad I was able to do something in that regard to bring those vaccinations and those treatments on sooner such that they don't need to be having Third World medical services and treatments when they are on our very doorstep. I say thank you to the government for listening in that regard. These outcomes are a positive for all the partnerships that belong in the PALM sphere, with Australia and our Pacific island nation neighbours and partners working together cooperatively and collaboratively. The PALM scheme was and still is a lifeline for Australian businesses and also a vital option for workers in the Pacific during COVID. I shouldn't say that in past tense because COVID is still with us. It is still, unfortunately, afflicting many and it is still, unfortunately, taking lives. We work through it, and we work together with the Pacific nations on it. I well recall, when I sat in those meetings with the then Prime Minister, with the then Treasurer and with the then health minister—the former member for Flinders—the efforts of those people in particular. The former Treasurer, the former member for Kooyong, was the best Treasurer we've had in recent times. I say that knowing the member for Cook was in those meetings, too, and he was a pretty good Treasurer as well, but the former member for Kooyong should still be with us. I remember the efforts that they went to to make sure that the vaccinations were available in the Pacific island nations, and I can remember the absolute commitment by the member for Cook and the former members for Kooyong and Flinders to make that possible and to make that happen, and that saved lives. Yes, it came at a cost, but what cost do you place on a life? I am so pleased and proud to have served with those people—and to still be serving with the member for Cook—for what they did for the Pacific during those very, very dark days. Most people will never know about those dark days, but, trust me, those meetings were pretty grim, and those members of parliament at that time stood up magnificently and they supported the Pacific like never before. During the pandemic, as other countries shut their borders, I'm proud that Australia continued to welcome those workers to our shores because it was mutually beneficial for both our economies. On the second part of this bill relating to the Pacific engagement visa, PEV, the coalition will reserve its judgement pending the outcome of negotiations which are ongoing with the government on the mechanism by which the government seeks to operate the PEV. The coalition's view on the proposed ballot is well known, but we appreciate that the government is thus far indicating a willingness to work with the coalition on alternative mechanisms which do not provide immediate permanency through a random ballot selection process. We hope these negotiations can conclude constructively in the interests of Australia and those Pacific island nations which seek to be part of the PEV along with Timor-Leste. I thank the House. Debate adjourned. Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes) Bill 2023 11

Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes) Bill 2023

Second Reading 11 13:02 Mr FLETCHER L6B Bradfield I rise to speak on the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes) Bill 2023, and I move: That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: "the House declines to give this bill a second reading until a Senate inquiry into the bill has reported, and notes that: (1) the Government's industrial relations changes will make life tougher for Australian businesses by increasing costs, complexity and red tape and as businesses say will likely lead to job losses; (2) the Minister has admitted in his own public comments that this bill will add complexity to an already complex workplace relations system, and increase prices for consumers for everyday services they have come to rely on; (3) this bill does nothing to address Australia's weakening economy and falling productivity; (4) the bill does not assist Australian businesses to hire more people, and just ticks off even more items on the unions wish list including new right of entry laws and new union delegate rights; (5) despite the Minister promising 'carve-out' for small business, all the Government has done is add more complexity and made it harder for small and medium businesses to navigate the industrial relations system; (6) the Government has failed to outline how this legislation will enhance productivity, lift wages, or generate more jobs; and (7) at a time of a cost-of-living crisis, high inflation, businesses struggling with staff shortages and rapidly increasing power costs, the Government is making a bad situation worse". This bill is intended to deliver a radical systemwide shake-up of Australia's workplace laws. The modest-sounding description of closing loopholes is entirely misleading. This should be called the 'pleasing paymasters bill' because that's what its purpose is—to please this government's paymasters in the union movement who fund Labor's campaigns and who are now demanding their payback. This bill seeks to implement a long list of items which have been on the wish list of the union movement for many years. In the course of doing so, it will do enormous damage to economic growth, to productivity and to the rights of Australians to live, work and engage in the economy as they choose. The minister has openly admitted that the changes in this bill will see an increase in prices for consumers. We all want Australians to have safe, high-wage, sustainable jobs and to be rewarded for their hard work and experience, but these laws will result in fewer jobs, more cost to Australian businesses and a weaker economy. The measures in this bill will tie up Australian businesses in more red tape and make it more difficult to hire Australian workers. This bill is an attack on labour hire, the digital economy and casual employment and gives unions unprecedented rights of entry into businesses. It's about eroding the independence and autonomy of individuals who want to work in their own time and on their own terms. It's about putting significant constraints on businesses and employers wanting to innovate and manage their operations in a modern, efficient way. The coalition will not be supporting this bill. In the time available to me today I want to speak firstly about the appalling process being followed by this government with this bill; secondly about the very damaging economic consequences which will flow from this bill; and thirdly about the attack on the digital economy which this bill represents. And, finally, I want to address a series of deeply problematic changes that this bill aims to make, including the union right of entry into workplaces, the extraordinary restrictions proposed on labour hire businesses, the attack on casual employment contained in this bill and the expansion of the Fair Work Commission's jurisdiction to cover the road transport industry. I want to start by highlighting the appalling process this government has followed with this bill. The opposition is deeply concerned that this minister is yet again attempting to ram radical changes to Australia's industrial relations system through the parliament. This voluminous bill was introduced yesterday. It is 278 pages long. Yet, less than 24 hours later, the government is bringing on debate on this bill. There are well-established conventions in this place so that parliament can do its work properly. It is normal to allow a period of time after a bill is introduced so that non-government MPs are able to properly consider the bill and formulate a response. It is normal to allow a period of time for the opposition to properly examine and consider the bill via its party room and shadow cabinet processes. Equally troubling is the minister's very sharp practice over the past few months in relation to this bill. There has been no exposure draft as would ordinarily be good practice. Consultation has been highly selective. Those who have been consulted have been forced to sign non-disclosure agreements, barring them from discussing publicly what they have been told. This is a disgraceful way in which to take forward extremely wide-ranging changes to Australia's industrial relations system. Australians should rightly be very suspicious about what the government is doing here. This is a smash-and-grab legislative raid. There's only one reason why the government is doing everything it can to make it difficult for members to properly consider the terms of the bill and to prepare for debate, because this is a truly dreadful bill and the government is doing everything it can to minimise the scrutiny this bill receives. I want to turn to the very damaging economic consequences this bill will have. The focus of any industrial relations reform should be to make us more productive and to create more jobs. The link with productivity is the key. The more productive our economy is, the more businesses can prosper and grow and create well-paid sustainable jobs for Australians. Any change to our industrial relations system must be designed to improve productivity, to grow wages, to enhance competition. These are the ingredients of a successful economy, and this is precisely the opposite of what we see with this bill. There is no reason to attack existing arrangements that are working effectively, and the government has made no case for doing so. On the contrary, the changes proposed in this bill will have very damaging economic consequences for our nation. Australians are facing a cost-of-living crisis, but the measures in this bill will make things much worse. And why would the government be doing this? Because this government will do anything to implement the wishes of their union paymasters, and in this bill this government is fulfilling a long list of union demands. These measures are designed to grow not just union membership but union power and control of the economy. These measures are not designed to improve productivity, to grow wages or to enhance competition. Indeed, many of them are designed to do the exact opposite. Why would the government attack, in this bill, those who work in the digital economy? Why would the government attack, in this bill, labour hire companies? Why would the government attack, in this bill, tradies? Why would the government attack owner-drivers of trucks? Why would the government attack independent contractors in a whole range of sectors? The answer is that, commonly, none of the people in these groups have any particular interest in joining a union. This bill is nothing less than payback by the current Labor government for the donations it has received from the union movement. Let's look at what a range of industry participants and business groups have had to say about this bill. The Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry said: The only winners in this are union chiefs. The only loophole this bad legislation is looking to close is that of plummeting union membership … This is a continuation of a radical industrial relations agenda, and we are again bracing ourselves for further risky changes to our workplace system. The government has not made a case for these changes. It has not been able to outline how this legislation will enhance productivity, lift wages, or make it easier to generate more jobs. If you're in labour hire or want a casual job, prepare for unemployment. If you are a service provider and want to advertise online, prepare for unemployment. The Council of Small Business Organisations has said this: The small business community reject the intrusion of so much more complex regulation into the ability to be productive and flexible, let alone just getting on with being in business and employing more people. The Governments announced changes in the next tranche of what has been labelled "IR Reform" and "Closing the loopholes" will cause business to restrict their operations and employ less people. … The complexity and breadth of impact doesn't solve problems. It will confuse everyone … …   …   … The proposed changes will also increase the costs of all impacted businesses, leading to an increased cost of living. The Australian Industry Group said this: There is nothing in the Federal Government's latest workplace relations proposals that would create a single job, add to job security, drive sustainable wage growth, raise productivity, encourage a person to start a business, encourage an employer to grow their business or would simplify our complex workplace relations system … The proposals … are the antithesis of what is needed to build a 21st century competitive economy. …   …   … The workplace relations changes will add uncertainty and complexity to the employment of millions of casuals, contractors and labour hire workers. Let me turn to the extraordinary attack that this bill represents on the digital economy. Over the past 20 years, millions of Australians have chosen to organise aspects of their life and work around the use of convenient and efficient digital platforms. This is true for those who use those platforms to sell services and goods. It's also true for those who use those platforms to consume services and goods. With the changes in this bill, the Albanese Labor government is saying to those Australians, 'We are going to stop you exercising those choices you have freely made.' As the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry observed, 'With little regard for the millions of Australians who go online for rideshare, food delivery and myriad other services, this legislation proposed by the government puts at risk the easy access that consumers want. Your food delivery or your lift home on a Friday night will be more expensive and less accessible because of these changes.' The additional cost burdens this bill imposes will be passed through to consumers, and these changes are a serious threat to the future of Australia's digital economy and many digital platforms. That, of course, is the precise agenda of this minister. He has notoriously described the gig economy as a cancer. Under this bill, the government proposes to give the Fair Work Commission new powers to set work rules for digital economy workers as well as for independent contractors if they are assessed to be 'employee-like' in their working arrangements. But, despite the minister's rhetoric, this will not just be limited to people who are delivering food ordered over digital platforms. The sweeping new laws are going to capture huge swathes of industry, from the care sector to the rideshare industry, with needlessly complicated and productivity-killing rules. But it goes further. These laws will impact tradespeople, like builders, electricians, plumbers and other professionals, who advertise their services online, and, ultimately, consumers who go online to find those services. The most significant risk with the proposed 'employee-like' reforms is the broad range of independent contracting arrangements which may be captured by this new jurisdiction in the Fair Work Act. The reality is that a significant number of independent contractors advertise their services through so-called digital labour platforms, and this is a good and desirable thing. The number will only grow as technology advances. For example, most traditional tradespeople don't just advertise their services through the white pages anymore; they use apps and websites like hipages, Oneflare and Airtasker, just to name a few. Similarly, professionals may use Expert360 and freelancer.com. Tutors and sporting coaches may use platforms such as Learnmate, Playbook.coach and Superprof. Pet sitters and walkers may use platforms such as Mad Paws and Pawshake. Disability support workers may use platforms such as Mable. These proposed changes will hinder the choices made by millions of Australians who use platforms like these, and Australians who use them to allow them to be their own boss. The economy-wide innovation-killing implications of this bill are very bad news. The minister himself has said that Australians will pay more and lose the convenience of many services which are delivered today through the use of digital platforms. Australian consumers will no longer be able to access the services they have become used to obtaining quickly, conveniently and affordably. Australians who wish to provide their services through a digital platform, connecting them quickly and efficiently to customers, will be blocked from doing so. Innovative businesses will be penalised and forced to turn back the clock to old ways of working, leaving them less able to meet consumer demands. By burdening innovative businesses who are using technology to better meet customer needs, this government is holding up a stop sign to potential technology innovators and investors. What Australia needs to stay competitive globally and to maintain and grow our prosperity is more businesses which are using innovative technology to serve customers more quickly, efficiently and responsibly. But this bill is saying to Australia's technology sector: 'Back off. You are not wanted.' Instead, the government is trying to return Australia to a rigid 1950s-style economy, with all kinds of restrictions on how and when people can work. Let me turn to some of the other deeply problematic changes this bill seeks to make. The bill will amend the Fair Work Act to enable unions to exercise right-of-entry powers without any notice whenever it relates to so-called wage underpayment. To gain immediate entry, union officials need only assert to the Fair Work Commission that they suspect a case of wage underpayment. No evidence is required to make their case. So, if you're in a workplace and a gentleman with tattoos and a baseball bat turns up, somebody with a significant criminal record, as so many members of the CFMMEU have, you will now be in a country where that person has the right to enter, effectively without notice. That is the change that this government is proposing in this bill. Under this legislation, union delegates will have a new workplace right to protect them against employers that refuse to deal with them, mislead them or hinder or obstruct their rights as a delegate. A mandatory term would be included in awards or enterprise agreements giving effect to primary and ancillary delegates' rights. That, of course, is all about protecting the interests of the union bosses. The ancillary rights include so-called reasonable access to communicate with members and potential members. 'Potential members' may be people who have zero interest in joining a union, but they're going to be exposed now because the legislation requires the so-called protection of an ancillary right to communicate with potential members about matters of industrial concern, workplace facilities, paid time, training as well as delegates having paid time to undertake these functions. These are all costs on businesses which will make it harder to employ people. And all costs are imposed regardless of whether workers in that workplace have shown any interest at all in joining a union. Of course there is a place for unions in our economy. The coalition doesn't question that for a second. But let's also respect the choices of Australians. But that's not something that the government are interested in doing. They're not interested in doing that because the unions, as we know, are their paymasters. The unions control the preselections of the Labor members of this parliament, and those Labor members are responding to the wish list of their union paymasters. I make the point that the provisions regarding union rights of entry, and particularly the provisions in relation to ancillary rights and so on, were unexpected and unannounced. They were not included in the government's 2022 election policies. They were not foreshadowed in any of the public consultation papers it released in April 2023. Let me turn to the restrictions proposed to be imposed on labour hire businesses under the misleading description of 'same job, same pay'. This bill constitutes an unfair and unjustified attack on labour hire employers as well as the businesses and the workers that depend upon the labour hire sector. The union movement has for a long time been hostile to the labour hire sector, but it is very clear—there can be no doubt—that labour hire businesses today are required to comply with exactly the same employment laws as all other employers. The labour hire sector has an important role to play in Australia's economy. At the moment, there are material constraints on the labour market flowing from shortages of both skilled and unskilled labour, and those constraints are operating as a brake on our economy. In those circumstances, it is extraordinarily reckless for this government to implement a measure that will make it harder for businesses to secure the labour that they need. On this side of the House, we recognise and respect the fact that the Australian labour market is diverse. It provides a range of different forms of work for people in different circumstances and with different needs. That respect for the diversity of the workforce is not shared by those on the other side of the House, and it's certainly not shared by the union movement. They respect only forms of work which are controlled by unions. The opposition recognise the diversity of our labour market. We believe strongly that those who choose particular forms of work, such as casual work or working for a labour hire business, are making an entirely legitimate and appropriate choice, and it's important that those options are available to people in the workforce. What the Labor Party, the government, is seeking to do with this bill is to discourage the diversity of forms of employment that are in the Australian economy. The consequence of this legislation, should it pass, is that, at a time when businesses across Australia are crying out for staff, they will be faced with an increase in red tape and extra difficulties in hiring workers. It's very clear that the provisions in this bill in their operation go well beyond labour hire, and, despite the soothing language of 'closing labour hire loopholes', the troubling reality is that the measures in this bill extend a long way beyond the labour hire sector. In turn that will have a potentially very extensive and disruptive impact on Australia's economy because of the block it will place in front of businesses who are seeking to access services they need in the course of operating their own business. Key to this is the fact that the government's proposal in the legislation does not define labour hire as a business that provides workers to another business who then work under the supervision of that business and as part of that business. This is the standard definition that is used in the labour hire licensing legislation. Instead, the approach in this bill is very different. Under the operation of this bill these provisions will also cover service contractors, so contractors who are engaged by a business to provide a service, often using their own plant and equipment, their own expertise and their own management as well as their own workforce. Any business which engages service contractors—not just labour hire contractors but service contractors—will be captured under these ill-conceived provisions. One of the other implications of what this bill will do is that labour hire businesses will not be able to negotiate the terms and conditions on which they employ workers, and those who work for labour hire businesses similarly will not be allowed to sit down and have those negotiations. Under the provisions that are contained in this bill, labour hire employees will find themselves in a remarkable position. They will be denied any role in negotiating their own wages, and that would place them in a remarkable circumstance compared to the rights which are made available to workers in every other industry. We know that labour hire workers today represent around 2.3 per cent of employed people in Australia. We also know that those who work for labour hire firms choose to do so for a range of reasons. It may provide them with additional flexibility, it may give them tailored working conditions, it may give them an increase in the variety of the work they do and it may heighten the independence with which they can consider their own work options. Labour hire can be a source of flexible and varied labour solutions for a range of businesses and can provide surge capacity, including assisting businesses to handle peak periods. Regrettably—and it is deeply regrettable—the Labor Party and their union paymasters have decided to demonise those Australians who choose to work in this mode, a mode which provides options for people in a range of different circumstances and with a range of different needs. According to the rhetoric from this government, the objective in this part of the bill is to stop businesses from 'deliberately undercutting bargain pay and conditions' and to 'avoid bargaining for an enterprise agreement'. But the reality is the provisions in this bill go a very long way beyond giving effect to that particular objective. Any defensible same job, same pay policy would need to do the following things. It would need to be targeted to a clearly defined labour market problem backed by evidence of where the problem lies. It would need to apply only to labour hire rather than other forms of commercial contracting. It would need to allow workers to be rewarded for their hard work and paid more in recognition of higher levels of skill or higher levels of experience. And it would need to be practical and workable. On any analysis this bill fails to do any of those four things. Let me turn next to the attack on casual employment which this bill represents. The Albanese government has conspicuously failed to explain exactly which so-called loophole it is trying to close. This bill will introduce a new definition of casual employment that would replace the existing definition that was inserted in the Fair Work Act in 2021 by the previous coalition government. The measure is unnecessary. To the extent that there was a problem with people who wanted to transfer from casual to permanent employment not having the opportunity to do that, that problem was fixed with the changes we made in 2021. All casuals already have the right to convert to permanent status after 12 months if they work regular hours. This bill would add a new right after six months, in addition to the existing system allowing conversion after 12 months. The new definition of a casual employee is three pages long. It includes 15 factors to determine if an employee is a casual. The 15 factors 'must all be considered but do not necessarily need to be satisfied'. An employee will be a casual only if they meet these factors. If not then the business is breaking the law if they tell the employee that they are casual, even if the employee wants to be casual. The new conversion process is eight pages long. The new conversion regime for employees to convert after six months is separate to the existing regime providing for conversion after 12 months, so there will be two streams regulating the same thing. The new six-month conversion right has a test with 11 factors, four sections and seven subsections in the legislation. Employers must provide 'detailed reasons' to employees in response to conversion requests. Employers can be exposed to involuntary arbitration by the Fair Work Commission if a worker or union disputes their decision or their interpretation of the definition. This is nothing short of a comprehensive attack on casual employment, even though many Australians freely choose casual employment and prefer that mode of work, not least for the casual loading they receive but also because it allows them to combine work with other responsibilities such as study or family. Another item from the unions' wish list contained in this bill is the renewed attack on owner-drivers in the road transport industry. Through this bill, the government is effectively reviving the failed Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal. This body was a policy failure which did profound harm to the lives and livelihoods of hardworking owner-drivers. This new body within the Fair Work Commission will have the same profound impact on the road transport industry. Owner-drivers will again lose the flexibility to set their rates and conditions. Australians will ultimately feel the pinch at the supermarket check-out. Parliament should not bend to the demands of the Transport Workers Union and should reject these changes. Also included within these hundreds of pages of legislation is a provision which gives the minister the power to make regulations for 'supply chain participants'. The effect of this provision would be to hand over control of Australia's supply chains to the Fair Work Commission. This will impact everyone from ship to supermarket and road to restaurant. It is a disastrous overreach. Let me conclude where I began. This is a truly dreadful bill. It does the very opposite of what Australia needs now. Rather than boosting economic growth and improving productivity, it will impose new costs and burdens on businesses, workers and consumers. This bill is brought forward not to advance the interests of our nation but to advance the interests of the union bosses, who are the paymasters of the Albanese Labor government. I could quote many, many people about what a bad bill this is, but let me quote from the chief executive of the Business Council of Australia: "Any government that's serious about cost of living would not do this. "They should not add cost and complexity at a time when people are struggling to pay their bills. …   …   … "We need a system that drives productivity, not stifles it, because that will stifle wages growth. "The case has not been made for this radical shake-up. I conclude by making it very clear to the House that this is a truly bad bill, and the Liberal and National parties are entirely opposed to it. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 Is the amendment seconded? Mr Taylor 231027 I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Bradfield has moved an amendment that all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The question is now that this amendment be agreed to. The time is almost 1.30, so we will move to statements by honourable members. STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS 16 STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS Income Tax 16 13:29 Mr YOUNG 201906 Longman I've had a number of Longman constituents contact me in despair when they completed their tax returns recently. The despair comes from the fact that they found then that the tax offset that gave low- to medium-income earners an extra $1,500 in their tax return, brought in by the previous coalition government, had been scrapped by this federal Labor government. At a time when interest rates have risen 12 times in 15 months, rents have skyrocketed, people are getting less in their trolleys at the grocery store, and, of course, electricity and gas bills have increased dramatically, who would take away assistance like this for Australians on low incomes? I'll tell you who: this Labor government. The Treasurer himself keeps stating, 'We know Australians are under the pump financially.' The question is: if you know that Australians are under the pump financially, why would you take away cost-of-living relief like this? It makes no sense. People are also asking me why there is $360 million being spent on a referendum for an Indigenous Voice to Parliament that could be used instead for cost-of-living relief. It is a fair question. This is just another example of who the true party of the Australian battler is, the coalition, because actions speak louder than words. I say to this government: do the right thing and reintroduce this for next year. Mr YOUNG 201906 I take the interjection that Josh Frydenberg got rid of it. You would have said it was hubris and that we were arrogant if we continued it on past last year, so make up your mind. Aged Care 16 13:31 Ms BYRNES 299145 Cunningham Today is the fifth annual Thank You for Working in Aged Care Day, run by the mighty Health Services Union. I am a proud member of the HSU, and today I would like to give my thanks to the tens of thousands of workers across the country who work tirelessly in our aged-care system. These workers—personal carers, allied health professionals, nurses, cooks and cleaners—commit themselves every day to deliver high-quality care to our older Australians. I also thank Gerard Hayes, Adam Hall, Lynne Russell, Lauren Hutchins, Meri Bosevski and Renee Sheridan from the HSU for their relentless support of our local aged-care workers. It has been a privilege working with you to develop and implement Labor's aged-care policies. Together with the Albanese Labor government and the Minister for Aged Care, we are working hard to support the aged-care sector in the Illawarra and around the country. So far we have backed in a 15 per cent pay rise for aged-care workers, achieved 24-hour nursing across our aged-care facilities 98 per cent of the time and funded 214,000 fee-free TAFE places for sectors in need, including in aged care. We've joined with New South Wales minister Ryan Park and the New South Wales government to deliver an additional 35 transitional aged-care beds in the Illawarra and Shoalhaven. We will continue to work together to ensure our workforce is supported in providing older Australians with the care they deserve. World Dragon Boat Racing Championships 17 13:32 Mr CONAGHAN 279991 Cowper I'd like to acknowledge the impressive efforts of five of my constituents—Sam Fowler, Kevin Buhler, Liz Harrison and husband-and-wife duo Ken and Lorrae Fitzgerald—who recently took part in the World Dragon Boat Racing Championships in Thailand. Ranging in age from 17 to somewhere over 60, each of them was selected to represent our country as part of the Auroras, the Australian national team. I've got to say that they did more than represent. They can home with a full swag of medals. In fact, between the five of them, these legends paddled their way to 25 medals. Listening to the team outline their intense training sessions and hours on the water was not only inspiring but tiring. Hearing them describe receiving their medals while the anthem played behind them was enough to bring any proud Aussie to tears. I give a huge congratulations and heartfelt thankyou to each of you for your stellar efforts and for showing the world what Australian grit and determination can achieve. I know that your sport will continue to grow and gain popularity in our region for its sense of camaraderie and appeal to all ages, and I can't wait to see the results from the next world competition, over in Germany. Go the green and gold, and congratulations to all of you. Woodward, Mr Karl 17 13:34 Dr REID 300126 Robertson I rise to acknowledge Karl Woodward, a veteran in my community on the Central Coast who will compete in this year's Invictus Games in Germany. Mr Woodward joined the Royal Australian Airforce and graduated officers training school in 2007. He served in Townsville, Williamtown and Canberra. During his service, he was deployed twice in the Middle East and once in South Sudan. His service has taken him across several continents, including Asia, the Americas, Africa and, of course, Australia. This year, Mr Woodward retired from duty and now supports his community on the Central Coast, although he has one more mission at this month's Invictus Games in Dusseldorf, Germany. He will represent Australia in the sporting arena, competing in swimming, indoor rowing and wheelchair rugby. My sincere gratitude and respects go to Mr Woodward for his dedication to Australia and our security since 2007. And to all our former and serving personnel: thank you for your service to Australia. The Invictus Games aim to promote a greater international understanding of and respect for those who are serving their country, by inspiring recovery and supporting the rehabilitation of wounded, injured and sick service personnel and veterans. The 6th Invictus Games will take place in Germany and will involve 22 nations, with 550 competitors across 10 sports. The games will run from 9 to 16 September 2023. My best wishes to all our Australian veterans who are heading to Germany to compete. Good luck. You are all our heroes. Victorian High Country Huts Association 17 13:35 Dr HAINES 282335 Indi The people of Indi truly value the unique alpine environment of the Victorian high country. The catastrophic loss of 29 historic huts in the 2003 alpine fires galvanised a community response that resulted in the formation of the Victorian High Country Huts Association. Now in its 20th year, with a membership of 250 people and growing, this volunteer association has worked in partnership with government agencies in rebuilding and maintaining the European heritage that these alpine refuge huts represent. Wallace's, Bluff, Roper's, Spargo's and Horsehair Plain: these evocative names are amongst some of the dozens of huts that have received the skilled care of the Victorian High Country Huts Association. Since 2003, a total of 158 projects, including 38 rebuilds, 50 restorations and 70 maintenance projects have been undertaken by capable and motivated volunteers—people with deep connection to the high country. People like Jim Crebbin of Mount Beauty, Allen Skilton of Wodonga, Meg Haas and Lachie Gales from Wangaratta and Jimmy Findlay of Cheshunt have made personal and financial sacrifices, offering up their skills and energy to work in remote and challenging environments. A celebration in Mansfield on 28 October this year will mark 20 years of like-minded people coming together with a passion to keep the European heritage of the Victorian high-country huts available for future generations. All Australians owe them their thanks. Men's Shed Week 18 13:37 Dr GARLAND 295588 Chisholm This week we celebrate Men's Shed Week, an annual event that aims to raise community awareness and knowledge of and interest in men's sheds. It is also the 30th anniversary of Men's Shed Week, which is an incredible milestone. In my own wonderful electorate of Chisholm, I have some remarkable men's sheds. The Monash Men's Shed is a registered health promotion charity and is a place where diverse activities are undertaken. This coming Sunday, 10 September, the Monash Men's Shed will be holding a tool sale and community indoor market at 77 Bogong Avenue in Glen Waverley. As the recent proud owner of a gorgeous handmade chopping board from the shed, I can attest to the quality of the items. The Monash Men's Shed plays an important role in the improvement of the health and wellbeing of our community. The Waverley woodworkers are another amazing local group. They make some absolutely incredible items, including very special handmade toys that are regularly donated to local charities, neighbourhood houses and kinders. These toys are treasured by the children who receive them. It is a pleasure to know and work with the group. The organisation has recently said goodbye to President Ray Ffrench, who'd served for 10 years. I want to thank you, Ray, for your inspiring leadership and the important part you've played in serving the community over the last decade. Our men's sheds are so important to our communities, and I'm so pleased to be able to support them here in the chamber today. Aged Care: Workforce 18 13:38 Ms STEGGALL 175696 Warringah I rise to thank all those working in the aged-care sector and to express my deepest thanks on behalf of the people of Warringah. We have over 760 workers in aged care, employed in residential settings across Warringah, and many more caring for older people in place. These individuals are the unsung heroes of our community, the pillars of compassion and dedication that uphold the dignity and wellbeing of older Australians, and we know, from the Intergenerational report, how much more we will be relying on them. I recognise all aged-care workers, including personal carers, allied health professionals, nurses, cooks and cleaners—those working in a residential setting, as well as those who go to the homes of those ageing in place and provide services, support and comfort to those who are able to age in their homes. I've met with many aged-care workers who've reaffirmed their commitment to rise each day with a single purpose: to provide comfort, companionship and care to those who once cared for us. Nurses in aged care play an integral role in the health system—caring for elderly residents in place, rather putting them through the trauma of the transfer to and from hospital. I welcome the significant pay rise afforded to these workers, especially nurses, on the recommendation of the Fair Work Commission, and I urge all employers to pass that wage rise on in full. Their work is a testament to their commitment to preserving stories and experiences and taking care of the elderly. Spence Electorate: Community Services 18 13:40 Mr BURNELL 300129 Spence Recently I represented the Minister for Social Services to open a new toy library located within my electorate of Spence. The toy library is located at the St Augustine's Parish School in Salisbury, and it is now the second toy library operating in Spence. I hope there are many more to come. Toy libraries throughout Australia, due in large part to the incredible volunteers that donate their time towards running them, offer invaluable opportunities for children to experience play. Backed by this government's $700,000 investment towards toy libraries across the country, they also make recreational and bonding experiences more accessible for families, when toys can be a luxury item out of reach to some households. I myself have experienced the joy that a toy library can bring, having visited one in the 1980s as a youngster over and over again. Back then, the one thing I really wanted was a toy digger, but, growing up on a farm, money simply couldn't be spent on things like that. But, at my local toy library, there it was. Mum would hire that digger over and over again for me, and I played with it for hours. It just so happens that today is my mother's birthday. Happy birthday to you. I love you and I hope you have a great day. While my dirt-moving adventures might have been made of plastic, the commitment of our government towards making play available to all Australian children is very real. I'm proud to see it come to life in Spence. Tatchell, Mr Will 19 13:41 Mrs ARCHER 282237 Bass I'm pleased to stand here today and share that, for a second year in a row, a northern Tasmanian has been named the male AFL Community Coach of the Year. It's well known that our island state produces some of the best footballers on the ground, and it appears that we punch above our weight for coaches and volunteers as well. Not busy enough running his own microbrewery and co-hosting a football podcast, Way Out on the Wing, Launceston's Will Tatchell has been a constant on the ground for the East Launceston Junior Football Club over the past few years. Undertaking a variety of roles, including coach coordinator, committee member, coach and Auskick coordinator, Will also spearheaded the club's first coaching handbook and is dedicated to developing both players and coaches. The club president, Josh Nast, told me, 'Simply put, Will has been the absolute engine room of our club, and we're so fortunate to have an individual with Will's passion and commitment to community.' Head of AFL Tasmania, Damian Gill, said: 'Will thoroughly enjoys this recognition. He's a passionate football person who goes above and beyond for the East Launceston Junior Football Club. His ethos is about kids enjoying their footy, and this comes through in everything he does.' For Will, a father of three football-mad young boys, the engagement and development with young players continues to drive him. 'I find real engagement in seeing this younger generation come through but then noticing in one to 15 years where these players go on to play,' he said. Congratulations, Will. Pearce Electorate: Domestic and Family Violence 19 13:43 Ms ROBERTS 157125 Pearce I recently spent a fantastic Saturday afternoon at the Standing Together against family violence round with the wonderful Quinns Districts Amateur Football Club. It was a great pleasure to attend the match, wearing Standing Together armbands in the company of Ian Lee, the club president; Mark Folkard MLA, the state member for Burns Beach; Felicity Lockyer and Debbie Cameron from the Patricia Giles Centre for Non-Violence; Kerrie Ratcliffe and Chloe Bond from the See it, Say it program; and Mark Glasson, CEO of Anglicare WA. Well done Quinns Bulls amateur football club for recognising and supporting this very worthy campaign. See it, Say it is a new community safety campaign encouraging everyone to use a 24/7 response service to report issues and behaviours impacting on community safety. The Patricia Giles Centre for Non-Violence, located in my electorate of Pearce, offers crisis and support services for women and children escaping and affected by family violence, alongside violence prevention and intervention services. The centre was founded in 1989, and it is named after Patricia Giles AM, an Australian senator for 12 years who was an advocate for community services and women's rights. The centre states that they always strive to reflect her commitment, wisdom, insight and courage. A special thanks to all involved and for your assistance in empowering those affected by violence to be able to make their own decisions and get their lives back on track. Hunter Boyle Children's Swim Program 19 13:44 Mr BIRRELL 288713 Nicholls I rise to talk about the Hunter Boyle Children's Swim Program. This fantastic initiative, in partnership with Kidsafe, was started by Ash Napolitano and Matt Boyle in 2021. Sadly, like a number of great community initiatives, this was born from tragedy. In 2020, two-year-old Hunter Boyle drowned in a dam on a farm where he loved visiting his grandfather. It was tragic for the community and many rallied around the family at the time. In the depths of their despair, Hunter's parents, Ash and Matt, were driven to make a difference for others. Their dream was to establish a program that would provide children in need, within the Goulburn Valley region, with critical swimming lessons and water safety education for a minimum of 12 months. They also encourage and assist people to become qualified swim teachers. I participated in the five-kilometre event in the Shepparton Running Festival a couple of weeks ago. It was a great thrill that Ash and Matt were the charity partners of that event. It was inspirational to get a medal from those two people as I crossed the finish line. Matt and Ash are looking to expand the program and are encouraging people to support it in any way they can, both through funding but also through encouraging anyone they know to become a swim teacher. These are the people we should support and celebrate: Ash and Matt. They are people who've worked so hard to turn something so terrible into a positive for the benefit of others. Hasluck: Governor Stirling Senior High School 20 13:46 Ms LAWRENCE 299150 Hasluck Last Tuesday, I was delighted to accompany the Minister for Foreign Affairs on a visit to Governor Stirling Senior High School in Woodbridge in Hasluck. The foreign minister was well received by the students there and received a welcome to country in language by Sheldon. Together they engaged in an array of really well thought-out questions that ranged across a variety of topics: the minister's own inspirations in politics, gender, race, her sexuality, climate policy, immigration, the economy, the campaign for the Voice to Parliament and advice that she might be able to offer to the younger generations. The minister encouraged the students to engage in the political life of their community and also shared aspects of the way in which she's managed her own career. I thank Senator Wong for taking the time to visit the Governor Stirling school. Her warmth, generosity and honesty in answering the students' questions were inspirational. Seeing the young students' enthusiastic faces and hearing that high level of engagement, I know that this was a visit of lasting influence. Who knows, perhaps we'll see a future foreign affairs minister emerge from that cohort, too. Our country will be well served by having any one of those students in positions of national leadership. We didn't, of course, allow enough time for selfies with all the students and the staff who wanted them with Minister Wong, so we will need to visit again. I thank Principal Leo Surjan and his team, the incredible, wonderful staff of this great school. I look forward to seeing the students develop in their careers ahead. Flynn: Rosella Park School 20 13:47 Mr BOYCE 299498 Flynn I was pleased to recently stop by the Rosella Park School in Gladstone to meet a talented artist, Jack, and some of the school's transition students. Jack created a picture of a local pale-faced rosella on a tea towel by doing a guided drawing and painting it. He has produced a wonderful result. One of the teachers, a local artist named Carolyne, came up with the idea to paint the artwork on tea towels to raise money to offset the costs of the year 11 and 12 camp, later in the year. Carolyne explained that these families of the students have a lot on their plate, supporting and dealing with their children and this fundraising tool would provide them with much-needed support. This initiative is a great way to not only help ensure all the students can attend the camp but show the community that the Rosella Park School has some very talented students. The tea towels are vibrant and make a great local and unique gift and support a good cause. The tea towels are all printed and sewn in Australia by small businesses. They are $30 each and I encourage everybody to purchase one while stocks last. These tea towels would make domestic chores just that little bit more enjoyable. Well done to Rosella Park School in Gladstone. Ryde Dragon Boat Club 20 13:48 Mr LAXALE 299174 Bennelong I'm very proud to be able to stand today and talk about the Ryde Dragon Boat Club, a local club based in my electorate of Bennelong. Ryde Dragon Boat Club was established in October 2021. They only started racing together as a team last season. In less than two years they've grown immensely and now, in their second season, they are even being internationally recognised. Six members from the Ryde Dragon Boat Club earned the privilege to don the coveted green and gold uniforms as part of the Aussie Auroras. These remarkable individuals have recently returned home from Thailand, where they proudly represented Australia at the 16th World Dragon Boat Racing Championships. I would like to take a moment to honour each of them and what they achieved over there at the world championship. We had Fiona Wells-Dimech, who got seven medals; George Dimech, six medals; Peter Fox, four medals; Joel McCarthy, six medals; and Bella Taranto, seven medals—and a special mention to Wayne Davison, who just missed out. That's right: the Ryde Dragon Boat Club brought 30 medals back home to Bennelong. Congratulations to them for their outstanding achievements at the World Dragon Boat Championships but also for bringing our community together each and every weekend. There are people who just give Dragon boating a go. It's a great way to get together, get some exercise and stay fit. Give it a go if you haven't already. It's down at Putney Park in Bennelong. It's a beautiful day out on the river. Cost Of Living 21 13:50 Mr BROADBENT MT4 Monash On Saturday morning, I was attending the tyre service to get a puncture repaired. The owner recognised my face, which surprised me, and decided to let me know in no uncertain terms what he thought about politicians but also what he thought about the cost of his mortgage increasing by $1,100 a month. He blamed us all. I was not embarrassed—I entered into a discussion with him, as we always do. For me it was hard because I know it's not only the increase. It increased by $1,100 a month, but how much are all of the other costs for that family owned business now? I had a small business myself, so I fully understood where he was coming from. I'd had a business in that town for nearly 30 years. I felt for that guy, earning a living every day, with five employees. The young fellow that helped me did an absolutely magnificent job on the tyre, and I thanked him for his expertise. But I'd have to say: we do care about the cost of living and what is happening in your business and in your households. Climate Change 21 13:51 Ms MAS 298800 Swan CARENHAS () (): Australia is critical in the world's pathway to decarbonisation. Our critical minerals are the building blocks of the clean energy economy. It's Minerals Week this week. Not only do we need minerals for healthy bones and bodies; we need them for the low carbon economy. Australia is blessed with abundant resources above the ground, with amazing solar and wind resources, and with critical minerals below the ground—minerals like lithium, cobalt, nickel and manganese. Every battery, electric vehicle, wind turbine and solar panel needs critical minerals. WA kept Australia strong during the pandemic, and I'm proud that we will keep Australia strong as we decarbonise. I'm proud that the Albanese Labor government has supported WA and WA has received the lion's share of federal government funding to fast-track critical minerals projects. I know that the people of Swan are so proud to work in green-collar mining industry jobs. I chatted with Rod Sims last week, who told me gravely that there is no pathway to zero emissions without Australia. I am proud that the Albanese Labor government has stepped up and is seizing the opportunity. Our investment will support communities, growth, jobs and the environment. Australian Men's Shed Association 21 13:53 Mr CALDWELL 306489 Fadden I rise today to highlight the significance of the 30th anniversary of the Men's Shed Association, which plays a vital role in facilitating connection, community and camaraderie in the electorate of Fadden. Since the original community shed for men was established in 1993, the movement has been integral in supporting positive health and mental health outcomes for a segment of our community who give so much without asking much in return. In the Men's Shed movement, individuals can learn new skills, work on projects, make like-minded mates and, in doing so, support one another. I am extremely proud of the efforts of Merv Holliday, Len Thompson and the team at Labrador Men's Shed, who are celebrating the anniversary with lunch tomorrow. Their community work includes a mentoring program with Labrador State School students, which has been running since 2010. Whilst I can't be in attendance tomorrow, I look forward to catching up with you all soon. Likewise, I want to take this opportunity to acknowledge the amazing work done by Keith Ward, Les Chapman and the team at Oxenford Men's Shed, supporting more than 130 members, often funded by their sausage sizzles at Bunnings. Lastly, congratulations to Jeff Cheales and the team at Pimpama Men's Shed. I was there as a councillor when that facility opened, and I am proud that it serves the Fadden community all these years later. Congratulations to the Men's Sheds serving within the electorate of Fadden, and all the best for the next 30 years. Albanese Government 21 13:54 Ms RYAN 249224 Lalor I rise today a proud member of the Albanese Labor government, a government that is working for Australia, a government that hasn't wasted a minute since we were elected, a government that's delivering for the people of my community, the members of the community in the electorate of Lalor. From Werribee, Little River and Hoppers Crossing to Tarneit, everyone in my community is celebrating a Labor government, because we are delivering for them. We came back to this parliament and put in place measures to ensure that their energy costs didn't go sky high. What did those opposite do? They voted against those measures. There's a theme here. There is a theme that is being established since the Albanese Labor government came to office—that we work hard for Australia, saying yes and doing things that other people say yes to, but we cannot get those opposite to say yes to anything much. All they want to do is say no—no to helping with cost-of-living pressures. They said no. They voted against measures that would mean energy costs staying down for locals that I represent in this place. They didn't want to support the childcare changes until the last minute. They don't want to support the industrial relations changes today that, in my electorate, would mean money in pockets for families. Child Care 22 13:56 Ms BELL 282981 Moncrieff The last time Labor was in government, out-of-pocket childcare costs skyrocketed by 53 per cent. In the last nine months alone, they've already increased by a whopping eight per cent. The Prime Minister promised Australian families cheaper child care. He promised them lower out-of-pocket costs and promised on multiple occasions they would be better off under Labor. And yet, when 1 July arrived, families were disappointed to learn that their fees would increase. In many cases, they were worse off than they were 12 months ago. According to the Parenthood, 90 per cent of families experienced an increase in their childcare fees in July. That's from the Parenthood. Naomi in Rothwell is just one of those many parents who watched her fees increase by $45 a day for her two children in July. Where is the childcare relief for families this government promised? I've yet to speak to one parent who is financially better off now than they were 12 months ago. This is just another policy let-down from a Labor government who over-promises and under-delivers, a Labor government who cares more about themselves than delivering real cost-of-living relief, a Labor government that is more focused on playing politics than delivering for Australian families. Australians are paying a higher price for Labor, who are making all the wrong calls. Health Care 22 13:58 Mrs PHILLIPS 147140 Gilmore Friday 1 September was a great day. It was the day that cheaper medicines began, with 60-day dispensing for eligible patients with a chronic condition. I am delighted for the around 50,000 people in Gilmore that will benefit from this change. It will provide cost-of-living relief, and it will free up more GP appointments for those that need them the most. It will improve medicine compliance, meaning fewer trips to the GP and pharmacy, and save people time and money. What did those opposite do, with local Liberals in Gilmore? They shamefully opposed 60-day dispensing and cheaper medicines. They opposed our most vulnerable people having important cost-of-living relief through 60-day dispensing, despite doctors and patient groups saying this is good health policy. But I'm here today to let people know that I went to the election to reduce the cost of medicines. I'm proud to be part of the Albanese government, which has already reduced the maximum PBS co-payment from $42.50 to $30, saving people in Gilmore $772,000 in medicine costs on over 69,000 prescriptions. Now, we've implemented cheaper medicine through 60-day dispensing to halve medicine costs for people living with an ongoing chronic condition. I commend the Pharmacy Guild for dumping their abhorrent scare campaign, and I look forward to productive discussions through the next Community Pharmacy Agreement, because patients must always come before profit. (Time expired) The SPEAKER 53517 In accordance with standing order 43, the time for members' statements has concluded. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 22 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Aboriginal And Torres Strait Islander Voice 22 14:00 Mr DUTTON 00AKI Dickson My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, over half of our population, including one in three Labor voters, is telling you that they don't want the Voice in the Constitution. It is risky, it is permanent and it is divisive. How can the Prime Minister in good conscience go into the referendum question being put to the Australian public on 14 October knowing that he is going to divide our country clean down the middle? Government members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The Attorney-General and ministers will cease interjecting, and so will the member for Barker. 14:00 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his question. He is aware that, for many years, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people have advocated for constitutional recognition. For many years they came together, as a result of the system established under the coalition government, at Uluru to determine that they want that recognition through a voice. Commonwealth, state and territory governments have all committed to it, business leaders are supporting it, legal experts have endorsed it. We don't hear about the Solicitor-General's advice anymore. Remember that? Faith groups and sporting codes are supporting it, and there is an army of volunteers campaigning for it. On 14 October the Australian people can vote for it. They can vote yes for recognition, yes to listening and yes in order to get better results. That is the position that we have put forward after consultation and after the gracious request from First Nations people. They're not voting for a party or a person; they're voting for an idea—an idea to promote reconciliation, an idea to bring this country together, an idea in recognition that what we've done with the best of intentions over 122 years is not working, and that if you do the same thing in the same way you should expect the same outcomes. At the moment we have an eight-year life expectancy gap. We have gaps when it comes to an Indigenous young male, who is more likely to go to jail than to go to university. An Indigenous young woman is more likely to die in childbirth than a non-Indigenous woman. We have, right throughout the targets, only four of them on track to being met. The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice will be a committee of Indigenous Australians chosen by Indigenous Australians, giving advice to government so we can get better results for Indigenous Australians. The Leader of the Opposition wants to defeat this referendum for political reasons, and then he says he will have another referendum. He wants two referendums. He wants to talk about this for year after year after year after year. We want outcomes. Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The Prime Minister will pause. The Leader of the Opposition on a point of order? Mr Dutton 00AKI On relevance, Mr Speaker. The question was: why does the Prime Minister refuse to listen to the population of our country? Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Resume your seat. The Prime Minister is being relevant to the question. It is not an excuse, Leader of the Opposition, to simply make a statement. The Prime Minister is being relevant, as the question was about the constitutional change and about what is happening. He is giving context and detail, and I will make sure he is being relevant. He has the call. Mr ALBANESE R36 I tell you what, no-one is asking for a second referendum, which is his position—no-one. He wants to see Indigenous people, he just doesn't want them to be heard. Then he said we can change the question. He voted for the legislation. He sat over here and voted for the legislation that is the wording of this referendum which will go to the Australian people. (Time expired) Health Care 23 14:04 Ms VAMVAKINOU 00AMT Calwell My question is to the Minister for Health and Aged Care. How is the Albanese Labor government supporting working Australians by delivering cheaper medicines? What obstacles have stood in the way of the government delivering cheaper medicines? 14:05 Mr BUTLER HWK Hindmarsh I thank the member for her question. She promised, like everyone on this side did, to make medicines cheaper to the electorate, and in just 15 months we've delivered four waves of cheaper medicines reforms. Last July we slashed the maximum amount that millions of pensioners and concession card holders would pay for all of their medicines needs in any given year by 25 per cent. I'm pleased to report to the House that, by the end of June this year, an additional 450,000 concession card holders had already qualified for free medicines compared to the same time last year—450,000 more Australians who pay nothing at all for their medicines needs for the last six months of this year. In September the second wave of our reform slashed the price of 2,000 brands of medicines, putting $130 million back into the pockets of hardworking Australian patients. And on 1 January, of course, we delivered the biggest cut to the price of medicines in the 75-year history of the PBS, slashing the maximum payment for general patients from $42 a script to just $30. And now, thanks to the fourth wave of our reforms, millions of patients will only have to pay that money six times a year instead of 12—two scripts for the price of one—effectively halving the cost of almost 100 common medicines for a range of ongoing health conditions. Last Friday almost four million Australians qualified for 60-day scripts, and over the course of next year another two million or more Australians will also become covered, totalling six million Australian patients who will get two scripts for the price of one—good for their hip pocket, good for their health, good for the health system because it frees up millions and millions of desperately needed GP consults. Of course, patients should not have had to wait this long to get access to the benefits of 60-day scripts, because the former government were given exactly the same advice five years ago, and they ignored it. Five years later they have still learned nothing. They're still backing in the powerful lobby groups over the interests of patients, voting time and time again—four weeks ago in the other place—to block cheaper medicines to six million Australian patients. Even having lost that vote, within 24 hours they'd drafted another disallowance motion, to have another go at blocking cheaper medicines for six million Australian patients. This mob learn nothing—always backing the interests of other people over the interests of Australian patients. I table the motion signed by Senator Ruston and Senator McKenzie within 24 hours— The SPEAKER 53517 The minister's time has concluded. If he wishes to table a document, he can do so anytime. DISTINGUISHED VISITORS 24 DISTINGUISHED VISITORS Australian Defence Force Parliamentary Program 24 14:08 The SPEAKER 53517 I am pleased to inform the House that present in the gallery today are participants in the 2023 Australian Defence Force parliamentary exchange program, which I understand many of our fellow members are hosting this week. I extend a warm welcome to you and thank you for your service to Australia. Honourable members: Hear, hear! 14:08 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler on indulgence—On behalf of the government, we very much welcome the men and women in uniform who serve our nation who are present with us today. You honour us with your presence. 14:08 Mr DUTTON 00AKI Dickson on indulgence—I join with the Prime Minister in offering a very warm word of welcome to those in uniform in the gallery today. It's an honour to have you up here working in the respective offices on all sides of the parliament. I hope it gives you some insight into the workings here. I hope it cures you of any interest in going into a political career post your career in uniform! But, most importantly, there is a lot that we learn by having you in our offices—of your experiences and how we can make decisions that ultimately become in our country's best interests. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 24 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Uluru Statement from the Heart 24 14:09 Ms LEY 00AMN Farrer My question is to the Prime Minister. The authorised, official history of the Uluru Statement from the Heart, written by co-chairs Megan Davis and Pat Anderson, was published six days ago. The almost 200-page hardcover book states: 'The statement was drafted and overwhelmingly— Government members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The members on my right know the procedures of this place. It is highly disorderly to interject, particularly when questions are being asked. Members on my right are now formally warned. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will start her question again. Ms LEY 00AMN My question is to the Prime Minister. The authorised, official history of the Uluru Statement from the Heart, written by co-chairs Megan Davis and Pat Anderson, was published six days ago. The almost 200-page hardcover book states: 'The statement was drafted and overwhelmingly endorsed by the convention's delegates. It is 15 pages long.' Does the Prime Minister still maintain that the Uluru statement is just one page and that any suggestions otherwise are conspiracy theory and nonsense? 14:11 M R36 Grayndler r ALBANESE (—) (): Wait until they reveal the secret verses of 'You're the Voice' by John Farnham! Wait until they find them! They are out there somewhere! There's a 10-minute bagpipe solo in there; it goes on and on and on. We had in that question that it's 200 pages. Then we had it as 20 pages. Yesterday on the front page of the paper it was 15 pages. What happened? If you have a look at what it says, the record of meetings and views in different locations are published—very helpfully—today in News Corp tabloids, and they says things like, for example: Delegates at the First Nations regional dialogue stated that the reform must be substantive, meaning that minimal or symbolic reform is not enough. Dialogues emphasising that reform needed to be substantive and structural include: Hobart, Broome, Darwin, Perth, Sydney, Ross River, Adelaide, Brisbane, Torres Strait and Canberra. The document quotes the reports from individual dialogue meetings. For example, they cite the reflections of the participants in the Perth dialogue: We have learnt through the leaders of the Pilbara Strike, we have learnt from the stories of our big sisters, our mothers, how to be proud of who we are. In the lead-up to the Uluru Statement from the Heart, there were hundreds of meetings involving thousands of Indigenous people. This process was set up under the former government, meeting at Uluru in 2017 to agree to the Uluru Statement from the Heart, which I table—the one-page document. I know full well that Megan Davis has made it very clear that the Uluru statement is one page. What we have here is a whole range of meeting minutes, effectively, of the hundreds of meetings that took place in the lead-up to Uluru, because it was well thought through. And they came up with a gracious 440 word statement. Just like the words that are in the question before the Australian people—they are very clear and succinct as well. But those opposite don't want to talk about them; they want to talk about everything but. They say that people are confused, but that they try to add to every bit of confusion with 'what ifs?' and utter untruths that they know are totally untrue. That is why Ken Wyatt, the person who was minister in the Morrison government, has walked away from you. (Time expired) The SPEAKER 53517 The Deputy Leader of the Opposition on a point of order? Ms Ley 00AMN I seek leave to table various newspaper articles and the book to which I refer, which, knowing the Prime Minister's form, he probably hasn't read. Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 The deputy leader is seeking to table a book and documents. Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order, members on my right! She's entitled to table a book. The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Dawson will leave the chamber under 94(a). Just to be clear, I'm trying to deal with points of order from your side. You'll leave the chamber and not interject on the way out either. The member for Dawson then left the chamber. The SPEAKER 53517 The Leader of the House. Mr Burke DYW Leave is not granted. Workplace Relations 25 14:15 Ms BYRNES 299145 Cunningham My question is to the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations. Why is it important to close the loopholes that undercut wages and conditions? What has been the response from those who oppose closing the loopholes? 14:15 Mr BURKE DYW Watson I thank the member for Cunningham for the question—someone who is working for Australia to make sure that people are paid better. Senator Cash said, when this debate started: 'If it's all about closing a loophole, close the loophole. Show us first where the loophole is and then close the loophole.' That's exactly what the legislation that's being introduced in the parliament does. At the moment there's a loophole where gig economy workers have no guaranteed minimum standards at all—none. There's a loophole at the moment where an enterprise agreement can be completely undercut through the use of labour hire. There's a loophole at the moment where, if you steal from the employer, it's a criminal offence —as it should be—but, if the employer steals from the worker, it's not a criminal offence. There's a loophole at the moment where you can be employed as a casual but working identically to a permanent worker, and you don't have the right to switch from one to the other, if that's what you want. They're the loopholes, and they're exactly what we're proposing to close with this legislation. But there are three things that you do when you don't want to deal with the issue at hand: firstly, you blame consultation; secondly, you try to talk about an issue that's not, in fact, in front of you; and thirdly, you talk about delay. Those opposite have taken delay to an entirely new level now. Yesterday we had a vote that this debate be delayed until 16 October. This morning we had a vote that the debate be delayed till February. Who knows by next week what the new end date will be? They will be going out to 2030 or 2050, to delay it as long as they can because, as long as people are being underpaid, they are happy. It's a deliberate design feature of how they want to run an Australian economy. So I say to those— Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The Leader of the House will just pause momentarily. Members on my right will cease interjecting so I can hear from the member for Petrie on a point of order. Mr Howarth 247742 It's standing order 90. The Prime Minister reflected on the Leader of the Opposition, and now the Leader of the House is reflecting on us as well. It shouldn't stand; he should withdraw. No-one wants to see workers underpaid—no-one. The SPEAKER 53517 Resume your seat. Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! When the House comes to order, I'll proceed. The member for Petrie is entitled to take a point of order. The Leader of the House was not reflecting on any individual member; if he had been, you would be entitled to take that point of order. When the House comes to order, the Leader of the House has the call. Mr BURKE DYW If those opposite want to vote against the loopholes, then I just say: defend them. Defend why it's fair for wage theft to not be a crime, if that's your position. Defend why it's fair for an enterprise agreement to be meaningless because you can just use labour hire to undercut it. Defend why it's fair for someone to be rostered as though they're a permanent employee but not have the right to convert. If you think it's fair to have these loopholes, then stand up and defend them. If you actually believe that some of the most vulnerable workers in Australia should have no minimum standards and should have to rely on tips to make ends meet, if that's the version of Australia that those opposite believe in—because I'll say that that's the version of Australia they intend to vote for—then defend the argument. But don't go running off and saying: 'Can we delay it? Can we complain about consultation?' Workers' rights will be fundamentally different, and loopholes will be closed or not. If your position is to keep the loopholes open, argue it and defend it. Energy 26 14:19 Mr KATTER HX4 Kennedy My question is to the Minister for Climate Change and Energy. Minister, you're aware that Liddell, Eraring, Torrens, Vales Point, Callide B and Yallourn will all close by 2029, taking 9,000 megawatts from the 32,000-megawatt national grid. Since Snowy 2 at 2,000 megawatts is the only new generation, and with AEMO last week warning of the obvious—prolonged blackouts—is your answer the latest wind farm, with 83 towers that are 580 foot high and are only going to have a lifespan of 90 years? Or does your faith lie in Father Christmas and the tooth fairy? (Time expired) The SPEAKER 53517 I'm not sure about the Christmas part, but there was a question earlier. I give the call to the Minister for Climate Change and Energy. 14:20 Mr BOWEN DZS McMahon I got the gist, Mr Speaker. I thank the honourable member for his question, but I'm afraid the honourable member is not quite correct on some of the issues that he's raised there. In relation to the AEMO statement last week, AEMO actually underlined the need for more urgent investment in dispatchable renewables, a message this government agrees with. And it's not the first time they've said it. AEMO has issued the Electricity Statement of Opportunities twice a year for several years. For example, in 2021 they said: … the NEM will need more generation, storage and transmission than is currently operating … In 2020 they said: Risks remain that under high demand conditions, or if prolonged generation or transmission outages were to occur again, there may be insufficient generation to meet demand … They said very similar in 2019. They said very similar in 2018. The SPEAKER 53517 Order, Member for Kennedy! Mr BOWEN DZS They said very similar in 2017. It's all there laid out. Mr Taylor 231027 What did you do about Kurri Kurri? Mr BOWEN DZS The honourable member for Hume asks what we did about it. Well, they were in office, and they ignored these continual warnings—a decade of denial and delay. The honourable member for Kennedy says Snowy is the only new generation coming on. I'm afraid that is not correct. In fact, I'm happy to share with the House that in the last financial year AEMO approved 6.8 gigawatts of new generation. That's up from four gigawatts the year before. That's an increase of 2.6 gigawatts, in the last financial year, of new generation approved by AEMO. In fact, AEMO has said there are 3.4 more gigawatts available going into this summer than last summer. There is more generation available this summer than last summer, and the bulk of that is renewable, which is a good thing. The SPEAKER 53517 I warn the member for Fairfax. Mr Katter HX4 A point of order, Mr Speaker: the question was that 8,000 is going off. The minister has said 6,000— The SPEAKER 53517 Resume your seat, Member for Kennedy. The SPEAKER 53517 Resume your seat. Points of order are not a time to debate the question. The minister has the call. Mr BOWEN DZS AEMO also said last week that federal and state initiatives, including transmission projects identified in the Integrated Systems Plan and mechanisms delivering firming capacity, such as the Commonwealth's Capacity Investment Scheme, can address many identified risks over the 10-year horizon. That's a Commonwealth scheme which this Commonwealth government has delivered, which the previous government talked about and could not deliver. What we need is more investment in generation and dispatchable energy. That's exactly what we're getting under the policy settings of this government. That's exactly what we lacked for 10 long years. DISTINGUISHED VISITORS 27 DISTINGUISHED VISITORS Work Exposure in Government Program, NPY Emerging Leaders Program, City of Greater Dandenong Council 27 14:23 The SPEAKER 53517 I'm pleased to inform the House that present in the gallery today are a group of students participating in the Work Exposure in Government program, the WEX program. On behalf of the House, welcome to question time. I look forward to meeting you all after question time. Also present in the gallery are a group of young NPY emerging leaders from the NPY region in the Northern Territory, in the member for Lingiari's electorate. A big welcome to you. I also welcome Councillor Jim Memeti and Councillor Richard Lim OAM from the City of Greater Dandenong in the member for Holt's electorate. Welcome. Honourable members: Hear, hear! QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 28 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE International Relations: Australia and South-East Asia 28 14:24 Ms MASCARENHAS 298800 Swan My question is to the Prime Minister. Tonight the Prime Minister will travel to Jakarta. How is the Albanese Labor government working with countries in our region to promote prosperity and stability and to strengthen Australia's economy? 14:25 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler Australia's economic future is entwined with the economies of Asia. Our prosperity and security are connected to what happens in this very region. Tomorrow, at the East Asia Summit and then the ASEAN meeting, is an important occasion for Australia to advance our interests. That is why my government has made serious, sustained and consistent engagement in our region an absolute priority. Tomorrow in Jakarta, together with Senator Wong, I'll be launching the invested Australia Southeast Asia Economic Strategy to 2040. This has been developed by Nick Moore, the Special Envoy for Southeast Asia, and I do want to thank Nicholas for the extraordinary work that he has done. This is the most substantive piece of work ever done about Australia's relations when it comes to our economic future with South-East Asia—the opportunity to create prosperity, create jobs here and lift living standards in our region. This is of course tied as well with national security issues. When you live living standards and provide opportunity and build those relationships, as I have with people like President Widodo, what you do is you strengthen our position. We have Indonesia, one of the world's largest economies and one of the world's largest democracies, just on our doorstep, but the truth is it's not even in our top trading partners. We need to do better. This blueprint does just that. It provides an opportunity to maximise those opportunities for Australian businesses and workers in the most dynamic region in the world. South-East Asia is a centre of global activity and business. More trade and more investment with ASEAN mean more jobs at home. Mr Moore has identified 10 priority sectors with growth potential, including agriculture, resources, renewable energy and education. I'll announce tomorrow the first steps that we're taking to implement this strategy. This will be an important visit, and I thank President Widodo for once again hosting a very important international gathering. It will be followed by the G20 meeting being hosted by Prime Minister Modi in India, and in between I will have the first bilateral visit by an Australian leader to the Philippines in over two decades. That is important as well. They're an important nation for us, for our security and for our economic growth, as well as, of course, the diaspora of those three countries being important for people-to-people links. This is an important document that we will release tomorrow. Australia's security and prosperity is always best served when we take a seat at the table, and that's precisely what my government, through the leadership of people like the Foreign Minister, Penny Wong; the trade minister, Don Farrell; and the defence minister, Richard Marles, are doing in our region. 14:28 Mr DUTTON 00AKI Dickson on indulgence—I want to offer very strong words of support to the Prime Minister. We can have our arguments domestically and in this chamber, , when the Prime Minister steps onto the international stage, it's important that our trading partners and friends hear a very united message, and for Indonesia—not just for the geopolitical priorities at the moment and the need for us to collaborate closely with our partners in the near region but also, as the Prime Minister rightly points out, the essential elements to advancing the relationship, the people-to-people links and the trading opportunities which should be much greater than they currently are. Both sides of politics very strongly support the development of the relationship with Indonesia and the expat community here, and the way in which our business leaders on both sides of the ocean are able to work together is a very significant underpinning for what should be a very bright future. Similarly, in terms of the other legs of the Prime Minister's trip, it's important for us to send a very clear message that, at this time, we do want to strengthen our relationships, our ties, across all of the areas detailed by the Prime Minister. We wish the PM every success in the trip because it is important for our country's future, and we stand ready to support the outcomes of the statement the Prime Minister referred to as well. Interest Rates 29 14:29 Mr TAYLOR 231027 Hume My question is to the Prime Minister. We've seen 11 interest rate increases on this government's watch. New Roy Morgan research shows that 1.43 million Australians are at risk of mortgage stress. That's 28.7 per cent of mortgage holders. Why are Australians paying the price for this Prime Minister's economic failures? 14:29 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I thank the shadow Treasurer for his question, but I don't think his heart was really in it. It's like the Treasurer has a force field around him and the shadow Treasurer is unable to break through and ask him a question. But I do encourage him to do so. Mr Dutton 00AKI Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order on relevance. It was a serious question about 1.43 million Australians— The SPEAKER 53517 Resume your seat. The Prime Minister was 30 seconds into the answer. He has the call. Mr ALBANESE R36 Interest rates are, of course, linked with inflation. What has occurred is that there have been interest rate increases as a result of inflationary pressures in the economy. Inflation peaked under their watch at 2.1 per cent in the March 2022 quarter, the last full quarter in which they were in government. Since then, what we have done to take pressure off inflation is— Mr Taylor 231027 So you're not going to take responsibility? The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Hume has asked his question. The SPEAKER 53517 The Treasurer will cease interjecting. The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Hume will cease interjecting immediately and will remain silent for the remainder of the answer. Mr ALBANESE R36 We have a three-point plan that we have been putting in place. The first thing we did was turn the $78 billion deficit under them into a surplus. That is what we did. It's the first in 15 years. That makes a difference. The second thing we have done is to provide cost-of-living relief to help families through cheaper child care and cheaper medicines. We're still not sure if those opposite support that or not. We have the energy price relief plan, which they opposed. Then there's affordable and social housing and strengthening the social safety net. The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Fairfax was on a warning. The process is if you're warned and you interject again on the warning you will leave the chamber under 94(a). The member for Fair fax then left the chamber. Mr ALBANESE R36 The third element is the supply-side challenges. The National Reconstruction Fund has $15 billion to support new industries and to deal with transition as well for existing industries. With the policy we have on skills and TAFE where we promised 180,000 fee-free TAFE places, we have not only met that target; we have beaten it by 34,000 already, with 214,000 places. We have the Rewiring the Nation plan, fixing the energy grid and bringing it into the 21st century. That three-part plan to deal with inflation is all about dealing with the inflationary pressures that, as I said, peaked in the March 2022 quarter. Inflation is moderating, and we welcome that. We hope to see it moderate more, and we will welcome that as well. We actually have an economic plan, unlike those opposite, who hid the energy price rise when they were in government and introduced a special regulation to do so. Mr Taylor 231027 You're full of it. Dr Chalmers 37998 You signed a little piece of paper, mate. The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The Treasurer will cease interjecting. Economy 30 14:34 Ms DOYLE 299962 Aston My question is to the Treasurer. What does the Reserve Bank's decision on interest rates today mean for Australia's economic outlook? 14:34 Dr CHALMERS 37998 Rankin I thank the wonderful member for Aston for her question. The Reserve Bank has just announced its decision to keep the cash rate unchanged at 4.1 per cent. As honourable members would be aware, this is the third month in a row that rates have been kept on hold, a third moment of relief and reprieve for many Australians and small businesses that we know are already under the pump, particularly for those who have come off fixed rates and the half a million more who will transition before the end of the year. We understand that Australians are still under pressure even after this decision today. That's why we are working for Australia to roll out billions of dollars in cost-of-living relief in ways that take the edge off inflation rather than add to it. This is our major focus. We are pleased to see that, in the most recent inflation data and in today's uptick in confidence, our energy plan is helping, as the Prime Minister said. In the statement today, the Reserve Bank makes it clear that higher interest rates are biting and impacting our economy. It talks about a painful squeeze on finances. It also talks about the uncertainty coming out of the Chinese economy. What we've seen in recent data is the impact of higher interest rates, high but moderating inflation and this continuing global uncertainty on our economy. We expect to see that, in one way or another in the national accounts, which will be released tomorrow. Consumption is half of our economy, so, as these higher rates take a toll on households, they're also taking a toll on the economy. We anticipated this in the budget forecasts, and economists are expecting some of this in the national accounts tomorrow. China's economy is slowing as well, this adds to the uncertainty, and Australia is not immune from it. We know that there are challenges ahead, but we are well placed to deal with them—half a million jobs in the first 13 months of this government, the beginnings of decent wages growth and the first surplus in 15 years. Services exports in today's numbers show that education and tourism are making important contributions to our economy. With our carefully calibrated plan, we are working for Australia to shepherd our people and our economy through difficult times at the same time as we lay the foundations for a stronger economic future. I also want to say that today is Governor Lowe's final Reserve Bank board meeting. As we've said before, he leaves that important role with the government's respect and the government's gratitude, and he leaves with dignity. His replacement, Michele Bullock, is an outstanding economist and a leader with a deep understanding of the RBA. She will be the first female governor in its 63-year history, and I'm sure that the whole House joins me in wishing incoming Governor Bullock all the very best. Honourable members: Hear, hear! Aviation Industry 30 14:37 Mr CONAGHAN 279991 Cowper My question is to the Prime Minister. Did the Prime Minister have a conversation of any nature with Mr Alan Joyce prior to the government's decision concerning Qatar Airways? 14:37 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I can confirm that I've met Alan Joyce, which is basically what the question was. That was what the question was. It wasn't about anything at all. I can confirm that I've met Alan Joyce. Honourable members interjecting— The 53517 Order! Members on my left! The member for Hume. When the House comes to order—the minister for industry—I'll hear from the member for Hasluck. Aboriginal And Torres Strait Islander Voice: Education 30 14:38 Ms LAWRENCE 299150 Hasluck My question is to the Minister for Education. How will recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people through a voice work to get better education results for First Nations Australians? 14:38 Mr CLARE HWL Blaxland I thank the terrific member for Hasluck for her question. I told the House last month that, if you're a young Indigenous bloke, you're more likely to go to jail than university. I told the House how much that costs. It costs taxpayers an average of $11,000 a year to send an Australian to university; it costs around $148,000 a year to send them to prison, more than 13 times as much. In parliament today, we're debating legislation that will help increase the number of young Indigenous people who go to university. If you're a young Indigenous student at the moment and you get the marks, you're guaranteed a spot at university, but only if you live in the bush, only if you live in regional Australia—not if you live in our suburbs or our cities. So it applies if you live in Townsville, but not if you live in Logan; in Armadale, but not in Mount Druitt; in Port Hedland, but not in Perth. This legislation means it will now apply to all Indigenous Australians right across the country. It doesn't mean uni is free; you still pay HECS. But what it means is that, if you finish school and you get the marks, you are guaranteed a spot, and the universities accord report says that this could potentially double the number of young Indigenous people at university within a decade. That's a good thing. I want to thank the Liberal Party, I want to thank the National Party and I want to thank the crossbenchers for their unequivocal support for this. It's a good example of what we can do when we work together. But let's not kid ourselves. This doesn't close the gap—not by much. At the moment about 45 per cent of young Australian adults have a uni degree, but only seven per cent of young Indigenous adults have a university degree. If this legislation works, then that will increase from seven per cent in a decade to 12 per cent. So we still have this massive gap. We all want this to close. But if we want this gap to close we have to do more than just change laws like this; we have to change the way we do things. And we don't need two referendums to do that. We only need one. But we need one that does something practical, and that is what the Voice is. It's not the idea of politicians; it's the idea of Indigenous Australians, who are asking us to listen because, when you listen, you make better decisions and you get better results. We've got nothing to fear from a practical idea like listening. The SPEAKER 53517 The minister will pause. The member for Grey, on a point of order? Mr Ramsey HWS On relevance, Mr Speaker: the minister was asked how the Voice would improve educational outcomes. He hasn't given one example. The SPEAKER 53517 The minister has 25 seconds left. He shall remain relevant to the question. Mr CLARE HWL We've got nothing to fear from listening. We've got nothing to lose and we've got everything to gain. That includes that, one day, more young Indigenous blokes go to university than to jail, and, after that, one day when it's not just one in two young Australians that have a university degree but one in two young Indigenous Australians as well. Aviation Industry 31 14:42 Mr DUTTON 00AKI Dickson My question is to the Prime Minister. Did the Prime Minister have any conversations with the CEO or any senior executive of Virgin Australia regarding the Qatar application before the decision was made? 14:42 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler Yes. Broadband 31 14:43 Mr NEUMANN HVO Blair My question is to the Minister for Communications. How is the Albanese Labor government addressing cost-of-living challenges by helping families with school-age children connect to the internet? 14:43 Ms ROWLAND 159771 Greenway I thank the member for Blair for his question. He understands that broadband is a key driver of equality of opportunity, and, in 2023, being connected to broadband is essential to maximise educational opportunities and to take advantage of our digital economy. Fortunately, the majority of Australian families and their children do have internet access at home. However, there remains a small proportion of families that, for whatever reason, whatever their personal circumstances, do not. The Albanese government understand that cost-of-living pressures can exacerbate digital exclusion, and we are determined that nobody be left behind. To address this inequity, the government is working for Australia through targeted measures that deliver practical outcomes, assisting these families to get connected through our School Student Broadband Initiative. During the pandemic, parents shared with me how they would park with their kids outside fast food restaurants just so they could get wi-fi access and download their remote learning tasks for the day. This is unacceptable. That experience was one of the key drivers for the $4.5 million investment we made in the October budget to enable NBN Co to deliver this affordability measure to provide free broadband access for 12 months. I am pleased to report to the House that more than 2,500 families without broadband at home have now been connected to free internet. In addition, over 19,000 vouchers for free connections have been issued by NBN to nominated agencies and eligible families, which will flow through to even more families connecting. The Queensland Department of Education is the latest nominating organisation to come on board, also working with the Smith Family to reach families who may benefit from the scheme. I thank Minister Grace for her support and recognition of the crucial role that access to the internet plays in narrowing the digital divide. NBNCo is also available to take referrals from members of parliament and senators to support families in need, and I'm pleased that a number of colleagues across the parliament are promoting the initiative and identifying families in their own electorates. I thank you for your support and I look forward to working with you on this important initiative. Given the ongoing demand for this program, I'm also pleased to inform the House that we have extended the nominating period for eligible families to obtain a free internet connection until the end of term 1 in 2024. That's because we want to ensure that as many families as possible can take advantage of this very important cost-of-living assistance, so that students, regardless of their circumstances, can access the internet to undertake their education with the same equitable access to broadband as their peers. DISTINGUISHED VISITORS 32 DISTINGUISHED VISITORS Symon, Councillor Mike 32 14:46 The SPEAKER 53517 I'd like to recognise Mike Symon, the former member for Deakin, and councillor for the Maroondah City Council, in the gallery today. Honourable members: Hear, hear! QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 32 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Roads: Macquarie River Crossing at Dixons Long Point 32 14:46 Mr GEE 261393 Calare My question is to the Prime Minister. Since the days of the gold rush, our communities have been fighting for a crossing over the Macquarie River at Dixons Long Point between Mudgee and Orange. There was $27.8 million of allocated funding sitting in the kitty, and the project had gone out to tender, before your government roadblocked it. Today I met with the relevant state minister, and there's no immediate contribution for this federal initiative. Will your government support the people of our region by building this game-changing bridge? And why can't the $27.8 million be spent on improving the existing road? 14:47 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I thank the member for Calare for his question, and I thank him also for raising it with me, as he has made representations on behalf of his constituents. I have also had discussions with—I've raised it with—the New South Wales government. I know I've raised it with the transport minister as well, and I'd ask the transport minister to also make some comments. 14:47 Ms CATHERINE KING 00AMR Ballarat Can I also thank the member for Calare for the question. I know he's a strong advocate of this project. And you're right: the former government did make some provision for this road. However, it was at least $20 million short of what was required to actually build the road—and that was before we had to do some further work. The project also involved a number of significant delivery challenges, which were not met. It, again, goes to the point of the problems that we saw with the infrastructure investment pipeline, from those opposite making promises before there was any proper planning work or any proper understanding of the cost. So we've got a pipeline that is billions and billions and billions of dollars short of what is actually required to deliver these projects. Now, as you're aware, the October budget last year did deliver a substantial investment in infrastructure in New South Wales, and we're getting on with the job of building over 300 projects, currently, across the country—$21 billion invested in New South Wales alone. We'll continue to work closely with the New South Wales government. They're undertaking a review of their infrastructure pipeline as well, because they are experiencing exactly the same problems, because the Liberal and National parties have form when it comes to this sort of project. I've certainly made some representations to the New South Wales government in relation to this project, and we'll have more to say about the infrastructure investment pipeline review in the coming weeks. Aged Care 33 14:49 Dr CHARLTON I8M Parramatta My question is to the Minister for Aged Care. How is the Albanese Labor government delivering on its commitment to put registered nurses back into nursing homes and lift the standard of aged care in Australia? 14:49 Ms WELLS 264121 Lilley I thank the member for Parramatta for his question and for his work supporting the aged-care workers in his electorate looking after older Australians in Western Sydney. The aged-care royal commission's final report told a shocking story into neglect in action and a lack of ambition from those opposite. One of the commission's key findings was that unacceptable staffing levels created horrific environments of substandard care. When we came to government, we sprang into action to clean up the mess left by those opposite. We have been working for older Australians and those who care for them ever since. We supported a pay rise for aged-care workers, which led to a 15 per cent increase to the award wage. We legislated a requirement for 24/7 nursing to make sure aged-care residents could get the clinical care that they required around the clock. Our first set of data for our 24/7 nursing mandate revealed staggering improvements. On average, there is a nurse on site 98 per cent of the time, or 23½ hours a day. On average, 86 per cent of all homes who have reported data have a nurse 24/7, and the majority of the remaining homes are extremely close to meeting that target. Most are only one or two hours off. This is having a real tangible effect on the ground. In the past year there has been a reduction in the number of pressure injuries. There has been a reduction in the number of physical restraints. There has been a reduction in the number of significant unplanned weight loss, in falls, in polypharmacy and in the use of antipsychotics in aged care. We are also seeing improvements in the star-ratings data that we introduced, with fewer one- and two-star rated facilities and more four- and five-star rated facilities. This is just since December, when we launched the program. That is what 24/7 nursing has always been about. It's been about fewer falls, fewer pressure injuries, fewer avoidable hospital admissions, more older people feeling safe and respected in aged care. These improvements have taken a whole-of-government approach, pulling every lever that we have to build the aged-care workforce, but the real heroes of this mission have been the aged-care workers. Aged-care workers voted with their feet at the election. They elected an Albanese Labor government to put nurses back into nursing homes. For too long these workers have been overworked and they have been underpaid. They've seen their colleagues work in other parts of the care economy with better pay and better conditions, but they stuck with it because they love their residents. So today, on 'Thank you for working in aged-care day', to those workers we say: 'Thank you. Thank you for waiting it out and thank you for working in aged care.' Aviation Industry 33 14:52 Mr VAN MANEN 188315 Forde My question is to the Prime Minister. Did the Prime Minister have any conversations with the outgoing Qantas CEO or any other senior executive of Qantas regarding the Qatar application before the decision was made? If so, on what date or dates? 14:52 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler No. Cost of Living 33 14:52 Mr RAE 300122 Hawke My question is to the Minister for Social Services. What actions are the Albanese Labor government taking to address cost-of-living pressures for vulnerable families? 14:53 Ms RISHWORTH HWA Kingston I'd like to thank the member for Hawke for his question. I hope his voice gets better soon. Since coming to government, we have been working for the Australian people every single day because we know that many people are doing it tough right now and they expect us to assist where we can to help with cost of living, particularly for those on the lowest income, and that is exactly what we are doing. In my portfolio of social services, the government has been delivering extra help, including to single parents, renters, older Australians, and those who are unemployed or who are studying. In just over two weeks time, from 20 September, additional support will flow to people on a range of different social security payments and supports. Through our changes to the single parenting payment, we are providing more support to more single parents. We are increasing support to low-income renters with the biggest increase to maximum rates of rent assistance in over 30 years. We are providing more support for people on the lowest income support payments who are particularly feeling the cost-of-living pressures. People on most working age and student payments will receive an increase on their base rates, and in recognition that older Australians can face additional barriers to work we're also extending access to the higher rate of JobSeeker to people over the age of 55. An example of how these changes could help is that, on 20 September, a single jobseeker with no dependants will receive a base increase of $56 per fortnight. With this increase, in just over 12 months the JobSeeker base rate will have gone up by $106 a fortnight. If this person is also in receipt of rent assistance on the maximum rate, they will receive an additional boost to their fortnightly income to support them with the increased cost of rent. This is practical assistance, and it means more money in the pockets of those doing it toughest, and it will make a difference. Of course, we've also complemented these changes with help with power bills, access to cheaper medicines through the changes to the PBS and, of course, the biggest boost in Medicare and incentivising bulk-billing. Many of these benefits will also flow to more people as a result of Labor's changes last year to raise the income limits for access to the Commonwealth seniors health card. More than 20,000 additional older Australians now have access to the benefits that this card brings, because of our changes. Labor is working hard every day to help Australians with the cost of living. This stands in stark contrast with those opposite, who— (Time expired) Whistleblower Protection 34 14:56 Mr WILKIE C2T Clark My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, the first person on trial for the alleged Afghanistan war crimes is whistleblower David McBride, and the only person before a court for the proven misconduct by the Australian Taxation Office is whistleblower Richard Boyle, all of which is unconscionable and unfathomable, because McBride and Boyle are the heroes here, not the villains. So, Prime Minister, will you call off your dogs? Will you instruct the Attorney-General to drop the charges immediately? The SPEAKER 53517 Before the Attorney-General takes the call, I'll allow him to pause a moment so I can hear a point of order. Mr Tehan 210911 Mr Speaker, I respectfully ask that that question be asked again, without the reference—if I heard it correctly—to 'dog', because I think it is unparliamentary and should not have been used. If it was a reference to either the Attorney-General or our intelligence agencies, that is completely unacceptable. So I would ask that the question be asked again, if I heard it correctly. The SPEAKER 53517 To assist the House, I will ask the member to withdraw that part of the question. Mr WILKIE C2T To assist the House, I will withdraw the figure of speech. And I'll ask the question again, Mr Speaker? The SPEAKER 53517 The question was clear. I thank the member and I thank the member for Wannon. 14:58 Mr DREYFUS HWG Isaacs I thank the Prime Minister for the opportunity to respond to this question. The member for Clark has raised concerns about war crimes and about the prosecution of Mr David McBride and Mr Richard Boyle. In relation to war crimes, members should be aware that, following an investigation by the Office of the Special Investigator, a former SAS soldier has been charged with a war crime under Australian law, and his matter is currently before the courts. I am sure that the member for Clark is aware of this and I am sure that the member for Clark supports the ongoing work of the Office of the Special Investigator, which of course is responsible for war crimes investigations. I am strongly of the view that integrity and the rule of law are central to Australia's criminal justice arrangements. The Attorney-General does have the power to discontinue proceedings, and I'm sure that the member for Clark would understand that that power of the Attorney-General is reserved for very unusual and exceptional circumstances. As Mr McBride's proceeding and Mr Boyle's proceeding both remain ongoing, it's inappropriate for me to comment further on the particulars of their matters, but I would note that the government is committed to delivering— The SPEAKER 53517 The Attorney-General will pause. The member for Clark on a point of order? Mr Wilkie C2T On relevance, Mr Speaker. If the whistleblower with regard to the Afghanistan war crimes isn't an exceptional situation in the public interest then I— The SPEAKER 53517 Resume your seat. It doesn't work that way. The minister is being relevant to the question. Mr HWG I'll say again that it is not appropriate for me to comment on the matters, which are both before the courts. But I do take this opportunity to note that the government is committed to delivering strong, effective and accessible protections for whistleblowers. The government has already delivered priority amendments to the Public Interest Disclosure Act. We are going to commence a second stage of reforms, which will include public consultation on broader reforms to the Public Interest Disclosure Act to provide accessible and effective protections to public sector whistleblowers and address the underlying complexity of the current scheme. The consultation will also include the need for additional supports for whistleblowers, which may include such amendments as including a whistleblower protection authority or a whistleblower protection commissioner. The government is delivering on its commitment to ensure that Australia has effective frameworks to protect whistleblowers which are critical to supporting integrity and the rule of law. The reforms that we have made and reforms which are coming are long overdue. There is significant reform which is required to restore the Public Interest Disclosure Act to a scheme that provides strong protection for public sector whistleblowers. Local Government 35 15:01 Ms COKER 263547 Corangamite My question is to the Minister for Regional Development, Local Government and Territories. How is the Albanese Labor government delivering on its commitments for local government? 15:01 Ms McBAIN 281988 Eden-Monaro I thank the member for the question. She is a strong advocate for her region and a two-time mayor, so she absolutely understands local government. Thank you for your work. We all know that local government is a trusted delivery partner of this government. We are rolling out record support to help them get high-impact local priorities off the ground. Since becoming the minister I have met with 250 local councils from around the country, both in their communities and in this place, and they all tell me how critical federal government funding is to their operations. This was echoed to me in the last fortnight at the local government ministers forum in Adelaide. The common theme from all jurisdictions across the country was that, when we work together, we can get more done. The Albanese government continues to support councils to rejuvenate and transform their communities. We have listened to them, and we have increased Local Roads and Community Infrastructure Program funding by $750 million. We extended delivery time frames to enable councils to deliver projects that will have lasting benefits in their communities. When I was in Adelaide I visited the City of Burnside, a fantastic council that is upgrading the George Bolton swimming pool heating by replacing an ageing gas pool heater to an all-new electric system. This project was funded through phase 4 of LRCI Program funding. This commitment will support them to be carbon neutral by 2030, and it will see the money that they are saving put into other priority projects. Earlier this year I met with the MacDonnell Regional Council in Northern Territory, which had a number of roads washed away due to extreme weather events. I want to thank the member for Lingiari, who helped me meet a number of remote councils. Through LRCI Program funding they were able to make repairs to key roads which provided critical access to those remote communities. Recently, I received a letter from Lyn McLaughlin, mayor of the Burdekin Shire. Her letter recognised that her shire was able to deliver significant road and community infrastructure projects with our support. We are bringing local government back to the table through our reinstatement of the Australian Council of Local Government and their inclusion in the National Cabinet. Feedback received from a number of local councils said the ACLG provided them with a fantastic opportunity to connect directly with government ministers and to have one-on-one conversations with the Prime Minister. In fact, our government is working for Australia by investing in local councils with $3.1 billion through financial assistance grants, $500 million through Roads to Recovery, $85 million through the Bridges Renewal Program, $100 million through the Community Energy Upgrades Fund and bringing forward $1.8 million in disaster relief funding. Just last week we launched the $400 million Regional Precincts and Partnerships Program. This is what it looks like when you deliver with local councils right across the country. The SPEAKER 53517 Before I call the Prime Minister, I'm going to ask the member for Barker to withdraw the comment that he said during that answer. Mr Pasin 240756 I'm happy to withdraw. The SPEAKER 53517 Thank you. Resume your seat. I call the Prime Minister. Mr Albanese R36 Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper. STATEMENT BY THE SPEAKER 36 STATEMENT BY THE SPEAKER Parliamentary Conduct 36 15:05 The SPEAKER 53517 Before we move to the MPI, I've got a short statement to make. As members would be aware, there was some very serious and concerning behaviour in the public galleries during question time yesterday. Groups of visitors disrupted proceedings early in question time, which concerned me enough to issue a warning at the time. Just before three o'clock, those same visitors again disrupted proceedings as they left the galleries, shouting, jeering and gesturing to members. They continued disruptive behaviour as they moved through the public areas of this building. As presiding officer of the Australian parliament, I take my role very seriously, ensuring parliament is a safe and respectful working environment for parliamentary staff and an open and welcoming place for members of the public to visit. The behaviour in the public galleries yesterday presented significant risk to the working environment for parliamentary staff, other visitors in the galleries and members of this House. It is unacceptable for people to enter the public galleries in an attempt to protest or express their views or disrupt proceedings. Members have been elected to this place by their own communities, and those communities should have a fair expectation that their representatives can carry out their work unimpeded. The behaviour we saw in the public galleries yesterday was unacceptable. Creating a safe and respectful environment is everyone's responsibility, and it's up to each and every one of us in this House to uphold the high standards expected of this parliament, which is the heart of our democracy. I want to remind members that the guest seating in the galleries is a privilege. If you invite a guest to the gallery, I consider their conduct to be a reflection on you. I want to be clear that, if this behaviour continues, that privilege may be revoked. Visitors of the public galleries here are observers not participants. This is the final warning. There will be no tolerance for any attempts to disrupt or interfere with proceedings of the House again. AUDITOR-GENERAL'S REPORTS 36 AUDITOR-GENERAL'S REPORTS Report No. 5 of 2023-24 36 15:07 The SPEAKER 53517 I present the Auditor-General's performance audit report No. 5 of 2023-24 entitled Trade measurement compliance activities: Department of Industry, Science and Resources. Document made a parliamentary paper. DOCUMENTS 36 DOCUMENTS Presentation 36 15:07 Mr BURKE DYW Watson Documents are tabled in accordance with the list circulated to honourable members earlier today. Full details of the documents will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings. MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE 36 MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE Aviation Industry 36 15:07 The SPEAKER 53517 I have received a letter from the honourable member for Riverina proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: This Government's chaotic airports and aviation industry policy. I call upon those honourable members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places. More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places— 15:07 Mr McCORMACK 219646 Riverina I am glad that the minister is staying in the chamber, and I hope that she stays in the chamber for this important debate because, so far, we've hardly heard a jot—not a whisper, not a peep, not a word—from the minister about a very important sector in our economy. It is a sector which represents five per cent of the economy. It is a sector called aviation. It is important: 700,000 workers rely on a job in aviation. Workers are the ones that Labor once represented but now have long deserted. There are 206,000 full-time employees at airport sites alone, and many of them are union members. You would think that those opposite would place more priority on those workers—on those union ticket holders—but, no, we don't hear very much very often from the minister about aviation. Aviation is critical in this nation. It is a huge land mass. We all know how important aviation is to connect people and to connect business. It is the gateway to our nation, and the problem is that, in recent days and weeks, we've had an issue with Qatar Airways being blocked from those important gateways. I don't know why this is so—maybe the minister might explain—but I was asked by Joe Kelly from theAustralian as to why this might be the case. I explained to him that, when I was the transport minister, I did in fact have discussions with the now Prime Minister over aviation because I respected his judgement. I respected his view. But it seems that the Prime Minister and the aviation minister—the transport minister—have not had similar discussions about Qatar. I welcome the minister coming to the dispatch box and answering those important questions, which people in the public are also asking—people in the public who are now being charged too much for their tickets and too much for their flights. This will bring competition. Qatar coming into Australia means more flights at more ports, and that will bring competition. Why is it that the government doesn't want this competition? So far, we've heard seven excuses—seven reasons. That's six too many. One of those reasons was, 'Qatar planes aren't as modern as Qantas planes, and that will increase emissions.' Ms Catherine King 00AMR He's making this stuff up! Mr McCORMACK 219646 No, I am not making this stuff up, Minister. That was one of the seven reasons given. There is only one reason. We don't know what that reason is. We are none the wiser after question time today, and we want answers. The minister will get 10 minutes—she will only need one—to give us the reason why Qatar is being blocked. Why is the ability to have more competition in the aviation sector being stopped? I welcome the minister coming to that microphone opposite and giving that reason—not because I want it, not because the opposition want it and not because we are playing politics, but because the Australian public deserves to know the answer. The Australian public deserves to know why this decision has taken place, how this decision was reached and what the future holds for the aviation sector. This is a fantastic quote: … we're seeing more domestic flights being scheduled than prior to the pandemic, helping drive hotel occupancy in our CBD to the highest of any major city across Australia and New Zealand. More flights mean more leisure and business visitors, increased freight capacity and greater connectivity for our state to the world, helping grow jobs and our economy. Who do you reckon said that? Was it a Nat? Was it a Liberal? No, it was Peter Malinauskas, the Labor Premier of South Australia. We know that those opposite like their planes. We know that the Deputy Prime Minister likes his planes. So I can't understand, with so much emphasis on getting in a plane and flying somewhere—sometimes taking your golf clubs!—why one particular airway is being blocked. Why has this decision been enacted? It is hurting Australian people who want to fly. It is hurting Australian people who are paying too much for their tickets, and it is hurting the Australian economy. We often hear the Treasurer coming to the dispatch box during question time and talking up the jobs numbers. He should say thank you to the former Treasurer and the former member for Kooyong, Josh Frydenberg. He talks about the numbers of jobs. Think how many more jobs would be available and would be created if this decision went the other way. I look forward to the minister coming to the dispatch box and explaining how this decision was reached. Is it because there are all-too-cosy arrangements between governments and certain people? I don't know, but we will find out. I will give the outgoing CEO of Qantas one bit of credit. He is a good fellow, and he did take a considerable pay cut during COVID. I will give him that. When there is a pile on, it is hard, and I appreciate the job that he did for Qantas during COVID. I do respect that. I am sure Australians do too. The trouble is, when there is a pile on everybody seems to want to kick a dog when it's down. That said, there are explanations to be made as to what relationships there have been and what extra discussions have taken place between a certain airline and between certain people in the government, and why this decision to block Qatar is in effect. We need more flights into Australia. It is not just Peter Malinauskas saying it; it is also Roger Cook, the Western Australia Premier. He said that providing the conditions for affordable and convenient air travel was important in the post-COVID recovery of his state's tourism sector. He said, 'Qatar Airways should have been backed when it came to their request for extra routes in Australia'. I had these discussions with transport ministers and premiers when I was in the role. Is the minister having those same discussions, or is she turning a tin ear to those requests being made? Is she turning a tin ear to the requests of the South Australian Premier and the Western Australian Premier. Indeed, the acting leader and probably soon to be Premier of Queensland, Steven Miles, said that if the decision were up to them they'd give it a green tick. That's what the Labor soon to be Premier of Queensland said about this decision about Qatar Airways. He wants to see it, Peter Malinauskas wants to see it and Roger Cook wants to see it. I can't understand why the Prime Minister or the transport minister, the member for Ballarat, do not want to see it. I can't understand why they don't explain why this decision has been taken and why they're keeping this decision a secret from the Australian public. Before the election and just after the election we heard that we were going to see new transparency over this place they call Canberra; a new generation of openness and transparency. Is that what we're seeing? No, we have not seen that at all. We have seen a decision taken to block Qatar Airways. Well, we have seen seven reasons as to why, the seven deadly sins, but not one of them stacks up and not one of them is a reason why Qatar Airways should not be able to fly into this country. Qatar Airways is a good airline, and it would bring international competition. I know that the shadow minister for trade, the member for Page, who will follow me, will explain just how important this is in terms of trade. We have those opposite who don't like live exports and want to ban them. I can see the member for Tangney opposite, from Western Australia. So many of those farmers in Western Australia are going to be affected by the decision to stop live exports, because that's the Labor way. That's the Labor policy. Yet, if they're not live, those sheep exports need to be transferred and transported somehow and in some way, and using Qatar Airways would be one of them—in the belly of Qatar Airways planes and in any other plane that wants to come to Australia and do things the right way. Exports are important. Trade is important. Getting sheepmeat to countries that want it and that are prepared to pay a premium price for it is also important. Those opposite need to come clean today. They need to be transparent today. They need to own up and fess up as to why this decision to block Qatar Airways has been made. In just 37 seconds time the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government is going to get ten minutes, and she'll only need one minute to explain why. I look very much forward to that, and so do the Australian public, because they want answers. They want to see their government being honest. They want to see their government being transparent. They want to see how they're going to get cheaper airfares in the future. That is so important. Aviation is so important. The minister should understand this, should realise this and should start talking more about this, because it's an important sector of our economy that has so far been ignored by this government, and for no good reason. 15:17 Ms CATHERINE KING 00AMR Ballarat Can I say how much I appreciate the bravery of the member for Riverina in raising this topic. I don't think there's any person better qualified to talk on chaotic airport and aviation industry policy than the previous minister for transport. Chaotic airport and aviation policy is exactly what those opposite delivered in their decade-long time in power. They gave billions of taxpayer dollars to Qantas for nothing in return, with no strings attached. They stood by as Virgin collapsed into administration, only for it to be snatched up by foreign private equity, with a third of its workforce laid off, and it's now seeking to sell its share. They oversaw the mass outsourcing of jobs and labour hire mess that drove down wages and conditions across the sector, which was one of the prime drivers of the same job, same pay legislation. They commissioned the Harris review into the Sydney airport, only to spend almost two years sitting on it, leaving it for us to have to sort out now. They introduced an early retirement scheme for air traffic controllers—and guess what? There is now a shortage of air traffic controllers, causing airport delays up and down the country. They cut JobKeeper to Dnata workers and left those families in the lurch and laid off without pay. They couldn't afford to support Dnata workers, but they could afford to pay $30 million for a piece of land at the Leppington Triangle, which was later valued by my department of infrastructure at only $3 million. How's that for chaos in aviation policy? They wasted taxpayer money on cheap ticket policy to try to encourage us to travel but failed to order the vaccines that would have prevented the industry from having to be shut down again. I remember what aviation policy was like under those opposite: it was a mess of broken promises and empty slogans. I stood with Virgin workers at Melbourne Airport at the start of the pandemic as they faced down the prospect of losing their jobs. I stood with Qantas workers at Parliament House after the policies of those opposite saw their work illegally outsourced. I haven't forgotten how one of the workers asked: 'How do I explain to my three girls that it's not whether you do a good job or not; it's just that they can bring someone else in to do it for cheaper than you?' Under those opposite, that's what aviation policy was. It became a reality for many workers across this country. The gall of those opposite to bring up this MPI despite knowing that history is simply jaw dropping. Unlike those opposite, we have a proud legacy when it comes to aviation policy. With the now Prime Minister as Minister for Infrastructure and Transport, the last Labor government supported the growth of aviation into an industry of $7.5 billion a year directly employing some 49,000 Australians and supporting a further half a million jobs throughout the economy. We published Australia's first ever Aviation White Paper to guide the industry's future growth, with measures to address skills shortages, lack of investment in new facilities and inadequate long-term planning, and we took a leading role in ensuring that workers across the sector were treated with the respect and dignity that they deserve. The trouble is that in the 10 years since we lost office aviation policy in this country has gone backwards. Under the Albanese Labor government, we're determined to restore good order and good planning to Australian aviation. We've completed targeted consultation on the Harris review, and we'll have more to say on that soon. We're fixing the workplace mess that enabled the race to the bottom in wages and conditions, including through the legislation that has been introduced this week. We're hiring more air traffic controllers at Airservices Australia to fill the shortages that have been left by those opposite. We have got a tough cop on the beat, as we've seen through recent ACCC actions. We're delivering a new Aviation White Paper to chart the future of the industry out to 2050, including by ensuring competition and productivity. Frankly, I can't believe that those opposite got the member for Riverina to do this MPI. In a week when they're attempting to manufacture a controversy around an air service agreement with Qatar, why would they put up a former minister who sat on a similar request for four years only to add a few more flights on the proviso of a new antidumping condition? As the member for Riverina said, quoted in this morning's Australian: We can't have an airline with very deep pockets undercut, undercut, undercut and … (then) people go to them as opposed to an airline that may be majority Australian-owned and unable to compete with this unfair undercutting of prices. That's the member for Riverina. That's what the member for Riverina has said, a member who, when faced with a request from Qatar Airways, sat on that for four years— An opposition member interjecting— Ms CATHERINE KING 00AMR He says, 'I put it on hold'; well, four years is a really long time to put it on hold—and then added seven flights. The history of this bilateral agreement with Qatar is one of very slow increments and increases. In fact, the last person who doubled the capacity of Qatar Airways into the Australian market was the now Prime Minister. That's the only person who has doubled the capacity of Qatar Airways into the Australian market. From the very start, I have said that we considered a range of issues in determining what the national interest was in this case. I know that there are some businesses and some airlines which would have liked to see me make a different decision, particularly those who have significant commercial interests at stake. I have not based this decision on any one company's or any one person's commercial interest but on the national interest. I am supporting recovery and sustainable growth in our aviation sector, at the same time doing my best to ensure that when Australians travel overseas they can have confidence in how they are treated. I know how important it is to Australians that they can access international travel and that tourists can visit our shores. It is why we have air services agreements with more than 100 countries. This week alone, we are allowing almost 500 flights into Asia and into international hubs where travellers can access the rest of the world, including Europe. I know that Australians are paying too much for their domestic tickets. More international flights from Qatar would not have helped that. Even Virgin has admitted that. It's our domestic airlines that have a duty there. Like all of us in this House, I expect all our domestic airlines to deliver better outcomes to their passengers and better outcomes to all of their staff. That is what their investment should be focused on. Our white paper, of course, along with the Treasury competition review and other reforms across the sector will ensure that the government policy is best calibrated to ensure that they do not misuse their positions and powers. But, as I said in this debate, from time to time, all governments are asked to increase access by international markets into the Australian international aviation market. From time to time, those requests are granted, and from time to time they are knocked back. That is what those opposite did, and, obviously, it's what we have done in these circumstances. It is unprecedented for the level of flights that have been asked for by Qatar to be granted by any government—that has never happened before. The history of this bilateral agreement is a slow, incremental approach to this particular player. As I said previously, we have seen that, so concerned was the member for Riverina, when he was the minister for transport, about competition in this marketplace and so concerned was he about domestic aviation jobs, that he explicitly inserted a clause that had never been inserted before into the international air services agreement. That was about antidumping in relation to this airline. That is what the member for Riverina did, when he was the former minister for transport. We have him coming into this place, after the chaos that we saw with Qantas being paid billions of dollars without any strings attached, with workers being sacked, with no bailout to Virgin whatsoever and with air traffic controllers being given early retirement as though somehow we would never recover from COVID—this is the mess that the member for Riverina left in aviation policy. This is the mess that I'm cleaning up. I really think the member for Riverina, whilst he has made some honest comments in today's paper, should perhaps also have been a bit more honest in this debate. 15:27 Mr HOGAN 218019 Page There's a really important issue that has been raised by the member for Riverina and, with all due respect to the minister who just spoke, the issue here is transparency. I'll repeat the question to the chamber now, as the minister leaves. What the parliament deserves to know, what the tourism industry deserves to know, what the export sector needs to know and deserves to know is: What advice did the minister get from her department in regard to Qatar's application? What was the department's advice to the minister about what the minister should do in regard to the application that Qatar put in, for quite a modest—she used the word 'modest'—increase in the flight availability that they had? I think it is reasonable for people to assume that, if the advice from the department to the minister was to reject that, then she would make that public because she would have nothing to hide. So the assumption from the tourism sector, the export sectors and the other players in this field is that the advice from the department to the minister was the opposite of what she decided. If that's the case, the sector and this chamber deserve to know whose advice she did accept. If the department's advice was to accept the application for an increase in flights from Qatar and she rejected that, on whose advice was the decision made and for what reason did she take that advice? That's what this is about. This is about transparency. This is about being transparent to the sector and to the airlines— Government members interjecting— Mr HOGAN 218019 Well may they laugh. The tourism sector isn't laughing, our exporters aren't laughing and people who thought they were going to get extra transparency from this government aren't laughing. This is insulting to this chamber, and it's insulting to the sector. We're seeing a lack of transparency, we're seeing confidentiality clauses and we're often seeing debate in the chamber shut down. We're seeing VIP flights and passenger lists not being released as well. I don't blame Qantas for this. Some airlines have come out very disappointed in the decision. Qantas have come out and supported the decision, because less competition for them is good. I don't blame Qantas for this, but it has been alleged by some that maybe this decision was based on a very cosy relationship between the two. But I'll leave that for others. Again, why would you make this decision? As the member for Riverina, the former minister, mentioned, air flight prices right now are 50 per cent higher than they were pre-pandemic—50 per cent higher. If flights are 50 per cent higher, why would you not want more competition? That's what Qatar Airways was going to do. They were going to bring in extra competition. I take issue with the point that the minister raised when she said that this would not lower prices. I disagree. I think that Qatar's application being accepted would have meant that prices got lower. The other thing, too, is the tourism sector is devastated by this. International tourism numbers in this country are well below pre-pandemic levels. In many other countries, international tourism arrivals are back to pre-pandemic levels. We're over 40 per cent below where we were with tourism numbers. Again, why would you make this decision? This has been a very controversial decision. The minister again didn't say why she'd rejected the decision. She mentioned the words 'national interest' again, but that hasn't even satisfied her colleagues the Labor premiers of Queensland, South Australia and Western Australia. Even the Labor premiers disagree with the minister's decision. Again, the only vague term she mentioned was 'national interest'. That hasn't satisfied the Labor premiers of Queensland, South Australia or Western Australia. It hasn't satisfied any of the stakeholders that I talk to in the tourism sector, and I was just about to go into exports as well, because, as the member for Riverina has said, there are lots of exports in the belly of a plane, and, again, they have been ripped off by this decision. (Time expired) 15:32 Mr NEUMANN HVO Blair This MPI is so important to the National Party they can wheel out two members. It's so important to the Liberal Party they can wheel out four members. There are over 50 members in the coalition opposite, and this is such a big issue as far as they're concerned that the member for Riverina can only get his mate to be here. He can't even get the member for New England's allies to be here. There was $2.7 billion rolled out to Qantas, and I remember speaking to Virgin workers and Qantas workers in Ipswich and the Somerset region, in my electorate, who lost their jobs. Those opposite sat there and couldn't support Virgin. Those workers were in tears. I remember having those conversations with them. But it was the TWU—Michael Kaine, the National Secretary; Josh Millroy in the Queensland branch; and other people—heroes who stood up for workers while those opposite sat there. They talk about chaos in airports and aviation industry policy. Industrial relations was in chaos under them. They did nothing. They sat there and procrastinated—ignorance. Inertia was their policy on aviation. It's evidenced by the four-year delay by the member for Riverina in relation to Qatar. They failed. They spent $20 billion during COVID on companies that made no losses, that made profits. That's chaos in the aviation industry—not supporting workers, not supporting business. A million Australians live overseas. Way more than a million travel overseas every year, and it's important in terms of our rail, our roads, our shipping, our aviation—it's absolutely crucial across states, across territories and internationally—that we get this right. That's why it's important to the national interest that we have competition in the area. But those opposite don't really believe in competition, because look at what they did when they were in government. Look what they did. They don't support the workers in that sector. Did we hear anything from those opposite during their speeches in relation to supporting the workers in the industry? Not a peep out of them, when they were in government, in support of those workers in that industry. When Virgin was collapsing, what did they do? Nothing. They did nothing in relation to those areas. I've got workers telling me that only the unions stood up for them and with them, and the Labor Party. I rang those workers during COVID. My staff and I made 40,000 phone calls to people who were suffering during COVID. I made thousands of phone calls to workers during COVID, and I remember speaking to those workers. Now, I actually don't mind the member for Riverina. He's a decent and honourable man, but he's got a bit of gall today to put this motion before the chamber. Having been in government, having been the Deputy Prime Minister—he also happens to be the current deputy chair of the Trade Subcommittee of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, so he is looking at this right now. He knows the challenges and the issues because of that inquiry into international education and, of course, trade. He knows the issues that are there. He knows there are problems in the tourism industry, and yet he comes into this place and does this. I would just make this point to everyone: if Qatar was interested, in relation to this issue, in extending their footprint into Australia, they could do so in Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane, for example. They could fly larger planes into those airports if they wished to right now. If they wished to go to regional cities in my area, like the Gold Coast or Cairns for example, they could do so if they chose to do that. It's available to them to do that. They can always operate as many flights as they want to in those areas. This government's not about stopping competition. This government's acting in the national interest. That's what it is about—the national interest, not stifling competition. We've got many, many airlines that we all travel on overseas. Australians see them all the time: Cathay, Singapore, Emirates. We know they operate into and out of Australia. We know they operate because Australians catch them all the time. I don't understand this obsession from those opposite on this decision. It makes no sense and it's inconsistent with the attitude they took when they were last in government—not standing up for workers, not standing up for competition, not supporting people, and throwing billions of dollars away by not standing up for an industry that supported workers. 15:37 Mr WOLAHAN 235654 Menzies I'm really proud to speak on this matter of public importance moved by the member for Riverina. Too often it's easy to come into this place and paint pictures of cartoon villains and cartoon heroes, so I want to single out his nice comment about the outgoing Qantas CEO, Alan Joyce. That's not an easy thing to do at the moment. Credit to Mr Joyce, he was born in a town called Tallaght in Dublin. My family grew up only two kilometres from that town. And when you look at the list of alumni from that place, there's lots of sporting heroes and musicians. He's the first person to lead a business, and what a business he led on the other side of the world. So full credit to him, the son of a cleaner and a factory worker. He should reflect upon his achievements, and they're not all perfect, we know that, but that is a great story from the town of Tallaght in Dublin. Like many Australians, it's easy to come up and bash Qantas at the moment, but when we're all overseas, or even in this place, and you see that kangaroo at the end of the tail, it hits you here because you know you're part way home when you get on that aeroplane. But let's not forget about who always pays for it, which is Australian customers. Right now, there is an economics committee inquiry into competition and dynamism. One of the many things we're hearing from that inquiry is that our economy tends to see corporations become oligopolies. It happens more often than in other economies. In oligopolies, we see corporations set above-market prices. They set the price; they don't respond to it. We see more rent-seeking, and where does rent-seeking happen? It happens in places like this, and particularly down the corridor in the executive wing. We see higher barriers to entry, and we've seen that in full flight in the last few weeks—a higher barrier to entry. And when you have a higher barrier to entry, who pays? Customers pay. There's been a lot of discussion about wonderful ads on the TV at the moment. There is one about the Voice, but there was also quite a good ad from Qantas, where you saw someone get on a business class flight to come and meet their mum. That was really quite nice. It hit a sense of nostalgia. Well, can I tell you the actual experience of Australians who fly? They're not people who can afford a business class flight to come home to see their mum. They're more often than not people who have scraped together their savings to buy an economy class fare, often at a discount price, in the middle of the aeroplane. They've gone to a wedding, a funeral or a business meeting. In seats like mine, where 70 per cent of the electorate are first- or second-generation migrants, people have to get on international flights more than most. When we talk about the cost-of-living crisis, we're not talking about people flying at the front end of the plane; we're talking about people who have scrimped and saved to go on essential and sometimes traumatic visits overseas. So, when we look to do things in this place that increase the cost of that for them, that's unacceptable. It is unacceptable. The decision that was made to block Qatar entering the market hurts families. It hurts families in electorates like mine who do have to go home for funerals, business meetings and weddings. Seven different reasons were given, and I won't list them all, but the one that really stands out as the catch-all is 'not in the national interest'. Whose interest is it in then? Whose interest was that decision in? It certainly wasn't for consumers, who would have paid lower prices. Let's look at the numbers. International fares are now 50 per cent higher than they were pre-pandemic. You might say that there are more on offer, but there are 25 per cent fewer seats. This decision and decisions like it are hurting families. The minister mentioned the domestic market. Yes, there are certainly problems in the domestic market, particularly with flights being delayed, cancellations and all of the inconveniences that come from that. But, when we think about the competition review that has been scheduled at the moment, guess what that review left off? It left off the aviation industry. That was a significant embarrassment that had to be overturned. Neither international fares nor domestic fares are a priority for this government. The only priority is their own interests, not the national interest. 15:42 Mr ROB MITCHELL M3E McEwen I agree with one thing that the member for Menzies said. We talk about the Australian interest, not the Nationals interest! We saw the Nationals interest writ large during COVID, when Virgin workers were run out of town, lost their jobs and families were broken up, and they could not get any support from the government. But the coalition government did make one sharp decision, to support Rex Airlines, directly pushing Virgin workers out. We stood at those airports with those families. During that time they could not put food on the table or pay their bills, while those now sitting opposite were sitting on the blue carpet making decisions for their mates. It wasn't in Australia's interest to push a third carrier into Melbourne-Sydney routes, but it was in Australia's interest to keep thousands of Australian people employed. That's what is the Australian interest, not the Nationals interest. These people were hardworking people. We saw what happened with dnata, with split shifts and people being taken away. All this was being done on their watch, and they did nothing. An opposition member interjecting— Mr ROB MITCHELL M3E The member for Deakin interjected that it saved jobs by giving Rex Airlines millions of dollars to take over the routes that they'd shafted. An opposition member interjecting— Mr ROB MITCHELL M3E You said it yourself. I know you often are very mendacious with your claims, but you've got to remember what you said. An opposition member interjecting— Mr ROB MITCHELL M3E The reality is: Virgin workers lost their jobs, and he laughed about it. He thinks it's fun. It's not fun. It's absolutely amazing that they could come in here on a day when we're talking about a bill looking after Australian workers, closing loopholes, and stand there and argue that Australians don't deserve good, proper-paying jobs with a good, secure workforce. The member for Riverina talked about people coming into the market and undercutting. You can't have an airline come in from overseas and just undercut to the point where Australian jobs are at risk and Australian airlines are placed at a disadvantage. You'd think it would be a no-brainer that they'd support that, but they bring in an MPI to actually go against it. To sit there and say, 'Let's get a government owned airline from overseas to come in and be involved and take away Australian jobs'—it's amazing that they have the audacity to do that sort of thing. I ask leave of the House to continue my remarks at a later moment. Leave granted. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: ADDITIONAL ANSWERS 43 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: ADDITIONAL ANSWERS Aviation Industry 43 15:45 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I rise to add to an answer I gave earlier today. I spoke to the Virgin CEO on 13 July 2023 by phone from Perth while in transit to Canberra from the NATO summit and bilateral visit to Germany, from 9 July to 13 July. In that call the CEO made representations relating to air services arrangements with Qatar. During that discussion I did not know that the transport minister had made a decision on 10 July 2023, a detail that was only advised to me after question time today. I once again confirm I did not speak to the former Qantas CEO before a decision was made. MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE 43 MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE Aviation Industry 43 15:46 Mr ROB MITCHELL M3E McEwen Again, what we saw was those opposite driving down wages and conditions, wanting to remove Australian jobs and look after their mates, ensuring their mates' companies from Singapore were getting extra access to the main-city routes here in Australia. You'd think that every member of parliament would come into this place and stand up for Australian workers. You'd think they'd want to make sure that our people are employed, that they can pay their bills and feed their families. Instead, those opposite stood there saying, 'No, we shouldn't do that; we should look after those from other countries first.' We know that those opposite spent four years knocking off the Qatar Airways application. The member for Riverina has admitted that. It took four years. That was part of the chaos and mess that we saw during the nine years of absolute destruction of the airline industry. How can we run a proper airline industry safety if we haven't got air traffic controllers? They're kind of important, the way they make sure planes land and take off properly and that there are no issues. But this is what they were doing. They were quite happy to get rid of Australian workers and put our airline industry at risk. They wanted to support Qatar Airways over Australian workers, over people who worked for Virgin, people who worked for Qantas and people who worked for dnata, who had to work shifts consisting of three hours on, three hours off and three hours on again. People were overworked and put in dangerous situations. As the member for Blair pointed out, the TWU were the first ones to stand up and say, 'Australian workers should be protected.' We need to make sure that we look after Australian workers and give them the opportunities that they deserve, not pull the rug out from under them so those opposite can look after a few of their mates from a Singapore based company. It's just wrong, and, on the day that we talk about fair work, closing loopholes and outlawing employment that is dangerous for Australian consumers and the Australian public, they bring this MPI in. Really, they bring this MPI in for one reason only: they've got nothing. They have no policies. They have no answers. They have nothing. They want to defend their time in government. I would love to have been there to see what Senator McKenzie did when they talked about Qatar Airways. They would've had the three airlines there: Qantas, Virgin and Rex. They would have gone in and put a green line through Rex—we know they like their colour coded spreadsheets—tick, tick, tick; 300 million. Qantas would've got a yellow line: 'You'll get some, but don't worry if it's not impacting; your shareholders will still make their money.' For Virgin, they would've put a big red line through. Two and a half thousand people lost their jobs, and not one of those opposite has ever stood up for that. Mr McCormack 219646 Time's up! The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 I get to make that call, thank you, but I will give the member for Dawson the call now. 15:48 Mr WILLCOX 286535 Dawson Thank you, Deputy Speaker. Here we are again: another Albanese Labor government decision and another industry in shambles. This time it's aviation. Well, I suppose we should all be grateful that at least those opposite are giving our primary industries a break, because they've certainly been thrashing them of late. We're living in a Labor-created cost-of-living crisis: mortgages are going up, fuel prices are going up, insurance is almost unaffordable, power prices are skyrocketing and grocery prices are unaffordable; people are making other choices and buying a cheaper product. Everything is more expensive under Labor. But, when those opposite had a chance to do something to allow for cheaper aviation travel, what did they do? Nothing. When the Qatar deal was on the table, they said no. When will the penny drop for those opposite that we are in a cost-of-living crisis that was created by them? People are doing it tough. People cannot afford to fly because they can't find a cheap flight. We are not like the Deputy Prime Minister, who can just jump on a VIP flight and fly around the place willy-nilly wherever it suits him. People have to save, and for those people who have saved their money and want to take an overseas flight with all of this cost-of-living crisis, now it will be more expensive. As a matter of fact, airline flights have gone up by over 50 per cent since pre-COVID levels, and yet the opportunities to have cheaper flights are being lost. And when more opportunities are lost, what about freight? We're talking about outbound here. In my electorate of Dawson we have companies like to Tassal, who grow tiger prawns. We also have the famous Bowen mangoes, another fantastic thing to export. And we have the wild-caught seafood industry. Wild caught fish include trout, live trout and frozen trout. We also have prawns and crabs, and all of this freight can go in the bellies of these aeroplanes. Let's talk about inbound. Whit Sundays is right in the middle of my electorate of Dawson,. It's the No. 2 international destination in the world. It's famous for its Whitehaven Beach and its 74 beautiful islands. We are the heart of the Great Barrier Reef. Thanks to this very ordinary—actually bad—Albanese Labor government decision not to allow one million more visitors to Australia from Europe and the Middle East, we will be missing out. Why do you not like tourists? I do not get it. Dawson relies on backpackers to come and help pick our fruit. We rely on backpackers to look after our hospitality areas. We also rely on our tourists for our pubs and our clubs and to take our tours such as with Red Cat Adventures, for ocean rafting, and Explore Group, which allows tourists to do overnight tourism to explore the Great Barrier Reef. We have a very, very simple motto: when you've got people, you've got a chance; but when you've got no people, you haven't got a chance. When you have cheaper flights people can spend their money on the destination. They can come here and enjoy the Whitsundays and spend their money in the area. What about our stakeholders? All other major Australian airlines are asking for the decision to be reversed. Even your mates in other states, including all the Labor states, are asking for the decision to be reversed. I ask: who would rob the tourism industry of $788 million? Who would rob Australians of a greater choice of airlines? I can tell you who: the Albanese Labor government. And they did it so easily too, with just one decision to reject the proposed increase in the number of Qatar Airline flights. It's a decision cloaked in secrecy and obscurity. I think we have a bit more of that coming out from before, and let's see how that works. Yes, I think there will be more, and people will get hold of that. I call on the Albanese Labor government to reverse this appalling decision. Do the right thing, even if it is just for once. 15:54 Ms PAYNE 144732 Canberra The politicisation of this issue by those opposite over the past few weeks has been absolutely shameful. To be clear, as other speakers on this side of the House have said already, Qatar Airways are already able to fly more planes into Australia right now, today, because Qatar Airways are able to increase their capacity on their current flights. In this city, Canberra, which I represent, Qatar Airways operated flights between Doha and Canberra via Sydney for several years before the pandemic. When COVID hit, they stopped operating that route, and understandably so. But the pandemic is over now, and that route today is still available for them to operate. They could start flights as soon as they wanted, tomorrow even. Canberra has a world-class airport with fantastic facilities, and I am sure that the almost half a million Canberrans and hundreds of thousands of people who live in the surrounding regions, including in the seat of Riverina, the electorate of the member who has moved this MPI today, would be very appreciative of the opportunity to access those flights from Canberra Airport. I have no doubt that the route will be commercially successful as well. That doesn't just extend to Qatar Airways. I'd love to see Qantas, our national airline, commence international flights out of our national capital. But the problem isn't just Canberra. The same goes for flights into Adelaide, Darwin, Cairns and the Gold Coast. The sky is the limit for Qatar Airways. But they don't do this. On top of this, going into Sydney, Qatar Airways aren't operating their largest-capacity aircraft. Qatar Airways could change their operations tomorrow to use their bigger planes with more seats. So there are options for Qatar Airways to increase their services into Australia and they are not currently taking them. What does surprise me, though, is that this matter of public importance is being brought by the former minister for transport, who should know better. The member for Riverina was, in fact, the decision-maker when the former government put the Qataris on ice as they sought further flights between Doha and Sydney. That was in 2018 and it lasted until 2022. Indeed, not only did they put that application from Qatar on hold but they also attached a safeguarding mechanism due to concerns over a potential abuse of market power, something that had never been done before. So the hypocrisy from those opposite is particularly galling. I think there is a problem at the moment with the Flying Kangaroo losing the goodwill of the Australian people. Qantas and Virgin have a combined domestic market share of around 96 per cent, and two-thirds of that market share is owned by Qantas. That is an incredibly privileged position for any private company in any industry and in any country to have access to. This concentration of the market is a cause for concern. That is why our government is working towards our election commitment of an aviation white paper. First, we will deliver a green paper which will start a discussion around the productivity regulation, consumer protections and bilateral agreements in the aviation sector. I am deeply concerned about Qantas's practice of flight cancellations at Canberra Airport, particularly for flights to Sydney. In July, Qantas cancelled 53 Canberra-to-Sydney flights. In June, they cancelled 58. In May, April and March, Qantas cancelled 51 flights each month. To put that in perspective, the cancellation rate for Qantas on this route is regularly around 12 per cent. On the same route, Virgin cancels around 2.5 per cent. I note that Qantas has 80 per cent of the market share on that particular route and that this is one of the routes that has actually not recovered as fast as others as we come out of the pandemic. My constituents are getting a dud deal with Qantas flying to Sydney, and when I questioned Qantas about this in the House economics committee they failed to take any responsibility. They blamed Airservices Australia and they blamed the weather. Last time I checked, Virgin also deals with Airservices Australia and they experience the same weather between Canberra and Sydney that Qantas does. Qantas has also undertaken some seriously poor employment practices and sacked thousands of Australians and rehired them under sketchy labour hire contracts with lower pay and fewer entitlements. Qantas has also recently been accused by the ACCC of ripping off customers by selling tickets for flights that had already been cancelled. They are now facing a $600 million fine for those practices. From tomorrow, Qantas is under new management. I sincerely hope that through their actions they restore the goodwill they have lost from the Australian people. But we mustn't forget the actions of the former government when it comes to Qantas. (Time expired) 15:59 Mr VIOLI 300147 Casey I want to commend the member for Riverina for this MPI. It is a very important discussion that we are having and it's one that impacts on my community greatly. We have seen credible reports that this decision has stopped prices decreasing by 40 per cent for international flights. In the Yarra Valley we are lucky. We have a wonderful tourism industry. We have an agriculture industry that is thriving. But those industries also have challenges. The tourism industry is coming off the back of COVID. It's not back to where it was. It is the lifeblood of our industry—having tourists come from many countries around the world. So for that price to not drop by 40 per cent hurts my community greatly. People overseas are making decisions: Do I fly to Australia? Do I fly to the US? Do I go to Europe? Price is one of the key things that they look at. This decision by this government is hurting tourism businesses across the country and particularly in my electorate of Casey. Trade and exports are another important part of my community. CherryHill is a wonderful business in my electorate, growing cherries. They rely on the tourism industry but also on trade. Being able to fly their cherries overseas is crucial because cherries don't last very long, so they can't afford to put them on ships. Every extra flight brings down that cost of freight. That means they can export more, they can sell more and, guess what, they can employ more Australians. That's why this MPI is so important. Let's look at the actual MPI: the government's chaotic airport and aviation industry policy. Do we need a better example than the Prime Minister having to come back into this House with his tail between his legs, with the Leader of the House by his side, protecting him, to correct his answer from question time? This Prime Minister and the transport minister are not talking; months later, they're not on the same page. They weren't talking when this significant decision was being made. Clearly, it's chaos over there. Look at what the Prime Minister said—what he had to do. Look at the minister. She had 10 minutes to outline in detail the reasons why she made this decision—10 minutes to defend her actions. I stayed. I wanted to listen. I was very interested. I wanted to give her the benefit of the doubt and hear from her. I kept time. For seven of those 10 minutes, 70 per cent of that time, the minister spoke about the former government. She even went back a decade, to the Prime Minister's work a decade ago. That was 70 per cent of her opportunity to defend her decision, to defend the government's policy, and she didn't do it. She spoke about the opposition and she spoke about the Prime Minister's decisions a decade ago. When she finally got to why she did it—I thought, this will be great; we'll get a bit of detail—it was 'national interest'. That was literally all we got from the minister: national interest—such a broad term it can mean anything. If you listen to the Assistant Treasurer, we know that national interest is making sure that Qantas is profitable. It delivered a $2.5 billion profit. The member for Canberra did raise some significant concerns about Qantas that need to be addressed, I'll give her credit for that, but maybe she should also talk to the Assistant Treasurer, because it's in the national interest for Qantas to deliver a $2.5 billion profit. We've seen the members opposite with the opportunity to talk about how this will impact their communities, but they haven't. They've spent the whole time talking about the former government;16 months into government and they're obsessed with the opposition. They're not able to articulate why this decision was made, who made it, when it was made, who was spoken to—the Virgin CEO; the now former Qantas CEO. The Prime Minister has to come and add to his answer, not just duck and weave, because there's no consistency. It's staggering that the Prime Minister and the minister are not talking. What are they doing? At a time when prices are 50 per cent higher than pre COVID, and supply is down 25 per cent on pre COVID, this government is making decisions to keep prices higher and it doesn't have a plan to bring prices down. 16:04 Mr BURNELL 300129 Spence Before I get into my remarks, I'd like to preface them by saying that as a proud Transport Workers Union member and former union official I shed no tears seeing Alan Joyce's time as Qantas CEO end tomorrow. I'd echo sentiments similar to those in a media release issued by the Prime Minister back in 2015, when he commented on the announced retirement of the then chairman of the Sydney Airport Corporation—one word: 'Good'. I wish the incoming CEO, Vanessa Hudson, the best of luck at the helm, but only time will tell how smoothly she will fly through the turbulence left in Alan Joyce's wake—though, if you were to ask the Qatar Airways CEO, Akbar Al Baker, what his thoughts were on the matter, his comments at the International Air Transport Association meeting in 2018 might be indicative. He said an airline 'has to be led by a man because it is a very challenging position'. I'm sure he regrets saying that now. The motion we have in front of us, moved by the member for Riverina, is about the state of Australia's airports and aviation industry. It is always interesting when a former minister moves a motion on something they were directly responsible for once upon a time. But the member for Riverina has always had a straight bat, so it's worth examining the coalition's form in this space. I'm sure we will find no surprises here. With this in mind, it's worth returning our focus to Qantas, an airline that received billions of taxpayer dollars, provided to the company as a blank cheque, in fact—all of that money for no equity. The member for Riverina wouldn't get a guest spot on Dragons'Den, that's for sure. When Virgin collapsed, however, they didn't even bother to offer any assistance, leaving it up to foreign private equity to step in. By that time, were the cupboards bare? Was it about picking winners or losers? Or was it an indication that the former government, in their own perverse way, saw the national significance of Qantas, and the bailout was their way of saying they were acting in the national interest? If that was the case, their advocacy for Qatar Airways is a departure from that initial stance. How much of a departure? The member for Riverina should feel a bit of deja vu in the current situation because, after all, as the minister responsible back in 2018 when the ask was put on him by Qatar Airways for more air rights, he said—in the member for Riverina's own words: … you can't have an airline coming in from overseas and just undercutting to the point where Australian jobs are at risk and Australian airlines are placed at a disadvantage. We can't have an airline with very deep pockets undercut, undercut, undercut and … (then) people go to them as opposed to an airline that may be majority Australian-owned and unable to compete with this unfair undercutting of prices. They were your words. With that in mind, the member for Riverina as the minister put the request on hold. Why would he do that? He claims it was because he was new. He had his training wheels on. Yet, when it was approved four years later, it was approved with multiple safeguards in place to prevent the abuse of market power—a unique set of safeguards, I might add. In the present day, however, the commentary by other airlines such as Virgin and the comments made by Flight Centre are based solely on commercial considerations and not on what is best for Australia, what is in Australia's national interest, and, frankly, I can't fault them for that at all. But it is something governments must have at the forefront of their decision-making. In that same sense, Qatar Airways are fully entitled to act in their own commercial interests, despite the fact that they also act in a national interest. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 I'm afraid that the one hour has now expired. The discussion has concluded. BILLS 47 BILLS Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes) Bill 2023 47

Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes) Bill 2023

Reference to Committee 47 16:08 The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 In accordance with standing order 133, I shall now proceed to put the question on the motion moved earlier today by the honourable member for Bradfield on which a division was called for and deferred in accordance with the standing order. No further debate is allowed. The SPEAKER 53517 The matter before the House is that the motion moved by the honourable member for Bradfield be agreed to.    

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

63 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. Dutton, P. C. Entsch, W. G. Fletcher, P. W. Gee, A. R. Gillespie, D. A. Goodenough, I. R. Haines, H. M. Hastie, A. W. Hawke, A. G. Hogan, K. J. Howarth, L. R. 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. 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 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. Vamvakinou, M. Watson-Brown, E. Watts, T. G. Wells, A. S. Wilkie, A. D. Wilson, J. H. Zappia, A. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

BILLS 48 BILLS Customs Legislation Amendment (Controlled Trials and Other Measures) Bill 2022, Financial Accountability Regime Bill 2023, Financial Accountability Regime (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2023 48

Customs Legislation Amendment (Controlled Trials and Other Measures) Bill 2022

Financial Accountability Regime Bill 2023

Financial Accountability Regime (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2023

Returned from Senate 48 Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes) Bill 2023 49

Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes) Bill 2023

Second Reading 49 16:19 Mr ROB MITCHELL M3E McEwen Today I'm proud to rise and support the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes) Bill 2023, as it implements another one of the election promises that we took to the Australian people last year. The opposition say this is some sort of surprise. But this government is simply implementing our commitments, as we said we would. Those opposite should take note. This is what good governments do: they implement their policies. And it builds on the government's commitment to ensure workers get better rights and conditions, after years of neglect and of having their wages deliberately kept low. We are building on last year's secure jobs, better pay legislation, which sought to raise the floor of Australian industry. This legislation reaches into every workplace in the country. But now it is time to close the loopholes, to make sure that no worker gets left behind and that no worker is ripped off and unprotected. This legislation, despite the song and dance from the coalition, won't affect the majority of Australian workers, but, for those who have slipped through the cracks, it will truly be life-saving. The four major elements of the closing loopholes bill are: criminalising wage theft, introducing minimum standards for workers in the gig economy, closing the forced permanent casual worker loophole and closing the labour hire loophole. The introduction of this bill follows months of extensive consultations, including with employer groups and unions. Other important elements of the closing loopholes bill include allowing the Fair Work Commission to set minimum standards for road safety in the transport industry. It is so important for our truckies. I know, from my own personal experiences of seeing them, the devastating effects that it has when truck drivers are forced to work long hours for little pay. I've been to many road accidents involving heavy vehicles where drivers were forced by unscrupulous operators to work hard for nothing—and that means that they sometimes have to skimp on maintenance, skimp on safety, or work themselves to the bone, just to try and make ends meet. Meanwhile, the owners of those freight companies are sitting in their big North Sydney offices, relaxing and enjoying a cup of tea. Emergency workers, though, are out at all hours of the night, cleaning up the mess left from the decisions that those owners made which put drivers' lives at risk. It's also about continuing to implement the Boland review, by introducing an offence for industrial manslaughter and increasing penalties. It's ensuring better support for our first responders diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder—something that is coming to light more and more. We do a lot with our veterans on PTSD, but a lot of our first responders go through seeing the same sorts of things that veterans see. First responders see things that you'd hope other people never get to see. And doing this is a very, very important step for their wellbeing. It's also about expanding the functions of the Asbestos Safety and Eradication Agency to include silica safety and silica related diseases. I've spoken to this House before about meeting with victims of silica and seeing what has happened to them, and seeing the way their lives have been devastated, just for turning up to work. And these are not always people working in the mines; these are people working in the offices. It's a terrible thing; it needs to be addressed. And it's this government that's actually going to make the changes to save people's lives. It's also about protecting workplace protections for survivors of family and domestic violence. It's providing specific protections for delegates. It's about greater legal powers to challenge unfair contract terms and crack down on sham contracting. It's ensuring that we have better representation for safety and compliance issues in the workplace, including expanding the powers of the Fair Work Commission to permit the right of entry to investigate underpayments. As the minister rightly said today, if it is a crime for you, as a worker, to take money out of the till in your workplace, then it should be a crime for you, as an employer, to take money out of your employees' pockets. It's something that's been happening for a long time, but it is the Albanese Labor government that is getting on with the job of fixing up the mess we were left and making sure that we look after Australian workers in workplaces. All these measures close the loopholes that have undercut secure jobs, better pay and safe workplaces. As I said, one of the key components of this bill is closing the labour hire loophole. While labour hire has a legitimate use in providing surge and specialist workforces, and that will continue to be the case, we are now closing the current loophole that allows companies to undercut agreements already made with their workers. We are making sure that companies stick to their word, treat their employees equally and don't try to wriggle out of taking responsibility for their own workers. It's a loophole that should be closed and closed now. We know of the need to close these gaps because, sadly, big companies who make billions of dollars of profits are using loopholes to exploit Australian workers. Earlier this year, I, with many members of parliament, had the opportunity to listen to the stories of Qantas workers. After those workers were laid off during the pandemic, despite the company receiving millions of dollars from the former government to support workers in keeping their jobs, we heard how, despite the collective bargaining agreement which they agreed upon, Qantas then went out and started its own labour hire workforces to get around those agreements. This was done with the tick and support of the government of the day—not our government, the one before us. Workers working the same flight could be on drastically different wage levels, with some on wage levels that aren't even up to Australian standards. They had also purposely moved operations out of the country, and this bill is going to tackle behaviour like that. Employees, unions and hosts can apply to the commission for an order that labour hire employees be paid at least the wages of the hosting enterprise agreement. Of course, exemptions apply when a host is a small-business employer, and a default three-month exemption period would also apply to avoid impacting labour hire arrangements for surge workforce and temporary replacements. Businesses will be prohibited from taking action to avoid their obligation or to prevent a commission order being made. The commission will be a low-cost and efficient forum for dispute resolution. As I said, if a worker steals from a till, it's a criminal offence. In many parts of Australia, if a company steals from the workers pay packet it's not, and it's time to make sure that we have an equal arrangement. If you steal from your employer you get charged. If your employer steals from you, they get charged. You'd have to think that that is a pretty agreeable thing to do and to do quickly. It beggars belief that some people don't want to get on with this. They don't want to protect people who are vulnerable. It's generally those working in big companies, but a lot of time it's small companies, too, that are doing this. You should be holding to account people who do the wrong thing. Too many companies have got away with stealing wages for too long. For employers that do that, it's time for them to face the criminal penalties that come from stealing. It's something that should not be controversial. This is a measure that makes sure people who take advantage of others and commit criminal acts are punished, just like everywhere else in the justice system. It makes sure that, just because you own a business and have a bit of money behind you, you're not walking away from the consequences of your own actions. It's something that you'd think would have been done years ago when it was first raised. But it wasn't. In fact, it took the former government years to actually acknowledge that there was a problem, with their half-hearted legislation. They supported legislation to do this, but, when it came to the Senate, they voted against their own bill. You have to sit there and ask, 'Why would you tear up your own draft laws?' Because they couldn't get the plans, at the end of the day, to cut worker's pay and conditions in other ways, they decided to send a message and a clear signal to those wage thieves: keep it up. Business owners who knowingly withhold wages should face higher penalties. The Labor governments in Victoria and Queensland criminalised wage theft because they got sick of waiting for the then federal government to act. But we need a national approach to the wage theft system to end the rip-offs. I'm proud to stand and support this bill because of my experience in the transport industry. Truck drivers are the lifeblood of this country. Road trains are pumping goods throughout the arteries of the country, keeping our expansive continent connected. But the industry needs more support. Many of us have heard the stories, whether from the TWU or from industry itself. The government and all Labor MPs know the importance of putting better standards in place and the importance of doing this quickly. We've had many truck drivers and transport workers participating in risky practices, and that means the industry becomes unsustainable. It becomes a huge risk when transport workers' safety is on the line. In the transportation industry alone, 41 per cent of workers know a driver at work who has been killed, and one in four have been involved in a crash at work. Drivers are paying with their lives. So the bill will empower the Fair Work Commission to set minimum standards for a safe, sustainable and viable road transport industry. It'll give the Fair Work Commission the power to set minimum standards for the road transport industry. The commission will be able to set minimum standards for independent contractors who are regulated road transport contractors performing work under a service contract in the transport industry. It will create road transport minimum standard orders, which can cover payment terms, deductions, insurance and cost recovery. It'll do all this while also providing guardrails for the Fair Work Commission to help balance the new priorities and standards. The bill provides for a light-touch collective-agreement-making framework that will facilitate registered organisations representing road transport contractors to agree to consent based collective agreements with road transport businesses. Contractors will be protected from unfair termination if they have been working for a road transport business under a services contract for at least 12 months. This will help ease the dangerous pressures that come down from the top of the supply chain and squeeze the transport industry in the pursuit of profits. When money is tight, drivers and operators get pressured into cutting corners. One in four are pressured by employers to drive past legal hours and skip rest breaks. This doesn't only put them at risk. It puts every single road user at risk. It's why these reforms are needed. It's why we need to have minimum safety standards and payments—because, currently, our transport industry is in crisis. It is the deadliest industry in Australia. And we need to work quickly to make sure these protections are put in place. The last element of the bill I want to go into is something I've spoken about a lot in this House. It's about workers' safety and health. The need to extend the functions of the Asbestos Safety and Eradication Agency to address silica related diseases is something that was brought home to me through meetings with the ACTU—sitting there with people who were under 35 and facing a very shortened life, just for the fact they'd been turning up for work each day and there had been no protection in place for them—no protection from these silica related diseases. We have to have a coordinated action, across work health and safety and health portfolios, to address the alarming rise in the number of workers developing silicosis and other silica related diseases caused just by inhaling silica dust. So, we're establishing the Asbestos Safety and Eradication Agency as a cross-jurisdictional governance mechanism to coordinate, monitor and report on the silica national strategic plan. This goes with other legislation we've put through this year, including the National Occupational Respiratory Disease Registry Bill, which is about protecting workers across the nation, and the funding that we have committed in both funding at the start of the year and within the budget. I said to those workers on that day that we would fight to get things done, and we have. I want to particularly pay tribute to my good friend the member for Cooper, the assistant minister, Ged Kearney, for being so willing to listen to people, to listen to our thoughts, and get on with it straightaway. There were no ifs or buts. It was about getting this fixed, and that's so important. Just in closing, the bill, while not affecting every worker, will have changing effects for many thousands of people across a range of industries. In Victoria, 14,300 workers will be eligible for closing the labour-hire loophole element in this bill. It will bolster 194,100 Victorians who are earning less than the minimum national wage. And that's only a slice of the full effects of this legislation. I am proud to support this bill and be part of a government that takes Australian workers' rights seriously, and I commend this bill to the House. 16:34 Mr McCORMACK 219646 Riverina I am glad the member for Hunter is in the chamber because he gave a very good contribution last night in the adjournment debate about a mining tragedy in his electorate and it struck me at the time that there was a similar tragedy in my electorate, commemorated for the centenary thereof in 2012, on 13 January 1912. The Barrier Mine disaster claimed the lives of six men, leaving five widows and leaving 13 children fatherless. The member for McEwen is right when he says that people have the right to get home safely, that employers have an obligation to make sure that they do everything in their power to ensure that the workers in their care get home safe and sound. It doesn't matter what job you are in, you have the right to, at the end of your shift, go home in one piece to your loved ones safe from your day's toil. This Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes) Bill 2023 is an important piece of legislation, but I don't agree with the member for McEwen when he talks about the particular piece of legislation that was brought forward some years ago under the guise of road safety remuneration and, even in this particular legislation, the closing loopholes piece. I have to give Labor credit: they title their bills very well. It's not always about the content of the bill and what is actually going to be legislated. The road safety piece that the member for McEwen based most of his address on was not anywhere near making sure that truck drivers got home safely; it was about unionising the transport sector. It was about putting those family owned and operated businesses that are so prevalent in regional Australia off the road, making it almost impossible for them to compete against the big conglomerates. We know who they are, and they do a great job. They do. I know the owners and operators of those big companies very well, and I commend them for the job that they do because everyone's next meal is probably coming to them on a truck. But then there are those small family owners and operators. I well recall one from Coolum and another from West Wyalong and particularly the one from Bland shire who came to a rally at this place on 18 April 2016. They were concerned that the bill in its form back then was going to force them to unionise their businesses and basically put them out of work. It wasn't about road safety. I heard the member for McEwen say shortcuts are taken with vehicles et cetera because they don't have the time and there is not the safety push in those companies. Well, there is. Those companies take their jobs very, very seriously. They ensure that their trucks are what they need to be. The modern fleet that we have these days makes it everyone's business for those trucks to get where they need to be on time and safely. I would perhaps more endorse the member for McEwen if he were to go to the minister for transport and urge for the 90-day review hold on infrastructure that she put in place—and it has now been 125 days—to be lifted such that we can get some of the bitumen rolled out on some of the roads. That would, then, assist and aid road safety. If you drive around regional Australia at the moment, including the Newell Highway, one of the busiest trucking freight routes in this country, it is in appalling condition. I am not blaming Labor for the condition of the road. The weather events have ensured that the potholes are everywhere. But I am blaming Labor for not getting on with the job of making sure that some of that infrastructure spending is out there and is being put in place and working with states to ensure that it is so. Labor haven't actually put a hold on their own election commitments in 2022, just the commitments that the coalition had in place prior to that. That is such a shame, a pity, and it is quite appalling, in fact. I was a union member, and I know that this is largely about repaying the unions for what they did prior to Labor returning to government. I get that Labor wants to pay back its union dues. I was a union member for 21 years and probably have more union experience than most of those opposite, which sometimes comes as a surprise to them. That said, we need everything to be in balance. Unions running the show is not going to be a good show, but we need to balance the union rights—and, yes, they have rights—against small businesses' ability to operate, particularly in an economic environment where cost-of-living pressures are so high. Whether it is the good folk up in the gallery or people right across Australia, they are doing it tough because inflation is high. They are doing it tough, and many are working two and three jobs just to make ends meet. They are doing it tough because power costs are high. They are doing it tough because grocery costs are high. Yesterday I spoke to a group of seniors for whom fuel costs are one of the biggest factors in their weekly household budget bills. They can't afford to pay for their fuel needs, and what does this government talk about? It is appeasing its union mates. They talk about everything but what is really crucial and meaningful to Mr and Mrs Average out there doing it tough at the moment. I would urge and encourage members opposite to go back to their electorates not to talk at people but to listen to them and hear what they have to say when it comes to making sure that cost-of-living issues are addressed. The National Farmers Federation said this week that for most farmers their workplace is also their family home. 'The farm is the kids' backyard,' the NFF Vice President David Jochinke said. He continued: There are safety and biosecurity considerations. We can't just have union reps waltzing in unannounced. I know those opposite would love union reps to be able to just walk into a workplace, demand the books and demand everything and then make that that was the status quo across the nation as part of this legislation. But business and farming operations are particularly concerned about new rights of entry without notice, and they should be concerned. They should be worried because, if the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations has his way, it will be open slather. That's the problem. It's Labor appeasing its union mates, and, like everything Labor does, you don't believe what they say. You don't believe what they pledge or promise; you believe what they do. What they do is usually completely the opposite to what they say they are going to do, like in this legislation, which they say is 'closing loopholes'. It all sounds good, all sounds nice, all sounds as though the Australian public should say, 'Well, yes, why wouldn't we just do that?' As the member for McEwen said, 'Why hasn't this already been done?' But it is not about closing loopholes; it is about making sure that the union runs the show, making sure that the union can just march into a workplace, a small business, and demand everything that they want. They'll be able to make unreasonable demands. The difficulty here is that small business is once again being trampled on by this government. This government doesn't understand small business. This government isn't heeding the calls of the Australian people about cost-of-living pressures, and more is the pity. They will have to answer those questions when they go to the next election. The people will say, 'Why didn't you address those cost-of-living pressures and issues that we were under?' and 'Why did you make it so hard for small business?' Those opposite don't get small business. They never have, and not many of them have ever run a small business. They run to a small business to run a picket line outside the small business, but very few of them have actually run a small business. Small business operators, they're the ones who take the risks. They're the ones who don't take the holiday. They're the ones who employ people. They're the ones who go without to make sure that their business succeeds. They're the ones who make sure their customers come first. And they're the ones who are being ignored and denied by this legislation, by this ill-thought out, ill-conceived legislation that is before the House. It's a con job, just like the 94 times Labor promised a $275 cut in electricity prices prior to the last election, long after Russia's illegal invasion of Ukraine—an excuse given as one of the reasons why the power costs went up. Many, many times after that invasion took place, Labor continued to promise that $275 would come off power bills. And has it? Those listening, those driving their trucks at the moment listening into this broadcast, well, they'll be watching the road, but they'll be shaking their head because they'll know that that cost hasn't come off. People right throughout Australia know it hasn't either. Electricity prices came down under the coalition government, and they're just going up and up and up under Labor. It's such a shame, and it's so unnecessary. We have increased costs that are going to be passed on to consumers. And let me tell you, if this bill is passed in the way it is written it will have an impost on small business and small business can't afford it. They're struggling even as we speak. They're struggling with poor policies and bad legislation by this dreadful government that doesn't consider small business. And unfortunately, when costs go up for small business and the bottom line deteriorates, they have to pass the costs on to consumers. More people pay more, pay through the hip pocket, because of the decisions made by those opposite. It doesn't matter to the employment minister. He doesn't care. He just wants to appease his union mates, and so do all of those opposite who will come to the microphone with their Labor talking points, reading them line by line. The Labor dirt union, at its finest, is dredging up why we should be appeasing unions, why we should be making sure it's better for workers. Labor forgot workers. They forgot them years ago. They don't care about workers. They don't care about workers, they just care about the unions and making sure they appease the unions. There are many reasons as to why this is a bad bill. It's impossibly intricate. There's too much uncertainty. It adds additional costs to businesses, particularly small businesses—particularly those many thousands of small businesses who had come out of the back of COVID and were looking forward to better times ahead, and now they cop this legislation. It makes Australians pay more in a cost-of-living crisis. It does nothing to increase productivity. We've heard the member for Bradfield so often talk about the importance of increasing productivity. Well, this bill ain't going to cut that, let me tell you. It does nothing to enhance competition. We heard earlier today about the decision to block Qatar Airways and how that's going to lead to less competition. It risks jobs. It only rewards unions, the paymasters of the Labor Party. It institutionalises conflict in our workplace—something we do not want to see. The government says it has made concessions for businesses. It hasn't. Don't believe what Labor says it's going to do. And it weakens our economy, making a bad situation worse. That is unfortunate. That is unnecessary, particularly at a time when Australians are looking to the government that was elected to do a job, that said it would do a job, and all it is doing is turning its back on Australian consumers and Australian small businesses. 16:49 Ms CLAYDON 248181 Newcastle As a member of the Albanese Labor government, I could not be more proud than to stand in this chamber tonight to speak on the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes) Bill 2023, which was introduced by my colleague the Leader of the House and Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations. This legislation is incredibly important. If you were interested in creating fair and just workplaces in Australia, then you would be supporting this bill. Australia needs an industrial relations system that is there to support all of its workers, not just some. This set of workplace reforms before us tonight is about four really key platforms. One is an explicit effort to criminalise wage theft. Seriously, if you think wage theft is okay, then you need to stand up and explain to the Australian people why you would vote against this legislation. If you think that cracking down on the labour hire loophole that's used to deliberately undercut pay and conditions in this nation is not okay, then you need to stand up and explain to the Australian people. If you think that properly defining 'casual work' so that casuals aren't being exploited is not a fine endeavour or something that you'd want to aspire to, again, you need to explain why the hell not. And, certainly, if you cannot see your way to making sure that gig workers are not being ripped off in this country, you have got a lot of explaining to do to the Australian people. At the moment, certain Australian workers are missing out because of loopholes that allow pay and conditions to be undercut. For these workers, the minimum standards in awards and enterprise agreements are just words on a paper with little, if any, relevance to their daily lives. If we want workers to be paid properly, we need to close these loopholes. As the Australian Council of Trade Unions Secretary, Sally McManus, said: This is a great day for Aussie workers. …   …   … The laws that the government is bringing forward will give Australian workers greater job security, and it will stop employers stealing wages. Seriously, I think it is indefensible for those opposite to oppose this legislation. If a worker steals from the till, it's a criminal offence. But, in many parts of Australia, if an employer steals from a worker's pay packet, it is not. I'm telling you, people in my electorate of Newcastle do not think that is a fair or just outcome. Many people in my electorate of Newcastle know just too well what this kind of wage theft looks like when it comes to unpaid superannuation. Too often I get calls from Novocastrians at their wits' end after being shortchanged thousands of dollars that are rightfully theirs. Recent figures show that one-third of Hunter-Newcastle workers were owed superannuation payments totalling $139 million. Industry Super Australia, which represents 12 Industry SuperFunds, says almost 74,000 Hunter workers missed out on employer contributions in the 2018-19 financial year alone. That is astonishing—74,000 workers in my region being explicitly ripped off. The previous government did absolutely nothing—I've got to say—to stop wage theft, which rose to epidemic proportions under their watch. It took the Liberals and Nationals years to even acknowledge there was a problem. Eventually, they did bring in some half-hearted legislation, but, when it came to the Senate, they voted against their own legislation. They tore up their own draft laws because they couldn't get enough support for their plans to cut workers' pay and conditions in other ways. Instead, they sent a clear signal to wage thieves in this nation, saying: 'Just keep it up. We won't do anything.' Well, business owners who knowingly withhold wages should face the harshest of penalties. We're determined to deliver on our promise to Australian workers and make wage theft a crime in this nation. Our proposal is to introduce a criminal offence for intentional underpayment of employees wages and certain entitlements and increased penalties for civil underpayment breaches, in line with the government's election commitments. This is no secret. This isn't something we've just dropped on the table. A number of us campaigned hard on a lot of the issues we are now seeking to seal with this closing loopholes legislation. An employer convicted of intentional wage theft could face up to 10 years imprisonment under this legislation. Significantly, courts will be able to impose up 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 misconduct, and that is important. We're also ensuring our new laws do not water down any wage theft laws already put in place by the states, and that's important because Labor governments in both Victoria and Queensland criminalised wage theft. Frankly, they got sick of waiting for the former government to act. But Australia also needs a national wage theft system to end the rip-offs. This bill has built-in mechanisms to encourage businesses to come forward and self-disclose if they consider they have underpaid their workers, and employers who take reasonable steps to pay correct amounts or who make honest mistakes will not be criminally prosecuted. The Fair Work Ombudsman will be able to enter into cooperation agreements with employers who choose to come forward. As was requested by COSBOA, the council for small businesses, 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. Furthermore, maximum civil penalties for wage underpayment, including reckless wage underpayment, will be increased, implementing recommendation 5 of the Migrant Workers' Taskforce. This is an important reform that I know will be welcomed by Newcastle workers, and we know migrant workers are particularly vulnerable and at risk of exploitation in the workplace. There's also a very legitimate role in this nation for labour hire. Nobody on this side says otherwise. It's necessary for surge workforce issues, for specialist work or to provide temporary replacement workers. In Newcastle and the Hunter, labour hire ensures construction and manufacturing industries can continue their specialist work. Because of inherent insecurity, labour hire workers are usually paid at higher rates of pay, and those cases are completely unaffected by this legislation. If you've got a genuine reason to bring labour hire in and they are, as we have already said, workers who usually get paid at a higher rate because of that, you don't get caught up in this legislation. But when a business agrees on rates of pay in an enterprise agreement and then asks labour hire workers to do the same job for less, that is a labour hire loophole, and this bill will close it. This bill amends the Fair Work Act 2019 to give powers to the Fair Work Commission to make orders that labour hire employees be paid at least the wages in a host enterprise agreement. That is fair and just, and this has been an outstanding issue in our workplaces for a long time. This delivers on the government's 'same job, same pay' election commitment. The Fair Work Commission must not make the order unless it is fair and reasonable to do so. Orders can apply only 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, as has been purported through dreadful misinformation campaigns, and it doesn't apply to hosts who are small businesses comprising 15 or fewer employees, to independent contractors or to training arrangements. The Albanese Labor government is committed to providing support, certainty and fairness for Australian small businesses, and we're concerned about companies deliberately using the labour hire loophole in order to undercut the agreements that they've already made with their workers. That's what this legislation is trying to capture. There's another feature—perhaps a little less spoken about—in this legislation that is also very important. That is making sure that employees who are subject to family and domestic violence are not being further discriminated against in the workforce. From 1 February, employees have had access to 10 days paid family and domestic violence leave, a work entitlement that saves lives and a terrific achievement of this Albanese Labor government. Today's legislation builds on that assurance that we provided to people, mostly women, in the workforce who had to face that dreadful choice of losing their jobs or putting up with violence in their relationships. Well, no more: we put in place that 10 days of paid family domestic violence leave. This legislation builds on this, ensuring that workers are not penalised in any way if they disclose that they have been subjected to family and domestic violence. Violence doesn't discriminate, and neither should the law. That's what this legislation makes very clear. Family and domestic violence can affect all aspects of a person's life, including their wellbeing and their productivity at work. We know this. Those persons subjected to family and domestic violence should not be subjected to discrimination in the workplace because of their experience. An outcome of the 2022 Jobs and Skills Summit was that stronger protection should be provided against discrimination by including a new protected attribute of 'subjection to family and domestic violence' in the Fair Work Act 2009. This proposal will clarify and strengthen protections and assist victims-survivors of family and domestic violence to avail themselves of their workplace rights. This is a profoundly good thing for the Australian people. This will include requesting flexible working arrangements or accessing paid leave entitlements. The amendments will prohibit employers taking adverse action, such as termination of employment, against employees, including prospective employees, because of family and domestic violence. They will prohibit any terms of enterprise agreements and modern awards that discriminate against a person on the basis of subjection to family and domestic violence. Finally, the amendments will require the Fair Work Commission to perform its functions and exercise its powers in a way that advances the goal of eliminating this type of discrimination. The proposal is consistent with and will assist in further fulfilling Australia's international treaty obligations, including those under the International Labour Organization's Violence and Harassment Convention, the ILO No. 190. With the little time that I have left, I want to underline how important this legislation is for the protection of gig workers in Australia. I know many of my colleagues have spoken at length on this, but we have 13 gig workers who have died on Australian roads in the last few years, and that is utterly unacceptable. A New South Wales inquiry into the gig economy heard that riders made as little as $8 a trip, because they were being rushed to complete orders and they had their pay cut during the pandemic. We know there's a direct link between low rates of pay and people's safety at work. It leads to a situation where workers take risks so they can get more work done because they're struggling to make ends meet. This situation cannot continue. This legislation is about protecting workers, particularly those that don't meet the definition of an employee, as is the case for many gig workers, but are not genuine small businesses either. It's a sham to think that all these people are small businesses in their own right. This is a great bill for casual workers, providing some help for 850,000 casual workers who have regular work arrangements and giving them greater access to leave entitlements and more financial security if desired. There are terrific measures in here to ensure the trucking industry is safe, sustainable and viable, reinstating a lot of work that the former government undid in this nation. As Sally McManus says, 'This is a great day for Aussie workers.' (Time expired) 17:05 Mr STEVENS 176304 Sturt I rise to speak in support of the amendment to the second reading of the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes) Bill 2023, because this amendment bill—I think we should just start by clarifying—is this government fixing all sorts of problems with something called the Fair Work Act. I wonder who introduced the Fair Work Act. It was the Rudd-Gillard government. I think in 2009 it ultimately passed the parliament. It is remarkable—and I'll certainly highlight and make the point—that we've got Labor members of this chamber coming in and sledging all these dramatic problems and issues in their own legislation, which they introduced when they were last in government. Apparently this legislation that the Rudd-Gillard government brought to this parliament and that passed through this parliament is so terrible that they have to call this amendment bill the 'Closing the loopholes bill'. In and of itself, the Rudd-Gillard government legislated spectacular loopholes, in the worst interests of Aussie workers. I appreciate the clarification and that now being on the record. I look forward to the history books recording, by those that can be bothered writing about the Rudd-Gillard era into the future—make sure that the most important thing we know about the Rudd-Gillard government is that they legislated workplace legislation that the Albanese government felt was so poor and so substandard that they brought a bill into this chamber called the 'Closing the loopholes bill' on their own legislation. That's the reality of the legacy of the Rudd-Gillard government's workplace relations laws, and that's what the Albanese government thinks of the Rudd-Gillard government's era of workplace reform. We know Paul Keating's got his own views, of course, on the regime that exists now—the Fair Work Act and the Fair Work Commission. I join Paul Keating in his lament of the situation we've got with workplace laws in this country now, compared to the excellent reforms of his era and the Hawke-Keating reforms bringing in enterprise-level negotiations. They were certainly transformative for productivity in this nation and for the relationship between employees and employers, putting businesses in a position to negotiate with employees and to have agreements that suited workers and that business that wee unique and specific to their circumstance. Indeed, before my career in politics, I worked for many years in the textile industry, and we certainly had a very unique workplace relationship in that business, and we were certainly appreciative of the ability to have negotiations and undertake enterprise negotiations with unions and, via them, the workforce. It is so lamentable that the Rudd-Gillard government brought in reforms that, as Keating and Bill Kelty have said, really dismantled the great era of enterprise bargaining in this nation. Maybe we shouldn't be surprised that the Albanese government has such a low view of the Rudd-Gillard era's workplace laws that they are here again amending those laws in what they claim to be a very substantive way and what they even call 'closing the loopholes'. This bill, of course, is excellent for the union movement, and I just want to congratulate the union movement on the return on their investment! I haven't recently calculated just how many tens of millions of dollars they gave to the Labor party in the 2022 election, but it was really money well spent for the unions. They've done very well out of this legislation. I'm sure they're very happy that the millions of dollars they gave to Labor at the last election are achieving such a return for the union movement and for the power of the union bosses in this country and in this economy. I haven't heard many speakers opposite talking about the new rights that unions get in this legislation. That's curious in and of itself. But the union movement is in a tough spot. Private-sector-workforce union membership is down to eight per cent, and those statistics are a year old, so the ABS's most recent statistics—calculations done by the Financial Review are that the private sector workforce is about eight per cent unionised. If you were the union movement, you'd really lean on the political party that you funded into government to make dramatic changes to the laws to try and turn that around, wouldn't you? So it's to be expected that this legislation that's before us now is excellent for the union movement. It's frightening if you're an employer, it's frightening if you run a business, it's frightening if you work in a business that isn't unionised, because they're coming for you. They're coming for you in legislation like this, and no doubt a lot of other little chip-away, loophole-closing future bills will do the same—the salami slicing of expanding union power. The workplace access allowed in this bill is particularly concerning to us on this side of the chamber. Alas, that need not worry any of us, because if our second reading amendment is supported then a parliamentary inquiry can happily look at all these things and happily dispel any concerns that we and industry have got about what the consequences are, if this legislation is passed by the parliament, for the power of unions in the workplace. We don't even necessarily know how 'workplace' is defined, on the basis of the legislation that's before us. I've heard examples that are pretty frightening—the Farmers Federation. If you're a farmer and you live on your property and it's also a business and you employ people, what part of that farm is a workplace? If whatever part of the farm, possibly the entirety of the farm, is a workplace, this legislation allows unions unfettered access, without notice, to that home. 'Come on in, fellas. Can I make you a cup of coffee? Take a load off and watch some of my Netflix.' What is going to be possible under this? We don't know, but we can find out by undertaking a parliamentary inquiry into this legislation before this chamber debates and passes it. There are dramatic changes to the tests for casual labour. Again, we saw this legislation for the first time yesterday and we are already debating it, and I admit it is difficult to digest hundreds and hundreds of pages, so I concede that I am not an expert on the legislation yet. I have to say that I am a little bit sceptical and suspicious about whether or not the legislation in its voluminous detail is designed, in fact, to make it as difficult as possible to properly identify some of the loophole-closing, if not loophole-opening for the unions that may well also be in this bill—all sorts of new loopholes for them to use to access workplaces and to do things that are not in the interests of businesses, that are not in the interests of employees, but are certainly in the interests of union power. We debated in the previous parliament some clarification of the way that casual labour is determined, on the back of a Federal Court decision. It was important to put clarifications in place because a vital part of our workplace system and a vital part of our economy is being able to employ people in casual circumstances. Indeed, employees get a loading on their hourly salary rate, as we all know, if they're employed as casuals. The changes to the definition of 'casual' and particularly the 12-month mark becoming the six-month mark, as it appears from early cursory glances at this legislation, are very concerning, and I think that's going to result in people losing jobs. I think that's going to result in businesses making decisions about whether or not they open for the same hours they currently do and undertake the same amount of economic activity in our economy as they currently do. I fear that this will lead to job losses. I fear this could lead to businesses reducing their turnover and not trading as broadly as they currently do. All these are things we can look at, of course, in this inquiry, and we can give industry groups in particular and employers, employees, unions and anyone that wants to a chance to give evidence—and for us to test and look very closely at some of the provisions of this legislation. So why would we not want to do that? Maybe one category have already been thoroughly consulted. Maybe the union movement have already had their special access to put input into this legislation. Maybe this is legislation that was effectively written by them and given to certain people to bring into this chamber; I don't know. But it seems curious that, if this legislation is so important and so good for the economy, the government doesn't support properly scrutinising it, allowing that scrutiny and seeing the results of the scrutiny before we have to debate in this chamber and pass this legislation through this chamber. It's not the first workplace legislation that we've seen under this government, and in this term it clearly won't be the last. But there's a bit of a pattern here, a bit of consistency. At the Jobs and Skills Summit, some more innocent interlocutors in the process of public policy development would, I think, in hindsight, concede they were dramatically misled by the intentions of the government when it came to consulting and looking to pursue and undertake meaningful reform that achieves the sorts of things that Paul Keating did when his government undertook workplace reform, particularly around the productivity outcome of negotiations and ensuring that growth in the economy is appropriately shared between return on capital and return on labour—that is, rising wages. We all want to see that happening and we all want to see businesses, at the enterprise level, working together to talk about how their employees can earn more and their businesses can be more profitable. We had that in the enterprise bargaining era, and it's been lost to us, through the Fair Work Act under the Rudd-Gillard government, but even more so now that we see the return of the spectre of pattern bargaining in our economy, through reforms that were rushed through this chamber last year. We're very concerned on this side of the chamber, and obviously I commend the contribution of our lead speaker, the member for Bradfield, and the second reading amendment that he has moved. I urge the chamber to support that amendment because we are in a situation where we are debating legislation we saw for the first time yesterday. We are very concerned about the ramifications of it. We would certainly like to give others that do not have the honour of serving in chambers like this, but who have views on this and are important stakeholders, the opportunity to put their views and have their questions answered. By supporting this second reading amendment, that is us supporting holding this inquiry and reflecting on the results of that inquiry before this progresses through the parliament. On that basis I commend the second reading amendment to the House. 17:17 Mr REPACHOLI 298840 Hunter Fairness and equality is a fundamental human right that we must protect and uphold in our society. Apart from my first speech, there hasn't been an item on the Notice Paper that I have been more excited to see than the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes) Bill 2023. I've lived and seen firsthand the inequality that labour hire has in a workplace. The growing use of labour hire firms by employers has become a scourge not just in the Hunter but right across Australia. It's a business model that is used by bosses to undercut pay and conditions for workers and it drives a race to the bottom for employers looking to dodge their responsibilities to their workforce. This is really important reform in order to improve the job security, wages and conditions of workers in Australia. For too long, labour hire employees have been treated like a second-class group of citizens. A lot of them have ended up on long-term labour hire engagements as casual workers for years on end, with no job security and lower wages and conditions than the people working directly alongside them. It's coincided with the erosion of secure employment in favour of casual work and independent contracting. Labour hire is just another form of work which seriously disadvantages employees. Around 80 per cent of labour hire staff in Australia are engaged as casuals, a smaller proportion are engaged as independent contractors and very few of them are engaged as permanent employees. Thirty years ago, most people in a warehouse would have been direct employees of the business that was running it. But it's a different story today. Originally you would have had labour hire being used to meet fluctuations in demand, but what's happening now in workplaces, particularly in the mining sector, is there are fewer directly employed core workforce employees. Many of the workers in these types of workplaces are now long-term casual labour hire workers. The ramifications for workers are significant. Safety practices suffer as employers uncouple themselves from the responsibility for employee training, leaving workers vulnerable. In the event a worker is injured, the employer's situation is simple: just pick up the phone to the labour hire provider and ask for the worker not to be sent back to the job. For workers without permanency, simple things like establishing a credit record for renting a home, securing a loan or buying a car are near impossible. Workers are left in an employment twilight zone. When I was working at Mount Thorley Warkworth I would travel to work in a car crew with Gary, Benny, Adam and Benny and Yatesy. Three of us were full-time employees working at the time for Rio Tinto and the other two were labour hire, getting paid up to $30,000 less than what we were for doing the exact same job. We drove to work together every day. We drove home from work together every day. I did the same hours of work as the rest of them, but the difference was they got paid $30,000 less. When they got sent home due to rain, they didn't get paid. Permanent staff remained onsite and got paid. When we took holidays, we got paid. The labour hire guys didn't. When we took sick leave, we got paid. The labour hire guys didn't. How is this fair? I also worked for seven years with a guy called Graham who had been working for a labour hire company for more than eight years. It took him over eight years to get a full-time gig. That was eight years of his earnings being $30,000 less than the rest of us. That's eight years when that money wasn't being spent locally in the Hunter region in our shops, restaurants, florists, pubs and clubs. It was eight years when Graham's superannuation was worse off than ours. How is that fair? Graham was a fantastic worker. He did everything right and worked as hard as the rest of us but is now far worse off than the rest of us are. We have seen the pathetic scare campaign run by the Minerals Council about lazy gardeners, but I'm not surprised they resorted to a scare campaign to muddy the waters about this important and necessary reform. It's interesting that they chose not to feature the mining industry in their ads, because mineworkers would have seen right through this rubbish. As a proud member of the Mining and Energy Union, we have invested heavily over many years in trying to change this law to prevent the business model that has seen permanent jobs shrink at the expense of casual labour hire. The groundbreaking wins for in the WorkPac, Skene and Rossato Federal Court matters meant coalminers could no longer lawfully be employed as casuals if the nature of their work was permanent and ongoing. Many current and former casuals also became eligible to claim back-paid entitlements. However, we were all gutted when One Nation backed the Morrison government and bowed to the business demands to overturn these wins, meaning mining companies could continue replacing permanent jobs with lower paid casuals and exploited casuals were denied the compensation that they deserved. It is only a Labor government that delivers fair work, and this is what this bill will do. Most workers will be unaffected by this bill, but, for those who are affected, this will be life-changing. This bill is simple. It will give powers to the Fair Work Commission to make orders that labour hire employees be paid at least the wages in a host enterprise agreement. Employees, unions and hosts can apply to the commission for an order that labour hire employees be paid at least the wages in a host enterprise agreement. That would mean that the labour hire employees covered by an order of the commission would be entitled to be paid at least what they would receive under the host's enterprise agreement or equivalent public sector determination. Labour hire employers will be required to pay affected employees at least the wages payable underneath the host enterprise agreement for all labour hire employees when covered by an order. Labour hire employers can request information from the host to assist their compliance with this obligation where information is needed to calculate the correct rate of pay, and the host must comply. As an example, a labour hire employee working at BHP's Mount Arthur minesite would be entitled to be paid the same as someone who is directly employed by BHP underneath the EA. Exemptions apply where the host is a small-business employer, and a default three-month exemption period will also apply, to avoid impacting labour hire arrangements for surge work and temporary replacements. The commission is not required to make an order if it is not fair and reasonable in the circumstances, including where an arrangement relates to the provision of specialist or expert services, like under a services contract. Businesses will be prohibited from taking action to avoid their obligations or prevent a commission order being made. The commission will be a low-cost and effective forum for dispute resolution. Applications can be made to the Fair Work Commission, and from 1 November 2024 the Fair Work Commission orders will become enforceable. We are standing up for casual workers who want to become permanent employees. We are closing the labour hire loophole that leaves people stuck classified as casuals when they actually work permanent, regular hours. That means that they work just like a permanent employee but don't get any of the benefits of job security. We are legislating a fair, objective definition to determine when an employee can be classified as a casual. This will help more than 850,000 casual workers who have regular work arrangements, giving them greater access to leave entitlements and more financial security if desired. Rent isn't casual. Electricity bills aren't casual. School fees aren't casual. They're all a certainty. Labour hire has a legitimate use in providing surge and specialist workforces, and that will continue to be the case. What we are concerned about is the labour hire loophole which companies are deliberately using in order to undercut the agreements that they've already made with their workers. They've agreed to a fair rate of pay with their workers, made an enterprise agreement, and then they undercut the agreement by bringing in a labour hire workforce that is being paid less. That's a loophole that we have closed. But these people in insecure work do not have the same certainty about their hours or their income. The other major elements of the closing-loopholes bill are criminalising wage theft and introducing minimum standards for workers in the gig economy. We announced these policies when we were campaigning for the last election, and we took them to the Australian people. The introduction of this bill follows months of extensive consultation, including with employer groups and unions. Our government will extend the powers of the Fair Work Commission to include employee-like forms of work, allowing it to better protect people in new forms of work from exploitation and dangerous working conditions. This change will allow the Fair Work Commission to make orders for minimum standards for new forms of work such as gig work. We're not trying to turn people into employees when they don't want to be employees. A whole lot of gig workers like the flexibility from using this technology, and that won't change under these laws. We know there is a direct link between a low rate of pay and safety. It leads to a situation where workers take risks so they can get more work because they are struggling to make ends meet. We can't continue to have a situation where the 21st-century technology of the gig platforms comes with 19th-century conditions. Just because someone is working in the gig economy shouldn't mean that they end up being paid less than they would be if they were an employee. We don't want to become a nation where you have to rely on tips to make ends meet. We are also criminalising wage theft. If a worker steals from a cash register, it's a criminal offence. But, in many parts of Australia, if an employer steals from a worker's pay packet, it's not. Employers who intentionally steal from their workers should face criminal penalties. The previous government did nothing to stop the wage theft epidemic. It took the Liberals and Nationals years to even acknowledge that there was a problem. Eventually they did bring in some half-baked legislation, but, when it came to the Senate, they voted against their own legislation. It's something that they are becoming good at. They tore up their own draft laws because they couldn't get enough support for the plans to cut workers' pay and conditions in other ways. They decided to send a clear signal to wage thieves: 'Keep it up. We don't care.' Business owners who knowingly withhold wages should face the harshest penalties. We must ensure our new laws do not water down any wage theft laws already put in place by the states. The Labor governments in Victoria and Queensland have criminalised wage theft because they got sick of waiting for the previous federal government to act. But Australia also needs a national wage theft system to end the rip-offs. We are determined to deliver on our promise to Australian workers to make wage theft a crime. All of these measures are designed to close loopholes that have undercut secure jobs, better pay and safe workplaces. These are not radical changes. All we are doing is making the current law work effectively. Closing the labour hire loophole will simply require an employer to pay rates that have already been negotiated and agreed to. These are the rates of pay that are already set for the work being done. Our 'employee-like worker' reforms simply require workers to have some minimum standards benchmarked against existing award rates when they are working in a way which is similar to employees. Our wage theft reform will strengthen the enforcement of existing rates of pay. Most employers out there don't want to be undercut by bad apples doing the wrong thing. These laws will strengthen the current workplace relations framework and provide certainty, fairness and a level playing field for businesses and workers. I am proud to be a former coalminer. I am bloody proud of my electorate's mining history. I'm proud to be mates with many people who work in the pits. We need jobs that are well paid and secure and aren't dominated by dodgy labour hire arrangements. Put simply, whenever you work, if you are doing the same job as the person next to you, you should be paid the same—same job, same pay; it's simple. That's the difference between us on this side and those that play dress-ups on the other side. We back mining and we back our miners. I wholeheartedly commend this bill to the House. 17:32 Mr PEARCE 282306 Braddon The Albanese government's latest industrial relations legislation changes are some of the most extreme interventionist workplace changes that have ever been proposed in this great country of ours. The changes will inflict immense harm on the economy, the weight of which— Mr PEARCE 282306 We were very quiet on our side whilst he did his speech. I wouldn't mind the same thing over here. The DEPUTY SPEAKER E0D The member for Braddon has the call, and he will be heard in silence. Mr PEARCE 282306 But don't take my word for it. The Minerals Council of Australia's Tania Constable calls on the Albanese government to 'rip up this bill and head back to the drawing board'. That's what she said! This is a sentiment also shared by the Business Council of Australia, Master Builders Australia and the Australian Industry Group— Government members interjecting— Mr PEARCE 282306 My word, they're noisy over there, Deputy Speaker! You might need to be a bit more interventionist—who knows! It's a sentiment that business owners right across my electorate—across the north-west, the west coast and King Island in the great state of Tasmania—share. As their representative, it's a sentiment that I share also. It's not that I'm opposed to industrial relations reform, not by any means. If done right, industrial relations reforms are the correct mechanism to make our workplaces more productive and more competitive. It's all about productivity. Improved productivity and competitiveness will drive our nation forward and make us more prosperous as a nation, employing more people and allowing more people to prosper in great small and local businesses. If implemented correctly, good IR legislation benefits all Australians. I believe in it strongly. But the legislation before us today does not fall into that category. It is not IR legislation that will drive us forward; it is IR legislation that can only take us in the opposite direction, and that's backwards, downhill. Again and again, Labor demonstrate that they just don't understand how businesses work. I've been in business for quite some time. I've had quite a few of them. In Labor, however, very rarely do we see anybody that's had anything to do with the ownership of a business ever. Labor believes in government controlling every aspect, big government and wiping out small businesses. Labor believes unions are best placed to control our workplaces, and this is misguided. It's not a sentiment I share at all. I have stood up many times in this place and defended our enterprising business sector. Again I must remind the other side that they do not create jobs. It's our enterprising business sector that creates jobs. It's our individual enterprise that maximises our economic growth and forges national prosperity. Governments do, however, have a role to play. Their role is to create a fertile environment that will create businesses, allow businesses to prosper and give them the tools and levers they need to go about their business, employ people, return to their bottom line and produce a product which effectively grows their business, and so on and so forth it goes. No efficiency has ever occurred when a government, particularly a big-fisted government, have inserted their beady little hands into any business's business, let alone the business sector—more so. Priorities—let's talk about how not a single business owner, jobseeker or employee for that matter has ever raised the matter of IR reform as a priority in my time. It's not something they talk about. They talk about cost of living. They talk about how difficult it is for them to register their car. They talk about getting jobs. They talk about providing for their families. They talk about infrastructure that makes their job easier. They talk about airports. They talk about getting product in and out of their workplaces. Very rarely do they talk about IR reform. It's not something they talk about in the local pub. They talk about supply chain issues. Why then is IR legislation such a priority for this government? The mind boggles, and I think the unions are prodding at this all the time. The general consensus is that the IR proposal in front of us will not create a single job. It will not strengthen job security. It will not contribute to wage growth. What the proposed legislation will do is stifle productivity, increase red tape, increase the complexity of undertaking business and prevent businesses from taking on new employees. The workplace relations changes will add uncertainty and complexity to the employment of millions of casuals, contractors and labour hire workers. To move forward as a strong modern economy, governments must understand that employees are demanding flexibility in their workplace. This has never been more important, as employers are facing critical workforce shortages, and this is impacting sectors of our economy, particularly in my state of Tasmania. Speaking to businesses across my electorate, they're telling me flexibility is key. Not all businesses are the same, and not all businesses fit into the sanitised categories and the model that obviously the other side feel they do. I come from the agricultural sector, where we use many subcontractors, many people, casual labour hire—all sorts of business models are utilised when it comes to employment and getting that job done. To give you an example, if you take a normal dairy farm in my electorate, often the casual milkers, the employees that do the morning milking, work for another company. They come and milk the cows. A separate person comes in, a contractor if you like, a stockman. They take the cows from the cowshed to the paddock. Then another contractor might come in with a piece of agricultural machinery, a tractor and fertiliser spreader. They might fertilise the paddocks with great nitrogen fertiliser that comes from our state also. The point I'm making is that many people from many different places, many different sources, employed under many different models and many different award rates, all operate on the one farm, returning to the one bottom line, producing milk that feeds our nation. The other issue that needs to be raised is the mum-and-dad businesses out there. These people, partnerships and sole traders don't have a HR department that can read 800-odd pages of IR legislation and get their heads completely around that. They're nervous about this. When they see a piece of IR legislation that is 400 or 500 pages long, then what hope have they got? When we start looking at the new laws, we see the complexity around the ability for Fair Work Australia to inspect, without warrant, a particular business's office. What you've got to consider is that we live in our businesses. I live on my farm. So does that mean that the Fair Work Commission can just kick my door in and come into my house, where my business's office is, and conduct an inspection? Is that fair? This is Australia. That is not the Australia that I want to see. I think there are these nuances. Take the truck driver, for instance, who comes and picks up the produce from the farm. That particular driver, that owner-operator, works in a completely different environment, in a completely different situation, from people clocking on at seven o'clock in the morning and knocking off at five o'clock in the afternoon in a normal environment in a big city. It doesn't work like that in the bush. These are the nuances that need to be considered when we introduce complex IR legislation like we're seeing in this bill. As I mentioned earlier, we don't have a clock on, clock off mentality. We have a 'complete the job' mentality. We have a 'fill the order' mentality. We have a 'get the job done and then we pack up and go home' mentality. We don't have this clock on, clock off mentality. We can talk about subcontractors and their ability to work infrequent hours and times and dates, particularly around our weather situation. I come from the great state of Tasmania, and obviously, during the winter, the weather has a big impact on workload. If I put a person on as a permanent employee and then it rains for a week, that person can't be employed in that particular role. These are all considerations. What I'm getting at is: these nuances need to be considered. And I don't believe that they have been. In the electorate of Braddon alone, there are just over a thousand small businesses in the building and construction sector alone. Between them, they employ around 4,000 tradies. That's around nine per cent of our population in Braddon. For the benefit of those opposite, I feel obliged to explain how the building and construction industry works. We have, in the building sector, a very complex, finely tuned, well balanced and highly efficient system of business owners, apprentices and independent contractors, and things called subbies—subcontractors. They're a necessary part of that employment sector and that industry. This is a time-proven model: having subcontractors on a job, doing very specialised jobs, at specific parts of that job, over many, many months, but only for specified portions of time. Yet those in Labor believe that that is not the way that they want to see it. They don't believe in the flexibility, independence and responsiveness of these less rigid parts of the employment model. Instead, they want them to be part of the employee role. They want them to be responsive to that rigid employee schedule. They want them to be beholden to the union movement and bound up in red tape. As far as I'm concerned, that's just an absolute stifle when it comes to a successful business. I was at a meeting of the Master Builders Association the other night and I was told that, 'If Labor's proposed IR reforms were to get in, then,' as far as they were concerned, 'these would be the worst possible things that could happen to the building and construction industry in Tasmania.' They believed that the costs to independent contractors and subbies could find them leaving the industry and going somewhere else—ultimately, forcing them to relinquish their autonomy and become employees. It's not what they want. It's not the Australia that we've grown up in. This would mean losing the freedom to choose their working hours, their projects, their clients and their ability to negotiate their own fees and conditions. One subcontractor said that he hopes that the people responsible—and these are not my words; I am quoting from this meeting—for bringing in this new legislation will be held 100 per cent accountable when the construction industry is totally destroyed in Tasmania. That's how desperate he was. He conveyed this to me in a very clear and concise way. It is never a good time for government to put their hand into small business. It is never a good time for governments to make it harder for workers or jobseekers to find flexible employment. As I said earlier about our agricultural sector, that is exactly what this bill from this government is proposing and trying to do. In the last couple of minutes I want to talk about the new Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal, the RSRT. The government is effectively reviving the failed Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal. Multiple independent reviews found that its failure had cost the lives and livelihoods of hardworking owner-drivers. This new body within the Fair Work Commission will have the same profound impact on the road transport industry. Owner-drivers will again lose their flexibility, and I talked about how valuable that flexibility is in many industries. The tribunal will remove all that and set their rates and conditions, which will hurt remote and regional operators. Australians will ultimately feel the pinch at the supermarket because we will have to pass these costs on. Parliament should not bend to the demands of the Transport Workers Union and should reject these changes. In the hundreds of pages of legislation the government has snuck in a small provision that gives the minister the power to make regulations for 'supply chain participants'. In doing so, he or she is handing over control of our supply chains to the Fair Work Commission, and that is not on. As you can clearly see from the reasons I've stated, there is no possible good outcome from this fair work legislation. 17:47 Dr GARLAND 295588 Chisholm Our government was elected on the promise that we would make workplaces fairer, we would get wages moving and we would tackle the problems of insecure work and wage theft, and that is precisely what the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes) Bill is about. In my very first speech in this place, I spoke about the need to do more to address the situation is this country where too many people are trapped in insecure work arrangements, making it impossible for them to plan their lives, and the detrimental impact this has on our communities. It is hard for people to put down roots in communities, to participate in local sporting clubs, art groups, volunteer groups, neighbourhood houses and school groups when there is no job security. This is something I am passionate about, having experienced insecure work myself and having worked with many people over the years who have struggled in insecure work arrangements. I firmly believe that people should have jobs they can count on. I'm so pleased that this bill goes some way towards creating the conditions where this can be realised for workers right around the country and in my beautiful community in the electorate of Chisholm. It is so disappointing, I must say, to hear the seemingly deliberate mischaracterisation from those opposite about what this bill does. I find it really difficult to understand, and I suspect lots of people across the country find it really difficult to understand why those opposite won't do the right thing by our communities. This failure to understand what this bill does to help workers right across the country is unfortunately just another example of those opposite standing in the way of what is right. This bill is very important. It makes crucial changes to workplace laws and will change lives for the better. It will save lives. I'm exceptionally proud to be part of a government that has the vision and courage to introduce this legislation. I want to take this moment to acknowledge the years of hard work of my Labor colleagues, especially those in the broader labour movement: the workers, their families and trade unionists who stood for what is right, for lawful wages, for safe workplaces, for secure work and for respect, dignity and equality for everyone in this country, never forgetting the marginalised who are so often subjected to exploitation, including workplace exploitation, in this country. Yet to make things right is apparently a bridge too far for those opposite. I thank those in the United Workers Union for their years and years of work on many of the critical issues this bill addresses, and I think now of the workers I've had the pleasure to know over the years who have inspired me with their courageous focus on justice—justice meaning that there are consequences for wage theft, for neglecting to provide a safe workplace. I acknowledge the work of the Young Workers Centre and the Migrant Workers Centre, who have not only ensured that workers have been able to recover wages they were owed, and could stand up for their rights, but have been fierce and fearless advocates for many of the changes this bill makes for workers, particularly in relation to wage theft, the treatment of workers in the gig economy and regarding industrial manslaughter. This bill contains four main elements. In this bill, our government is taking action to criminalise wage theft, introduce minimum standards for workers in the gig economy, close the forced permanent casual worker loophole and close the labour hire loophole. We have engaged with business groups and consulted on the design of these measures, and this bill realises our commitment as a government to deliver on our election promises to make sure our workplaces are fairer. This legislation ensures that the current law works effectively. Closing labour hire loopholes will simply require an employer to pay rates that have already been negotiated and agreed to. Despite some of the bluster we've heard from those opposite, there is nothing strange or odd about this proposal. It's sensible. The employee-like reforms that will impact gig workers simply require workers to have some minimum standards benchmarked against existing award rates when they are working in a way which is like employees. Again, it is astonishing that minimum standards for workers in this country, in the 21st century, are something that those opposite cannot agree that we should have. Our wage theft reforms will strengthen the enforcement of existing rates of pay, which is important to highlight, as most employers don't want to be undercut by bad actors doing the wrong thing. It's very, very simply the right thing to do. It will put money back into the pockets of workers, where it should be. Our new definition of casual employment will clarify what was always intended with casual work—that, if you're working regular and predictable hours and you want to be permanent, you will have that pathway available to you. It's a reasonable measure. These laws will strengthen the current workplace relations framework and provide certainty, fairness and a level playing field for both businesses and workers. We know that labour hire has some legitimate uses in providing surge and specialist workforces, and that will continue to be the case. Of course it will. What we on this side of the House are concerned about is the labour hire loophole, which some companies deliberately use to undercut the agreements that they've already made with their workers. I've met too many workers in such a predicament. This change is terribly important and will mean that workers working side by side will be treated equally. This is really good not only for wages but for cohesive workplaces. It should be welcome change. We know that some employers, having agreed on fair rates of pay with their workers through an enterprise agreement, unfortunately seek to undermine that agreement by bringing in a labour hire workforce that is being paid less. That's totally against the spirit of workplace democracy that we should prize in this country. This is a loophole that we must close, and we are. A significant aspect of this bill is that it amends the Fair Work Act 2009 to give powers to the Fair Work Commission to make orders that labour hire employees be paid at least the wages in a host's enterprise agreement. That's just fairness. The loophole that allows employers to use labour hire workers who are paid less than the rates of pay agreed to in a workplace's agreement will be closed, and that's a good thing. This bill is delivering on our election commitment. This is something that I'm really proud to be able to speak to in the House today. This has been the subject of wide consultation. There have been over 45 consultation sessions held with employer and union representatives. In this bill, our government is standing up for workers when it comes to casual employment. We're closing the loophole that leaves people classified as casuals, when in practicality they work permanent, regular hours. They may work like permanent employees, but they're not treated in the same way; they don't have the benefits that job security provides. So we're legislating a fair and objective definition to determine when an employee can be classified as casual so they're not stuck as a casual into perpetuity, making it impossible for them to have the kind of security in their life that a permanent job offers. If desired—and it's very important that it's 'if desired'; it's not forced on workers; it is about a choice for people who satisfy the requirements for being classified in this way—it will help more than 850,000 workers who have regular work arrangements but are classified as casuals. It will give them greater access to leave entitlements and financial security. I would have thought that was something that everyone in this House would want workers in this country to be able to have. Surely all of us in this place know that there's nothing casual about the rent falling due or the electricity bills that need to be paid. This is a really important step we can take to make sure that our communities aren't left behind. No employee, as I mentioned before, will be forced to convert from casual to permanent if they don't want to. For all the commentary we heard from the other side about choice, it remains the case that either they don't understand the legislation or they are wilfully misleading people by suggesting that there's anything other than a choice here when it comes to those pathways to permanent employment. It's really important here, too, to note that eligible employees will have two pathways to change their status: either through the definition-based employee choice pathway or through the existing casual conversion mechanism. Of course, we've consulted on this part of the bill as well. As the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations stated in this House yesterday, we know that over 40 per cent of the casual workforce are over the age of 35. With this in mind, we mustn't underestimate the meaningful change this will provide to those casual employees who seek a pathway to permanent employment and being able to support their families. It will give them some really critical financial security and the security to set roots down in their communities, which I think is a really important thing for everyone in this country to be able to do. We're also extending the powers of the Fair Work Commission to include employee-like forms of work as it relates to the gig economy. That's going to make it possible for the Fair Work Commission to make orders for minimum standards for new forms of work, such as gig work, which will allow for better protections for people in new forms of work from exploitation and dangerous working conditions—again, something I would have thought people in this place would agree is a good thing to do. We're not trying to turn people into employees when they don't want to be employees. We know that a lot of gig workers like the flexibility from using technology, and that's not going to change under the laws. But what we do know is that there is a direct link between low rates of pay and worker safety. That leads to situations where workers take risks so they can get more work because they're struggling to make ends meet. There have unfortunately been some really tragic circumstances involving gig workers that I wouldn't have thought anyone would like to see continue in this country. As the minister has made clear, we can't continue to have a situation where the 21st-century technology of the gig platforms comes with 19th-century conditions. Employee-like workers performing digital platform work such as gig work are often engaged as independent contractors, which means that they don't receive rights and entitlements under the Fair Work Act. We've had multiple inquiries highlighting that these workers receive less pay than they would if they were paid under the award safety net and have no protections if they lose their work unfairly. We're making really important changes here to make sure work is safe and work is fair. Something that is a very important issue for so many people, particularly young people and migrant workers in our community, is the wage theft epidemic, which those opposite didn't do anything to stop. I'm really proud to say that we're closing the loophole that has allowed for that and we're criminalising wage theft. It's a priority for our government. We know that if a worker steals from the till it's a criminal offence, but in many parts of Australia, if an employer steals from a worker's pay packet, it's not, or there aren't sufficient deterrents to prevent this from taking place. I've met countless workers who have had their wages stolen. Often these have been young workers and migrant workers—often both. Some of the figures of the underpayment workers have experienced have been eye watering. I've encountered individual workers who have had tens of thousands of dollars of hard work, of wages earned, ripped out of their pockets. It's absolutely appalling. I know that every time stories of wage theft cases are reported in the media, our communities are rightly outraged. It's absolutely time that we made wage theft a crime. Simply, employers who intentionally steal from their workers should face criminal penalties. It took years for those opposite to even acknowledge that there was a problem. They've been well behind our communities on this one, just as they are out of step on a number of other issues—and increasingly so, I must say. When those opposite did eventually bring in some half-baked proposal, they voted against their own legislation in the Senate. Preposterous! Absolutely preposterous! They tore up their own draft laws because they could not get enough support for their plans to cut workers pay and conditions in other ways. In doing so, they sent a clear signal to wage thieves: 'Keep it up.' It's our government's position that business owners who knowingly withhold wages should face the harshest penalties. That's why this proposal introduces the criminal offence for intentional underpayment of employees wages and certain entitlements and increases the penalty for civil underpayment breaches in line with our election commitments. We must make sure that our new laws do not water down any wage theft legislation already put in place by the states, such as Victoria and Queensland, who actually had the vision to criminalise wage theft some time ago. We need this national wage theft system to end the rip-offs though. It's really important. It's the right thing to do. We're making workplaces fairer with this bill. We're doing a number of other things in this bill. We're allowing the Fair Work Commission to set minimum standards for the road transport industry, to continue to implement the Boland review, to introduce an offence for industrial manslaughter with increasing penalties. Every worker should come home safely to their families, and this will ensure this is the case. We're providing better support for first responders, expanding the functions of the Asbestos Safety and Eradication Agency to include silica safety and silica related diseases, providing stronger workplace protections for survivors of family and domestic violence, and providing specific protections for delegates and better safety and compliance representation in the workplace. It's a privilege every day to be a member of parliament, and moments like this, when we get to make changes to improve lives, to save lives, is a reminder of that. I'm really proud to be part of a government that is standing up for what is right and what is fair, and I commend the bill to the House. 18:02 Mr WALLACE 265967 Fisher I apologise in advance for my croaky voice. I rise to speak on the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes) Bill 2023, but I do so with a number of grave concerns. I'm concerned for the 35,598 businesses on the Sunshine Coast. I'm concerned for the 178,000 locals who are employed by those businesses. We have nearly 14,000 labourers on the Sunshine Coast, many of whom are independent contractors, just like support workers in the community sector, like truckies and tradies across almost every industry in our local economy. I'm concerned that this government and this legislation will strip them of their ability to work for themselves, to build their businesses and to make their own decisions. I listened to the last speaker, the member for Chisholm. The government boasts that this legislation we're discussing today comes after a great deal of consultation. Now whenever the government comes into this place it basically prevents the opposition from being able to review legislation. We were provided with a draft copy of this legislation—over 800 pages of legislation and explanatory memoranda—yesterday and the government wants us to debate this today. Those Australians who are at home right now listening to this would be concerned, and would be thinking, 'That should cause everyday Australians a bit of concern.' They would start to think: 'Why would the government do that? What have they got to hide? Why are they trying to rush something through with very little dealings with the opposition?' Those opposite talk about consultation. Small businesses across Australia weren't consulted. The independent contractors and subbies at worksites across the nation weren't consulted. The mum-and-dad business owners, who are already struggling to keep their doors open, weren't consulted. Young entrepreneurs, whose businesses were growing thanks to our government, weren't consulted. The private sector employers beyond the big end of town weren't consulted. The government talks about consultation and collaboration, yet it refuses to listen to those who are impacted the most. Who did they consult? They consulted with their union mates. What a surprise! They are the same unions that fund their campaigns, the same unions that determine who wins preselection. That's very interesting! The same unions pick and choose and distribute power whenever Labor takes the reins of government. That is the reality. I want to remind those members opposite: trade unions do not represent the Australian people. The ACTU is not a representative body for Australians. The House of Representatives is the body that represents Australians. That's why it is unbelievably shameful of those members opposite—800 pages of legislation and explanatory memoranda; they provided us with a copy yesterday, and here we are debating it today. Every day, average Australians who are driving home from work should be thinking, 'What has the government got to hide?' The Labor government didn't even have the guts to put the legislation on the table for a meaningful exchange before bringing it to the House today. Not only that, but, for those big businesses that they did speak with, they signed them up to confidentiality agreements. Those businesses couldn't share with the opposition or anybody else. Come on, what is this? What's this about? You're signing the people up to confidentiality agreements about legislation you're going to bring to the House. What is this? How does that work? Mr Josh Wilson 265970 Imagine if you'd signed up PwC to some of those! Mr WALLACE 265967 In three words, let me explain to the House why this bill is a dud: complexity, cost and confusion. We'll call them the three Cs—complexity, cost and confusion. Did you see what I did there, Member for Fremantle? Mr Josh Wilson 265970 I see what you did there. Mr WALLACE 265967 Perhaps the Prime Minister hasn't read this legislation. We know he has this penchant for not wanting to read things in detail. We know that. Mr Hogan 218019 Why would you! Mr WALLACE 265967 Why would he! The DEPUTY SPEAKER E0D Order, Member for Fisher. The Chief Government Whip? Ms Ryan 249224 Deputy Speaker, under standing order 76, I ask you to bring the member back to the substance of the bill. The DEPUTY SPEAKER E0D The member is in order, and he is speaking to the bill. The member for Fisher will continue. Mr WALLACE 265967 It's amazing that the Chief Government Whip would try and even have the gall to raise a point of order on relevance. You've had your chance of raising relevance— The DEPUTY SPEAKER E0D Order. The Chief Government Whip has the call. Ms Ryan 249224 I'd ask the chair to ask the member to respect the chair's direction. The DEPUTY SPEAKER E0D Order. The member for Fisher has the call. The member for Fisher is relevant and will continue to be relevant. You may continue. Mr WALLACE 265967 'Is relevant.' Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, because I am being relevant. Ms Ryan 249224 You're rabble. That's what you are. The DEPUTY SPEAKER E0D Order. The Chief Government Whip is not helping. The member will be— Mr Hogan 218019 They don't like differences of opinion. Mr WALLACE 265967 They don't like differences of opinion. The DEPUTY SPEAKER E0D Order. Shadow Minister, I have control. The member for Fisher will be heard in silence. Mr WALLACE 265967 This is demonstrative of the way that the Australian Labor Party work. When someone tries to raise issues about the way that the Australian Labor Party seek to conduct themselves, they raise spurious points of order. But I'll move on because I don't want to run out of time. Now, perhaps the government doesn't have a choice, because we all know that they are beholden to the trade unions and they are obliged to implement the unions' demands. We all know that they owe their pre-selections to the unions, of course. This is a government who talked about wellbeing but slashed mental health care and essential services. What was really interesting yesterday was that the Leader of the House spoke about the pharmacists and talked about the importance of mental health care. Ms Kearney LTU Relevance? Mr WALLACE 265967 You've already had your go with relevance. Ms Kearney LTU You brought a rabble into the House. The DEPUTY SPEAKER E0D Order! The member for Fisher has the call. He'll be heard in silence. Mr WALLACE 265967 Those members opposite talk about the importance of respect in the workplace, and yet what do they see on building sites? How many of those members opposite have actually worked on building sites? I ask that question. There are only three of you in here. I would suggest there are very, very few who have. If they think that building sites are pure as snow, where everybody behaves themselves, let me tell you that the CFMMEU do not provide the same level of respect that those members opposite would talk about in this place. The hypocritical nature of those members opposite knows no bounds. The reality is that this is a callous and careless Labor government. This workplace relations reform is reckless, wrong and potentially disastrous. It's just another example of a Labor government who doesn't care. They talk about closing loopholes. We've heard the minister talk about this bill and how it closes the loopholes in employment. It's a tricky slogan, but it's far from the truth. The bill won't close any loopholes. What it will do is widen the gap between the big end of town and hardworking Australians. What it will do is tear an enormous hole in Australia's economic productivity. It's nothing less than an attack on businesses and subcontractors. It'll cripple businesses. It'll crush subcontractors. It'll constrain business growth. It'll contract employment participation. These reckless reforms will send a shock wave through the economy, shatter business investor confidence and decimate Australian innovation and ingenuity. Labor's plan for workplace relations is to punish workplaces for their success and give unions a free ride into board rooms and to back room decision-making tables. At the end of the day, this is all about providing unions with power. We talked about costs earlier. What is this bill going to do in relation to costs? You would have thought, as a result of this government, when the cost of living has gone sky high for Australians in all areas: rentals, mortgages, fuel, electricity, gas and food—everything has gone up. Everything has increased in cost, and now they want to introduce this bill, which, according to their own figures, is going to cost an additional $9 billion in wages over the next 10 years. Those members opposite may not understand this, but, when you put an impost on businesses, that will flow through to the people who take those services—that is, consumers. Not only are those members opposite driving up the cost of living for everyday Australians; there are now additional costs that people are going to have to pay, additional costs that they cannot afford. The legislation uses words like 'protecting' and 'safeguarding', but whose interests are they protecting and safeguarding? Protecting bargained wages in the way that they have proposed will hurt labour hire workers, not benefit them. Those members opposite have a pathological hatred for labour hire. Why? Because they can't unionise the workforce—that's why. Dismantling the casual workforce, Labor's mighty goal, will drive up unemployment, drive down investment and shut down businesses left, right and centre. Do you know what else it will do? It will drive down Australia's productivity. We already have plunging productivity rates in this country and the government will make it worse through this bill. Removing subcontractors' independence only strips them of their ability to work for themselves, balance their lifestyle, set their own conditions and grow as sole traders with the ebbs and flows of our dynamic economy. These are not workers trapped in the gig economy. That is essentially what the minister has done here. He has roped in hundreds of thousands of independent contractors under this wide umbrella of the gig economy. Subbies, casuals, entrepreneurs and business owners are not the gig economy or trapped in an underregulated sector. They are the heartbeat and the backbone of the Australian economy. They don't need the government to come in and save them. They want the government to get out of the way. This legislation will smother Australia's pioneer spirit and elevate the Fair Work Commission to the role of employer, not just regulator, of thousands of hardworking Australian subbies, casuals, labour hire workers and business owners. Removing decision-making powers for business owners and subcontractors is big government gone mad. We all know that this government, like every Labor government, is all about big government. This government, like any labour government, always and at every occasion believes that the bigger government is the better because it thinks Australian workers and Australians in general don't know what's best for us; government always knows what's best for us! It's the antithesis of Australia's reward-for-effort economy. It's uniformity at all costs and it fails to appreciate the unique contours of our local, regional and national economies, particularly in the building, tourism and social sectors on which Australia depends right now. This bill is a mechanism to disempower hardworking Australians and we should fight it every step of the way. (Time expired) 18:17 Mr JOSH WILSON 265970 Fremantle I am glad to make a contribution to this debate on the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes) Bill 2023. Safe and fair working conditions are one of the building blocks of the Australian way of life. The existence and guarantee of those conditions are one of our core values and core operating principles. That's not surprising because, without those conditions, working people and those who depend on them, which is the vast majority of Australians, are at risk. Their core wellbeing is at risk and their physical and material wellbeing is at risk. This Labor government is going to do what Labor governments have always done. We are going to be the responsible stewards of that building block of the Australian way of life, safe and fair working conditions, after a period of 10 years when that task was utterly abandoned by those opposite. Some of the things that have been said in this debate have just been utterly ridiculous on that front. I've often said that the most important things are the things we share. That's my view. Those are the things that define our communal life together and that define our values in the way that we as a nation go forward as we live in our communities right around this country. If you think about what those things are, they are public health and education, our environment, community infrastructure and fair and safe working conditions. Every Australian ought to be able to go through their life taking that as a bedrock guarantee of life in this country. When I have the privilege of participating in citizenship ceremonies and I talk about what becoming an Australian citizen means and I say, 'You are joining a country that is egalitarian and fair and that is multicultural and democratic,' I always make the point that all of the qualities that create our Australian way of life, including safe and fair working conditions, didn't happen by accident. Those things that we enjoy today evolved over time and they were fought for over time. In the case of fair and safe working conditions, they were fought for by workers, they were fought for by workers' representatives in the union movement and they were fought for by the Labor Party. The things that we enjoy today haven't been with us forever. It wasn't really that long ago that we ended child labour. It wasn't that long ago that we made sure sick and annual leave entitlements were a permanent, expected and reliable feature of working life. It wasn't that long ago that we put in place effective occupational health and safety laws, and of course the developmental evolution of effective occupational health and safety laws is something that occurred over decades and needs to continue. It wasn't that long ago that there weren't awards, penalty rates, superannuation or bargaining frameworks with union membership rights, access and advocacy. All those things which we now take as being core to the framework of fair and safe working conditions in Australia were fought for. A hundred years ago very few of those things existed. When I go to citizenship ceremonies, one of the points I make about lots of areas of life but is certainly relevant to this part of our life is that we have to be the stewards of those values. We have to be the stewards of those conditions. Fair and safe working conditions were fought for to get them where they are, and they need to continue to be fought for. We take that stewardship responsibility seriously. If you don't take that stewardship responsibility seriously, you will see an erosion in the degree of protection offered by the framework that is there to guarantee fair and safe working conditions, because things change. Times change. We're talking a lot at the moment about the gig economy. When I was a kid, the challenge of the gig economy and way that puts people's pay at risk and puts not just their livelihood but their safety and their life at risk just did not exist in the way it exists now. The idea that you have people being seriously underpaid, taking jobs through a digital platform, being forced to rush from one thing to another on a bike, delivering takeaway food and suffering in some cases, unfortunately, fatal accidents as a result—there have been stories in recent times of delivery drivers ending up being hurt in a motor vehicle accident and, while they die, continuing to receive delivery order messages on their telephones. This is a feature of 21st-century life, and if we don't change the framework to protect those people, they will go unprotected. That's the way it is now. But it's also the case that loopholes in any framework will be exploited. The vast majority of businesses and employers in Australia do the right thing. There are some people, organisations, consultants and peak bodies that, unfortunately, make it their business to look for loopholes where they can take otherwise fair shares of profits and productivity and shift them from the worker who has earned them to the corporation and to the CEOs. That's something that has to be resisted. That's something we have to keep our eye on in every area of Australian life and certainly when it comes to the framework that's supposed to protect workers, and we're going to do that. It was a task completely abandoned by those opposite for the last 10 years. What did you see as a result? You saw stagnant and falling real wages, you saw a complete disconnection between productivity and profits and you saw rising inequality, and that's exactly what you'd expect. If you don't tend to that framework that should guarantee, to Australian workers and the people who depend on them, fair and safe working conditions, you will find that their share of the enterprises to which they contribute through their labour will diminish. It's funny that those opposite talk about how wages rising can't be tolerated—that it'll cause this, that it'll cause that, that this will go through the roof, that business will close down, that building construction in Tasmania will stop altogether. I think the previous speaker said it would decimate innovation and ingenuity and destroy the building industry and that thousands of businesses would go out of business. When all the catastrophising and the hysterical, extreme rhetoric die away, what are they essentially saying? They're saying people can't be paid properly. They're saying that workers can't be safe—that the whole show will crumble into dust if people get their fair share of the enterprise to which they contribute. How utterly ridiculous. What happened in 2022? We ensured that the minimum wage rose at a time of high inflation caused by global factors. That was so that all the cost-of-living pressures that the former speaker referred to actually don't hurt households to the extent that they otherwise would have. When you get wages that are at least keeping in touch with inflation let alone staying connected to record corporate profits and rising productivity, what you are doing is making sure that Australian families and Australian households are not falling further behind. We were prepared to support that rise in the minimum wage almost as soon as we were elected, as the Prime Minister made clear during the course of the campaign with the famous dollar coin, which those opposite thought would literally bring Armageddon to Australia. How utterly ridiculous. But just to make it more ridiculous there's one thing you will never hear from those opposite. You hear all this catastrophising about wages and how dangerous it is that workers get paid properly, how dangerous it is that workers receive their fair share of the enterprises to which they contribute, but you never, ever hear those opposite saying a cautionary word about CEO wages. To them that is not the problem. The laws of economic orthodoxy that they have imbibed and they seek to apply don't seem to have any application in the case of CEO wages. Last year, ordinary wages across the Australian economy rose on average by 3.7 per cent, and that was apparently dangerous. CEO wages rose by 15 per cent, five times as much. Did you ever hear any one of those opposite say: 'Well, hang on a second, that is a bit risky, that is a bit much. That's a bit out of kilter with the circumstances of the day. That is going to make your milk prices go up and your gas prices go up and the building industry close and thousands of businesses shut.' No, there is never a problem with CEO wages going up or bonuses going up or share issues going up. They think that is fine because it is within the laws of the jungle. They think that is a healthy economy in practice, people getting rewarded for effort, as the member for Fisher said. But God forbid that the people on the minimum wage should get a pay rise. To them that will let loose the four horses of the apocalypse the very next day, ridden by bikies from the CFMMEU or some kind of bizarre dark fantasy that those people have. They should put some employment the way of the counselling and psychology sector and get some of those weird fantasies attended to. That is what they should do. That would help the economy. Go and lie on the couch and confess to some of those bizarre visions and have them attended to, but we're not going to go along with that. We know that fair and safe working conditions are a core value of the Australian community and that Australians absolutely insist on the right and on the inherent justice that is involved in workers being able to get a fair share of the outcomes of their efforts, to go to work and come home safely and to have the benefit of evolving reforms like we've done with 10 days of paid family and domestic violence leave. They have the benefit of having a government that doesn't say: 'Look what happened with asbestos and asbestosis. Let's let the next version of that creep up on us.' Instead this government is saying, 'No, we know that there is a problem with silica related diseases, and we are going to seriously get on the front foot about that before we see more people affected by something that will result in acute and in some cases grave health issues down the track.' What we're going to do are the kinds of things that those opposite somehow seem to regard as the most extreme changes in the history of the world, not something moderate and tempered. We are going to make sure that there is a fair and objective definition of casual employee—shock, horror. We're going to protect bargained wages in enterprise agreements from being undercut. We think that, when people are working in the same job in the same place, you shouldn't be able to surreptitiously or cunningly make use of a labour hire arrangement, or at least not for a legitimate purposes because there are legitimate purposes to which labour hire arrangements can be put. But we don't think it's okay to simply create a labour hire arrangement as an additional subsidiary and subordinate workforce, with the purpose of undercutting the wages of people who are already there. We don't think that's okay and we're going to change it. We don't think that wage theft should go unchecked in this country. People—particularly young people, but not just young people when you think that 40 per cent of casual employees are over 35—should go back into their communities, or even to their families, and ask people that they know, 'Do you reckon you've ever worked somewhere where you weren't getting paid properly or where you knew what the award was but you got a couple of dollars less?' Perhaps they knew that there was a penalty rate but their employer quietly said, 'Yeah, but we don't pay that.' My kids have experienced it. My mum has experienced it. My brother has experienced it. You ask around. You will not find many people out of 10 who, at some point, haven't worked in a place where the employer has decided to cut a corner and help themselves to some of the output of their worker in order to put a little bit more coin in their own pocket. Well, we're going to do something to turn the wheel on that issue. We're going to allow the Fair Work Commission to set fair minimum standards with respect to the road transport industry, an industry that has been beset, for understandable reasons, with risks to those workers for too long because of the nature of the work. We are doing what any responsible government would do. We start from the position that fair and safe working conditions are an entitlement of every Australian; they are a core value of our Australian way of life. They didn't happen by accident. We didn't end up where we are today, with the existing framework, by accident. We fought for it. The labour movement fought for it. Unions fought for it. Workers fought for it. Labor governments answered those calls and implemented those changes and built that framework. But it is a dynamic living thing. It will always be subject to erosion. It will always be subject to the possibility that people will pay consultants to find loopholes and ways around things out of their own self-interest, and against the interests of workers. It will always be subject to being less effective over time because the world changes. Things like the gig economy—Deliveroo and all that sort of stuff—come along, when perhaps 25 years ago they weren't anticipated. We are doing this, pretty smartly, in our first term, off the back of the jobs summit and all of the consultation, and with the clarity in the lead-up to the election about what our intentions were in this space. We are going to turn the wheel to make working conditions in Australia fairer and safer for Australian workers. That's what Australians deserve. That's what they insist upon, that's what they voted on, and that's what the Albanese Labor government will be delivering. Debate adjourned. BILLS 69 BILLS Crimes Legislation Amendment (Combatting Foreign Bribery) Bill 2023 69

Crimes Legislation Amendment (Combatting Foreign Bribery) Bill 2023

Second Reading 69 18:33 Mr STEVENS 176304 Sturt I rise to speak on the second reading of the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Combatting Foreign Bribery) Bill 2023, which obviously sits within a broader framework of integrity measures that we in this parliament and in previous parliaments have, I think, a good track record of progressing. I'd start by saying that I think we can all respect and understand that these sorts of topics require legislation to be fairly regularly refreshed and updated. Much like we've passed some other important integrity measures through the parliament in recent times—which continue to take us forward and ensure that we have a very robust framework in place in our society—thus it is the case that, with the amendment here, we are making sure that we have the most robust framework in place to make sure that Australians and/or Australian businesses are not engaging in the bribery of foreign officials. It's been a great development over recent decades that Australian companies are so deeply integrated and engaged in the global economy. I'm sure everyone in this place very much understands that it is the strong export performance of our businesses that underpins the standard of living that we have in this country and that we're all very grateful for. There are so many businesses to be proud of that are doing great things overseas. I'm very proud to have worked for a great Australian exporting company, Michell, the wool company, established in South Australia in 1870. It's still a family business, with the sixth generation of the family in the business and the fifth generation at the helm. I spent eight years working at that business. It was certainly the first experience that I'd had in dealing in foreign trade and international commerce, and it was extremely eye-opening. As much as you think you understand running a business and the commercial environment in your own country, once you get exposed to transactions across borders, it absolutely transforms your understanding of and your appreciation for, frankly, the structure and order and quality of the way in which the Australian economy operates. Being in the textile industry, of course, there were some particularly interesting markets that I had the privilege and pleasure to be exposed to and to work in, as I rose through the ranks of the company and then into leadership roles in some significant markets. At that company, and in talking with compatriots engaged in selling good Aussie produce to the rest of the world, I learned a lot and heard a lot about the challenges and risks of doing business in other countries. Certainly, I'm sure there are temptations for businesses and individuals to engage in practices that sometimes are presented to them as being just, as that famous expression goes, 'part of doing business' in a particular part of the world. But we should have standards that we set for our businesses and our citizens that we expect them to be held to, not only in our own country but wherever they are and whatever they're doing around the world. The essence of this amendment is to strengthen the legislative situation around penalties et cetera for the bribing of foreign public officials. Regrettably, those temptations are there, pretty consistently, around a lot of countries. I saw, at times, interesting behaviours and practices from some market participants and some competitors, frankly—particularly around tax avoidance and things like dubious invoices, or multiple invoices, depending on whether it was the invoice for the purposes of calculating a customs tariff, or the amount that would be declared in a particular market for the purposes of the tax that that company might pay in that market, or the actual transaction that would invariably be made into a numbered Swiss bank account or what have you. There are certainly some wild practices that occur in international trade and global commerce. But we shouldn't laugh them off or think, 'Oh, well, that's all part of doing business,' because it shouldn't be. The important thing, when we're debating this bill, is to be aware of the fact that there isn't much strengthening framework amongst other countries. Certainly the United States have been a leader in this area; I think they were one of the first countries, or possibly the first jurisdiction, to legislate an offence in this area. We are, of course, a signatory to an important framework that sees other countries that we would expect to be in the company of, when it comes to legislation in these areas, like the United Kingdom, having similar legislative frameworks being put into place. But I think it is also important to note in the debate, and certainly my understanding is that, whilst the offences exist, there have been very limited prosecutions or particularly successful prosecutions. Although I would hope that that was because there's almost no offending going on, regrettably it is probably more likely the case that the offending is not being captured as much as the purpose of the legislation envisaged—hence, we are here debating this bill right now. So we need to be strengthening the provisions in that act and putting stronger powers in place for the investigating agencies to make sure that we're holding Australian companies and Australian citizens to the highest standards when it comes to the way in which they do business and the conduct that they engage in when they're seeking to, through legal means, be as competitive and as successful as they possibly can be internationally. I want to conclude by paying tribute again to the successful Australian businesses that make us so proud through the way in which they succeed around the world. There are some great ones, particularly from my home state of South Australia. I mentioned a company that I worked for, Michelle, but I'm also particularly proud to have the great Penfolds winery located in the heart of my electorate. The original Magill Estate winery is probably in the absolute middle of my electorate, and I wish part of being the local member meant better treatment from them when it comes to free produce sampling at Grange release time, but it turns out that isn't something they do for the local federal member, understandably. But I am very proud of businesses like Penfolds and Michelle. There are so many businesses that are succeeding on the international stage and, as I say, exporting goods and services and growing our economy. We know that the vast majority—almost the entirety—of them are doing the right thing. Some of them, like Penfolds, are actually victims of practices such as the counterfeiting of their brand and their wine, which occurs unfortunately all too frequently around the world, but that's, I suppose, a backhanded compliment and indication of the esteem that that brand is held in. We want them to be successful, but we also want them not to compromise their ethics and their integrity. We should have a framework in place that ensures that we set a standard for our businesses and individuals in those businesses that doesn't tolerate practices like the bribery of foreign public officials. On that basis, I commend the bill to the House. 18:42 Mr DAVID SMITH 276714 Bean The Albanese government has no tolerance for corruption of any kind, whether in the public sector or in the private sector. Since coming to office just over a year ago, we have walked the walk and we have got on with the job through action. With the support of this parliament, we are restoring integrity, honesty and accountability to government with the commencement of the National Anti-Corruption Commission. During the 2022 federal election, Australians were clear that they wanted a national anticorruption watchdog and they wanted a government that they could trust. Indeed, the electors of my electorate in Bean were very clear in wanting the National Anti-Corruption Commission, many of them spending much of their careers in public administration. They clearly put integrity on the ballot, and they voted accordingly. The measures in the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Combatting Foreign Bribery) Bill 2023 address challenges with detecting, investigating and prosecuting foreign bribery in Australia. These measures build on our work to date in tackling corruption. Foreign bribery is another form of corruption, and it's an insidious problem across the world. Bribery, in particular, harms investment and economic growth. It distorts markets, artificially inflates prices and leads to substandard products being procured. Further, it undermines efforts against poverty and disease and facilitates serious transnational crimes. Bribery corrodes good governance and contributes to social and economic inequality in local communities where it occurs. It is rightly the business of this parliament to be addressing these issues. Thankfully, Australia is party to a number of international instruments aimed at fighting corruption including bribery. These include the United Nations Convention Against Corruption, the United Nations Convention Against Transnational Organized Crime, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, the OECD, and the Convention on Combatting Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions. In addition, Australia's also engaged in the following regional and international forums and initiatives: the G20 Anti-Corruption Working Group, the OECD Working Group on Bribery in International Business Transactions, the Anti-Corruption and Transparency Experts Working Group and the ADB-OECD Anti-Corruption Initiative for Asia-Pacific. Undetected and unpunished, bribery undermines the reputation of all Australian business and negatively impacts business and government relations. The Australian government has a zero-tolerance policy in relation to foreign bribery and supports ethical business practices. This bill is both welcome and overdue. Bribery by its very nature is incredibly difficult to investigate and prosecute. It is both opaque and sophisticated. Sadly, as other speakers have already said, there have been relatively few foreign bribery prosecutions in Australia. The current foreign bribery defence in division 70 of the Commonwealth Criminal Code has been overly prescriptive and difficult to use. The bill seeks to address this issue. It does so by replacing the existing foreign bribery offence with a new, carefully developed offence. For example, the prosecution needs to show that both the bribe and the business advantage were 'not legitimately due'. This wording presents difficulties for prosecutors, so it will be replaced with 'improperly influencing a foreign public official'. This bill also broadens the scope of the foreign bribery offence so that it will now capture bribery conducted to obtain personal advantage. This is because experience shows that bribes can include a range of benefits, including personal honours, the processing of visa or immigration requests, or reducing personal tax liability. Further, this bill seeks to prevent foreign bribery in the first place by implementing a new indictable corporate offence. This is in order to overcome the problem of companies that wilfully turn a blind eye to misconduct by their employees. These provisions will apply to companies when an associate bribes a foreign public official for the profit or gain of the corporation. Importantly, the offence would not apply if a body corporate was able to demonstrate that it had adequate procedures in place to prevent the bribe in the first instance. In a positive sense, this new provision will provide an incentive to companies to be proactive about preventing bribery. I know many Australian companies already have rigorous procedures in place to combat bribery, and I commend them on this. To assist those companies that may not have the necessary procedures in place, guidance material on what constitutes adequate procedures will be produced. The measures in this bill may sound very familiar to those opposite. That's because they're virtually identical to the amendments introduced by those opposite in 2017 and then reintroduced in 2019. Both times, under the watch of those opposite, those bills were allowed to lapse, failing to even be debated. The previous government had years to bring the measures forward for debate and pass them. It didn't. On these matters of corruption and bribery, there can be no leeway. We must be vigilant. The stakes are too high. Australia's international reputation for world-leading corporate governance, including antibribery provisions, must be protected, and this bill does that. Indeed, the fact that this bill will help the government to crack down on bribes that are built into seemingly legitimate contractual arrangements is a particular positive. What makes this bill particularly critical is recent reports of millions of taxpayer dollars allegedly being paid to foreign officials through suspicious contracts between private companies and subcontractors engaged by the Department of Home Affairs on Nauru and in Papua New Guinea. These are allegations of suspicious contracts during the time when the now Leader of the Opposition was the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection and the Minister for Home Affairs. He was in charge. He knew what was going on, one would assume. Reports suggest that the Department of Home Affairs may have disregarded what was effectively a bribe disguised as a legitimate contractual arrangement. This happened, as I said, when the now Leader of the Opposition was the Minister for Home Affairs. He had responsibility. Furthermore, when the now Leader of the Opposition was in his role as the Minister for Home Affairs, he knew that his department had a multimillion-dollar regional processing contract with a man who'd been charged by the AFP with foreign bribery. Even if the Leader of the Opposition claims that he did not know about the bribery at the time, these contracts became a matter of public record in September 2018. In September 2018 Mr Bhojani, who was associated with Radiance International, was charged by the AFP for foreign bribery. In August 2020 he was convicted, after pleading guilty. The department continued to pay Mr Bhojani millions of taxpayer dollars and extended contracts with his company during this period. Mr Dreyfus HWG Shame! Mr DAVID SMITH 276714 Disgraceful indeed. One of the companies related to suspicious contracts on Nauru was Canstruct International. A contract was awarded to this company to provide welfare and garrison services on Nauru, despite the company not having any experience of providing either of these services to vulnerable people. The contract between the department and Canstruct International was extended many times, without a competitive tender. This was a shelf company with no relevant experience, getting a $1.8 billion contract, without a competitive tender, from the former government. We also know that the Leader of the Opposition knows this company very well. Executives of Canstruct enjoyed exclusive access to the now Leader of the Opposition during this period. These sorts of arrangements are exactly what this government intends to target through amendments to this bill. I will say that the corporates in this case, in respect of this bill, will be protected where they can show that they have followed adequate procedures that are in place to prevent foreign bribery by an associate. As I said before, we're going to have guidance material for the corporations. They can follow that guidance material and then make sure that they're above reproach. The UK has utilised a similar offence to prosecute companies in a few cases of foreign bribery. These are reforms that ensure that a company cannot simply ignore bribery conducted by its employees or contractors where it results in benefits for their business. They cannot pretend that it's business as usual. Companies can currently avoid criminal liability under existing offences in the Criminal Code even if they know or strongly suspect foreign bribery is occurring. These companies have been able to remain wilfully blind to the activities of their associates, including through the use of third-party agents located offshore. These reforms will enable bribery by an associate of a corporation to trigger corporate liability. The reforms will also create a new offence—that is certainly true—for corporations that fail to prevent foreign bribery. The maximum penalty will be $27.5 million or higher. Companies can also be held directly liable for the foreign bribery activities of their employees, external contractors, agents and subsidiaries, unless a business can demonstrate that they had adequate procedures in place. That is eminently fair. You are responsible, as an entity, for the operations that you are conducting as a corporate entity. These reforms are about ensuring accountability, something that was very far away from the minds of the opposition when they were in government, with respect to sitting on this bill and doing nothing for so many years. We know that prosecuting for foreign bribery is currently so challenging. As I said earlier, that's why we are making the changes to the definitions in division 70 of the Commonwealth Criminal Code. As part of this bill, the existing foreign bribery offence will be replaced to ensure that it better captures typical cases of foreign bribery identified by law enforcement. Prosecutors currently need to show that both the bribe and the business advantage it sought were 'not legitimately due', which is difficult in cases where bribes are disguised as legitimate payments. This bill replaces the need for this and instead requires prosecutors to demonstrate the improper influencing of a foreign public official. It also broadens the scope of the foreign bribery offence to include bribery conducted that involves a personal advantage, not just a business advantage. It modifies the definition of 'foreign public official' to include candidates for public office—quite rightly. The bill also introduces a new corporate offence of failure to prevent foreign bribery. This relates to cases where an associate of a body corporate has committed bribery for the benefit of the body corporate. The Albanese government is taking action on foreign bribery by Australian companies after 10 years of nothing happening. This is about accountability and the value of accountability, which we hold high. This is about having no tolerance for corruption. That is why we are pushing ahead with this bill, despite the empty protestations of some of the speakers opposite and the do-nothing attitude that was emblematic of the opposition when they were in government. It's time for us to take action. It's time for us to pass this bill through the House. 18:54 Mr DREYFUS HWG Isaacs The government thanks the members who've contributed to this debate on the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Combatting Foreign Bribery) Bill 2023. I would note the many contributions that have drawn attention to the lack of seriousness with which the former government approached this question of foreign bribery and the lack of seriousness with which the former government approached not only the question of foreign bribery but looking into allegations of foreign bribery when they arose and looking into the interaction of foreign bribery with a range of contracts that the former government had entered into. To go to the purpose of this bill, it is to strengthen the legal framework for prosecuting foreign bribery and to give effect to Australia's international obligations under the OECD anti-bribery convention. The government has no tolerance for corruption of any kind, whether in the public sector or in the private sector. Foreign bribery is corruption. It is an insidious problem across the world. It harms communities, impedes economic development and undermines the rule of law. The measures in the bill are long overdue. As a number of members have noted in the course of this debate, the former government introduced a bill containing virtually identical amendments in December of 2017. It was accompanied by a strongly worded media release. And then? Nothing. Without any explanation, the former government never even brought that bill on for debate. It lapsed at the end of the 45th Parliament. In December 2019, some six or so months after the 2019 election, the former government introduced another bill containing the same amendments, accompanied again by another strongly worded media release. But that bill was never brought on for debate either. Once again, without any explanation, the former government allowed these critical measures to lapse. In other words, after the 2019 election, the former government brought back the bill in December 2019 and that was the last we heard of it. It was so typical of the incompetent former government, a government that was very, very big on announcements and very, very small on action. What a disgrace that the inaction should have been on foreign bribery. The Albanese government has a different approach to the insidious problem of foreign bribery. This government is committed to acting where the former government failed to act. As a signatory to the OECD anti-bribery convention, Australia is required to ensure that our laws are effective in holding natural and legal persons to account for foreign bribery. To do this, the bill amends the current foreign bribery offence to replace the requirement that the advantage sought be 'not legitimately due' with the concept of 'improperly influencing a foreign public official' to capture bribes concealed as legitimate payments. The bill also broadens the scope of the offence to ensure that it keeps pace with the evolution of foreign bribery conduct. The new offence will capture bribery conducted for personal advantage, not just a business advantage. It removes the requirement that a foreign official be influenced in the course of their official duties. It also makes clear that the prosecution does not have to prove that an accused had a specific advantage in mind and that the advantage can be obtained for someone else. The bill also introduces a new offence for companies that fail to prevent foreign bribery by an associate unless the company can show that it had adequate proceedings in place to prevent foreign bribery. The bill requires the Attorney-General to publish guidance on the steps that a body corporate can take to prevent an associate from bribing foreign public officials. The Attorney-General's Department released a draft version of the guidance in 2020 for public consultation. Once the measures in this bill are enacted, a final version of the guidance will be published in advance of the commencement of the new corporate offence to ensure businesses have sufficient time to implement adequate procedures. During the course of the debate, a number of honourable members on the opposite side of this chamber raised the issue of deferred prosecution agreements. Under the former government's proposed deferred prosecution agreement scheme, which it introduced into the parliament twice—just to remind members, that was in 2017 and then, when that bill lapsed at the 2019 election, we got another bill after the 2019 election, but it was never taken forward, never implemented—the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions would have been encouraged to negotiate so-called deferred prosecution agreements with companies that have engaged in criminal activity, as an alternative to prosecution. Under a deferred prosecution agreement, a company could negotiate the payment of a penalty and undertake to do certain things to ensure it or its employees don't engage in the conduct again. If the company breached the agreement, the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions would be able to prosecute. Under the proposed scheme, corporations that engaged in serious criminal conduct would enjoy the unique privilege of being able to negotiate their own punishment under a deferred prosecution agreement. As I said in my second reading speech, when ordinary Australians commit crimes, they feel the full force of the law. However, under the deferred prosecution agreement scheme proposed by the former government, companies that engaged in serious corporate crime, including foreign bribery, would have been able to negotiate a fine, agree to a set of conditions and have their cases put on indefinite hold. This government will only entertain the introduction of such a scheme as a measure of last resort and, in any event, after the measures introduced by this bill have been implemented and given time to work. Corruption is never acceptable and this government's starting point is that when companies engage in serious criminal wrongdoing, like foreign bribery, they should feel the full force of the law. This bill enhances Australia's response to foreign bribery and supports our obligations under the OECD antibribery convention. It is shameful that the former government, over years and years—over two terms of this parliament—failed to legislate to give effect to Australia's international obligations and failed to act to do more about foreign bribery. This bill demonstrates our government's commitment to tackling corruption and, in particular, ensuring our laws are effective in detecting, investigating and prosecuting foreign bribery. I commend the bill to the House. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. Third Reading 74 19:03 Mr DREYFUS HWG Isaacs by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. National Occupational Respiratory Disease Registry Bill 2023, National Occupational Respiratory Disease Registry (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2023 74

National Occupational Respiratory Disease Registry Bill 2023

National Occupational Respiratory Disease Registry (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2023

Second Reading 74 19:04 Mr KHALIL 101351 Wills The Albanese government is aware that the current rates of silicosis and other occupational respiratory diseases are unacceptably high in Australia. Silicosis is an irreversible lung disease. It affects workers who are exposed to silica dust, mainly in the construction and mining industries, and those working with engineered stone industries. Currently, there are no effective treatments for silicosis. Once damage from silicosis occurs, it cannot be reversed. Treatment focuses on slowing down progression and relieving symptoms. In severe cases, a lung transplant may be required. Silicosis is said to have caused death and disability in Australia for over 100 years. According to Lung Foundation Australia, around 600,000 Australian workers are potentially exposed to silica dust each year across various industries. Tragically these are preventable conditions and often preventable deaths. Everyone has the right to feel safe and protected at work, and this government feels passionately about this. We all do. Workers should not have to be exposed to unacceptable risks in workplaces or fall ill or die because their employers failed to keep them safe at work. The Australian Workers Union, the AWU, highlights that our safety standards and their enforcement in Australia are so shameful that even workers in the United States and Mexico have better protection from silica dust. The AWU has been fiercely campaigning to protect workers from silicosis. I want to acknowledge the ongoing efforts in awareness-raising and leading some of the broader advocacy that has been conducted. The Australian Workers Union has highlighted stories of the personal challenges of many Australians who have suffered detrimental consequences from exposure at work. One of these is from Michelle Iorangi, a 40-year-old Brisbane mother of six. She talks of her once active husband's rapid decline and death after working at a Brisbane powder-coating company. She explained that her husband would often return home covered in a thick layer of silica dust. He needed to use dish washing liquid to wash off the powder, as soap itself did not remove it from his skin. She said that the workplace didn't do much for dust prevention. In 2015, her husband, Nako, had scarring on his lungs. His condition unfortunately progressed quickly, and he died in 2019. I commend Michelle on her bravery in sharing her personal story, as difficult as it was for her to do so, with the inquiry as part of the federal government's National Dust Disease Taskforce. The story of Michelle and her husband—these are real stories. These are real impacts on families who have tragically lost loved ones from situations that could have been, frankly, prevented. This government commits to tackling occupational respiratory diseases. We are introducing reforms with the National Occupational Respiratory Disease Registry Bill 2023 and the National Occupational Respiratory Disease Registry (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2023 to ensure that there are world-class prevention and treatment measures, ensuring workers are protected from unacceptable health risks. We're doing this by: working with health professionals, unions and industry to develop a national silicosis prevention strategy and national action plan; investing in education campaigns for employers, workers and health professionals to improve prevention, detection and treatment; investigating ways to limit the use of engineered stone, including an import ban; and working with state and territories on a coordinated approach to keep workers safe. The National Occupational Respiratory Disease Registry Bill 2023 delivers on recommendations made by the National Dust Disease Taskforce. The taskforce had recommended the establishment of a national occupational respiratory disease registry. A national registry enables us to consistently collect information about respiratory diseases that have been caused occupationally or exacerbated in that way. Data collection is essential to better understand the true extent of these diseases in Australia and to help us take action to further reduce workplace exposure. The registry will also be used to collect information from certain medical specialists who diagnose occupational respiratory diseases and allow information about the diagnosis, patient and exposure details to be shared within the registry via an online portal. At this stage, based on recommendations of the taskforce, only silicosis will initially be a prescribed occupational respiratory disease. The mandatory elements that must be notified will also be kept to a minimum to ensure that the potential burden on physicians is limited. Where consent is provided, additional information can be collected relating to demographics and lifestyle. This includes smoking history, employment status and details of employment where individuals may have been exposed to a respiratory disease-causing agent. Information sharing will be made easier through this reform, to ensure that people can be provided with the best possible care. This includes information being made available to physicians treating the individual, as well as sharing notifications about an individual from the national registry to Commonwealth, state or territory authorities and state and territory health and safety agencies. The information-sharing element will increase awareness of the prevalence of occupational respiratory diseases across our country and help us take actions to reduce further worker exposure to these diseases. Having a national registry demonstrates the government's commitment to keeping workers safe. The devastating story that I relayed of Michelle Iorangi and her husband, Nako, are real stories of families impacted by this tragic illness. His death and the death of many others were preventable. People should not have to fall ill or die because employers fail to keep them safe at work. These reforms are part of the broader efforts of this government to tackle occupational respiratory diseases. This bill demonstrates the Albanese government's commitment to not only understanding the occupational respiratory health of workers but also taking important steps to support the early detection and prevention of workplace risks, as well as developing strategies to protect workers from further exposure. It demonstrates this government's commitment to taking action to protect Australians from exposure to unacceptable workplace risks. It demonstrates this government's commitment to safety for workers on the job, and this is something that we are all passionate about. If there is a life that can be saved or prevented from being taken in a workplace, that is something that we have to do everything we can to support, such as through this legislation. 19:11 Ms PAYNE 144732 Canberra I rise today to speak on this urgent and critical bill, the National Occupational Respiratory Disease Registry Bill 2023. The rates of silicosis and other occupational respiratory diseases in our country are unacceptably high, leading to not only preventable illness but also, tragically, far too many preventable deaths. I want to commend the work of many for ensuring this bill and this issue is front of mind. Specifically, I want to thank the CFMEU and the ACTU for their strong campaigning on behalf of their members. Without the alarm bells sounded by the union movement, many more Australian workers would be subject to these deadly respiratory diseases. As Zach Smith, the secretary of the CFMEU, has said, 'Engineered stone is killing workers. This is the asbestos of the 2020s.' Over half a million Australian workers are currently exposed to silica dust every day on the job. According to Curtin University, more than 10,000 of those people will eventually be diagnosed with silicosis as a result. The stories of those diagnosed are heartbreaking. Kyle Goodman, a former stonemason, said: Four and a half years ago, I was given between five and eight years to live. It's a death sentence. There's no cure; there's no treatment. I'm out of breath very easily. We're now seeing another young generation of tradesmen like myself having their lives shortened dramatically by a product that is not essential to the building industry. As Kyle says, these diseases don't discriminate based on age either. Workers in their 20s, 30s and 40s have all been diagnosed with silicosis. I want to encourage employers around the nation to do the right thing and protect their workers. We've seen too many cases where employers put their employees in seriously dangerous situations, despite increases in workplace health and safety compliance checks. The ABC reported that one company in New South Wales was inspected and given multiple improvement notices—notices which have allowed them to continue operating. In this business, workers were not wearing proper protective equipment, no training was provided about the risks of silica dust, no health monitoring was offered, and the silica dust was found absolutely everywhere, including in the toilets. The regulator came back a few years later to inspect the factory again. They found that conditions had not changed at all, and the business was fined $3,600. Two years after that, workers from that business began to be diagnosed with silicosis. Shockingly, after all this, when the regulator returned for another inspection, further breaches were found. It is completely unconscionable for employers to be putting the health of their workers in danger to make money. We must take bold action to protect the health and lives of our workers, and that's exactly what this bill does. The government's commitment to the wellbeing of Australian workers is clear. We are completely dedicated to confronting the challenge of occupational respiratory diseases head-on, and we are resolute in our mission to ensure that our prevention and treatment measures stand as world-class exemplars, safeguarding our workers against the health risks they face daily. To achieve this, we are rolling out a comprehensive strategy—a strategy that underscores our determination to leave no stone unturned in protecting our workers. We are developing a national silicosis prevention strategy and a national action plan in collaboration with health professionals, unions and industry experts. This collaborative effort is a testament to our belief that only through unity can we craft effective solutions. Education is a cornerstone of our approach. We are investing in educational campaigns that target employers, workers and health professionals. This initiative seeks to bolster prevention, detection and treatment. We are also examining ways to limit the use of engineered stone, including exploring an import ban therefore taking the critical step of reducing exposure to this harmful product. We must also foster coordination among states and territories. We believe in a united front in keeping workers safe. This bill, the National Occupational Respiratory Disease Registry Bill, stands as a testament to this commitment. This bill comes as a result of the recommendations of the National Dust Disease Taskforce and is aimed at establishing the National Occupational Respiratory Disease Registry. The alarming increase in silicosis cases among stonemasons working on engineered stone benchtops has spurred us into action. The national registry proposed by this bill will serve as a repository of information related to respiratory diseases believed to be caused or exacerbated by occupational conditions. This information will be pivotal in understanding the true extent of these diseases in Australia, guiding us toward effective preventative actions. One of the vital mechanisms of this bill is the requirement for medical specialists in fields related to respiratory and sleep medicine and occupational and environmental medicine to notify the national registry about the diagnosis of certain occupational respiratory diseases. This proactive measure will ensure timely and accurate data collection, serving as a foundation for informed policy decisions. This bill sets out the necessary framework for notification, and it ensures that this requirement remains reasonable and effective for medical practitioners. By initially focusing on silicosis as a prescribed occupational disease, we are taking a calculated approach while reserving the flexibility to include other diseases in the future. The bill also recognises the significance of ensuring that the notified information reaches the relevant parties. It enables the disclosure of notifications to prescribed authorities and health agencies, fostering increased awareness and targeted interventions. Let me emphasise that this bill does not operate in isolation. It works in synergy with the efforts of Australian governments—federal, state and territory—to mitigate workplace exposure. It's a tangible embodiment of our unwavering commitment to protecting Australia's workers. By establishing the national registry, we are making a powerful statement: workers safety comes first; the health of Australian workers come first. I want to commend the former government for their action in the previous term of parliament and their bipartisanship in supporting this bill, and I acknowledge their work in setting up the National Dust Disease Taskforce. The urgency of this bill cannot be understated. We must send a clear message that the health and lives of Australian workers are not negotiable, and that this place stands as a staunch defender of their rights, their safety and their future because everyone should be safe at work. 19:19 Mr GEORGANAS DZY Adelaide Nobody should go to work and contract diseases that kill them. That's why I rise here today in support of the National Occupational Respiratory Disease Registry Bill, which delivers on the recommendations of the National Dust Disease Taskforce. As a co-chair of the Parliamentary Friends of Lung Health and Lung Cancer, our mission is very clear: to prioritise lung diseases and raise awareness. Every breath matters, and our efforts aim to ensure healthier lives for everyone. The rate at which we are seeing silicosis and other occupational respiratory diseases rising in Australia is unacceptably high. Nearly one in four engineered stone workers who were in the industry prior to 2018 has been diagnosed with silicosis or other silica dust related diseases, and this number is still predicted to rise, most notably among young men. These are distressing facts and figures for illnesses that are entirely preventable, and all too often lead to entirely preventable deaths. By working together, we can achieve a future free from preventable illnesses. That is why we are committed to tackling occupational respiratory diseases. We're undertaking a suite of reform to ensure Australia's prevention and treatment measures are world class and protecting workers from unacceptable health risks. That is why we've taken the recommendation of the National Dust Disease Taskforce to establish a national occupational respiratory disease registry seriously. The national registry will allow for the reporting of all occupational respiratory diseases, and it will ensure that everybody who contracts an occupational dust related disease will have that recorded on the register. But, most importantly, if you have silicosis, that recording will be absolutely mandatory. The national registry rules capture information relating to respiratory diseases that are believed to have been occupationally caused or exacerbated and support the use of this information to truly understand the scale of these diseases in Australia and to take action to reduce further exposures in the workplace. As a proud ambassador in South Australia of the Asbestos Diseases Society of South Australia, I've witnessed firsthand some of the fantastic work that groups out in the community are doing in this area. I've also witnessed firsthand the great work that the Asbestos Diseases Society of South Australia is doing. It continues to provide enormous support for sufferers of asbestos related diseases. The Asbestos Diseases Society of South Australia was set up in 2005 by the late Jack Watkins. Jack was a long-time campaigner for asbestos victims and a sufferer of asbestos disease. A commendable initiative by the Asbestos Diseases Society of South Australia and fostered by the Enfield council is the Jack Watkins Reserve, which is in my electorate of Adelaide. The park is home to a memorial for victims of dust related diseases, and every year we lay wreaths for people that have been lost to these dreadful dust diseases. Jack Watkins Reserve serves as a reminder of the lives impacted by these diseases and provides a place for the community to come together to honour the memory of those loved ones that they've lost. I'm very honoured to be able to speak about a remarkable individual whose dedication has made a profound impact on the lives of many. The current president of the Asbestos Diseases Society of South Australia, Mr Peter Photakis, stands as a beacon of hope in our community, and I'm proud to have him in my electorate of Adelaide. It is through the tireless efforts of individuals like Mr Photakis that the Asbestos Diseases Society of South Australia is a symbol of support, understanding and advocacy for those affected by asbestos related illnesses. Attending events hosted by Peter and his team is always a privilege, but it also brings home the angst associated with dust diseases. It is an opportunity where you witness firsthand the incredible work that they accomplish. It is also a chance to connect with the people involved and hear their stories. These accounts are challenging to accept, but they are the harsh reality for many people. Peter receives at least two to three phone calls a week from individuals that have either just been diagnosed with a dust related disease or are worried about the potential of it happening. Whilst the Asbestos Diseases Society of South Australia is based in my wonderful electorate of Adelaide, the people calling Peter come from all over Australia. Silicosis has become an alarming concern, reaching a point where both asbestos and silicosis are prominent issues that we must confront. We need to get it sorted out before it gets any worse. The urgency is undeniable. Now, unlike asbestos related cancers that take decades to manifest, silicosis can take merely six years to pose a significant threat to one's health. The gravity of this problem extends beyond manufactured stone. Correct personal protective equipment and education is vital in preventing it. Along with the Asbestos Diseases Society of South Australia, another great South Australian organisation working hard to protect and look after those impacted by dust related diseases lies in my electorate, again in Adelaide: the Asbestos Victims Association. The James Hardie factory in Elizabeth in South Australia once manufactured asbestos products. Many people worked there. Colin Arthur's efforts led to the formation of the Asbestos Victims Association, and they've been campaigning for justice and compensation for victims ever since. The Asbestos Victims Association's advocacy, including support from members of parliament here, resulted in legal changes benefiting asbestos victims. Melissa Haylock's case led to a groundbreaking legal precedent allowing compensation for services as a mother. Peter Beinke, an electrician diagnosed with asbestos disease, left a bequest to support regional patients seeking treatment in Adelaide. These organisations work tirelessly because they're committed to helping asbestos victims, and we must stand by them in their efforts with the legislation that we produce in this place. Workers' health is not up for negotiation. We need to continue to implement, and enforce rigorously, regulations that govern workplace safety. These regulations will be regularly updated to ensure they reflect the latest technology and knowledge about health risks. Education is a key and training is necessary. The government is fully dedicated to this. So let's move forward with determination, unity and compassion. Let's banish silicosis, and asbestos and other dust related diseases, from our workplaces for good. The government is committed, because workers' health, as I said earlier, is not negotiable. So I hope everyone stands behind this legislation. Let's stand behind the Australian workforce and a promise that their health and wellbeing matters above all else. By establishing this registry, we are sending a clear message: nobody should go to work and contract diseases that kill them. 19:27 Ms LAWRENCE 299150 Hasluck Silica is complex. It is used for many things, including as a safe food additive and in cosmetics. Silica is the third most abundant trace mineral in the body, after iron and zinc, and it creates bonds between protein molecules. We cannot live without it. Silica dust, though, is dangerous and deadly. In Australia, silicosis was something most closely associated with coal and other mining for much of our history. In more recent years, the silica-laden dust produced when cutting engineered and natural stone for use in homes has been maiming and killing our workers, young and old, at a frightening pace. Minister Kearney stated in her second reading speech that research suggests that nearly one in four engineered-stone workers have contracted silicosis—one in four. Legislators have a duty to investigate, to find information, to listen to and follow the best available expert advice, and to take action. Often, sadly, that knowledge trails behind the headlong development of an industry. Silicosis is neither a homegrown problem, nor restricted to our shores. Around the world, governments are confronted with the same challenge. In many of those countries the government supports the health infrastructure, and the influence of organised unions is not as effective as those we are blessed with. A report from California carried by the National Public Radio just last month described the plight of Latino men in that state with lung disease who've worked in factories that make kitchen and bathroom countertops. The safety agency there has stated that most countertop-fabrication shops are not complying with federal silica rules. The report suggests it remains a blind spot for most other state legislators. From India, another report carried by the Wire, again just last month, describes the village of Budhpura located in the north-western state of Rajasthan as the epicentre of India's sandstone industry. It is also now known as the village of widows. Now, due to the lack of male workers, those widows are working the jobs that their husbands once worked. Debate interrupted. ADJOURNMENT 78 ADJOURNMENT Antarctica 78 19:30 Mr WILKIE C2T Clark I'm proud to reflect on the fact that my home, Hobart, is the gateway to the Antarctic, serving as it does as the nerve centre for international scientific research and conservation efforts in the Antarctic and the Southern Ocean. This is no small matter, resting as it does on the 1959 Antarctic Treaty, which is in itself a remarkable international achievement. The treaty, negotiated during the Cold War, set aside the frozen continent for the purposes of conservation, peace and science, and Australia has been there right from the start, not just as an original signatory to the treaty; for more than 100 years our nation has played a leading role in Antarctic exploration, science and conservation efforts. In Tasmania, we feel a connection to the Antarctic more keenly than perhaps anywhere else on the planet, not least because both Mawson and Amundsen used Hobart's port during their famous expeditions in the early 20th century. Indeed it was from Hobart that Amundsen announced to the world that he'd reached the South Pole, while today the Antarctic research and supply vessels of many nations are a familiar sight on the Hobart waterfront. Moreover, flights to the Antarctic from Hobart pass overhead Kingston, south of Hobart, which is home to the Australian Antarctic Division, and key international organisations, such as the Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources, are headquartered in the capital, regularly bringing together delegations and diplomats with an interest in Antarctica from all over the world. It's no wonder that Australian governments at all levels regularly proclaim Hobart as the gateway to the Antarctic. But, of course, it didn't become so by accident. To maintain this status requires detailed planning and sustained strategic investment of the type that now appears worryingly absent. For example, the recent push for $25 million in savings in the Antarctic Division is galling. Of course the AAD should ensure their spending isn't wasteful—as should all agencies that are trusted with public money—but the recent media reports suggesting that field research on the continent is being reviewed and that two of our permanent bases will be understaffed this summer are, frankly, alarming to say the least. All of this comes at a time when Antarctic sea ice is at record lows, Antarctic temperatures are at record highs and the increased impacts of climate change are being felt globally. All of this would be bad enough, but the problems don't end there, as evidenced by the disrepair of Macquarie Wharf on account of years of state government disinterest and underinvestment. It was understandable then that the former head of AAD recently warned that the state of the wharves was undermining Australia's ability to meet current Antarctic research and support demand, let alone fulfil the promise of Hobart as a gateway city. However, the state government won't proceed on wharf upgrades without federal funding, and the TasPorts proposal before Infrastructure Australia appears to be in limbo. What's more, when the Prime Minister came to Hobart in April this year to announce $240 million of funding for the AFL stadium at Macquarie Point, next to nothing was detailed about the Antarctic and Science Precinct nor the upgrade of the wharf. The most basic of planning would have ensured that our new $529 million ice breaker could fit under the Tasman Bridge to be refuelled at Selfs Point, but it doesn't fit, and the vessel will now have to travel the 1,200 kilometre round trip to Burnie to refuel. Australia's Antarctic programs are obviously vital in helping us understand the impact of climate change. A lack of planning and investment in the programs won't just endanger this research; it may also damage our international standing because the physical presence of Australian facilities and personnel in Antarctica is essential if we are to responsibly uphold our treaty obligations and maintain our credibility as a leading nation in the Antarctic. Tasmania has the world's best Antarctic scientists and other Antarctic experts, but, sadly, they're skating on thin ice right now due to years of poor government policy and planning and chronic government underinvestment. This must be turned around as a genuine national priority. To that end, I call on all levels of government to make meaningful decisions and investments to enhance our Antarctic infrastructure significantly, to bolster on-ice and at-sea research and to demonstrably honour our very important Antarctic Treaty obligations. Project Independence, St Mary MacKillop College 79 19:35 Mr DAVID SMI 276714 Bean TH (—) (): Last week I had the privilege of attending the opening of Project Independence's newest complex in Phillip. The work Project Independence is doing in Canberra represents a new dawn for how we treat those living with an intellectual disability, and the key is in the project's name: independence. The day was a long time coming. Twice disrupted by the pandemic, what was originally a six-month project in 2019 turned into an epic build that has taken almost four years. The first sod was turned right back in August 2019. Then COVID hit and the project was put on hold. It was also delayed by supply issues, construction costs increasing and even the theft of all the dishwashers dropped off to the site for installation in the units. But, despite these setbacks, the residents have now started their journey to homeownership as they move into the units in the Phillip development. This project will see 10 people with intellectual disabilities, with an average age of 29, move into the new units in Phillip. Up until now, nine had been living at home with their families. They now have safe and secure housing and the opportunity to own their own home, with a portion of their disability support pension going towards ongoing costs and an equity share of the property. One of the new residents in Project Independence's Phillip project is 24-year-old Remy, who has been living at home with his parents, Gayle and Bud, in Wanniassa. Remy, a visitor concierge officer right here at Parliament House, is moving into unit 8, with space for his piano and a view of Mount Taylor from the back balcony. He'll now be able to catch the bus to work. Homeownership rates for young people with intellectual disability are amongst the lowest in Australia. The Phillip homes were the third residential scheme opened in Canberra by Project Independence, a not-for-profit enterprise that provides homeownership for people with intellectual disability. Created as a social business, Project Independence aims to provide people with an intellectual disability with a pathway to achieving ownership of a property through ownership of a company share. Project Independence's unique model works in a way that makes sure that people with an intellectual disability who are living out of home for the first time are fully supported while learning essential life skills but are then given the opportunity to grow their independence through buying their own home further down the track, without derailing their financial capacity. As a social business, Project Independence aims to engage with other like-minded organisations, such as governments, businesses and not-for-profit organisations, to develop future housing options for the intellectually disabled, as long as they meet the other objectives of the organisation. Project Independence is an organisation grounded in values that aim to provide a place of safety for residents to grow their independence both financially and socially, with guidance and support, while living within a sustainable, safe and caring community that ensures residents are entitled to a lifestyle that is based on the same rights and opportunities as other citizens have in a shared living environment. I would like to congratulate the board of directors behind Project Independence, including Glenn Keys, the co-founder and managing director of Canberra based Aspen Medical, one of the world's leading providers of outsourced healthcare solutions. Glenn's son, Ehren, who has Down syndrome, is a driver for Glenn's passion for the disability community. Serving with Glenn on the board are David Carr, David Hill—whose son also has an intellectual disability—and, finally, Joseph Yeung. Another three developers have committed to three further Project Independence projects in Canberra, which will add to much-needed supply in Canberra, where 57 people are waiting for their opportunity for independent living. Project Independence is giving hope to Australians living with an intellectual disability. It's projects like this that are a testament to corporate social responsibility. St Mary MacKillop College is celebrating its silver anniversary this week—25 years since St Peter's Catholic College and Padua High School came together in the Tuggeranong valley. It's a thriving year 7 to year 12 school with a social justice heartbeat that has taught thousands of Canberrans every year, from Genesis Owusu and Nick Cotric to Eamon and Stella Smith. Congratulations, MacKillop, on 25 years. May there be another 25 years coming just around the corner. Albanese Government: Infrastructure 80 19:39 Mr CONAGHAN 279991 Cowper I'd like to begin my speech today with a direct quote from Prime Minister Albanese when he was in opposition, back in 2018. As the shadow minister for infrastructure at the time, he said: This is a government that doesn't have a plan for long-term infrastructure investment, that hasn't produced a pipeline of projects, that has gutted Infrastructure Australia and, therefore, will damage Australia's future economic growth and prosperity. I now think that he was perhaps looking into a crystal ball, because that is exactly what this government is doing right now. Australians were told by the now Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government that there would be a short, sharp 90-day review, which was to commence on 1 May. This review was designed to take a razor to $120 billion worth of planned, promised and costed projects right across the country, projects that had been deemed worthy by the department. Yet here we are, on 5 September, and we're still none the wiser as to which projects and funding programs will be continued and which will be axed. While the government pats itself on the back for its budget surplus, which was achieved from those things we sell overseas—the Treasurer couldn't bring himself to say iron ore, coal and gas—the regions, not the cities, wait with baited breath to hear whether pipeline projects that are critical for the growth and prosperity of their communities will actually be delivered. Ninety days—it's fairly specific. It is not vague or open to interpretation like many other things the government has on the table. It's 90 days, yet it has been 128 days and we still have no answers or even any indication of the results of the review. These are critical projects: the Roads to Recovery Program—critical in the regions; the Bridges Renewal Program—critical in regional and rural Australia; the Black Spot Program; and the Heavy Vehicle Safety and Productivity Program. These are projects that our councils, which is the level of government that is closest to the people, one would think, are desperately crying out for. These are successful programs that have saved lives and livelihoods in my electorate and are now being delayed or removed. Then there's the money for regional communities that was promised and budgeted for in the 2022 budget. The most important project in my electorate was probably stage 2 of the Southern Cross University health precinct. This was a crucial piece of infrastructure that was funded; it was in the budget. This would've seen an operational health precinct for up to 48,000 patients a year. Can you imagine how much pressure that would take off the local doctors and the local hospitals? Yet that money was stripped away, and we see that pressure compounding with the cost of living. Over the next 15 years, Coffs Harbour's population is projected to grow by 25 per cent. I don't blame people for moving to Coffs Harbour—it's a beautiful place—but our health services are simply not coping with the current population. Without facilities like the health campus, we're just not going to cope. Further compounding the need is the fact that over 30 per cent of the Coffs Harbour population will be over the age of 65. The Southern Cross University Health Clinic would've provided quality, affordable and dedicated healthcare services across the board. Rather than focusing on symbolism and partisan politics, I ask this government—I plead with this government—to focus on providing for its people in the regions and, in particular, the remote areas. It's time to deliver. Chisholm Electorate: Monash Precinct Network 81 19:45 Dr GARLAND 295588 Chisholm I recently had the opportunity to attend the Monash Precinct Network industry roundtable, where I had the great privilege to spend the afternoon with representatives of some outstanding organisations in my community. The Monash Precinct Network is at the heart of a globally significant innovation cluster in my electorate. World-class organisations form this whole precinct network. Member organisations include pharmaceutical manufacturers, defence manufacturers, the CSIRO, the Australian Synchrotron and advanced manufacturing and medical technology companies. The Monash Precinct Network launched in April this year, and I have been so pleased to be able to support this important and strategic initiative. The precinct contributes $9.4 billion to the economy each year and supports more than 13,000 businesses and more than 82,000 employees, which is quite extraordinary. This precinct is world-class and it delivers impact globally, contributing to productivity, prosperity and the improvement of communities locally and internationally. This industry partnered precinct translates discovery into tangible outcomes in areas ranging from the next generation of pharmaceutical products and medical therapies to automated machines and robotics. It is a really collaborative network underpinned by a unique integrated network of infrastructure which enables all of the partners of the precinct to push the limits of computing, imaging and materials. Having this precinct located in such a good part of the world, in my electorate, which is connected to Monash University and two vital public transport infrastructures, means that we attract the highest calibre of students. They get to work alongside the best and in a wonderful environment too. The industry roundtable was attended by representatives from across industry, including from Monash University, the Eastern Innovation precinct, the Hudson Institute of Medical Research and other partners, including the Monash Tech School, CSIRO, the Australian Synchrotron and the Australian National Fabrication Facility. I'm really proud to be able to represent an electorate that has all these wonderful organisations that call Chisholm home. The topics of conversation were broad and it was a really engaging conversation, ranging from attracting and retaining a future workforce in STEM and accessing the talent and skills of the future to being a sector of choice when it comes to career choices for women. I don't take for a second the opportunity to represent this community for granted. I do not take for granted the amazing contribution that the precinct makes to the nation. I want to take a moment to really congratulate all of the members for the work that they do. I want to acknowledge the general manager of the Monash Precinct Network, Janine Shearer, along with the board, for the invitation to attend the industry roundtable event and other events. I really do look forward to my further engagement with the Monash Precinct Network and its member organisations in the future. I assured all of the organisations present at the time—and I want to put this on the record now—that I will always be a fierce advocate in this place and as a member of the government for the work they do. I acknowledge the enormous opportunity that exists through the National Reconstruction Fund and the other really visionary work that our government is doing to enhance industry in this country as well as research in the higher education space. I know a number of organisations have made submissions to the Australian Universities Accord process, as I have, and I really value the feedback they've been able to provide me to make sure that my contribution is going to be truly representative of the community that I have the pleasure to represent. The connection between universities, vocational education and training, and industry in my electorate is something that I think is truly nation-leading. I'm very proud to represent such an amazing part of Australia. I'm also very eager to continue conversations with colleagues in this place about how we can work collectively and collaboratively to realise the amazing potential that all communities in our country, including my electorate of Chisholm, have when it comes to making sure that we are a country that invests in the future, has wonderful sovereign capability and is a place where people want to study, work and live. Cybersafety 82 19:50 Mr COLEMAN 241067 Banks I want to talk today about an issue which I think is one of the defining issues of our era, and that is the issue of child safety online. For a number of years, we've seen really disturbing trends in youth mental health, not only in Australia but around the world, and it's clear that access to inappropriate content for kids is contributing to that. I am really concerned about a decision that the government made in this area just last week. I want to talk about that, but I will come back to that in a moment. The US Surgeon General is the top doctor in the United States, and occasionally he issues special advisories on issues of urgent public health importance. He did that quite recently, back in April, on the issue of youth mental health and inappropriate content. He said: Children are exposed to harmful content on social media, ranging from violent and sexual content, to bullying and harassment. … We are in the middle of a national youth mental health crisis, and I am concerned that social media is an important driver of that crisis—one that we must urgently address. That's from the top doctor in the United States, and the same issues apply here as well. In that context, one of the critical issues is ensuring that kids don't access material that is inappropriate for them. Then, of course, the question is: How do you do that? How do you ensure that kids don't access inappropriate content? There is an area of technology called age verification, also called age assurance, which is about doing just that: developing technology so that we can more accurately identify the age of users of websites and so that we can help to ensure that kids don't access material that is bad for them. Two years ago, the member for Fisher led a very important parliamentary inquiry called Protecting the age of innocence. That was about the issue of verifying the age of kids online. We asked the eSafety Commissioner to look into this issue, and she did. She spent a lot of time, about two years, very carefully looking into this issue of age assurance or age verification online. How do we protect kids by trying to ensure that they don't access inappropriate material, whether it's pornography, inappropriate material on social media, gambling material, material about alcohol or whatever it is? The eSafety Commissioner gave her report to the government in March, but the government only released it last week. One of the key recommendations in that report was to trial age assurance technology before moving to implementation of age assurance technology. This is common sense. This is about working through the different technologies that are available, determining which is the best and most practical to use so that we can implement a system of age assurance for online technology, to keep kids safe. Inexplicably, the minister has refused to implement this recommendation and instead says that there will be some industry codes on this issue and we can revisit it—effectively years from now. It is an inexplicable decision which I just do not understand at all. The National Children's Commissioner, Anne Hollonds, has been very critical of this. She said that it was needed so that we can safeguard children for whom this material, this content, is really inappropriate and actually can be quite dangerous. She told the Sydney Morning Herald she was disappointed in the decision and that it puts vulnerable children at risk. And just today, couple of hours ago, the eSafety Commissioner was interviewed on the ABC and was asked for her reaction to the government's refusal to implement this really important recommendation. She said that that was a question for government: The government made its decision and I need to get on with using the tools that I have … The commissioner is right: it is a decision for government. But it's an entirely wrong decision. Why would you not adopt this very sensible recommendation? It's been heavily criticised by children's advocates, but it's been welcomed by the pornography industry. It's been welcomed by the Eros Foundation, and whether it's pornography, violent material or other inappropriate material with inappropriate or dangerous content, we have got to do everything we can to protect kids. This is a huge issue for our society not just in Australia but around the world, and the government must implement this important recommendation of the eSafety Commissioner. Calwell Electorate: Health Care 83 19:55 Ms VAMVAKINOU 00AMT Calwell This Saturday, 9 September, the inaugural Pacific Island Women's Health Equity Day will be held in my electorate. The event will be a day aligned with the United Nations sustainable development goal of gender equality. Led by Engaging Pasefika, a Pacific Island led community organisation, it will be a day that brings health stakeholders together with community members to increase healthcare access, inclusion and navigation. Engaging Pasefika Incorporated was born out of the invisibility of Pacific voices in healthcare spaces and the disproportionate impact of COVID-19 in our communities living in the northern suburbs of Melbourne. Its mission is to advance Pacific health equity by leading community initiatives that validate the community's health experience and family systems grounded in the values of family, service, dignity and intersectionality. Engaging Pasefika believes in active awareness raising, and this includes the phrase that there is no equity without data equity. It is hard to invest in community where data is not officially collected to reflect a collective experience. We know that bringing communities together in culturally appropriate ways inspires confidence and generates engagement in civil and social participation. The burden for too long for many of our locally diverse communities has rested on communities to adapt to a health system that does not embrace their cultural, linguistic and social identities. Instead, Engaging Pasefika is calling for a system that is resilient, intersectional and compassionate of the evolving needs of the community it serves. Engaging Pasefika advocates for representation in the health sector, investment in health outcomes and examining the social and commercial determinants of health and inclusion and the shedding of privilege in access and equity. Our local Pacific Island Women's Health Equity Day on 9 September is about addressing health inequities and calling to connect across the differences that divide us. It is a day of purpose, of learning, of connecting and of what some might refer to a self-care, which our Pacific Island people are calling collective care. I want to congratulate and commend all Pacific Island women whose power and prayers sparked the courage to emerge with the organisation of the first Pacific Island Women's Health Equity Day in Victoria to honour Women's Health Week. I'd like to acknowledge the support of our local Pacific community, the Victorian government, VicHealth, Hume City Council and the many health practitioners attending on the day as well as local businesses who have provided their support. I'd also like to thank Anasina Gray-Barberio for her lead in this initiative. I have worked very closely over many years in my local community with the Pacific Island communities, and I'm impressed by their tireless commitment and dedication to delivering support to their community members. On another local health matter, I want to speak about the ongoing crisis of GP shortages in my electorate. Firstly, let me say that I'm very proud of this government's historic investment in Medicare, which delivers the largest ever increase to bulk-billing incentives. I want to thank the Minister for Health and Aged Care in particular for championing this historic investment. The Tullamarine-Broadmeadows catchment, which takes in other suburbs across my electorate, is experiencing a severe GP shortage. Figures show that a true count of GPs in the catchment is 0.721 of a GP full-time equivalent per 1,000 residents, which is fewer than one GP for 1,000 residents. This crisis of the GP shortage is compounded by the workforce shortages, which have caused a supply-demand imbalance in our area. I recently met with DPV Health Broadmeadows with regard to their application for an exceptional circumstances review of the Department of Health's distribution priority area classification. This comes within the context where from July 2021 to June 2023 there were a total of 8,707 potentially avoidable general practitioner-type presentations to Northern Health's emergency departments. This included patients from category 4, which are semi-urgent, and category 5, which are non-urgent. That means an additional 1,081 patients from Broadmeadows and surrounding suburbs, including 6,260 and 1,366 presentations from Craigieburn and Meadow Heights during this time period respectively. These disparities in health access and outcomes must be addressed because everyone deserves access to universal, prompt and world-class medical care. It's a sector where improvements must be made consistent view with changing realities. House adjourned at 20:00 NOTICES 83 NOTICES Presentation 83

Tuesday, 5 September 2023

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

CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS 87 CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS Renewable Energy 87 16:00 Dr HAINES 282335 Indi Regional Australia has the best renewable resources in the world. There are already many large-scale, mostly foreign owned, renewable projects happening across the country. There is no question we need a rapid build of grid-scale renewable projects, generation storage and transmission if we're to meet the government's target of a 43 per cent reduction in emissions by 2030. My electorate of Indi holds two renewable energy zones. Grid-scale solar projects are being built at pace near Glenrowan and Benalla, while the Meadow Creek Solar Farm in the King Valley and the Seymour Wind Farm in the Strathbogie Ranges are in the early stages of planning. The ambition renewables represent is critical if we are to meet our decarbonisation targets. But if we are to meet our national ambition, then the communities who live near these projects deserve to be adequately consulted with and offered opportunities to benefit long-term in the development of these projects. We need to be as ambitious for regional communities as we are for the nation as a whole. It is entirely reasonable and right that people have questions about how these projects will impact their community, property, insurance premiums and farming operations. These concerns are often dismissed as objections to progress—NIMBYism and whingeing farmer stereotypes. But not every question is an objection. Regional communities are hungry for practical ideas about how to maximise the opportunities of the transition, but there are limited entry points for local farmers and families to engage in the process to work with developers and to co-invest in the large-scale projects happening at their farm gate. The economic benefits for regional communities most affected by these projects are not being realised. In July, Senator David Pocock and I worked with the Minister for Climate Change and Energy, Chris Bowen, to initiate a review into community engagement around renewable energy infrastructure projects. The review will provide the government with practical recommendations on how to maximise community engagement and community benefit in planning, developing and operating energy infrastructure. Submissions are now open, and I encourage people across regional Australia to make their voices heard through this process. I'm pleased the review will address impacts of energy infrastructure development on the environment or on agricultural land, including emergency management, fire and biosecurity risks, increases in landholder insurance premiums, tourism impacts and visual amenity. Communities must be able to raise their concerns and have them heard by governments and corporate developers. Critically, they must materially share in the benefits of this energy transformation. We cannot accept that profits go offshore and communities have no say. I've been a strong, practical voice for farmers and regional Australians since coming to this place. They deserve a share of the economic benefits of the renewable energy boom, and community engagement is at the centre of that. Eden-Monaro Electorate: Community Events, Dummett, Ms Alanna 87 16:03 Ms McBAIN 281988 Eden-Monaro Across Eden-Monaro, it is finals footy time. It's been great to get to so many games across the place. I want to give a shout-out to the Queanbeyan Whites Rugby Club for their annual family charity day recently. The first grade team played in special charity jerseys that were auctioned off at Walshs Hotel that night by local Queanbeyan boy and Farmer Wants a Wife contestant Brad Jones. The day had lots of family activities assisting in raising important funds for their 2023 charity partner Emergency, an organisation supporting New South Wales and ACT emergency service workers by providing them PTSD support. The Queanbeyan Whites are the epitome of a community focused sports club. They are not just about rugby; they are constantly finding ways to give back, which was recently seen when three Wallabies legends—Matt Giteau, Drew Mitchell and Adam Ashley-Cooper—laced up their boots to take the field for the Win the Day charity. They raised $11,500 for Emergency, and I can't wait to bid on my own Whites jersey very soon. I want to congratulate Alanna Dummett, originally from Bega, who has been selected as a development player in the Canberra Raiders NRLW's top 24 squad. At only 19, her career is already off to an impressive start, having played for the Raiders in the Tarsha Gale Cup, played in the centres and as captain and recently debuting for the first grade side. She's got a super bright future ahead of her.All of Eden-Monaro is behind you! Best of luck for the rest of the season, and I look forward to getting to a game to cheer you on. I am a very proud supporter of an amazing business in Eden-Monaro called 'Birdsnest'. We have a ton of great businesses across Eden-Monaro, but this one deserves a shout-out. Check them out. It was founded in Cooma in 2004 by Jane Cay, who purchased a small clothing store and then launched it online a few years later. Her small business of five has grown to 140, and the brand has a cult following across the country. The business has now been recognised as an industry leader. It recently won two major awards at the Australia Post Online Retail Industry Awards and capped it off by winning the 2023 Online Retailer of the Year. They do things differently at Birdsnest—they get women, they get regional women and they get customer loyalty. They are to be commended for their commitment to diversity and creating a space where customers are nurtured and feel safe. I'm a proud shopper of Birdsnest—and you should be, too. Finally, I want to give a shout-out to the Veterans Motorcycle Club in Queanbeyan and president Jay Moriarty, or 'Mori', as everyone knows him. This year, the Veterans Motorcycle Club raised a ton of funds through barbecues and their poker run. They delivered $6,000 to the Rise Above charity, which provides support to families in the ACT and Queanbeyan dealing with a cancer journey. Well done, Veterans Motorcycle Club. If you're in need of a bacon and egg roll on a Saturday morning, head down to Seiffert Oval. Nicholls Electorate: Agriculture 88 16:06 Mr BIRRELL 288713 Nicholls Thank you for the opportunity for a constituency statement. I want to talk about the most important thing to the economic activity in my electorate of Nicholls, which is irrigation. Back in the late 1800s, the Victorian government looked at opportunities to divert water out of the rivers to grow crops on the very fertile soils of the Goulburn Valley. Back in the old days, it was done with a horse and cart, taking tanks of water to crops. But then it became a gravity-fed irrigation system of channels, which takes water to farms right across the Goulburn and Murray valleys. What did this lead to? It led to the production of fruit crops, particularly apples, pears and peaches. At the time, which was around the end of World War II, we had to find a way of preserving a lot of those fruit products because we couldn't effectively get them as a fresh product to the markets where they were required, so SPC was born—a fruit preserving company and a great success story of Australian business. The water irrigation water helped to grow pastures for the dairy herds, and a wonderful milk industry developed around my electorate. Milk factories sprung up everywhere, taking not only fresh milk but creating products like cream cheese and a number of export products. The chances are that, if you're having a pizza somewhere in South-East Asia, the mozzarella could be from my electorate of Nicholls—thanks to irrigation. As we've gone from surface irrigation, we've moved to more efficient irrigation, using drip irrigation and sprinklers to irrigate fruit crops and overhead pivots and subsurface drips to irrigate broadacre crops. There have been a number of upgrades to the system, which continue to add to the economic viability of the region that I come from. Probably more than the economic activity and more than the great food that we produce for the region has been the opportunity for waves of migrants to come to the Goulburn Valley, often with nothing, to make wonderful businesses and wonderful lives. We've seen it through the Albanian communities, even prior to World War II. We've seen it in the southern European communities, after World War II. We've seen it in the Indian communities, the Middle Eastern communities and, more recently, in the African communities. They come because of the irrigated agriculture that provides economic activities— A division having been called in the House of Representatives— Sitting suspended from 16:09 to 16:22 Mr BIRRELL 288713 The hard work of our irrigation pioneers and the waves of migrants bringing prosperity and a beautiful society to the region of the Goulburn and Murray valleys has created something very special, and that has been thanks to irrigated agriculture. Thank you. Morley, Ms Olivia, Invictus Games 88 16:22 Ms MURPHY 133646 Dunkley Today I'd like to share the story of an impressive young woman from Frankston, Olivia Morley. Olivia is just 17-years-old and she recently competed with the Australian Dragon Boat Team, called the Auroras, at the World Dragon Boat Racing Championships in Thailand. At the championships Olivia and her team brought home seven bronze medals out of eight possible events, and Australia secured the fifth position amongst 22 competing countries. Olivia's journey into dragon boating is somewhat unique. She got into the sport because her grandmother started dragon boating, in an unfortunately not so unique story, after a breast cancer diagnosis. Her grandmother's involvement in dragon boating has led it to it becoming a bit of a family affair. Olivia's whole family is involved. Even her older cousin competes for Australia. Olivia trains once a week during the off-season and two to three times a week during competitions. In the lead-up to Thailand, she trained four times a week with her mum driving her from my electorate all the way to the city for all of the sessions. Olivia's proud mum and grandmother accompanied her to Thailand, where they say the smile did not leave her face. Olivia has made her family and Australia proud with her hard work. I also want to wish good luck to our Aussie athletes competing at the Invictus Games in Germany next week. The Invictus Games are an international adaptive sporting event for serving and former defence personnel. The games use the power of sport to inspire recovery and support rehabilitation. Importantly, they generate a wider understanding and respect for wounded, injured and ill service personnel. One of the athletes from my electorate who is going is Francine from Seaford. Francine is a former Australian Army medic who deals with chronic lower back pain. Despite her challenges, Francine focuses on how sport aids her rehabilitation. She says: 'Sport has been amazing for me and something I have done my whole life. It keeps me accountable and, more importantly, helps me form connections with other people.' Francine will be competing in powerlifting, rowing and sitting volleyball. So from all of us in Dunkley: Well done, Olivia, and good luck, Francine. Fadden Electorate: Paradise Point Parkrun 89 16:25 Mr ROBERT HWT Fadden Next month Paradise Point parkrun will celebrate its eighth birthday. I'm honoured today to recognise this wonderful community group and its volunteers for their hard work in delivering this beloved Saturday tradition for almost a decade. Parkrun is a free community event held Australia-wide every Saturday, where participants complete a timed five-kilometre run, jog or walk. There are currently 479 parkruns around Australia, and everyone is welcome to get involved. The parkrun movement is a positive, welcoming and inclusive community, and that's what makes it so special. As a local councillor, I had the pleasure of establishing the Paradise Point parkrun back in 2015. I have proudly watched its growth over the last eight years. I had the honour of participating in the very first Paradise Point parkrun in October 2015, along with 344 other enthusiastic participants. I have a total of 87 parkruns to my name, and, to illustrate that anyone can participate, my personal best is a modest 26 minutes and 48 seconds. But, literally, it's not about the clock. There is no better way to start the weekend with a run or walk and a catch-up with friends in the community. I'm also proud to say that my successor as the counsellor for division 4, Counsellor Shelley Curtis, is also a parkrunner, albeit that she is much faster than I could ever dream of being. Paradise Point boasts an average of 205 parkrunners of all ages each week. Stretching along the beautiful Paradise Point foreshore and overlooking the Broadwater, the Paradise Point parkrun is iconic and attracts visitors from near and far each week. It is truly the best parkrun in Australia. Not only does parkrun offer a regular and free event to engage the community, it also promotes an active and healthy lifestyle, helps build new friendships and positive connections in the community. Most importantly, Paradise Point parkrun is free. It's delivered exclusively by volunteers. In the eight years of Paradise Point parkrun more than 664 individuals have put up their hand to volunteer their time and support the community. To each and every one of the volunteers, I say thank you. I would like to say a special thank you to Tony Sutton-Yeomans, who was there from the start; a former event director of seven years and now parkrun ambassador, Sally Cameron; and the current event director, Rae Carlson‑Turnwald, and the team of volunteers who dedicate hours behind the scenes each week and every week to deliver this beloved community event. Congratulations to Paradise Point parkrun on eight years, and all the best for the years to come. Blair Electorate: Ipswich Medicare Urgent Care Clinic 89 16:28 Mr NEUMANN HVO Blair Last week the Ipswich Medicare Urgent Care Clinic was opened at the Riverlink Medical and Dental Centre at North Ipswich in my electorate. In launching the new centre, I was joined by representatives for the Darling Downs and West Moreton Primary Health Network, West Moreton Health and, of course, ForHealth, who got the contract to open and run the centre. The Ipswich Medicare Urgent Care Clinic delivers on the Albanese Labor government's commitment to make it easier for the Ipswich community to get the urgent treatment they need while taking pressure off local hospitals such as the Ipswich Hospital. The Ipswich Medicare Urgent Care Clinic is open for extended hours from 7 am to 10 pm on weekdays and 8 am to 10 pm on weekends. The clinic can treat urgent but not life-threatening injuries and illnesses. These include minor emergencies and cases which don't need hospital admissions, like coughs, colds, cuts, burns, bites and broken bones. The services at the clinic are bulk-billed, which means you can take your Medicare card or your number, and there's no need to make an appointment—you can just walk in. It's great for our local community. I want to thank the highly trained doctors and nurses who provide the care. There is no need for that appointment. This is great news for families and individuals in my community. It makes it cheaper and easier to see a doctor and frees up the diligent doctors and nurses at Ipswich Hospital to focus on saving lives. I want to thank West Moreton Health as well as the Darling Downs and West Moreton Primary Health Network for the work they've done in collaborating and cooperating in relation to this particular project. And, of course, there's the new satellite hospital in Ripley, which has been opened by the Queensland Labor government, and I'm really pleased to see that. These clinics will work together to provide the health care that our local community needs. It's very, very important. More than 22 per cent of cases presenting at the Ipswich Hospital emergency department are classified as semi- or non-urgent. This clinic will give local patients another option for those urgent but non-life-threatening emergencies. This is really important for our local community. It will make a difference, and it builds on our commitment to strengthen Medicare and make it easier to see a doctor. Already by tripling the bulk billing incentive that will help more than 105,000 patients in Blair. We've work closely together with the state government, and I'm really pleased in our local area to see the Ripley Satellite Hospital. I thank the Palaszczuk Labor government. That is a very important initiative in a fast-growing area in Ipswich—a minor injury and illness clinic. This Medicare Urgent Care Clinic will complement that Ripley clinic in delivering its services closer to home and taking pressure off our ED and GP services. Thank you to the Minister for Health, Mark Butler, for the vision he had in this area. Neighbourhood Houses 90 16:30 Mr CHESTER IPZ Gippsland I rise to recognise the critical role that our Neighbourhood Houses play right across Victoria in our communities. There are several Neighbourhood Houses across Gippsland, and they all offer quite different experiences, depending on what the locals need. Across Victoria, there are 400 Neighbourhood Houses, and of those about 47 per cent are actually located in regional communities, which reflects the need in our regional areas. In fact, 200,000 Victorians visit a Neighbourhood House in an average week, and throughout the year that's about 10 million visits across the state. Unfortunately, with the impact of the rising cost of living, we have seen an increase need for services provided by our Neighbourhood Houses network right across the state. Every Neighbourhood House is quite different and will provide quite different services and activities based on the needs of the individual communities, anything from prepared social meals at a discounted price to foodbanks to emergency relief—particularly in Gippsland we've had a need for Neighbourhood Houses to be involved in emergency relief efforts—to responding to local issues. Today, I particularly want to acknowledge the role of the Bairnsdale Neighbourhood House, which has the moto 'the heart of our community'. Certainly the Bairnsdale Neighbourhood House lives up to that moto. I visited the house last week and had the opportunity to catch up with the chief executive officer, Leanne Jennings, and learn a little bit more about the work she's doing to support around 650 locals who visit the Neighbourhood House in Bairnsdale every week. The incredible efforts of volunteers on top of the work of Leanne Jennings means that there are about 110 individual East Gippslanders who make a contribution over a fortnight period to the operation of that Neighbourhood House. Leanne and her team are industrious, are innovative and are resourceful, but they can't pull $6 million from nowhere, and they need about $6 million to completely redevelop their facilities. Sadly, as much as the facilities are in great demand and they've tried their best over a period of decades to maintain them to a reasonable standard, they really are in a state of disrepair and are failing to comply with the ongoing health and safety requirements that a facility like that needs to meet. I will be working with the Neighbourhood House and with the local and state governments to try and find ways to resource that Neighbourhood House for a complete redevelopment. When you think about it, the Bairnsdale Neighbourhood House has about a $260,000 a year income but makes a $5.6 million contribution to the local community. They leverage off that small amount of income to make an incredible contribution to the community. There is no way, there is not a hope, that a state or federal government could ever replace that contribution of the Neighbourhood House if they had to pay for it. The effort of the staff members and the volunteers' performance on top of that makes an incredible contribution to out community. The Bairnsdale Neighbourhood House has been able to raise some money through grants and donations, including a $500,000 donation from a highly respected businessman, John Dahlsen. But the challenge is there from all levels of government to work together to find that capital funding for a major redevelopment of Bairnsdale Neighbourhood House. Gorton Young Leaders Awards 91 16:34 Mr O'CONNOR 00AN3 Gorton I rise to congratulate the talented and hardworking recipients of this year's Gorton Young Leaders Awards. Since 2009 I've been acknowledging selected year 12 students from the electorate of Gorton who have demonstrated a commitment to active public leadership within their schools and communities through these annual awards. These awards are an important way to recognise and encourage local young people beyond academic performance and to reward their efforts in giving to their communities. I am consistently impressed with the remarkable achievement of the prize winners and the fantastic local talent who call Melbourne's west their home. This year we have 18 Gorton Young Leaders award winners across nine local schools in the electorate of Gorton. All of these students have made significant contributions to their schools and local communities. Many are school captains and vice-captains. Some have done specific work running sports and other events, working with disadvantaged communities, helping the elderly and helping with fundraising events. We'll be watching their development with keen interest, and there is a great likelihood that these young leaders will become leaders of the future. From the Australian International Academy in Caroline Springs, we have Fowzia Osman and Emnah El Howli. From Lakeview Senior College, we have Neerja Singh and Ryan Martinovic. From Taylors Lake Secondary College, we have Ava Josifovska and Caitlyn Derks. From Overnewton Anglican Community College, we have Ella Cleaver and Gabrielle Edwards. From Keilor Downs College, we have Kayla Parker and Ongegu Ndubi. From the Catholic Regional College Sydenham, we have Olivia Alvarado and Oscar Hodgetts, both of whom I had the pleasure of meeting and presenting with their awards only a few weeks ago. From Southern Cross Grammar, we have Bethany Ferraro and Thomas Stoitsis. From Springside West Secondary College, we have Aleyna Aydinli and Massimo Tahche. Finally, from Gilson College, we have Theshana Kariyawasam and Maja Fisher. They are great young achievers who are worthy beneficiaries of these awards, and I pay tribute to them, their schools and their families for ensuring and instilling in them that it's more than just academic achievement; it's also about how you engage with our communities and how you help those who are less fortunate than you. I pay tribute to their efforts. Ladybird Care Foundation 91 16:36 Mr VAN MANEN 188315 Forde Last Saturday I had the privilege of attending the third annual Ladybird Care Foundation gala dinner. Some 550 guests packed into the grand ballroom at Brisbane City Hall to celebrate and to honour the precious children who have left us far too early and to 'say their name'. All the funds raised on the night will go directly to the Ladybird Care Foundation's peer mentor program. The Ladybird Care Foundation was established in October 2020 by Wayne and Maree Pascoe after they lost their daughter. From a very early age, Emma Louise Pascoe was officially known as Lily Ladybird. Emma had an incredible impact on her friends and family, with her infectious, cheeky character and her stubborn determination to live life to the fullest despite her disabilities. Her family were blessed to have 18 medically miraculous years with their daughter and sister. However, as Emma grew, her heart weakened, and on 2 November 2014, exactly one month after her 18th birthday, Emma's heart was no longer able to sustain her and she passed away. Not wanting other parents and families to experience their grief journey alone, Wayne and Maree became passionate about finding a way to help others. When Wayne's core group of friends suggested they set up a charity in honour of Emma, they knew this was their new purpose in life. Thus the Ladybird Care Foundation was launched in honour of their Lily Ladybird. The Ladybird Care Foundation is part of Emma's legacy of love, hope and healing that will live on well into the future. I want to thank the community's leaders and founders, Wayne and Maree Pascoe, Colin Ginger, Greg Beech, Michael Delport and Craig Barke. No-one should have to bury their child. We were also privileged to hear from guest speaker Jay McNeill, who told the wonderful story of his daughter Sunshine from her early premature birth to living life to the full in the best way that she could with a wonderful family. The Ladybird Care Foundation peer mentor program evolved in response to a call from bereaved parents seeking to meet a peer with lived experience. This includes highly qualified bereavement care professionals who actively recruit, train and supervise volunteer peer mentors with the lived experience to become the human connection for support. Thank you again to everyone who attended and assisted in raising money for and awareness of this incredible cause. To the generous sponsors who donated prizes, thank you. I want to give a particular shout-out to general manager Wendy Collins and her team for putting on a wonderful event. Thank you for the work you do for our community. Health Care 92 16:39 Ms O'NEIL 140590 Hotham Women's health is an issue that I'm incredibly passionate about. A couple of months ago I wrote to every single woman who lives in my electorate asking them to participate in a women's health forum. I have been a member of parliament now for 10 years on Thursday. When I think of everything I have done with my local community, this is one of those events that really stands out as something that absolutely hit a nerve. We had an absolutely amazing turnout of women. More than 200 women shared their stories with us and talked to us about some of the issues that they've had using our healthcare system here in Australia. I was very lucky to have with me Ged Kearney MP, who is the Assistant Minister for Health and Aged Care, and also Dr Sarah White, the CEO of Jean Hailes for Women's Health, which is located in my electorate in Hotham. We had an amazing conversation that night, and I really want to thank all the women who came and acknowledge the raw honesty with which they talked about some of the ups and downs of trying to get access to the medical care they deserve as Australians. I want to share with the parliament some of the themes that came up in the discussion we had. There were a lot of stories about general awareness of women's health issues amongst medical professionals—just basic understanding of the ways that women and men's bodies operate differently and that so much of the support and training that's provided to medical professionals doesn't always work when it comes to women, even though we are more than 50 per cent of the population. Cost, of course, is an issue for all Australians, but, for Australian women in particular, it's a major issue. We talked a lot about bulk-billing access, which is something our government has been absolutely religiously focused on. We also talked about medicine. We have done a lot to reduce the cost of medicines, but these continue to be issues in the electorate. We heard a lot about delays in diagnoses and heard a lot about endometriosis, fertility issues, mental health and particular issues that women with neurodiversity have in accessing the healthcare system. I think what got everyone together on the night were the stories we heard about women going to medical professionals with really clear, serious problems and being dismissed, being gaslit by medical professionals and not being able to get the help and support they need, especially around things to do with parenting, around weight—with women being overweight always being looked at as the cause of health issues, when in fact there's something else going on—and around pain, in terms of women not being believed when they're experiencing pain. These experiences can be very disheartening for women trying to access the system, but, at the end of the day, they can actually be deadly. We heard some horrendous stories about really serious issues that were overlooked because of some of these problems. The Albanese government is fiercely committed to building a healthcare system that's accessible to all. We have done an enormous amount of work in the last 15 months around extending bulk-billing, supporting cheaper medicines for patients and making sure that women's health takes priority, as it did in the budget. It was really thrilling for these women to hear about those initiatives and support the work that our government still has to do. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 249710 In accordance with standing order 193, the time for members' constituency statements has concluded. CONDOLENCES 92 CONDOLENCES Crean, Hon. Simon Findlay 92 16:43 Mr BURKE DYW Watson It's really appropriate that I'm called to speak on this—I think I'm the last of the speakers—immediately following a contribution from the member for Hotham. When I was first preselected to be the candidate for Watson, I was called shortly after. You get numbers you don't recognise on the phone coming through, and you're always worried that it's a journalist, but it was the leader of the Labor Party, Simon Crean, ringing to congratulate me on my preselection. That call was the beginning of a deep respect that I've always had for Simon Crean. If I go through the different portfolios that I've held during our time in government, on almost every occasion—it wasn't so with the environment or immigration—Simon had been there first. When I was first made agriculture minister, I remember a whole lot of the farming organisations saying: 'We know you don't have an agricultural background, but in the past sometimes that's been good. One of the best agriculture ministers we've ever had was Simon Crean because he spent all his time out on properties learning and listening.' It's similar now in the employment and workplace relations portfolios—two portfolios that Simon held, one under Paul Keating at the time that Working Nation was put in place and later, under Julia Gillard, to be the workplace relations minister. But I don't think there's any portfolio that I've held where Simon's legacy has been so strong than as Australia's Minister for the Arts. One of the things that a few arts ministers have had the opportunity to do is to be part of a cultural policy. Simon was a member of the Keating government when Creative Nation was launched, but then he had the chance, with Creative Australia under Prime Minister Julia Gillard, to launch his own cultural policy. If you want any evidence of how significant that cultural policy was, just think about this: 10 years later, when we were establishing what's now Revive, the cultural policy for Australia, the five pillars that Simon had chosen became the exact same structure. The principles that Simon said you needed to be able to get cultural policy right weren't just correct a decade ago but are correct now and are now being implemented in state and local government around the country: First Nations first, a place for every story, the centrality of the artist, strong cultural infrastructure and the importance of engaging with the audience. When you deal with those five principles—when you think about it—you're not only talking about what might be arts policy or entertainment or things like that; you're talking about the five building blocks of what it is to be Australia. You're talking about someone, in Simon Crean, who had a true understanding and connection to the national character, who never forgot the workers who he had represented in his early union days, all the way through to being here as a minister and a leader of the Labor Party and somebody who was always reaching out to encourage the next generation, the next big project or the next big vision. When we launched Revive and I was talking to the Prime Minister, Anthony Albanese, about who we would invite, the first name on the invitation list was Simon Crean. It was the last time I saw him, but can I say: he was beaming! He was beaming partly because he loved any arts event—that's true—but he was also beaming because he saw that his legacy was going to outlive him. We didn't realise how soon that would be the case, and my deepest sympathies are with his wife, Carole, with all his family, with all those who loved him, and with all of those who grieve in different ways, who are part of the same movement, the same cause, as Simon Crean. Indeed, someone with that common touch, with that dedication to getting policy right and with the sense of purpose that Simon Crean had is exactly what you want to come through in an Australian parliament and the sort of person whose legacy was always going to outlive him, not just for years but for generations. May he rest in peace. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 249710 I understand that it is the wish of honourable members to signify at this stage their respect and sympathy by rising in their places, and I ask all present to do so. Honourable members having stood in their places— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 249710 I thank the Federation Chamber. 16:48 Mr BURKE DYW Watson by leave—I move: That further proceedings be conducted in the House. Question agreed to. BILLS 93 BILLS Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2023 93

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

Second Reading 93 16:49 Ms PAYNE 144732 Canberra I rise to speak on the Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2023. The Albanese Labor government is committed to supporting people to overcome barriers to getting and keeping paid work and to ensuring people can access and develop the skills they need for the jobs of today and the jobs of tomorrow. This bill supports this important work by ensuring that legislative authority for government spending on programs targeted towards that commitment is achieved in the best possible way. The former government rushed through the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Streamlined Participation Requirements and Other Measures) Bill 2022, known as the SPROM bill, shortly before the last election. That bill made significant changes to social security law, including inserting chapter 2D into the Social Security Act. While Labor ultimately voted in support of the bill, we raised concerns at the time that the former government mishandled the bill by rushing through that consideration. The changes to chapter 2D of the Social Security Act commenced in April 2022. The purpose of the changes was to provide more streamlined legislative authority for spending on employment programs. The explanatory memorandum for when chapter 2D was introduced stated: … all that the new Chapter 2D does is provide statutory authority for expenditure … All of the usual processes and requirements for the establishment and oversight of such programs will remain unchanged. While chapter 2D is achieving this purpose, its operation will be improved through the technical amendments in this bill. This bill ensures that chapter 2D continues in the best possible way to provide more streamlined legislative authority for spending aimed at supporting Australians to get and keep paid work. Unemployment in Australia remains at historic lows, currently 3.5 per cent. Nearly half a million more Australians are in work today than when Labor came to government a little over a year ago. As far as the Albanese Labor government is concerned, when somebody wants a job and gets a job, that is a success. We're also committed to making sure that those jobs are well paid and secure so workers can look after themselves and their loved ones. It's why we twice backed a pay rise for Australian workers on the minimum wage, why we backed and funded a 15 per cent pay rise for aged-care workers, why we have introduced a better and fairer bargaining system and why, this week, the minister has introduced a bill to close the loopholes for workers, which is such an important step to ensuring workers are safe, that their wages aren't stolen and a whole range of changes that will mean so much to so many Australians. However, we know there are still people who want to work and are finding it hard to get a job. The government is working to try to make sure that we can get a better deal for those individuals as well. An improved chapter 2D will support spending on that important work. While this bill is, as its name suggests, a miscellaneous measures amendment, a bit of a change that, in itself, is not necessarily that interesting to speak about, it is very important. It shows our government's commitment to getting our social security system right. It's my belief that we as Australians don't take the pride that we should in our social security system. As Australians we are proud of Medicare and universal health care. We're proud of our tradition of a fair system of wages and conditions for workers. We're proud of public education. We recognise that these things are all part of what makes us a relatively egalitarianism society when you compare us to somewhere, for example, like the United States. We are proud of that. We like to think we are the country of the fair go. But when we talk about our social security system in a way that makes people who receive those payments somehow sound undeserving or somehow like they're not trying, we are not doing justice to that incredibly important policy area and what it means to so many Australians and to the futures of people. All of us at some point might access our social security system, and most of us do. So it's important that we recognise the importance of this policy area and the power that it has to lift people out of poverty and to give people opportunities that they may not otherwise have. Of course, having a job is the best way to secure a decent standard of living for yourself and for your family. I'm sure this is something that Labor, the party of workers, absolutely believes in. As I said, unemployment is currently at a record low under our government, but there are still around a million people looking for work, relying on our social security system and receiving the JobSeeker payment. There are more who receive the other range of pensions and allowances and family payments that are provided by that system. If we go back to around the time of Federation, Australia was one of the first countries in the world to establish a universal age pension—by universal, I mean anyone can receive it; obviously, it's means tested. Many other countries in the world have an insurance model where you actually put away for your age pension through your working life and that determines what you can access. We had a universal age pension. Soon after that, we introduced support for single parents, and mothers predominantly. This was very early on after Federation. Around that same time, the Harvester judgement was given, which recognised that people should receive a decent amount of money through their work to support themselves and their families. Those two things went hand in hand to ensure that we had a decent standard of living in Australia. These things have historically been important. It's why Francis Castles coined the term 'the wage earners' welfare state'—that is, you can look at Australia as a place where the welfare state, which is highly targeted, is for those who can't support themselves through a job. That is very much the case to this day. We have one of the world's most targeted social security systems, which means that the money goes to those on the lowest incomes and most in need. While the system is often called complex, there are reasons for that, meaning that it is targeted to those most in need. I'm taking the opportunity on this bill—which is around this important, if not particularly exciting, amendment—to talk about this system. It's critically important to all Australians and to us having equality in our society and to making a difference in the lives of so many Australians. We should take more pride in this policy area. 16:57 Mr GEORGANAS DZY Adelaide Today I rise to speak about something that has a direct impact on each and every one of our constituents. In my electorate of Adelaide and across Australia, one of the No. 1 issues is jobs: people finding sustainable jobs that provide an income and jobs that give them the future. The stability of our support systems is also important, as they go hand in hand, as do our efficiency and reliability as representatives in this place. The goal is clear: to ensure people can access and develop the skills they need for the jobs of today and tomorrow and to provide a secure system that Australians can lean on should they need our help. Just over a year ago, when the Albanese Labor government took office, things looked a little different. Today, nearly half a million more Australians have jobs. Our country's unemployment rate is at a historic low of just 3.5 per cent. It's a success we can all be proud of, but our work is far from done. It's about ensuring that people get the jobs they want and supporting them every step of the way. Some people may need more support than others; others may need less support. The job of governments is to support them every step of the way to get those jobs, from upskilling to landing a job all the way through to retirement. In our roles as federal members of parliament, we're here to help and assist our constituents navigate those pathways, whether it be the social security system or the Centrelink system or through training for employment and a whole range of other areas. I'm sure everyone in this place, just like my office does, receives calls from constituents who need assistance with Centrelink matters. These people that call us come from all walks of life. Some are older, some are younger, some have high skills, some have lower skills. They all have different stories but they all share one common factor—that they contact us because they need our assistance. They reach out, usually stressed, unsure, upset at times. One of the things that fills me with pride as a member of parliament is that, more often than not, we can provide some guidance and some help to get them the support they need. Not long ago, a woman came to me who was struggling with the Centrelink system while trying to secure aged care for her husband. While this isn't directly related to employment or skills development, it showcases the power of responsive government. By working together and following established protocols, navigating the system we found a solution that relieved her and her husband of that significant stress. These stories, like many others, show the importance of the bill we are discussing here today. They remind us our work goes beyond legislation; it impacts the lives of everyday Australians. It demonstrates the real-world value of a government that listens and acts. It's our duty to ensure all Australians, regardless of their circumstances, can look forward to a future filled with some form of hope, security and prosperity, whether it be access to aged care or access to programs in pursuit of securing that job. We need to continue to work to clear the pathway forward. In this bill, chapter 2D plays a pivotal role in ensuring the efficiency and effectiveness of our support system. It's not just about a set of rules and regulations; it's a framework that empowers us to provide timely and responsive assistance to those who need it most. Chapter 2D provides statutory authority for expenditure and is the backbone of the financial support system that millions and millions of Australians rely on every day—sometimes for a very short period and at other times for a longer period, but no doubt many Australians rely on this particular system. The recent changes to chapter 2D introduced in April 2022 were aimed at providing more streamlined legislation authority for spending on employment programs. These changes were essential to ensure our support programs remain relevant and effective in the ever-changing job landscape. While chapter 2D has been effective in achieving its intended purpose, it's important to understand that constant improvement is key to ensuring we meet the evolving needs of our constituents. This bill ensures chapter 2D continues to evolve. In essence, it reinforces the commitment to delivering efficient and responsive support to all Australians and ensures we continue to adapt to the challenges and opportunities that people in the job market encounter every day—and our commitment extends over a long-term period. It's essential to establish support right from the beginning, and that starting point is securing a job. Equally important is our dedication to ensuring these jobs provide good pay and good security, which then gives people peace of mind for the future. Our constituents, the Australian public, need to be able to take care of themselves and their families. This is why we twice backed a pay rise for Australian workers on the minimum wage. It is why we backed and funded a 15 per cent pay rise for aged-care workers and why we introduced a better and fairer bargaining system. Despite these achievements, we acknowledge that there are still people in our community who want to work but are finding it hard to secure a job. The government is tirelessly working to ensure that we can provide better opportunities for them as well. An improved chapter 2D will support spending on that important work, and that important work is ensuring we can bridge that gap for those who are seeking meaningful employment. So, in supporting this bill, we're not only reaffirming our commitment to the wellbeing and dignity of fellow Australians but also taking concrete steps to ensure that the system works efficiently. That allows us to continue assisting our constituents in navigating a way through. The Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2023 represents a pivotal step towards fulfilling that commitment to supporting Australians in pursuit of employment. As a federal member of parliament and the federal member for Adelaide, I'm personally invested, as I'm sure all of us here are, in the wellbeing and future of my constituents. We constantly hear their struggles, trials and tribulations and listen to their hopes and wishes. We all need to let them know that they can rely on this place, on this government and this parliament, to provide those opportunities, to foster security and to ensure a brighter future for every Australian. I will be supporting this bill, and I'm hoping that everyone will be doing so, so we can reaffirm that shared commitment to a stronger and fairer Australia. It's not just a set of rules and regulations, as I said earlier; it's a framework that empowers us to provide timely, responsive assistance to those who need it most. While chapter 2D has been effective in achieving its intended purpose, it's important also to understand that, as I said earlier, constant improvement is key to ensuring that we meet the evolving needs of the Australian public. It's a commitment that transcends party lines and political differences because, at its heart, through the operation of the technical amendment bill, it will work to improve the lives of Australians. The amendments ensure a clear and consistent framework for social security programs. It reduces the confusion in ensuring that individuals have access to the support that they are entitled to, ensures that they know how to navigate it and makes that process simpler. It's particularly crucial for the people of my electorate and of Australia who may rely on these programs and who deserve clarity, consistency and efficiency, and that's what this does. I urge everyone to support this bill. It will help in continuing to build Australia as a nation that genuinely cares for its people. We must share that collective promise to help our constituents, to reduce stress and to offer clear explanations. It's about empowering those who seek our help to navigate challenging circumstances with confidence and dignity. As we're deliberating on this bill, remember that it's more than just the piece of legislation; it will affect people's lives in a good way. It reflects, as I said, our shared commitment to being there for one another, to ensure that every Australian can face challenges with the knowledge that they will have the support and the pathways readily available for them. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. Ordered that this bill be reported to the House without amendment. Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Australia's Engagement in the Pacific) Bill 2023 96

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

Second Reading 96 17:09 Dr REID 300126 Robertson It gives me great pleasure today to speak on the Social Services Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Australia's Engagement in the Pacific) Bill 2023. It provides important social supports to Pacific migrants who are entering Australia. I'll just give a brief overview as to what those social supports will be for those Pacific migrants. Those supports are going to be provided to permanent migrants arriving in Australia under the new Pacific engagement visa and, secondly, temporary migrants under the Pacific Australia Labour Mobility scheme. These two migration pathways, the Pacific engagement visa and the PALM scheme, are key elements in Australia's engagement with the Pacific. They provide significant benefits not just to our Pacific neighbours and our Pacific friends but also to the people of Australia and to our nation. In particular, they benefit Australian employers who are facing labour shortages. We know that's a big issue right across the country. Businesses are crying out for workers. This is one of the ways that we can address that shortage. It also benefits regional communities, with workers coming from the Pacific into those communities, in various different industries, helping to fill that short fault—industries like agriculture, meat processing and aged care, which are all vital and very diversely spread right across our economy. They're also going to help our Pacific island partners by providing those migrants opportunities to work within Australia and to learn new skills. I just mentioned those few industries before: agriculture, meat processing and aged care. It's also important to send remittances home to their families and their communities, which really does support Australia's role as a global citizen and a regional leader in the Asia-Pacific region. This bill supports the migration programs by ensuring Pacific migrants will have positive experiences in Australia. I want to touch on the importance of Australia's friendships in the Pacific with our partner nations. We know the Pacific has had long-standing challenges. We've seen economic underdevelopment. We've seen geographical isolation, distances covering vast oceans between islands. We've also seen significant environmental pressures, which have been exacerbated by climate change. Further, they've also been exacerbated by the aftermath of the COVID pandemic, which is something that I'm acutely familiar with, as are many members in this chamber here this evening. I'll go back to climate change because it's not just the insidious nature of climate change running in the background; it's also the increased frequency and severity of extreme weather events that we've seen as a result of climate change. I also want to touch on the security challenges of this region. We look at transnational crime, illegal fishing and, more importantly, geostrategic competition in the Pacific. We also have strengths. Australia has unique strengths in Pacific relations, including the fact that we have shared values between our nations and historic connections in both peace and in times of conflict. Also, I think of the cultural, sporting and religious links we have with countries in the Pacific. I think of the sport I played in high school and also in university, rugby union. It's something that I still enjoy doing, although I can't walk for many days after I play a game now, but that's beside the point. Those sporting relationships through the Pacific are absolutely vital. We have close people-to-people links. We have a vibrant Pacific diaspora living within Australia. I think of my own electorate in Robertson and right across the Central Coast. When we look at census figures from 2021, there are 160,000 Australian residents who were born in Pacific island nations and Pacific countries. Around 270,000 people have at least one parent who was born in a Pacific country. These communities in Australia provide those direct personal connections and relationships between Australia and our friends throughout the Pacific. In addition, there are around 40,000 Pacific nationals working within Australia under the PALM scheme. They are providing vital support to our industries right across the board, but in particular in our regional communities and in our regional industries that are so important for economic productivity in this country and so important for economic productivity within our states. As I said before, they're learning new skills to support their own countries when they return home, and part of Australia's responsibility is to make sure that we are providing that opportunity for people in our part of the world. It goes to show the Albanese Labor government's comprehensive Pacific agenda, which I know has been promoted by the Prime Minister and also by the relevant ministers, including Minister Conroy, the member for Shortland. I like to remind him that the bottom third of his electorate is on the Central Coast, so he's part of team Central Coast. When the Albanese government came into office we had a comprehensive plan to strengthen our relationship with Pacific countries. We're getting on with implementing that plan, and that's what this bill is. Our comprehensive Pacific package includes stepping up Australia's defence cooperation with the Pacific, so the ADF, the Australian Defence Force, will be providing new training opportunities for members of the Pacific defence and security forces. We are also making sure that we are assisting Pacific countries by helping them protect one of their most valuable environmental and economic resources—their vast ocean territories. What the Albanese Labor government is doing is doubling the funding for aerial surveillance of Pacific countries' exclusive economic zones under the Pacific Maritime Security Program. What this is going to do and achieve is help us tackle, as a team, illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing, which costs Pacific countries hundreds of million dollars in lost revenue. That's less money for our Pacific neighbours, a decrease in economic productivity and the like. It also helps tackle other security risks in the region—for example, looking at illicit activities by transnational criminal networks, which are so damaging not just to Pacific nations but also to Australia. The next phase, the next stage, of this plan, which we're already implementing, is taking climate change seriously and making sure that we are tackling climate change and helping our Pacific partners. This includes establishing the new Pacific Climate Infrastructure Financing Partnership and making sure that we're supporting climate adaptation resilience projects within our region. It includes making sure that we are amplifying the voices of our Pacific partners in international climate change forums and in negotiations that we see right across the world, including the Vanuatu government's request to the International Court of Justice for an advisory body on climate change. We're also bidding to co-host with the Pacific a United Nations climate change conference, to make sure that we are getting that global spotlight and that there's a global view on the impact of climate change, particularly on our region. We're also supporting economic, social and human development within the Pacific. We're increasing Australia's official developmental assistance budget for Pacific countries by $900 million over four years. We're also providing $1.9 billion in development assistance for our Pacific neighbours in 2023-24, making us the region's biggest developmental partner, because we take these relationships with our Pacific friends seriously. What this does is provide critical support to low-income Pacific countries in areas like health care and access to health care, preventive medicine, education, water, sanitation and infrastructure—those areas of economic and social need that are so important for a growing and developing country. So how does this bill support the PALM scheme? That's an important question to answer. The PALM scheme is one of our most important Pacific policies. It provides Australian farmers with a vital source of labour to harvest their crops and make sure that they can get their goods to the market. What it does is deepen the links within our region by allowing thousands of Pacific workers to come to Australia to earn decent incomes and, as I said earlier, gain valuable skills that they will use here and then, also, use upon their return. That's why the government is expanding and improving the PALM scheme. When we came to office in May last year, there were approximately 25,000 migrants in Australia under the PALM scheme. Since then, that number has risen to, I think, about 40,000 people. Our policies to expand the scheme have reduced the burden of travel costs on employers. We have expanded the scheme into new sectors like aged care, making sure we're getting workers into those vital sectors where we really need to make sure that we're looking after our elderly and our most vulnerable and also improving protections for Pacific workers. We're now introducing a pilot program that will allow PALM scheme workers to bring their families to Australia. Workers under the PALM scheme provide essential support to the Australian economy, but so, too, do the families that many of them have had to leave behind in the past. The new family accompaniment program will allow PALM scheme workers on a one- to four-year placement to bring their immediate families to Australia. We're starting with a pilot of 200 families so we can monitor the new measure to ensure that it's working for everyone involved in the scheme. The bill is going to ensure that PALM scheme workers participating in the family accompaniment component will be able to access appropriate benefits, so the bill is going to amend the A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax) Act 1999 to allow eligible PALM scheme workers taking part in the family accompaniment program to access family tax benefit parts A and B and also to access the childcare subsidy. This is going to help PALM scheme workers with the cost of raising a family here in Australia and make it easier, too, for their spouses to participate in the workforce, making sure we're getting people into the workforce if they so choose, which is going to be good all round for employers who are facing the labour shortages that we have seen now for quite some time. Also, this bill is going to support the government's new Pacific engagement visa. That's going to allow 3,000 nationals of Pacific countries and of Timor-Leste to come to Australia as permanent migrants each year. This visa is a signature initiative of the Albanese Labor government's plan to build a stronger Pacific family and stronger relationships with our Pacific partners. It's designed to grow the Pacific and Timor-Leste diaspora here within the Australian community. As I was saying with regard to the PALM scheme, it will provide employers with a bigger pool of labour, making sure that we're filling those labour shortfalls in our communities. It's also going to address the underrepresentation of some of our closest neighbours in Australia's permanent migration system. I'm just looking at the eligibility criteria for that. It's being aged between 18 and 45, having a job offer from an Australian employer, having basic English language proficiency and meeting standard immigration health and character requirements. In conclusion, this bill is going to support the expansion and improvement of the PALM scheme and support the new Pacific engagement visa, all of which is going to strengthen and deeply enrich our connection with our Pacific partners and members in our region. They're all part of the Albanese Labor government's comprehensive plan to help Pacific countries meet their economic, development and climate change challenges and the security challenges within our region. 17:24 Mr NEUMANN HVO Blair I rise to speak on the Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Australia's Engagement in the Pacific) Bill 2023. This bill supports our engagement with many countries in the Pacific, including countries like Timor-Leste. It will implement family accompaniment under the Pacific Australia Labour Mobility scheme, commonly known as the PALM scheme, and it will introduce a new Pacific engagement visa. Australia's Relationship with Timor-Leste is very close. Timor-Leste's success is very important to Australia. We share a region and a future. It's very important that both nations are prosperous and peaceful and that there is deep respect, friendship, and solidarity. A strong and prosperous Timor-Leste is of fundamental importance to our country. We are Timor-Leste's leading development assistance partner, and we support its economic diversification and private sector growth through our development cooperation program and labour mobility scheme. We're expanding access to Australia for Timorese workers under the PALM scheme, which began under the previous Labor Government. Almost 5,000 Timorese workers are currently in Australia, employed across rural and regional areas, remitting more than $37 million each year back to their families. That's just one example from one country. We're expanding opportunities for seasonal workers to gain valuable skills and improve workers' rights and conditions. This will support an additional 35 Timorese to complete formal qualifications in aged care, which will build critical skills and bolster economic resilience. We've recently doubled our Australia Awards Scholarships from 10 to 20. We created 18 places in that fellowship program. We're creating new scholarships for Timorese to the Australia Pacific Training Coalition. Our cooperation extends not just to Timor-Leste but across a whole range of sectors in the Pacific: security, health, agriculture, human development and economic resilience. We are expanding our cooperation through major infrastructure projects. Australian values are very important, and we also value our partnership in the Pacific with our Pacific family very deeply. We're grateful to our Pacific partners for their stewardship of the seas and for preserving the region's biodiversity. They're custodians of some of the planet's most ancient cultures and many of the world's languages. We have a profound sense of kinship with the Pacific, of wanting to connect with the Pacific as part of one family. We have a longstanding bond, and this has been forged through times of crisis and sustained in peace and prosperity. These bonds are evident in the dynamic contributions of the Pacific diaspora to Australian life in music, sport and culture. You would only have to go to a football semifinal in what I've often described as rugby league or rugby union states, Queensland and New South Wales, this weekend to see that. This weekend I will be popping into the rugby league grand finals in Ipswich, and I guarantee you that a large proportion of the players in the grand finals through various grades will be from the Pacific community. We value the contributions that they make in sporting, cultural and religious and spiritual life. Schools in my electorate, for example in eastern suburbs, are full of people from Samoa, Tonga and other parts of the Pacific. Indeed, when Samoa upset England in the Rugby League World Cup, you could see Samoan flags everywhere when driving around particularly the eastern suburbs of Ipswich in that period of time—not quite as many there after Australia beat them in the final in the men's world cup! Certainly, it was a demonstration in my local community, not just in the schools or on the football fields or the various church and faith based organisation, that the number of people from Pacific communities living in my electorate is very high. There are schools where up to 40 per cent of the school cohort are from Pacific communities. We're going to ensure that Pacific workers are treated fairly and with better conditions. This will allow workers to bring their families and provide a pathway to permanent residency for 3,000 members of our Pacific family every year. These people have been contributing to our culture for generations, and we haven't always treated them as well as we need to. There is a long history in my home state of Queensland of people not being treated well, particularly in North Queensland. To work with nations of the Pacific to recover from the pandemic is very important. These countries, like our country, are still feeling the after effect of the pandemic. The Albanese Labor government will increase our overseas development assistance to the Pacific by $525 million over the next four years. I know, from speaking to various high commissioners and ambassadors from these regions, that this is deeply appreciated. Pacific women have played a key role in economic and recovery efforts. Economies and communities work well together when we remove barriers to women and girls in national life. We stand with the Pacific islands in dealing with the climate change crisis. As stated in the recent Pacific Islands Forum's Boe Declaration on Regional Security, 'Climate change remains the single greatest threat to the livelihoods, security and wellbeing of the peoples of the Pacific.' We share the view of our Pacific friends that climate change is not an abstract threat but an existential one. We must take serious action not just to reduce emissions and transform our economy but to assist them to transform their economies. Nothing is more important to the security and the economies of the Pacific. During the last election I spoke at a Politics in the Pub candidates event at the Esk Grand Hotel in the Somerset region in my electorate. One matter raised there by the local farmers was the PALM scheme. I note that PALM workers were earning an income developing skills and filling workforce shortages across 28 industries. These include agricultural and meat processing at several locations within Blair. It's an important issue, and the farmers in my electorate want to see reform. That was the main topic of conversation at the candidates forum in Esk. In the Pacific region, more than a third of people live on less than $3 a day. The PALM scheme and similar programs enable some of the workers from the Pacific to send home more than $10,000 each year. That's at least 10 times $3 a day. It's a huge economic boost for these families and the whole region. Going into the 2022 election, the Labor Party promised to make it easier for Pacific workers to fill labour shortages across Australia and to enable them to bring their families here, and that's exactly what we're doing with this bill. The measures in this bill and related legislation give effect to our commitment to expand reform and improve the PALM scheme. The PALM scheme is central to Australia's relationship with the Pacific nation. It helps develop skills and addresses youth unemployment and supports economic integration of our region. The scheme allows Australian employers to recruit workers from across the Pacific. It gets the nation signed up for short-term or seasonal worker placement for up to nine months and long-term placements between one and four years. All PALM scheme workers will be granted a PALM visa. There are other visas within this subclass for those not participating in the PALM scheme, and some PALM scheme workers are on a repeat PLS visa. The Albanese government is committed to expanding and approving the scheme through a family accompaniment policy, which is really important for workers on these long-term placements. This initiative will reduce the social impacts of family separation for extended periods of time. The rollout of family accompaniment will begin with a pilot, including a limited number of families. The initial stage of the family accompaniment policy will include about 200 families. Participants will be selected according to certain program criteria, which will be used to limit the number of approvals. The initial stage of family accompaniment will allow program settings to be tested and adjusted over time to ensure that the program is delivering on its objectives, resulting in a positive experience for families. The scheme workers on a long-term placement will need to meet additional program criteria to be eligible to bring their families to Australia. This will include the workers having spent a certain period of time in Australia or holding a work contract with at least 12 months as well as proximity to education for their dependent children. The bill amends residents requirements and the newly arrived residents waiting period under the tax laws. It will enable scheme workers to access additional assistance. Most temporary skilled visa holders do not meet the resident requirements to qualify for family tax benefits and the childcare subsidy, and this includes people on the PALM scheme. The bill will amend these requirements to include subclass 403 visa holders who are PALM scheme participants or family members of PALM scheme participants. That is really important because it will allow those entitlements, from the family tax benefits to the childcare subsidy, to be given to those families. Applicants will need to meet certain conditions specified by a legislative instrument, and this will enable some of the visa holders to qualify. The conditions to be specified in the legislative instrument include that the applicant be approved by the department to bring family members to Australia under the policy or that the applicant is a family member of such an individual. These will be set out in the legislative instrument. It's very important. Today, I was speaking to John Berry at JBS, who's known across the chamber here by many people. JBS is a big employer in my electorate. It employs currently 1,200 to 1,300 workers at Dinmore, one of the biggest meat processing plants in the country if not the biggest. I also have Kilcoy Global Foods up in Kilcoy, which is a huge meat processing establishment as well. John was telling me today that they are looking to expand back to two shifts in that meat processing plant. Of course, the Chinese government's attitude in relation to health certification requirements meant that they, along with Kilcoy, were two of the four meat processing plants in the country who were the target of Chinese embargoes, if I can put it like that. This meant that both JBS at Dinmore and Kilcoy had to look for diversification in terms of their market and did so. But it had a consequence for my electorate, particularly at Dinmore where nearly 700 workers lost their job as a result. I asked the former Prime Minister what he was going to do about that, and he said people could get JobSeeker because JBS weren't eligible for JobKeeper at the time. This meant that those workers lost their job. JBS is looking to expand and were going to first look at workers in the local area. We have a lot of big high schools, and they're engaged with those high schools to get workers in the meat processing industry. You can have a great career in the meat processing industry. People go from labouring to semiskilled to skilled processing. The boners and slicers and other people are so skilled at what they do. There is great career progression through that area. One of the options that JBS is looking at is this particular scheme, and this is very important. Many people who come to this country and work in meat processing end up becoming Australian citizens, and there are pathways to permanent residency. This is why this sort of scheme is really important. About 51.5 per cent of Australians are either born overseas or have at least one parent born overseas. Just last week in the meat processing industry, which is a real topic of this particular bill, we had 38 people become citizens in a country town called Esk in my community. Thirty of them were meat processors who were involved in the meat processing industry and became Australian citizens. The delight on their face when becoming Aussies was just amazing. They brought their family members as well. This is a kind of Australia we want to build up. This is a generous nation that does schemes like this, schemes that help our neighbours with almost a—I mentioned the spiritual before—good Samaritan type of assistance, acknowledging we are all part of one family in the Pacific and we have to take action together on economic security, climate change and on the economy. If we can assist through schemes like these, which allow families to come so that people are not separated by geography—it's a long way from the Torres Strait to Tasmania and Brisbane to Broome, so just imagine these families being separated by this scheme—if we can bring people here and keep them together, it's good for their family, it's good for their spiritual welfare if I can put it like that, it's good for their personal and domestic lives and it's good for the children to have their parents and their extended family there amongst them. Whilst this particular legislation might seem obtuse, turgid and might not be seen as the most sexy piece of bill we have in this chamber, it offers real, practical help for people in our region and it shows our country's generosity, our decency and our humanity. It also shows that we are thinking not just about ourselves but our neighbours and that good neighbourly policy. It's almost like we can express our concern, our affection and our love for our neighbours with bills like these that help our neighbours and support them in their economy and economic development, but it also means that when people come to this country and contribute to our economy, our society, our culture, our football, our faith, they can bring their families here, and this bill will help them do so. 17:39 Mr TEHAN 210911 Wannon This is an incredibly important debate. This bill, the Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Australia's Engagement in the Pacific) Bill 2023, is something that we absolutely must get right. It's incredibly important that we get it right because if we do we will get very good economic and social outcomes, which we all want for our neighbours in the Pacific. We will be able to help them grow their economies, grow their countries, grow their societies and become independent masters of their own destiny, which we all want. It also can lead to very important economic outcomes for our nation because we can use the PALM scheme to address skill shortages, to help develop and grow industries in our country. In particular—and this is where the PALM scheme is so important—it can help develop and grow industries in rural and regional Australia. One of the things that we always need to be cognisant of is that we have no issues attracting immigrants into Sydney and Melbourne—and, to a lesser extent, Brisbane and our other major capital cities—but we have great difficulty getting people into our regions and ensuring that they stay in the regions. The PALM scheme was introduced by the coalition as a way of providing economic and social benefits to the Pacific nations and also as a way of providing economic and social outcomes for rural and regional Australia. We shouldn't lose focus on the primacy of those objectives, because if we get that right we can build on the PALM scheme in a very effective way. The Pacific and Australia not only face economic and societal challenges but also face a very different world to the one that we lived in 10 years ago. It's one where geostrategic competition is playing out right across the globe and, in particular, in our region. Every decision we take that binds us closer to the Pacific is an incredibly important one. The PALM scheme has been working effectively. Like any scheme, changes can be made to improve it even further. I demonstrated this a couple of weeks ago when I was in the electorate of Grey with the member for Grey, Rowan Ramsey. We went to see one of the big oyster producers and met with PALM workers there. We met with three Fijians who had just come back from harvesting oysters. They had big smiles on their faces and were very friendly. We were able to have a lovely chat with them and ask them about the PALM scheme. It was quite interesting to hear what they had to say. They were going to work hard for three years and send remittance back. They were going to save and provide housing for themselves and their families through the hard work that they were undertaking. Then they were going to take the skills that they'd learnt and put them to use in their own seafood industry—a win-win. They were providing much needed skills for the company that we were visiting, and then they were going to go back and use those skills to help further develop the Fijian seafood industry. To me, that epitomises how we should be viewing the PALM scheme, a scheme whereby we can bring workers from the Pacific, skill them—by providing them with work—and enable them to provide those skills to the countries they've come from, improving economic outcomes for their families and, ultimately over time, their societies, making their country stronger so that it can meaningfully engage in the Pacific with us to deal with the economic and geostrategic challenges that we currently face. It is for this reason that the opposition supports this trial of allowing a small number of family members to accompany PALM workers to see whether this would enhance the PALM. If it does, and if it works efficiently and effectively and enables those family members to be able to contribute here and be with their partners as they contribute to our country, and then be able to use the remittances and the incomes earnt to build on the lives that they have back in their Pacific countries, then the trial will have worked. That is why it is an incredibly important trial, but it should be a proper trial. We need to make sure we evaluate it properly and that we know it is working as it is laid out, because we want to make sure that it enhances the PALM and enhances those outcomes that I've talked about—those mutually beneficial outcomes that we can get from a scheme that works like the PALM scheme does. We have to remember there is concern amongst our Pacific friends about the potential brain drain that can come from immigration schemes that take the very best of those workers in the Pacific and see their skills growing and enhancing our country but not being mutually beneficial in how the return goes to the countries that they are coming from. That is why the PALM scheme was designed as it is. That's why the PALM scheme, I think, has support both in Australia and also in the Pacific, but we do have to continue to watch and monitor to make sure that it is getting the outcomes that we need. When it comes to the PEV, the Pacific engagement visa, the opposition is reserving our right on this part of this bill, because we do have concerns as to how the PEV will work and whether it does bring with it that mutually beneficial outcome the Pacific islands and Australia are looking for. As was mentioned by my friend the member for Riverina, the shadow minister for the pacific, he and I have been working with Ministers Conroy and Giles to see whether we could shape the Pacific engagement visa in a bipartisan way, so that we can all rest assured that it would be mutually beneficial. We've had a round of negotiations on that—we had those yesterday—and Minister Conroy has provided some feedback on that to both me and to the member for Riverina on what, potentially, we could look at to shape the PEV so that we get bipartisan agreement on it. Can I thank Ministers Giles and Conroy for the very constructive way they have engaged with us. We will, in good faith, look at what has been provided to us and go back to both ministers on those proposals. If we can find a bipartisan way forward on the PEV, we will seek to do that. But the fact we have been able to sit down and have proper negotiations in good faith on that aspect of this bill is a very good first step. Even if, ultimately, we cannot reach agreement, I think it is very, very positive that we have been able to have proper discussions to see whether we can work through things. As I've said, my hope is that we might be able to resolve those differences, and the best way you can do that is to sit down and talk about it in good faith. Both sides have engaged in that way, which is a very good first step. We've detailed some of the concerns that we have with the PEV, and I won't go into those details again now. I'd rather emphasise the fact we've been able to sit down and have meaningful discussions on, hopefully, being able to provide a way forward. I'll conclude by saying—and I'll support the previous speaker, in this regard—this might sound like it's a bill that doesn't have a sexy name: the Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Australia's Engagement in the Pacific) Bill 2023. An honourable member: It's not that bad. We've heard worse. Mr TEHAN 210911 We have heard worse; we have heard better. That title shouldn't lead us to underestimate how important our engagement is with the Pacific and, especially, how important it is at this time. I know I also speak for the opposition in saying that, when it comes to our engagement with the Pacific, we want to keep it as bipartisan as we possibly can, because I think it's very clear that both sides of the parliament understand the importance of that engagement. There will, of course—as always—be times when we think there's a different approach which should be taken. This is a parliament. This is democracy. We do have to make sure that we can have the debates and discussions when we do disagree. There might be times when we have to agree to disagree. But I think, the majority of times, when it comes to engagement with the Pacific, we all want to see the outcomes that will lead to a strengthening of our nation and a strengthening of all the nations of the Pacific. We all know and understand how important it is that we engage, with humility and respect, with the nations of the Pacific, whether it be economically, strategically or on the sporting field. In all those ways and many more, we need to make sure that, as a nation and as a parliament, on the whole, we are providing a united front when it comes to that engagement, given how important it is to us today. We've always seen engagement with the Pacific as something that we need to lead on. Other countries, whether it be the Europeans or the Americans, look to other continents or other parts of the world where they're deemed to need to lead. When it comes to the Pacific, it is our responsibility to make sure that we lead, and lead side by side with the nations of the Pacific, step by step, making sure that we're doing it as equal partners. I know that both sides of the parliament want to do that. That's why, when it comes to PALM and the PALM aspects of this bill, we will be supporting what the government proposes. When it comes to the PEV, the Pacific engagement visa, we will continue our good faith negotiations to see whether we can reach a compromise which might lead us to be able to support that part of the bill. 17:53 Ms STANLEY 265990 Werriwa I rise to make to make my contribution to the Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Australia's Engagement in the Pacific) Bill 2023. Australia is closely linked to our Pacific nations socially and economically. Approximately 160,000 Australians were born in Pacific countries and around 270,000 have one parent born in a Pacific country. In my community alone, thousands were born in countries all across the Pacific, and thousands more have parents that were born there. It represents a strong people-to-people connection between us and the Pacific. Economically, Australia remains one of the biggest development partners and a large trading partner with the Pacific. Migration, such as through the Pacific Australia Labour Mobility scheme, the PALM scheme, has greatly benefited the economies of Australia and Pacific nations. Since coming into office, the Albanese government has been continually working to grow this close connection. Recently the Australian Defence Force specialists deployed in five countries across the Indo-Pacific region as part of the Pacific Partnership 2023—the largest annual multilateral humanitarian assistance and disaster relief preparedness mission in the region. In October last year, the Albanese government fulfilled an election commitment to expand aerial surveillance of the Pacific countries' exclusive economic zones under the Pacific Maritime Security Program. The expansion will help countries tackle illegal fishing, which is a practice that drains hundreds of millions of dollars out of Pacific economies every year. In the area of climate change, which is a challenge that Pacific nations understand better than any other, the Albanese government has expanded climate action both domestically and in the region. The October budget established the Pacific Climate Infrastructure Financing Partnership to support climate adaptation and resilience projects throughout the Pacific. The Albanese government has advocated to co-host the UN climate change conference in the Pacific to highlight the consequences of climate change in the region, and we've co-sponsored Vanuatu's request to the International Court of Justice for an advisory opinion on climate change. The Albanese government has also increased Australia's official development assistance budget for Pacific countries by $900 million over four years, providing $1.9 billion in development assistance in the 2023-24 year and is providing health care, education, sewerage infrastructure and other critical social services. The bill being debated here today demonstrates the Albanese government's continued commitment to Australia's unique relationship with our Pacific neighbours, of which we are very proud. We are proud of being one of the most vibrant multicultural societies in the world and being a society that values the contribution of many cultures that call Australia home. We're proud of our strong safety net and educational support that ensure that families are not left behind and give people an opportunity to get ahead. We're proud to be one of the highest-quality agricultural producers in the world. The bill will ensure that we can remain proud of these Australian values and strengthen them. Beginning with the PALM scheme, this bill sets out to strengthen one of the most important Pacific policies. The PALM scheme is vital for Australian farmers who are facing labour shortages across rural and regional Australia. It enables Pacific and Timor-Leste workers to help fill labour shortages, and it delivers jobs and economic benefits for employees, employers and our agricultural regions. Since the Albanese government came to office, the number of PALM workers has increased from approximately 25,000 to almost 40,000. Earlier this year, the Albanese government moved to strengthen safeguards to stop the exploitation of workers in the PALM scheme, ensuring that migrant workers have pay parity with domestic workers and increasing transparency surrounding accommodation costs and other deductions. Building on these changes, the government has announced a pilot program which will allow PALM workers to bring their families to Australia. Workers that take part in the PALM scheme move to Australia for years at a time, and that separates them from their families. The pilot program will allow 200 families of PALM workers who have been in the country for at least 12 months to migrate to Australia. The government is taking a measured and sensible approach in the form of a pilot which will enable the government to monitor the new measure and ensure that it works for all parties. With the introduction of this new measure, this bill will set out to expand access to the appropriate benefits for these families. By amending the A New Tax System (Family Assistance) Act 1999, these families will be eligible for family tax benefit parts A and B, as well as the childcare subsidy. These changes will support families to meet costs of living and ease pressure on households by giving both partners the opportunity to participate in the workforce, because PALM workers, like all workers, are the foundation of our success. They are the ones that support critical industries and sectors such as agriculture and, more recently, aged care. Their importance to our nation and their importance to our close relationships with our Pacific neighbours are recognised in this bill. Another measure introduced by the Albanese government to strengthen our relations in the Pacific is the new Pacific engagement visa, the PEV. Despite being our closest neighbours, less than one per cent of Australia's permanent migration intake is from Pacific countries. The PEV recognises the growing Pacific and Timor Leste diaspora in Australia, allocating up to 3,000 permanent visas for Pacific nationals annually. The visas will be allocated through a ballot process. If selected, participants will need to apply, as well as meet various eligibility requirements. These requirements will include being aged 18 to 45 to enter the ballot, being selected through that process, have an ongoing job offer, meet English language requirements as well as health and character checks, hold a passport of a participating country and have been born or have a parent born in an eligible country. The PEV was designed in close consultation with various Pacific nations to ensure that it delivers on bringing together our Pacific family and benefiting all of us. The Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Australia’s Engagement in the Pacific) Bill 2023 will enhance the Pacific engagement visas by expanding various support measures to those visa holders and their families. The bill will also amend A New Tax System (Family Assistance) Act 1999, to provide family tax benefit A to PEV holders. It amends the Higher Education Support Act 2003 and the VET Student Loans Act 2016 to allow PEV holders access to the Higher Education Loan Program and to VET student loans. Additionally, the bill amends the Social Security Act 1991 to allow access to Austudy as well as to youth allowance for both students and apprentices. These measures are incredibly important because they open up educational opportunities for our Pacific nations and help with the skills shortages that Australia is experiencing in the short-term and the broader labour issues we are facing in the long-term. Australia is a Pacific nation. We are proudly a part of a vast and diverse Pacific region. The measures detailed in this bill and the amendments they make to strengthen the Pacific engagement visa in the PALM scheme are a demonstration of Australia's commitment to our Pacific family. We will always stand ready as a partner and will continue to support our Pacific family both within and outside Australia. I commend the bill to the House. 18:02 Mr CONROY 249127 Shortland I rise to sum up the debate here and to thank everyone for their contribution. I really thank everyone for the spirit in which that has been given—by members of the government and members of the opposition and crossbench. I think it's fair to say that there is a total bipartisan commitment to the Pacific and a recognition that Australia is proudly a member of the Pacific family. Our future is in the Pacific. Our interests are dependent on a prosperous, stable Pacific. We are really intent on making that contribution. I thank the member for Werriwa, in particular, for her last contribution. It summed up the key features of the bill, which I won't go into in any detail. I thank my opposition counterparts, the member for Wannon and the member for Riverina, for their contributions. I won't reflect on the member for Riverina's discussion of his rugby league abilities. I think the less said, the better! But I thank him for his contribution, his commitment to the Pacific and his powerful oratory that covered the really positive impact Pacific workers are making in our country and in his electorate of Riverina and its industries, and which also highlighted their selfless sacrifice in the Lismore floods. The member for Wannon was very right to say we should approach the Pacific with humility and respect. That's what this government is intent on doing. The Pacific Australia Labour Mobility scheme is going from strength to strength. We have around 40,000 workers in the economy filling labour shortages in Australia. I had the privilege of meeting 17 Tuvaluan workers, when I was in their country last week, who are about to come to Australia to be part of the 500-strong aged-care worker pilot. They were keen to come across. They talked about their respect for their seniors, their reverence for their seniors and how they were really excited to bring those values to look after senior Australians. So not only is it a win for Australia; it's a win for those workers. On average, a long-term PALM worker on the up to four-year visa will send home A$15,000 a year. That remittance is massive. It's in the context of a region where between a third and half of all Pacific islanders live on A$1,000 a year or less; it's in the context of Pacific island nations that depend upon remittance flows. For some countries in the Pacific, up to 43 per cent of their GDP is remittances. This is vital cash going back to sustain economies. It also sustains communities. It keeps communities going. It lifts families out of poverty. It also gives great skills to workers. I met with a Timor-Leste worker at a strawberry farm in northern Tasmania. Her way of counting the strawberry punnet is to think of every punnet as an equivalent brick to go to the house that she is building in Timor-Leste. It's a great way of thinking about how her contribution to our economy is building a future for her and her family. I met with returned meat workers from the Solomon Islands, one of whom was starting a business because of the money and skills he learned in Australia. So the PALM scheme is incredibly important. I will say again that we are very aware that some Pacific countries are very conscious about how many people are coming to Australia. I will re-emphasise that every Pacific country chooses how many people come to Australia and who comes to Australia. That's very, very important to re-state. The trial of 200 families on the PALM long-term visa coming to Australia is really important to deal with some of the issues that arise when workers are away from their families for four years. I'm very excited about how that pilot will go and to see the results. It was an election commitment from the Australian Labor Party at the last election. It was part of the most comprehensive Pacific policy a party has ever taken to an election, and we are really delighted to be implementing that election commitment. Another election commitment was the Pacific engagement visa, which, for the first time in the history of this country, is allocating a specific part of our permanent migration stream of 3,000 spots to one region—in this case, the Pacific—to build the Pacific diaspora. People-to-people links with the Pacific are critical to our future. You had to have seen what seemed like 100,000 Australians of Samoan heritage out on the streets in the week leading up to the Rugby League World Cup final last year to see the diaspora in this country and the proud roots they've put into our community. The PEV is intended to do that and to steepen that. It's a very important scheme. It's welcomed by the Pacific. In most instances, they are very enthusiastic for the scheme to start and for Pacific islanders to permanently migrate to this country. At the moment, only one per cent of our permanent migration intake is people of Pacific heritage. That is too low. We want to grow that. We want them to make a contribution to our society and to build upon the great numbers already here. I thank everyone for their contribution. These bills are important. They're critical parts of this government's Pacific agenda about being the partner of choice for the Pacific, being a proud member of the Pacific family and rebuilding our connections to that incredibly important region, a region vital to our future prosperity. I commend the bill to the House. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced. Ordered that this bill be reported to the House without amendment. Higher Education Support Amendment (Response to the Australian Universities Accord Interim Report) Bill 2023 105

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

Second Reading 105 18:09 Mr BURNELL 300129 Spence I rise—quite enthusiastically, I might add—to speak in favour of the Higher Education Support Amendment (Response to the Australian Universities Accord Interim Report) Bill 2023. I speak to the bill, the interim report itself and some of the noteworthy aspects of academia the report touches on. I feel it is worth mentioning one key statistic from the outset. This statistic is the reason behind my enthusiastic support for this bill and why we needed the measures that the Australian Universities Accord interim report recommends introducing to have been adopted yesterday. Within my electorate of Spence, which is located in the northern suburbs of Adelaide, according to recent census data the percentage of persons over the age of 15 years old with a bachelor's degree level education or higher is 9½ per cent of the population. This figure falls well behind the percentage of the South Australian population, which stands at 22.7 per cent, and is dwarfed by the Australian population with a bachelor's education, which is 26.3 per cent. There is frankly no amount of spin that can help those numbers look better by any kind of creative interpretation. A bachelor's degree is not a pathway that will suit everyone, or at least not necessarily straightaway after someone leaves high school. But, as the years go on, we stumble upon another key figure—that being it has been estimated that, by the year 2050, 55 per cent of all jobs will require some form of higher education. This fits somewhat with another statistic I came across when researching background information prior to speaking on the Jobs and Skills Australia legislation in this place: nine out of 10 new jobs will require post-secondary school education, four out of those being VET qualifications. The picture is slightly less grave when you look at the number of people currently enrolled in some form of tertiary education, but the percentage of our population still falls in the realm of five per cent below the national and state figures. It is plainly obvious that something must be done to correct this and to alter the course. The story told by both those sets of numbers is that, if this is left to continue as a trend, we are condemning future generations to be locked out for good on well-paying jobs in the future, robbing the future of Spence of economic security and gainful employment opportunities within the competitive employment market domestically as well as contributing to Australia's international competitiveness in the future. I cannot stand idly by and have economic disadvantage be entrenched for generations to come. This is why I was both eager and delighted to attend a briefing with the chair of the Australian Universities Accord Panel, Professor Mary O'Kane AC, to discuss the interim report and the next steps forward in that process. One of those steps is for the government to back in the main recommendations by the accord panel in the handed-down interim report. I can be assured that the Minister for Education is following this diligently to see this process to fruition, and the proof is in the pudding by introducing this bill. On the interim report's recommendations: part of the next phase was seeking submissions commenting on the interim report. In its own way, it's something that I'm doing in the Chamber this very second. But in real terms I saw this as an opportunity to have a proper conversation within Spence about the need for a tertiary hub located within our borders. My eyes lit up when I saw within the interim report what was listed as priority action No. 1, which is to extend access and create further regional university centres, and, using the same model, adapting it to create suburban and metropolitan locations—teritary hubs in suburban Australia. After leaving Canberra after the last sitting fortnight I went and visited Gawler and District College, where I met with some very bright year 12 students. The aim of this visit was not just to share my views on the Universities Accord interim report but to share my views on higher education and the need for a tertiary hub in Spence, and also to hear from them on their expectations for their future and what they would want a tertiary hub, if it were established, to provide. The 'what' and 'why' were extremely important components of this process. I am extremely grateful to have our local newspaper, the Bunyip, help us amplify the message throughout the local community so they can provide me with their feedback on something that I feel will be vitally important to those living in Spence over many decades to come. That message was received loud and clear, with scores of local residents alongside the year 12 students I met providing feedback to my office over just a couple of weeks. We asked our community what the barriers were to entering and staying involved in higher education. Overwhelmingly, much attention was devoted to the long commute from the northern suburbs into the city, where the majority of bachelor level programs are offered,. Round trips, depending on the institution being travelled towards, can be upwards of three hours in our community. This provides to those in our patch, who only want to access higher education, a tiring and alienating expensive. This serves to greatly disenchant those wishing to explore what our great tertiary educators have to offer. Those who provided feedback have echoed this point. Macey from Gawler East says that significant travel time takes valuable hours out of the day for students in our community. She also says it restricts hours of working in a part-time job alongside study commitments, further disincentivising tertiary study. Exacerbating this disadvantage for my constituents is the lack of existing facilities in Spence, which was also noted in the feedback given to my office. As Nikhil from Evanston South notes, the lack of university-centric centres and study areas in our community means that our students still in secondary education—our budding future—lack any means to continue study once school is finished for the day. This also goes for those who work part-time or even full-time and those who care for their children or other dependents. We were told that the lack of facilities locally, which are needed once people with other commitments are ready to learn, means another large cohort of our community find themselves either traveling long distances, already exhausted or otherwise barred from obtaining tertiary qualifications. Again, to make this clear, these circumstances continue to entrench further alienation from tertiary study in our community, with even greater consequences on the horizon, given the economic transformation forecast in the interim report of the accord. We were also told by our community that financial factors are producing a significant barrier for those in our community, which is already a known disadvantage for residents in Spence. The need to travel long distances just to study in turn racks up an excessive bill in public transport costs, in fuel and even in taxi and ride-sharing fares, should they be needed. It should not cost our students anything, let alone the hundreds of dollars per month required to travel from my electorate on a daily basis to merely access education that they are not only entitled to but are encouraged to receive. Many others who responded to our request for feedback echoed this sentiment in the response. The community made clear to me that the north, already faced with financial difficulty as it is, is made even more distant from university study because of the cost involved. This needs to change. A huge leap towards that change can be made through the tertiary hub, as listed in priority 1 of these recommendations. Most importantly, my community has agreed that the establishment of a tertiary hub in Spence would be beneficial. According to the feedback my office received, over 80 per cent of respondents were in favour of the establishment of a tertiary hub. The majority of the other 20 per cent of respondents showed interest in the idea also, but emphasised that a hub needs to go beyond a regular study space. This brings me to the final question asked of our community, which invited feedback on what a tertiary hub in Spence should look like and how it needs to assist our community. Respondents in my community have effectively called for, in the words of James from Munno Para, a 'bite sized version of what they have at the universities in Adelaide'. This included staff support, in both administrative and tutoring capacities. This could give students the ability to ask questions and seek assistance with their assignments in real time—a drastic improvement from waiting for emails or from spending an hour and a half on the train just to ask questions. Gordon from Craigmore suggested also that such a centre could feature subject-specific resources, like shared textbooks and facilities tailored to different areas of study. As my community noted, this would create an even greater gateway for our community into the tertiary space. The response to our request for feedback was so good that I do not have time to go through all the suggestions listed, but I would like to thank each and every respondent for their valuable feedback, as I am determined to turn their hopes and needs into real change. Giving people in Spence—or anywhere across the country, for that matter—access to university education is its own benefit. Australia is a country that is home to some of the leading universities in the world, from educating the minds of both its domestic students and those who travel from abroad to undertake part of their journey in higher education within Australia, all the way to our universities' contribution to research and development in a number of fields—oftentimes collaborating with leading educational and research institutions from around the globe. I know that my colleagues the members for Bean, Canberra and Fenner have very likely made a more knowledgeable contribution on the universities in the ACT as part of this debate. However, in my short time in Canberra, I have observed the intrinsic public good that universities, particularly the ANU, foster by their engagement with parliamentarians. I became very aware of this when I was asked to represent the Minister for Communications earlier this year at Tech Policy Futures, an event hosted by the Tech Policy Design Centre at the ANU. It saw parliamentarians of all stripes engaging with academia, leading industry figures, innovators and those who will be shaping how we navigate ethics and develop policy frameworks around emerging technologies into the future. I'd also like to give a particular mention to the National Security College at the Australian National University. The National Security College has facilitated the NS23 program, which has provided first-term members of parliament—including me and several others from across every side of this House and the other place—with invaluable mentorship, training and briefings on a number of key and emerging matters relating to Australia's strategic and national security interests and the challenges we face on those fronts. Though I have never attended university, it is easy to see the inherent benefits these institutions provide to Australian society long before a student sets foot on a campus. Despite the fact that, as I mentioned, higher education was not something that was really an option for me along my journey, I always feel that option should remain open if I want it. I share a similar sentiment about higher education for others. You might not start a bachelor's degree straight out of high school, or you may not even finish high school, but the pathway should be open to someone to upskill themselves if they decide to. It is up to us to get policy settings right to facilitate this and not make the decision to study at university one which feels like venturing into the breach. There are enough changes to one's circumstances that go along with taking up study, whether that be vocational education or higher education. The role of government, in this case, is to facilitate this occurring. This isn't so much about barriers of entry but, rather, barriers of access. I'm extremely pleased that, through this bill, the accord process and a number of other means, the Albanese government is committed and is acting on ways to open the door of opportunity for more Australians to gain a university education. I've pointed out a number of statistics here today, particularly one stating that only 9.5 per cent of people living in Spence hold a bachelor's-degree-level education or higher. I'm supporting this bill to be part of the process that corrects this. On census night, there were over 50,000 people in Spence under the age of 20. That number balloons to nearly 93,000 for those under the age of 35, an age bracket that will see the truth in the prediction made concerning the sheer number of jobs requiring tertiary education qualifications. This interim report and its priorities move us one step towards ensuring that, by the time we look at the numbers, they have the best chance of being employed in secure, well-paying jobs because they will have been assisted by having greater access to an education that will enable them to unlock the best possible chance of a better tomorrow. That is something that I feel that, even in an abstract sense, we go into this place to do. But, with this legislation and the accord process moving forward, the abstract starts to become significantly more tangible. I look forward to engaging with this process as it continues along. In the meantime, I commend this bill to the House. 18:24 Ms MASCARENHAS 298800 Swan A good education is a ticket to a good life. That's why I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the debate on the Higher Education Support Amendment (Response to the Australian Universities Accord Interim Report) Bill 2023. It's one of significance for the future of Australia's higher education system and the future of our country. The journey to draft this bill has been extensive and inclusive, involving consultation throughout the whole of the tertiary sector. This process was driven by an assessment of our national needs, with a goal to align the changes with the higher education sector needs of the nation. Another goal is to forge a sustainable and long-term commitment among stakeholders to chart the future of Australia's higher education system. The Australian Universities Accord, led by the distinguished Professor Mary O'Kane, the former Vice-Chancellor of the University of Adelaide—I should also note that Professor O'Kane was the first woman to become a dean of engineering at any university. And I note that there are two female engineers in the chamber. I suggest the member for McPherson and I love it when we see our STEM sisters rise. Mrs Andrews 230886 Bravo. Ms MASCARENHAS 298800 The accord undertook an exhaustive review of the multitude of critical issues facing our higher education system. These include access, inclusivity, accountability and the interface between vocational education and the higher education system, sustainability of the system, and also cultivation of new knowledge and innovation that keeps up with the demand of skills. The comprehensive review, the most extensive in 15 years, engaged individuals from various sectors spanning business, STEM, humanities, laws and from across the political spectrum. The goal was to ensure a diverse range of perspectives and experiences to feed into the process. It's worth noting that our universities have undergone significant transformations since my own time as a student. I attended Curtin University, which is in the heart of the electorate of Swan, where I studied chemistry and chemical engineering. I was lucky enough to study on a HECS exemption scholarship, because I fitted a number of equity categories. I was a female in a male dominated area. I was coming from country WA, and my dad was not in employment at the time. This scholarship was instrumental in propelling me towards a career in engineering and consulting in the mining industry, where I worked in climate change action for 12 years. It ignited my passion for learning and instilled a deep respect the tertiary sector, a sentiment that endures today. Our universities have evolved with the advent of new technologies, which have redefined both teaching and learning methodologies. The changing landscape necessitates adapting our course offerings to meet the surge in demand for skills, knowledge and technological innovation. For example, the rapid development of artificial intelligence has ushered in a new era of demanding a paradigm shift in teaching, learning and research. This shift forces us to think about how we unlock technology and seize the opportunity and also how we capitalise on this and co-ordinate a national and integrated approach. This approach also needs to make sure that we enhance our capabilities and address the ever-evolving landscape in technology and innovation into 2023 and beyond. This bill is a significant stride in that direction, and I'm proud that the government did not draft this legislation in isolation. The changes proposed by the bill emerged from a process that involved listening, consultation and the incorporation of feedback. This is because we have a government that listens and wants to work together with stakeholders to create change. Working together is what this government is about. Unlike the top-down approach of the former government that failed to take use of the opportunity to listen, we're making sure that we do this to not repeat the mistakes of the past. Instead we're creating a new culture to cultivate good governance and good public policy in collaboration with the people that are on the ground making decisions and implementing change. It is only through this approach that we can achieve success. There is no going back to the ways of the previous government. No-one wants that. The measures introduced by this bill support students and have been finely calibrated based on consultations and reviews resulting from the formulation of guidelines that delineate from obligations of all universities. These guidelines underscore the identification of students facing challenges in their courses and mandate providing appropriate support to these individuals. The key provision of the bill is to cease the 50 per cent pass rule, which previously required students to pass 50 per cent of the units they undertook to receive Commonwealth supported places and fee-help assistance. Particularly as a country student, I saw many students struggle with that very first year of university—adapting to moving to the city and dealing with the autonomy of being a student. So I see this as being a rule that really benefits students who haven't had parents who have gone through the tertiary sector or who are new to a place. It will make sure that we actually see better outcomes for these students and also for Australia. The DEPUTY SPEAKER C2T I ask the member for Swan to resume her seat. It being 6.30 pm, the debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 192(b). The resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. The member for Swan will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed on a future day. GRIEVANCE DEBATE 109 GRIEVANCE DEBATE Economy 109 18:30 Dr RYAN 297660 Kooyong I represent an electorate which is generally perceived as well-off. It's an electorate with a mean income of $106,000 a year, an electorate in which unemployment is only 2.2 per cent. Even in Kooyong, though, Australians are doing it hard. If we don't change things, the current generation of young adults will be the first Australian generation to be less wealthy than that which came before it. This is because of the damage done to our economy and our infrastructure by recent governments more so than the damage done to our economy by the recent pandemic, although that epidemic has left us with educational and social challenges, the full burden of which is likely not yet manifest. We in this place are handing the next generation indexed and increasing HECS debts. We're handing the next generation a narrowing tax base with increasing dependency on personal income tax in which those left in the workplace will have to pay more in tax to support an ageing population. We're handing the next generation the economic burden of climate change, the cost of which was estimated in last week's Intergenerational report to be $423 billion. Finally, we are handing the next generation a housing crisis which has developed because we in this country have seen housing as a means of wealth generation rather than as a basic human right. These issues matter to the 20- and 30-year-olds of Kooyong just as much as they do to those in the other 150 electorates of Australia. We owe the next generation more. I want to read to the House an email that I received recently from a constituent. I find this letter confronting because it speaks to the difficult and inconvenient truths about the failure of our government to protect the best interests of our citizens and to ensure the better future of our children. I want to place it on the record so that my constituent's concerns and experiences can be heard in this place. I wish to show him the respect that he deserves. I have permission from my constituent to read this letter but I've not included some personal sentences. I will otherwise read the entirety of the letter: My name is Carey Ciuro. I am writing to you today as a renter in your electorate and in response to today's national cabinet. Firstly, I am 38. I have been a renter for my entire adult life. Recently I undertook the path towards home ownership, after five years of hard work to save a deposit, develop my career and increase my employability through a Masters. I attended an auction for a small unit in Kew, where multiple first home buyers, including myself, hoped to buy a property with an estimate of $540,000-$580,000 for under the $600,000 to lock in the First Home Owners Grant. Needless to say, the property sold to an investor for $610,000, blowing away every other bidder. I am not upset by this. It is actually expected. I expect this to happen many times over the course of my journey. I am likely to continue renting for some time to come. My rental is modest and comparatively affordable. It is close to my work, with a car park and renovated kitchen. It has however, four broken windows which don't close and water damage that is likely to have caused mold. Redemption works to have this addressed have been fruitless, with the OC promising that the windows are being replaced all together, and therefore the landlord has asked me to wait. Powerless as I am to challenge any of this for fear of a rent increase to compensate, I have endured the top temperatures of 14 degrees in my apartment this winter, as my last bill to run the heater cost me $300. A cost I can hardly afford. For what it's worth the WHO recommends that a safe habitable temperature is 18 degrees for houses in winter … I am also not upset by this. This, in the scale of rentals I have lived in the past, is like a palace. I am utterly blessed and privileged to be living alone, something afforded to me by a stable upbringing and secure job. Other renters are not so lucky. The percentage of renters in Australia is growing rapidly, compounded by an almost impossible to penetrate housing market. For a growing number of renters home ownership is a farce. A fairy tale of a bygone era. The best most of them can hope for is somewhere habitable, safe and stable to live. Even that is slowly whittled away by the gears of Government inaction. Homes built at volume today are an utter joke, almost always built with a defect or non-compliant minimum building standard. The avenues for recourse and remediation are futile, constricted as they are due to the sheer volume of failures in the industry. When you do find something you're happy to commit to you are taken on a circus ride of impossibly confusing laws and regulations. I paid $150 for a conveyancer for the aforementioned flat just to read the contract with me. Money down the drain. I was quoted $750 for a builder surveyor to inspect the property to ensure my half a million dollar purchase was not going to collapse, something you cannot do for every property less you want to go broke. I get more protection buying a used car than buying a house. Reporting the agent for undercutting is a laughable, well known waste of time. It is with all this in mind I want to remind you of the reality of today's National Cabinet announcement. 200,000 extra homes than originally promised, as a stretch goal. Building to start by 2024, over five years. I'll be 44 by the time the houses are done, but never mind me, as I said I'm lucky. Families are living in cars. Now. There was no real change to rental rights either, just a promised national standard for already enacted state legislation, all of which I believe have only exacerbated the problems of renting. The Government's work on this is a mockery. Its transparent gas lighting of criticism, pigheaded as it is, has left me with a rage not felt since I last saw Scott Morrison. I know this is a long, rambling messaging, but I want to express to you the rage that is growing within the 31% of renters in Australia. This group is not declining. It is growing. If trends continue renters will be a larger percentage of tenure than mortgage holders in less than a decade. Labor seems to be wanting to entrench this growing class of Australians as normalised, powerless and indebted. To me, this woeful, pathetic charade is Un-Australian. They are ensuring the coming Australians are the worst off. I know you are just one representative. The system is a faceless, formidable tyrant that may never change, but I hope my message resonates and empowers you to speak for those that aren't or can't. Deputy Speaker, I hope you agree that this was an incredibly powerful and difficult email to receive. The crisis in housing availability and affordability in this country is disproportionately affecting our young adolescents and adults. There are many things that this government, our state governments and our local governments could do to address this crisis. I voted for this government's Housing Futures Fund, but it's too small, it is too little and the homes will come too slowly. We need this government to intervene as a matter of urgency. We need this government to build more social and affordable housing in places where people want to live and work. We need this government to make the most of the housing stock that we already have. We need the government to do this as a matter of urgency. Cost of Living 111 18:38 Ms SITOU 298121 Reid Inflation is a challenge around the world. In the UK it's at 6.8 per cent, in Germany it's at 6.1 per cent, and in the US it's at 3.2 per cent—and spare a thought for Sweden, where it's sitting at eight per cent. It's a global problem caused by the war in Ukraine and global supply chain issues that haven't fully equalised since COVID. And here in Australia we have not been spared. Inflation in Australia as of July this year is at 4.9 per cent, a drop of 0.5 per cent from 5.4 per cent in June. It's encouraging, but we know that there is more to do, as Australians are still under the pump. So I welcome the news today that the RBA has decided to keep the official cash rate at 4.1 per cent for the third month in a row. This will be a welcome reprieve for many mortgage holders, but we know that cost-of-living pressures can hit from many different angles—energy, rent, childcare fees and costs of medicines. So what is this government doing? We know that inflation is still the main game in town, and that's why our primary focus is to take the edge off those cost-of-living pressures that many households are feeling, and, unlike those opposite, who talk a big game on cost of living, this government has got the action to match. First and foremost, this is a government that knows the best thing you can do alongside managing inflation is to make sure that wages are going up, because good wages are what Australian families need to address cost-of-living pressures. On this front, there is an increasingly good story to tell. Data from the middle of August confirmed that the wage price index rose by 0.8 per cent in the June quarter to be 3.6 per cent higher through the year. This is the first time in three years quarterly wages have kept up with inflation and is much better than the fall of 1.5 per cent in the March quarter of 2022 before the previous election. Since coming into government, wages have been growing at an annualised average of 3.6 per cent compared to 2.1 per cent under the watch of those opposite, and this hasn't just happened by accident. The previous government had low wages as a deliberate feature of their economic architecture. We don't, and that's the difference here. Wages are on the right track because of the policies put in place by the Albanese Labor government—supporting large increases in the minimum wage and low-paid awards, making sure workers in highly feminised industries like early education can bargain collectively for better pay and providing aged-care workers with a 15 per cent increase in their pay. This, when coupled with responsible economic management that keeps downward pressure on inflation, is what will get wages moving, but it's not all on the wages front. With the introduction this week of the closing the loophole bill in this House, the government has made clear it that to improve wages we have to close the loopholes that undermine wages and conditions. But more than that, and I think this is often missed, this levels the playing field for workers and businesses. And I'm assuming here that the alleged party of business might be interested in this, because, when some employers try and use sneaky labour-hire tactics to undermine pre-agreed enterprise agreements, this distorts markets and penalises businesses who stick to their enterprise agreements. We're also standing up for casuals who want to become permanent. We're closing the loophole that leaves people stuck classified as casuals when they actually work permanent regular hours, so this is good for market competition and makes sure that we protect the wages and conditions of some of Australia's most vulnerable workers. There's a very human side to this too. I saw it during the election campaign. I was outdoor knocking in Lidcombe when I met Ashley. Ashley told me about her partner who had been working at the same company for 27 years. Despite this, he could never move to a permanent role. It was never offered to him. He was only ever employed as a casual worker. So that's 27 years of not being able to book a holiday on annual leave and of not having job security. That's 27 years of not having certainty of hours, of not being able to plan your life and of not being able to get a mortgage. So it's for people like Ashley and her family that we want to close these loopholes and get wages moving. On energy prices, this government is getting on with the job of giving business the certainty of investment while also negotiating the transition to net zero. You give business certainty by having one energy plan, sticking to it and working on delivering it. This is a big contrast to the previous government. They had more than 20 attempts at an energy plan and they couldn't land one. Those opposite failed to back our energy intervention plan late last year when energy prices were climbing. They refused to back a plan that would provide relief to households. But the results are in: without the Albanese Labor government's intervention last year, the ABS estimates that the most recent six per cent July increase would have been 19 per cent. It is this government's intervention that is working to take the sting out of energy prices. I talk about all these measures we are taking to address the cost of living, but I haven't even brought up cheaper child care, cheaper medicine and the work we are doing to lift JobSeeker and rent assistance that is going to provide direct financial relief for so many who are doing it tough. We know these are challenging times and there is much for the government to do, and we are getting on with the job of implementing our economic plan to ensure we are both helping with cost-of-living relief where we can and putting downward pressure on inflation. That's ultimately what is going to lay the foundation for a stronger economic future. During this cost-of-living crisis, I had a really hard think about what I can be doing as a local federal member to help my community. Whilst the Albanese Labor government is doing all it can to provide cost-of-living relief, I, as a local federal member, needed to ensure I was providing that practical relief to my community. I have organised two cost-of-living help hubs. We've already held one in Burwood, which was a great success. We had 300 people come through the door. The idea behind the cost-of-living help hub was to ensure we were bringing in the government agencies at both the federal and state level who could provide the information the community needed about the rebates, vouchers and financial relief they could access. On the day, people were bringing in their bills—their electricity bills, their gas bills—and they were able to get concrete practical support from agencies about the rebates they were entitled to. Our next one will be at Lidcombe Public School. We're inviting the community to come on 18 September, and they will be able to speak to a range of representatives from Centrelink, Services NSW and Sydney Water, as well as the Western Sydney Community Legal Centre. We want to make sure that, during this period, people have access to the information they need as well as the support they need. Anyone who needs support is very welcome to come to our cost-of-living help hub. Australian Constitution: Aboriginal And Torres Strait Islander Voice 112 18:48 Mr WALLACE 265967 Fisher On 14 October this country will go to a referendum, and it will be the most important referendum this country will have faced. This will be an opportunity where fair-minded Australians will have differences of opinion. But the importance of this day can never be overstated. This is a day where Australians get an opportunity to either change the Constitution or leave it as it is. I want to encourage all Australians to turn out and vote. This proposed change that is being put up by the Prime Minister is a risky change. There is no other organisation like the Voice that is being proposed here in this referendum anywhere in the world. If we change the Constitution, it will need another referendum to change it back. It is permanent. You cannot out-legislate the Constitution. In circumstances where this government, this Prime Minister, is providing us with such scant detail about what the Voice will do, how it will operate and who will sit on it, the Prime Minister is, in effect, saying: 'Trust me. Vote for it on Saturday and I'll tell you about the details on Monday.' The Prime Minister and this Labor government cannot seriously expect the Australian people to believe that they do not know, that they do not have a bill drafted and ready to go. Yet the Prime Minister and this government are providing us with no detail. Why do you think that is? Why is this government providing the Australian people no detail about the most significant change to our Constitution since 1901? This should send shivers up the spines of 25 million Australians. Prime Minister, you can't treat the Australians like mugs. To the Australian people: I'm calling upon you to look at what is being proposed. This is not just about the vibe. The Prime Minister is being the Dennis Denuto of Australian politics; it's not just about the vibe when we are talking about the most significant change and yet there is no detail. This should cause us a great deal of concern. There is no doubt that this referendum is dividing Australians. We were told that this would bring us together, but, once again, what is being proposed is two separate questions—or they should be two separate questions but they've been conflated into one. Those on the 'yes' campaign love to talk about constitutional recognition. I would suggest that if the Prime Minister was fair dinkum about this, he would have split the question into two parts, with two separate questions. One question would ask: do you support constitutional recognition for Indigenous Australians? I reckon more than 90 per cent of Australians would support that. The second question would ask: do you support the Voice to parliament and to the executive? I reckon that the vast majority of Australians would not support that. But what he's done is conflate these two entirely separate issues into one in the hope, and reliant on the goodwill of Australians, that their desire for the first will carry over into the second. If he was fair dinkum, if he was legitimate and if he was honest with the Australian people, he would have split those two questions up, but he didn't do that. This is not just about constitutional recognition now; this is about a voice to parliament and to the executive. On that point, the Voice to the executive did not come out of the Uluru Statement from the Heart; that came out of the working committee. In fact, we know that the Attorney-General himself made representations to the working committee to remove that from the proposed question. But, for reasons unknown, it was kept in. The Voice, if it goes through, will have the ability to make representations not just to the parliament but to the executive, to the departments and to ministers. The Prime Minister himself has said that it will take a very brave government to not accept the recommendations of the Voice. On the one hand the Prime Minister talks about how this is a generous offering from Indigenous Australians, but on the other hand he talks about how it would take a brave government to not accept the recommendations of the Voice. You can't have it both ways. It can't be just simply a body which provides non-binding representations, and you then say, 'It would take a brave government not to accept them.' These are very, very serious questions. There is no denying that Indigenous Australians are amongst our most disadvantaged, but what the proposal fails to do, without equivocation, is address how it will change the lives of Indigenous people on the ground. That's partly because there are no details; it's all about the vibe. There are many Australians who want to do the right thing—I get that—but there are very serious consequences that flow from this referendum. It will be the first change to the Constitution since 1977. The reality is that we don't know how the courts will view or interpret how the Voice will operate. We all know that there will be years of litigation and lawfare over what this change to the Constitution means and how it will operate—anyone who says otherwise is being disingenuous. As a lawyer of 23 years, I can guarantee that there will be many cases where the courts are called upon to interpret this change—if it gets that way, if it becomes law, if it is enshrined in the Constitution. There will be many instances where there will be challenges to decisions made by the executive or made by the parliament as to whether they accept the representations made by the Voice or not. This could fundamentally change the way this parliament operates. The federal parliament, the Commonwealth parliament, is the pre-eminent representative body of 25 million Australians, and there is no doubt in my mind that it could be held to ransom by the Voice. The delays that could result from those court cases could, in effect, grind this parliament to a halt. It could become very dysfunctional. There is no doubt that it will open the door for activists and, as I said, legal warfare—lawfare. It will become a costly and bureaucratic process. Impacting upon the lives of Indigenous Australians will not be helped by more bureaucracy. In the Commonwealth of Australia we spend around $33 billion a year on Indigenous Australians. It is not for the want of doing the right thing by either government. There is clearly a lot of waste. That's where we need to address this. We need to listen to people on the ground, not listen to bureaucrats in Canberra. Western Sydney Airport, Music Education 113 18:58 Ms TEMPLEMAN 181810 Macquarie Just over two months ago the preliminary flight paths for Western Sydney International (Nancy-Bird Walton) Airport were released. It's fair to say that they have not brought much joy to many of my Macquarie constituents in the Blue Mountains or the Hawkesbury. Today I want to share some of the feedback from residents. It predominantly, but not exclusively, comes from the mountains, where the decision to live in a bushfire-prone area away from the conveniences of city life and a long way from the existing international airport is often a deliberate choice rather than an accident. I've spent the last couple of months asking people to look closely at what has been put forward. I've said that I expected concern and even shock at the planned flight paths, which was how I felt when I saw them. I won't reprosecute the years of concern I've expressed in this place about the 24/7 airport, but nothing has changed my views. What has changed is the transparency enabled by our infrastructure minister, especially the flight path mapping and the noise tool. While I have not liked the detail, there is a lot of information and there have been many frank conversations between key departmental and government agency representatives and community members at the multiple information sessions. There has also been time to absorb what is, no matter how it lands, a very big change. So what are people saying? In the survey I've run, nearly 400 people responded. Three-quarters either disapproved or strongly disapproved of what was being put forward. Some people see minimal impact and some welcome having an airport closer. For the majority who responded, there is a repeated request for more protections from night-time noise, with night defined by the flight path designers as between 11 pm and 5.30 am. Here's a tiny sample of the comments I've received. The first read: My main issue is the no curfew rule and the amount of flights that will be going overhead at night. I'm concerned my family and I will have lots of difficulty sleeping. We moved from the city to the mountains for peace and quiet and now we are going to have to deal with this. Another reads: There should be a curfew at night. It is unreasonable that people in Western Sydney should have to put up with noise from aircraft all night. The impacts on people's health and wellbeing is unreasonable. A third comment reads: Noise, lack of curfew. Double standard having a curfew for those affected by Syd airport and not WSI. Others point out that the noise impact is very different to what city dwellers experience, making a 60-decibel sound even more intrusive. One says: We are concerned because at our home in East Blaxland, we experience very little noise that interrupts the peace and harmony of the native bush. Once the airport commences, then the peace and sounds of bush will be drowned out by aircraft movement. We moved to the Blue Mountains in the early 2000s because we love the idea of living in a National Park. There is only one other place in the world where you can do that. And another says: Our Winmalee community, like most of the Blue Mountains, has very low ambient noise, especially at night, so the new flight paths will most certainly have a negative impact on the residents' lives, especially our sleep. The Blue Mountains has far lower ambient noise than the Sydney metropolitan area. This is one of the many reasons I and many others chose to live in the Blue Mountains for the quietness, especially at night. I have received similar comments that relate to most of the villages and towns, from the lower mountains through to the mid-mountains and even upper mountains and across to the Hawkesbury, about some of the daytime and night-time flight paths. Linden residents in particular express trepidation at the flights that are planned to cross over their hamlet as low as 5,000 feet, and, of course, the impact on the observatory at Linden has been raised. While many comments focus on our area, I want to point out that I have received expressions of concern for others outside the Blue Mountains or Hawkesbury. For example: We are concerned because we both work in schools in Western Sydney. We are aware that a 24-hour airport will impact our students' sleep and consequently their participation at school. It is unfair that the sleep of those who live in Sydney is protected but not for those who live in the Greater Western Sydney area. Many of the students are currently vulnerable compared to their peers in more affluent areas. We are horrified to think how the airport could exacerbate existing problems with sleep and attendance. While there is a strong focus on the impact on people, so too is the concern for wildlife, particularly for nocturnal animals, and that has been expressed by many people. There have been constructive suggestions, including this one, to increase the understanding of the noise people may face by having planes fly the proposed flight paths at the expected heights. As my constituent says: Obviously planes can't yet take off from WSI airport, but they could take off from Sydney airport and perform loops across Western Sydney and the Blue Mountains, ascending and descending along the plan's exact flight paths and at the indicated altitudes. The planes should be of the same class as those that will eventually use the flight paths. There could be no better transparency in this process than having residents of the affected areas truly experiencing the actual reality of the impact of the flight paths. I want to thank everybody who has taken the time to look closely at this complex information about the preliminary flight paths made available to us and who has shared their concerns and distress. I know the public meeting to be held by the Blue Mountains City Council on Sunday afternoon in Springwood will provide more examples of the dissatisfaction with the preliminary flight paths. I will be sharing much more detail of the issues raised with me with the flight path planners and the decision-makers. We expect the draft environmental impact statement on the preliminary flight paths to be exhibited in the next month or so, which will provide a formal process for my community to express its concerns. I have promised to fight for my community. It's what I've been doing since this airport was announced by Tony Abbott, and it's what I'll continue to do to try and secure greater protections and reduce the impact on my community during the day and at night. Can I guarantee success? No. But I don't believe you can choose to fight only the battles that you know you'll win. I'm going to take my next few minutes to talk about an inspiring program. Imagine a six-year-old who's never seen a violin, let alone held one, or a seven-year-old being given a cello to hold for the first time. I'm told it involves a lot of dropping. Fast forward less than a year and those same year 1 students are able to play in unison, bowing on the correct string thanks to an innovative music education program run by the Australian Chamber Orchestra. After three years these students can play more complex music in tune, reading the notes and knowing where their fingers go on the neck of the instrument. The ACO has been teaching students from St Marys North Public School over the last five years, putting into practice what the research around music education has shown for years. The evaluation of the program, which is contained in this report, showed that kids who took part experienced a marked improvement not just in their musical skill but also in their cognitive and academic ability, including speaking, writing and mathematical reasoning. There was significant improvement in their emotional, physical and behavioural development, and in their school attendance and motivation, compared to children not involved in the foundation program. Here is what Liam described about maintaining concentration: 'When we start a new piece of music we're like, "Oh, this is tricky," but I'm like, "Let's keep going," and it gets fun; I like a challenge.' Ally found safety and security in being part of a group and managing her anxiety in that way. As a violinist who is happy to play in a group but not as a soloist, I can understand that. She said: 'If I were to play by myself I'd be too nervous. When I play my cello with my friends it's good because if I do make a mistake, they won't really be able to hear it.' This is a music program that helps kids do better in every way at school, and they get to understand the language of music and experience music making. Research tells us that, for the program to be effective, it needs to begin before the age of seven, offer sequential learning over at least two years, combine group and individual learning and be delivered by teachers who are appropriately supported and trained. I believe every student in every school should have access to this sort of music education, not just because all kids deserve to experience the joy of making music but because it boosts their learning and development off the charts. Roads 115 19:08 Mr TEHAN 210911 Wannon It's apt that this is a grievance debate because I rise to speak on behalf of my electorate, the electorate of Wannon, about the state of our roads and the need for the federal government to begin to work with the Victorian state government to address the deteriorating condition of our roads. So far—I think it's 16 months in—nothing that we're seeing from the Albanese Labor government is in any way demonstrating that they know and understand how diabolical the road conditions and road network are in western Victoria. As a matter of fact, everything that we're seeing, sadly, shows that they have no understanding or comprehension of this. It started with their infrastructure review. The government undertook an infrastructure review and immediately started taking money away from key road projects in our electorate. Then it decided that it would undertake what it said was a 90-day review. That 90-day review has now lasted for longer than 120 days and shows no sign of ending. As a matter of fact, I would love the infrastructure minister, Catherine King, to announce either today or tomorrow when that 90-day review will actually end and when we will hear about it. The clock is ticking, and the roads continue to deteriorate. It's not only in western Victoria that this is happening. Right across the nation, especially in regional and rural Australia, roads are deteriorating while the government sits on its hands and does nothing with its infrastructure spending. A bad situation is getting worse and worse by the day. So I call on Anthony Albanese, when he lands overseas, to ring Catherine King and say to her, 'Please inform the parliament when that 90-day review, which has turned into a 120-day review and continues to go on, will come to an end and announce when some certainty will be provided to western Victoria and right around rural and regional in Australia on road funding.' At the moment the uncertainty is leading people to despair about what is happening to the roads, knowing that conditions are going to get worse before they get better. It is adding to people's cost of living. Every time a pothole is hit, every time a car veers off the side of a road because it has eroded, every time someone punctures a tyre, damages a rim or affects their suspension—whether it be cars, motor bikes or trucks—it adds to the cost of living and the cost of doing business. Enough is enough: this needs to be fixed. But it's not only about providing certainty about how much funding the Albanese Labor government is going to provide for roads. It's about quite clearly coming out and saying, 'We will make sure that every bit of funding that the previous government put into roads is there, and, not only that, we'll put in additional funding.' We haven't seen any of that yet, but that's what we need to see. There needs to be more transparency. The minister made a commitment before the last election to work with Labor state and territory governments, and I'm sure the Tasmanian government will come on board. Now is the time to do this, while we have Labor governments wall to wall. What we need from the state governments is for them to be transparent about the audits that they do of the road networks in their states and territories. I see the member for Grey nodding in agreement because he too knows how important this would be for his regional and rural electorate in South Australia. Catherine King made this election commitment before the last election that she would ensure that there would be negotiations with the state and territory governments around their auditing of roads. Why don't the state and territory governments want to make their auditing of their road network public? It's because they know, especially in the case of Victoria, that it will show one thing and one thing only: that the road network in regional and rural areas is deteriorating before their eyes and they need to do something about it. Instead of spending billions and billions on suburban rail networks—where the costs blow out from $20 billion, to $40 billion, to $80 billion and now to over $100 billion—they could fund the roads in regional and rural Victoria, which the audits clearly show should be the highest priority. Why should the minister demand that she honours her own election commitment? It's not only because those audits will show where the need is greatest and where the work needs to be done; it's also because—and this is important for those of us on both sides of the chamber—it will save lives. The sad reality is that not only in Victoria but right across the nation the road toll is starting to rise again, and one of the reasons that it's starting to rise again is, I'm sure, the poor state of our roads. The fact is that we have failed to invest in the roads that need investing in the most, and the fairest and most reasonable way to do that is by making those audits public. It's not just the coalition that are calling for this; it's also all the major road user groups right across our nation. They understand how important this is as well. All the different road user groups know that if this information were to be made transparent they would then be able to articulate their arguments for why these roads need fixing—and we know that these roads do need fixing. I say to the minister: from Ballarat it's not too far to get down to western Victoria; come for a drive on the Princes Highway, on the Henty Highway or on the state government roads that run through my electorate and see for yourself how they're deteriorating because of a lack of investment. Now, the majority of them are state government roads, and we know that the majority of the fault lies with Dan Andrews—as it does with most of the problems we have in Victoria—but there is a need for the federal government to play its role. By asking for transparency we will be able to see loud and clear where we need that investment to go, and that is how we could save lives. That is how we could help people with the cost of living. We could help businesses with the cost of doing business because we would be able to put the resources where they are needed the most. I think every fair-minded person across the state of Victoria and across the nation would agree that we should initially put the investment to fix roads in the areas where they are worst. No-one thinks that that part of a state or a city or a suburban area should put up with shoddy roads while serious billions and billions of dollars are being invested in projects that do not have proper cost-benefit analyses done on them and where the productivity returns are unknown. Most fair-minded people think that that money should go where it is needed most, and the best way that you could do that is through transparency. The coalition will support the government in calling for this transparency and in calling for these road audits to be made public. It happens internationally, so there is no reason that we can't do it here in Australia. What it would mean is that for the first time we would be getting money put into our road network where it is needed most, and I am absolutely sure that that would be in rural and regional Australia. Infrastructure 116 19:18 Ms STANLEY 265990 Werriwa The English architect Christopher Wren was responsible for some of London's most iconic and enduring buildings. No doubt his magnum opus is the magnificent St Paul's Cathedral. Having seen it for myself, I can testify to its grandness, timeless beauty and appeal. But he was also responsible for the Royal Hospital Chelsea, the Old Royal Naval College at Greenwich and the south front of Hampton Court Palace. It's an impressive legacy and it has stood the test of time. It's little wonder, then, that the inscription on his tomb at St Paul's reads: 'Reader, if you seek his monument, look around you.' In Sydney, Francis Greenway is our equivalent to Wren. The Sydney Conservatorium of Music, Hyde Park Barracks, St James' Church and Saint Matthew's Anglican Church in Windsor are all stand-outs, and in my part of Sydney we're blessed to have some of Greenway's works: St Luke's Anglican Church in Liverpool and the technical college. And this city, Canberra, bears testament to the skill and vision of Walter Burley Griffin. The epitaph on Wren's tomb is not just applicable to architects; it can equally be applied to governments—that is, when all the dust and accounts have settled and a particular government's record is surveyed, what will be the future that generations find? What will be their legacy? What is their monument? What will be their epitaph for the future generations to ponder? Some achievements, of course, are made of things other than bricks and mortar—think of Whitlam and Medicare, Fraser and multiculturalism, Keating and floating the dollar. Australia without them is unthinkable. But some government achievement legacies are very much the bricks and mortar kind. Nowadays, we call them infrastructure. My electorate is one of the fastest growing in the country. Every day, green fields are making way for housing. Every day new families are moving in and new communities are being created. Suburbs like Austral, Kemps Creek and Bringelly are large areas of land that are now home to thousands of first home buyers and families moving out west. In the spirit of Christopher Wren, what does a survey of my electorate reveal in terms of how we fared under various governments, both Labor and Liberal, in terms of infrastructure? What monuments have various governments left in my electorate? Whitlam, of course, is synonymous with Werriwa. The late Neville Wran recalled: It was said of Caesar Augustus that he found Rome brick, and left it marble. It will be said of Gough Whitlam that he found the outer suburbs of Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane unsewered, and left them fully flushed. That's one of Gough's greatest achievements for where I live—the National Sewerage Program. Notwithstanding Gough's heroic efforts, there are still parts of my electorate unsewered. The rapid growth in my community was not unexpectable or unpredictable. In the 80s and 90s, the Hawke-Keating government had the foresight to initiate a series of land acquisitions in Badgerys Creek for a future airport, and, in 2014, the airport was officially designated. The suburbs of Austral and Leppington North are part of the south-west priority land release, with the draft precinct plan released in March 2013. Almost 10 years ago, these areas were marked for significant residential development with rezonings taking place. Yet almost a decade of incompetence by federal and state coalition governments has left our community without sewerage, public transport, schools and roads. These weren't just built too late; some of them still haven't been built at all. Phase 1 of the Austral Leppington wastewater stage 3 development, which is to provide an interim solution for 1,700 lots, is expected to start providing services in December of this year, after several delays—that is, provide safe and reliable drinking water and wastewater infrastructure. Phase 2, which will deliver a lasting solution, will not be completed until 2026, subject to the construction of the Upper South Creek Advanced Water Recycling Centre. And this is only sewerage. Residents who already live in these growing suburbs must drive on incomplete roads as they drop off their kids at the local public high school, 20 minutes away in a different suburb. It is the unfortunate and disastrous consequence of ill-planning and coalition governments hoping that someone else would build the infrastructure, someone else would provide the public services that we expect from government. Who's that someone else? Well, after a decade of coalition governments, the answer is quite clear: no-one. It's communities like mine that suffer. I commend the recent announcement by the New South Wales Labor government to build a public high school in Austral, an important step in providing the infrastructure and services our community needs. But now let's go back a few decades, to a moment in history that should have been viewed as an infrastructure renaissance in Australia. During the late 90s and early 2000s, Australia experienced a once-in-a-lifetime minerals boom. In fact, the world's price of Australian mining exports more than tripled in the 10 years to 2012. You would think, with the rivers of gold literally flowing over that decade, so would infrastructure, but, unfortunately, the record says something else. There is a common belief among those opposite that the Howard years were an example of fiscal responsibility. The data, however, says otherwise. In 2013, an IMF working paper assessed 200 years of government financial records. It found that in recent years, before 2013, Australia had two periods of fiscal policies leading to unsustainable fiscal positions, and both of those occurred under the Howard government. Dispelling the myth of fiscal responsibility under the Howard government, they saw a revenue boom that brought an estimated $334 billion in revenue between 2004 and 2007, yet the Howard government failed to invest in a once-in-a-generation revenue windfall into meaningful and lasting infrastructure. Instead, it spent $314 billion on tax cuts in the hope of winning the 2007 election. A once-in-a-generation boom was wasted and squandered on shortsighted motivations of a failing and wasteful government. It's exactly what you'd expect from those opposite, but our growing communities, both in Werriwa and across Australia, continue to pay for these actions. A strong believer in our federated system, Whitlam saw the importance of working with state and local governments to deliver local projects. In keeping with this tradition, the federal government has opened the Regional Precincts and Partnerships Program to work hand in hand with local and state governments to deliver transport investment in our regions. For suburban communities like mine, the urban precincts and partnership program will help drive more liveable communities across our larger cities. The Albanese government is spending $120 billion on land transport infrastructure projects across Australia, such as $1.6 billion for the M12 motorway, which will be a vital toll-free road benefiting many in our community who travel around our region for work. It will mean they can get to and from work faster, spending more time with families and less in traffic. I know many in my community will benefit from the $6 million that was allocated to the Aviation Road and Middleton Drive to ease congestion in the suburbs of Austral and Middleton Grange. Our commitment to infrastructure is why our government introduced legislation to strengthen Infrastructure Australia, acting on the recommendations of the Albanese government's election commitment to undertake an independent review of the body. The previous government made a habit of announcing press release projects and never delivering, leaving communities with nothing but broken promises and a newspaper article. This government will position Infrastructure Australia as a trusted source of quality, independent advice to better support government to deliver nationally significant infrastructure projects for all Australians. A decade of coalition governments, both federally and in NSW, has caused untold damage to infrastructure planning, and it will take more than a year to undo. But Labor governments don't make excuses; we build and invest in local communities because we recognise the damage caused and the needs of Australians. I am proud to be part of an Albanese Labor government that is doing that in my community. Federation Chamber adjourned at 19 : 28