﻿
<hansard noNamespaceSchemaLocation="../../hansard.xsd" version="2.2">
  <session.header>
    <date>2023-09-06</date>
    <parliament.no>2</parliament.no>
    <session.no>1</session.no>
    <period.no>0</period.no>
    <chamber>House of Reps</chamber>
    <page.no>0</page.no>
    <proof>1</proof>
  </session.header>
  <chamber.xscript>
    <business.start>
      <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:WX="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
        <p class="HPS-SODJobDate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
          <span class="HPS-SODJobDate">
            <span style="font-weight:bold;" />
            <a href="Chamber" type="">Wednesday, 6 September 2023</a>
          </span>
        </p>
        <p class="HPS-Normal" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
          <span class="HPS-Normal">
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">The SPEAKER (</span>
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">Hon.</span>
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">
            </span>
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">Milton Dick</span>
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">) </span>took the chair at 09:00, made an acknowledgement of country and read prayers.</span>
        </p>
      </body>
    </business.start>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS</title>
        <page.no>1</page.no>
        <type>MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>National TAFE Day</title>
          <page.no>1</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Reference to Federation Chamber</title>
            <page.no>3</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:15</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr O'CONNOR</name>
    <name.id>00AN3</name.id>
    <electorate>Gorton</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That further statements in relation to National TAFE Day be permitted in the Federation Chamber.</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Women's Health Week</title>
          <page.no>3</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Reference to Federation Chamber</title>
            <page.no>6</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:31</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms KEARNEY</name>
    <name.id>LTU</name.id>
    <electorate>Cooper</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave, I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That further statements in relation to Women's Health Week be permitted in the Federation Chamber.</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>COMMITTEES</title>
        <page.no>6</page.no>
        <type>COMMITTEES</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Selection Committee</title>
          <page.no>6</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:32</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>74046</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I present report No. 17 of the Selection Committee, relating to the consideration of committee and delegation business and private members' business on Monday 11 September 2023. The report will be printed in the <inline font-style="italic">Hansard</inline> for today, and the committee's determinations will appear on tomorrow's <inline font-style="italic">Notice Paper</inline>. Copies of the report have been placed on the table.</para>
<para class="italic"> <inline font-style="italic">The report read as follows—</inline></para>
<quote><para class="block">Report relating to the consideration of committee and delegation business and of private Members' business</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">1. The Committee met in private session on Tuesday, 5 September 2023.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">2. The Committee deliberated on items of committee and delegation business that had been notified, private Members' business items listed on the Notice Paper and notices lodged on Tuesday, 5 September 2023, and determined the order of precedence and times on Monday, 11 September 2023, as follows:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Items for House of Representatives Chamber (10.10 am to 12 noon)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Notices</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">1 DR HAINES: To present a Bill for an Act to amend the <inline font-style="italic">National Housing Finance and Investment Corporation Act 2018</inline>, and for related purposes. (<inline font-style="italic">National Housing Finance and Investment Corporation Amendment (Unlocking Regional Housing) Bill 2023</inline>)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">(Notice given 4 September 2023.)</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Presenter may speak to the second reading for a period not exceeding 10 minutes</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">pursuant to standing order 41. Debate must be adjourned pursuant to standing order 142.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">2 MR CHANDLER-MATHER: To move:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) notes the Government's failure to reign in excessive profits from corporations which are hurting everyday people by driving inflation and worsening the cost of living crisis; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) calls on the Government to tax super profits and make the big corporations pay their fair share of tax so that everyone can have a better life.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">(Notice given 5 September 2023.)</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Time allotted</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">20 minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Mr Chandler-Mather</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Other Members</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes each.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 4 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">3 MS J RYAN: To move:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) acknowledges that the Government's Fee-Free TAFE policy has been hugely successful, with more than 214,300 enrolments so far in the first six months, nearly 35,000 places more than the 2023 target of 180,000;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) notes that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the care sector will benefit significantly, with courses across health care, aged care and disability care attracting 23.8 per cent of total enrolments, with construction attracting 9.8 per cent, technology and digital attracting 7.8 per cent, and early childhood education and care attracting 5.5 per cent of enrolments;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) demographic data also shows Fee-Free TAFE is supporting priority groups including young people, job seekers, people with disability, first nations Australians and culturally and linguistically diverse communities; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) women make up 60.2 per cent of enrolments, with nearly 130,000 women taking on a qualification under the program; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) further notes that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) Fee-Free TAFE is a policy delivered in partnership with state and territory governments;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) funding is available for a further 300,000 Fee-Free TAFE places over three years from 2024; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) Fee-Free TAFE is another example of the Government working for Australians by delivering a better future.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">(Notice given 5 September 2023.)</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Time allotted</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">40 </inline> <inline font-style="italic">minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Ms J Ryan</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Other Members</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes each.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 8 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">4 MR RAMSEY: To move:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) notes:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the Government's rush towards 82 per cent renewable energy could expose Australia to unnecessary national security risks due to a dependence on imported solar panel components from China;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) that an analysis, led by the Shadow Minister for Home Affairs and Cyber Security, Senator James Paterson, uncovered exploitable flaws and vulnerabilities in smart inverters which accompany many Australian solar photovoltaic systems;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) that almost 60 per cent of installed smart inverters are being supplied by Chinese manufacturers bound by China's national intelligence laws, which could require companies to be ordered by Beijing to sabotage, survey or disrupt power supplies to Australian homes, companies or Government;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) that energy security is national security, and the predominance of Chinese firms supplying inverters leaves Australia vulnerable to cyber-attacks;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(e) that the Government has been aware of the concerns raised by the Opposition but continues to do nothing to alleviate the risks;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(f) that providing affordable and reliable energy that is free from foreign interference should be a first order priority of Government, and that the Government is failing on all fronts;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(g) that the Opposition's concerns have been reinforced by the Cyber Security Cooperative Research Centre (CRC) which has delivered a report revealing the threat posed by solar inverters; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(h) that the CRC has warned of the potential for a 'black start event', which:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) refers to a scaled, targeted and simultaneous attack on the grid resulting in a power plant being rendered incapable of turning back on without reliance on a generator or battery; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) could shut down the entire power grid and take a week to recover; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) calls on the Government to:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) stop dithering and take action to ensure Australia's energy grid is free from foreign interference;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) immediately launch a review into the national security implications of its 82 per cent renewable target; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) follow the CRC recommendation and ensure cyber security impact assessments be completed for all solar inverters being sold in Australia, and that mandatory cyber security ratings be introduced for solar inverters.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">(Notice given 8 August 202</inline> <inline font-style="italic">3.)</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Time allotted</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">remaining private Members' business time prior to 12 noon.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Mr Ramsey</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Other Members</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes each.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 8 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that </inline> <inline font-style="italic">consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Items for Federation Chamber (11 am to 1.30 pm)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Notices</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">1 DR WEBSTER: To move:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) acknowledges the urgent need to invest in medical research into Diffuse Intrinsic Pontine Glioma (DIPG), a childhood brain cancer with a 100 per cent mortality rate;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) recognises that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) DIPG causes more childhood deaths than any other disease;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) just ten per cent of patients survive two years, and less than one per cent survive five years;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) DIPG is one of the only cancers for which there are no effective systematic therapies;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) DIPG typically strikes in the middle of childhood, peaking around five to seven years of age;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(e) each year, 20 to 25 Australian children are diagnosed with DIPG and pass away within twelve months; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(f) Australia is in a unique position to improve outcomes for DIPG patients, since we are regarded internationally as one of the world's leaders in DIPG research;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) further acknowledges that the Kids Cancer Centre at the Sydney Children's Hospital estimates that an injection of $25 million specific for DIPG research is needed; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) calls on the Minister for Health and Aged Care to allocate funding from the $20 billion Medical Research Future Fund.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">(Notice given 4 September 2023.)</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Time allotted</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">30 minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Dr Webster</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Other Members</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes each.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 6 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that </inline> <inline font-style="italic">consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">2 DR REID: To move:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) notes the Government's commitment to restore dignity to aged care residents;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) recognises that the Government is:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) delivering on the commitment to put nurses back into nursing homes with 24 hours a day, seven days a week nursing care;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) delivering a record 15 per cent pay increase for aged care workers across Australia, the largest ever pay rise in the history of the aged care sector;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) delivering support for older Australians who live in aged care homes, so that they are receiving the safe, high-quality care they deserve; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) working to ensure older Australians have tasty and nutritious food in aged care; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) acknowledges this is just part of the Government's commitment to significant new investments to rebuild universal healthcare in Australia.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">(Notice given 5 September 2023.)</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Time allotted</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">50 minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Dr Reid</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Other Members</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes each.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 10 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">3 MS TINK: To move:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) recognises:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) that despite the Prime Minister declaring he wanted to 'change the way' we do politics in Australia, the Government is following the well-trodden path of the previous Government and failing to meet the transparency expectations of the Australian public; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) this failure is particularly acute when it comes to the protection of whistleblowers;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) notes that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) whistleblowers make our democracy stronger by valuing accountability and justice, and promoting good government and good governance;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) whistleblowing is one the most effective ways to detect and prevent corruption;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) the action of high-profile whistleblowers, such as Richard Boyle and David McBride, has resulted in changed policy and/or public good;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) the ongoing prosecutions of these individuals are having a chilling effect on anyone considering blowing the whistle to reveal unlawful and other wrongful conduct, and are not in the public interest;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(e) the Attorney-General has authority under section 71(b) of the <inline font-style="italic">Judiciary Act 1903</inline> to decline to proceed further with a prosecution for an indictable offence; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(f) this power was granted to the Attorney-General so that he may discharge his ultimate responsibility to Parliament and to the Australian people for the conduct of the prosecution process with due regard for public interest; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) calls on the Attorney-General to act in the name of transparency and utilise his power to immediately cease the prosecutions of Richard Boyle and David McBride.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">(Notice given 5 September 2023.)</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Time </inline> <inline font-style="italic">allotted</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">20 minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Ms Tink</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Other Members</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes each.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 4 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">4 MS STANLEY: To move:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) notes that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) October is Pregnancy and Infant Loss Awareness Month;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) Sunday, 15 October 2023 marks Pregnancy and Infant Loss Remembrance Day; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) this date acknowledges the shared loss experienced by parents, friends, and healthcare workers of those little ones lost too soon whether through miscarriage, stillbirth, neonatal death or any other loss;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) acknowledges that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) there is a significant impact on families which have lost a baby;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) every year 110,000 Australians experience a miscarriage, more than 2,000 experience stillbirth, and almost 700 lost a baby within the first 28 days; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) stillbirth occurrence is higher in Aboriginal and Culturally Diverse communities;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) further acknowledges all families that have experienced loss, either recently or over time; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) commends the Government for providing $5.1 million to organisations to support women and families following stillbirth or miscarriage.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">(Notice given 4 September 2</inline> <inline font-style="italic">023.)</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Time allotted</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">20 minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Ms Stanley</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Other Members</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes each.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 4 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future </inline> <inline font-style="italic">day.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Orders of the day</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">1 BLACK SPOT ROAD SAFETY PROGRAM: Resumption of debate (<inline font-style="italic">from 4 September 2023</inline>) on the motion of Mr Pasin—That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) acknowledges the importance of the Black Spot Road Safety Program, which has been delivering funding continuously since 1996 to reduce the risk of road crashes;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) notes that half of all road crashes are on local government roads, and these crashes account for 52 per cent of all casualties and 40 per cent of all road deaths;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) recognises that local government is responsible for around 77 per cent of the road network but only collects around 3.5 per cent of the total tax revenue raised by governments in Australia, and as such is heavily reliant on road funding from other levels of government;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) further notes that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) two thirds of all road fatalities occur on regional roads; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the Black Spot Road Safety Program intention is to allocate funding on a half-half basis between urban and rural roads;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(5) further acknowledges that not all councils, in particular rural and regional councils with lower rate bases, have the resources necessary to make applications that meet criteria for the Black Spot Road Safety Program; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(6) calls on the Government to amend the Black Spot Road Safety Program guidelines to make it easier for the local Government sector to access that fund.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Time allotted</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">remaining private Members' business time prior to 1.30 pm.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">All Members</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes each.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 6 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">The Committee </inline> <inline font-style="italic">determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Items for Federation Chamber (4.45 pm to 7.30 pm)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Notices — continued</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">5 DR ANANDA-RAJAH: To move:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) notes that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) safe and affordable housing is central to the security and dignity of all Australians;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the Government has committed to an ambitious housing reform agenda, which will boost the supply of all housing, including more public and social housing, more affordable housing, more homes to rent and more homes to buy;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) Australia's housing challenges did not happen overnight and cannot be solved by one government alone; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) the Government is working with state, territory and local governments to deliver better housing outcomes including the work being undertaken through the National Cabinet;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) acknowledges the measures agreed to at National Cabinet, including:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) federal funding of $3 billion through the New Homes Bonus to help incentivise states and territories to build more homes where people need them;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) a $500 million Housing Support Program for initiatives to help kickstart housing supply, including connecting essential services and amenities to support new housing development and building planning capability;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) federal funding of $2 billion through the Social Housing Accelerator to deliver thousands of social homes across Australia;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) the National Planning Reform Blueprint with planning, zoning, land release and other measures to improve housing supply and affordability;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(e) A Better Deal for Renters to harmonise and strengthen renters' rights across Australia; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(f) the National Housing Accord that will support planning and zoning reforms to deliver 10,000 affordable rental homes over five years from 2024, to be matched by the states and territories; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) further acknowledges that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) after a decade of little action, the Government is delivering measures to turn around the housing challenges in Australia today; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) there is more work to do and we need governments at all levels to work together.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">(Notice given 5 September 2023.)</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Time allotted</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">50 minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Dr Ananda-Rajah</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Other Members</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes each.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 10 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">The </inline> <inline font-style="italic">Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Orders of the day</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">2 MISINFORMATION LAWS: Resumption of debate (<inline font-style="italic">from 4 September 2023</inline>) on the motion of Mr Coleman—That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) notes that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the Government is seeking to impose new misinformation laws in Australia which are deeply flawed;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) even before submissions closed on 20 August, the Government's exposure draft bill had already been the subject of an avalanche of criticism;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) some of the most vocal criticisms have come from leading lawyers who have clinically taken the Government's bill apart, piece by piece; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) the Minister appears to have had few defenders of her plan;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) acknowledges that, under the Government's exposure draft bill:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the definition of 'misinformation' is so broad that it could capture many statements made by Australians in the context of political debate;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) authorised content by the Government cannot be misinformation, but criticisms of the Government by ordinary Australians can be misinformation;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) nothing an academic says can be misinformation, but statements by somebody disagreeing with an academic can be misinformation;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) good faith statements made by entertainers cannot be misinformation, but good faith statements made by ordinary Australians on political matters can be misinformation;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(e) journalists commenting on their personal digital platforms could have their content removed as misinformation; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(f) if the Minister has a favoured digital platform, then that platform could be entirely removed from the application of the misinformation laws;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) condemns the Government for delivering this appalling exposure draft of the Communications Legislation Amendment (Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation) Bill 2023; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) calls on the Government to:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) admit that the Government's plan is deeply flawed; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) bin the bill.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Time allotted</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">70 minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">All Members</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 14 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Notices — continued</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">6 MR SMITH: To move:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) notes that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) 11 September 2023 marks the 50th anniversary of the 1973 coup in the Republic of Chile; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the coup and subsequent military dictatorship was supported and enabled by the interference of foreign powers; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) acknowledges that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the coup was an abrogation of the democratic rights of the people of Chile;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the subsequent military dictatorship was a period of intense suffering and repression for the Chilean people;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) the Government in 1973 initiated a program which brought thousands of refugees from Chile to Australia;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) the contribution of those Chileans to the life and society of Australia has been outstanding;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(e) the peoples of Australia have and continue to enjoy strong and happy relations; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(f) today Chile is a strong and progressive democracy and a key partner of Australia.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">(Notice given 4 S</inline> <inline font-style="italic">eptember 2023.)</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Time allotted</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">25 minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Mr Smith</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Other Members</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes each.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 5 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a </inline> <inline font-style="italic">future day.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">7 MS STANLEY: To move:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) acknowledges the success of women's sport in Australia, particularly the:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) Australian women's cricket team which retained the Ashes in 2023 after winning the World Cup in 2022, and the T20 World Cup in Melbourne in 2022;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) Diamonds which recently won the Netball World Cup for the twelfth time, beating England 61-45; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) Matildas' success in the FIFA Women's World Cup;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) notes:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) that many codes are moving to pay parity and are providing women opportunities previously only seen in men's sport; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the prestige of women's sport with increasing numbers of people watching sport at the ground, at 'live sites', or on television;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) encourages greater free-to-air availability for sports; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) further notes the importance of supporting women's and men's sport to encourage health and fitness—'you can't be what you can't see'.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">(Notice given 8 August 2023.)</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Time allotted</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">remaining private Members' business time prior to 7.30 pm.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Ms Stanley</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Other Members</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes each.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 4 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">THE HON D. M. DICK MP</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Speaker of the House of Representatives</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">6 September 2023</para></quote>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>BILLS</title>
        <page.no>12</page.no>
        <type>BILLS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Water Amendment (Restoring Our Rivers) Bill 2023</title>
          <page.no>12</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r7076" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Water Amendment (Restoring Our Rivers) Bill 2023</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>First Reading</title>
            <page.no>12</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo></subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>12</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:33</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms PLIBERSEK</name>
    <name.id>83M</name.id>
    <electorate>Sydney</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That this bill be now read a second time.</para></quote>
<para>At last year's federal election, Labor made a promise to deliver the Murray Darling Basin Plan in full, as it was designed and in line with the science.</para>
<para>With this legislation today, we are fulfilling that promise to the river system and to every Australian who depends on it.</para>
<para>Two weeks ago, our government struck an historic agreement with New South Wales, Queensland, South Australia and the ACT.</para>
<para>It was an agreement to deliver the plan, in full, after a decade of sabotage and delay.</para>
<para>It's a reasonable agreement, a balanced agreement, an agreement that took more than a year of detailed consultation to piece together.</para>
<para>We've worked with states and territories, with farmers and irrigators, with scientists and experts, with environmentalists and with First Nations groups.</para>
<para>We have discussed these matters in good faith and at considerable length.</para>
<para>Now isthe time to act.</para>
<para>This bill offers more time, more options, more money and more accountability. It delivers more water for the environment, more certainty for farmers and industry, more financial support for affected communities, more protection for native plants and animals, and more hope for Australia's most important river system.</para>
<para>We can never forget why Australian governments designed the Murray-Darling Basin Plan in the first place.</para>
<para>When the rain's falling, when our dams are full and healthy, it can be tempting to push the reality of drought out of our minds.</para>
<para>But drought is part of the Australian condition.</para>
<para>We can pray for more respite. We can hope for more breathing space. But as long as we live on this continent, it will always be back.</para>
<para>We only have to cast our minds back three years, to the last drought, when the Darling River stopped flowing for more than 400 days; when farming communities were brought to their knees, desperate for water; when millions of native fish died, all at once, in gruesome environmental massacres that were broadcast around the world.</para>
<para>That's why we have a Murray-Darling Basin Plan in this country: to help us through the dry years, to make sure there's enough water flowing through the river system at its lowest moments, to make it to the next rain.</para>
<para>And while we've just experienced three years of flooding rain, we know that that can't last forever.</para>
<para>In fact, we've got good reason to fear that the pendulum is already swinging back.</para>
<para>We're living through this shift right now, from La Nina to El Nino. Parts of Australia are already experiencing drought conditions, and across much of the basin, we're observing less rainfall, higher temperatures, and a landscape that is visibly drying out beneath our feet.</para>
<para>Responsible governments plan for tough times.</para>
<para>We don't wait for them to arrive, when it's too late. We prepare our defences well in advance.</para>
<para>And that's what we're doing with this legislation.</para>
<para>Unfortunately, that is not something I can say for the previous government. The truth is this plan should be almost complete by now.</para>
<para>The original deadlines were set for June 2024, and in the early years, we were well on track to meet those deadlines.</para>
<para>Since then, the coalition has waged an insidious war against the plan.</para>
<para>They tied up projects in impossible rules, so they couldn't deliver water savings.</para>
<para>They blocked water recovery programs.</para>
<para>They tried to cut the final recovery targets, to keep them below scientific recommendations, and, as a result, progress slowed to a dribble under the previous government.</para>
<para>With all that stalling and all that sabotage, it's now impossible to deliver the plan on the original time line.</para>
<para>And that's what the Murray-Darling Basin Authority advised me, in July this year. We're too far behind because we've wasted too much time, which is why this legislation is so necessary.</para>
<para>This bill is needed to reset the time lines, to improve the rules that have strangled water recovery, and to offer a new path to delivering the Basin Plan in full.</para>
<para>It's about making the necessary changes to finish the job that we started, and the first of these changes is altering the rules around the 450 gigalitres of environmental water.</para>
<para>Nothing expresses the coalition's contempt for the Murray-Darling Basin Plan like their record on the 450 gigalitres.</para>
<para>In nine years, they delivered just two gigalitres of that 450, which put them on track to complete the plan sometime around the year 4000.</para>
<para>We've delivered more in nine months than those opposite did in nine years, and now we've delivered or contracted 26 gigalitres in total.</para>
<para>This parcel of water was always part of the plan, despite what some of those in the coalition have said.</para>
<para>It's there because the river system needs it.</para>
<para>This 450-gigalitre target has its own funding mechanism: the Water for the Environment Special Account.</para>
<para>There's less than a year to go in its original term, and only five per cent of the recovery task is within sight—but there's $1.3 billion still in the account, unspent.</para>
<para>It's a scandal.</para>
<para>The coalition knew that what they were doing wasn't working.</para>
<para>They were told it wasn't working, again and again. They were told that in the first Water for the Environment Special Account report.</para>
<para>They were told that in the second Water for the Environment Special Account report, which they kept secret before the last election.</para>
<para>They knew the program had stalled completely, but for nine years they kept the handbrake on water recovery.</para>
<para>What this legislation does is remove that handbrake, so we can finally deliver that water.</para>
<para>That means giving the account more flexibility, in line with the Water Act's objectives.</para>
<para>With these changes, we are opening up the full suite of water recovery options.</para>
<para>We'll be able to invest in on-farm water infrastructure, in land and water purchases, and in other novel water recovery mechanisms, where it's sensible to do so.</para>
<para>We will be able to count recovery above bridging the gap targets towards the 450-gigalitre target.</para>
<para>We will be able to purchase water from willing sellers, where it's needed to deliver the plan.</para>
<para>Water purchase is never the only tool in the box, it's not the first tool at hand, but it has to be one of them.</para>
<para>I acknowledge that this is a sensitive topic.</para>
<para>And our government will always approach it as sensitively as possible. Farmers in the basin produce 40 per cent of Australia's agricultural output.</para>
<para>This is critical, nation-building work. And when a community is affected by change, we will never leave them behind.</para>
<para>We will provide significant transitional assistance, if these voluntary water purchases have secondary impacts on communities.</para>
<para>The pool of assistance available to basin communities is more than any previous government has provided.</para>
<para>It will help communities respond to change, while also developing new economic opportunities.</para>
<para>These amendments offer us a way forward, on the largest remaining component of the plan.</para>
<para>They are reasonable, they're sensitive to river communities, and they're something all parties can support.</para>
<para>The second major change in this legislation is to the Sustainable Diversion Limit Adjustment Mechanism</para>
<para>These projects are designed to achieve environmental outcomes, while keeping water in productive use.</para>
<para>Currently, 16 of these 36 projects are not forecast to be ready or operational by July next year.</para>
<para>And of the 605 gigalitres that these projects are meant to keep in productive use, more than half may not be realised.</para>
<para>It's clear that some of the original projects will never be delivered.</para>
<para>If we're to going to achieve the plan in full, we need to give the states more time to deliver the viable projects.</para>
<para>That's what the states have asked for.</para>
<para>And this bill gives them that extension—until 31 December 2026. The onus is now on basin states to finish projects they have started.</para>
<para>And it's on basin states to bring forward any new projects that can be completed by the new deadline, to reduce the amount of water that will need to be recovered through other mechanisms.</para>
<para>Some of the projects aim to relax constraints in the way that rivers run, so they better mimic nature.</para>
<para>This agreement allows for a package of 'no regrets' constraints measures to be delivered by 31 December 2026—and supports its full completion beyond 2026, subject to the recommendations of the Basin Plan Review.</para>
<para>It includes an implementation roadmap, to be developed next year by the Murray-Darling Basin Authority, in partnership with New South Wales and Victoria, that will help guide and drive progress on relieving constraints.</para>
<para>I recognise that more time will not solve everything.</para>
<para>That's why we are abolishing another impediment to achieving the plan.</para>
<para>Currently the Commonwealth can purchase another 270 gigalitres of water before the 1,500-gigalitre cap is reached.</para>
<para>This bill includes an amendment to scrap that cap.</para>
<para>As with the 450-gigalitre target, voluntary water purchases are not the government's first choice, but they need to be on the table if we're serious about meeting these Murray-Darling Basin Plan targets.</para>
<para>Success also rests on stronger assurance and accountability measures, which is why this bill also clarifies powers of the Inspector-General of Water Compliance.</para>
<para>This will help the inspector-general effectively monitor states, and to hold them to account, if more water is extracted from our rivers than is allowed.</para>
<para>And the Commonwealth will also be more accountable, with an additional independent review scheduled for 2025.</para>
<para>This review will assess progress in delivering the remaining $1.3 billion in the Water for the Environment Special Account.</para>
<para>The third part of this bill involves substantial and overdue reform to Australia's water market.</para>
<para>Water markets are an important part of our agricultural system. But, as things currently stand, they lack integrity and transparency.</para>
<para>There are no laws against market manipulation. The insider trading prohibition is too narrow and the legal requirement to maintain proper records is too weak.</para>
<para>As a result, there's been widespread mistrust in the system across regional Australia.</para>
<para>Two years ago, the ACCC examined this market in some depth and found that its rules were inadequate and needed to be reformed.</para>
<para>And there's widespread consensus across government, across the farming sector and across this parliament, I believe, that we need to improve this regulation, and that is what this legislation will do, making the sector more transparent, more open and more accountable.</para>
<para>The bill introduces a framework to create an enforceable mandatory code for water market intermediaries.</para>
<para>It introduces civil penalties for market manipulation and doubles the penalty for insider trading.</para>
<para>As the code and conduct regulator, it will allow the ACCC to monitor water prices and investigate misconduct allegations.</para>
<para>This will bring water markets in line with the standards in other markets.</para>
<para>These changes will penalise bad behaviour and they will also increase public transparency.</para>
<para>This bill also requires the Commonwealth, basin states and irrigation infrastructure operators to make water market decisions available publicly.</para>
<para>There will be new obligations on basin states and territory governments, irrigation infrastructure operators and water exchanges to generate, record, collect and report water market information.</para>
<para>The Bureau of Meteorology will collate this information from across the basin and make it publicly available via a water data hub, with live market updates on a new water markets website.</para>
<para>The Inspector-General of Water Compliance will have new powers to monitor and enforce the new data-reporting obligations.</para>
<para>These changes will help secure Australia's water future through the next dry stretch and beyond.</para>
<para>That is how we will be judged as a parliament—not by how we do when the rain is falling and times are good but how we prepare for when it's not. That's what we're doing with this bill: listening to the science, working with the states and territories, supporting communities through change, delivering the plan and keeping this river system healthy and sustainable for our kids and our grandkids.</para>
<para>This is not a question of prioritising the environment over agriculture or agriculture over the environment, because the truth is we need both and each depends on the other to survive. We can't have a healthy rural economy without a sustainable river system.</para>
<para>And we won't have a prosperous basin without secure farmers.</para>
<para>Farmers understand the immense value of water. They're as adaptable and as efficient as any in the world.</para>
<para>Despite having less water available since 2005, basin irrigators are producing the same agricultural output.</para>
<para>These communities have pushed hard; they've made sacrifices. And the basin plan is already making a difference.</para>
<para>In 2019, during another record drought, we managed to restart the Barwon-Darling River with environmental water.</para>
<para>Hundreds of kilometres of river benefited from that water—and every town along the way celebrated its journey south.</para>
<para>We know it's working. But it's not enough.</para>
<para>The 2019 release offered hope, but it only dribbled into the Bourke weir pool, leaving the downstream river dry for more than year.</para>
<para>Now the iconic Murray cod may never return to that stretch of river.</para>
<para>And, down in the Coorong, flows over the last decade have been persistently below targets.</para>
<para>We have to keep going. We have to finish what we've started.</para>
<para>Water management is only going to get more difficult in this country, as it gets hotter and drier. Rainfall patterns are changing. Temperatures are changing.</para>
<para>Climate change means we'll see more variable rain in the north and less rain in the south-east.</para>
<para>That means that basin flows could fall by as much as 30 per cent by 2050. Water will always involve difficult decisions in this country.</para>
<para>But that's not an excuse to shy away from making the necessary decisions.</para>
<para>We don't want to wake up one day to a dead river system and realise that we could have done something to stop it.</para>
<para>We don't want to sleepwalk our way into an environmental and social catastrophe.</para>
<para>That is not a future that anyone should be willing to contemplate. We need to act now.</para>
<para>We need to protect this river system for the communities that depend on it, for the families who farm it and for the native plants and animals that draw life from it. I commend the bill to the House.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>74046</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Social Security Amendment (Australian Government Disaster Recovery Payment) Bill 2023</title>
          <page.no>16</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r7075" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Social Security Amendment (Australian Government Disaster Recovery Payment) Bill 2023</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>First Reading</title>
            <page.no>16</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo></subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>16</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:52</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms O'NEIL</name>
    <name.id>140590</name.id>
    <electorate>Hotham</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That this bill be now read a second time.</para></quote>
<para>It's my pleasure to introduce to the parliament the Social Security Amendment (Australian Government Disaster Recovery Payment) Bill 2023. This bill seeks to amend the qualification criteria for the Australian government disaster recovery payment as outlined in the Social Security Act 1991<inline font-style="italic">.</inline></para>
<para>It will be no surprise to anyone in this chamber or anyone in this country that we are seeing more intense floods, cyclones, bushfires and storms in our beautiful country. These disasters take an enormous toll on the citizens who are affected by them. That toll is physical, emotional, psychological and financial. Communities have been destroyed by disasters. Homes and, tragically, lives have been lost.</para>
<para>It is very important to our government that we ensure that individuals across Australia are supported in the aftermath of these disasters, and it is critical to the recovery of communities that this occur.</para>
<para>The Australian government disaster recovery payment, or AGDRP, is one of many support mechanisms the Australian government provides to disaster affected communities. The AGDRP provides short-term, one-off financial assistance to eligible Australians who are affected by these crises.</para>
<para>It offers a helping hand in the immediate aftermath of a disaster, and this payment has already assisted tens of thousands of impacted Australians in recent years.</para>
<para>The payment—$1,000 per eligible adult and $400 per eligible child—is delivered by Services Australia. It helps with the purchase of essential items for the family and for the child. It helps replace damaged household items, clothing, school supplies or toys—whatever is needed in the immediate aftermath of an event to help Australians and their families to recover.</para>
<para>This amendment will support faster and more efficient assessment of online claims for those who have been adversely affected by major disaster. This is achieved by legislating objective criteria on which to assess claims for AGDRP to support increased use of automatic decision-making.</para>
<para>It is critical that Services Australia can process claims quickly in the event of a major disaster. This amendment will help achieve that for Australian citizens and certain visa holders who have spent a particular amount of time in Australia, and/or care for a child or children who are adversely affected by a major disaster, before the major disaster is declared.</para>
<para>These amendments will support Services Australia to deliver payments to those who qualify for the payment within days, rather than weeks or months.</para>
<para>The amendment, if passed, will allow the emergency management minister to determine, by notifiable instrument, an amount of time that an applicant must have been in Australia before a major disaster to qualify for a payment. For now, the government intends to require that a person must have been in Australia for 13 weeks of the last 19 weeks prior to the disaster.</para>
<para>This test ensures that support goes to Australians who are living here and contributing to their community. It is also consistent with the test used for some other payments under the Social Security Act.</para>
<para>The amendment also makes some changes to how the payable rate for AGDRP is calculated in respect of a person who qualifies for a payment and has a child, or children, in their care. These amendments are intended to support quicker processing of payments that include children.</para>
<para>These amendments are not intended to reduce or increase the number of individuals who are eligible for AGDRP.</para>
<para>This bill makes amendments to facilitate faster processing of claims. It means a greater number of impacted Australians will be able to access financial support quickly after a major disaster.</para>
<para>The next high-risk weather season is due to begin in October: We bring this bill to parliament for its urgent consideration because we know that this is likely to be the first significant fire season since Black Summer. Disaster preparedness is critical to our democratic resilience and we're doing everything we can to be as prepared as possible at every level.</para>
<para>While the seasonal outlook predicts more fast-moving grass and scrub fires rather than the bigger forest fires experienced in 2019-20, after a few seasons of intense rainfall and floods, we know that that these outlooks bring a huge amount of stress for communities. The communities that we know are going to be particularly vulnerable as we go into this next disaster season are communities that have experienced many other natural disasters in the immediate preceding years, and I know this is a time of real concern for them about what this coming season holds.</para>
<para>Disasters will happen in our country, and we as a government cannot avoid that. With climate change, weather conditions are becoming more extreme and disasters will happen more frequently. This is a reality we cannot ignore and a good government would not ignore. We need to be as prepared as possible for future events.</para>
<para>That is why this government is committed to improving the way in which we deliver the assistance we provide.</para>
<para>This bill is a further step in that process.</para>
<para>It provides the government with greater ability to quickly and efficiently support communities affected by disasters, when the scale of disaster is such that Australian government help—beyond what is ordinarily delivered by a state or territory government—is required.</para>
<para>The Australian government stands ready to support disaster ravaged communities, providing the support they need to help them get back on their feet as quickly as possible, and with this bill we are ensuring we provide that support as quickly as we possibly can.</para>
<para>I talked in the parliament earlier this week about the disaster season that is about to begin in our country. We've got really good advice that we are on track for increased possibility of disasters in some communities that have been severely ravaged by natural disaster in the preceding five years. The Albanese government are doing everything we can, with the knowledge that we have, to prepare for this. Part of that is making sure that we are doing the necessary work on the ground to improve resilience of those communities. Part of it is making sure that we are setting up structures, as the emergency management minister is doing, to make sure that we can manage these incidents when they occur. And part of it is thinking ahead about how the Australian government might be called on to help these communities.</para>
<para>The bill that is before the House today will make sure that we can get payments to people quickly, because what we know is that Australian government support is all well and good but, if it comes six or eight or 15 weeks down the track, it does create issues for families. We need to get money into the hands of people when they desperately need it, and this bill will help the parliament do that.</para>
<para>Debate adjourned.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>MOTIONS</title>
        <page.no>18</page.no>
        <type>MOTIONS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Whistleblower Protection</title>
          <page.no>18</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:00</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr WILKIE</name>
    <name.id>C2T</name.id>
    <electorate>Clark</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I seek leave to move the following motion:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That the House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) notes that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) Mr David McBride, a former military lawyer, is facing five charges relating to the disclosure of information that is undeniably in the public interest, including credible evidence of war crimes committed by Australian Defence Force personnel in Afghanistan;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) Mr McBride faces court on 13 November 2023, and will be the first person on trial in relation to alleged war crimes committed in Afghanistan and he faces the very real prospect of spending years in prison, simply for telling the truth, because of this Australian Government prosecution; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) Mr Richard Boyle, a former Australian Tax Office official, is also facing the prospect of life in prison within the year, for revealing information about serious improper conduct within the Australian Taxation Office, which was also undoubtedly in the public interest; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) calls on the Government to immediately intervene pursuant to the <inline font-style="italic">Judiciary Act 1903</inline> and discontinue the politically-motivated prosecutions of Mr McBride and Mr Boyle.</para></quote>
<para>Leave not granted.</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr WILKIE</name>
    <name.id>C2T</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I move, then:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the Member for Clark from moving the following motion:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">That the House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) notes that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) Mr David McBride, a former military lawyer, is facing five charges relating to the disclosure of information that is undeniably in the public interest, including credible evidence of war crimes committed by Australian Defence Force personnel in Afghanistan;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) Mr McBride faces court on 13 November 2023, and will be the first person on trial in relation to alleged war crimes committed in Afghanistan and he faces the very real prospect of spending years in prison, simply for telling the truth, because of this Australian Government prosecution; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) Mr Richard Boyle, a former Australian Tax Office official, is also facing the prospect of life in prison within the year, for revealing information about serious improper conduct within the Australian Taxation Office, which was also undoubtedly in the public interest; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) calls on the Government to immediately intervene pursuant to the <inline font-style="italic">Judiciary Act 1903</inline> and discontinue the politically-motivated prosecutions of Mr McBride and Mr Boyle.</para></quote>
<para>The merit of this motion, I suggest, is self-evident. The last person who should be fronting court regarding alleged war crimes in Afghanistan is obviously the whistleblower David McBride. The last person who should be fronting court for the egregious behaviour in the Australian tax office is the whistleblower Richard Boyle. I'm reminded of a quote from then opposition leader Anthony Albanese, early last year, when referring to Witness K and Bernard Collaery. He made this point—and I'll quote the now Prime Minister: 'The idea that there should be a prosecution of a whistleblower for what's a shameful part of Australian history is simply wrong.' I read that and think about Mr McBride, the whistleblower who shone a light on the alleged war crimes in Afghanistan. That he should be facing prosecution is simply wrong. That Mr Boyle is facing prosecution is simply wrong.</para>
<para>Equally, the urgency of dealing with this motion today, I suggest, is also self-evident, because every minute's delay in having these charges against the brave whistleblowers dropped is one more minute that those heroes stand accused of criminality. That is unjust, as far as they go.</para>
<para>Also, every minute's delay in dealing with this matter of having charges against whistleblowers dropped is sending a signal to every single Australian that if you are witness to misconduct in this country then the government will not support you but will come after you, will shut you down and will prosecute you. This is much bigger than just Mr McBride and Mr Boyle. This matter is relevant to every Australian and every Australian who is witness to misconduct. That's why we should suspend standing orders and deal with this matter immediately.</para>
<para>I'm pleased the Attorney-General is in the chamber, and I will start by saying I have immense respect for the Attorney-General. But I do feel that the government and the Attorney-General are failing us when it comes to not dropping the charges against David McBride and Richard Boyle. The Attorney-General cannot hide behind the fact that these prosecutions were launched by the Department of Defence and the Australian Taxation Office, and so they're matters for the tax office and the defence department to deal with. That is simply not the case because it is the Department of Defence and the ATO which created this injustice, and they can't be trusted to resolve it. That's why there is a pressing argument for why the Attorney-General should exercise his authority under the Judiciary Act to intervene and to see the charges dropped.</para>
<para>The Attorney-General might also argue that he can only intervene in exceptional circumstances. What on earth are these matters other than exceptional circumstances? The brave whistleblower who revealed evidence of allegations of war crimes in Afghanistan is the first person to front court regarding allegations of war crimes in Afghanistan. This is an exceptional situation. The fact is that the ATO whistleblower has been proven to be correct. I make the point again: Richard Boyle's allegations have been proven to be accurate. Is anyone else in the ATO fronting a court? No. The whistleblower is fronting a court, so these are exceptional circumstances. Because the government is failing to act, I think, sadly, it does discredit the good work the government is doing with regard to whistleblowers. It discredits it very, very seriously, and it does make me wonder, as a member of the community, as a member of parliament and as a former whistleblower, whether the government has its heart in supporting whistleblowers and improving the protections for whistleblowers.</para>
<para>In fact, when we look at where the rubber has hit the road already, we see that the amendments to the Public Interest Disclosure Act within the term of this government have been very minor. They're what an IT company might call a patch, and there is still no substantial re-engineering of the Public Interest Disclosure Act. There is still no talk of amending the whistleblower protections in the Corporations Act, and I think the attitude of the government is revealed very well in the Boyle case. Mr Boyle clearly has protections under the Public Interest Disclosure Act, but the government is arguing that the Public Interest Disclosure Act in Mr Boyle's case only applies to the act of blowing the whistle in speaking up and does not apply to the collection of evidence by Mr Boyle, which he had to do before he could blow the whistle. This is a remarkable turn of events, and I think it goes to the heart of the matter, and that is that whistleblowers are not respected and not celebrated and not protected in this country—not one bit. They're still regarded as troublemakers that must be shut down, and they're still regarded as people who must be punished as a deterrent to other people from speaking up.</para>
<para>We should laud these people, and we should support these people. We should debate this motion and deal with it today so the government can get on and drop the charges against David McBride and Richard Boyle. Where would we be without these brave whistleblowers? Where would we be if Toni Hoffman, a nurse, hadn't blown the whistle on Dr Patel at Bundaberg Hospital? Where would we be if Allan Kessing hadn't blown the whistle on gaps in security at Sydney Airport? Where would we be if Witness K and Bernard Collaery hadn't blown the whistle on the illegal spying on the East Timor parliament building? Where would we be without Alysha, who blew the whistle on the shocking criminality within the Tasmanian youth justice system?</para>
<para>Where would we be if Julian Assange hadn't blown the whistle on US war crimes, including revealing that grainy image of US Attack helicopters gunning down Iraqi civilians and Reuters journalists in Iraq in the early days of the Iraq war?</para>
<para>My point is we should be doing everything we can to celebrate and to support whistleblowers, otherwise we won't have whistleblowers—and they're an absolutely essential component of our democratic system. In fact until we have effective whistleblower protections, the National Anti-Corruption Commission will be much diminished because it will be the whistleblowers who will raise the allegations, the most serious allegations often, that the NACC will then be able to deal with. So it's not enough to say, 'We've established a National Anti-Corruption Commission,' because the job is not done until we fix the Public Interest Disclosure Act, fix the Corporations Act and establish a whistleblower commissioner. Then the job will be done. Then the community can have confidence that when people are witness to misconduct they can speak up and we won't get these repeats of this nonsense with David McBride and Richard Boyle.</para>
<para>I make the point again: David McBride is the whistleblower who revealed evidence of allegations of war crimes in Afghanistan and he will be the first person to front a court with regard to those war crimes, facing the prospect of years in jail. I make the point again: Richard Boyle raised allegations of terrible misconduct within the Australian Taxation Office. Those allegations have been found to be absolutely true and yet he is the only ATO officer who is now fronting a court and facing the prospect of a lifetime in jail. This is a nonsense. It has to be dealt with absolutely immediately. So I call again for a suspension of the standing orders so that we can have a proper debate about this. We can vote on it, and we can lay the foundation for the government to drop the charges against these two brave Australian whistleblowers.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>74046</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Is the motion seconded?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:11</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms TINK</name>
    <name.id>300124</name.id>
    <electorate>North Sydney</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to second the member for Clark's motion to suspend standing orders as a matter of urgency so that this chamber can immediately debate the need for the Attorney-General to end the prosecution of whistleblowers Richard Boyle and David McBride. Every day the government lets the prosecution of these two men continue is another day it's having a chilling effect on anyone who is considering revealing unlawful and other wrongful conduct inside the Australian government because these prosecutions send a very clear message: to blow the whistle is to bring the full force of the law down on your on head and the cost of courage is too high. As we seek to drive greater transparency across the processes of governing, we should be embracing whistleblowers. Indeed, many comparable democracies reward those who are brave enough to speak out. But here in Australia, our current track record tells people that if you blow the whistle you'll be prosecuted.</para>
<para>To be fair the prosecutions of Richard Boyle and David McBride commenced under the prior coalition government, but it is the Albanese government that has allowed the prosecutions to continue. Richard Boyle blew the whistle in October 2017 on the egregious use of garnishee notices by the Australian Taxation Office. His public interest disclosure was rejected by the ATO. The Senate examined how the ATO investigated it and found the investigation into his claim was superficial. He didn't give up. In November he went to the Inspector-General of Taxation to try again, and when the inspector-general rejected his approach on jurisdictional grounds, he finally went to the media. Only after the ABC exposed the conduct in the ATO was any action taken.</para>
<para>Ironically, the then minister ordered the Inspector-General of Taxation to conduct an inquiry. In May 2019, the Inspector-General released his review into the ATO's use of garnishee notices, stating, amongst other things, problems did arise in certain localised pockets with the issuing of enduring garnishee notices for a limited period, particularly so at the ATO's local Adelaide site. Richard Boyle was vindicated, and yet the prosecution initiated in January 2019 continues.</para>
<para>David McBride raised concerns about the unlawful conduct of a small group of soldiers in Afghanistan. When his concerns went unaddressed, he went to the media. We now know from the Brereton review that what David McBride blew the whistle on was true, and yet here we are with the first person facing charges in relation to Afghan war crimes being the person who revealed the crimes. This must stop.</para>
<para>The Judiciary Act 1903 grants the Attorney-General the authority to decline to proceed with the prosecution for an indictable offence. This power was granted to the Attorney-General so that he may discharge his ultimate responsibility to the parliament and the Australian people for the conduct of the prosecution process with due regard for public interest.</para>
<para>To date, in these two cases, our Attorney-General has chosen to decline to intervene in these matters, stating that he has a strong view that, while he has the power to discontinue proceedings, this is reserved for very unusual and exceptional circumstances and requires careful consideration before it is exercised. If stopping the ongoing prosecution of these two individuals, people who stood up for our rights as a society and fought to ensure that others were brought to justice, isn't considered exceptional circumstances I'm not sure what would meet that criteria.</para>
<para>David McBride and Richard Boyle are being punished for speaking truth to power. It is time power stepped in to protect them. This chamber needs to support the member for Clark's motion and the Attorney-General needs to come and explain to us how he can't see that the prosecution of Richard Boyle and David McBride is unjust and not in the public interest. The issue must be dealt with as a matter of urgency and I urge the chamber to support Mr Wilkie's suspension motion.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:16</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr DREYFUS</name>
    <name.id>HWG</name.id>
    <electorate>Isaacs</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The member for Clark has raised concerns in his motion about the prosecution of Mr David McBride and Mr Richard Boyle. As I told the House yesterday in response to a question from the member for Clark, I am strongly of the view that integrity and the rule of law are central to Australia's criminal justice arrangements. It's true, as the member for Clark has pointed out in his motion, that the Attorney-General has power under the Judiciary Act to discontinue proceedings. It's also true, which he appeared to accept in speaking to the House, that that power to discontinue proceedings is reserved for very unusual and exceptional circumstances.</para>
<para>The motion itself points out that Mr McBride is facing criminal charges and is to appear in court on 13 November 2023. As a consequence, it would be inappropriate to comment further on the particulars of his case. The motion does not point out, or at least not directly, that Mr Boyle is also before the court. The current status of Mr Boyle's proceedings is that he raised a preliminary question relying on the Public Interest Disclosure Act in the District Court in Adelaide. He was unsuccessful. He appealed to the Court of Appeal in South Australia. His appeal has been heard and the court has reserved its judgement on that matter. So, again, as with Mr McBride, Mr Boyle has an ongoing criminal proceeding in court in South Australia. As for Mr McBride, it would be inappropriate to comment further on the particulars of the criminal proceeding concerning Mr Boyle.</para>
<para>But I wish to note that the government is committed to delivering strong, effective and accessible protections for whistleblowers. I detected something of a concession from the member for Clark that that is in fact the case. The government has already delivered priority amendments to the Public Interest Disclosure Act, an act that I am very proud to have brought to this parliament in 2013, an act that was reviewed as required by the provisions of the act by a statutory review conducted by an eminent Australian public servant in Mr Philip Moss, who reported to the former government in 2016. Sadly, as with so much else, the former government declined to act on the recommendations that Mr Moss made for improvements to the Public Interest Disclosure Act 2013.</para>
<para>On coming to government, we acted on Mr Moss's suggestions for improvements to the Public Interest Disclosure Act and we have already delivered priority amendments to the act.</para>
<para>As I've said publicly already, the government intends to commence a second stage of reforms, which will include public consultation on, firstly, broader reforms to the Public Interest Disclosure Act to provide effective and accessible protections to public sector whistleblowers and address what I think is fairly recognised as the underlying complexity of the current scheme. Secondly, there will be public consultation on the need for additional supports for public sector whistleblowers, with a possibility that there should be created a whistleblower protection authority or a whistleblower protection commissioner.</para>
<para>The Albanese Labor 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. Reforms to the Public Interest Disclosure Act were long overdue by the time that we took office in May last year. Significant reform is required to restore the act to a scheme that provides strong protection for public sector whistleblowers.</para>
<para>As I'm sure the member for Clark would appreciate, and the member for North Sydney should also appreciate, using a suspension motion to call for intervention in an ongoing court case—in this case, the member for Clark is using a suspension motion to call for intervention in two ongoing court cases—is highly irregular, and the government will not be supporting this motion.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:21</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr KATTER</name>
    <name.id>HX4</name.id>
    <electorate>Kennedy</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I have very great respect for my colleague on the crossbenches. I've always had very great respect for him. He is one of the few people in this place who always act out of conscience and what they believe is the right thing to do. But there is another issue here. In my book, I quoted one of the best books on the typical Australian. It describes the typical Australian as a person who sticks by his mates, even if his mates are doing the wrong thing. You don't rat on your mates. Well, I think this bloke has ratted on his mates, so I've got no sympathy for him. Should he have a criminal conviction against him, I would agree with the honourable member, my colleague, that there shouldn't be legal punishment. He shouldn't be convicted, but I most certainly do not approve of his conduct.</para>
<para>Chris Masters has written a book big-noting himself once again. He wrote a book called <inline font-style="italic">The Moonlight State</inline>, which led to the destruction of the Queensland government and the jailing of four ministers. Every person in this House should listen to what I'm saying here. The leading case was that of Brian Austin. What he had done was drive his government car up to see his children at the weekend at a boarding school outside of Brisbane. For that, he spent two years in jail, like a criminal. So thank you, Chris Masters. You did a wonderful job! There was not one single conviction for government corruption—not one. It was just this petty rubbish—using your motor car to drive up to see your kids. That was the leading case. That was the case that the other four cases followed. So, Chris Masters, what you did was put a person in jail for using his car to go up and visit his kids on the weekend. Every government car in Australia will be used for private purposes today. He completely subverted and corrupted the process of government in Queensland and damaged it to a point where it is still damaged today. And now he's out there spitting upon our Australian soldiers who are risking their lives. They don't know whether the cause is right or wrong in Vietnam or Indonesia. You just join up. I just joined up. I didn't know all the rights and wrongs of it. Your government is going to war, so you just join up. That's what you do as an Australian.</para>
<para>Masters has spat upon those people. He is the person who's written a book that backs up the convictions of this gentleman we're talking about today. I do not wish to see this gentleman put in jail or punished in any way, and I most certainly do not want to see the parliament of Australia approving the conduct of someone who has ratted on his mates—the most un-Australian of characterisations.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:25</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms SPENDER</name>
    <name.id>286042</name.id>
    <electorate>Wentworth</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise in support of this motion, and I thank the member for Clark for moving it and the member for North Sydney for seconding it. I echo the words of the member for North Sydney that the prosecution is unjust. The community will look at the prosecutions of Boyle and McBride, and it will have a chilling effect on whistleblowers standing up in this country. I think the government accepts that whistleblower protections are inadequate, and I appreciate the Attorney-General's comments on this. Given that those protections are inadequate in the government's own words and own mind, I think that it is urgent for the government to intervene in these two cases for Boyle and McBride, both of whom have been vindicated in terms of the pieces of information that have arisen out of their whistleblowing. The country is better for knowing what they have identified in those whistleblowing cases, yet those are the people on trial. So I rise in support of the motion.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:26</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms DANIEL</name>
    <name.id>008CH</name.id>
    <electorate>Goldstein</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I also rise in support of the member for Clark's motion. Boyle and McBride are paying an immense price for telling the truth. Their reward for acting in the public interest is harassment by prosecution. This suspension motion is valid and urgent because these men face jail for helping reporters tell the truth about matters of public and national interest. They face jail for telling the truth. Time and again we've seen the consequences faced by whistleblowers. While I respect the Attorney-General's commitment to the separation of powers, there is an urgency to this as a potential miscarriage of justice. It's high time that the Attorney intervened to drop these cases. There is no public interest served by seeing McBride or Boyle convicted and serving time in jail.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>74046</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! The time allocated for this debate has expired.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The question is that the motion be agreed to.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<division>
          <division.header>
            <body>
              <p class="HPS-DivisionPreamble">The House divided. [10:31]<br />(The Speaker—Hon. Milton Dick)</p>
            </body>
          </division.header>
          <division.data>
            <ayes>
              <num.votes>15</num.votes>
              <title>AYES</title>
              <names>
                <name>Archer, B. K.</name>
                <name>Bandt, A. P.</name>
                <name>Bates, S. J.</name>
                <name>Chandler-Mather, M.</name>
                <name>Chaney, K. E.</name>
                <name>Daniel, Z.</name>
                <name>Haines, H. M.</name>
                <name>Le, D.</name>
                <name>Scamps, S. A.</name>
                <name>Sharkie, R. C. C.</name>
                <name>Spender, A. M. (Teller)</name>
                <name>Steggall, Z.</name>
                <name>Tink, K. J.</name>
                <name>Watson-Brown, E.</name>
                <name>Wilkie, A. D. (Teller)</name>
              </names>
            </ayes>
            <noes>
              <num.votes>83</num.votes>
              <title>NOES</title>
              <names>
                <name>Ananda-Rajah, M.</name>
                <name>Andrews, K. L.</name>
                <name>Bell, A. M.</name>
                <name>Birrell, S. J.</name>
                <name>Burke, A. S.</name>
                <name>Burnell, M. P.</name>
                <name>Burney, L. J.</name>
                <name>Burns, J.</name>
                <name>Butler, M. C.</name>
                <name>Byrnes, A. J.</name>
                <name>Caldwell, C. M.</name>
                <name>Charlton, A. H. G.</name>
                <name>Chesters, L. M.</name>
                <name>Claydon, S. C.</name>
                <name>Coker, E. A.</name>
                <name>Conroy, P. M.</name>
                <name>Coulton, M. M.</name>
                <name>Doyle, M. J. J.</name>
                <name>Dreyfus, M. A.</name>
                <name>Elliot, M. J.</name>
                <name>Fernando, C.</name>
                <name>Fletcher, P. W.</name>
                <name>Freelander, M. R.</name>
                <name>Garland, C. M. L.</name>
                <name>Georganas, S.</name>
                <name>Giles, A. J.</name>
                <name>Gillespie, D. A.</name>
                <name>Goodenough, I. R. </name>
                <name>Gorman, P.</name>
                <name>Gosling, L. J.</name>
                <name>Hastie, A. W.</name>
                <name>Hill, J. C.</name>
                <name>Howarth, L. R.</name>
                <name>Jones, S. P.</name>
                <name>Katter, R. C.</name>
                <name>Keogh, M. J.</name>
                <name>Khalil, P.</name>
                <name>King, C. F.</name>
                <name>Landry, M. L.</name>
                <name>Lawrence, T. N.</name>
                <name>Laxale, J. A. A.</name>
                <name>Leeser, J.</name>
                <name>Leigh, A. K.</name>
                <name>Lim, S. B. C.</name>
                <name>Littleproud, D.</name>
                <name>Mascarenhas, Z. F. A.</name>
                <name>McBain, K. L.</name>
                <name>McBride, E. M.</name>
                <name>McKenzie, Z. A.</name>
                <name>Mitchell, R. G.</name>
                <name>Mulino, D.</name>
                <name>Neumann, S. K.</name>
                <name>O'Brien, E. L.</name>
                <name>O'Brien, L. S.</name>
                <name>Pasin, A.</name>
                <name>Phillips, F. E.</name>
                <name>Pike, H. J.</name>
                <name>Pitt, K. J.</name>
                <name>Price, M. L.</name>
                <name>Rae, S. T.</name>
                <name>Ramsey, R. E.</name>
                <name>Reid, G. J.</name>
                <name>Repacholi, D. P.</name>
                <name>Roberts, T. G.</name>
                <name>Ryan, J. C.</name>
                <name>Scrymgour, M. R.</name>
                <name>Sitou, S.</name>
                <name>Smith, D. P. B. (Teller)</name>
                <name>Stanley, A. M. (Teller)</name>
                <name>Stevens, J.</name>
                <name>Taylor, A. J.</name>
                <name>Templeman, S. R.</name>
                <name>Thwaites, K. L.</name>
                <name>Vamvakinou, M.</name>
                <name>van Manen, A. J.</name>
                <name>Violi, A. A.</name>
                <name>Wallace, A. B.</name>
                <name>Ware, J. L.</name>
                <name>Watts, T. G.</name>
                <name>Wilson, J. H.</name>
                <name>Wolahan, K.</name>
                <name>Young, T. J.</name>
                <name>Zappia, A.</name>
              </names>
            </noes>
            <pairs>
              <num.votes>0</num.votes>
              <title>PAIRS</title>
              <names />
            </pairs>
          </division.data>
          <division.result>
            <body>
              <p class="HPS-DivisionFooter">Question negatived.</p>
            </body>
          </division.result>
        </division></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>BILLS</title>
        <page.no>23</page.no>
        <type>BILLS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Higher Education Support Amendment (Response to the Australian Universities Accord Interim Report) Bill 2023</title>
          <page.no>23</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r7060" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Higher Education Support Amendment (Response to the Australian Universities Accord Interim Report) Bill 2023</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Report from Federation Chamber</title>
            <page.no>23</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo></subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2023</title>
          <page.no>23</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r7059" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2023</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Report from Federation Chamber</title>
            <page.no>23</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo></subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Third Reading</title>
            <page.no>23</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:40</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BURKE</name>
    <name.id>DYW</name.id>
    <electorate>Watson</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That this bill be now read a third time.</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
<para>Bill read a third time.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Australia's Engagement in the Pacific) Bill 2023</title>
          <page.no>24</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r7071" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Australia's Engagement in the Pacific) Bill 2023</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Report from Federation Chamber</title>
            <page.no>24</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo></subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Third Reading</title>
            <page.no>24</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:42</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr CONR</name>
    <name.id>249127</name.id>
    <electorate>Shortland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>OY (—) (): by leave—I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That this bill be now read a third time.</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
<para>Bill read a third time.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes) Bill 2023</title>
          <page.no>24</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r7072" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes) Bill 2023</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>24</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:43</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr PIKE</name>
    <name.id>300120</name.id>
    <electorate>Bowman</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I haven't been in this place for a very long time, but one thing I have learnt is that when this government describes a proposal as 'modest' we should take that with a grain of salt. We've seen them suggest that the changes to the Constitution with the Voice, which we'll vote on on 14 October, are a modest proposal, and now they're describing this bill as a modest proposal. The Albanese Labor government's Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes) Bill 2023 will make life tougher for Australian businesses by increasing costs, complexity and red tape. This will likely lead to not just job losses but also restricting small and medium-sized businesses across Australia from creating jobs in the first place.</para>
<para>By the government's own admission, the changes will cost employers up to $9 billion in extra wages over the next decade. Industry has contested this 'modest' suggestion. In today's <inline font-style="italic">AFR</inline>, BHP, who were invited by the department to be part of the costings process for the bill, are now suggesting that what they provided to the department to help produce the explanatory memorandum for the bill grossly underestimates the actual costs, now that they've had an opportunity to look at the finer detail.</para>
<para>The Department of Employment and Workplace Relations costings tabled the day before yesterday show that the changes could cost employers up to $510 million annually, assuming just 66,446 labour hire employees would be covered by new Fair Work Commission orders. We understand from the industry response since the bill has been tabled that that is considerably underdone by their estimations.</para>
<para>The reality is that the changes proposed by this bill are far from 'very modest', as the employment minister describes them. This is in fact a radical reordering of Australian workplace law which every business organisation in this country has pleaded with the government not to go ahead with. You've got to understand this bill in the broader economic context that's currently facing Australia. We know that Australia's workplace laws are incredibly complex, and they come with a high level of cost for businesses—but also for consumers because, obviously, these costs are built into prices. If you add that on top of Australia's current cost-of-living crisis and on top of the crisis facing many Australian businesses with the current labour shortages, and when you consider the increasing cost of inputs, businesses out there are doing it very tough. The minister has admitted that these new laws will increase costs for consumers for everyday services they have come to rely on. He admitted this in the National Press Club speech in relation to this bill—that it'll add complexity to an already unduly complex system and that, as a consequence, consumer costs will rise.</para>
<para>It is in effect simply an attack on labour hire, the gig economy and casual employment, and it gives unions unprecedented rights of entry into businesses. It's about eroding the choice and flexibility of individuals who want to work in their own time and on their own terms, and of the many Australian consumers who access the services. Those services have become a considerable part of our economy and a considerable part of the lives of many Australians. The coalition will not be supporting reforms which weaken our economy and continue to make a bad situation worse for Australian small businesses and families.</para>
<para>Can I outline that the process around this bill is almost unprecedented. We're seeing this bill rammed through this week. It was only introduced this week. The government has rejected the coalition's common-sense proposal to delay debate on this quite significant bill. We're talking about 284 pages of legislation, and the explanatory memorandum goes out to 521 pages. They've rejected our proposal to delay consideration of this bill until October, and yesterday they rejected our suggestion that the bill be referred to a committee, as would be the normal process.</para>
<para>In the last few weeks in this place we've seen the government's agenda laid bare, because they haven't actually had many bits of legislation of significance before this chamber. We've seen speaking lists filled with government speakers because they're trying to drag out debate in order to make this building continue to work, despite the fact that it's largely noncontroversial bills here. Suddenly they find something worth debating to keep this place operating. Of course, we saw a similar process in place when the government introduced the secure jobs, better pay bill last year. We saw the same pattern of behaviour—trying to condense debate and even threatening to have parliament sit on Saturday in order to get it through, which would have come at great expense to taxpayers.</para>
<para>In the development of this bill, the Labor government secretly shared it with a small, select group of recipients, who were forced to sign legally binding nondisclosure agreements. So a lot of these employer groups who were provided with the content of this bill were unable to tell the public about it and unable to tell people within their organisation about it. They are now coming out of the woodwork in order to criticise it, and I'll touch on their comments later. But, certainly, the coalition is being forced to debate this bill, having only seen it halfway through Monday. The bill—as I mentioned, its pages run into the hundreds—makes fundamental changes to the rules governing Australian workplaces, and I just don't think that that level of closed consultation, but also ramming the bill through this place, is appropriate.</para>
<para>I've recently restarted, since the winter break, a process of knocking on the doors of small businesses within my electorate. The cost pressures that they are facing at the moment are quite extreme. The No. 1 complaint I have had from local businesses I've spoken to within my electorate has been labour shortages, and I don't think this bill goes anywhere towards helping resolve this issue. In fact, this legislation will make labour shortages far worse. These small businesses were also talking to me about the complexity of doing business in Australia at the moment, the amount of regulation, the amount of red tape. When you consider that the Fair Work Act is already 1,200 pages long and that this bill seeks to add an extra 200-odd pages to it, I just worry about whether businesses across Australia are going to be able to ensure that they are fully compliant with the changes. But let's dive into some of the detail of what this bill is actually proposing.</para>
<para>Firstly, and probably most worryingly, we are seeing an expansion of union powers in the workplace. The bill will amend the Fair Work Act to enable unions to exercise right-of-entry powers without any notice whenever an issue relates to wage underpayment. To gain immediate entry the union only needs to assert to the Fair Work Commission that it suspects a case of wage underpayment. No evidence is required to make their case. I know a lot of farmer groups and farmers across Australia are particularly concerned about this new right of entry without notice, which would allow union representatives to enter farms unannounced. Of course, there are all the biosecurity considerations when you deal with some of our primary producers. But there's also the fact that for a lot of farmers their place of business is actually their home, and the thought of having people arriving unannounced with a right of entry is obviously of deep concern. It is important to note that this element of the policy was not included in the government's 2022 election policies, although I note that many of the government speakers are trying to pitch it as something that was achieved as part of their mandate. This was also not foreshadowed in any of the public consultation papers that were released in relation to this bill in April this year.</para>
<para>Secondly, the bill outlines the so-called same job, same pay provisions. The government has asserted that the intent of the policy is to close a loophole and address the limited circumstances in which host employers use labour hire to deliberately undercut the bargained wages and conditions set out in enterprise agreements made with their employees. However, Labor policy actually goes much further than this and also covers any service contractors who provide services, not just labour, to another business. Any business that engages service contractors will be captured by this provision. The so-called same job, same pay changes are an unfair and unjustified attack on labour hire employees as well as the businesses and workers that depend on the sector. This sector plays an important role in our economy. Like employers, the opposition recognises that our labour market is diverse and that those who choose these forms of work represent legitimate and important aspects of Australia's labour market. The government's proposal is all about discouraging different forms of employment across Australia and, course, trying to promote those unions that contribute so much to the Labor Party when it comes to election time.</para>
<para>Changes to the legislation affecting gig workers and other independent contractors mean the additional costs to tech companies providing the services Australians rely on will be pushed on to consumers and the businesses that rely on their services. These proposed changes threaten the viability of Australia's vibrant platform economy, which delivers essential goods and services from our business community to consumers. We know the real agenda here because the minister let the cat out of the bag when he recently referred to the gig economy as a cancer. Customers who benefit from the innovative new services that gig platforms deliver do not think it is a cancer. They love the convenience and the range of services and choice these new elements of our economy provide. And the workers choosing to do gig work, often as a second job—I meet many constituents who are undertaking gig work as a second job—or when they want to choose their own work arrangements to suit their lifestyle arrangements, particularly students, parents and retirees, have embraced the gig economy.</para>
<para>It's important to mention that there are a lot of protections in place already under Australia's laws to cover gig workers.</para>
<para>Given the time, I won't touch on the changes for casual employees, but I will, perhaps, just outline some of the responses that we've seen come out of the employer groups. I know the government is very keen on quoting employer groups in this place, whether it's promoting the Jobs and Skills Summit or their position on different issues, but let's hear what some of the industry responses to this bill have been.</para>
<para>The Minerals Council of Australia chief executive, Tania Constable, said that the cost outlined in the explanatory memorandum 'barely scratches the surface' of the true impact. She went on to say:</para>
<quote><para class="block">As the legislation now makes abundantly clear, the economic impact fails to take into account the hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of service contractors and workers in related entity businesses that will be captured by the legislation.</para></quote>
<para>The Council of Small Business Organisations Australia chair, Matthew Addison, described the legislation as 'onerous new obligations'. The Business Council of Australia described the labour hire arrangements as 'unworkable'. Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry chief executive Andrew McKellar said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The only loophole this bad legislation is looking to close is that of plummeting union membership.</para></quote>
<para>I think that's a very telling line. Perhaps he's hitting, very much, on the root of where this legislation has come from. Australian Industry Group chief executive Innes Willox described it as deeply 'flawed'. He said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The Government is proposing major changes to core aspects of our workplace relations system. They are changes that will, collectively, impact most sectors of the economy …</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">It is crucial that Parliament properly scrutinises the changes and isn't misguided by efforts to downplay the adverse impacts of the changes or their significance.</para></quote>
<para>I'm sure this parliament would love to provide the proper scrutiny, but, unfortunately, we have been given this bill under unusual circumstances, and I'm sure we're not going to get the full scrutiny that a committee investigation into this bill would offer.</para>
<para>This bill amounts to a direct attack on the efficiency and flexibility of Australia's digital economy. It's important to note that none of these changes are designed to improve the productivity of Australia's economy, which is a critical thing that I know many of our economic pundits on both sides of this chamber have been discussing as a key priority that we need to be undertaking. Millions of Australians have enthusiastically embraced digital platforms due to their convenience and innovative offerings, but, unfortunately, Labor wants to turn us back to a rigid 1950s style economy because that's, of course, what the union bosses want.</para>
<para>This bill will result in fewer jobs, more costs to Australian businesses and a weaker economy. The laws will tie up Australian businesses in more red tape and make it more difficult for Australian businesses to hire workers. That's why the coalition will not be supporting this bill.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:58</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr NEUMANN</name>
    <name.id>HVO</name.id>
    <electorate>Blair</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm pleased to speak in support of the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes) Bill 2023. I just heard the member for Bowman talking about how this legislation is taking us back to the 1950s. That was the era of the coalition and the Menziantorpor, when Australia's economy was a mess. Labor was in opposition at that time. I'm really surprised he would attack Sir Robert Menzies in that way.</para>
<para>At the outset, I want to say in this speech that the Albanese Labor government was elected on a pledge to get wages moving after a decade of the coalition keeping wages low as a deliberate design feature of the previous government's economic and IR policies. To do that we need to close loopholes that undermine wages and conditions for workers. That's what this set of workplace reforms are about—getting wages moving and helping workers deal with inflationary pressures in the economy, something those opposite conveniently leave out when they lecture us on the cost of living. Each day, the impact of a decade of wage stagnation under them is felt by households trying to make ends meet.</para>
<para>This bill contains four main elements: cracking down on labour hire loopholes that have been used to undercut pay and conditions, criminalising wage theft, properly defining casual work so casuals aren't being exploited and making sure that gig workers aren't being ripped off.</para>
<para>I listened to some of the speeches yesterday, and even the speech before. They're not defending their position. They're using every form of smokescreen to say they won't support this legislation, but they're not actually addressing the heart of what this bill's all about. We announced all four of these policies in opposition more than two years ago, and we took them to the Australian people at the election and won the election.</para>
<para>Ultimately this is about dignity, human dignity—dignity at work and dignity in our work. I'm reminded of the earliest modern description of human dignity in Australian law from a High Court case in 1919. Appropriately, it was in the context of employment law. The case involved the council of the City of Melbourne and the Federated Municipal and Shire Council Employees Union, MEU. I note that became part of the union of which I'm proud to be a member, the great Australian Services Union, in 1993. The case concerned the scope of conciliation and arbitration in relation to section 51(xxxv) of the Constitution. The court referred to the suffering and degradation that followed the industrial revolution. The court found labour disputes were increasingly 'founded on the practical view, that human labour was not a mere asset of capital but was a co-operating agency of equal dignity—a working partner—and entitled to consideration as such'.</para>
<para>I wish those opposite looked at a bit of history and legal history in some of their speeches. This followed a 1913 judgement of Justices Isaac and Rich, who were the same judges, by the way, in that 1919 MEU case. They wrote:</para>
<quote><para class="block">… we should be blind to everyday facts and events, if we failed to observe that the aim of industrial struggles is to raise the personal status and condition of the workers.</para></quote>
<para>This formulation of human dignity in the workplace aligns very much with what has been described by legal philosopher Professor Jeremy Waldron, who described it as referring to the legal standing or the moral presence which a person has in society and in dealing with others. He explained dignity as 'the idea of a certain status that ought to be accredited to all persons and taken seriously in the way they are ruled'. This accords with article II of the International Labour Organization's Declaration of Philadelphia from 1914. Have a look at a bit of history, those opposite! It states:</para>
<quote><para class="block">all human beings, irrespective of race, creed or sex, have the right to pursue both their material well-being and their spiritual development in conditions of freedom and dignity—</para></quote>
<para>and—</para>
<quote><para class="block">of economic security and equal opportunity …</para></quote>
<para>That's what this legislation is about. It's been referred to in international law again and again.</para>
<para>I want to congratulate Senator Sheldon in the other place for the work they did in his Senate Select Committee on Job Security, which reported in March 2022, not long before the last election. That inquiry found, before the last election, that insecure work had a strong, detrimental impact on workers' physical and mental health, often negatively affecting family life, social connectedness and their interpersonal relationships. Insecurity in work affects every aspect of a person's life, from their self-esteem to self-worth and the decisions about family planning, education, homeownership and retirement. Insecure work affects work health and safety, sometimes with tragic consequences in workplaces. It can lead to depression and suicide. Insecure work makes people sick and reduces our productivity. I just heard a speech from those opposite denying all that.</para>
<para>This legislation is about the economic development of the country, economic justice and material wellbeing, leading to people's physical health because of job security. That is what this legislation and previous legislation we brought in is all about. If we've got insecure work, it affects children's ability to learn and to thrive. It hampers low-income earners trying to save for a dignified retirement. Those opposite have never supported superannuation in this country. They have continually, during the time I've been here, voted to cut superannuation for workers. Insecure work increases the Medicare burden for the taxpayers of this country.</para>
<para>This is about a whole-of-society reform. It's not just about economic reform. The committee found that secure, ongoing work and reliable, predictable income are protective factors against physical health problems, like heart disease, hypertension and depression. Participation in a stable workplace can increase a person's social connectedness and decrease their isolation.</para>
<para>Those opposite should have a look at that report delivered by the Senate in March 2022, before the last election. If they had done so, they might have done a bit better in the election.</para>
<para>We've undertaken extensive consultation—notwithstanding the protestations of those opposite in relation to this—including with business groups. I know there are a lot of small businesses and businesses that work with their employees in the workplace in a collaborative, constructive way. I was in business for 20 years before I was elected to this place in 2007, and you work with your employees to pursue common goals, make sure their jobs are secure, make sure they get their fair share, in terms of wages and conditions, of the productivity and profitability of your business. That's what good employers do. Those opposite deny the fact that we've got people here who worked in the workplace as employers. They are blind. They should have a good look at the history of the people on this side of the chamber, to understand that we've been both employees and employers. We've got real-life experience. Don't give us lectures from those opposite, from staffers and other people who have never been employers. I've been there for 20 years and built a multimillion-dollar business. So I know what I'm talking about when it comes to working with workers in the workplace.</para>
<para>During the election campaign, the now Prime Minister talked about the need to ensure, in the annual wage review, that wages didn't go backwards. He talked about the need to do that. We were told by our opponents that what we were doing was reckless and dangerous. When we brought in our Secure Jobs, Better Pay legislation last year, those opposite were saying that we were going to bring in socialism or communism, that the economy was going to collapse. The jeremiads were there. It was like some Old Testament prophet. Everything was going to fall apart. And what happened? It didn't.</para>
<para>Yesterday we heard and today we're going to hear lecture after lecture from the pulpit of those opposite about the doomsday that's going to happen with this economy because of what we're doing. But you know what? We've seen wages rise. We've seen wages improve in terms of minimum wage increases. We've seen wages increase for aged-care workers, the heroes of the pandemic. Those opposite opposed this stuff. They never did it. They would not support rises in aged-care workers' salaries. They would not support minimum wage increases. Those opposite are condemned by their own words. They don't understand about business. They don't understand about unions. They don't understand the workplaces of this country. They should go and visit them. It would do good if they did that more often. It's very, very important to have secure work, and we've seen a rise of hundreds of thousands of new jobs created by this government in the last just over 12 months. Eighty-five per cent of those are new jobs—secure, full-time jobs. So the doomsday sermonising that we're going to hear from those opposite today and for the next few weeks cannot be listened to and taken into account, because it is simply rubbish. That's what we're going to hear from those opposite again and again.</para>
<para>On this front, can I just say: under those opposite, we saw 128,000 days lost to industrial action; in the most recent quarter, we had 7,000 days lost to industrial action. If you work with unions, if you work with their representatives, if you work in a constructive way, you get better outcomes for wages and conditions and you get more productive employees. If they're healthy and well, if they're connected to their family lives, if their children can thrive, if they feel they can go to that football match, if they feel they're getting paid a fair wage, they will do better. That's really, really important. That's why legislation like this is not just about stopping pay and conditions from being undercut; it's about improving family lives. Those opposite will give us sermons about family values. Family values are important for economic justice in the workplace. They're intimately related. They're absolutely connected. Family values are not just about what happens in people's bedrooms. Family values are about what happens in the workplace. That's absolutely critical to the wellbeing of our society and our economy. Legislation like this is absolutely vital.</para>
<para>We're cracking down on the labour hire rorts in this country. Labour hire has a legitimate use—we know that—but it is being exploited, and it shouldn't be. On wages theft, I guarantee you that those opposite won't talk about the egregious examples of wages theft we've seen in the public. They will not talk about that. I guarantee you won't hear one word from those opposite about that.</para>
<para>It's absolutely crucial that workers who are ripped off by bad employers—and not all employers are bad employers. Most employers are good employers. But, where there are examples of that, why shouldn't it be criminalised? It's been done in Victoria and Queensland. It should be done nationally. It's really crucial. An employer shouldn't steal money from an employee. That's not acceptable.</para>
<para>As the British would say, the man on the Clapham omnibus—the person walking down Brisbane Street in Ipswich in my electorate—would not think that's acceptable. I am convinced that the Australian public thinks that that is wrong. If those opposite believe that it is not wrong: defend it. Defend it today and defend it in the next few weeks. I guarantee they will not, because they know we're on the side of justice and the angels on this one, and they did nothing about it for nine years. There was example after example in the public about rip-offs, and the unions were at the forefront of exposing it. Whether it was the SDA, the AWU or the TWU, many unions were doing it. They were exposing what was happening in our workplaces where there was wages theft.</para>
<para>What did those opposite do? Did we see them make sure that legislation came into this House? Did they make sure it was passed? No, they did not. They collapsed on this issue like they collapsed on so many other issues. They had nine years to address this, and they failed to do so. They did not criminalise wages theft. It is wrong to steal from your workers, so we are doing the right thing. They tore up draft laws because they couldn't get support to cut wages and conditions elsewhere. Whatever legislation or draft bill they had, they tore it up and threw it away and didn't pursue the criminalisation of wage theft. What those opposite did during their period of time was wrong.</para>
<para>What we're going to do is create an offence carrying a maximum of 10 years imprisonment and/or a maximum fine of the greater of: three times the amount of the underpayment if the court can determine that amount; or, for an individual, 5,000 penalty units, which is $1.565 million, or, for a body corporate, 25,000 penalty units, which is $7.825 million. There are civil breaches as well. There will be a grouping rule included. Where an employer is found guilty of committing two or more offences that arise from a course of conduct, the employer will be taken to be guilty of a single offence and punished accordingly. There are important criminal sanctions. There's a whole range of things that are important in terms of making sure that there's security at work. For example, we're standing up for casual workers who want to become permanent workers.</para>
<para>Those opposite didn't do that. They had nine years to make sure this was done. They didn't do it. There are many people who work casually and want a flexible arrangement. We acknowledge that. But many of them, when they want to apply for a loan—a personal loan for a car or a loan for a house—want the security of permanency. There are so many things we're doing in this legislation that will improve economic security and economic justice in our IR system and the domestic lives of Australians today. Those opposite have failed monumentally in this space.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:13</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms PRICE</name>
    <name.id>249308</name.id>
    <electorate>Durack</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise today to speak on the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes) Bill 2023. This is very bad. This is a very bad bill. At the very least, it should have been referred yesterday, as we requested, to the Standing Committee on Employment, Education and Training for further consideration. This Albanese bill unashamedly is designed to take away the flexibility currently enjoyed by Australian gig workers, labour hire companies, tradies and other independent contractors and small businesses more generally. At a time when many parts of our economy are on their knees, the Labor Party's really big, innovative idea is to make it harder to earn a living in Australia. What a joke. Communities right across Australia are suffering because of the economic incompetence of those opposite. Under this government we have seen the highest inflation in decades, too many interest rate rises, productivity falling off a cliff, flatlining GDP growth and a year of real wage decline.</para>
<para>People in my electorate are not immune to the worst of this cost-of-living crisis. Durack is the largest electorate in Australia, ranging from Bullsbrook to the outskirts of Perth and the far north of Western Australia, at 1.4 million square kilometres. To put that into perspective, the Prime Minister's electorate is just 32 square kilometres. Despite the distance between all those many communities in Durack, the message I'm receiving is the same. Whether I'm speaking to farmers in the Wheatbelt—which I did recently at the wonderful Dowerin Machinery Field Days for two days last week—to the farmers and residents of York or Mullewa, or at Kununurra, it is clear that Western Australian families, communities, and businesses are all hurting. What are the government doing in response to the hardship being faced by families and businesses in Durack and the broader Australian community? They haven't addressed any of the economic pressures that are currently being faced by these Australians, and they've gone ahead and introduced this very bad bill.</para>
<para>Let's be clear: industrial relations reform is an important economic reform that is required to make Australia more productive and to create more jobs. So when changes are proposed to Australia's industrial relations laws, it's important, and they must get the focus right. Those opposite have failed. On this side of the House we believe that industrial relations must be designed to improve productivity, to grow wages and to enhance competition. Unfortunately, the government reforms will not deliver on these outcomes and will only make life tougher for Australian businesses by increasing costs, complexity and red tape, and they will likely lead to job losses.</para>
<para>It's not just the Liberal and National parties who understand the consequences of this bill. Business groups and employers all across the country agree that this bill will smash productivity, investment and job creation. As Jennifer Westacott, chief executive of the Business Council of Australia, said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Australians should have safe jobs, well paid jobs and rewarding jobs, but the government's radical shake-up of the industrial relations system will not deliver that …</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">"These changes will create confusion and extra costs for consumers, make it harder to hire casual workers and create uncertainty for employing anybody.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">"Any government that's serious about cost of living would not do this.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">"They should not add cost and complexity at a time when people are struggling to pay their bills.</para></quote>
<para>As we know, the Labor government are not serious about addressing the cost-of-living crisis. They are intent on adding more complexity to the system, passing on cost to business, and delivering on the union movement's wish list. It is shameful.</para>
<para>The Fair Work Act, as it stands, is already 1,200 pages long. This is representative of Australia's absurdly complex industrial relations system, which our small businesses and employers have to deal with on a daily basis. These reforms will only legislate more complexity into the system. It's almost laughable that what is being proposed is an additional 200 pages, making the already difficult-to-manage system more complex and requiring businesses to dedicate more time, resources and money towards trying to understand and implement this new regime. Matthew Addison, the chair of the Council of Small Business Organisations, reflected:</para>
<quote><para class="block">At a time when small businesses are managing increased costs of supply, of rent, of power, of wages; we don't need changes that detract businesses from their sales and service delivery.</para></quote>
<para>According to the government's own estimates, the changes in this bill will cost employers up to $9 billion over the next decade. This $9 billion figure includes over $5 billion in potential costs, assuming just 66,446 labour hire employees are covered by the new Fair Work Commission orders. The Minerals Council of Australia claims that the $5 billion labour hire estimate is much lower than what the actual costs will be for businesses, because the economic impact fails to take into account hundreds of thousands of service contractors and workers in related entity businesses which will be captured by this very bad legislation.</para>
<para>What this Labor government fails to understand is that every time it passes on an additional cost to business it is killing jobs and driving up the cost to the consumer. This should be common sense, even to those opposite. The Department of Employment and Workplace Relations said that business would likely be able to pass on the extra costs 'through higher prices for consumers or third-party businesses'. I agree with Andrew McKeller, the chief executive of the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, when he outlined the chamber's opinion on this dreadful legislation. He said that this bill will be bad for productivity, for those wanting to be their own boss and for consumers struggling with the cost-of-living crisis. To quote Mr McKellar:</para>
<quote><para class="block">If you're in labour hire or want a casual job, prepare for unemployment.</para></quote>
<para>…   …   …</para>
<quote><para class="block">If you are a service provider and want to advertise online, prepare for unemployment.</para></quote>
<para>Of course, he is right. Putting up more barriers and driving up business costs is a recipe for unemployment and a decrease in jobs growth.</para>
<para>I would like to take the time now to highlight some of the most damaging elements of this legislation and why the Labor Party has chosen to go down this path. Labor talks about closing labour hire loopholes through its same job, same pay legislation. However, the truth is that the policy goes much further than just labour hire. In fact, the proposal does not define labour hire as a business that provides workers to another business who then work under the supervision of that business as part of that business. This is the standard definition, as confusing as it may seem, that is used in labour hire licensing legislation. Instead, Labor proposes to also cover service contractors who are engaged to provide a service, often utilising their own plant and equipment, their own expertise and their own management, as well as their own workforce. Any business that engages service contractors will be captured by this bad legislation.</para>
<para>Another issue that I have with the proposed legislation is its changes to casual employment. 'Casual' is a dirty word to those opposite and their union mates. But it is an essential employment type for businesses in my electorate and right across Australia. It is important to note that it is small business who employs some 80 per cent of Australia's casual workforce. Many of the farmers in my electorate rely on seasonal casual employment during harvest time, as they do across the whole of Australia. Likewise, tourism businesses in the north of my electorate simply cannot afford full-time employment for all of their staff due to the lack of business during the wet season. Through this bill the Albanese government will introduce a new definition of casual employment. The new definition will be three pages long and include 15 factors to determine if an employee is a casual. Honestly, this introduces even further complexity that needs to be managed by the employers of Australia. The definition of casual employee in the act will be changed to prohibit anyone from being engaged as a casual if they work regular hours. As a result a court can order that the employee was always not a casual from the time of their engagement.</para>
<para>For all of these reasons employers would have no choice but to force workers to move to a permanent role, losing their additional income and choice of hours. However, casual jobs will not magically be replaced by permanent jobs. Any claim that they will reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of why casual employment is both necessary and legitimate. The legislation will in effect discourage casual employment and make it too risky for many businesses to even consider. But we have to ask ourselves: why is Labor pursuing this reckless agenda despite the concerns of industry and business? It is clear that none of these measures are designed to improve productivity, to grow wages or to enhance competition, which, as we all know—and even those opposite understand this—are the ingredients for a successful economy.</para>
<para>The cynic in me believes that the main driver is Labor's commitment to deliver for their union mates. This is part of their 'you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours' relationship.</para>
<para>These measures are designed to reverse the trend of union decline in our country. What we are seeing is the government doing the union's bidding to grow union membership, and of course this legislation also seeks to increase union power and control of the economy.</para>
<para>One of the most troubling aspects of this legislation is the expansion of union power in workplaces. This bill will amend the Fair Work Act to enable unions to exercise right-of-entry powers without any notice whenever it relates to an allegation of wage underpayment. To gain immediate entry, the union only needs to assert to the Fair Work Commission that they suspect a case of wage underpayment. No evidence is required to make this case.</para>
<para>I'm particularly concerned about how this expansion will affect farmers in my electorate of Durack. The National Farmers Federation has raised its concerns that union representatives will be allowed to enter farms unannounced. Let's be clear: for most farmers their workplace is also their family home. We are talking about mum-and-dad business owners like the ones that I talked about earlier in Dowerin, York and Mullewa. Their farm isn't just their home; it's their kids' backyard and it's a place that they deserve to feel safe in. There are also important biosecurity concerns that union representatives may not be aware of. Union representatives should not have the right to just come onto their land unannounced.</para>
<para>The Labor Party has already tried to skate over all of the controversy surrounding this bill, saying it is about closing loopholes and addressing wage theft. But let me reiterate what I know many of my colleagues have already said in the House in this debate: the coalition acknowledges deliberate rip-offs of workers is not acceptable and that there should be serious sanctions, but these should only apply to intentional conduct, not to a mere mistake. We are extremely concerned that the new and confusing definitions around casuals and employment in this bad bill will only add more risk and complexity for businesses. It's my view that reforms around wage underpayment and theft should also come with reforms to simplify the system, not to make it more complex. We should simplify the workplace system to avoid underpayments in the first place. Instead, Labor is making this very bad situation worse.</para>
<para>In light of the significant concerns of small businesses and employers across the country and the detrimental impact this will have on workers across the country, I call on the government once again to reconsider this bill.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:27</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BRIAN MITCHELL</name>
    <name.id>129164</name.id>
    <electorate>Lyons</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes) Bill 2023 is all about delivering fairer, safer workplaces and providing employers clarity about the government's expectations when it comes to business practice and relations with workers and contractors. It may well be the most meaningful piece of industrial relations legislation in a generation and, hopefully, will pave the way for a more moral business culture that values people as well as profit. We on our side of the House support business, but this bill makes it clear we want our business leaders to take their inspiration from George Bailey, not Gordon Gecko. Our message is: by all means pursue profits and grow your business, but do it in a way that doesn't rip off your workers or put your contractors at risk of injury or death.</para>
<para>This bill improves rights for casual and gig-economy workers, closes labour hire loopholes, criminalises wage theft, implements minimum standards for the road transport industry, introduces an industrial manslaughter offence and increases penalties for killing workers. It addresses silica related disease, protects workers suffering domestic violence from discrimination and improves bargaining power for franchisees, as well as some other things.</para>
<para>It is a big bill because there is a lot to do after a decade of wanton neglect by those opposite when they occupied the government benches, a decade in which wages were deliberately kept low, a decade in which workers' deaths on building sites were ignored by the Liberals' pet agencies while their mourning colleagues were harassed for having union stickers on their helmets and a decade in which wages were brazenly stolen, with only token penalties applied, sending the message that this was the way to do business in a Liberal-led Australia.</para>
<para>That greed culture, that 'anything goes' culture, that culture where workers are treated as an enemy to be corralled into submission and not as a partner to be embraced has no place under this Labor government. This bill provides a clear way forward for how we expect business to conduct itself, and at its heart are fairer, safer workplaces where workers are treated with respect and dignity. Employers who do the right thing have nothing to fear. In fact, employers who do the right thing have much to celebrate because this bill closes off avenues for their competitors to cut corners. This bill makes it easier for business to compete lawfully for customers. Since our election to government in May last year, the Albanese Labor government has got wages moving again and half a million new jobs have been created. We are proud of that achievement. This bill seeks to take the next step to ensure that loopholes are closed so more workers can enjoy the fruits of their labour.</para>
<para>I can think of no more important obligation for an employer than to provide a safe workplace. The more dangerous the work, the higher the standards needed to protect workers. It is unacceptable that any employer should be able to show a wilful and negligent disregard for safety. Measures in this bill strengthen the Commonwealth workplace health and safety regime by introducing an industrial manslaughter offence and significantly increasing penalties for killing workers. Under this bill, bodies corporate face fines of up to $18 million and individuals face up to 25 years in jail for killing a worker. Every 28 April, on International Workers Memorial Day, I visit the memorial in Launceston and I stand proudly with unionists, MPs—from right across the aisle, I'm happy to say—family members and members of the community to remember the workers who never came home. The mantra is, 'Mourn the dead, and fight like hell for the living.' It's my hope that an industrial manslaughter charge is never levied, because it is my hope that a worker is never again killed at work due to the negligence or culpability of their employer. But this bill is a wake-up call to employers. You disregard your workers' safety at your peril. You don't just face a fine; you face going to jail.</para>
<para>The criminalisation of wage theft is an absolute no-brainer. I simply do not understand why anyone with a shred of decency would oppose this measure. It is accepted that, if a worker puts their hand in a till and steals from an employer, it is a criminal offence. We accept that. It makes no sense that, if an employer steals from an employee by wilfully or negligently underpaying them, it's not a criminal offence. Following some egregious examples of wage theft by businesses like 7-Eleven and others and the pathetic penalties that applied to them, the former government made a half-hearted attempt to pretend to care by putting a bill through the House before the election. But a scorpion cannot change its nature, and, in the Senate, the Liberals voted down their own legislation. They just could not bring themselves to make wage theft a criminal offence. We see that again now, with Liberals lined up to argue against this bill, which will make stealing from workers a crime. You really do make it clear who you are for and who you are against when you are in a political party that deliberately kept wages low for a decade and then opposed making wage theft a crime. Wage theft doesn't just hurt employees; it hurts businesses that do the right thing because businesses paying their workers fairly are put at a competitive disadvantage. So criminalising wage theft isn't anti business; it's pro business. Criminalising wage theft is anti crime. Criminalising wage theft sends a message to the vast majority of employers out there who are doing the right thing—the supermarkets, hairdressers, real estate agents, servos and so many more; the wonderful people who took a risk to open a business and who look after their employees.</para>
<para>The Albanese Labor government is on your side. We are going after the crooks. We are going to drive them out of business, and then we're going to drive them into jail, so that decent people like you have the fair crack that you deserve for your hard work and the risk you've taken, for doing the right thing.</para>
<para>Closing labour hire loopholes will simply require an employer to pay rates that are already agreed to. The bill will protect bargained wages in enterprise agreements from being undercut by the use of labour hire workers who are paid less than those agreed rates. This bill does not attack labour hire's legitimate role as a supplier of specialist or surge workforce. It just stops it being used as an avenue to undercut already-agreed wage deals.</para>
<para>This has been a long time coming. Back in 2005, a parliamentary inquiry into independent contracting heard that Telstra had replaced up to half its call centre workforce, including in Tasmania, with labour hire workers paid less and with fewer conditions than permanent workers. If the law allows something to happen, then a human resources manager or corporate lawyer somewhere will use it to save money. This bill makes it clear, to human resources managers and highly paid corporate lawyers looking for shifty ways to cut costs, that workers' livelihoods are not in the mix.</para>
<para>Under this bill, it will be easier for casual employees who work regular hours to shift to permanent status, trading away casual loadings for leave rights and more job security. Many casual employees probably won't want to change. But some will, especially if their 'casual' jobs are longstanding.</para>
<para>The minister noted, in his second reading speech on Monday, the case of Sanjeev, who has been a pathology courier for five years, working 30 to 40 hours a week. By any measure, any of us would expect that to be a permanent role. Sanjeev has two children in high school. He has asked for conversion to permanent status but has been refused. This bill is for Sanjeev and others like him who are working effectively as forced permanent casuals, but without the security and entitlements that permanency affords.</para>
<para>Australia should not be a place where employees are expected to display loyalty to a workplace but not have that loyalty returned. Australia should not be a place where workers can work 40 hours a week for years on end, knowing they can be sacked at the click of a finger because they don't have the protections afforded by permanent status.</para>
<para>Now, there will always be a place for casual employment, to enable the flexibilities that are required in a dynamic working environment, to manage the cyclical surges and lulls. But, where people are working in stable, long-term, structured arrangements, casual status should not be used just because it's convenient to the employer to have a workforce that they can turn on and turn off at their whim like a tap.</para>
<para>The 'gig economy' is a 21st-century term for a 19th-century way of doing business; it's the Wild West when it comes to rates of pay and safety standards and rights at work—and we've seen that, with the tragic loss of life on our roads of gig economy workers killed while delivering food or parcels, desperate to meet delivery targets and customer satisfaction standards. We know that many gig workers like the flexibility that comes with the technology. So the government has chosen not to regulate the gig economy to such an extent that it fundamentally changes the way it operates. We have chosen to accept that gig workers are an integral and accepted part of our workforce milieu, but we want more protections for them. We know there's a direct link between low pay and poor safety. People who struggle to make ends meet take risks to make more money, and, when you are riding or driving in city traffic, that can and does have deadly consequences.</para>
<para>This bill establishes that an employee-like worker is someone who is not an employee but is also not an independent contractor. It means that the Fair Work Commission can set fair minimum standards for employee-like workers in the gig economy, tailored to individual circumstances.</para>
<para>In this bill, the added protections from workplace discrimination for family violence sufferers follow this government's implementation of 10 days paid family violence leave. Under this bill, it will now be unlawful to discriminate against an employee who has been, or continues to be, subjected to family and domestic violence. Many employers offer terrific support for workers suffering domestic and family violence. They really get around those workers with their co-workers, but some don't. And some are downright awful.</para>
<para>A worker, usually a woman, facing the trauma of family and domestic violence should not have to worry that they will lose their job because of the actions of their abusive partner or because of the steps they need to take to escape the violence. The amendments in this bill prohibit employers from taking adverse action, including termination of employment, against employees because of subjection to family and domestic violence, and that is a very good thing. This measure does not affect employers who do the right thing by their employees, but, to those who don't, it sends a very clear message: just be decent and look after your employees.</para>
<para>When it comes to sham contracting, under this bill the defence to misrepresenting employment as an independent contractor arrangement changes from a subjective test of recklessness to an objective test of reasonableness, which is very welcome. This will make it more difficult for employers to engage in sham contracting, as it will be more difficult to get off the hook once caught. To this, I simply say it's a good thing.</para>
<para>In my electorate, there are 18,000 people in a form of part-time work, and that includes casual employment and those working in the gig economy. The biggest occupation groups include technicians and trade workers, labourers, and community and personal service workers. Workers in these sectors and others will now have added protections and rights, thanks to this Labor government. In Tasmania, labour hire rates of pay are the lowest of any state, despite Tasmania no longer being a state where property prices, rents and mortgages are lower than the mainland. Having suffered under the dead hand of a Liberal state government for the past decade, Tasmania has not licensed labour hire providers to prevent unscrupulous practices, such as underpayment of wages. I note Rebecca White's Tasmanian Labor opposition has committed to enacting a labour hire licensing act, but it has not happened under the Liberals and it never will.</para>
<para>This bill is so important. It provides fairer and safer workplaces for tens of thousands of workers in my home state of Tasmania and for hundreds of thousands of workers across Australia. It's helping our government meet the objectives we set out before the election: for a better and fairer Australia where no-one is left behind. I commend the bill to the House.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:42</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BIRRELL</name>
    <name.id>288713</name.id>
    <electorate>Nicholls</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>It's a great honour to get up and speak to this legislation, but I just want to talk a bit about Labor's incredibly unfair legislative approach and the procedure that's happened here. This bill was introduced after 3 pm on Monday, and the debate on the second reading was less than 24 hours later. This bill is hundreds of pages in detail. If someone bothers to one day pen the biography of the minister for IR, it won't be as thick as the detail in this legislation, or as complex.</para>
<para>This is a place of debate, and democracy is best served when that debate is informed and reasoned. While the government maintains that the raft of changes follow months of consultation, there was no consultation with the coalition. The first speakers on this side have had less than 24 hours to prepare for this debate on a very complex piece of legislation. I'll note that the minister for IR, in his role as Leader of the House, is very quick to approach the dispatch box on matters of workplace safety. You don't need much of an imagination to understand that only having from 3 pm one afternoon until noon the next day to examine a 287-page bill and a 521-page explanatory memorandum would quickly erode any notion of a healthy workplace. I'd like to put on the record right now my appreciation for the incredible work of Senator Cash and her team in circumstances that they shouldn't have been put under.</para>
<para>Even with more time, the businesses in my electorate who employ people and create wealth have had no opportunity to consider the contents in the detail or the impacts on their businesses. That's what we should be doing.</para>
<para>We should be examining legislation, working through it, going out to the business community and their employees and saying, 'How do you think this will affect you?' That's how you get to good legislation. That's not the process that's happened here. It's very disappointing. We're once again being asked to debate and progress a bill that has had no exposure draft and no consultation and is so complex that it verges on being undemocratic. Perhaps the minister will be happy to have that in his eventual biography, but the businesses I represent, who face having these industrial relations laws foisted upon them without any real say, will not be pleased, and I'm not pleased.</para>
<para>I represent a constituency where entrepreneurship is the hallmark of what we do: we have manufacturing businesses; we grow fruit; we make milk; and we manufacture products that get exported around the world. We do that profitably. But can we do it profitably in future, with the actions of this government? I reckon there's a level of disrespect with the way these reforms have been dealt with. I'll share one comment from a longstanding business owner, a very fair minded business owner in my electorate. He watched the minister on <inline font-style="italic">7.30 </inline>on the ABC TV, and I'm not going to use the piece of unparliamentary language that he used, but he said, 'This looks to me like a patronising person with not a scintilla of understanding of how private industry works.' There's a level of expectation that whoever are in government consult with business and try and understand what will make them more productive and what will lead them to being more profitable and therefore employing more people. That is not what's happening here.</para>
<para>There are a number of reasons this bill is a bad bill. It is impossibly complex and creates uncertainty. It adds additional costs for businesses, especially small businesses, right at the time when their other costs are going up. Therefore, that makes Australians pay more, in a cost-of-living crisis. This does nothing to increase productivity, and the decreases in productivity are the demon we need to slay. It does nothing to enhance competition. It risks jobs. It only rewards Labor's union paymasters, and it institutionalises conflict in workplaces. The government purports to have made concessions for business, but it hasn't. This weakens our economy, and we need a strong economy for everyone to thrive.</para>
<para>I'm concerned about the fact that this bill gives unions unprecedented rights of entry into businesses. That's a risk to many businesses in my electorate that are farm businesses, where the employers are in fact the people who live on the farm. They have the office in their home and therefore could be visited at any time, with no prior organisation, by unions. That's not a desirable situation for, for example, dairy farms. There are also biosecurity risks with unions turning up without any notice.</para>
<para>The other issues with this bill are about eroding the choice and flexibility 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 expand, construct new projects and infrastructure, or simply manage their operations in a way that is flexible and works for their productivity. It demonises the wealth creators, and that's the last thing we should be doing in this economy. When I listened to the speech by the minister and listened to his comments, he seemed to justify these IR laws by creating demons, bad actors, who are exploiting workers, stealing their wages and undermining their status as employees. They exist, but this government continues to frame legislation to rein in the few that creates huge burden, complexity, cost and erosion of rights for the many, and the overwhelming number of businesses are doing the right thing.</para>
<para>My electorate, as I said before, is an entrepreneurial region. People have come there to get ahead. Businesses across my electorate are established for the purpose of profit. Employees are valued; they're not exploited. Labour is increasingly difficult to attract and keep, adding to the imperative that you have to look after those that you have, and that's what happens across my electorate. The same applies to casual workers, commonly employed in agriculture in my electorate, especially at peak periods of activity. There are times when apples are ripe and ready to be picked, and there are times when they're not—a bit of an agriculture lesson for some of those opposite!</para>
<para>At harvest time there is intense competition for labour and workers are valued. Harvest workers frequently return to work on the same farms year after year. They are clearly out of the loop on the loopholes this legislation seeks to close. I know of Pacific island workers returning not only to work but to sing, beautifully, at the funeral of a prominent orchardist out of respect for what that orchardist had done for them and what those workers and that business owner had created together.</para>
<para>What these businesses want is a fair system. The job creators of Australia are telling the minister it will be harder to keep people in jobs under these changes. The complexity and associated costs will be impossible for small businesses to deal with. The government has failed to demonstrate how these new laws will make it easier for businesses to employ people, increase productivity, create a highly skilled workforce or raise living standards, perhaps because it can't, perhaps because this bill is anathema to all of those things. This will only add to Australia's cost-of-living crisis. Millions of Australians are already suffering under the crippling cost-of-living crisis, which is of this government's own making, and the costs incurred by businesses will be passed on. Consumers will pay. The economy will reflect the pain being felt by working families. How does that help workers? How does that make them feel more secure?</para>
<para>We can reform the industrial relations system. Industrial relations reform is, without a doubt, one of the most important of all the economic reforms required to make Australia more productive and competitive, but productivity has fallen off a cliff under the Albanese government. The focus should be on lifting productivity, not suppressing it further. This morning's Murray-Darling Basin Plan bill is one of the most anti-productivity pieces of legislation I've ever seen brought into this place. It's going to make it incredibly difficult for people to grow fruit, milk, food—not only for domestic consumption but for sending overseas. As I said in this place not long ago, do we want our kids eating Chinese apples? We don't want them eating Chinese apples; we want them eating healthy, clean, Australian apples from the Murray-Darling Basin. That legislation, which takes water away from farmers, is appalling. Combine that with these IR changes and it's getting really hard to try and run a business in this country, and it shouldn't be. Enterprise bargaining should be the cornerstone of our workplace relations system if we are to grow our pay packets, improve job security, bolster the flexibility that employees demand and boost productivity. Australia needs a modern workplace relations system that delivers a safety net for workers, recognises the shared interests of managers and workers in an enterprise's success and gives all enterprises the agility they need to compete and succeed.</para>
<para>I went to the Minerals Council dinner the other night, and CEO Tania Constable said, 'These proposed IR laws are nothing short of an act of economic self-harm.' We've had economic self-harm this morning with the Murray-Darling Basin legislation, which is going to rip irrigation water away from people who are trying to grow healthy food for Australians, and now we've got an act of economic self-harm with these IR changes. Why are we doing this to ourselves? Why can't we focus on productivity? Why can't we have successful businesses and happy workers that are being paid well? That can't happen if it's too hard to do business in this country. I really believe that this is one of the more anti-business governments in the history of this nation. There have been some good Labor governments, in my view. The Hawke Labor government was an excellent government, because it understood the importance of business to the economy and it understood that productivity is good for workers. If businesses fail, people don't have a job. I don't think this government understands that. I wish that those opposite would go back and look at some of the things that the Hawke government did in the eighties. It'd be a better government if they did. Business groups and employers say the proposed IR changes will smash productivity, investment and job creation. That's not good for business, it's not good for workers and it's not good for Australia.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:54</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr KATTER</name>
    <name.id>HX4</name.id>
    <electorate>Kennedy</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>It is important for this House to understand what is taking place in Australia. I invited myself to stand up on a chair at the Moranbah Community Workers Club.</para>
<para>I asked people not to throw beer bottles at me and just give me three minutes of their time. I said, 'Look, fellas, everyone here, ladies, everyone here knows we're on close to $190,000 a year.' That was eight or nine years ago. Everyone here knows that we are now on about $135,000, and they are not stopping there. They will push our wages down, down, down.</para>
<para>When we were on nearly $190,000, or the equivalent of $190,000, five of the six giant mining companies in Australia were owned by Australians. Successive Labor and Liberal governments agreed that these mining companies could be purchased by foreigners. Fancy a government allowing the overwhelming majority of its giant resources to be simply handed over to foreign corporations! We only have three sources of income in this country: iron ore, coal and gas. Each of those is worth over $100 billion, or near enough to $100 billion for each of the three of them. The next one down is probably gold or cattle at maybe $15 billion. We only have three sources of income from overseas, and successive Liberal and Labor governments gave away the gas for 6c a unit. We Australians are having to buy our own gas back at $19 a unit. We sold it for 6c and we're buying it back at $19 a unit, which makes us uncompetitive in the world market. We can't competitively produce fertiliser because the major component is ammonia from natural gas, and we're paying $19, whereas in America they are paying $6 and in other countries they are paying $4 a unit.</para>
<para>You sold your country out. Every member of the ALP here sold their country out. Every member of the Liberal Party here sold their country out—and the National Party, I don't want to leave them out, the running dogs with the National Party.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Chester</name>
    <name.id>IPZ</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>C'mon!</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr KATTER</name>
    <name.id>HX4</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>No, no, no, you sold us out. You explain why you sold the gas for 6c a unit. Do you deny that? You're laughing. The honourable member is laughing. He thinks it is funny that we sold our gas for 6c a unit, and we have to buy our own gas for $19 a unit. He thinks that is funny, and I would like to put that on record.</para>
<para>There is a saying in the trade union I belong to, the CFMEU: do you work to live, or do you live to work? Increasingly, we are being forced to live to work. Jobs are drying up all over Australia—don't believe the unemployment figures. It would be good for people in this place to reference the Liberal members, the two brothers that were ministers. One of them outlined how the ALP was doctoring up the unemployment figures. He was an expert in that field, and, when he became minister, he put in a whole new art form of doctoring our unemployment figures! They had no relationship to the number of people that were looking for but couldn't get a job in Australia. Jobs are closing, and there are no new mines opening in Queensland because the Queensland government is opposed to coalmining. There are no new mines opening up in hard-rock mining because the entire mineral potential of Queensland is tied up under exploration permits and mining leases, and the Labor government removed the 'use it or lose it' clause from the legislation. It is an interesting phenomenon that should be looked into by psychologists and university professors as to why the ALP is the anti-workers party and the LNP is the anti-business party.</para>
<para>It would be fascinating, but the truth of the matter is that that is the way that it is.</para>
<para>In Queensland, we can't go mining because all the mining fields in Queensland are locked up by people holding mining leases and exploration permits who have no intention of working. They do not even know or understand what they own. I asked one person, 'So what do you have up there?' He said, 'Copper, silver, lead, zinc.' I said, 'No, I mean what size of resource?' He said, 'We're not really going into that.' He's not really going into what composite of lead-zinc he owns. He's just there to play stock market games.</para>
<para>The double degree has done nothing. The woke class is closing down coal. We're importing our electricity from China. It's a rather interesting one that one. We import our electricity from China, while China has announced the building of 200 major coal-fired power stations. There's got to be something wrong here. The ALP sacked 12,000 railway workers in Queensland. God bless my union, the CFMMEU, because we sacked Jackie Trad, the person responsible. They also sacked 2½ thousand electricity workers, and the ETU—I've seen some running dogs in my life, but the ETU should be up there with some of the worst unions in Australia. So far they've been crawling along, grovelling and snivelling to the ALP. But they've forgotten they have a membership where 2½ thousand of their members were sacked by the ALP state government, and they're still out there supporting them. Their wage structures have dropped in the electricity industry. So that union is a disgrace. My union have stood up. You want to stand up against coalmining? We are quite capable of destroying you. Those are our jobs. That is our future. India and China have to have coal-fired power stations.</para>
<para>We're moving an amendment to this legislation, and I very much thank my colleague from South Australia for supporting our amendment. We will be moving:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That all words after "House" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">"whilst not supporting a Senate Inquiry into the bill and not declining to give the bill a second reading:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) notes that in 2001 a far North Queensland sugar mill was sold by a bank and receivers at allegedly an undervalued asset price, leaving millions owing in original farmer shareholders …</para></quote>
<para>The mill is worth $200 million. It was sold out from under the farmers for $2 million. The people that got it sold the mill two years later for $74 million. There was not a single action taken by ASIC. What are they paid for? I am putting on public record and I'll be going public to say that, unless the boss of the Australian Securities and Investment Commission can provide evidence that he has taken action in any of these cases, he should be prosecuted for taking money off the public purse under false pretences.</para>
<para>He doesn't believe he has any responsibility to the people. Right at this moment, there is a bloke that had a company that didn't pay his workers' wages and didn't pay the contractors. Because he appointed the liquidator, the liquidator sold him the assets, stripped, of course, of all the liabilities. So he didn't have to pay the workers and he didn't have to pay the companies. They're all owner-operator contractors. He didn't have to pay anyone. Then he does it again. He's done it again. Right at this very moment, there are some 200 or 300 workers that haven't been paid and who knows how many contractors that haven't been paid. He's done it again.</para>
<para>In this case, Wayne Swan had the ASIC person in charge in his office, and he went very close to dressing him down. Wayne Swan was very angry that no action had been taken in this case and in the case of the Innisfail sugar mill. When Joe Hockey came in, he had the bloke in, and he was very angry. But I would plead with the government to understand that you're in charge of a Public Service that laughs at you. They treat you with contempt. They don't feel they have any responsibilities to the Australian public.</para>
<para>Look no further than this case in North Queensland, right before us at this very moment, where 265 employees have not been paid for six, eight, 12 weeks—whatever it is. The employees' superannuation hasn't been paid in two years. ASIC were informed of this two years ago, and not a single solitary action has been taken, while they're taking $300,000 a year off the people of Australia to make sure that criminals are not allowed to carry out their deceitful, thieving actions. In the case of the mining company in North Queensland, two of the workers have now committed suicide. They're dead. There are some 20 or 30 being thrown out of their homes—they've been served notice because they can't keep the payments up on their homes. And this bloke—do you think you'll get a dollar out of him? The money is already hidden all over the place. But he doesn't have to worry, because he's not going to be prosecuted. ASIC has never prosecuted anyone in North Queensland's recent history—not one single case.</para>
<para>A sugar mill worth $200 million was sold out from under the farmers for $2 million—no action taken. And they sold the sugar mill two years later for $74 million. Thirty-nine of the farmers came themselves to get a civil action carried out, and within three months there was a settlement out of court for $23 million. That will be a measure of the incompetence of ASIC. No, it's worse than incompetence. If you're taking money and not doing your job, then you're taking money under false pretences, and I think that's criminal.</para>
<para>We move forward with this legislation to protect hardworking people that risk their lives—mining is a very, very dangerous occupation—and that then are not paid by charlatans whose mining leases are protected by government. They aren't even required to work the mining leases. For the first time in Australian history, we have legislation without any of the 'use it or lose it' clauses that were put in there, ironically, by wonderful Labor governments that were truly Labor in every sense of the word. The Labor Party of Australia today represents the exact opposite point of view. They represent the wokey classes, the endowed classes, the double-degree done-nothing classes who believe it's their right to rule. They're represented by the ALP. Those are their representatives in Australia. It's the complete opposite of what the Labor Party was formed by and for—the complete opposite.</para>
<para>So we move this legislation today to try to bring ASIC to heel. I think it's disgraceful that the minister is not here to face the music. I think it's disgraceful the head of ASIC is not here to face the music. We commend the Leader of the House, Mr Burke, on having made some moves in this direction, but they should be in this place. He, like I, has been in state parliaments, where the minister would be there facing the music. If he's going to move legislation, then he will sit in the parliament and face the music, and the head of the department will also sit in the parliament and face the music. But not here. They hide out like dingoes in their ivory towers. They won't come near this place. They won't face reality. Mr Deputy Speaker, is it appropriate for me to move this amendment now?</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>74046</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The member for Bradfield has already moved an amendment that all words after 'That' be omitted.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr KATTER</name>
    <name.id>HX4</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>We do not deny that amendment being moved by the member for Bradfield. But we have a second amendment, and we're not 100 per cent sure of the process by which we put it forward now.</para>
<para>The DEPUTY SPEAK ER: Can I just consult with the clerk as to the form?</para>
</continue>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr KATTER</name>
    <name.id>HX4</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Absolutely. We thank again very much and put on public record our appreciation for the member for Mayo.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>74046</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Could we please see a copy of the amendment?</para>
<para>I've just consulted with the clerk on the form that the amendment is in. It has 'That all words after "That" be omitted'. It's another amendment to the original one moved by the member for Bradfield. In that format, it can't be moved.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr KATTER</name>
    <name.id>HX4</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Do I move formally my amendment?</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>74046</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>It needs to be in alternative terms, because the words 'That all words after "That" be omitted' have already been used by the member for Bradfield.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr KATTER</name>
    <name.id>HX4</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Would you suggest that I officially and formally remove those words and move the amendment? I think that would be the appropriate action, if I could venture to suggest it.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>74046</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>We'd probably have to consult with the clerk as to the correct form.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr KATTER</name>
    <name.id>HX4</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I don't wish to take up any more time of the House, really.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms Sharkie</name>
    <name.id>265980</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>It is an amendment to the amendment—</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Giles</name>
    <name.id>243609</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>An amendment to Fletcher's amendment—</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>74046</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Perhaps it could be moved: 'That all words after "House" be omitted with a view to substituting other words'.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr KATTER</name>
    <name.id>HX4</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Yes, we agree to that. I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That all words after "House" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">"whilst not supporting a Senate inquiry into the bill and not declining to give the bill a second reading:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) notes that in 2001 a far North Queensland sugar mill was sold by a bank and receivers at allegedly an undervalued asset price, leaving millions owing in original farmer shareholders;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) notes that despite continuous calls for an ASIC investigation, the only accountability came through civil proceedings successfully brought on by affected farmers;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) notes that in 2012 a mine in far North Queensland collapsed placing 450 people out of work and leaving millions owing in wages and entitlements to contractors, subcontractors and suppliers;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) notes that in July 2023 another mine in far North Queensland collapsed placing 250 people out of work and leaving millions owing in wages and entitlements to contractors, subcontractors and suppliers;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(5) notes that both mining companies had the same Director prior to collapse and complaints made to the ATO about unpaid super for the second company date back to September 2021, nearly two years before the collapse;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(6) notes that in March 2023 a transport/wholesale fruit company collapsed leaving millions owing to transport and farming entities across Australia;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(7) notes that the Director of this company, who resigned days before the collapse, has approximately 285 office holdings in various other companies and is the subject of a number of ASIC complaints;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(8) notes that workers and contractors, subcontractors and suppliers cannot be adequately protected by regulation alone and we must have improved oversight and enforcement;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(9) notes that ASIC and the ATO either are ill-equipped or otherwise unwilling or unable to fulfill the role of a tough and accountable enforcer of companies and their officeholders; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(10) calls on the government to:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) remove corporate oversight from the ATO and ASIC;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) place corporate oversight with the Fair Work Commission or a similar "oversight and enforcement" body; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) provide this "oversight and enforcement" body with the resources, accountability and powers to adequately protect employees and contractors, sub contractors and suppliers from corporate wrong doings."</para></quote>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>74046</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Is it seconded?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms Sharkie</name>
    <name.id>265980</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>74046</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The original question was that the bill be now read a second time. To this, the honourable member for Bradfield moved as an amendment that all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The honourable member for Kennedy has now moved an amendment to that amendment that all words after 'House' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The question now is that the amendment moved by the honourable member for Kennedy to the amendment moved by the honourable member for Bradfield be agreed to. I call the honourable member for Swan.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:13</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms MASCARENHAS</name>
    <name.id>298800</name.id>
    <electorate>Swan</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise today with a deep sense of responsibility to contribute to the debate on this crucial piece of legislation. It's based on a fundamental principle that everyone deserves to go home safe from work. The bill before us addresses a matter of grave concern to me and the people of Swan. As renovation spread through Australia with an obsession during the pandemic, what we also saw was the increased rates of silicosis in the workforce community, particularly amongst workers. It's entirely unacceptable that we are witnessing a rise of silicosis cases. This government, however, is delivering on its commitment to see comprehensive reforms. These reforms aim to bolster the prevention of occupational respiratory disease.</para>
<para>The reforms have been thoughtfully designed not only to enhance prevention—because we all know that prevention is better than a cure—but also to ensure that we see the improved treatment of individuals who have contracted occupational respiratory disease due to workplace exposure.</para>
<para>Silicosis, for those who may not be familiar with it, is a devastating and irreversible lung disease. It's a disease that is triggered by the inhalation of silica dust. Silica is a common mineral found in sand, quartz and various types of rock. This disease primarily affects workers exposed to silica dust in industries such as construction and in mining related occupations. Silicosis is a cruel and debilitating condition causing symptoms such as shortness of breath, persistent cough and fever in those afflicted. It's really unacceptable that nothing has been done about this until now. Occupational health and workplace safety are matters close to my heart. I'm reminded of the impacts on people in my family that have been affected by workplace injuries.</para>
<para>I'm also really proud to see that our federal government is working on the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes) Bill 2023. We are a government that wants to ensure we close the loopholes in our industrial relations system. We need to protect casuals but also give them the opportunity to convert to permanent employment, but only if that is agreed to by the workers.</para>
<para>We have also been looking at workplaces where workers are doing the same work but are on different awards. Some workplaces have multiple payment systems, and companies say, 'We've got the award and we've got the EBA, but there is a difference between those two things.' They get third-party contractors in to basically undercut workers. There are interesting examples of this, such as air hostesses who are supervising on aeroplanes and being paid less than the team members they are supervising.</para>
<para>The truth is that Australia fundamentally believes in a fair industrial relations system. With this industrial relations system, we need to make sure that it is fair and that workers have the opportunity to be paid a fair wage. When people migrate to Australia, they do so because they believe in access to good health and good education but also access to fair workplace conditions.</para>
<para>The other thing we've been looking at is industrial manslaughter. This is something that's of quite grave concern to people that go to work. Fundamentally, workers deserve to go home safely at the end of the day. In one of the weeks after I came back from parliament, back in June, I had two workplace deaths in my electorate. One was Constable Anthony Woods, who was a police officer. The other was an apprentice worker, Hamoira. He was just 16. We need to make sure that workplaces and bosses fundamentally understand that they have a responsibility to look after staff members, and we need to make sure that they are held accountable in the event of unfortunate incidents. This is one of the things that our bill addresses, and I think it's really, really important.</para>
<para>I would point out that part of the title of this legislation is 'closing loopholes'. We have seen companies look at the loopholes in our laws and use them for financial gain.</para>
<para>That financial gain has been at the expense of workers and, frankly, that is not good enough. We need to make sure that we have a fair industrial relations environment, and we need to make sure that we still make it competitive but also make sure that workers can prosper in this environment.</para>
<para>I think that this is really important legislation and it shows what Labor governments can do when we are in power. I think that this will be legislation that has a phenomenal ability to improve the lives of workers and that will make a real difference to people on the ground level.</para>
<para>We also have clauses that relate to transport workers, and I've heard that TWU workers were talking about how this has the ability to transform lives. One of the things that we saw during the pandemic is how important not only our supply chains are but also our transport networks are. In Western Australia, there were times when we didn't have much stuff on the shelves. It was related to a rail line being down as well. So a thing we saw during the pandemic but also the torrential rains on the South Australian and Western Australian border is that these are really important transport routes that make sure that we can get things like medicine, food and toilet paper. But what we have seen in the transport sector is almost a gamification of the way that work is done. What we have seen is that these workers have been under pressure to work in unsafe conditions. Quite frankly, it's unacceptable. We want to make sure that truck drivers are safe on our roads. When our truck drivers are safe, it means that other motorists are safe as well. I see this policy as something that has the ability to transform the lives of workers but also make sure that workers actually get home at the end of the day. I think that this is something that should be a minimum standard. It will make sure that it actually helps workers.</para>
<para>I see this as part of Labor's narrative that we got wages moving again, we protected our minimum wage workers and we had the 'secure jobs, better pay' legislation. The truth is that this is legislation that we had to have after a decade of the Liberal government mismanaging our economy and not looking after workers. It comes as no surprise that the architecture of the previous Liberal government was to deliberately keep wages low. Frankly, they weren't on the side of the worker. It is the Labor Party that took bold actions to enhance work conditions and rekindle wage growth.</para>
<para>Today, we find ourselves once more with legislation that fosters a fair work environment for all workers. This legislation is designed to fundamentally close the loopholes that have eroded pay and working conditions for so many workers. It's been really interesting to hear some of the comments that I have from constituents since the minister unveiled his legislation this week—'This has been needed for a long time,' 'Thanks to a Labor government for finally addressing corporate injustice,' 'Well done, fabulous and good work,' and 'Thank you.' These are just some of the sentiments expressed in the last few days. This is because the work is about closing loopholes that have been undermining the rights of workers. It's about safeguarding the future and the reputation of Australia. It's about ensuring that its people are shielded from unjust treatment and exploitation.</para>
<para>Key provisions of the bill include criminalising wage theft, offering pathways for casual employees to attain permanent status and establishing minimum standards for the road transport industry. This is truly commendable. It came out of consultation with a range of stakeholders. About 160 organisations made over 220 submissions to the consultation process. It was important to ensure that state and territory governments, business groups, employers, the mining and construction industry and unions were involved in the process.</para>
<para>We are a government that listens to people whom our decisions affect, unlike the top-down approach adopted by the Liberal government. We listen, we act. As a result, in government we have had more than 80 consultation meetings and received feedback on the draft bill.</para>
<para>The legislation goes further than ever before. It introduces groundbreaking changes for workers in the gig economy. Under this bill, the gig economy workers in Australia, including rideshare drivers and food delivery riders, will benefit from minimum pay rates and protections. We are familiar with the apps of Uber, DoorDash, Menulog and HungryPanda, to name a few, that have become an integral part of Australians' daily lives. That was particularly so during the pandemic. These platforms have been a lifeline for many, connecting us with essential services. It's our duty to ensure that these workers are protected and treated fairly in our workplace framework. It's a fundamental understanding that, in Australia, people should not have to rely on tips to have a minimum wage. They deserve to have minimum conditions to make sure that they can put food on the table and have a roof over their head.</para>
<para>We are increasingly relying on these drivers for food delivery, trade services and much more. In some ways, they've become an integral part of everyday life. They, in turn, should be able to rely on us to establish minimum conditions that respect their contribution to our economy but also our lifestyle, yet they have been taken for granted. Under this legislation, that will end. Working in the gig economy, for various reasons, should not result in lower wages than those received by traditional employees. Such inequity has no place in Australia. We are a nation that prides itself on worker protection and a fair and safe working environment. Granting gig economy workers the right to sick leave, annual leave and minimum pay rates, which are currently denied under existing arrangements, is the right path forward.</para>
<para>Among the other wideranging amendments, I'd like to focus on the changes introduced by this bill that close the labour hire loophole. These will benefit 67,000 workers who have been disadvantaged by this practice. This will be life-changing for these individuals and families. It sends a strong signal to companies that they have been undercutting workers and, frankly, that is unacceptable. The previous government, despite being well aware of the harm caused by these loopholes to so many workers in this country, chose not to address this during their tenure. They chose to deny it. They chose to ignore it. It is characteristic of much of the previous Liberal government. While they did this, the outsourcing of labour in Australia soared under their watch. I have seen on some mine sites that, when this happens, when you see a race to the bottom on wages, you see a race to the bottom on safety. We need to make sure that you get the right behaviours, and the right behaviours include the right pay. Initially intended as a temporary solution, labour hire has been increasingly used to circumvent negotiated enterprise bargaining agreements and conditions. That is not the intention for labour hire. Statistics provided by the ABS show that labour hire employment growth has outpaced general employment growth. It is unacceptable, and I'm glad that this Labor government is dealing with that in this legislation. I commend the bill to the House.</para>
<para>Debate adjourned.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Higher Education Support Amendment (Response to the Australian Universities Accord Interim Report) Bill 2023</title>
          <page.no>41</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r7060" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Higher Education Support Amendment (Response to the Australian Universities Accord Interim Report) Bill 2023</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>41</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:29</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms MASCARENHAS</name>
    <name.id>298800</name.id>
    <electorate>Swan</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Higher education is an important part of the Australian way of life, and the federal Labor government have been looking at how we can improve our system. This is incredibly important, because we want to make sure that all Australians can achieve their full potential. We have done extensive consultation with the universities, with the Universities Accord, and we've been looking at systematically working through this to make sure that all students can achieve their full potential. One of the things that we've been looking at is the issues of First Nations students. Under the previous government, First Nations students only had access to places if they were based in regional areas. The truth is that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders are all across Australia. We want to make sure that they have access to university places irrespective of whether they're in metropolitan Perth or out in Broome. We want to make sure that they have access to places, so one of the parts of this legislation that we've changed is making sure that they have access to these places.</para>
<para>In my home community of Swan, we have the Rotary Residential College, which attracts students from all across WA, including regional WA. These students come to Perth, they study high school, they get embedded in their community and they create these community links. Often these students will decide to pursue higher education in Perth—hopefully at Curtin University, which is in my electorate of Swan. When they're already embedded in the community, it makes sense that they should have access to these university places. I think that is really important. The Higher Education Support Amendment (Response to the Australian Universities Accord Interim Report) Bill 2023 is legislation which increases accessibility and makes sure we have the opportunity to unlock the full potential of these students. I see higher education as a ticket to a good start. Whether it's with a vocational qualification or a university education, I want to make sure all Australians can achieve their full potential. That's exactly what we're trying to achieve.</para>
<para>With this review, we wanted to do extensive consultation to make sure that we fully understood the various views in the sector. We wanted to go through a methodical process to ensure that we understood the different perspectives from across the sector. I see this bill as a significant step in the right direction. I'm proud that this government did not draft this legislation in isolation. This government will continue in this way, because we are a government that listens and that acts. The recommendations garnered substantial support from stakeholders in the tertiary sector, including the University of Technology Sydney, Western Sydney University, Charles Darwin University and Griffith University.</para>
<para>Another pivotal recommendation borne out of the accord's review and supported extensively by the higher education sector is the extension of demand-driven Commonwealth supported places to all First Nations students. This is an example of making sure that we're unlocking all of the opportunities for all students, which the Albanese Labor government is incredibly passionate about. We have to strengthen the support available to students and make sure that they can achieve their full potential. Our workforce depends on this, and our nation relies on their skills and knowledge. In our rapidly changing economic landscape, we need students that can adapt to our country's evolving needs. We need to have a look at the future skills that are required for the country and work in partnership with the universities. This is one of the reasons why we had the Jobs and Skills Summit. We wanted to bring universities, businesses, community and the public together to look at different ways that we can futureproof our nation and make sure that we're achieving the things that we need to do, whether that be in the healthcare economy or related to STEM needs.</para>
<para>We need to make sure we have an Australia that is fit for purpose for the future, and that requires us thinking about what skills we need today. We need these skills to make sure that we teach, inspire and contribute to our communities in ways that will yield benefits for years to come. The thing that I'm confident about with this Albanese Labor government is that we're not just looking at tomorrow, we're looking at the future longevity of positive change for the nation, and that's what investment in our university system does.</para>
<para>Also, diversity in our workforce is needed, which is one of the reasons why we need to make sure we increase the number of people who have access to university education. When we have diversity with our graduates from university, we'll have diversity in our workforce. And when you have diversity in your workforce, it leads to better outcomes. We see this with boards that have women on them. Women on boards result in better economic outcomes, and we see this being proved time and time again. All of this starts with sowing the seeds at university.</para>
<para>We need to make sure that university education is equitable for all Australians regardless of where they reside. My parents did not get to go to university. My dad dropped out of his high school when he was probably 14 or 15. He ended up going to trade school. My parents wanted to come to Australia because they believed in a country that wants to invest in their people and believes in a better education. This is often the belief of many migrant families who want to see their children achieve their full potential. But we need to make sure we widen the door so that more people have access to this.</para>
<para>I'm very grateful that our education system has served me well as these are opportunities that I might not otherwise have had, and this is a wish that I have for all Australians. This is why I wholeheartedly commend this bill to the House. I see it as a significant step forward in securing a brighter and more inclusive future for our nation.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:37</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr</name>
    <name.id>300122</name.id>
    <electorate>Hawke</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>RAE () (): It is no secret that education can have a powerful effect on someone's life. Educational attainment has been linked with better health outcomes, a higher quality of life and greater income. Of course university is not the only source of a quality tertiary education; however, it is a critical pillar for an education system that delivers better outcomes consistently.</para>
<para>Doctors, engineers, accountants, teachers and allied health professionals are all educated at university and deliver vital services to our communities. Unfortunately, these services are not equally available to all, with geography often representing a significant barrier, particularly for rural, regional and peri-urban communities like mine. That's why lifting accessibility to education is doubly important. It helps not only those being educated, but also all of our communities. We cannot solely rely on bringing in doctors and teachers into these communities from elsewhere. We must provide the people already in those communities with the opportunity to fill those sorely needed professions. Education has the power to uplift whole communities, and the Higher Education Support Amendment (Response to the Australian Universities Accord Interim Report) Bill 2023 will ensure that our university system is better equipped to do just that.</para>
<para>In November last year, the Minister for Education ordered a review into our higher education system. The Australian Universities Accord will develop a long-term plan for our higher education system. It will look at almost every aspect of our education system, not just the basic principles of accessibility and affordability but also employment conditions, teaching quality, and how vocational education and training and higher education should work more closely together to deliver better student outcomes. This bill represents part of the Albanese Labor government's response to the Universities Accord interim report, and particularly seeks to address the two immediate actions from the report that require legislative change.</para>
<para>This bill will amend the Higher Education Support Act to scrap the 50 per cent pass rule which requires students to pass at least 50 per cent of their units of study to continue to access Commonwealth assistance for their course, as well as extend the demand driven funding currently provided to Indigenous students from regional and remote areas to cover all Indigenous students. The Universities Accord interim report found that the 50 per cent pass rule disproportionately disadvantages students from low socioeconomic backgrounds, as well as regional and Indigenous students. It has already impacted over 13,000 students right across the country, denying them access to an education.</para>
<para>Despite the widespread acknowledgment the rule has failed to do anything but lower outcomes for vulnerable students, the opposition are still defending it. In his contribution to this debate, the former Minister for Education, the member for Wannon, in speaking about the rule, said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">This was about holding universities to account. It wasn't about the students.</para></quote>
<para>This simple statement fulsomely sums up the opposition's approach to education: it wasn't about the students. It wasn't about supporting students to attain a higher education. It wasn't about providing students with more opportunities to develop their skills. It wasn't about enabling students to achieve their goals for education. Rather than enhancing the support provided to students, the Liberals chose to punish those who were struggling.</para>
<para>The accord interim report notes that removal of the 50 per cent pass rule should be accompanied by improved processes to track students' learning and engagement to hold institutions to account for identifying and supporting at-need students. That's why, under this legislation, universities will be required to demonstrate how they will identify students who are struggling and how they will connect those students with appropriate support services. In stark contrast to the approach of those opposite, this legislation is about requiring universities to support students, not forcing them to quit.</para>
<para>The second effect of this legislation is the expansion of demand driven places for Indigenous students to those from metropolitan areas. This measure aims to increase the number of First Nations people studying bachelor and bachelor honours courses at university by removing any cap on the number of Commonwealth supported places available to Indigenous students. It is estimated that this could double the number of First Nations students at our universities within 10 years. Sadly, like in many other areas, the gap between the educational outcomes of Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians is far too wide. Only seven per cent of First Nations people have a university degree, and, tragically, young Indigenous men are more likely to be incarcerated than to graduate from university. Better access to education is essential for ensuring better outcomes for First Nations Australians in areas such as health and employment. First Nations Australians who haven't completed a secondary education are twice as likely to be unemployed, and those in remote areas are five to 10 times as likely to be unemployed. We must do better to provide educational opportunities to Indigenous Australians if we are serious about closing the gap, and that's exactly what this legislation does.</para>
<para>While these are the two measures contained in the bill, the Albanese Labor government's response to the accord interim report is much broader. We're directly responding to each of the other priority actions of the report. We're investing $66.9 million to double the number of university study hubs and extend the program from rural and regional areas to include outer suburban areas. We understand that simple geography can be a significant barrier to higher education, and these hubs go some way to breaking those barriers down. They provide students with essential facilities such as computers, internet and study spaces, as well as in-person administrative and academic support. We are also providing funding certainty to our higher education institutions throughout the accord process by extending the Higher Education Continuity Guarantee into 2024 and 2025, as well as working with state and territory governments to improve university governance.</para>
<para>The Albanese Labor government's plan for lasting and transformative reform to our higher education system comes off the back of nine years of neglect and mismanagement from those opposite. Over the course of successive Liberal governments, education minister after education minister sought to amend, abolish or deny equity measures that would increase access to education for those communities like mine that need it most. The Liberals first tried to deregulate university fees, almost opening the door to $100,000 degrees, and, after that failed, they simply cut university funding.</para>
<para>When COVID-19 came and campuses across the country closed down, the Liberals went out of their way to exclude universities from accessing JobKeeper. It was good enough for companies like Harvey Norman but not good enough for our universities.</para>
<para>Finally, the Liberals introduced their Job-ready Graduates scheme, a policy that caused students to pay more and universities to receive less, and actually reduced the capacity of universities to offer courses in areas of critical skills shortage. The interim report found that continuing the Job-ready Graduates scheme would 'risk causing long-term and entrenched damage to Australian higher education'. Not only did it fail to improve anything at all; the Liberals' higher education reform package actually threatened the future of our education system.</para>
<para>The approach of the Albanese Labor government could not differ more from that of the Liberal opposition. Labor will always support our tertiary education system, spanning from our universities to the pathways provided by our TAFE system. We understand the enormous value of education in creating a fairer society. We also understand the need to have a diverse and accessible higher education sector that meets individual needs and aspirations as well as the skill requirements of our communities and our economy. We've already made a huge investment in TAFE and delivered 214,300 new fee-free TAFE and vocational education places, smashing the 12-month target of 180,000 in the first six months of this year. Of those 214,300, 60 per cent are women and 6,845 students are Indigenous. The most popular courses include a Certificate III in Early Childhood Education and Care, and a Diploma of Nursing.</para>
<para>Measures like this are invaluable for communities like mine. In my electorate of Hawke, TAFE courses are essential for providing educational pathways to good, well-paid employment. That's often because TAFE allows people to pursue education in their own communities, in a manner that suits them best. Unfortunately, university education is not always able to have the same impact on communities like mine because it simply isn't accessible enough. That's why the reforms in this bill and the broader response to the interim report are so very important.</para>
<para>All Australians should be able to access an affordable education. Whether it be university, TAFE or other vocational training, making tertiary education more available to underrepresented and disadvantaged cohorts will not only improve the lives of those individuals but also uplift our entire communities. Many of us in this chamber have personally been impacted by the transformative power of a quality education. This bill is about ensuring that the same opportunity is afforded to many, many more Australians. In commending this bill to the House, I thank the minister for his tireless work in this space and, on behalf of our community, I thank him all that he does to create accessible pathways to education and further training for the community that I live in.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:47</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms CLAYDON</name>
    <name.id>248181</name.id>
    <electorate>Newcastle</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>It's a great pleasure to rise in the House today to speak on the Higher Education Support Amendment (Response to the Australian Universities Accord Interim Report) Bill Like my colleague before me, I really want to thank the minister for his terrific leadership in this regard in making sure that we are really focused on having greater depth and greater width in particular when it comes to participation in higher education in Australia.</para>
<para>The Albanese Labor government has initiated this biggest and broadest review of Australia's higher education system in the last 15 years, and it is under the very able leadership of Professor Mary O'Kane. Many of my colleagues have spoken of her virtues, but I do want to acknowledge that she was the first woman to become dean of engineering at any university in Australia and I do like to make sure that women are acknowledged for the trailblazing roles that they take in our communities. She is an extraordinary Australian who is leading an exceptional team in this important task.</para>
<para>I join all my Labor colleagues who have spoken in this place in really underscoring the importance of equity of access to higher education. It's core to our Labor values, but I think it's core to Australians' sense of themselves and our sense of fairness and equity. My electorate of Newcastle is, very proudly, home to one of the top regional universities in Australia.</para>
<para>The University of Newcastle has a strong history of achievement and strong outcomes even on those international university rankings, and it's currently ranked in the top 175 in the world. That is no small feat for a regional university in Australia. It is a university that knows a thing or two about achieving equity of access, as we have been doing that heavy lifting for the last 50 years. We know that for genuine transformation of universities to deliver high-quality educational opportunities there has to be a whole-of-institution approach. This is something we have learned from experience in the half-century now that we have been running what I would argue is one of the nation's best enabling programs.</para>
<para>It takes systemic change to shift the entrenched structures that continue to exclude underrepresented communities from higher education. For nearly half a century the University of Newcastle has engaged with and graduated now more than 70,000 students through its Open Foundation program, which is what we often call an enabling program. It is a free open-access enabling program. Let that figure rest with you for a moment: 70,000 people in Newcastle and the Hunter region now have a tertiary education that they would otherwise never have had the chance to get a foot in the door for. In the last 10 years alone that has meant that one in five students at the University of Newcastle has entered that university via an enabling program. When you go down to the Central Coast, which my fantastic colleagues the member for Dobell and the member for Robertson represent, it is one in four students for them that attend that university via an enabling program.</para>
<para>The success of Open Foundation and its related programs—so programs like the Yapug program, which is specifically designed for First Nations students—lies in the long-term commitment and continuous improvement that the university has undergone with these enabling programs for the last 50 years. It is through evidence based pedagogy and curriculum design alongside continuous research and feedback that this program has developed to ensure that students can be supported to get the skills they need to thrive at university while studying in areas of interest. Importantly, the University of Newcastle's enabling programs are free, and I underline that point because it is significant. I have stood in this chamber on three occasions now in the last nine years to save the enabling programs at the University of Newcastle because members now opposite, thankfully, sought to either cut those programs or put a price point in front of them, which would have effectively reduced those programs to almost being non-existent. I can say that with confidence because, as I said, I've spent nine years defending these programs in this House.</para>
<para>I am so excited to be part of a government now that recognises the value of enabling programs. When you come from a community where 70,000 of your citizens have gained a tertiary education through this enabling pathway, you're acutely aware of the value of this. I have sat with those students, many of whom are now completing PhDs and master's degrees because they are extraordinarily successful students, and they have said without exception that, had they had to pay for that first enabling program, the Open Foundation program, they would never have gone to university. I'll tell you why: those people traditionally enter university with such low self-confidence and faith in their own capacity that they don't see their value until they have been at university for a while and successfully completed this Open Foundation course, which gives them the necessary wraparound supports and services that give them confidence to know, 'I can do this.' They can not only do this but are smashing it out of the park now in postgraduate programs.</para>
<para>We know the value of that enabling program. In fact, the University of Newcastle has done some terrific survey work around the students in the enabling program, and they all advised, as I've just demonstrated, that they would not have entered that program had there been a significant price point—had it cost money. A breakdown of the students that have come through the enabling program in the past six years will demonstrate to you why not having a cost in front of that is important: 61 per cent of the students in those enabling programs are first in family to attend university; 35 per cent come from low socioeconomic backgrounds; 18 per cent are from regional and remote locations; and eight per cent of those students are Indigenous.</para>
<para>The success of Open Foundation and its related programs lies in the lifelong learning ethos; a depth of curriculum rather than the narrow competency based approach; and research informed practice. Equity, diversity and inclusion are integrated into and prioritised in all aspects of the university. It's part of everybody's job and everybody's obligation at that university to consider those factors of equity and inclusion.</para>
<para>There are 113 countries now represented in the student body at the University of Newcastle, and the university has got the highest number of First Nations students enrolled of any university in Australia. The Board of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Education and Research and the Nguraki elders committee have guided the university now for more than 10 years. The Wollotuka Institute has operated as a support centre for Indigenous students since 1983. We're coming up to a very significant anniversary for the Wollotuka Institute. They've provided unparalleled leadership and have championed academically rich and culturally affirming education programs at every turn.</para>
<para>I join in the University of Newcastle's call for the expansion of enabling programs beyond pre-entry so that we can provide an ongoing foundation for those students that require some support. We've got some proven approaches to ensure that you can scaffold students through to complete their awards and their degree programs. I commend the University of Newcastle, its staff and educators and the students for the work they're doing to ensure that equity of access to high-quality education is always at front and centre of our thinking.</para>
<para>I want you to know that this Labor government wholeheartedly agrees with that approach. We'll be making sure that every kid, young and not so young, gets access to high-quality education. This is not a matter that is simply for those that get to live in capital cities or go to certain sandstone universities of this nation. I commend the bill to the House.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:58</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr CLARE</name>
    <name.id>HWL</name.id>
    <electorate>Blaxland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I want to thank all members for their contributions to the debate on the Higher Education Support Amendment (Response to the Australian Universities Accord Interim Report) Bill 2023. When I introduced this bill, I encouraged everyone in this place to use this opportunity to have their say on the Australian Universities Accord interim report. I'm pleased to see how many members took up that invitation, and I thank them for the quality of their contributions, because this is important. We have a big challenge ahead of us.</para>
<para>Today 36 per cent of the workforce has a university agree. The accord team estimates that by 2050 that number could jump to 55 per cent. If that's right, that means that over the next 2½ decades the number of people at university will increase significantly. The accord team tells us that to meet that skills challenge we need more Australians going to university from groups that are currently underrepresented in higher education: students from our outer suburbs and the regions, students from poor backgrounds, students with a disability and Indigenous students. It's a big challenge, and the measures in this bill take the first steps towards meeting it.</para>
<para>The bill delivers on priority recommendations 2 and 3 of the accord interim report. It removes the punitive 50 per cent pass rule and replaces it with stronger support for students. This rule has seen too many students forced to leave university before they have a fair crack at it, and far too many of those are the very students the accord team says we need to be getting into university. We need to help students succeed, not force them to quit, and that's what this bill does. It puts in place requirements for a support for students policy, which every university and provider must have, to help spot the students who are struggling and give them the support they need.</para>
<para>A consultation process on the content of those policies is currently underway and will be completed before this bill is debated in the Senate in October. I have instructed my department to have the draft guideline amendments prepared for release prior to that Senate debate. At the end of the year the accord team will provide a final report, which will address a number of key issues flagged in the interim report, including the former government's Job-ready Graduates scheme. But the accord team have singled out the 50 per cent pass rule which is part of that scheme and have recommended that it go now, because of the impact that it's having on disadvantaged students—students like the ones the member for Gippsland spoke about in his contribution: regional students who relocate for university and, to use his words, might not necessarily excel in the early days of their career.</para>
<para>This is not about stopping every student from ever failing a subject. This is about not cutting off students unfairly when they are struggling and can be helped. It's about supporting them by identifying them early and connecting them to the help they need. That might be check-ins from academic staff and targeted course support. It might be giving access to trained academic development advisers who can help a struggling student identify what's holding them back, or proactively offering special consideration arrangements where a provider is aware of a significant life event for a student.</para>
<para>I won't pre-empt the outcome of the consultation process on the final content of the support for students policy guidelines amendments, but we want all universities and providers to really engage on providing appropriate student support. What we heard in the Senate committee on this bill last week was that many universities already have these kinds of policies in place. The support for students policy requirements will make sure that appropriate policies apply to all universities and providers.</para>
<para>The other priority recommendation implemented in this bill is expanding the demand-driven system to all Indigenous students. Previously, that system has only applied to Indigenous students in regional and remote areas. This bill expands it to take in metropolitan areas as well. It means that all Indigenous students can access a Commonwealth-supported place and a HELP loan if they meet the entry requirements for a bachelor's degree, other than medicine, at a table A university.</para>
<para>We know that the number of Indigenous students at our universities grew with the introduction of the demand-driven system, and, by expanding it, the Department of Education estimates that we can double the number of Indigenous students within a decade. What a difference that would make. This wouldn't close the gap—not on its own. As I told the parliament yesterday in question time, about 45 per cent of young Australian adults have a university degree today, and only seven per cent of Indigenous Australians do. If this legislation works, it will help increase that from seven per cent up to 12 per cent within a decade. There's a lot more we need to do to close the gap, but it's a start.</para>
<para>These are the two priority recommendations delivered in this bill. As I said when I introduced the bill, the other three priority recommendations in the accord interim report are also being implemented by the government.</para>
<para>The panel recommended that we increase the number of university study hubs, and we are doubling them, from 34 to 68—up to 20 more in the regions, and, for the first time, up to 14 in the outer suburbs. The suburban university study hubs will be established in outer suburban areas without a significant physical university campus and where the percentage of the population with university qualifications is low. These hubs will provide spaces to support students, including those from low socioeconomic backgrounds, Indigenous students and people with a disability.</para>
<para>On Sunday, the Department of Education released a consultation paper seeking feedback on the design of the new suburban university study hubs. I encourage participation in that process, which is open until 2 October.</para>
<para>There will be further consultation and engagement leading to a competitive application process to establish suburban university study hubs in areas with an identified need for additional higher education support, and we will soon be announcing the first round for the new regional university study hubs. This is a really important initiative. Bringing university closer to where students live will encourage more people who otherwise might decide not to go to university at all to give it a crack.</para>
<para>In response to priority recommendation 4, the government is extending the Higher Education Continuity Guarantee into 2024 and 2025. A working group is already underway on the fifth of the accord panel's priority recommendations—that is, that the federal, state and territory governments work together to improve university governance, specifically (1) ensuring that universities are good employers; (2) ensuring that university governing bodies have the right expertise; and (3) making sure that universities are safe for students and staff. That last area of focus—making our universities safe—is particularly important. It's a duty our universities owe to all of their students and staff on every campus.</para>
<para>The working group has representatives from each state and territory. That's important because each jurisdiction is going to play a role in addressing this problem. The working group includes an expert in the prevention of and response to sexual assault and sexual harassment: Ms Patty Kinnersly, the CEO of Our Watch. She is bringing her expertise in governance, health and prevention to the working group. The group has already held two meetings, and I encourage our universities to continue to work with us on this very important task. The working group is also engaging with student groups, like End Rape on Campus, the STOP Campaign and Fair Agenda.</para>
<para>I want to thank members of the crossbench who spoke in support of this bill, particularly in this area: the member for Indi, who spoke so inspiringly of the positive impact of university hubs in her electorate; the member for Fowler, who shared with the chamber her mother's belief in the power of education, a belief underlined by her own experience as a refugee; the member for Curtin, who welcomed the bill and its support for first-year students who might struggle with university; and the member for Mackellar, who had this to say:</para>
<quote><para class="block">… starting university can involve significant adjustment stress for students, especially those from lower socioeconomic backgrounds who have never been in an environment like university before and who don't have the family financial resources to fall back on. These are the very students whose participation in tertiary education we should be fostering, rather than impeding.</para></quote>
<para>I want to thank the member for Warringah, who said of the demand-driven changes:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Access to higher education has many positive flow-on effects on broader First Nations families and communities, as well as individuals, embedding generational accessibility to tertiary education.</para></quote>
<para>I want to thank government members, so many of whom have taken this opportunity to discuss not only this bill but the impact that education has had on their lives and on the lives of the constituents they represent. And I welcome the member for Barker's confirmation that the opposition will facilitate passage of this bill and his commendation of it to the House. I want to welcome the contributions of members like the member for Nicholls, who spoke about five Indigenous women who achieved PhD places at the University of Melbourne. Here's what he had to say:</para>
<quote><para class="block">They completed those, and some of those Indigenous women have told me that when they were in year 9 at school the thought that someone would call them 'Doctor' one day never occurred to them. It's great, and I really believe in encouraging Indigenous people who, as with all of us, are ready to go to university to be supported. I've seen some really good outcomes in my patch. I couldn't be prouder of those women who did that, and I'm also proud of the University of Melbourne for making it happen.</para></quote>
<para>I also want to thank the member for Gippsland for his contribution on the importance of education in the regions. This is what he said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">As much as there are economic barriers that we need to deal with in this place, through things like the tertiary access allowance and supporting disadvantaged students to give them the opportunity to go to university, there is also a challenge, for those of us who live in rural and regional communities, to make sure we're doing everything we can to build aspiration amongst young people.</para></quote>
<para>The government will oppose the second reading amendment offered by the member for Bradfield, but I'm hopeful that we can work together on getting this bill through the parliament efficiently so that we can start helping the students whose lives it will improve.</para>
<para>I'm also hopeful that we can work together on implementing some of the other work the accord team have set out plans for: improving university governance, making our campuses safer but also taking the next big steps once they've delivered their final report. There will be great opportunities in that report to shape the future of higher education in this country, with reforms that will give more young Australians a crack at getting a university education. That's coming. For now, I again thank members for their contribution to the debate on this bill and I commend it to the House.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The question is that the amendment moved by the member for Barker to the second reading motion be agreed to.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<division>
            <division.header>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionPreamble">The House divided. [13:15] <br />(The Speaker—Hon. Milton Dick) </p>
              </body>
            </division.header>
            <division.data>
              <ayes>
                <num.votes>51</num.votes>
                <title>AYES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Andrews, K. L.</name>
                  <name>Archer, B. K.</name>
                  <name>Bell, A. M.</name>
                  <name>Birrell, S. J.</name>
                  <name>Boyce, C. E.</name>
                  <name>Broadbent, R. E.</name>
                  <name>Caldwell, C. M.</name>
                  <name>Chester, D. J.</name>
                  <name>Coleman, D. B.</name>
                  <name>Conaghan, P. J.</name>
                  <name>Coulton, M. M. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Entsch, W. G.</name>
                  <name>Fletcher, P. W.</name>
                  <name>Gillespie, D. A.</name>
                  <name>Goodenough, I. R. </name>
                  <name>Hastie, A. W.</name>
                  <name>Hawke, A. G.</name>
                  <name>Hogan, K. J.</name>
                  <name>Howarth, L. R.</name>
                  <name>Joyce, B. T. G.</name>
                  <name>Landry, M. L.</name>
                  <name>Leeser, J.</name>
                  <name>Ley, S. P.</name>
                  <name>Littleproud, D.</name>
                  <name>McCormack, M. F.</name>
                  <name>McIntosh, M. I.</name>
                  <name>McKenzie, Z. A.</name>
                  <name>Morrison, S. J.</name>
                  <name>O'Brien, L. S.</name>
                  <name>Pasin, A.</name>
                  <name>Pearce, G. B.</name>
                  <name>Pike, H. J.</name>
                  <name>Pitt, K. J.</name>
                  <name>Price, M. L.</name>
                  <name>Ramsey, R. E. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Stevens, J.</name>
                  <name>Sukkar, M. S.</name>
                  <name>Taylor, A. J.</name>
                  <name>Tehan, D. T.</name>
                  <name>Thompson, P.</name>
                  <name>van Manen, A. J.</name>
                  <name>Vasta, R. X.</name>
                  <name>Violi, A. A.</name>
                  <name>Wallace, A. B.</name>
                  <name>Ware, J. L.</name>
                  <name>Webster, A. E.</name>
                  <name>Willcox, A. J.</name>
                  <name>Wilson, R. J.</name>
                  <name>Wolahan, K.</name>
                  <name>Wood, J. P.</name>
                  <name>Young, T. J.</name>
                </names>
              </ayes>
              <noes>
                <num.votes>88</num.votes>
                <title>NOES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Aly, A.</name>
                  <name>Ananda-Rajah, M.</name>
                  <name>Bandt, A. P.</name>
                  <name>Bates, S. J.</name>
                  <name>Bowen, C. E.</name>
                  <name>Burke, A. S.</name>
                  <name>Burnell, M. P.</name>
                  <name>Burney, L. J.</name>
                  <name>Burns, J.</name>
                  <name>Butler, M. C.</name>
                  <name>Byrnes, A. J.</name>
                  <name>Chalmers, J. E.</name>
                  <name>Chandler-Mather, M.</name>
                  <name>Chaney, K. E.</name>
                  <name>Charlton, A. H. G.</name>
                  <name>Chesters, L. M.</name>
                  <name>Clare, J. D.</name>
                  <name>Claydon, S. C.</name>
                  <name>Coker, E. A.</name>
                  <name>Collins, J. M.</name>
                  <name>Conroy, P. M.</name>
                  <name>Daniel, Z.</name>
                  <name>Doyle, M. J. J.</name>
                  <name>Dreyfus, M. A.</name>
                  <name>Elliot, M. J.</name>
                  <name>Fernando, C.</name>
                  <name>Freelander, M. R.</name>
                  <name>Garland, C. M. L.</name>
                  <name>Georganas, S.</name>
                  <name>Giles, A. J.</name>
                  <name>Gorman, P.</name>
                  <name>Gosling, L. J.</name>
                  <name>Haines, H. M.</name>
                  <name>Hill, J. C.</name>
                  <name>Husic, E. N.</name>
                  <name>Jones, S. P.</name>
                  <name>Katter, R. C.</name>
                  <name>Kearney, G. M.</name>
                  <name>Keogh, M. J.</name>
                  <name>Khalil, P.</name>
                  <name>King, C. F.</name>
                  <name>King, M. M. H.</name>
                  <name>Lawrence, T. N.</name>
                  <name>Laxale, J. A. A.</name>
                  <name>Le, D.</name>
                  <name>Leigh, A. K.</name>
                  <name>Lim, S. B. C.</name>
                  <name>Marles, R. D.</name>
                  <name>Mascarenhas, Z. F. A.</name>
                  <name>McBain, K. L.</name>
                  <name>McBride, E. M.</name>
                  <name>Miller-Frost, L. J.</name>
                  <name>Mitchell, B. K.</name>
                  <name>Mitchell, R. G.</name>
                  <name>Mulino, D.</name>
                  <name>Neumann, S. K.</name>
                  <name>O'Connor, B. P. J.</name>
                  <name>O'Neil, C. E.</name>
                  <name>Phillips, F. E.</name>
                  <name>Plibersek, T. J.</name>
                  <name>Rae, S. T.</name>
                  <name>Reid, G. J.</name>
                  <name>Repacholi, D. P.</name>
                  <name>Rishworth, A. L.</name>
                  <name>Roberts, T. G.</name>
                  <name>Rowland, M. A.</name>
                  <name>Ryan, J. C.</name>
                  <name>Scamps, S. A.</name>
                  <name>Scrymgour, M. R.</name>
                  <name>Sharkie, R. C. C.</name>
                  <name>Shorten, W. R.</name>
                  <name>Sitou, S.</name>
                  <name>Smith, D. P. B. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Spender, A. M.</name>
                  <name>Stanley, A. M. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Steggall, Z.</name>
                  <name>Swanson, M. J.</name>
                  <name>Templeman, S. R.</name>
                  <name>Thistlethwaite, M. J.</name>
                  <name>Thwaites, K. L.</name>
                  <name>Tink, K. J.</name>
                  <name>Vamvakinou, M.</name>
                  <name>Watson-Brown, E.</name>
                  <name>Watts, T. G.</name>
                  <name>Wells, A. S.</name>
                  <name>Wilkie, A. D.</name>
                  <name>Wilson, J. H.</name>
                  <name>Zappia, A.</name>
                </names>
              </noes>
              <pairs>
                <num.votes>0</num.votes>
                <title>PAIRS</title>
                <names />
              </pairs>
            </division.data>
            <division.result>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionFooter">Question negatived.<br />Original question agreed to.<br />Bill read a second time.<br />Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.</p>
              </body>
            </division.result>
          </division></subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Third Reading</title>
            <page.no>49</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:19</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr CLARE</name>
    <name.id>HWL</name.id>
    <electorate>Blaxland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That this bill be now read a third time.</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
<para>Bill read a third time.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>BILLS</title>
        <page.no>50</page.no>
        <type>BILLS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>National Occupational Respiratory Disease Registry Bill 2023, National Occupational Respiratory Disease Registry (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2023</title>
          <page.no>50</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <p>
              <a href="r7053" type="Bill">
                <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                  <span class="HPS-SubDebate">National Occupational Respiratory Disease Registry Bill 2023</span>
                </p>
              </a>
            </p>
            <a href="r7054" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">National Occupational Respiratory Disease Registry (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2023</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>50</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:20</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms LAWRENCE</name>
    <name.id>299150</name.id>
    <electorate>Hasluck</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>In Brazil it is not manufactured stone but rather goldmining areas that show the highest incidence. It is a shared international tragedy, but we have been here before. In the 1940s representatives of this parliament from my state implored the federal government of the day to support the promising new asbestos industry in Wittenoom, Western Australia. It was decades before the dangers of asbestos were known, and many of us grew up playing in areas that were adjacent to the substance and sometimes with it. By the 1970s the dangers of cigarette smoking were well documented, and in the 1980s governments started taking action to limit the sale and advertising of that product. In the wards dedicated to palliative care for lung disease across Australia there are people suffering now, as we speak here, from disease caused by substances that cannot be inhaled with any level of safety. Lung disease is a terrible way to die with suffering that's difficult to imagine, notwithstanding the best care we can provide. I acknowledge the dedicated healthcare professionals who work in palliative wards.</para>
<para>The recognition of the dangers of asbestosis and the push to move away from the use of asbestos faced a lot of inertia throughout the 1970s and 1980s, although concerns had been raised during prior decades. In fact, I remember as a young lady recently elected as head prefect at my junior high school in York I attended my first P&C meeting. On the agenda of this P&C meeting was a class trip to the Pilbara which initially included a visit to Wittenoom, which lies on the northern side of the Hammersley Range, now known as Karijini. As late as 1988 parents, teachers and communities still had a vast divergence of understanding of and views on the dangers of asbestos. The Australian approach of 'she'll be right' often reflects our enviably relaxed approach to life and its challenges. However, 'she'll be right' was exactly the program director's response to the concerned parents at the meeting, and a busload of year 10s did indeed call past Wittenoom on that trip. We didn't just visit but camped in that once thriving but now deserted asbestos town, which the state government has now closed. This 'she'll be right' attitude has its place, but it can prevent good people from speaking up and challenging the norm and all too often from putting safety first in the workplace.</para>
<para>It took the might of the Australian trade union movement to crank over the wheels of change in the asbestos industry. Unions were instrumental in the campaign to protect workers from the harms of asbestos. They were instrumental in the fight for justice for those workers who often unknowingly and sometimes insidiously knowingly were put in harm's way. To this day lawyers who hold their Labor values dear continue to fight for victims of asbestos related diseases. They continue to fight for justice and fair compensation, and I mention particularly a former member for Perth, Tim Hammond, in that regard. It may be cold comfort for those in a battle for their lives, but I commend all involved in that work. Just as unions were central then, they are central now. Many countries, as I have said, do not benefit from the strong trade union movement that we have. Spend any time in or around unionists, and you'll invariably hear it said that every worker deserves to go home at the end of every day.</para>
<para>I commend the unions that have spoken out and worked for years now on this issue of silicosis, seeking proper outcomes, protection and justice for their members, including the Australian Workers Union, the Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining, and Energy Union, the Electrical Trades Union, the Australian Manufacturing Workers Union, the Transport Workers Union, the United Workers Union, the state union bodies and, of course, the ACTU. Thank goodness we have effective organised labour in this country.</para>
<para>In February, Lung Foundation Australia identified a systemic failure to protect workers and stressed that:</para>
<quote><para class="block">A lack of investment in research, monitoring and disease surveillance in Australia has made it impossible to quantify the current prevalence and long-term direct and indirect effects of silicosis on Australian workers …</para></quote>
<para>In May, the Lung Foundation recognised the work the government is doing not only to address silicosis but to meet the needs across a broad range of lung disease areas, including smoking and vaping, and the $263.8 million investment in the budget for a new national targeted lung cancer screening program.</para>
<para>The National Occupational Respiratory Disease Registry Bill 2023 is the first step in ensuring we reduce the risk for our construction workers and people who are working with these products as a matter of course. I note that Minister Kearney stressed in her second reading speech that, although initially only the notification of silicosis would be prescribed by the legislation, it is designed to be extended to other respiratory diseases in the future as needed, because we do not know what the future holds or what other substances are doing us harm. We can only remind ourselves of our duty to keep our ears and eyes open, value those people who are experts in their fields and apply ourselves to the evidence as it arises.</para>
<para>Silicosis is a scourge. It is, in fact, one of the oldest industrial diseases but one which has taken on a terrible new face and increased incidence with modern manufacturing and mining techniques and trailing safety standards. We can, and must, learn from our asbestos experiences. Our duty as legislators is to apply ourselves in whatever way we can to reduce the harm already caused by this threat.</para>
<para>The bill before the parliament is part of that response. The establishment of the national registry will complement and support the further action being undertaken by this government and governments across the country to reduce exposure and associated risks in the workplace. I commend the bill to the House.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:27</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms SHARKIE</name>
    <name.id>265980</name.id>
    <electorate>Mayo</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to speak in support of the National Occupational Respiratory Disease Registry Bill 2023. Silicosis is a lung disease caused by inhaling silica. Over time, the constant inhalation of respirable crystalline silica, RCS, can cause scarring on the lung tissue, which can lead to stiffening of the lungs, which in turn makes it hard to breathe. Sadly, at present, there is no cure for silicosis, but there are management strategies, such as corticosteroid medication, oxygen therapy, a trial procedure of washing out the lungs or lung transplantation. Those are very significant steps that are required in order to repair the lungs.</para>
<para>Silicosis has re-emerged as a public concern due to the increased importation and use of engineered stone in Australia. We know it is young men more than anyone else who are getting this disease and suffering with this disease. Unfortunately, we still don't know the full scale or impact of silicosis in Australia, but we do know the numbers affected are increasing. Each of these numbers represents a life, a family and a community impacted.</para>
<para>In 1992 it was predicted there would be around 1,000 silicosis cases in Australia over the next 40 years. This was before the introduction of manufactured stone. As of May last year, there were 579 Australians living with silicosis, compared to 260 in 2019. So the trajectory is not good. We have seen the number of Australians impacted more than double in those three years and, tragically, it is estimated that 584,000 Australians are currently exposed to RCS, but we cannot know which of them will develop silicosis.</para>
<para>A 2013 study in China which monitored silicosis over a period of 44 years found that nearly 35,000 workers were exposed to silica and, of those, over 5,000 developed silicosis. If the silicosis rates in Australia match the findings in the Chinese cohort study that means between 60,000 and 90,000 Australian workers could be diagnosed with silicosis.</para>
<para>We can't just wait for this to happen. Setting up a registry was recommended by the National Dust Disease Taskforce, which was set up when evidence started to emerge of increasing new and accelerated silicosis cases among workers with engineered stone. Unlike many historical forms of silicosis, screening programs in Australia—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>DZY</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS</title>
        <page.no>51</page.no>
        <type>STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Whitfords Volunteer Sea Rescue</title>
          <page.no>51</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:30</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr GOODENOUGH</name>
    <name.id>74046</name.id>
    <electorate>Moore</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Whitfords Volunteer Sea Rescue is the second-largest marine rescue group in WA with more than 100 volunteers providing an essential emergency service to our community by ensuring boating safety in the coastal waters off my electorate. The re-development of the ocean reef marina requires demolition of the group's current building and relocation to new premises. Committee members have contacted my office concerned that the specifications of the replacement facility have been downgraded and will be inadequate to meet their operational needs. In particular, the removal of the second floor means that the radio communications tower has been relegated to the first floor. The reduced height limits visibility from the tower, which means the operators will be unable to see far over the marina breakwaters out to sea, so flare sightings or other indications of vessels in need of assistance will be limited. In addition, the lower height of the antennas reduces the radio transmission range. Concerns have also been raised about the size of the training room, which is key to the operation of the service and has access to adequate car parking for volunteers rostered on duty. On behalf of the Whitfords Volunteer Sea Rescue, I call upon the WA state government and DevelopmentWA to utilise funding from the emergency services levy to ensure that the facilities provided are fit for purpose— <inline font-style="italic">(</inline><inline font-style="italic">T</inline><inline font-style="italic">ime expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Women's Baseball World Cup</title>
          <page.no>52</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:31</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr DAVID SMITH</name>
    <name.id>276714</name.id>
    <electorate>Bean</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Two extraordinary Canberra women, Ashley Patton and Maddison Erwin, were recently selected for the Australian Emeralds baseball team and have returned from representing Australia at the Women's Baseball World Cup held in Canada. Ash made the Emeralds team at just 16 years of age. Through her work with the Blacktown Workers, the Woden Rebels and the New South Wales state team, she earned her spot on the baseball World Cup Squad. Ash caught the eye of selectors with a firm velocity and a very live arm, which was on display at the World Cup when she struck out three batters in single innings. For Maddison, making the Emeralds has been a goal that she has worked towards with considerable focus. Maddison is a role model for local women's baseball, and she was the first female athlete in the Baseball Canberra's High Performance Program in 2018. Maddi pitched in four innings at the World Cup.</para>
<para>The Australian Emeralds wrapped up their 2023 Women's World Cup campaign in fourth place with a two-win, three-loss record. This included a close one-run loss against powerhouse USA and wins against South Korea and Hong Kong. The Emeralds battled hard to stay in the competition and made their country proud. I congratulate both Ashley and Maddison on their outstanding representation and performance on the world stage.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Communications Legislation Amendment (Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation) Bill 2023</title>
          <page.no>52</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:33</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr COLEMAN</name>
    <name.id>241067</name.id>
    <electorate>Banks</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Labor's shocking misinformation bill is an absolute disgrace—an appalling piece of legislation which would substantially restrict free speech in this nation. Remarkably, the government has managed to bring together pretty much all sectors of Australian society in condemning this bill. The civil liberties groups from New South Wales and Queensland, the Australian Human Rights Commission, the Law Council of Australia, the peak body for all lawyers in this nation, and the Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance—people are coming out everywhere to condemn this bill. The interesting thing is that we only know about the submissions on this bill where those organisations have self-published the submissions. Submissions closed more than 2½ weeks ago, but they still haven't been published by this government. We don't know why it is taking so long. We know that there are thousands of submissions, and apparently the number of submissions on this extraordinary piece of legislation may actually be in the tens of thousands. Liberate the submissions! The government needs to release these submissions and let Australians read what other Australians think about this extraordinary and unprecedented attack on free speech. It is a shocking piece of legislation. This government must be roundly condemned for it, and that's precisely what these submissions do.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>National TAFE Day</title>
          <page.no>52</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:34</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr GARLAND</name>
    <name.id>295588</name.id>
    <electorate>Chisholm</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Today is National TAFE Day. It is a day to celebrate the extraordinary achievements of TAFE students, teachers, trainers and support staff across the country and to acknowledge the important contribution that TAFE makes to our communities and our nation. I'm proud to have Holmesglen Institute of TAFE campuses in my electorate and Box Hill Institute of TAFE servicing my terrific community in Chisholm. I love visiting, seeing what students are learning, and hearing about their plans for the future in sectors as diverse as tunnelling, floristry, early childhood education, cookery, electrical trades, construction and so many more. I recently had the honour of launching National Skills Week in Victoria. It was wonderful to be able to use National Skills Week as an opportunity to talk about the importance of vocational education and training and TAFE.</para>
<para>The TAFE and VET sector is one of our greatest national assets. It's vital that we address the worst skills shortages facing this country in decades, through the education that TAFE and VET can provide. Our government is putting TAFE back at the heart of Australia's vocational sector, after a decade of neglect by the previous government. We've smashed our target of 180,000 enrolments in fee-free TAFE in the first six months, with almost 215,000 people enrolled in a fee-free course. I'm so proud to support TAFE, today and every day.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Mayo Electorate: Cooking Cabinet</title>
          <page.no>52</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:36</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms</name>
    <name.id>265980</name.id>
    <electorate>Mayo</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>SHARKIE () (): Back on 9 June, together with Dan Cregan—the member for Kavel and Speaker of the South Australian House of Assembly—I held Cooking Cabinet with young people in my community. We made Mexican and, importantly, we talked about what issues affect them and what they want from us as their members of parliament. They told us they want a youth hub. The only thing in the Mount Barker region for young people that doesn't cost any money is hanging out in the shopping centre—and that's been a real challenge for them—and going to the skate park. It's pretty cold in Mount Barker for most of the year, and not all kids skate. We need to make this happen. It was also raised at the state government's Youth Cabinet, with Premier Peter Malinauskas in attendance. We heard from passionate young people, aspiring leaders in our community, and they want a dedicated youth space.</para>
<para>I want to let the young people in my community know that, since that call, Dan Cregan and I have arranged a meeting with the Mount Barker mayor, David Leach. We're going to come together. I'd also like to include the Adelaide Hills mayor because I think this is going to need both councils working together with state and federal representatives. I can't see why we can't make this happen for our young people. Our young people deserve a safe space for them to learn in, to enjoy and to share with each other.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>National TAFE Day</title>
          <page.no>53</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:37</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mrs PHILLIPS</name>
    <name.id>147140</name.id>
    <electorate>Gilmore</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I love TAFE, and so do people in my communities on the New South Wales South Coast. Today, on National TAFE Day, I want to send a shout-out to my local TAFE campuses, at Nowra, Ulladulla, Batemans Bay and Moruya, and to the mighty TAFE teachers and staff, local employers and TAFE communities, who make our TAFE great. Thank you!</para>
<para>I was a TAFE teacher for over a decade before entering parliament, so I'm acutely aware of the differences that TAFE can make in people's lives. TAFE offers wonderful pathways for people of all ages to explore career directions, to pursue their interests, to prepare for a job, to upskill or to complete apprenticeship training. With TAFE the possibilities are endless. That's why I'm delighted to be part of the Albanese government, which understands the importance of TAFE.</para>
<para>Our fee-free TAFE in skills-shortage industries, like construction, hospitality, aged care and more, is making a massive difference, and I'm pleased to say we've seen numbers boom in these courses. That is good for local employers and our communities. In fact, we've already seen over 214,000 enrolments occur under Labor's fee-free TAFE so far, and we're working with the states and territories to provide a further 300,000 fee-free TAFE places. On a recent trip to TAFE, I was told by a student, 'If it wasn't for fee-free TAFE, I wouldn't be here.' Where could fee-free TAFE take you? Happy National TAFE Day!</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Climate Change</title>
          <page.no>53</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:39</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BANDT</name>
    <name.id>M3C</name.id>
    <electorate>Melbourne</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>They've done it again. It's hard to believe, but Labor has made another coal project approval. It's the fifth in a year, and it'll run for 50 years. It's dangerous, irresponsible and reckless. It's like getting behind the wheel of a car drunk.</para>
<para>Labor has the power to be better, but the Minister for the Environment and Water, the member for Sydney, has now given five coal project approvals. It's out of control. There are 116 new coal and gas projects in the pipeline, and each one of these projects represents a threat to our national interest, to our cost of living and to our environment.</para>
<para>Before us, we have a summer of potential disaster. What's it going to take for Labor to say, 'No new coal and gas'? How many communities have to go under or up in smoke? Is it about the donations that Labor gets from the coal and gas industry? Is a few thousand dollars in donations worth all the damage that's done from mining and burning coal?</para>
<para>Here's what it's going to take. It going to take people coming together and throwing out politicians who say one thing and do another. Labor is letting us down.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>National TAFE Day</title>
          <page.no>53</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:40</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr REID</name>
    <name.id>300126</name.id>
    <electorate>Robertson</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I, too, rise to acknowledge National TAFE Day and the tremendous work of all our teachers, staff and other support workers. My colleagues and I are united on this. TAFE is an important institution in the education ecosystem. It supports Australians from all walks of life, of all ages, genders and backgrounds, to acquire vocational skills and learning, to transfer into key employment sectors across the community.</para>
<para>I'm proud to be part of an Albanese Labor government that understands the crucial role that TAFE plays in training and educating Australians. This year, our government's ambitious investments in TAFE have paid dividends, with our fee-free TAFE places smashing through targets. Labor's fee-free TAFE is helping Australians to acquire new skills and to access well-paid, secure jobs in demand. To date, the most popular fee-free TAFE courses to enrol in have been early childhood education and care; nursing; accounting and bookkeeping; and individual support. Education unlocks so many doors, and Australians have a federal government that supports TAFE—supports free education and better access.</para>
<para>I want to thank the Minister for Skills and Training for his work in this significant policy portfolio. To all the TAFE students on the mighty Central Coast in New South Wales: Keep on learning. Education is so vital for you. It's vital for our community. And it's vital for this country.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Gold Coast Light Rail</title>
          <page.no>54</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:41</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mrs ANDREWS</name>
    <name.id>230886</name.id>
    <electorate>McPherson</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>As many people will know, I have extensively voiced the very genuine concerns of my community about stage 4 of the Gold Coast Light Rail. Transport infrastructure that may well be very appropriate for the northern and central Gold Coast is not necessarily the right solution for the southern Gold Coast. Yet some of our elected representatives seem determined to push ahead, regardless of the many serious issues that have been raised by the community. One of those is parking.</para>
<para>The <inline font-style="italic">Gold Coast </inline><inline font-style="italic">Bulletin </inline>very recently revealed that 500 car parks will be lost to light rail as part of stage 3 of the southern route from Broadbeach through to Burleigh Heads. This was described by the <inline font-style="italic">Bulletin</inline> as a bombshell, and it has left many of the people who are involved in this, such as the planners, absolutely scrambling. Residents have very rightly asked how this could be occurring on stage 3, which has already been fully scoped, funded and approved.</para>
<para>Now the lack of available car parking makes a mockery of the claim that this project will ease congestion or provide a viable commuting alternative for locals. Quite frankly, if 500 parking spaces are going to disappear—vanish into thin air—as part of stage 3, how many will disappear if stage 4 goes ahead? What will happen to those residents in Palm Beach who are already struggling to find somewhere to park their cars?</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>National TAFE Day</title>
          <page.no>54</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:43</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms FERNANDO</name>
    <name.id>299964</name.id>
    <electorate>Holt</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Today is National TAFE Day. As a TAFE graduate, I am proud today to celebrate the achievements of TAFE students, teachers, trainers and support staff and the contributions they make to our communities and the country. We are facing one of the largest skill shortages in decades, and our nation's TAFE sector is one of the greatest assets we have if want to deal with this challenge.</para>
<para>At the heart of this endeavour is the Albanese Labor government's landmark fee-free TAFE initiative, which helps students seeking opportunities to meet cost-of-living challenges and support key industries to address their skill shortages. And the numbers speak for themselves. In the first six months, the target for 180,000 enrolments was well exceeded, with almost 215,000 Australians enrolling in fee-free TAFE courses. Women make up over 60 per cent of these enrolments, and over 34 per cent of enrolments are in inner and outer regional locations.</para>
<para>I am proud that we're not stopping here. Starting in January next year, the government will make funding available for a further 300,000 fee-free TAFE places. Happy TAFE Day, Australia.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Australian Opal Centre</title>
          <page.no>54</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:45</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr COULTON</name>
    <name.id>HWN</name.id>
    <electorate>Parkes</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'd like to inform the House that construction on the long-awaited Australian Opal Centre at Lightning Ridge has commenced. This project has been in the pipeline for probably 20 years. I've personally been involved in it for 16 of those years. It's brought together funding from the previous coalition federal government and the previous coalition state government, along with local contributions and a lot of support from the Walgett Shire Council. The committee that has been organising the Australian Opal Centre in Lightning Ridge has done a mighty job. It's an architecturally designed project, a two-storey design that is going to be built in a large quarry in Lightning Ridge. It will be state of the art. The Australian Opal Centre will be the master place for trading and training. It will employ Indigenous people. It will be a place where international buyers can purchase the best of Australian opal, and it will put Lightning Ridge on the map. Lightning Ridge is a very unique town. It is underpinned by the opal industry. This Australian Opal Centre will be a drawcard. It will bring people from all over the world into Lightning Ridge to purchase the rare opal that is mined there. I'm very, very proud to be a part of this project. I'd like to congratulate the committee for getting it to this stage.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Boothby Electorate: Vocational Education and Training</title>
          <page.no>55</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:46</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms MILLER-FROST</name>
    <name.id>296272</name.id>
    <electorate>Boothby</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>On National TAFE Day, I would like to highlight the excellent work of TAFE at Tonsley in my electorate of Boothby. The campus is always buzzing with students developing skills to get better paid, secure jobs and developing the skills Australia needs for our future. We all know about the critical skills shortage left by the previous government. Businesses in my electorate tell me about it all the time. Fee-free TAFE is one of our most popular strategies to address that skills shortage.</para>
<para>My friends at Tonsley TAFE tell me the demand for fee-free TAFE has exceeded even their expectations. The national target of 180,000 enrolments was well exceeded, with almost 215,000 Australians enrolling in a fee-free course. Tonsley TAFE has seen strong responses from priority groups, including previously unemployed people and those aged 17 to 24. Approximately 60 per cent of them are women. These are all students gaining qualifications who would otherwise have been unable to do so.</para>
<para>The most popular areas of study include information technology, cybersecurity and programming, early childhood education and care, and health administration. These are all areas where we in Australia need more skilled workers. On National TAFE Day, I want to give a shout out to my friends at Tonsley, and I want to celebrate the achievements of TAFE students, teachers, trainers and support staff and recognise the contributions they make to Australia's future.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Cairns Airport</title>
          <page.no>55</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:48</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ENTSCH</name>
    <name.id>7K6</name.id>
    <electorate>Leichhardt</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Over the weekend, the Cairns Airport received the distinguished title of Airport of the Year for 2023 at the Australian Aviation Awards in Sydney, beating all our capital cities. As many in this chamber know, I've often been on my feet here acknowledging the exceptional contributions of the Cairns Airport to our community. I look forward to working closely with them to develop a world-class aviation precinct within our existing general aviation zone that will serve our region and our nation.</para>
<para>I can't speak of the success of Cairns Airport without acknowledging its leadership, and I'd like to extend my personal congratulations to Richard Barker, the CEO of North Queensland Airports, and his dedicated team for their exemplary work. They continue to provide our region with an airport that exceeds expectations, befitting our unique and vibrant area.</para>
<para>Cairns Airport is the gateway to our iconic natural wonders, the Great Barrier Reef and the Daintree rainforest. Through its operational efficiency, customer service excellence and safety standards, Cairns Airport has long been a cornerstone for our region. On behalf of parliament and the people of Leichhardt, I'd like to extend my personal heartfelt congratulations to Richard Barker and his amazing team at the Cairns Airport for what is an exceptionally well deserved recognition.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>National TAFE Day</title>
          <page.no>55</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:49</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms CHESTERS</name>
    <name.id>249710</name.id>
    <electorate>Bendigo</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I too rise to speak on National TAFE Day, and I want to give a shout-out to our amazing TAFE teachers and all of the people that work on our TAFE campuses. They have an incredible job to do to make sure that the next generation of people working in key industries have the skills that they need. They are also helping and supporting people who might be career-changing into their industry. Quite often our TAFE teachers are from the industry themselves and are so passionate about their industry that they sidestep into TAFE to make sure that people have the skills that they need. But they too have some concerns about being caught in insecure work, casualisation and low pay.</para>
<para>We haven't done enough, not just in this place but in our state jurisdictions, to make sure that our TAFE teachers have a good-quality job and that they continue to get the recognition and respect that they deserve in their industry. That is why this government has worked so hard to fix bargaining laws and to make sure that our TAFE teachers get a good outcome.</para>
<para>Thank you to our TAFE teachers for what you do. Thank you to their union, the AEU, for what they do in terms of advocacy and bringing their concerns to us. I really respect the TAFE teachers across our country but particularly in my electorate of Bendigo because I know the hard work that they do each and every day.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Live Sheep Exports</title>
          <page.no>55</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:51</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr RICK WILSON</name>
    <name.id>198084</name.id>
    <electorate>O'Connor</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise today to welcome a delegation from rural WA, who are with us here in the chamber, representing sheep producers and associated industries already being impacted by this government's commitment to the phase-out of the live sheep export industry. I give a big shout-out to producers like Bindi Murray, Steven Bolt, Steven McGuire and Geoff Pearson, all of whom should be back home doing lamb marking, shearing and ram sales; shearing contractor Darren Spencer, representing the WA Shearing Industry Association; Ben Sutherland from the Livestock and Rural Transport Association of WA; WAFarmers president John Hassell; and Sarah Brown, representing the Association for Sheep Husbandry Excellence, Evaluation and Production.</para>
<para>Yesterday the delegation joined Sheep Producers Australia in hosting an information session here in Parliament House. It was open to all politicians, and, sadly, not one Labor member or senator took the opportunity to meet with those whose livelihoods will be decimated by this phase-out. Thankfully, Minister Watt did make the time to listen and, although determined to proceed with this misinformed policy, acknowledged that the independent panel on the phase-out of live sheep exports had raised many important implications that the Labor Party had not considered when they made their ill-conceived election commitment.</para>
<para>I take this opportunity to implore Minister Watt to heed the example set by newly minted WA Labor Premier Roger Cook, who recognised bad policy in the Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Act and dumped it. If Minister Watt ignores this plea, it shows that this government does not support agriculture, nor people from the bush.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>National TAFE Day</title>
          <page.no>56</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:52</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms RYAN</name>
    <name.id>249224</name.id>
    <electorate>Lalor</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise with all of my colleagues today to celebrate National TAFE Day—and to note that it's just over 12 months since the Jobs and Skills Summit, one of the first actions of the Albanese Labor government to look into, in depth, what we had been left by those opposite after 10 years of neglect. And what did we find? We found a major skills shortage. And how did the Albanese Labor government respond? They got to work. They got to work for Australia. And they got to work on TAFE.</para>
<para>I'm very proud to be a member of a government that during its first six months set itself a target of 180,000 enrolments for fee-free TAFE, which was oversubscribed to 215,000. I want to pay tribute to the TAFE teachers who are with us today and all those who work in the sector who have supported those students in their enrolments and in the beginning of their studies. It is all good news in TAFE since the Albanese Labor government came to power. We have seen such strong demand, and 60 per cent are women.</para>
<para>We're now doubling down. We know how to fix the skills shortage. It's to get the young people from underrepresented communities into further study, and TAFE is just the place for many to do that. We're making funding available for a further 300,000 fee-free TAFE places, starting in January next year. There is everything to celebrate on National TAFE Day from the Albanese Labor government.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Multiple Sclerosis</title>
          <page.no>56</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:54</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr LEESER</name>
    <name.id>109556</name.id>
    <electorate>Berowra</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I recently had the pleasure of attending the Galston500, run by the Hornsby Model Engineers Co-op. It was a wonderful community occasion. The Galston500 supports multiple sclerosis research at the Westmead Institute for Medical Research. MS is a chronic neurological disease that affects around 33,000 Australians.</para>
<para>Since 2018, the Galston 500 has raised over $45,000 for MS research, with $13,000 raised this year. The Galston 500 comprises 23 teams who run miniature trains over a combined 500 laps of the beautiful one-kilometre-long Galston Valley Railway. Like so many events in our community, it relies on the time, effort and generosity of volunteers. I particularly want to acknowledge Allie Thackray, the club Treasurer, who founded the Galston 500 with her husband, Evan. Allie herself suffers from MS, and she and Evan got married at the railway. I also want to acknowledge Jenn Barnett-Bairstow, the club vice-chairman, who helped organise the event, and club chairman Robin Levin.</para>
<para>This year's event was also a double celebration. Hornsby Model Engineers is celebrating its own 50th anniversary. The popularity of the organisation and the longevity of the event are a testament to the commitment and passion of its members. The oldest member of the club is Fred Morris, who turns 101 later this year. He's been a member for 30 years and was out riding a train just last month. Congratulations to the Galston 500 and everyone involved at the Hornsby Model Engineers.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>National TAFE Day</title>
          <page.no>56</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:55</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms SITOU</name>
    <name.id>298121</name.id>
    <electorate>Reid</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Two hundred and fourteen thousand—that's how many Australians have enrolled under Labor's fee-free TAFE policy. That's 34,000 more than our goal of 180,000 spots, so we smashed it. This tells us two things: firstly it tells us how dynamic and hardworking Australians are and how willing they are to work in areas of critical skills shortages; and secondly it stands as an indictment on the absolute failure of those opposite. Under their watch, Australia was left with the worst skills shortage in decades. Those opposite can never carry the title of good economic managers because, when our economy and our businesses were crying out for skilled workers, those opposite went missing. They ignored the problem, and, worst still, they failed to adequately support TAFE. We are getting on with the job of skilling up and are providing 300,000 additional fee-free TAFE places from next year. That means more early childhood educators, more aged-care workers and even more electricians and arborists—a skill very much in demand. I met with some arborists in Newington last month. It's a great career path, and I encourage anyone who loves the outdoors to look into it.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Victoria: Timber Industry</title>
          <page.no>57</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:57</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr CHESTER</name>
    <name.id>IPZ</name.id>
    <electorate>Gippsland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Today I thought I'd talk about jellyfish. More precisely, I want to talk about the similarities between the new Labor Party and jellyfish. It's a scientific fact that jellyfish have no brains, no backbone, no heart and no eyes. It's a perfect description of the new Labor Party when it comes to the Victorian timber community. We have a world-class and sustainable native timber industry in Victoria, which is being destroyed by an arrogant Labor premier who doesn't care about the damage he's doing to country communities—and neither do the Labor MPs in this place. New Labor is so desperate for Greens preferences it sacrifices the jobs of blue-collar workers every day of the week. Old Labor MPs would have had the guts to stand up and fight for blue-collar workers, but not one of those members opposite has done that. The new Labor Party is the jellyfish party. You have no brains, no backbone, no heart and no eyes because you can't even see the damage the Victorian Premier is doing to Victoria. But it gets better. Jellyfish don't have a stomach, either, and I've never seen a more gutless Labor Party than the lot in front of me here today. They are too gutless to stand up for blue-collar workers and timber communities right across Victoria.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>National TAFE Day</title>
          <page.no>57</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:58</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BURNELL</name>
    <name.id>300129</name.id>
    <electorate>Spence</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Nine out of 10 new jobs in the future will require post-secondary school education, four of those being vocational qualifications. In South Australia we will need to deliver almost 100,000 vocational education and training qualifications over the next five years in order to meet industry demands. It is no surprise that we were the very first state to partner with the Albanese Labor government to enter into a skills agreement, an agreement that delivered over 10,000 fee-free TAFE placements over the course of this year. Across the country that figure now totals around 215,000 fee-free TAFE enrolments. Whether someone is undertaking a course at TAFE to bolster their current skill set or to learn a new vocation, learning new skills and obtaining new qualifications changes lives for the better, helping workers to obtain well-paid, secure jobs.</para>
<para>That's why, on National TAFE Day, we celebrate those educators, teachers and trainers at TAFEs across Australia who do their best to transfer their passion for a skill or trade to their students—people like Susan Garwood, who teaches at Elizabeth TAFE in my electorate of Spence, who is in the building today. Today we show our gratitude to teachers and trainers like Susan, because, without them and the expertise they pass on to their students, TAFE is just a building; with them, it is a place of learning and a transformative educational institution. Thank you for all the work you do.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>In accordance with standing order 43, the time for members' statements has concluded.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>CONDOLENCES</title>
        <page.no>57</page.no>
        <type>CONDOLENCES</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Crean, Hon. Simon Findlay</title>
          <page.no>57</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Report from Federation Chamber</title>
            <page.no>57</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:00</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The question is that the motion moved by the honourable Prime Minister be agreed to. As a mark of respect, I ask all present to signify their approval by rising in their places.</para>
<para>Question agreed to, honourable members standing in their places.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>MINISTRY</title>
        <page.no>58</page.no>
        <type>MINISTRY</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Temporary Arrangements</title>
          <page.no>58</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:01</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr MARLES</name>
    <name.id>HWQ</name.id>
    <electorate>Corio</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I inform the House that the Prime Minister will be absent from question time today and tomorrow, and I will be answering questions on his behalf.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE</title>
        <page.no>58</page.no>
        <type>QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Aviation Industry</title>
          <page.no>58</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:01</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms LEY</name>
    <name.id>00AMN</name.id>
    <electorate>Farrer</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government. Did the minister or her office have any communication with the outgoing Qantas CEO, Alan Joyce, or any representative of Qantas regarding the application for additional flights to and from Australia by Qatar Airways before the minister made her decision to reject the application?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:02</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms CATHERINE KING</name>
    <name.id>00AMR</name.id>
    <electorate>Ballarat</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thanks very much to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition for her question. As you'd expect, my department undertook consultation with relevant aviation stakeholders, and I was well aware of different stakeholders' views when I took the decision.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Cost of Living</title>
          <page.no>58</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:02</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr ANANDA-RAJAH</name>
    <name.id>290544</name.id>
    <electorate>Higgins</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Acting Prime Minister. How is the Albanese Labor government working for Australians to address cost-of-living pressures, and what obstacles has it faced?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:03</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr MARLES</name>
    <name.id>HWQ</name.id>
    <electorate>Corio</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>We understand that these are tough times and that the pressures that are on Australian household budgets and businesses are really difficult. Australians understand the cause of those pressures, as inflation around the world has given rise to a circumstance to which we are not immune. The record is completely clear that those inflationary pressures first bit our economy whilst the former government was in power, but what matters is what we do about it.</para>
<para>The Albanese Labor government is absolutely committed to working for Australians. The very first decision that we made was to support an increase in the minimum wage of a dollar an hour. When we did so, those opposite said that it would wreck the economy. In fact, what we have seen is the biggest increase in wage growth for more than a decade and the gender wage gap closed to its lowest point on record, and the economy has not been wrecked. The very first policy announcement of Anthony Albanese's leadership of the Labor Party was the more affordable childcare package, which was outlined in October of 2020. It would ease household budgets but, more than that, it would encourage primary caregivers, principally women, to return to the workforce.</para>
<para>The former Liberal government criticised that, but in July of this year it became the law of the land and thousands of Australians are now reaping the benefits.</para>
<para>In December, this government put forward a $1.5 billion package to put downward pressure on energy bills. Those opposite said it would give rise to gas market Armageddon. In fact, it has worked. Australian consumers are now up to $500 better off as a result. All of this has been done in the face of prudent economic management. We have done what those opposite never did and that is deliver a surplus. The benefit of that was demonstrated by the statement of the Reserve Bank yesterday, which said that inflation has now peaked.</para>
<para>We understand that, in working for Australians, there is still much more to be done. On the 20th of this month, we will see a million Australians see an increase in their income support. On 1 November, the bulk-billing incentive will triple. We understand these are difficult times. We know the pressure on household budgets. But, while the Liberals engage in paddling around their pool of shallow politics, what the citizens of this nation know is that in the Albanese Labor government they have a government that is working for them. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Aviation Industry</title>
          <page.no>59</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:06</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr LITTLEPROUD</name>
    <name.id>265585</name.id>
    <electorate>Maranoa</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government. Will the minister advise the dates and details of the conversation she had with Mr Joyce regarding the Qatar application prior to the decision being made?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:06</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms CATHERINE KING</name>
    <name.id>00AMR</name.id>
    <electorate>Ballarat</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I refer to my previous answer.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Murray-Darling Basin</title>
          <page.no>59</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:07</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms MILLER-FROST</name>
    <name.id>296272</name.id>
    <electorate>Boothby</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister for the Environment and Water. After a decade of sabotage and delay, how is the Albanese Labor government protecting the Murray-Darling river system and every Australian who depends on it?</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SP</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Member for O'Connor, I have been crystal-clear about interjecting whilst ministers are approaching the dispatch box. You are now warned, and you know what happens with the first warning. There won't be any other after that.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:07</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms PLIBERSEK</name>
    <name.id>83M</name.id>
    <electorate>Sydney</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I want to thank the member for Boothby for her question. I know how determined she is to see the full delivery of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. That's what we promised before the election and that's what the legislation that I introduced into this place today will do. It will deliver on the Murray-Darling Basin Plan in full. I want to thank the state and territory ministers who have come to the table and made compromises and are working with us at the Commonwealth level to deliver on the plan.</para>
<para>The plan was meant to be completed by June next year. Instead of being completed by June next year, we're going to be around 750 gigalitres short of the full Murray-Darling Basin Plan. Of course, initial progress was very good and basin communities stepped up. They delivered around 2,100 gigalitres of the 3,200 gigalitres that the plan requires. But, more recently, we have seen a very different picture. More than 80 per cent of the water that has been delivered towards the plan has been done while Labor is in government, with only 16 per cent done under those opposite. In fact, when I became the water minister, just two gigalitres of the 450 gigalitres of additional environmental water had been delivered. Just two gigalitres out of 450 gigalitres had been delivered.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The Leader of the Nationals will cease interjecting.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms PLIBERSEK</name>
    <name.id>83M</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Mr Speaker, I hear the interjections. The National Party like to say they were on track to deliver the plan. Well, on their rate of progress, we would get there around the year 3000!</para>
<para>We'd have robot dogs, bionic humans and the National Party water minister lugging the last buckets of water down to the Murray-Darling Basin. This plan delivers more time, more money, more options and more accountability. We are determined to see more water returned for the environment, more certainty for farmers, communities and the three million people who rely on this river system for their drinking water, more protection for our native plants and animals and more hope for this iconic river system.</para>
<para>Opposition members interjecting—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order!</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms PLIBERSEK</name>
    <name.id>83M</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>It's very important to remember why we signed onto this plan in the first place—a plan, incidentally, which those opposite say they still support, despite these interjections we hear today. We did this coming out of the millennium drought because we know that the river system, if it continued in the way that it was going, was dying. (<inline font-style="italic">Time expired</inline>)</para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>DISTINGUISHED VISITORS</title>
        <page.no>60</page.no>
        <type>DISTINGUISHED VISITORS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Papua New Guinea: Parliamentary Delegation, National TAFE Day</title>
          <page.no>60</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:10</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm pleased to inform the House that present in the gallery today is a delegation from the Papua New Guinea Special Parliamentary Committee on the 2022 Election, led by the Hon. Allan Bird MP. On behalf of the House, I extend a very warm welcome.</para>
<para>Honourable members: Hear, hear!</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I inform the House that we have present in the gallery today is a delegation of students, teachers and staff representing the TAFE sector in recognition of National TAFE Day. On behalf of the House, I extend a very warm welcome.</para>
<para>Honourable members: Hear, hear!</para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE</title>
        <page.no>60</page.no>
        <type>QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Environment</title>
          <page.no>60</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:11</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms WATSON-BROWN</name>
    <name.id>300127</name.id>
    <electorate>Ryan</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the environment minister. Minister, how do you justify approving more coal and gas?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:11</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms PLIBERSEK</name>
    <name.id>83M</name.id>
    <electorate>Sydney</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>It's very similar to the question I was asked on Monday this week and last week and the week before. I'd say to the member for Ryan once again: no government has done more to transition this nation to renewable energy than our government, than the Albanese Labor government. I also say to the member for Ryan that it is only this government that has legislated a pathway to net zero, that has legislated an interim emissions reduction target of 43 per cent. It is only this side of the chamber that has delivered a plan to get to 82 per cent renewable energy, and, in my own portfolio, I have doubled the rate of approvals of renewable energy projects since we came to government. More transmission lines, more solar, more wind, offshore—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEA</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The minister will pause for just a moment. I will hear from the Leader of the Australian Greens on a point of order?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Bandt</name>
    <name.id>M3C</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Yes, on relevance. It was a very short question—no preamble or suffix—and it was about approval of coal and gas. The minister, a minute in, has not mentioned that once. It's hard to imagine a more concise—</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Resume your seat. I think in anyone's terms you would describe that as a very broad question. The minister was asked about approvals. She is being relevant. She's one minute into the answer, and I will ensure that she stays relevant. The minister has the call and shall continue.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms PLIBERSEK</name>
    <name.id>83M</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I might remind the member for Ryan and the other members of the Greens political party that I am the first environment minister ever to refuse a coalmine, and I was able to do that because the law allowed me to do that, because of the risk to the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. I judge every project according to the law, but the important thing to remember here is this government is determined to achieve net zero carbon emissions for Australia. We're determined to get to 82 per cent renewable energy. The approvals that I'm making for renewable energy, including working with the Minister for Climate Change and Energy on massive offshore wind farms around the coast of Australia—that's what will help us get to net zero.</para>
<para>That's what will help us get to 82 per cent renewable energy.</para>
<para>I might also remind those members asking questions today that we have legislated a safeguard mechanism to deal with these large projects—a safeguard mechanism that you signed on to, that you voted for. This government is determined to ensure that Australia is on the pathway to net zero. The Greens have teamed up with the Liberals before to block action on climate change. We're all about delivery. We're about the hard slog of government, not the slogans of opposition.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Bandt</name>
    <name.id>M3C</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>You're using your government power to approve five new coal projects.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The S</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The member for Melbourne will cease interjecting.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Economy</title>
          <page.no>61</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:15</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms CLAYDON</name>
    <name.id>248181</name.id>
    <electorate>Newcastle</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Treasurer. What did today's release of the national accounts reveal about the performance of Australia's economy?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:15</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr CHALMERS</name>
    <name.id>37998</name.id>
    <electorate>Rankin</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Tomorrow marks 10 years since the member for Newcastle was first elected, 10 years of her being an absolute champion for the people of Newcastle, and we are very lucky we get the opportunity to work so closely with her here. Today's national accounts show the economy grew by 0.4 per cent in the June quarter, the same pace as the revised outcome for the previous quarter: 2.1 per cent through the year. This was a steady and sturdy outcome in the face of immense pressure. This is the Australian economy holding up relatively well in the face of higher interest rates, high but moderating inflation and global uncertainty, including the slowdown in China.</para>
<para>We know, as the acting Prime Minister has said, that interest rates and inflation are biting, and we see that in the numbers today. Household consumption is moderating, growing by just 0.1 per cent last quarter, and we expected this slowdown. We've seen Aussie households pull back on discretionary spending to pay their mortgages and balance their family budgets. The slowdown in China is impacting the economy, and we're watching that closely, too. Both Treasury and the Reserve Bank forecast that the Australian economy will continue to grow but growth will slow considerably. We've been upfront about the year ahead, and we expect to see the unemployment rate tick up a bit as well.</para>
<para>Despite these headwinds, Australia is well placed to navigate the many challenges ahead from a position of relative economic strength. Our economy grew faster than most of the major advanced economies in the year to the June quarter, faster than the UK, France, Italy, Germany and Canada as well. The unemployment rate has a three in front of it. Wages are growing at around rates not seen in a decade. Our tourism and education sectors are bouncing back. We've delivered the first surplus in 15 years, easing the pressure off inflation. Inflation is moderating but we want to see it moderate further. In the last quarter it was less than half of what it was in the March quarter, before the election, under those geniuses opposite. Around half a million jobs have been created on our watch—the most of a new government on record. More than 14 million people are in work.</para>
<para>We know that people are under pressure, and that's why we are working for Australia, to help Australians through these difficult economic times while laying the foundations for future growth of the same time. That's why we're rolling out billions of dollars of targeted and responsible cost-of-living relief to Australians in a way that doesn't make this inflation challenge worse. We are realistic about the challenges ahead, and we are well placed to tackle them. Australians have every reason to be optimistic about the future of our economy and the future of our country as well.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Before I call the member for Riverina, the member for Hume will cease interjecting, as he did throughout that whole answer. If he continues to do that he will be warned.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Aviation Industry</title>
          <page.no>61</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:19</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr McCORMACK</name>
    <name.id>219646</name.id>
    <electorate>Riverina</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government. Did the minister have a conversation with Alan Joyce regarding Qatar's application before the decision was made?</para>
<para>Opposition members interjecting—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! We don't need sound effects when a minister is called. I can't be clearer than that. I mean it.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:19</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms CATHERINE KING</name>
    <name.id>00AMR</name.id>
    <electorate>Ballarat</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the member for Riverina for his question, and I really welcome the question that has come specifically from him because I have a little bit to say about his role in international aviation service agreements as well.</para>
<para>Opposition members interjecting—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! Members on my left, I cannot hear what the minister is saying. I'm sure, as the question has been asked, you would like to hear the answer.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms CATHERINE KING</name>
    <name.id>00AMR</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>As you would expect, my department undertook consultation with all relevant aviation stakeholders, and I was aware of different stakeholders' views when I took the decision. I do routinely meet with CEOs of all airlines, airports and peak bodies, and from my recollection the main people lobbying me about Qatar came from Virgin and a third party in my office on behalf of Qatar. The discussions I have had recently with Qantas have been about their concerns about our same job, same pay legislation. But because I am asked about this matter of international aviation service agreements, which is what this question is about—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! The member for Lalor will cease interjecting.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms CATHERINE KING</name>
    <name.id>00AMR</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I wonder why you don't want me to answer this.</para>
<para>Honourable members interjecting—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The minister will pause, the House will come to order and I will hear from the Leader of the Opposition.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">M</name>
    <name.id>00AKI</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>This is the third time that we have posed a very tight question to the minister. I ask for your ruling in relation to whether the minister is relevant to the very tight question that was asked. I ask for your ruling in relation to the matter.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I give the call to the Leader of the House.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Burke</name>
    <name.id>DYW</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>To the point of order, the question referred to the decision concerning Qatar and the agreement with Qatar, which is what the minister is now referring to.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Listening to the Leader of the Opposition and listening to the minister's answers, she has canvassed the issue around her conversations, which is what the question was about, and who she's met with, and she has indicated in her answer who she has been meeting with. The question also included the decision around the application regarding the decision that the minister has taken. I'm going to listen very carefully to her answer to make sure she's being relevant to that part of the question.</para>
<para>Honourable member s interjecting—</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Burke</name>
    <name.id>DYW</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>To the point of order, it has always been the case in its place under speakers certainly as long as I have been here that rulings would be given, particularly on relevance, in the exact form that was just given, which is guidance to the person rather than giving a specific ruling on every occasion. All speakers have done that, and that is exactly what has happened here.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm asking the minister to make sure her answer is relevant. I've explained where—the Manager of Opposition Business?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Fletcher</name>
    <name.id>L6B</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Mr Speaker, again, we are seeking clarification on this side of the House. What is your ruling? Is the minister in order?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>MOTIONS</title>
        <page.no>62</page.no>
        <type>MOTIONS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Dissent from Ruling</title>
          <page.no>62</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:23</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The S</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>PEAKER (): The minister is in order to make sure that—are you seeking the call again, the Manager of Opposition Business?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:23</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr FLETCHER</name>
    <name.id>L6B</name.id>
    <electorate>Bradfield</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That the Speaker's ruling be dissented from under standing order 87.</para></quote>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I'll hear from the Leader of the House who's seeking the call.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Burke</name>
    <name.id>DYW</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm raising a point of order concerning what's just happened. You can't move dissent when no ruling has been made. When a point of order is raised, sometimes in response to a point of order a speaker will make a ruling. Sometimes in response to a point of order a speaker will give guidance to the House or to the person who is speaking or will simply indicate what will happen next. On the occasions when a speaker gives a ruling then dissent can be moved. But it is pretty hard to move dissent in a ruling when a ruling hasn't been made.</para>
<para>Government members interjecting—</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order, members on my right.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The Minister for Social Services will cease interjecting.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The Minister for Social Services! The Minister for Social Services is warned. Yes, the Manager of Opposition Business, I'll give you the call.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Fletcher</name>
    <name.id>L6B</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Speaker, the situation could not be clearer. I asked you for a ruling as to whether the minister was in order. You responded: the minister was in order. I then proceeded to move dissent in your ruling, as is specifically authorised under standing order 87.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Is it in writing?</para>
<para>Honourable members interjecting—</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order. Order. Well, so everyone is clear: I was in mid-sentence and I got out that the minister was in order, but I wasn't allowed to finish my sentence before the manager sought the call.</para>
<para>Honourable members interjecting—</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Well, that's what happened. The Leader of the House.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Burke</name>
    <name.id>DYW</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Mr Speaker, it is now the case—and I don't know whether you've decided that that was a ruling or was guidance, but, in any event, what has now happened is: even if that was properly moved, he's now sat down without giving a speech and without providing it in writing. So there is—</para>
<para>Honour able members interjecting—</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order. Order.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Burke</name>
    <name.id>DYW</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>After you move something, once you resume your seat, the speech is over. That's how it works. This is not new.</para>
<para>Honourable members interjecting—</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order!</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order. The Treasurer will cease interjecting.</para>
<para>Government members interjecting—</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Members on my right. The House will come to order.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The minister for industry will cease interjecting so I can hear from the Manager of Opposition Business.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Fletcher</name>
    <name.id>L6B</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I'll just remind the House of the wording of standing order 87:</para>
<quote><para class="block">If a Member dissents from a ruling of the Speaker, the objection or dissent must be declared at once.</para></quote>
<para>Done.</para>
<quote><para class="block">A Member moving a motion of dissent must submit the motion in writing.</para></quote>
<para>Done.</para>
<quote><para class="block">If the motion is seconded, the Speaker shall then propose the question to the House, and debate may proceed immediately.</para></quote>
<para>Honourable members interjecting—</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order. Order!</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order, the Leader of the Opposition. I want the House to come to order so we can deal with this matter. The opposition is entitled to move a dissent. I understand that and I respect their decision to do so. So I give the call to the Manager of Opposition Business.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:27</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr FLETCHER</name>
    <name.id>L6B</name.id>
    <electorate>Bradfield</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>What has happened here is very clear. The opposition has asked an extremely tightly-worded question of the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government. The minister has, in a number of ways, sought to evade answering what is an extremely direct question. We, on this side of the House—both the Leader of the Opposition and I—have sought clarification from you. We've sought a ruling from you. A ruling has been provided. We've indicated that we disagree with the ruling. And what we are now doing is moving dissent. The reason that we are moving dissent is that you made a ruling that the minister was in order, and what we are putting to the House is that the minister was not in order because she was not being relevant to what was a very tightly worded, narrowly defined question. So that is the basis on which the opposition is moving dissent, as is permitted under standing order 87.</para>
<para>Honourable members interjecting—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order. There's far too much noise. Is the motion seconded? Order. I give the call to the member for Canning. The member for Canning has—</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order. The Minister for Resources will cease interjecting.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:29</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr HASTIE</name>
    <name.id>260805</name.id>
    <electorate>Canning</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I do second the motion moved by the Manager of Opposition Business. It goes to the simple question that was asked of the minister for infrastructure. It was a tight question, as we've made very clear, and she was not relevant. She did not answer the question, and you made a ruling—</para>
<para>Government members interjecting—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order, members on my right! The ministers will cease interjecting.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr HASTIE</name>
    <name.id>260805</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>You made a ruling, Mr Speaker, and we disagree with that ruling. She did not answer the question, she has not been relevant to the question, and it was a very, very tight question. The questions so far put to her throughout this question time, 'Did the minister or her office have any communication with the outgoing Qantas CEO, Alan Joyce, or any representative of Qantas regarding the application for additional flights to and from Australia by Qatar Airways before the minister made her decision to reject the application?'—that was the first question, put by the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party. She did not answer that question. We then asked it a second time. The Leader of the Nationals asked: 'Did the minister or her office have any discussion with the Prime Minister or his office concerning the application for additional flights to and from Australia by Qatar Airways before the minister made her decision to reject the application?' Again she failed to answer the question.</para>
<para>We then had a question from the member for Riverina, where he asked whether or not the minister had spoken to Alan Joyce. Again she failed to answer the question. The Leader of the Opposition asked the question: 'Are you working in the interests of the Australian people?' And it's very clear you're not. Australians are paying more for their flights because of the protection racket that you have put in place.</para>
<para>The questions continued, getting tighter and tighter by the question. The minister has failed to explain how her decision to reject the application for additional flights to and from Australia by Qatar Airways will benefit Australian consumers. The point I'm making, Mr Speaker—</para>
<para>Government members interjecting—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order, members on my right! The member for McEwen, the Treasurer and the member for Lalor, I can't hear what the member for Canning is saying and, believe it or not, I want to hear what he's got to say.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr HASTIE</name>
    <name.id>260805</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Mr Speaker, the theme of this question time has been very clear, very clear indeed, and it's that the minister is running a protection racket for Qantas and she is making it a lot harder for Australian consumers, who are paying more for their flights. On this side of the House we stand up for Australians who are going through a very tough cost-of-living crisis. Interest rates are spiking under this government. Food is more expensive. People are having to cut corners everywhere in their family budgets. And, just when they need relief through flights, what do you do? You establish a protection racket with Qantas. This side of the House will always stand for the Australian people, for consumers. We will work to get a better deal for them. And the reason why we're dissenting, Mr Speaker, is that we want the minister to answer the questions.</para>
<para>Honourable members interjecting—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order on my right! The minister for health! I'm issuing a general warning because there is far too much noise. The question is that the dissent from the ruling of the Speaker be agreed to.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:33</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr DUTTON</name>
    <name.id>00AKI</name.id>
    <electorate>Dickson</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>This is a 30-minute debate, and I hope it runs full time because there is a very important question for this parliament, for this chamber, to contemplate. It is clear not just today but in previous days; it has been documented not just in this House but across the nation, in newspapers—the <inline font-style="italic">Fin Review</inline> has run a very significant commentary in relation to this important issue, and that is about whether or not this government has made an appropriate decision, and the actions of the minister—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The Leader of the Opposition will pause. This is not a general debate about the issue. The question before the House is dissent from the ruling of the Speaker—not the broad issue, not the topic. It is to state the reasons why you believe the ruling was not in order.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr</name>
    <name.id>00AKI</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I fully understand that, Mr Speaker, and I've given you the background as to why this issue needs to be dealt with in this chamber, why the question needs to be answered appropriately by this incompetent minister. The ruling that you've provided, Mr Speaker, should be dissented from because it allows this minister to continue to escape proper scrutiny in this chamber. She's a member of the executive. She refuses to say, in response to questions, whether or not she met or spoke with Mr Alan Joyce.</para>
<para>The relationship between Mr Alan Joyce, the Prime Minister and this minister is well documented. This is a murky situation at best. The minister's integrity is seriously in question. The Prime Minister had to come back into this chamber yesterday to correct the record when he misled this parliament. And why we need to move dissent in your ruling is obvious, because the question could not have been tighter. The circumstances could not be clearer. And the minister could not be more evasive. We need to hear from this minister, in a very direct way, whether or not she met with or spoke with Alan Joyce prior to making a decision to stop Qatar flying into our country which was of commercial benefit to Mr Joyce and to Qantas, and clearly to the detriment of the Australian flying public.</para>
<para>This government—and this is why your ruling needs to be dissented from—is costing, through this decision, Australians thousands of dollars through their airfares when they seek to travel internationally. Not just internationally, Mr Speaker. As we have seen from Virgin, who have an alliance with Qatar, if those inbound international flights are coming in and feeding the Virgin network, you will see a reduction in domestic airfare prices as well.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order. The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat for a moment. I have given him plenty of leeway. I'm just going to ask him to return back to the question before the House and to not bring other material into the debate. I give him the call now.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr DUTTON</name>
    <name.id>00AKI</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Mr Speaker, the standing orders of this parliament are sacrosanct. We need to make sure the integrity of our Westminster system is upheld, and the requirement to do so falls squarely upon your shoulders. You are a decent Speaker. You're an honourable Speaker. But you have been put into the most difficult position by a minister who is trying to escape reality. You would not be put in this position that forced our hand to move dissent in your ruling if the minister had not been so evasive.</para>
<para>Australians are demanding answers from this government. The Prime Minister's off on another overseas flight, and you've got this minister who refuses to answer questions in his absence. I don't think the Australian public are seeing a level of transparency, and that is why this minister has put this House into disrepute. And this is why, with all due respect to you, Mr Speaker, you should have upheld our point of order, moved that the minister was not in order, moved that the minister was not relevant to the question being asked, instead of the ruling that you made.</para>
<para>This is a serious issue, and the precedent here is important because, to be honest, this is not the first occasion where we have contemplated whether we move dissent because of the way in which the government has put you into a difficult position. Today is a red-letter day for this minister because the minister has a clear question before her. Will she answer it honestly? So far she hasn't, and the Australian public demand nothing less of her.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:38</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BURKE</name>
    <name.id>DYW</name.id>
    <electorate>Watson</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>It's a pleasure to follow both the Leader of the Opposition and the former future leader of the Liberal Party on what is one of the silliest moments I can imagine of a dissent motion. If this was the test of whether or not you move dissent, we would have had a dissent motion every question time every day for the previous nine years. That's what we would have had.</para>
<para>What they're objecting to is the fact that the standing order simply says you have to be relevant. That's what they're actually objecting to. That's their problem that they have. If you have a look at the question, it asked, in the end part of it, about Qatar's application before the decision was made.</para>
<para>What made them outraged, what suddenly enlivened them, was when the minister started to refer to what the situation was before the application was made. It's exactly what she was referring to. She was referring to the situation the previous government had left in place. The question specifically invited an answer about what the circumstances were before the application had been made. If you don't want an answer about what the circumstances were before the application was made, then don't be so idiotic as to ask a question as to what the circumstances were before the application was made.</para>
<para>The reason they've done this is really simple: they have given up on a debate about cost of living, completely given up. They are embarrassed, completely embarrassed, about the economic accounts that have come out today. They are embarrassed that inflation has been going down, they are embarrassed that wages have been going up and they are embarrassed about having to sit on the opposition benches seeing a government deliver a surplus that they were never capable of.</para>
<para>Amidst that embarrassment, you fall back to all you've got left: 'Maybe we can manufacture a procedural argument.' And how desperate were they to get to a procedural argument? There was the desperation of the Leader of the Opposition saying: 'Can you give me a ruling? Can this please be a ruling? Please give me a ruling so we can talk about something other than policy. Please give us a reason to interrupt the minister when she is about to refer to what the situation was before that application.'</para>
<para>While it is certainly disorderly in this place for me to call anyone a hypocrite, there is extraordinary hypocrisy in the debate when you look at previous behaviour and what the circumstances were before that application was made. We have a minister for transport here who has acted in the national interest for this country. We have a minister here, in Minister King, who has made decisions, and then the outrage—</para>
<para>Honourable members interjecting—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The Leader of the House will pause. There is far too much noise. The member for Deakin and the member for Hume are now warned. There has been continual, non-stop yelling on both sides of the chamber. The Leader of the House will return to the motion, just as I asked the Leader of the Opposition to.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BURKE</name>
    <name.id>DYW</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The outrage that they have about the minister being in a situation, in the questions that have been raised in the debate—we've had all the different questions raised in the debate. It was bizarre while we had the earlier ones in a question about relevance on this one. But, as we heard the different questions, a whole series of them simply went to: did a minister conduct due diligence and talk to stakeholders? I'm not surprised they are shocked that ministers do that these days. It used to be the case that a minister wouldn't even have to talk to colleagues, because the Prime Minister could just talk to a mirror and have the whole cabinet present! They were all there! Who needed stakeholders? Who needed anyone to consult with? The Prime Minister of the day could just have a quiet chat with himself, and everything was okay.</para>
<para>Amidst all that humiliation, they want to have a procedural debate. We have a fine Speaker here. I'll tell you what: I remember some of the speakers that were put up by those opposite. We all talk in very reverent tones about former speaker Tony Smith. We very rarely talk about the others. One of them is here. One of them is long gone. We very rarely talk about the others. We have somebody who, in the tradition of former speaker Tony Smith, has abided by the traditions of this place, but the lack of respect for the traditions of this place, if it was ever on show, was on show by them on Monday. It was on show by them on Monday, showing no respect for the parliament, showing no respect as they tried to egg on the public galleries, showing no respect for any of that—</para>
<para>Honourable members interjecting—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The Leader of the House will pause. The House will come to order so I can hear from the member for North Sydney on a point of order.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms Tink</name>
    <name.id>300124</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Mr Speaker, it's on standing order 91(e), disorderly conduct. I am very grateful to have the opportunity to listen to both major parties talk about what is appropriate under standing orders or not, but there are members of the Australian public sitting in this chamber at the moment watching this behaviour, and I do not believe this behaviour is befitting of this chamber.</para>
<para>If we could please have this debate and have it reasonably, without yelling at each other, that would be in the best interests of everyone.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I ask all members to not interject for the remainder of this speech. The Leader of the House has the call.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BURKE</name>
    <name.id>DYW</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>In terms of the issues of respect for this place, in this debate—I'm simply referring to what has been said in this debate—we had the Leader of the Opposition go back on an indulgence that he gave in this place only a couple of days ago, talking about what should be above politics in terms of when we engage with the rest of the world.</para>
<para>Members don't have to stand up and take an indulgence. Members don't have to stand up and try to say something is above politics, but when you do, it should last longer than 48 hours. That shows the character of this Leader of the Opposition.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The Leader of the House will resume his seat for a moment, so I can hear from the Manager of Opposition Business.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Fletcher</name>
    <name.id>L6B</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Mr Speaker, the Leader of the House is now straying well outside the proper purpose of this debate, which is whether your ruling should be upheld or not. That's what he should be addressing.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm listening carefully to the Leader of the House—I'm listening to what everyone is saying during this debate; trust me! The Leader of the House is using his remarks to refer to what has been said during the debate, which, under the standing orders, he's entitled to do. The Leader of the House has the call.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BURKE</name>
    <name.id>DYW</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Once again, even that point of order shows the contempt they have for this parliament. Even that point of order shows exactly how they used to run things and how they wish things still were, where they get to make a point and no-one gets to answer it in return. That is precisely what they are wanting to have happen here. That's the only reason that point of order could have possibly been raised, but there's some sort of outrage that a different point of view is given in this parliament.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms Ley</name>
    <name.id>00AMN</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>We just want answers to our question.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BURKE</name>
    <name.id>DYW</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>We are only a short way through question time and if anything they say is true in this debate, it's that they want to hear more in response to their questions. I do this rarely, but in order to get on with question time, I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That the question be put.</para></quote>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The question is that the question on the motion of dissent be put.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<division>
          <division.header>
            <body>
              <p class="HPS-DivisionPreamble">The House divided. [14:51] <br />(The Speaker—Hon. Milton Dick) </p>
            </body>
          </division.header>
          <division.data>
            <ayes>
              <num.votes>73</num.votes>
              <title>AYES</title>
              <names>
                <name>Aly, A.</name>
                <name>Ananda-Rajah, M.</name>
                <name>Bowen, C. E.</name>
                <name>Burke, A. S.</name>
                <name>Burnell, M. P.</name>
                <name>Burney, L. J.</name>
                <name>Burns, J.</name>
                <name>Butler, M. C.</name>
                <name>Byrnes, A. J.</name>
                <name>Chalmers, J. E.</name>
                <name>Charlton, A. H. G.</name>
                <name>Chesters, L. M.</name>
                <name>Clare, J. D.</name>
                <name>Claydon, S. C.</name>
                <name>Coker, E. A.</name>
                <name>Collins, J. M.</name>
                <name>Conroy, P. M.</name>
                <name>Doyle, M. J. J.</name>
                <name>Dreyfus, M. A.</name>
                <name>Elliot, M. J.</name>
                <name>Fernando, C.</name>
                <name>Freelander, M. R.</name>
                <name>Garland, C. M. L.</name>
                <name>Georganas, S.</name>
                <name>Giles, A. J.</name>
                <name>Gorman, P.</name>
                <name>Gosling, L. J.</name>
                <name>Hill, J. C.</name>
                <name>Husic, E. N.</name>
                <name>Jones, S. P.</name>
                <name>Kearney, G. M.</name>
                <name>Keogh, M. J.</name>
                <name>Khalil, P.</name>
                <name>King, C. F.</name>
                <name>King, M. M. H.</name>
                <name>Lawrence, T. N.</name>
                <name>Laxale, J. A. A.</name>
                <name>Leigh, A. K.</name>
                <name>Lim, S. B. C.</name>
                <name>Marles, R. D.</name>
                <name>Mascarenhas, Z. F. A.</name>
                <name>McBain, K. L.</name>
                <name>McBride, E. M.</name>
                <name>Miller-Frost, L. J.</name>
                <name>Mitchell, B. K.</name>
                <name>Mitchell, R. G.</name>
                <name>Mulino, D.</name>
                <name>Neumann, S. K.</name>
                <name>O'Connor, B. P. J.</name>
                <name>O'Neil, C. E.</name>
                <name>Phillips, F. E.</name>
                <name>Plibersek, T. J.</name>
                <name>Rae, S. T.</name>
                <name>Reid, G. J.</name>
                <name>Repacholi, D. P.</name>
                <name>Rishworth, A. L.</name>
                <name>Roberts, T. G.</name>
                <name>Rowland, M. A.</name>
                <name>Ryan, J. C.</name>
                <name>Scrymgour, M. R.</name>
                <name>Shorten, W. R.</name>
                <name>Sitou, S.</name>
                <name>Smith, D. P. B. (Teller)</name>
                <name>Stanley, A. M. (Teller)</name>
                <name>Swanson, M. J.</name>
                <name>Templeman, S. R.</name>
                <name>Thistlethwaite, M. J.</name>
                <name>Thwaites, K. L.</name>
                <name>Vamvakinou, M.</name>
                <name>Watts, T. G.</name>
                <name>Wells, A. S.</name>
                <name>Wilson, J. H.</name>
                <name>Zappia, A.</name>
              </names>
            </ayes>
            <noes>
              <num.votes>68</num.votes>
              <title>NOES</title>
              <names>
                <name>Andrews, K. L.</name>
                <name>Archer, B. K.</name>
                <name>Bandt, A. P.</name>
                <name>Bates, S. J.</name>
                <name>Bell, A. M.</name>
                <name>Birrell, S. J.</name>
                <name>Boyce, C. E.</name>
                <name>Broadbent, R. E.</name>
                <name>Caldwell, C. M.</name>
                <name>Chandler-Mather, M.</name>
                <name>Chaney, K. E.</name>
                <name>Chester, D. J.</name>
                <name>Coleman, D. B.</name>
                <name>Conaghan, P. J.</name>
                <name>Coulton, M. M. (Teller)</name>
                <name>Daniel, Z.</name>
                <name>Dutton, P. C.</name>
                <name>Entsch, W. G.</name>
                <name>Fletcher, P. W.</name>
                <name>Gee, A. R.</name>
                <name>Gillespie, D. A.</name>
                <name>Goodenough, I. R. </name>
                <name>Haines, H. M.</name>
                <name>Hastie, A. W.</name>
                <name>Hawke, A. G.</name>
                <name>Hogan, K. J.</name>
                <name>Howarth, L. R.</name>
                <name>Joyce, B. T. G.</name>
                <name>Landry, M. L.</name>
                <name>Le, D.</name>
                <name>Leeser, J.</name>
                <name>Ley, S. P.</name>
                <name>Littleproud, D.</name>
                <name>McCormack, M. F.</name>
                <name>McIntosh, M. I.</name>
                <name>McKenzie, Z. A.</name>
                <name>Morrison, S. J.</name>
                <name>O'Brien, E. L.</name>
                <name>O'Brien, L. S.</name>
                <name>Pasin, A.</name>
                <name>Pearce, G. B.</name>
                <name>Pike, H. J.</name>
                <name>Pitt, K. J.</name>
                <name>Price, M. L.</name>
                <name>Ramsey, R. E. (Teller)</name>
                <name>Ryan, M. M.</name>
                <name>Scamps, S. A.</name>
                <name>Spender, A. M.</name>
                <name>Steggall, Z.</name>
                <name>Stevens, J.</name>
                <name>Sukkar, M. S.</name>
                <name>Taylor, A. J.</name>
                <name>Tehan, D. T.</name>
                <name>Thompson, P.</name>
                <name>Tink, K. J.</name>
                <name>van Manen, A. J.</name>
                <name>Vasta, R. X.</name>
                <name>Violi, A. A.</name>
                <name>Wallace, A. B.</name>
                <name>Ware, J. L.</name>
                <name>Watson-Brown, E.</name>
                <name>Webster, A. E.</name>
                <name>Wilkie, A. D.</name>
                <name>Willcox, A. J.</name>
                <name>Wilson, R. J.</name>
                <name>Wolahan, K.</name>
                <name>Wood, J. P.</name>
                <name>Young, T. J.</name>
              </names>
            </noes>
            <pairs>
              <num.votes>0</num.votes>
              <title>PAIRS</title>
              <names />
            </pairs>
          </division.data>
          <division.result>
            <body>
              <p class="HPS-DivisionFooter">Question agreed to. </p>
            </body>
          </division.result>
        </division><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:58</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The question is that the motion of dissent be agreed to.</para>
</speech>
<division>
          <division.header>
            <body>
              <p class="HPS-DivisionPreamble">The House divided. [14:58]<br />(The Speaker—Hon. Milton Dick)</p>
            </body>
          </division.header>
          <division.data>
            <ayes>
              <num.votes>53</num.votes>
              <title>AYES</title>
              <names>
                <name>Andrews, K. L.</name>
                <name>Archer, B. K.</name>
                <name>Bell, A. M.</name>
                <name>Birrell, S. J.</name>
                <name>Boyce, C. E.</name>
                <name>Broadbent, R. E.</name>
                <name>Caldwell, C. M.</name>
                <name>Chester, D. J.</name>
                <name>Coleman, D. B.</name>
                <name>Conaghan, P. J.</name>
                <name>Coulton, M. M. (Teller)</name>
                <name>Dutton, P. C.</name>
                <name>Entsch, W. G.</name>
                <name>Fletcher, P. W.</name>
                <name>Gee, A. R.</name>
                <name>Gillespie, D. A.</name>
                <name>Goodenough, I. R. </name>
                <name>Hastie, A. W.</name>
                <name>Hawke, A. G.</name>
                <name>Hogan, K. J.</name>
                <name>Howarth, L. R.</name>
                <name>Joyce, B. T. G.</name>
                <name>Landry, M. L.</name>
                <name>Leeser, J.</name>
                <name>Ley, S. P.</name>
                <name>Littleproud, D.</name>
                <name>McCormack, M. F.</name>
                <name>McIntosh, M. I.</name>
                <name>McKenzie, Z. A.</name>
                <name>Morrison, S. J.</name>
                <name>O'Brien, E. L.</name>
                <name>O'Brien, L. S.</name>
                <name>Pasin, A.</name>
                <name>Pearce, G. B.</name>
                <name>Pitt, K. J.</name>
                <name>Price, M. L.</name>
                <name>Ramsey, R. E. (Teller)</name>
                <name>Stevens, J.</name>
                <name>Sukkar, M. S.</name>
                <name>Taylor, A. J.</name>
                <name>Tehan, D. T.</name>
                <name>Thompson, P.</name>
                <name>van Manen, A. J.</name>
                <name>Vasta, R. X.</name>
                <name>Violi, A. A.</name>
                <name>Wallace, A. B.</name>
                <name>Ware, J. L.</name>
                <name>Webster, A. E.</name>
                <name>Willcox, A. J.</name>
                <name>Wilson, R. J.</name>
                <name>Wolahan, K.</name>
                <name>Wood, J. P.</name>
                <name>Young, T. J.</name>
              </names>
            </ayes>
            <noes>
              <num.votes>86</num.votes>
              <title>NOES</title>
              <names>
                <name>Aly, A.</name>
                <name>Ananda-Rajah, M.</name>
                <name>Bandt, A. P.</name>
                <name>Bates, S. J.</name>
                <name>Bowen, C. E.</name>
                <name>Burke, A. S.</name>
                <name>Burnell, M. P.</name>
                <name>Burney, L. J.</name>
                <name>Burns, J.</name>
                <name>Butler, M. C.</name>
                <name>Byrnes, A. J.</name>
                <name>Chalmers, J. E.</name>
                <name>Chandler-Mather, M.</name>
                <name>Chaney, K. E.</name>
                <name>Charlton, A. H. G.</name>
                <name>Chesters, L. M.</name>
                <name>Clare, J. D.</name>
                <name>Claydon, S. C.</name>
                <name>Coker, E. A.</name>
                <name>Collins, J. M.</name>
                <name>Conroy, P. M.</name>
                <name>Daniel, Z.</name>
                <name>Doyle, M. J. J.</name>
                <name>Dreyfus, M. A.</name>
                <name>Elliot, M. J.</name>
                <name>Fernando, C.</name>
                <name>Freelander, M. R.</name>
                <name>Garland, C. M. L.</name>
                <name>Georganas, S.</name>
                <name>Giles, A. J.</name>
                <name>Gorman, P.</name>
                <name>Gosling, L. J.</name>
                <name>Haines, H. M.</name>
                <name>Hill, J. C.</name>
                <name>Husic, E. N.</name>
                <name>Jones, S. P.</name>
                <name>Kearney, G. M.</name>
                <name>Keogh, M. J.</name>
                <name>Khalil, P.</name>
                <name>King, C. F.</name>
                <name>King, M. M. H.</name>
                <name>Lawrence, T. N.</name>
                <name>Laxale, J. A. A.</name>
                <name>Le, D.</name>
                <name>Leigh, A. K.</name>
                <name>Lim, S. B. C.</name>
                <name>Marles, R. D.</name>
                <name>Mascarenhas, Z. F. A.</name>
                <name>McBain, K. L.</name>
                <name>McBride, E. M.</name>
                <name>Miller-Frost, L. J.</name>
                <name>Mitchell, B. K.</name>
                <name>Mitchell, R. G.</name>
                <name>Mulino, D.</name>
                <name>Neumann, S. K.</name>
                <name>O'Connor, B. P. J.</name>
                <name>O'Neil, C. E.</name>
                <name>Phillips, F. E.</name>
                <name>Plibersek, T. J.</name>
                <name>Rae, S. T.</name>
                <name>Reid, G. J.</name>
                <name>Repacholi, D. P.</name>
                <name>Rishworth, A. L.</name>
                <name>Roberts, T. G.</name>
                <name>Rowland, M. A.</name>
                <name>Ryan, J. C.</name>
                <name>Ryan, M. M.</name>
                <name>Scamps, S. A.</name>
                <name>Scrymgour, M. R.</name>
                <name>Shorten, W. R.</name>
                <name>Sitou, S.</name>
                <name>Smith, D. P. B. (Teller)</name>
                <name>Spender, A. M.</name>
                <name>Stanley, A. M. (Teller)</name>
                <name>Steggall, Z.</name>
                <name>Swanson, M. J.</name>
                <name>Templeman, S. R.</name>
                <name>Thistlethwaite, M. J.</name>
                <name>Thwaites, K. L.</name>
                <name>Tink, K. J.</name>
                <name>Vamvakinou, M.</name>
                <name>Watson-Brown, E.</name>
                <name>Watts, T. G.</name>
                <name>Wells, A. S.</name>
                <name>Wilson, J. H.</name>
                <name>Zappia, A.</name>
              </names>
            </noes>
            <pairs>
              <num.votes>0</num.votes>
              <title>PAIRS</title>
              <names />
            </pairs>
          </division.data>
          <division.result>
            <body>
              <p class="HPS-DivisionFooter">Question negatived.</p>
            </body>
          </division.result>
        </division></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE</title>
        <page.no>71</page.no>
        <type>QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Aviation Industry</title>
          <page.no>71</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:01</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms RYAN</name>
    <name.id>249224</name.id>
    <electorate>Lalor</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government. How does the government's decision in relation to the application by Qatar Airways compare to the approach of previous governments on similar aviation policy decisions?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:02</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms CATHERINE KING</name>
    <name.id>00AMR</name.id>
    <electorate>Ballarat</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm really pleased to have the opportunity to actually answer a question on aviation policy, because this is what the previous government was trying to stop me saying before. We support sustainable aviation growth. Our aviation green paper, which is out shortly, will go to issues of competition and international aviation agreements, issues around disability standards at our airports and issues around consumer rights, something those opposite failed to protect.</para>
<para>It might be useful to remind the House that requests for additional capacity are made routinely to governments around the world, including Australia. These requests are not always granted, including by those opposite. In fact, when the very same question was put in front of the member for Riverina, he made a decision to 'put on hold an application by Qatar Airways'. That 'putting on hold' was for four years. That's not putting it on hold; that's actually not making a decision for four years—effectively, a nonapproval. By the time a decision was actually taken, nearly half the coalition's time in office had elapsed, and at the end of that four-year hold Qatar Airways were granted only an additional seven flights per week. So worried were the previous government about this airline that, for the first time, they added an antidumping clause to the international air services agreement. Those new flights only started early last year, in 2022. That's when that new capacity, asked for in 2018, was actually given to Qatar Airways.</para>
<para>In the case of the Qatar Civil Aviation Authority's request, I determined that it was not in Australia's national interest to grant their request for an additional 28 flights per week. I know that there are some businesses and airlines that would've liked me to make a different decision. I have not based that decision on any one company's commercial interests but on the national interests. Again, as the member for Riverina has said, he introduced that safeguard article because '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'.</para>
<para>He said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">We can't have an airline with very deep pockets undercut, undercut, undercut and … 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.</para></quote>
<para>There you go. No wonder they didn't want me to answer the question about Qatar Airways. The previous government has not got a leg to stand on with the way in which it gave $2 billion of JobKeeper to Qantas without any strings attached, and saw hundreds of jobs outsourced without any possibility of saving them. Thy name is hypocrite. (<inline font-style="italic">Time expired</inline>)</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Aviation Industry</title>
          <page.no>71</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:05</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr DUTTON</name>
    <name.id>00AKI</name.id>
    <electorate>Dickson</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the . Did the minister discuss Qatar's application with Alan Joyce prior to her decision on Qatar?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:06</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms CATHERINE KING</name>
    <name.id>00AMR</name.id>
    <electorate>Ballarat</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>As I said in answering the previous question, to the best of my recollection, the Qatar decision was a discussion I had with Virgin. A third party approached my office on behalf of Qatar. And the previous discussions I have had with Qantas were focused—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Dutton</name>
    <name.id>00AKI</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>You can remember all that, but you can't—</para>
<para>Honourable members interjecting—</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! The Leader of the Opposition will cease interjecting! The Leader of the Opposition has asked his question.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms CATHERINE KING</name>
    <name.id>00AMR</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>As I just said, to the best—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Dutton</name>
    <name.id>00AKI</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Why not answer honestly?</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms CATHERINE KING</name>
    <name.id>00AMR</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>You should withdraw that.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The minister will pause and resume her seat for a moment. The Leader of the House on a point of order?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Burke</name>
    <name.id>DYW</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>On two points: (1) on your previous rulings; and (2) the angry, furious interjections from the Leader of the Opposition are out of control, and in the latest one it was a direct reflection on the minister and should be withdrawn.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>There was too much noise for me to hear what the leader said, but, to assist the House, I'm going to get him to withdraw it so we can keep going with question time.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Dutton</name>
    <name.id>00AKI</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I withdraw.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I give the call to the minister, who will be heard in silence for the remainder of her answer.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms CATHERINE KING</name>
    <name.id>00AMR</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>As I was saying: to the best of my recollection, the meetings I had with Qantas were, in fact, about the same job, same pay legislation, because they have concerns about that.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition!</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms CATHERINE KING</name>
    <name.id>00AMR</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I stand by it. This is a decision I have made in the national interest. It is a decision that, in fact, when you reflect on what your government did when in government, is very consistent with the way in which this airline has been dealt with by previous governments over the history of this bilateral international air services agreement.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Th</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! The member for Newcastle will cease interjecting.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Vocational Education and Training</title>
          <page.no>72</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:08</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms THWAITES</name>
    <name.id>282212</name.id>
    <electorate>Jagajaga</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister for Skills and Training. Today we're celebrating National TAFE Day, a time to highlight the achievements and importance of TAFE and our VET sector more broadly. How is the Albanese Labor government helping to put TAFE at the heart of Australia's VET sector?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:08</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr O'CONNOR</name>
    <name.id>00AN3</name.id>
    <electorate>Gorton</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>After all of that, I'm very happy to, firstly, thank the member for Jagajaga for this important question. Indeed, it is National TAFE Day, a day to celebrate and acknowledge the achievements of TAFE students, teachers, trainers and support staff; a day to recognise the vital contribution TAFE makes to this country.</para>
<para>When the government announced 180,000 fee-free TAFE and VET places last year at the Jobs and Skills Summit, it was largely TAFE that we turned to, to make sure we delivered on this initiative. This commitment to help deliver skills in demand to students, to workers, to businesses and to our economy has been delivered and exceeded, with, to date, 215,000 Australians enrolling in fee-free courses. But we will not stop there. The Albanese government will make a further significant investment in the VET sector to ensure 300,000 fee-free places, starting from 2024.</para>
<para>This is not just to achieve one goal, but this is the means to achieve other critical national goals. If we are to deliver the changes required to meet net zero emissions targets by 2050, we need skills. If we're to maximise the benefits that come from the National Reconstruction Fund—enlarging manufacturing, standing on our own two feet—we need skills. If we're going to ensure that we provide care and education to preschool kids, we need skills. If we're to supply workers to a growing carer economy, we need skills. To deliver to the IT sector, we need skills. If we're to realise our ambitions under the AUKUS arrangement, we need skills.</para>
<para>We'll continue to invest in TAFE and work to ensure that the VET sector is seen as equally important as higher education as a pathway to the labour market. Frankly, historically this area has not been recognised to the level it deserves. The fact is that nine out of every 10 future jobs come from tertiary sectors. Almost half of those come from the VET sector, and TAFE, of course, plays a magnificent role in that regard.</para>
<para>We're negotiating a five-year National Skills Agreement with state and territory governments. Through those negotiations, which will be finalised prior to the end of this year, we want to make sure we provide the reforms to the VET sector that are needed, to make sure that it's responsive to a fast-changing economy, to make sure that the skills are provided to deliver to the sectors that I've just mentioned. We need to do that, as I say, by introducing reforms and creating centres of excellence where we have greater collaboration between universities and the VET sector. Minister Clare and I are working on those. We're making sure we have opportunities for higher apprenticeships. There's so much more to be done. It is National TAFE Day, and I congratulate everyone involved. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Marles</name>
    <name.id>HWQ</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I ask that further questions be placed on the <inline font-style="italic">Notice Paper</inline>.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>BILLS</title>
        <page.no>73</page.no>
        <type>BILLS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Crimes Legislation Amendment (Combatting Foreign Bribery) Bill 2023</title>
          <page.no>73</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r7055" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Crimes Legislation Amendment (Combatting Foreign Bribery) Bill 2023</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Explanatory Memorandum</title>
            <page.no>73</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:12</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr DREYFUS</name>
    <name.id>HWG</name.id>
    <electorate>Isaacs</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I present the addendum to the explanatory memorandum to the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Combatting Foreign Bribery) Bill 2023.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE</title>
        <page.no>73</page.no>
        <type>MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Transport and Infrastructure</title>
          <page.no>73</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:12</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I've 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:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The comprehensive mishandling of transport and infrastructure policy under this government.</para></quote>
<para>I call upon those honourable members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.</para>
<para class="italic"> <inline font-style="italic">More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places—</inline></para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:12</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr McCORMACK</name>
    <name.id>219646</name.id>
    <electorate>Riverina</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you, Mr Speaker—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms Plibersek</name>
    <name.id>83M</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>He's going to explain himself!</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr McCORMACK</name>
    <name.id>219646</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I don't have to explain myself at all, Environment Minister. It's the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government who has some explaining to do. Another day, another question time, and again we don't have any answers. That is why this matter of public importance today is so very, very important, because we need answers. We need answers to very relevant questions involving transport and involving infrastructure.</para>
<para>To think about infrastructure is to think about airports. During the budget address delivered in May by the Treasurer, the member for Rankin, the word 'airport' was not mentioned once in the entire speech. Nor was 'aviation'. Nor was 'dam'. Nor was 'highway'. Nor, in fact, were the words 'infrastructure' or 'plane' or 'rail' or 'road'—not once. It was the first time for a quarter of a century that the word 'infrastructure' was not uttered by the Treasurer at the dispatch box on budget night. Why would that be so? Because, just prior to the budget, there was a 90-day delay put on all of the infrastructure projects which were brought forward by the previous government. But did that delay cover the election commitments made by those opposite? No, it didn't.</para>
<para>There was only a delay on the infrastructure projects that—many of which were actually in play at the time. Bitumen was being laid, and it was stopped. States were looking forward to rolling out roads, and that was stopped.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Joyce</name>
    <name.id>e5d</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Inland Rail.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr McCORMACK</name>
    <name.id>219646</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Inland rail was stopped—thank you, member for New England—and, unfortunately, many of the workers on some of those projects then went and did something else. They are now no longer on those vital projects which are improving services, bettering communities and, most importantly, saving lives. All too sadly, the road toll is up in many of the states across the nation. I'm not blaming anyone or anything for that. It is a tragic blight on our nation, sadly, that the road toll is up.</para>
<para>The minister needs to explain—and I'm sorry that she's not in the chamber to do so—why a decision to allow Qatar Airways into Australia has been blocked. Yes, I did delay a decision on Qatar—that is a fact—but the decision was made to allow those flights into Australia, and those flights are now taking place into Australia. Those flights are now extending the number of services that Qatar makes into Australia and have now increased in various ports in Australia. They were allowed. The government is blocking them. They've put up any number of reasons—seven, I think, in total, was the last count—and they still haven't given a single solid reason in this place as to why Qatar Airways is being blocked. Qatar is a good airline. It wouldn't have won international airline of the year so many times if it weren't a good airline. What we're seeing across Australia is people wanting to fly overseas and, just as importantly, wanting to get their relatives to fly into our country, into our gateways, which are the airports—a word not used by the Treasurer during his budget speech, which was probably for good reason, because they haven't got a good track record when it comes to infrastructure.</para>
<para>Also, this government hasn't got a good record when it comes to the cost of living. One way that we could reduce the cost of living is to reduce the ticket prices for people wanting to fly to destinations and wanting get tourists into this nation. If there is one thing that we need to do as a nation, it's welcome more tourists. If there is one thing we want to do as a nation, it's improve the cost-of-living pressures, and the government is not doing that with his bloody-minded decision to stop Qatar Airways and not give a valid and justifiable reason for doing so.</para>
<para>It's not just me saying it. It's Peter Malinauskas, the Labor South Australian Premier, who wants to know why Qatar has been blocked. It's Steven Miles, the future, soon to be, Premier of Queensland who wants to know why Qatar is not being allowed to increase their number of flights into the sunshine state. It's Roger Cook, the Western Australian Premier, who wants to know why Qatar is not being allowed to fly more services into Western Australia. But, more importantly and, crucially, it is the people of Australia, Mr and Mrs Average, who are suffering under this volume of debt that they have got—thanks to this government and the higher cost of living—and who are wondering why they can't get cheaper airfares and why Qatar has been blocked. If you look at the stats, they are saying it right across the country. They are saying it in Labor seats. They are rusted-on Labor members who, when surveyed, said, 'Why aren't we getting cheaper flights?' It's a good question and it's the question the minister for transport needs to answer—cannot answer a simple question as to who she spoke to and why she spoke to them.</para>
<para>Yesterday we saw that very untidy moment when the member for McEwen was on his feet during the matter of public importance and was stopped by the leader of government business when the Prime Minister had to come to the dispatch box to make a really untidy explanation and addition to his answer given in question time. What did that untidy addition to his question time response entail? Well, it entailed the fact that he and the transport minister had not spoken. They had not spoken, and he was not aware of the decision having been taken.</para>
<para>Here's the rub: when I was the transport minister, I actually spoke to the now Prime Minister about aviation matters. If I was prepared, as the transport minister from the coalition government, to speak to the then shadow minister for transport, why isn't his own minister prepared to do that now he's the Prime Minister? What is going on between those two? Why isn't the transport minister telling the Prime Minister why she's making decisions? Why is this so? It's a question that people are asking right across the nation.</para>
<para>As I say, according to her RedBridge polling, amongst all voters, 56 per cent of people support extra Qatar services, 32 per cent are undecided and 12 per cent opposed. But here's the interesting aspect. Listen to this one: according to this polling, 59 per cent of Labor voters support extra Qatar services. Those opposite could only hope for those sorts of statistics on other polling that they want to do at the moment for certain other votes that are coming up to the Australian public. Not only are Labor not listening to the public; they don't even listen to their own supporters, who are even more inclined to support additional Qatar services.</para>
<para>Obviously, the Prime Minister is not getting the right information from his own transport minister, who has put a 90-day—now 125-day—delay on all infrastructure projects and programs right across Australia. We know that her title is 'regional development'. It should be 'regional delay'. The delay is causing hardship throughout regional Australia, throughout remote Australia, and it is not the thing that regional voters expect, want or deserve. It is simply not good enough. Nor is the minister's continual refusal to come to the dispatch box in question time and answer very valid questions as to why she has stopped more services from Qatar, an international airline which has won awards for its service and its delivery.</para>
<para>We've got Labor voters and Labor premiers clamouring for cheaper airfares, and what is this minister doing? She's delaying. She's obfuscating. She is saying that she is not going to give us a response. She's given seven reasons as to why it has not been so, and she's not even prepared to come into this chamber on another day—having had a very untidy question time today—but sends her junior minister in to make the answers and the responses that she in fact should be giving. She in fact has the portfolio to be producing, to be delivering and to be answering, and she's not prepared to do it. She ought to come into this chamber at some stage during this matter of public importance and tell not just the opposition but the Australian public, because they deserve better, they expect better, they demand better and they ought to be given better. This is not good enough, Minister.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:23</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms McBAIN</name>
    <name.id>281988</name.id>
    <electorate>Eden-Monaro</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The Australian people do deserve better, 100 per cent, and they voted for better in May 2022. What they voted for was transparency and a government focused on doing more than talking—on delivering. We on this side of the House don't need to issue a thousand press releases or say the word 'infrastructure' to actually focus on it. All those opposite did—frequently—were press releases. That's all they still do. I've had the shadow Treasurer, the shadow energy minister and the shadow veterans affairs minister issuing press releases in my electorate that have absolutely nothing to do with Eden-Monaro. I find it interesting that that is still their shtick: press release, press release, radio grab, defer, delay, deny—all of that. In the nine years of your government, you added so much to the infrastructure pipeline, but you forgot that you actually have to do more than just add some projects and do a press release and a 30-second radio grab, because none of those things actually work. None of those things actually get us things in our electorates.</para>
<para>What you did was deny communities what they had come to expect. You said, 'We will deliver you this,' and each and every time what happened was there was not enough money put towards it.</para>
<para>You mishandled transport and infrastructure policy. Communities were left with projects that weren't properly funded. The real benefits to communities were not approved. You left the pipeline clogged with delays and overruns, and nation-building projects didn't go ahead. There were so many projects committed to that you never had enough money to fund them. Communities rightly expected that they were going to get something, and they didn't. But we all know that the infrastructure pipeline was very much clogged with a spreadsheet that was colour coded, and there was no fairness or transparency in it.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Chester</name>
    <name.id>IPZ</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>You don't have to use your whole 10 minutes.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms McBAIN</name>
    <name.id>281988</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you very much, Member for Gippsland, but I will use my whole 10 minutes because that's my right in this chamber and I'm elected to speak here, so I shall do that.</para>
<para>There is a new approach to the funding and delivery of infrastructure projects by this government. We are not going to pull out the tired, colour coded spreadsheet and deny members of our communities things because they don't have a particular member of government. We saw the pipeline blow out from 150 to 800 projects, but no additional dollars were put towards it. Decisions of the previous government were all pork-barrelling—commuter car parks, sports rorts and the entire list goes on. It was the same strategy over and over again: underfunding, mismanagement, poor delivery. The Inland Rail project is a joke. You ignored the advice on robodebt. You left funding holes across essential public services. So lectures from those opposite about mismanagement are ridiculous, to say the least.</para>
<para>The Albanese government is focused on delivering transformational transport and infrastructure in this country. Our government's investment in the 2032 Brisbane Olympics and Paralympics will leave a legacy for all Australians long after the closing ceremony. The Suburban Rail Loop is a once-in-a-generation infrastructure project which will transform how Victorians move around the state and will reshape the way Victoria grows. We're investing in projects that deliver resilience right across the country, such as sealing the Tanami, which will contribute to flood immunity, among other benefits. The new Richmond Bridge project in New South Wales will improve flood resilience, improve road safety for users and reduce congestion. The Kuranda Range Road upgrade in Queensland will improve road resilience and safety. And it it's not just in the cities; it's right across the country, in our regions, because we know how important they are for our economy.</para>
<para>We are investing in a stronger, more resilient economy, which means more opportunities for business and more opportunities for skills, jobs and infrastructure that will deal with our changing needs. Our government is committing $672.7 million over seven years from 2022-23 and $1.9 billion in equity to implement a number of major enabling public infrastructure projects which will harness competitive advantages while providing diverse and improved employment opportunities across the country. There are investments in marine, logistic and green technologies in Darwin, Alice Springs, the Pilbara and the Port of Bundaberg, and there's $100 million to support the Port of Newcastle and the Hunter region to become hydrogen ready.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Joyce</name>
    <name.id>e5d</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The Nats did that. What are you talking about?</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms McBAIN</name>
    <name.id>281988</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>No, you didn't. Member for New England, you talked a lot; you didn't deliver much. You were committed to making sure that you were up at the top of the leadership chain and did so by undercutting other people. If that's your record in government and you're happy with it, that's fine. But, when you go out there and talk to people, they're not interested in the political power games you want to play in the Nationals party room. What they're interested in is government delivering for regional Australia, something you talked about but didn't actually do because you were too interested in your leadership games when you were over here.</para>
<para>We are committed to investing, in partnership with regional communities. We want our communities to value what we help them deliver. We are improving livability across the regions. We're focused on responsible, deliverable programs and projects which will help our regions to grow their economies, to build skills and opportunity and to improve connections between and within the regions. And I have to say it again: it takes a Labor government to deliver regional communications—the largest investment in regional telecommunications and connectivity since the introduction of the NBN, which was also a Labor initiative. Who would have thought! Those opposite, who say they champion—'we're here for'—regional Australia, couldn't deliver regional telecommunications like people on this side can. It's absolutely ridiculous.</para>
<para>We take a strategic and holistic approach to what we do across government, and we know that means more than just grants programs in our regions. We know it means delivering services, we know it means making sure people have access to skills and training and we know it means diversifying our local economies, and that's what we're focused on. The Regional Investment Framework will help our government realise the ambition of no-one held back and no-one left behind. It requires specific investment across all portfolios, not across one. Our regions and their economies are diverse. We want to back them. We want to back their unique strengths and challenges. We want to make sure that we are collaborating with them.</para>
<para>We are doing things differently on this side of the House. On this side of the House, our Regional Precincts and Partnerships Program is now open, and we're going to work with local governments, state and territory governments, regional universities and not-for-profits. We want to make sure that we are utilising the expertise and the skills on the ground and delivering local priority projects, not projects that are thought of before an election campaign, to win votes. On this side of the House, our Growing Regions Program is helping our communities unlock some of the investment that they want to see in their communities. Every local council across the country is now eligible for a grants program, unlike what happened under those opposite.</para>
<para>We are delivering more for this country than those opposite did. We are taking people's unique skills and putting them to work. We are making sure that the infrastructure pipeline can be delivered and does not have random things like someone's local roundabout in it. An election commitment of a local roundabout going in a nation-building infrastructure pipeline—it just seems ridiculous! We want every community to be able to fulfil their potential, and on this side of the House we can do that by investing in them directly. We're going to do so transparently and fairly. We don't need a colour-coded spreadsheet to make sure communities get their share of investment.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Chester</name>
    <name.id>IPZ</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>You just need red pens!</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms McBAIN</name>
    <name.id>281988</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>That's very interesting. We're delivering on the potential of our communities and making sure that we work collaboratively with them, with place based decision-making that draws on the experience of those communities. Alongside local governments and regional bodies, we want to make sure we're working to deliver the priority projects that they want.</para>
<para>Our government, as I said, is delivering transparently, accountably and fairly, right across this country, whether it's in the regions or the cities. I am more than happy to take you through the numerous investments that this government will make, without a colour-coded spreadsheet, without the need for the carry-on or the pork-barrelling or all of the things that those opposite want to talk about but fail to deliver.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Chester</name>
    <name.id>IPZ</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Name one project!</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms McBAIN</name>
    <name.id>281988</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Give me some more press releases, guys, because we know that's what you're good at. We know that the thing that you guys weren't good at was the actual delivery part. On this side, in the government, we're delivering for the whole country.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>248181</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Before I call the member for Gippsland: in MPIs, I allow robust discussion, but I got pretty tired by the interjections in that debate.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Joyce</name>
    <name.id>e5d</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I won't interject to him!</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>248181</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I don't know if I'd take your word for that, but I do want to remind you. And, Member for Gippsland, you encouraging interjections was not helpful recently either, so let's just try and listen to the debate.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:33</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr CHESTER</name>
    <name.id>IPZ</name.id>
    <electorate>Gippsland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I have four words for the member for Eden-Monaro: Eden Killer Whale Museum. I refer the member, as she walks out—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms McBain</name>
    <name.id>281988</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Six hundred thousand dollars over four years!</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>248181</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Minister, do not interject as you are leaving the chamber, please.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr CHESTER</name>
    <name.id>IPZ</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I refer the minister, as she leaves the chamber, to her press release on 7 October 2022 in relation to the $640,000 grant given by the previous government to a $1.2 million project. The minister said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">I am thrilled to be here today to see this fantastic space and what our investment in critical regional tourism infrastructure means to the communities it benefits.</para></quote>
<para>The minister was very keen to rush out and cut ribbons, to take credit for a project she had absolutely nothing to do with securing the funding for. Then she comes in here and pretends that the previous government did nothing. The previous government did nothing at all, according to the member for Eden-Monaro.</para>
<para>If you see a crane or a bulldozer or a grader working on any major public infrastructure project in Australia today that involves federal government funding, you can be sure of just one thing: this minister—this government—had absolutely nothing to do with it. In 15 months this government hasn't announced, designed, signed contracts on or started work on a single project. We asked the minister, when she gave her 10-minute address, to name just one project that she has started in her portfolio—or that the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government has started in her portfolio—and, in the entire 10 minutes, all she could do was announce projects that the previous coalition government had not only funded but started work on months—and sometimes years—ago.</para>
<para>We are seeing Labor ministers and duty senators rushing out to stand beside bulldozers on projects that were fully funded by the previous government. They've been rushing out there to cut the ribbons—don't stand between any of those ministers and a ribbon-cutting exercise—claiming credit for projects they had absolutely nothing to do with funding. They've been going to their own social media pages, gushing and extolling the virtues of these projects, and then coming in here saying, 'The other mob did nothing.' If you go and look at their social media pages and media releases, you realise that two of the worst offenders are the Minister for Regional Development, Local Government and Territories and the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government. They're taking credit for work they had absolutely nothing to do with securing the funding for. The hypocrisy is quite breathtaking.</para>
<para>The Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government is probably best on ground at this particular skill. In a recent press release we have her referring to the Bruce Highway upgrade between Caboolture-Bribie Island Road and Steve Irwin Way, which secured $530 million from the Commonwealth. This is the minister's quote from just the other day:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The Australian Government's investment is making a real difference to the safety, flood resilience and capacity of vital infrastructure.</para></quote>
<para>That is 100 per cent true, but she had nothing to do with it! Then we had the minister strutting around in Cairns for the Cairns southern access road. The Australian government committed $428 million for that project and the minister was gushing in her praise, saying:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Whether it's through improvements to the Bruce Highway or our investments in the Black Spot Program or Roads to Recovery, we are delivering the upgrades that get people home safely, get people home quickly and support connected a community.</para></quote>
<para>Again, she's 100 per cent right, but she had nothing to do with it—not a thing! That work started years ago. The minister comes in here, struts around and makes outrageous claims with the most breathtaking hypocrisy I've seen in my 15 years in this place. She claims credit for projects she's had absolutely nothing to do with.</para>
<para>Unfortunately, this minister can't even deliver a review on time. On 1 May this year she announced a 90-day review of the infrastructure pipeline. It's now 128 days later and what have we seen from this process? Nothing—no report, no transparency, no workers starting on new projects, because the minister can't even deliver her review on time. I've got to say: nothing is getting cheaper by waiting. Our communities are after these projects that will save lives and change lives, and this minister cannot do her day job and deliver the infrastructure projects we need in our communities.</para>
<para>I have a news flash for the minister: stop blaming those opposite. You've had the job for 15 months. If it's too hard, just quit—it will save us all the pain of going through this MPI again. Lives are being put at risk because you simply cannot deliver the projects that state and local government expect in our communities.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:38</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr GOSLING</name>
    <name.id>245392</name.id>
    <electorate>Solomon</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>If you have a look over here, we've got two former deputy prime ministers, we've got a bloke that probably thinks he should have been a deputy prime minister, and I probably think—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Chester</name>
    <name.id>IPZ</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Go easy on Kevin!</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr GOSLING</name>
    <name.id>245392</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>No, the other one. National Party blokes just love screaming at women. They love it! We've seen a lot of that today, in question time and just then. I know it's a spirited debate, but I think the public watching question time today were probably a bit disappointed—firstly, with the level of interjections and the screaming and carrying on; it was an absolute fiasco. Secondly, you wasted half of question time when you should've been asking questions on behalf of the Australian people. Most of question time was wasted in this charade. Why? Because you basically didn't have anything else.</para>
<para>It was your one shot in the locker. The Prime Minister is away and you wanted to create some chaos. It was a disappointing sight to see, and I'm sure those up in the gallery were disappointed as well. I just wanted to put that on the record. You asked Minister King a question. She had to come back in and answer your question because you'd stopped her from answering the question earlier. The reality is that, deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you didn't really want to hear the answer, because you are so involved; you have so much history here that it's undeniable. So we went through that whole charade that wasted half of question time.</para>
<para>I think you need to focus. If you want some advice from me, you need to focus on asking questions about what's actually going on.</para>
<para>Opposition members interjecting—</para>
</continue>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr GOSLING</name>
    <name.id>245392</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Well, it's voluntary. What happened during COVID? Let's be honest. Those opposite were in government for over nine years, and the price of aviation, of getting tickets to fly around regional Australia, to be connected to the major capitals, kept going up and up and up, and then we had COVID. You gave $2 billion of taxpayer funds—the people who are up in the gallery—to Qantas and didn't take any equity. That is an absolute crying shame, and someone at some point has to be accountable for that. Ultimately, you did become accountable for that, because the Australian people said: 'We've had enough of the rorts. We've had enough of the dodgy grant programs. We've had enough of the improper governance of our nation.' Not taking any equity was a massive missed opportunity, and I hope, on behalf of regional Australia, you wish that you had. We're in a situation now where we have to make up for the mess that was created in those previous administrations. Whether you like it or not, you were involved around the cabinet table when those decisions were made, so you have to take some responsibility for that.</para>
<para>As with many other debates these days, those opposite are trying to muddy the waters, trying to put in lot of red herrings, but the reality is that Qatar Airways can come into Darwin and regional Australia. If Qatar wants to have more seats, it can come into the major capitals. To misrepresent that is unfortunate. It is true that their current flights aren't full, but you can't deny that there's a lot of competition in the sector. I'll be talking to Qatar about coming into Darwin; that'd be fantastic, and then they could connect to other areas of Australia.</para>
<para>In the time remaining, I need to talk about regional grants. The responsibility of working in this place, representing Australians, is a privilege. When governments have lost their way morally—when the Prime Minister holds five ministerships and talks to himself in the mirror about what to do on big decisions for our nation—that's a concern. What various audits of the regional programs have found is that they weren't fair or transparent. Under our government they are.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:43</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr HOGAN</name>
    <name.id>218019</name.id>
    <electorate>Page</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm quite confused about what the government is saying about our period in government. When we were in government and they were in opposition, the big claim was made that this minister, this minister and this minister were pork-barrelling. What does pork-barrelling mean? It means you're rushing money into seats that don't deserve it. So we're actually accused of doing too much. I'm sure the member for Casey, the member for Menzies and the member for Longman are accused of the same thing: 'There's far too much money going into your seats. It's just colour coded. It's not done properly. There's no rationale for it. You're pork-barrelling.' That's what we'd hear every day. When I was accused of pork-barrelling, I'd say, 'I'm just a good advocate for my community; I'm fighting for my community, trying to get programs and resource for my community.'</para>
<para>But now that's changed. I'm sure you've heard it. You heard it today from the minister, and you've just heard it from the member for Solomon.</para>
<para>It turned out that, no, we weren't pork-barrelling; we actually didn't do anything! We were just all press releases and no delivery apparently. So we were pork-barrelling when in government, with far too much money and far too many resources going into communities, and then we were all press releases and no delivery. That's very confusing. I think they're confused about how they are trying to attack us.</para>
<para>What is true is what the member for Gippsland just said previously. What is very true is what the assistant minister and the regional minister in this space love right now. Don't get them between them and a pair of scissors and a ribbon, because they want to open everything—and they are. The one fact about this is it's money and projects that were promised and delivered by the previous government. They will not miss an opportunity for doing that. In fact, in some cases—get this!—not only are they running to the scissors to cut the ribbon; they won't let the member who fought for that project attend. Because they want to go, they tell them then they're not allowed to come. So there's a lot of mixed messaging there from the government.</para>
<para>This is serious stuff. Infrastructure is serious stuff. Infrastructure is about roads. Infrastructure is about community assets. The minister's review going from 90 to 120 days is dangerous. It's dangerous for communities. I'll tell you how they think. I'll tell you how that side of parliament thinks. A previous Labor Prime Minister who is a hero of theirs, although I don't think he would agree with a lot of what they are doing, Paul Keating, cracked a joke. In deference to my Liberal friends, his joke was that all he ever heard from the Nat MPs when he was Treasurer was that they wanted to build roads to nowhere. They still think that's funny. It's not funny for us, because those roads are from our houses, our farms and our communities to hospitals. They are roads to get us to school. They're roads for when people have to get out of places in emergencies and they have to be able to do it safely and quickly. So it was a big funny joke from the Labor Party. It's how they still think, which is why they say money to regional electorates is pork-barrelling. It's completely unacceptable.</para>
<para>Let's move on to the other issue, and that is Qatar Airways. We've got a situation where an airline is flying into Australia. They have approval to fly into Australia and they applied for quite a modest increase of 28 flights a week. The minister has said no. That happens. We understand that. But we want to know why. We want to know what the department's advice was. Did the department advise this? We want to know the rationale for the decision. She's saying national interest. If it is not in the national interest for them to get an extra 28 flights, what is in the national interest for their existing flights? What is in the national interest that they don't get the extra flights? There has been no rationale for that. This is serious as well. We want to know who advised her of this. She's been asked about conversations with CEOs of other airlines and what motivated her decision on this. It's a dangerous decision she's made for the tourism sector. The international flight arrivals with international tourists are 40 per cent below where they were pre pandemic. Our tourism destinations need these extra international flights. They are going to make flights cheaper for Australians as well.</para>
<para>There is another aspect of this as well, and that is exporting. In the bellies of those planes will be export products. This minister has made a bad decision and needs to explain it.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:48</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mrs PHILLIPS</name>
    <name.id>147140</name.id>
    <electorate>Gilmore</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I am really pleased to be able to take the opportunity today to talk about many of the great roads and infrastructure projects that we are delivering on the New South Wales South Coast, projects that I have absolutely championed. I am proud that we have backed these projects with funding and that they have been delivered by the Albanese Labor government.</para>
<para>Let's start with a phone call I made a just yesterday to representatives from the Gerringong Surf Life Saving Club. I let them know that the minister had signed off on the $5.5 million commitment for funding for the new Gerringong Surf Life Saving Club. I can tell you that is one excited club and community.</para>
<para>Just last week, the lease was signed for the new Kiama headspace. After many tragic suicides of young people in the Kiama local government area, I committed to a dedicated headspace for Kiama before the last election. But, oddly, the Liberals did not commit to it. I can say today that headspace at Kiama is going well and is expected to be open early next year.</para>
<para>We are providing $7½ million to help Shoalhaven City Council built the new Sanctuary Point district library, another project the Liberals did not commit to. This is a much-needed new state-of-the-art library at Sanctuary Point which will really play an important part in learning and bringing the community together and offer so many opportunities for young people, the elderly and families.</para>
<para>Just last week I inspected the new composite bushfire-proof power poles that are nearly finished being put in from the Princes Highway at Benandarah all the way into South Durras. This was a result of the Durras Community Association advocating for this, my listening and the new government delivering—again, no commitment from the Liberals on this either. Last week I also got a progress update on the new emergency operations centre for Moruya: $5 million in federal funding is going towards this vital piece of infrastructure I'm proud we're delivering, while the Liberals didn't even commit to this at all.</para>
<para>Then there are the bushfire-proof power poles for the Mount Wandera transmission station that was burned down doing the Black Summer bushfires. These will go in next year, another infrastructure project that the Liberals did not commit to, that I advocated for and that we are delivering. The new microgrid at Bawley Point, protecting the power source for this community in times of disaster, is scheduled to be turned on towards the end of this year; a Medicare urgent care clinic at Batemans Bay—the list goes on.</para>
<para>Let's talk about roads: $752 million for the Milton Ulladulla bypass, $155 million for the new Nowra Bridge, $100 million for the Jervis Bay flyover, $400 million to upgrade the Princes Highway, $97 million for the Nowra Bypass—and I arrived at the sod-turning for the Nowra Bridge project. The Liberals hadn't even talked about the Nowra Bypass, so to have funding for the Nowra Bypass is excellent and I know is well received by locals. There is $40 million for local roads in the Shoalhaven, with the funding delivered in the last budget; $3½ million from the Local Roads and Community Infrastructure Program for the three councils; and funding for the Black Spot and Roads to Recovery programs. There's actually over $1.5 billion in road funding going into my electorate.</para>
<para>The list goes on. I just don't get it when those opposite go on about roads and infrastructure. We're actually getting on and delivering the infrastructure people in my community need. Whether people are in Kiama, whether people are in the Shoalhaven or whether they're in the Eurobodalla, we are taking the time, we are listening, we have committed to projects and we are proudly delivering those projects. I am absolutely proud to be part of an Albanese government, along with my colleagues here, getting on with it, listening and delivering.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:53</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr STEVENS</name>
    <name.id>176304</name.id>
    <electorate>Sturt</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'd like to start by congratulating the government on a record they hold. No government in the history of the Commonwealth has put more infrastructure funding on hold than they have. It is an unbelievable achievement they have pulled off in their first 12 months of government, when they said, 'We're going to stop everything, hang on, stop,' and ground to an absolute halt over $100 billion worth of very significant investments in communities like mine. One of those projects that are part of their record building-on-hold program is a very important project in South Australia that would finally get Highway 1 out of the suburbs of Adelaide. Adelaide is the only city where Highway 1 runs through our suburbs, and it's absolutely ridiculous and it is a great injustice to the people of Adelaide, particularly in the eastern suburbs through my electorate. To get that heavy freight out of the suburbs we need to build the Truro Bypass, and we would've, were it not for the fact that we had a new government elected last year who put that project on hold. This is a project the state Labor government have stood by. The former Liberal government put the funding in, and it was all set to happen. But now it's on hold.</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr STEVENS</name>
    <name.id>176304</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>It's absolutely in the budget. You might want to look this one up. It's funded by—</para>
</continue>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr STEVENS</name>
    <name.id>176304</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Here we go. This is good. We're getting all this on the record. I'm very pleased about this.</para>
<para>The claim is that it was not funded. Apparently, the Truro bypass was not funded. I'll tell Premier Peter Malinauskas that that funding's not coming. He will be very interested to hear the interjections from those opposite about infrastructure funding into South Australia. I guess the principle is that everything under the review apparently is not in the budget and won't be funded. Like the Black Spot Program. That's all over, is it? Apparently that's not funded. The interjections have stopped now! I'm suddenly not hearing anything. I think it's dawned on them that their 90-day review was of everything.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Dreyfus</name>
    <name.id>HWG</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>We can keep going!</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>248181</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Excuse me, but the member for Sturt's invitation for you to interject should not be accepted.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr STEVENS</name>
    <name.id>176304</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I will not—</para>
<para>The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Sturt, please continue.</para>
</continue>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr STEVENS</name>
    <name.id>176304</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you, Deputy Speaker. Now I am committed to getting investments into infrastructure in South Australia, and particularly ones that deliver productivity outcomes and safety outcomes. I'd like to get that heavy freight off Portrush Road in my electorate and have it not coming down the freeway and causing extreme risk, and at times death. It's not a safe road for heavy vehicles and it's not a logical thoroughfare for heavy freight. There's a way of rerouting those heavy vehicles and that heavy freight back around the Adelaide Hills, up to Truro and down into the north, either to Port Adelaide or to the other locations where the majority of that heavy freight is going. To do that, we need to start by building the Truro bypass and we need to invest in the Greater Adelaide Freight Bypass program.</para>
<para>The previous government, with the state government in South Australia, announced commitments and investments into the Truro bypass. That is now on hold. That is part of what was a 90-day review—that commenced, curiously, more than 90 days ago, I might add—and we now don't know whether that project, and many other projects, are going to be scrapped by this government. If that project is scrapped then that means the heavy vehicles that go through the suburbs of Adelaide, that put at risk traffic from the local neighbourhoods, the schools that are located along the corridor, will continue. That will be on the head of the minister and the government that have undertaken a review and said, 'We're not going to proceed with that project and we're not going to proceed with getting heavy freight out of the suburbs of Adelaide.'</para>
<para>What's worse is that there's also no suggestion that anything else, if that is scrapped, will replace it. So the evaporation of economic activity out of Adelaide, as would be the case anywhere else if these investments being reviewed are scrapped, will be significant. We will have a valley of death when it comes to infrastructure activity in my home state of South Australia, and economic impact of that will be just as significant as the loss benefit from investing in that freight bypass which will get that heavy freight out of the Adelaide suburbs of my electorate.</para>
<para>I support the number for Riverina in bringing this matter to the House, and I ask those opposite to do the best you can to convince your government to change their tune and actually invest in the productive infrastructure this country needs.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:58</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr DAVID SMITH</name>
    <name.id>276714</name.id>
    <electorate>Bean</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>As others have said, those opposite just do not have a leg to stand on in this debate. They're the only beavers not to build a dam.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Hogan</name>
    <name.id>218019</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>And Canberra's suffering for infrastructure, David!</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr DAVID SMITH</name>
    <name.id>276714</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I'll get onto that. They should look into a mirror before they lecture this government on transport and infrastructure policy in this country.</para>
<para>Transport history will remind us that it was those opposite who stood by as Virgin collapsed into administration. It was those opposite who oversaw the mass outsourcing of jobs and a labour hire mess that drove down wages and conditions across the sector—a mess that we in this government are now fixing. It was those opposite who commissioned the Harris review into Sydney airport, only to spend almost two years sitting on it, leaving it to us to sort it out. It was those opposite who cut JobKeeper from dnata workers and left those families in the lurch across the country. They gave billions of taxpayer dollars to Qantas for nothing in return.</para>
<para>Those opposite have now suddenly decided that the Qatar Airways decision, the same decision they largely approved while in government, is now unacceptable. Well, before we start to feel sorry for this multibillion-dollar airline, it's worth noting that Qatar could increase their capacity into Australia tomorrow. I remind the House that Qatar Airways operated flights between Doha and Canberra via Sydney for several years before the pandemic.</para>
<para>Qatar could restart here, immediately gain an additional slot into Sydney, and be welcomed by the hundreds of thousands of residents in the capital region with open arms. After speaking with tourist bodies in this region, like the National Capital Attractions Associations, it's clear to me that the restart of long-haul international flights out of Canberra would be a commercial success. The same arrangements go for flights into Adelaide, Darwin, Cairns and the Gold Coast. The Albanese government is now delivering on its election commitment of an aviation white paper to set the scene for the next generation of growth and development across the domestic aviation sector because of a decade of wasted aviation policy.</para>
<para>Those opposite loved to announce infrastructure projects but always fell short of funding and delivering them. As I said before, there were lots of beavers that couldn't build dams. Over the first eight years of the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison government, its broken promises on infrastructure alone totalled an incredible $7.4 billion. Under the former government, the number of infrastructure projects in the pipeline blew out from nearly 150 to 800. But their appetite for announcing projects wasn't matched with a commitment to deliver them. Projects were left without adequate funding or resources, projects without real benefits to the public were approved, and the clogged pipeline has caused delays and overruns in other important nation-building projects. Many projects under the former government were never even started. Some 160 projects had a commitment of $5 million or less. Yet again, the previous government were all announcement, no delivery.</para>
<para>The proper management of the $120 billion infrastructure investment pipeline should lead to projects that are able to be built and have a lasting benefit for Australia and enhance our economic and social productivity and prosperity. Instead, we're paying the price for a decade of economic mismanagement under those opposite. They left a trillion dollars of debt, dozens of essential government programs without funding and infrastructure projects substantially underfunded. Take the construction of the John Gorton bridge in the Molonglo Valley in my electorate of Bean. Three years ago those opposite got out the high viz and shiny shovels and announced the project. But the $172 million contract to actually build the bridge, which is jointly funded by the ACT government, was only signed in February this year under the Albanese Labor government. Those opposite announced it, but it was this government that committed the funding, and it will be this government delivering the project.</para>
<para>The former government preferred to invest in imaginary car parks in marginal seats over major projects with the potential to drive Australia's future economic growth. As the government, we on this side are committed to ensuring freight keeps moving, people can get home safely from work and the connections between our cities and regions are strong. The Albanese government's investment is already delivering critical nation-shaping projects across the country. Those opposite instead delivered announcements—many repeated announcements—rorts and nation-crippling debt.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:02</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mrs McINTOSH</name>
    <name.id>281513</name.id>
    <electorate>Lindsay</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The heyday of infrastructure in this country has dropped into one big dark pothole, thanks to this infrastructure minister. I want to thank my friend the honourable member for Riverina for highlighting the failures of this minister in her portfolio, not only the failures but the mishandling of transport and infrastructure. I have to say that Western Sydney is at the heartland of so many disastrous calls by the minister. Firstly, the government's sneaky announcement and lack of consultation about the preliminary flight paths for Western Sydney International Airport; secondly, the minister's 90-day infrastructure review, which could put at risk $5.7 billion of investment through the Penrith community alone; and, lastly, the $200 million stalling of funds for transport in Western Sydney, which was reported in the <inline font-style="italic">Sydney Morning Herald</inline> a few days ago. As the minister—as the member, who should be the minister, for Riverina just said, that is just not good enough.</para>
<para>After a short briefing with department officials, the minister, at midnight—when my community were sleeping— released the flight paths to the media, without giving MPs, community members or even the media a chance to ask questions of the minister. The minister for transport and infrastructure did this in an attempt to avert scrutiny and ensure her lines were the only lines in the media that morning. But I did a media interview that day and called on my friend the Shadow Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development, Senator Bridget McKenzie, to force the minister into better consultation.</para>
<para>It wasn't the minister that came to my electorate to make this huge announcement that would see airplanes going over High Street of Penrith; it was the shadow minister that joined me on that day. But the minister then came to the table. She did a press conference, not from Penrith in Western Sydney, New South Wales, but from her Ballarat electorate office. She didn't want to be on the ground talking to locals about the release of the preliminary flight paths of Western Sydney International Airport. These flight paths are drastically different to those provided in the initial environmental impact statements in 2015 and 2016. So we have been literally blindsided by these announcements. My community of Lindsay is now the most impacted of all the flight paths, and we'd like to know why. At first glance, not a single community engagement and feedback session was even to be held in the Lindsay electorate. So I asked the department about this. Soon enough, the government backflipped, and there was one session held at Penrith Panthers, followed by another in St Marys.</para>
<para>Further, the Labor government is putting at risk not only the quiet surrounds of the Penrith community but billions of dollars of projects in and around Lindsay with its strategic review. The review is an attempt to stall funding for much needed projects that the coalition started and Labor don't want to fund, despite committing to many in the October budget last year. Some of the projects in my electorate which could be cut include: the Sydney Metro Western Sydney Airport; stage 2 of Mulgoa Road, another Mulgoa Road upgrade; the Sydney Metro Western Sydney Airport stage 2 business case; commuter car parks in St Marys and Kingswood, on which council already started work and had spent $60 million combined; Western Sydney road transport network development planning; four Coreen Avenue upgrades; $5 million for the Western Sydney Freight line; and Werrington Arterial stage 2 planning—really significant projects in a growing Western Sydney, where we're going to have an international airport. These are critical projects for my community and our connectedness to the rest of the country.</para>
<para>It's not only this. Through the media we've learnt that another federal government report which looked into Western Sydney's transport infrastructure was given to the government in April but is yet to be released. It is claimed to detail that $200 million of infrastructure investment was needed in the May budget but the money has not been confirmed to get on with a number of projects. This is not good enough. It's not just one issue; it's multiple issues. It is not being straight with my community about the Western Sydney International Airport flight paths and the impact. It is around the prospect of cutting multiple infrastructure projects for my community, big infrastructure projects that the coalition government invested in because we care about Western Sydney. Now, the government's not being straight with my community about further infrastructure projects. My community deserves better from this Albanese Labor government.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:07</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms</name>
    <name.id>296272</name.id>
    <electorate>Boothby</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>MILLER-FROST () (): This is a fascinating choice from the opposition for a matter of public importance, but I guess it was set prior to the shenanigans of question time. Those opposite have so much baggage that they need to hide in the issues of transport and infrastructure. They didn't like it when it was raised at question time. Still, if this is what they want to discuss, let's do it, starting with transport and, since it's topical, air transport.</para>
<para>To recap, those opposite gave billions of taxpayer dollars to Qantas for nothing in return and watched the mass outsourcing of jobs that drove down wages for Australians and conditions across the sector. They stood by as Virgin collapsed into administration only to be snatched up by foreign private equity. And, of course, we all remember the purchase of the Leppington Triangle—$30 million for a piece of land valued at $3 million. And they think they're good economic managers! Back to Qatar. Despite the fact that decisions about flight approvals are made all the time, they've decided to make an issue about it. We heard during question time that the previous government and, in fact, the very same member for Riverina who has proposed this MPI faced the same request from Qatar Airlines and didn't make a decision on it for four years—effectively, a non-approval. Let's not forget that in Australia we have one of the most diversified airline sectors in the world. In addition to Qantas and Qatar, we have Vietnam Airlines, Cathay Pacific, Air India, Singapore Airlines, eight international airlines from China, Emirates, Etihad, Malaysia Airlines and probably some more I haven't thought of.</para>
<para>However, if Qatar airlines would like to bring more tourists into Australia then I am all for that, and I would like to suggest to them: 'Put some additional flights on to Adelaide,' which I believe they can already do. We have an international airport. We also have amazing tourist attractions that would love to have some more overseas tourists coming directly into Adelaide as their gateway to Australia: five world-class wine regions within driving distance of Adelaide; Kangaroo Island, a unique environment with spectacular rock formations and a pristine natural environment; the Flinders Ranges, with their world-renowned Ediacaran fossils; and, of course, in my own electorate of Boothby, world-class beaches, including Adelaide's most popular tourist attraction, Glenelg Beach. So why not schedule more flights to Adelaide?</para>
<para>But today's topic is about not only transport but also infrastructure, so let's turn to that. As we are now aware, the previous government left the about-$120-billion infrastructure investment pipeline in a total mess—clogged with projects that were announced without the support of states and territories; poorly scoped; underfunded; designed simply to win votes. One in my electorate, the James Road roundabout in Belair, was, I am told, a last-minute election commitment at the 2019 election. But it was a very poorly-targeted cash splash, because it wasn't requested, and, frankly, the concept was widely hated by the local community. It was a bandaid solution to a complex traffic issue that actually involves four intersections. So, because the media release had happened but no work had actually started, it was able to be cancelled, much to the great acclaim of the local community. And this was only one infrastructure project mismanaged by those opposite.</para>
<para>But I don't want to be all negative, so I'd like to talk about some of the fantastic infrastructure projects that are happening. We have a tramline in Boothby that runs from Adelaide to Glenelg and crosses many major roads. Marion Road cross-road intersections are blocked by boom gates a third of the time every hour. Now, the previous government knew this. How do I know that? Because they promised to fix it at the 2016 election, but nothing happened. Then they promised to fix it at the 2019 election, but nothing happened. But we promised to fix it at the 2022 election, and we meant it, and works are underway. I have to say: it is a very popular project. The local community loves it. The neighbours love it. Commuter traffic loves it. So this is a very different approach from the previous government—not only promising, but actually delivering.</para>
<para>The other major project I'd like to mention is Majors Road on-ramp on the Southern Expressway. This is actually in the electorate of Kingston, but it will be of benefit to not only Kingston residents but also Boothby residents. What it means is that Kingston residents have access to the Southern Expressway and a much faster commute into the city. The benefit to Boothby is that all of that traffic comes off our local roads. So our roads will be for local traffic, and the Southern Expressway will be for those commuting. This is a fantastic effort, and, of course, again, we've actually got the work happening already.</para>
<para>I really don't have much time to talk about the ring route that the member for Sturt mentioned, but I'll just say: it was cancelled by the previous state Liberal government.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>248181</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The discussion has now concluded.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>BUSINESS</title>
        <page.no>84</page.no>
        <type>BUSINESS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Rearrangement</title>
          <page.no>84</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:13</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms KEARNEY</name>
    <name.id>LTU</name.id>
    <electorate>Cooper</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That business intervening before notice No. 5, government business, be postponed until a later hour this day.</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>COMMITTEES</title>
        <page.no>84</page.no>
        <type>COMMITTEES</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs Joint Committee</title>
          <page.no>84</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Appointment</title>
            <page.no>84</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:13</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms KEARNEY</name>
    <name.id>LTU</name.id>
    <electorate>Cooper</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) the resolution of appointment for the Joint Standing Committee on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs be amended to replace paragraph 3 with the following:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">"(3) the committee consist of 13 members, five Members of the House of Representatives to be nominated by the Government Whip or Whips, two Members of the House of Representatives to be nominated by the Opposition Whip or Whips, one Member of the House of Representatives to be nominated by any minority group or independent Member, two Senators to be nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate, one Senator to be nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate and two Senators to be nominated by any minority group or independent Senator;"</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">and;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) a message be sent to the Senate acquainting it of this resolution and requesting that it concur and take action accordingly.</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>MOTIONS</title>
        <page.no>84</page.no>
        <type>MOTIONS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Climate Change Authority</title>
          <page.no>84</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:14</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BOWEN</name>
    <name.id>DZS</name.id>
    <electorate>McMahon</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) the following matter be referred to the Climate Change Authority for review, in accordance with section 59(1)(a)(ii) of the <inline font-style="italic">Climate Change Authority Act 2011</inline>:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the potential technology transition and emission pathways that best support Australia's transition to net zero emissions by 2050 for the following sectors:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) electricity and energy;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) transport;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(iii) industry and waste;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(iv) agriculture and land;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(v) resources; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(vi) built environment;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) the review must identify:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) existing and prospective opportunities to achieve emissions reductions;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) which technologies may be deployed in each sector to support emissions reductions;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) how public and private finance can support and align with these emission pathways;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) barriers to implementation, such as short-term or longer-term pressures on cost and supply chains and the pace of technology commercialisation;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(e) workforce matters, including skills and opportunities for women;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(f) any gaps in existing evidence and data; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(g) any other relevant factors;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) the review must take into consideration:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the principles for the Climate Change Authority set out in section 12 of the <inline font-style="italic">Climate Change Authority Act 2011</inline>, including the global goals in Article 2 of the Paris Agreement and boosting economic, employment and social benefits; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the range of emissions reductions achievable through the deployment of available and prospective technologies;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) the Climate Change Authority must give the report of the review to the Climate Change Minister, in accordance with section 60(1)(b) of the <inline font-style="italic">Climate Change Authority Act 2011</inline>, by 1 August 2024 to assist the Government in developing a national net zero by 2050 plan; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(5) a message be sent to the Senate acquainting it of this resolution and requesting that it concur and take action accordingly.</para></quote>
<para>On 18 July, I announced at the Clean Energy Council that we will be working with industry, the climate movement, experts, unions and the community to develop sectoral decarbonisation plans as part of our net zero 2050 plan. We are beginning work on those plans—on the plans for electricity, energy, industry, the built environment, agriculture and land, transport and resources. The government's sectoral plans will be developed jointly between me and the relevant Commonwealth portfolio minister. We'll also, of course, be working closely with state ministers.</para>
<para>This motion is the first ever reference from the parliament under section 59 of the Climate Change Authority Act 2011. It requests the Climate Change Authority to develop technology based sectoral pathways for these sectors. This advice will be an important input into the government's sectoral plans and help investors identify opportunities in our transformation to net zero. Under this referral, the Climate Change Authority will look in detail at the technology options for each of the identified sectors to get to net zero by 2050, with the Climate Change Authority to report back to the government by August 2024. We value the Climate Change Authority's independent expert advice on these matters and its deep consultations with the sectors and the community.</para>
<para>When I announced the sectoral plans on 18 July, our approach was welcomed by stakeholders across the board. The Business Council of Australia stated, for example:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Development of plans for each sector of the economy is the only way to effectively 'build up' to nationally determined contributions for 2035 and beyond, that are both ambitious and pragmatic and navigate an orderly transition to a resilient, prosperous net zero economy.</para></quote>
<para>We're already implementing our Powering Australia plan to meet our legislated 2030 and 2050 targets. Key reforms, including the Rewiring the Nation policy and our reformed safeguard mechanism, have been implemented, but there is much, much more to do.</para>
<para>The previous government had no credible net zero plan or sectoral approaches to meet its commitments. The previous government was never interested in expert or independent advice. The 2050 plan lodged by the previous government was a fantasy document. It assumed future technologies would do the heavy lifting without any effort or investment to bring them about, and the CCA—the Climate Change Authority of Australia—was not consulted on this so-called plan. We are working across the parliament for evidence based policy, and this referral was raised as an important step when the government passed our safeguard reforms in March this year. The House and all Australians must work together to do what's both possible and practical to stop dangerous climate change and realise the economic opportunities of net zero. I commend the motion to the House.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:18</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BANDT</name>
    <name.id>M3C</name.id>
    <electorate>Melbourne</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to support the referral and the motion that has been moved by the minister and welcome him doing so. Of course, as people would be aware, there were discussions and negotiations between the government and the Greens during the course of the debate about climate legislation. Out of those discussions arose the need to seek the Climate Change Authority's advice about pathways, so I welcome the referral because it's something that we consider to be very important.</para>
<para>One of the things that this referral seeks to do—and why we support it—is to ask for advice about what it means to put into practice a response to the climate crisis, in particular an Australian response to the climate crisis. We have a different view to the government about the emissions reductions targets, what should be put into place and how quickly we need to move to tackle the climate crisis, but one of the things that are important about this referral is that it includes a reference to the globally agreed goals that are in the Paris agreement. That includes the accepted goals about limiting global heating to well below two degrees while still keeping 1½ degrees in sight.</para>
<para>As has been previously alluded to, the Climate Change Authority, which was set up back in the 2010 parliament with the support of the Greens when we were in a shared-power parliament, was at that time a source of very important and independent advice. Then when the coalition was elected it was nobbled and there were tasks removed from it, including advising about how Australia's contribution will play a role in limiting global heating to well below two degrees. That was removed by the coalition, and the Climate Change Authority was essentially parked for a long time. The resurrection, if you like, of the Climate Change Authority and of asking it to do important work is important and a significant step, and it's one that we welcome.</para>
<para>But, in some respects, this is also going to be the first significant piece of independent work that the Climate Change Authority has been asked to do: to consider what Australia's contribution should be to meet those temperature goals. That is crucial. We certainly have the view that the science is very clear about what needs to be done to meet those temperature goals, and this is an opportunity now for some evidence based information for the parliament about what it would mean for Australia to do its bit to ensure that we meet those temperature goals.</para>
<para>People know what the Greens' position is around what needs to be done, but, critically, one of the things that we are all so excited about with this referral is that there are significant opportunities for Australia if we get our skates on and do what the rest of the world is asking. We have the capacity here in Australia to supply critical minerals and clean energy to the rest of the world and to sell to the rest of the world the products that they need in a zero-pollution society. This will hopefully be the first holistic piece of work that says, 'We know we need to get out of coal and gas and stop approving new mines, but we've got some massive opportunities over here on the other hand.' This could be the first significant piece of work to inform the parliament—and an independent piece of work.</para>
<para>I look forward to seeing what the Climate Change Authority comes up with that is consistent with the science. Again, I thank the minister for the referral. It's an important referral: revitalising the Climate Change Authority after a decade of it being attacked by the coalition. Let's not forget they tried to abolish it to ensure this parliament never had any independent advice. We saved it and kept it alive, and I'm pleased that it's now being asked to do some very significant work.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:22</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr HAINES</name>
    <name.id>282335</name.id>
    <electorate>Indi</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to support this motion which will allow the Climate Change Authority to review sectoral pathways for emissions reductions to best support Australia's transition to net zero emissions by 2050. I thank the minister for making this motion today and establishing this particular review. Yesterday, I was really pleased to meet Greg Combet, the chair of the Net Zero Economy Agency. I'm sure that a review such as this will provide important data and information for Mr Combet and that agency.</para>
<para>I was very pleased to amend the Climate Change Act, when it was introduced to this House, to ensure that any measures to respond to climate change should boost economic, employment and social benefits, including for rural, remote and regional Australia. Renewable energy, and the new industries that they will unlock, could become the next gold rush or the next wool boom for regional Australia if we get it right—but only if we plan it right. So it's really important that we see long-term, well-paid jobs being created in our local towns and new training opportunities at our local TAFEs and regional universities, and it's really important to make sure that profits stay local instead of all flowing overseas. If this renewable energy economy is to really get traction, we need to make sure that that traction looks like legitimate rural and regional development.</para>
<para>I was also happy to amend that act so that the list of eligible qualifications to the Climate Change Authority would be expanded to include regional development experience. Again, this is really important if we're to see this renewable energy transition truly deliver for rural and regional Australia. We absolutely need regional voices at that table. We need people who understand how to make renewable energy actually deliver for regional communities.</para>
<para>This review that's been referred to the Climate Change Authority is a key moment to examine what a net zero emissions pathway looks like for our agriculture sector. This is really important work. Agriculture is key to our transition. I was very happy to work with the government and to see that, in the last budget, they funded sustainable agriculture facilitators—SAFs or, as I was calling them, 'climate change agricultural extension officers'. They're the same thing. These positions are extremely important because we need to make sure that our agriculture sector can work with people who can translate the science into practical action on our farms. We know that our farmers are keen to do this, but they need hands-on advice, and I thank the minister for agriculture for working really constructively with me on that. This review is an opportunity to look at those programs and to ensure that these sustainable agriculture facilitators are set up in a way that will enable them to succeed.</para>
<para>This review will look at prospective opportunities to achieve emissions reductions and at how public and private finance can support emissions pathways . Again, I've met with the minister many times around the work I have done on the local power plan, which is all about engaging local communities in rural and regional Australia to truly benefit, to share in the production of energy and the profits that come from that, and to make sure that we can see cheaper prices in the areas where the energy is now going to be generated. So I really urge the authority to look at locally owned renewables and the co-benefits that communities should receive as we work towards this massive technology and infrastructure transition.</para>
<para>I also urge the authority to consider the primacy of community engagement in the pathway to a renewable energy economy—the social licence to achieve these pathways. I was very pleased to work with Senator Pocock and to go to the minister's office and establish terms of reference for a review into community engagement about renewable energy infrastructure projects across rural and regional Australia. The Dyer review is now open for submissions, and I urge rural and regional Australians to make submissions to that review and to participate in the roundtables that will be taking place across the renewable energy zones.</para>
<para>Although the Dyer review is now open for submission—and it's critical, if we wish to ensure technology transition and emissions pathways, that we have the support of the community—in the findings of this review, we're seeing what's happening across parts of this nation where regional communities aren't taken seriously. I think it's important to remember that questions from rural and regional Australians about things like the grid or large-scale grid projects—whether they be wind, solar or hydrogen—aren't necessarily objections. They're legitimate questions. We will achieve this if we do it together. I urge the authority to examine the work that Mr Dyer's review brings forward and the recommendations that come with that.</para>
<para>Again, I thank the minister for this review. I have a strong record in looking for practical means to engage with rural and regional Australia in our response to climate change. I'll work closely with, and watch closely, this Climate Change Authority as it listens to the voices of rural and regional Australians.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:28</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms TINK</name>
    <name.id>300124</name.id>
    <electorate>North Sydney</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I too rise today to speak in favour of the motion moved by the Minister for Climate Change and Energy. I'm grateful to see such a motion brought before the House. The people of North Sydney remain incredibly concerned that, despite all the right words having been said by the government, we're yet to actually see any tangible impact from the new policies. Indeed, many were devastated to read the news last week that Australia's emissions have gone up in the last 12 months.</para>
<para>Globally, the number of countries announcing pledges to achieve net zero emissions over the coming decades has grown, and this is to be welcomed. The question of how to transition to a net zero energy system by 2050 while ensuring stable and affordable energy supplies, providing universal energy access and enabling robust economic growth is one that every country and every economy making such a commitment must face. It is a huge undertaking, and it is not a question that can be answered unless we are prepared to break it down to its smallest possible parts. Setting out a cost-effective and economically productive pathway that moves us towards a future focused economy supported by a clean, dynamic and resilient energy economy dominated by renewables like solar and wind instead of fossil fuels is a challenge that will require many shoulders to be put to the wheel. The path to net zero emissions is narrow. Staying on it requires immediate and massive deployment of all available clean and efficient energy technologies.</para>
<para>Ultimately, it will require all of us, the government, industry and the community, to work together, sector by sector, to share the burden and reduce our emissions as quickly as practicable. In that context, today's motion is a welcome development; however, I observe that the motion doesn't specifically direct the Climate Change Authority to overlay a holistic approach to emissions reduction.</para>
<para>What I'm seeing in my urban electorate is that the nexus between electricity and energy, transport and the built environment is critical in optimising emissions reductions pathways. The efficient electrification of buildings and transport will add loads to the electricity system, not just at the transmission level but also at the urban distribution networks—the poles and the wires between high-voltage substations and individual buildings. Distributed energy resources from rooftop solar and batteries to hot water systems, air conditioners and EVs all have a role to play in optimising the transition to zero emissions energy. As we struggle to balance a reduced reliance on fossil fuels, stretching the limits of current renewables technology and understanding new market dynamics for the various inputs, it is also incumbent on each of us to consider how we will conserve energy to ensure the processes we currently rely on during the transition phase are as efficient as possible, and for the government to continue to support energy-efficient initiatives at the community level. Things like making buildings thermally energy efficient through sensible insulation, glazing, window treatments and draught stopping are critical first steps, as is turning out the lights in high-rise buildings when no-one is in them. Those, and the efficiency dividend of electrified appliances and vehicles, can significantly reduce our primary energy needs.</para>
<para>Demand management means we have fewer renewables to build out in the first place. Using smart, orchestrated distributed energy resources means we can optimise the use of power when it's being overproduced and reduce the use of power when there's a shortage in the renewable generation. That will massively reduce the need for grid-level storage. For example, energy tariffs could be used to encourage electric vehicle owners to soak up excess solar during the day if chargers were available where people park their vehicles in the day; ditto for electric hot water heaters.</para>
<para>We need to ensure that the distribution network providers and electricity retailers are incentivised to optimise the use of these distributed resources because that will minimise the need for expensive upgrades to the distribution networks in our cities and towns. While a sectorial pathway can more readily allow for a critical detailed analysis of the peculiar challenges facing each sector, to allow us to understand synergies and tensions in pathways, where our quicker wins might be had, where investment in R&D and infrastructure is best allocated—and what the potential is for each sector to provide its own circular economy solutions—it is also essential that the Climate Change Authority be directed to avoid looking at the sectorial pathways as silos, and to overlay thinking about how the various sectors, holistically, can unlock new opportunities to reduce the costs and complexity, and accelerate our emissions reduction.</para>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>COMMITTEES</title>
        <page.no>88</page.no>
        <type>COMMITTEES</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Treaties Joint Committee</title>
          <page.no>88</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Report</title>
            <page.no>88</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:33</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr JOSH WILSON</name>
    <name.id>265970</name.id>
    <electorate>Fremantle</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties, I present the committee's <inline font-style="italic">Report 211: Protocol amending the Marrakesh agreement establishing the World Trade Organization agreement on fisheries subsidies</inline>.</para>
<para>Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e).</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr JOSH WILSON</name>
    <name.id>265970</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—I rise to make a statement on the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties report into the protocol amending the Marrakesh agreement establishing the World Trade Organization agreement on fisheries subsidies. This agreement has been labelled as 'landmark', quite rightly, I think, by the World Trade Organization because it's the first WTO agreement to specifically deliver on an SDG target and the first broad, binding and multilateral agreement on ocean sustainability. It will provide for legally binding rules for fisheries-specific subsidies concerning marine wild capture fishing and fishing related activities at sea.</para>
<para>It's a comprehensive treaty capturing those activities and includes any operation in support of or in preparation for fishing, including the landing, packaging, processing, transhipping or transporting of fish that have not been previously landed at a port, as well as the provisioning of personnel, fuel, gear and other supplies at sea.</para>
<para>The agreement seeks to contribute to ocean sustainability and address the serious decline of global marine capture fishery resources. The committee consider this to be necessary if we are to prevent future environmental and biodiversity decline and to pursue the sustainability of fisheries around the world for the wellbeing of the billions of people who depend on fishing to make a living and as a key source of protein.</para>
<para>The agreement contributes to global food security and the protection of livelihoods by addressing key issues of ocean sustainability. It's particularly important to the Pacific region where fishing and fisheries are understandably of high importance economically, socially and culturally. It's notable that Australia worked in partnership with Pacific nations to reach consensus as part of the WTO negotiations that gave rise to the agreement.</para>
<para>The agreement prohibits subsidies to a vessel or operator that is engaged in illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing as well as prohibits subsidies for fishing of overfished stocks and unregulated high seas fishing. I think people in the community can understand how, if countries provide subsidies that enable what would otherwise not be commercial fishing of that kind, that has the potential to do significant damage to fishing stocks and to related environmental conditions and biodiversity. I note that the minister here in Australia is currently consulting on a process to look at the way in which Australia might adopt a framework with respect to illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing. That's significant when you note that 65 per cent of seafood consumed in Australia is imported. The committee noted that, in fulfilling the sustainable development goal to conserve and sustainably use our ocean, sea and marine resources, it's important that countries not subsidise and make operations viable that are harmful to fish stocks and the environment, as I've described.</para>
<para>The committee noted the value of the fisheries funding mechanism, which is contained within the agreement, for assisting developing least developed countries to adopt the regulatory and administrative means of compliance with it. In recognition of the value of that funding mechanism, Australia has taken a leading role already in funding the mechanism by contributing $2 million. We're the first nation to do so, which I think is very welcome.</para>
<para>The committee looks forward to news of the second wave of negotiations, which will address further provisions in relation to subsidies that will more comprehensively cover fisheries that put stocks and environments at risk where there is overfishing or overcapacity. But the committee supports the WTO Agreement on Fisheries Subsidies and has recommended that binding treaty action be taken. On behalf of the committee, I commend this report to the House.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Human Rights Joint Committee</title>
          <page.no>89</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Report</title>
            <page.no>89</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:37</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BURNS</name>
    <name.id>278522</name.id>
    <electorate>Macnamara</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>On behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, I present the committee's report, incorporating a dissenting report, entitled <inline font-style="italic">Human rights scrutiny report: Report 9 of 2023.</inline></para>
<para>Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e).</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BURN</name>
    <name.id>278522</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—I'm pleased to table the ninth scrutiny report of 2023 of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights. In this large report, the committee has considered 17 new bills and 30 new legislative instruments and has commented on three of these bills. The committee has also concluded its consideration of five bills and one legislative instrument. The report considered two bills relating to counter-terrorism powers—the Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment (Prohibited Hate Symbols and Other Measures) Bill 2023 and the Counter-Terrorism and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2023.</para>
<para>In general terms, these bills seek to protect Australia's national security interests and protect against the possibility of terrorist acts in Australia. The committee emphasises that preventing terrorism and mitigating risks of violence and discrimination against members of the community are important objectives. However, it is not clear in all circumstances whether the measures sought to be introduced or extended by these bills would be proportionate in practice. Given the breadth and coercive nature of many counterterrorism powers, the committee considers that it is vitally important that such powers are accompanied by strong safeguards to ensure that any limitation to human rights is reasonable, necessary and proportionate.</para>
<para>For example, the committee has concluded its consideration of the Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment (Prohibited Hate Symbols and Other Measures) Bill 2023. Schedule 1 of this bill seeks to introduce new offences relating to the public display and trading of prohibited symbols, including the Islamic State flag and specified Nazi symbols. The committee reiterates deep concern about the rising number of disturbing events involving the public display of Nazi symbols and emphasises that these displays of hate have no place in Australia.</para>
<para>Indeed, Australia has obligations under international human rights law to prohibit any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence and to eliminate all incitement to or acts of racial discrimination. The committee considers that, if criminalising the public display and trading of prohibited symbols deters and prevents the commission of violent offences and reduces the harm caused to others by the display of such symbols, this bill would promote a number of human rights. The committee does, however, also note that these proposed offences may limit rights, including the right to freedom of expression, the rights of the child and the right to equality and non-discrimination. The committee has recommended several amendments to the bill to assist with its human rights capability and draws these recommendations to the attention of the Attorney-General and the parliament.</para>
<para>In addition, the committee has also considered a number of bills and legislative instruments that deal with a range of matters, including biosecurity, migration, the National Occupational Respiratory Disease Registry and the sharing of foreign intelligence information. The legislation engages and limits multiple rights, and where relevant the committee has made suggestions in the form of amendments to assist with the human rights capability and compatibility of the legislation.</para>
<para>I invite the parliament to carefully consider these actions. I encourage all members to consider the committee's report. I thank the secretariat for their ongoing support of the committee. I thank the deputy chair. I commend the committee's <inline font-style="italic">Human rights scrutiny report: Report 9 of 2023</inline> to the House.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>BILLS</title>
        <page.no>90</page.no>
        <type>BILLS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Modernisation) Bill 2022, Statute Law Amendment (Prescribed Forms and Other Updates) Bill 2023, Treasury Laws Amendment (2023 Measures No. 3) Bill 2023</title>
          <page.no>90</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <p>
              <a href="r6964" type="Bill">
                <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                  <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Modernisation) Bill 2022</span>
                </p>
              </a>
              <a href="r7042" type="Bill">
                <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                  <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Statute Law Amendment (Prescribed Forms and Other Updates) Bill 2023</span>
                </p>
              </a>
            </p>
            <a href="r7045" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Treasury Laws Amendment (2023 Measures No. 3) Bill 2023</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Returned from Senate</title>
            <page.no>90</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo></subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>National Occupational Respiratory Disease Registry Bill 2023, National Occupational Respiratory Disease Registry (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2023</title>
          <page.no>90</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <p>
              <a href="r7053" type="Bill">
                <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                  <span class="HPS-SubDebate">National Occupational Respiratory Disease Registry Bill 2023</span>
                </p>
              </a>
            </p>
            <a href="r7054" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">National Occupational Respiratory Disease Registry (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2023</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>90</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:42</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms SHARKIE</name>
    <name.id>265980</name.id>
    <electorate>Mayo</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Unlike many historical forms of silicosis, screening programs in Australia have meant that the disease has been detectable in early stages in many workers. If silicosis is found at an early stage, the trial procedure known as a whole lung lavage is showing a significant radiological improvement in people presenting in the early stages of the disease. Unfortunately, this has been a very small, recent trial involving only six male patients and we cannot yet know of the long-term outcomes and overall effectiveness of this procedure. What we do know though is that early detection of such diseases is paramount to improving outcomes for patients.</para>
<para>Allowing for a registry will mean that there is a greater opportunity to monitor the number of Australians being impacted by silicosis. Most importantly, it will provide a sound foundation for further research to be conducted into silicosis to help with prevention, management of symptoms and hopefully one day a cure. Mandatory reporting to a national body will allow for early detection, which is crucial to the outcome of the patient, but it also protects other workers as it may flag a potentially dangerous workplace so that it doesn't continue to cause harm to more workers. By enabling research, the registry could also show that protections considered adequate by business against inhaling RCS may not be sufficient in practice to prevent breathing in the very fine particles which cause such damage.</para>
<para>I understand that there have been concerns raised by physicians about the extra work of having to report to the registry, but I believe the bill provides a balanced reporting obligation and this small inconvenience would lead to greater beneficial outcomes for Australians exposed to RCS, their families and their workplaces and their communities as a whole.</para>
<para>In June this year, I attended a lunch in my community. It was for the Asbestos Victims Memorial Day service. A wonderful woman, Catherine Wegener, lost her husband to asbestosis, and across the Fleurieu she has created a support network. What was so very sad about the day is that it was a room largely full of women, widows, who do not have their husbands by their sides simply because of a disease that they caught when they were in the workplace. I heard the stories of many widows whose husbands had suffered. This is 20 years after banning the sale, manufacture and importation of asbestos. Yet, the stories of the women who nursed their husbands through what is an incredibly awful death were horrendous.</para>
<para>That's why I believe it is so important for us to be at the forefront of this. We need to raise awareness of this new emerging trend in silicosis, which is very much affecting young tradies. We need to enable collection of data on the disease and on those impacted, and we need to facilitate research to fight this and make sure we do this effectively. I do not want to see history repeating itself. Those women who are in their 60s and 70s, who were alone at that lunch, had been, I'm sure, hoping they would get to enjoy a retirement with their husband—that they would perhaps be one of those lucky couples, those grey nomads hitching the caravan to the back of the car and travelling around Australia together and enjoying those retirement years. But that was taken away from them. It was taken away from their husbands and it was taken away from these women. We cannot repeat that. I commend this bill and I commend the government for their actions on this registry.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:46</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms MASCARENHAS</name>
    <name.id>298800</name.id>
    <electorate>Swan</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you to the member for Mayo for that passionate speech. I can't imagine what it would be like to be in a room full of widows that had wonderful husbands who died because of occupational health and safety conditions not being good enough. It sounds like it would have been really heartbreaking to witness that. One of the things that is really important about this place is that we make structural changes to improve the lives of others. So I commend the National Occupational Respiratory Disease Registry Bill 2023 and the related bill to the House. I rise with a deep sense of responsibility for the debate on this legislation. It is based on a principle that everyone deserves to go home safely. This is something the Albanese Labor government not only believes but is prepared to legislate.</para>
<para>This is a bill of grave concern to my community, because what we have seen is a prevalence of lung disease in our community, in particular silicosis. We have been seeing silicosis increase in the community, and it is increasing at an alarming rate. It is entirely unacceptable that we are seeing this increase. However, this is a government that is not only listening but is acting as well. These reforms aim to bolster the prevention of occupational respiratory diseases. They also look at the ways we can improve treatment for individuals who have contracted occupational respiratory disease due to workplace exposure.</para>
<para>Silicosis, for those who may not be familiar, is a devastating and irreversible lung disease. I hope that no-one here ever catches it or has to witness a family member go through that. It' s a disease that is triggered by the inhalation of silica dust. Silica is very common. It's a mineral found in sand, quartz and various types of rocks. The chemical formula of silica is SIO2. It looks like there are some students here who might know the chemical formula of silica. It is an inert substance, but in dust form it is very vicious and can be debilitating, particularly if it ends up in the lungs of humans.</para>
<para>This is a disease that primarily affects workers who are exposed to silica dust. Predominantly, the workers affected are in construction and mining related industries. It's debilitating, and often those who catch silicosis endure very long symptoms of shortness of breath, persistent coughs and fevers.</para>
<para>It's really unacceptable that nothing has been done until now. I think that part of the rise of this disease is related to Australia's obsession with renovations. That is something that we saw an uptick in during the pandemic. Everyone was at home and wanting to utilise their home and were thinking about renovating kitchens. One of the main causes of this relates to manufactured stone benchtops. Often what we have seen is workers setting up these benchtops have been exposed to silica dust.</para>
<para>Occupational health and workplace safety matters. It is something that's really close to my heart, particularly because I grew up in a mining town. One of the things that would happen from time to time was rockfalls that could have been prevented. Sometimes people would say, 'There's been a rockfall today,' and then that rumour would go through the school and children would think: 'Was my dad affected by that rockfall? Was he hurt? Did he die?' My dad is from a generation of metalworkers who have fewer than 10 fingers. Dad has 9½ fingers. The thing that this government fundamentally wants to see is that all workers get home safely.</para>
<para>The thing I would say as well is that we have seen issues that have happened in workplaces time and time again. One of my close girlfriends is an asbestos lawyer. When I say 'asbestos lawyer', I don't mean she is on the side of the asbestos companies. Rather, she has been on the side of mesothelioma victims. I know that there have been members of this place on the other side, such as a previous member for Curtin, who have been on the other side of that debate. Quite frankly, I think it's important that we stand with workers and understand some of the challenges that they go through. For my solicitor friend who has acted for clients, one of the things that's sometimes really challenging is when she is litigating a case for a client that has mesothelioma and before the end of the case unfortunately the client has died. I think that that's incredibly heartbreaking. So we need to make sure that we try to prevent this from happening.</para>
<para>This bill serves as a stark reminder of the importance of timely information, particularly when it comes to this deadly disease of silicosis. It's not acceptable to find out when it's already too late. It's devastating for individuals and it's devastating for families. Fundamentally, what we need is the data to prevent such diseases from occurring in the first place. We must have the data to improve the treatment of the individuals who have contracted these diseases due to circumstances beyond their control. Fundamentally, it's the concept of: if we're not measuring it, we can't manage it. These are individuals who have merely been striving to earn a living, provide for their families and build a brighter future, but unfortunately it's been at the expense of their health.</para>
<para>This legislation establishes a national registry which will house vital information that prevents silicosis but also helps with the treatment of silicosis. It will facilitate and capture appropriate information which can be shared of critical data. This is a recommendation that was put forward by the National Dust Disease Taskforce. The establishment of this register follows extensive consultation with physicians, health advocacy groups, the mining industry, the construction industry, as well as unions.</para>
<para>I commend the minister for her resolute commitment in proposing this bill and acting on the recommendations to establish the registry. This government is one that takes decisive action. While the previous government may have been aware of the gravity of the situation, they failed to implement the reforms that were needed to prevent workers' exposure to hazardous dust and also support those already affected. Those opposite will close their eyes, block their ears and effectively turn their backs. I have to say that mighty Minister Kearney is a woman of action and she, indeed, has acted. I could say that is because she is a nurse, but the truth is you don't need to be a health professional to understand the devastating impact of silicosis.</para>
<para>I had the privilege of hosting the minister in my electorate of Swan just last week. We visited several aged-care facilities and a local health clinic dedicated to women's health. Through her visit, I witnessed the minister's unwavering commitment to her portfolio and a genuine concern over the issues facing our healthcare system and the way it impacts Australians; I think this is something all Australians witnessed earlier this week on <inline font-style="italic">Q+A</inline>. The member for Cooper's interactions with individuals in these settings highlights the commitment to assist people regardless of their circumstances or background.</para>
<para>I'd also like to express my gratitude to the minister for the visit to Swan. During that visit, we also had the honour of meeting Arthur Leggett, a remarkable individual and Western Australian war hero who, in just a few days, will celebrate his 105th birthday. Despite being a little bit hard of hearing and finding it a bit difficult to keep up with his bush poetry, he retains a sharp mind and a delightful sense of humour. Arthur resides at the Kalinga aged-care home in High Wycombe; it is a wonderful facility in my electorate. The visit showcased the minister's empathy and compassion for those facing healthcare challenges and her readiness to listen and take action. As a government we prioritise listening to the concerns of those affected by our decisions.</para>
<para>Consequently, we have moved forward with this initiative, which has received strong support from state and territory governments as well as the union movement. The unions are confident in the bill's provisions and the supports it offers through the national registry in ensuring compliance with health and safety standards in the workplace. The registry will also provide valuable assistance in understanding occupational respiratory disease within each jurisdiction.</para>
<para>This government is committed to getting the job done, and the establishment of this registry is a testament to our dedication to the health and safety of Australian workers. The registry will capture and share data on the incidence of occupational respiratory diseases, and the agents responsible for these conditions. If you think about it, by pinpointing the last known exposures, we can actually isolate and track threats and risks to workers much more effectively.</para>
<para>I note the responsibility for recording diagnoses will be entrusted to medical specialists. This ensures the records are professional and kept up-to-date. This will facilitate the future sufferer's access to records of diagnosis and treatment. Additionally, the implementation of an online portal will simplify the process for medical professionals to record and maintain this essential information without adding unnecessary administrative burdens.</para>
<para>While the bill promotes simplicity and efficiency, it also includes provisions for penalties in the event of a failure to notify the registry. This is a sensible step when the health and quality of life for silicosis sufferers is at stake, and it is essential for preventing future cases. I acknowledge that unions may wish to see the registry's scope expanded. To accommodate such future developments, the government has cleverly designed the bill to allow for expansion after a period of operation and review. As a government we must ensure we have structures that look after workers, and this bill marks a significant step forward in safeguarding the health and wellbeing of our workers and strengthening our commitment to tackling occupational diseases in Australia.</para>
<para>Together, let's ensure that all Australians, regardless of their occupation or location, are safe to go to work. In conclusion, I commend the bill to the House.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:59</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms WARE</name>
    <name.id>300123</name.id>
    <electorate>Hughes</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to speak in support of these two bills, the National Occupational Respiratory Disease Registry Bill 2023 and its consequential amendments bill. These bills are in response to the growing incidence of occupational lung disease, which is now becoming quite prevalent particularly in the building and construction industry, and particularly silicosis, a disease we are unfortunately becoming all too familiar with. There are a number of other lung diseases this bill seeks to address as well, and I will refer to those.</para>
<para>These lung diseases are particularly prevalent now in younger Australians, often males employed as stonemasons, particularly in the engineered stone industries. A lot of my electorate of Hughes is employed in the building and construction industry, and as a result I've been approached by constituents to speak on this bill. I also recently met with a new business that has just started up in my electorate. It's called Art of Marble. It's located in Moorebank. The business owner, Jerome Lafforgue, spoke to me very recently about occupational lung diseases and asked me to support his employees and those within this sector.</para>
<para>The National Occupational Respiratory Disease Registry Bill 2023 and the National Occupational Respiratory Disease Registry (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2023 will create a legislative framework to establish and manage the National Occupational Respiratory Disease Registry, delivering on a recommendation of the National Dust Disease Taskforce. I was present today in this place to hear the member for Swan speaking. While I agree overall with the comments that the honourable member made in relation to her investigation of the legislation and the way that she spoke about it, I think it's important to note that the bills have been built on the work of the former coalition government, which first established the National Dust Disease Taskforce in 2019. This taskforce was set up to investigate the growing number of silicosis cases, particularly in individuals working in the engineered stone industry. At that stage, the coalition government committed over $16 million to establish that taskforce and also included funding to address key recommendations from its final report. That is where these bills had their infancy.</para>
<para>This package of legislation builds on a former coalition commitment to address the increased incidence of silicosis and other occupational respiratory dust diseases in Australia. The legislative package overall demonstrates the coalition's support to continually improve occupational safety of Australians. I respectfully disagree with the member for Swan's comments that it is only Labor governments that support the rights of workers and a safe workplace. Coalition governments have been equally if not more supportive, particularly in this space. There has also been tremendous support from business groups within the engineered stone industry, demonstrating that businesses—many of whom are small businesses—similarly prioritise the safety of their employees.</para>
<para>The way that the bills are framed, the national registry will require respiratory and occupational physicians to notify diagnoses of occupationally caused silicosis, including any exposure details, and will allow for voluntary notification of other occupational respiratory diseases. The national registry will also capture respiratory health data to aid the detection of new and emerging threats to workers' respiratory health, prevent further worker exposure, inform incidence trends and assist in targeting and monitoring the effectiveness of interventions and prevention strategies. These were all recommendations that came out of the initial taskforce. The consequential amendments bill then deals with protected information and privacy issues that relate to the freedom of information legislation, and that bill is also supported.</para>
<para>The bills have been through many stakeholders. The scope, design, contents and operation of the national registry have been discussed with representatives from peak medical professional bodies as well as representatives from each of the state and territory governments. Consultation on an exposure draft of the bills with key stakeholders included physicians, other health groups, the states and territories, industry groups, business groups and unions. This was all undertaken last year.</para>
<para>I will move now to the purpose and structure of the bills. The occupational lung diseases that will be covered by the National Occupational Respiratory Disease Registry—or the registry, as I will refer to it—are respiratory conditions that, through occupational exposure to a hazard, are associated with specific diseases.</para>
<para>That hazard can come in various forms. It can include dust, microorganisms and gases, and they have been linked to a number of conditions. There are three broad conditions, and they are pneumoconiosis, such as asbestosis, silicosis, and for coal workers' pneumoconiosis, which is often known as black lung disease. It includes chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and also lung cancer.</para>
<para>The number of people in Australia who are living with these occupational lung diseases is unknown, although what is known is that the rate is growing. There are several factors that can impact the identification of occupational lung diseases. One of the issues with the diagnosis is that often chronic silicosis and asbestosis may not be diagnosed for many years after the initial exposure, and that's why the work of the task force in these bills is very important. They help to identify and change behaviours within the workplace to ensure that, as far as possible, workers within these industries are not contracting these diseases. What has particularly come to the forefront in recent years has been the re-emergence of silicosis, which is caused by the inhalation of crystalline silica, and this is, as I've pointed out already, seen particularly in the engineered stone sector. There has recently been a big increase in the number of householders who want this stone in their kitchens and their bathrooms, so we need to ensure that this can still be available to them but done in a way that workers working within those industries are not exposed to chronic lung conditions.</para>
<para>I'll turn now to some of the statistics on those diseases, which are not great. The Cancer Council has estimated that approximately 587,000 people had occupational exposure to silica dust in 2011. Based on that figure the Cancer Council estimates that close to 6,000 people will go on to develop lung cancer in their lifetime due to that exposure. Researchers have estimated about one per cent of the Australian adult population in 2016, approximately 10,400 people, will develop lung cancer as a result of exposure to silica dust in their workplace. Clearly, these numbers are alarming, and they indicate something that we need to address.</para>
<para>When the task force was established in July 2019, it provided initial advice to the then minister for health, Professor the Hon. Greg Hunt, in late December of that year. There were various fundings and five early recommendations, and I will deal very briefly with those early recommendations, which are now finding their way into this legislation. The task force said that what was very important was that a prevention strategy was developed and implemented and an initial education campaign was also implemented. The task force also said there needed to be a national approach to capture data information, collection and sharing, and research to better understand accelerated silicosis with an aim to improve prevention and treatment options. This will be through the establishment of this registry because that is what the registry does to adopt the recommendations of that initial task force.</para>
<para>To conclude, the occupational health and safety of Australian workers is of the utmost importance to those on my side of the House and also to those in the business community who employ these workers. The building and construction industry is an extremely large employer throughout our country, and it's a large employer in my electorate. It drives productivity within our country. We have an identifiable occupational risk to those working within the engineered stone industries, particularly in terms of respiratory diseases, which are preventable although not curable.</para>
<para>It is therefore more than appropriate—it is essential—that in this place we do all that we can to address these unknown risks and look at future protection of workers within these sectors. The establishment of the National Occupational Respiratory Disease Registry, which is the subject of these bills, will build on the task force's early work and will assist with the prevention of these chronic and dreadful diseases into the future. For all those reasons I commend these bills to the House.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:10</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms KEARNEY</name>
    <name.id>LTU</name.id>
    <electorate>Cooper</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank all the members for their contributions to debate on these bills. The National Occupational Respiratory Disease Registry will aid the detection of new and emerging threats to workers respiratory health, inform incidence trends, help inform actions to be taken to reduce further worker exposure, support research into occupational respiratory diseases and assist in targeting and monitoring the effectiveness of interventions and prevention strategies. The national registry will achieve this by capturing and sharing data, where appropriate, on the incidence of occupational respiratory diseases and their respiratory disease causing agents; the last and main exposures to agents that can cause respiratory disease, including the place of business, industry, occupation and job task; and respiratory health data. The creation of the national registry will better protect workers from silicosis and complement a wide range of other actions being taken by the government.</para>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
<para>Bill read a second time.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Third Reading</title>
            <page.no>94</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:12</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">M</name>
    <name.id>LTU</name.id>
    <electorate>Cooper</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>s KEARNEY (—) (): by leave—I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That this bill be now read a third time.</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
<para>Bill read a third time.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>National Occupational Respiratory Disease Registry (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2023</title>
          <page.no>95</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r7054" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">National Occupational Respiratory Disease Registry (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2023</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>95</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo></subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Third Reading</title>
            <page.no>95</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:13</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms KEARNEY</name>
    <name.id>LTU</name.id>
    <electorate>Cooper</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That this bill be now read a third time.</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
<para>Bill read a third time.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes) Bill 2023</title>
          <page.no>95</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r7072" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes) Bill 2023</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>95</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:14</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr WOLAHAN</name>
    <name.id>235654</name.id>
    <electorate>Menzies</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to speak about the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes) Bill 2023, which incorporates quite a lot of well-meaning objectives into an omnibus bill. Next to me I have a fair bit of paperwork, and this was only presented to the House on Monday. We have here a bill that comes to 200 pages, which, if it passes this House and the Senate, will join the 1,200 pages of the Fair Work Act. We're looking at 1,400 pages in order to navigate your way through the employer-employee relationship. You don't have to be an industrial relations lawyer to know that creates enormous complexity and uncertainty. You don't have to be an industrial relations lawyer to know that businesses, particularly medium-sized and smaller business, don't have armies of lawyers and other staff to help them navigate all of the paperwork and forms that come with this. They'd be quite right to be upset by this, because, in all of the promises and speeches that were made in the lead-up to the last election, this sort of radical reform to our industrial relations was not on the cards. It wasn't put to the Australian people. We've heard lots of lectures from the other side about integrity and transparency, but when you look at these 200 pages and the mammoth, weighty explanatory memorandum that's supposed to help us resolve ambiguity—if that's helping us resolve ambiguity, as an explanatory memorandum, God help us! And God help businesses that are struggling to survive as it is, as many are.</para>
<para>We heard some really disturbing economic news today. I don't like to talk the economy down—we want it to succeed because it's about people's lives—but we heard from the Treasurer that annual GDP growth slowed from 2.3 to 2.1. The unfortunate reality of that number is that it's the aggregate GDP, not GDP per capita. It's a GDP propped up by population growth, mostly through migration. There's bipartisan agreement that we are a much stronger and better nation for our migration system, but we should never pretend that that is a substitute for productivity growth. When Australians are being hit with the consequences of high inflation and the cost-of-living crisis that comes with it, the interest rate rises hurt particular sectors of our society, not just our economy—people who are paying off their home, people who are trying to put food on the table and people who have had the worst circumstances possible, which is unemployment, illness or a family separation. They're the people we all see in our electorates queuing in food banks, struggling to stay within the system.</para>
<para>When we look to the laws that surround the employer-employee relationship, we should ask: 'What will this do for productivity? What will this do for employment?' The sad reality is that this proposal risks damaging both of those. This proposal will increase costs, increase complexity and add red tape to an already highly regulated system. Ours is one of the most regulated employer-employee systems in the world. For those who are contemplating starting a business, this is just another reason to say no, to not bother. That's the last thing we need in this economy. What the government should be focusing on is a way to increase productivity. When you increase productivity, you see wages grow; you see enhanced competition. Instead we've seen the government focus on restricting competition. We've all heard the speeches and questions put about the airline industry, but that's where the government's focus is.</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr WOLAHAN</name>
    <name.id>235654</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>No, not all of them. The member for Fraser has popped out, and I know, with his background and as Chair of the Standing Committee on Economics, he's focused on productivity, dynamism and competition.</para>
<para>In the referendum that's coming up—you may ask, 'What's that got to do with this debate?' It has a little bit to do with this debate. We've heard lots of lectures from the Prime Minister, the ministers and the entire side of the chamber that if you listen you get better results, and who would argue with that?</para>
<para>Of course you get better results if you listen. That's our job in this place. But that doesn't really work if your listening involves selective hearing. You only listen to the things you want to hear. You don't listen to the things you don't want to hear.</para>
<para>The member for Parramatta, in two 90-second statements, in his passionate support for the Voice—and there's passionate disagreement in this place—singled out the support of the business community. He noted in two 90-second statements that it's great to see so many Australian businesses jumping on board to provide their support. He singled out BHP, Woolies and Optus. In fact, 13 out of the top 20 ASX companies have taken a position, and it's their right to do that. He then said: 'The opposition leader has no business trying to silence business.' He criticised the opposition leader, saying: 'He tells them they're virtue signalling. He tells them to stick to their knitting.'</para>
<para>In his second speech, the member for Parramatta said: 'If the coalition doesn't even understand business support then they have no business getting in the way.' If the member for Parramatta is very keen to listen to business and the groups that represent business, let's listen to them, not just on the things you want to hear but on all of things. We know that, in section 128 of our Constitution, the decision for amending the Constitution is with the people after it passes this place. It is not with corporate Australia but with the people. But the business of the employer-employee relationship actually is their core business. That's what they do day to day. So, if you're going to be selective about what you listen to from business, the economy and employer-employee relationships are pretty good ones. Let's hear what some of them had to say on these matters.</para>
<para>Jennifer Westacott, the chief executive of the Business Council of Australia said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Australians should have safe jobs, well paid jobs and rewarding jobs, but the government’s radical shake-up of the industrial relations system will not deliver that …</para></quote>
<para>She added:</para>
<quote><para class="block">These changes will create confusion and extra costs for consumers, make it harder to hire casual workers and create uncertainty for employing anybody.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Any government that's serious about cost of living would not do this.</para></quote>
<para>The government say they're serious about the cost of living, yet this is exactly what they're doing—something which risks increasing unemployment and reducing productivity at the very time when we need to be doing the opposite. Jennifer Westacott added:</para>
<quote><para class="block">We need a system that drives productivity, not stifles it, because that will stifle wages growth.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The case has not been made for this radical shake-up.</para></quote>
<para>The member for Parramatta should reflect on those comments. He was quite critical of this side of the House for not listening to business. Is he going to listen to that view of business?</para>
<para>It doesn't stop there. We heard the Prime Minister say with glee that the Minerals Council of Australia were celebrating his position on the Voice, even though they're not mentioned in section 128 of the Constitution. But that's fine; that's their right. But they do have a particular interest in the employer-employee relationship and in growing this economy and growing productivity. Tanya Constable of the Minerals Council said of the Albanese government's latest changes:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The changes will inflict immense harm to the economy, the weight of which will fall on the shoulders of the most vulnerable Australians who will pay more for groceries, housing, and energy.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The MCA calls on the Albanese Government to rip up this bill and head back to the drawing board.</para></quote>
<para>There are many other stakeholders and representatives of business who have very strong views on this, and from the other side you may argue in reply: 'Well, of course they would say that. They're just acting in the national interest.' If you're to say that, then what's the self-interest that they're acting in when they support things you do like? You cannot have selective hearing about this.</para>
<para>One of the more troubling aspects of this is the expansion of union powers in workplaces. That gets to the heart of what we're really dealing with here and why this is in the form that it is and why it wasn't put to the Australian people before the election. I'll single out union delegate powers. Union delegates will have a new workplace right to protect them against employers that refuse to deal with them, that mislead them or that hinder or obstruct their right as a delegate. A mandatory term will be included in awards or enterprise agreements giving effect to primary and ancillary delegates' rights. The ancillary rights include reasonable access to communicate with members and potential members about matters of industrial concern, workplace fatalities and paid-time training, as well as delegates having paid time to create these functions. Again, there are parts of that which reasonable people could agree on, but that is not the effect of this, given the way that it's been drafted.</para>
<para>The bill will amend the Fair Work Act to enable unions to exercise right-of-entry powers without any notice, no notice, whenever it relates to wage underpayment. To gain immediate entry, the union only needs to assert to the Fair Work Commission that they suspect—and that's a very low threshold of proof, 'suspect'—a case of wage underpayment. No evidence is required to make their case. The National Farmers Federation have made a very important observation here in that they are concerned about the new rights of entry without notice and how they would affect farms. I don't represent a rural or regional electorate, but there are a couple of farms in the eastern side and what I know is that their business is their home. It's where they live. It's where they bring up their children, look after their parents. To have this sort of regime impose that right of entry on their home is extremely concerning. It should concern all of us. All of us should be concerned by that.</para>
<para>I said at the start there are some worthy objectives here, but, again, the devil is always in the detail. When we come in with an omnibus bill like this—this is the sort of bill that we see more in other democracies. The United States Congress is known for bundling a whole bunch of special interest issues into a bill that has a very catchy headline. Both sides will engage in that, in their bipartisan democracy, but it's not a healthy thing and it makes it hard to focus on the particular parts of it.</para>
<para>On the issue of wage theft, the coalition supports that wage theft should not occur. There was a proposal by the coalition, when it was last in government, to actually stamp this out. The coalition has zero tolerance for any exploitation of workers, including underpayment of wages and entitlements by any employer. And if the minister was serious about wage theft, then why did he lead the charge in 2021 to vote down the coalition's proposal to legislate a wage theft provision in the Fair Work Act? He came in here and in his speech he listed the things he thought we needed to defend. Well, he needs to defend that. He needs to come in here and defend his decision when he was on this side and refused to address that issue then. That would have helped people who were affected by wage theft in the meantime.</para>
<para>The government has overreached on wage theft in that it's not properly separating accidental theft—well, all theft, by its nature, should be intentional—as opposed to intentional theft. For those who've studied criminal law 101, the most important thing in the criminal justice system is the intent. That's the part that is punished. That is the part that we seek to disavow in the community so that others who are thinking of engaging in that activity will say, 'I won't do that because of the effects that will have on me,' so the general and specific deterrence that comes from that.</para>
<para>But if we're going to include accidental misallocation of wages—and that can happen. It's more likely to happen when you're dealing, as a business, with 1,400 pages of relevant legislation. It's more likely to happen. This proposal, in the way that it's put, makes wage theft more likely. Not less likely, more likely. We ask the government to refine that particular part, to focus on the intention of wage theft, because that's the effective part. When you punish intention, you actually have a deterrent effect in the community.</para>
<para>Another key part to this, in my time remaining, is when these laws come into effect. They're due to come into effect, if they pass, in November 2024. What's happening there? Is this so urgent that these loopholes have to be fixed now? Or does the minister and the government know that the actual implementation of these will create real harm in our economy and in our society, and they want to push that off until after the next election? They will push it off, so putting political interests before the economy, putting political interests before growing productivity and reducing the cost of living.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:29</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr GEORGANAS</name>
    <name.id>DZY</name.id>
    <electorate>Adelaide</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>It gives me great pride to speak on the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes) Bill in terms of ensuring that we create a safer, fairer environment for workers in Australia. Throughout history, this side of politics, the Labor Party, and Labor governments have fought for Australian workers.</para>
<para>I want to list some historical facts. In 1907, the Harvester judgement occurred. It was a landmark decision that established a fair wage for workers, ensuring a decent standard of living. In the 1920s and 1930s, Labor championed the fight for the eight-hour workday and safer workplaces. In 1947, the Snowy Mountains schemes employed thousands, providing workers with fair conditions but also thousands of migrant workers with equal pay and equal rights. In 2010, the historic Paid Parental Leave Scheme was introduced, ensuring financial support for new parents. Now this Albanese Labor government is building upon this legacy, ensuring fairness in the workplace persists.</para>
<para>Those points I just made about the historical milestones of Labor laws that were enshrined in law by Labor governments, historically, at every step, they were always opposed by the coalition. Anything to do with better entitlements for workers, better pay for workers, better leave arrangements et cetera, is always opposed. The only industrial relations policy we've seen from the other side has been things like WorkChoices, which diminishes pay and diminishes rights and a whole range of other things. Historically, it's in the Liberal Party's DNA to reduce wages and reduce workers' rights in any way they can. Historically, they've proven that. So it gives me great pride to be here today to speak on this piece of legislation.</para>
<para>Four key pillars of the reform are labour hire loophole crackdowns, criminalising wage theft, redefining casual work and safeguarding gig workers. We championed these policies when we were in opposition. We spoke a lot about them. Now we're making them a reality, just as we promised during the last campaign of the federal election. We're now delivering on those promises. Consultation has been thorough throughout, but our commitment to Australian workers is unwavering. We hear the calls of the people in our electorates and those who serve us—those in our police forces; those who work in mining fields; those who work in hospitals, the cleaners and the nurses; and those who work in the airline industry, where people serve us every day over the counter et cetera. We hear their calls. We don't just make a note of their concerns; we act on their concerns as a government. From wage theft to gig workers' rights, our commitment remains unwavering.</para>
<para>Our commitment to get wages moving underpins these reforms, and, at the heart of it, lies a simple yet powerful idea. Throughout history, Labor governments have fought for Australian workers. Over the past nine years, we saw the lowest wage growth that's existed in this country historically. It was something that the other side was actually proud of. They said they wanted to keep wages low. In other words, they wanted to keep wages low while profits went up and the cost of living went up. Yet, they were happy to come up with policies to work the economy and everything else, but not wages—not for those people wanting to make a living to pay their bills, to pay their mortgages, to make sure their kids were clothed, and to make sure breakfast was on the table every morning. That's what happens when you drive down wages; you make it harder for those working people who are doing it tough and who are working very hard, sometimes in very hard conditions.</para>
<para>This is about putting an end to companies using loopholes to short-change their employees. It's about upholding fairness by ensuring workers are paid what they've already agreed upon. That's nothing radical. There's an enterprise bargaining agreement where wages and conditions are met by the employer and employee. This is about upholding that, upholding a contract, upholding an agreement that's been made. So I can't see why they think that this is some sort of radical change.</para>
<para>We are taking a stronger stance against employers who steal from their workers, and it's as simple as this: if you work hard, you deserve fair pay and wage theft will no longer be tolerated. As I said, if you are an employee and you steal from the boss, the police come in, charge you—and rightly so—you go to court et cetera. Why isn't it the same the other way round when it is being done systematically in some places? We have seen the media reports over the years of many, many companies and firms who have systematically shortchanged their workers' wages by systematically putting systems and accounting practices in place. We have seen them needing to pay back millions of dollars. I won't name those firms because you'd think they are doing the right thing now once they'd been caught. But we want to stamp that out. I'm not saying all employers are doing this because the majority are good, honest people in the business world who pay their employees the correct amounts. But we want to weed out those that aren't. They need to pay the penalties, and we need to ensure that, if they don't do the right thing and are short-changing employees through wage theft, you are dealt with. It's as simple as that.</para>
<para>Casual workers should also know where they stand. If you are working consistently like a permanent employee, you should enjoy the same rights and the same benefits of that employee. We are also clarifying what casual work truly means and safeguarding workers from exploitation. Gig workers often face job uncertainty. We are here to ensure that they are fairly compensated for their work. It's about standing up for those who need it most.</para>
<para>As I said, these reforms aren't about overhauling the system; they are just about making our existing laws work effectively. It's nothing radical. Employers will still have the flexibility to negotiate rates, and workers will be sheltered from exploitation—a pretty simple formula. I cannot see why people are opposing this. But, then again, I do think about the historical facts of our side and their side, and where we have always stood when it comes to workers' rates and industrial relations laws versus where they've always stood. One fine example is that piece of legislation in this place on industrial relations when they were in government, the WorkChoices legislation. That gives you an example of where their thinking is.</para>
<para>On this side we believe that casual workers should have the option to become permanent employees if they wish—and I repeat, if they wish. If you are putting in regular hours like a permanent worker, you should have the same rights. We're introducing a clear definition of when someone can be labelled as a casual. This change could benefit up to 850,000 workers who have consistent hours—in other words, they've been putting in those hours just like a full-time employee for months and months and months. We want to be crystal clear that no-one will be forced to switch from casual to permanent because we respect their choices. Businesses won't be burdened by this with extra costs if someone is a casual because they will continue to pay the loadings and leave entitlements for casual workers as they would for permanent workers. That means fairness for all parties involved.</para>
<para>These reforms are all about ensuring that workers are treated with the fairness and respect they deserve, and we need workers to have opportunities in businesses that have clear guidelines and businesses to have clear guidelines to follow. As I said, it's not a radical overhaul. It's about making things fair and straightforward, and we are actually making these plans a reality, backed by thorough preparation. This was a commitment we made during the election campaign and for months before the election campaign, and now we're bringing it to fruition. We are also investing $3.4 million to make our workplace reforms happen. This includes funds for the Fair Work Commission to ensure swift dispute resolutions and to support implementation and evaluation. These reforms will start on 1 July 2024, giving employees a voice in changes that affect them. We have consulted extensively and reviewed existing arrangements, and we initiated this process by actively encouraging and welcoming the voices of our workforce. Many of us on this side have met with unions, workers groups et cetera, and we continue to do so. We do this because we want to ensure that their concerns and opinions are at the forefront of our efforts. We are tackling a pressing issue, and that is the misuse of labour hire that undermines workers' agreements.</para>
<para>While labour hire serves legitimate purposes in many cases, the concern is that companies are exploiting a loophole, paying labour hire employees less than agreed rates. Why should you be working in the same premises, delivering the same product or goods, manufacturing the same goods or offering the same services as someone working right next to you—doing the exact same work, same hours, same shifts et cetera—and get paid less? This is a loophole that has to be tightened. There's no doubt. As I said, there are places for labour hire companies, but we need to close those loopholes where people are using it just for the ability to pay less and drive down wages for the rest of their employees. The proposal we have empowers the Fair Work Commission to ensure labour hire workers are paid fairly, aligning with the host enterprise agreement. This initiative upholds 'same job, same pay'—pretty simple; I can't see anyone arguing against that—and addresses the loophole that allows pay disparities. The only people that would argue against it are people that want to drive down wages or want to pay lower wages. Key elements include application options, exemptions for small business and safeguards against avoidance.</para>
<para>There's also another allocation of $6.8 million over four years for this change, and it begins with anti-avoidance measures upon this bill being introduced, with the Fair Work Commission orders enforceable from 1 November 2024. This reform affects both existing and future labour hire arrangements, with extensive consultation and engagement over 45 sessions to ensure fairness prevails. We're taking a significant step to protect workers in the emerging forms of employment like the gig economy. The Fair Work Commission will gain powers to establish minimum standards for those employee-like workers, ensuring they aren't exploited or subjected to hazardous conditions. We see the dangerous areas they work in, riding bikes on busy streets in the CBDs or rushing to get to the next job because there's pressure on them to make six or seven deliveries in the one hour or in the half-hour. These are hazardous conditions, and no-one's life should be endangered or their health endangered while they're at work. We're not forcing people into traditional employee roles; we're simply advocating for fairness. Gig workers deserve better than 19th-century conditions in the 21st-century digital age. I'm very proud to be speaking on this bill. I'd ask everyone in this place to support it because it's about fairness and it's not a radical change.</para>
<para>I just want to bring one more historical fact before I close off. In the late 1940s the government of the time was negotiating migration agreements with European countries to bring migrant workers over, who have now become settled here, and I'm the son of one of those migrant workers. If you read the <inline font-style="italic">Hansard</inline> of the debates that were taking place in this place back then, there were two views. One, from the conservative side, was saying they should come in but should be paid less. That was an argument that was put in this chamber—maybe not this chamber but the one down the road. The other side, with the backing of the unions, said, 'No; if they're doing the same job and they're working side by side, they should have equal pay.' Can you imagine—we today pride ourselves as multicultural in this country—what this country would have looked like if they had their way back in the 1940s? It would have been a very different country today. At the heart of this bill is fairness, and I want to remind the House and anyone listening that, when you look at industrial relations bills, on the Labor side it's always been about better wages, better conditions and fairer work conditions, compared to the other side, which has always been about diminishing wages and unfair work conditions.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:44</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms LANDRY</name>
    <name.id>249764</name.id>
    <electorate>Capricornia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Small business is the engine room of our economy, with 97.5 per cent, or around 2.5 million businesses, dominating the business sector. The contribution small businesses make to powering our nation is considerably significant, with one-third of our GDP being accounted for by small business. These businesses are the lifeblood of our communities. They provide job opportunities for 5.1 million Australians and employ 42 per cent of all apprentices and trainees. Rather than thanking these ambitious Australians who want to give it a go and work tirelessly to create a business they're proud of, this government is ready to grind the livelihood of these people and their employees to a halt.</para>
<para>The Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes) Bill seeks to punish businesses through additional costs to businesses. It will decrease productivity, place jobs on the line and further drive the country's current cost-of-living crisis. Claims made by the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations that the changes are very modest couldn't be further from the truth. The reality is that this government is going to inflict an extreme amount of complexity and red tape on businesses while crippling individuals and families.</para>
<para>In Queensland there are more than 473,000 small businesses. John Kerslake, who lives in my electorate of Capricornia, is one of those small-business owners. His two cafes support 25 locals and have contributed to the local Mackay region's economy for many years. Unfortunately, the hard work John and his wife have put into their business will be under threat if this legislation is passed. As any good business owner will attest, their priority is the wellbeing of their staff. Without the loyalty and drive of their employees, their business will fail to thrive. John has said to me that up to four jobs will be on the line, while other staff will have their hours cut back to accommodate the changes this legislation will cause. At a time when Australians are being hit on the hip pocket with ever increasing energy prices, high grocery bills and the cost of everyday items continuing to grow, job losses through irresponsible and poorly thought through legislation will further compound the pressure they are under to make ends meet.</para>
<para>Many of John's staff are young women with families, who require the flexibility that a casual position provides. Casual employment allows these young women to get their children ready for school, do the school runs and be able to stay home to care for the children when they're sick. This flexibility is what draws people to the job. If the minister for employment has his way, there will be nothing flexible about working in the local cafe. Why should a mum be forced not to be there with her sick child because she's tied to a work agreement? Changing this legislation erodes the choice and flexibility of the 2.7 million Australians currently employed as casuals. Those who will be left to pick up the slack to continue to make the business work will be the owners, who are already stretched thin.</para>
<para>Bound by complicated laws, the employment minister has admitted that the bill will add even more layers of complexity to an already intricate system. By introducing a new definition of 'casual employment', it changes what is currently a very simple concept to one that is challenging to navigate not only for business owners but also for everyday Australians. Currently, a casual employee has the right to convert to a permanent-status worker after 12 months if they have worked regular hours. The permanent-casual loophole has been closed, yet, in usual Labor style, legislation surrounding casual workers will become some of the most complex industrial legislation ever seen.</para>
<para>This government plans to add a new right after six months, in addition to the current system allowing an employee to convert to a permanent position after 12 months. Business owners are expected to read and thoroughly understand the new definition, which consists of three pages and includes 15 factors, to determine whether an employee is classed as a casual. For an employee to be considered a casual, they must by law meet the 15 factors.</para>
<para>To convert a casual employee is even more confusing. Business owners just don't have the time to understand the complex conversion process required to move an employee to a permanent position. The process to do so is described in an extensive, eight-page document, with two streams for regulating the same thing. Testing an employee to move employment classification involves 11 factors, which consists of four sections and seven subsections within the legislation.</para>
<para>There will also be two streams to regulate the same thing—one stream if an employee is converted at the six-month mark and a second stream for conversion after 12 months. Small-business owners know their businesses better than anyone. They understand the need for the present and what they must do to plan for the future. As part of the changes to the fair work legislation, Labor is essentially pulling the rug out from under the feet of business owners, who need to be able to make an educated decision on what is best for their business.</para>
<para>In response to a conversion request, an employer must give detailed reasoning for why they want to change an employee's position. They will also be subjected to involuntary arbitration by the Fair Work Commission should a worker or union dispute their decision or their interpretation of the definition. Under this proposed definition, an employer could be exposed to misclassification claims, including claims of double-dipping of entitlements which are in addition to casual loading that employees have already received. Employers may also be at risk of contravening the act through civil penalties. Breaching the act will come with a maximum penalty of $93,900 per breach per employee. I know many small-business owners. I too have been a small-business owner. I am quite sure that these people don't have an in-depth understanding of industrial relations laws, nor do they have the time that will be required to navigate their way through this quagmire of legislation.</para>
<para>The risk that is posed for employers—of being caught in the crossfire of the definition and clauses in this government's proposed amendments—will leave employers with no choice but to force their workers to move into a permanent job. In effect, this legislation is making it too risky for any business to employ someone on a casual basis. This move will mean staff will lose additional income and the flexibility of the choice of hours that attracted them to the position in the first place. If this government thinks that more jobs will magically be replaced by permanent ones, that is absurd and is a complete misjudgement of why casual employment is necessary. When talking to John, my local cafe owner, he said that the positions he will have to make redundant if this legislation is passed won't equate to permanent positions. For just one small business in Australia to have the potential to make four positions redundant paints a bleak picture of what the total job loss will be like.</para>
<para>Recently the High Court of Australia made a decision that clarified and simplified the common-law definition of employment. Labor's changes to the legislation mean Labor is thumbing its nose at the High Court, who ultimately is an independent body to ensure our country's laws are fair and right. Overturning this decision shows the contempt which Labor holds for the High Court and proves that they are more concerned with pleasing their union bosses. Industrial relations reform is one of the most important aspects of Australia's economy and should be designed to ensure we as a country remain productive and competitive and boost job numbers. A workplace relations system that delivers a safety net for workers, recognises the shared interests of managers and workers in an enterprise's success, and gives a business the agility it needs to compete, grow and succeed is of utmost importance. This is the recipe for delivering a successful, strong and resilient economy.</para>
<para>Just last week I had the Leader of the Opposition and Leader of the Nationals join me in Rockhampton to visit businesses. One of those businesses, Doblo's Farmers Market, has gone from strength to strength. Owner and entrepreneur Dominic Doblo and his family have been in the business of selling fruit and vegetables for over a century. Such has been his success that his business has expanded to accommodate a butcher, florist, plant nursery and cafe, which employ dozens of Rockhampton locals. It would be a travesty to see this bill succeed and demolish all the hard work that has made Dominic, John and the other 2.5 million small businesses successful.</para>
<para>We as a government need to nurture and replenish current and next-generation entrepreneurs, encouraging Australians to take a chance on themselves. However, industrial laws as confusing and risky as the one proposed stifle small-business development. In this bill we find uncertainty and complexity to the employment of millions of casuals, contractors and labour-hire workers. It leads me to the question: why change something that isn't broken? This government is fulfilling the long list of union demands they put forward prior to coming to government. It is a government seeking to deliver on their promise and come good to the unions.</para>
<para>The measures put forward in the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes) Bill 2023 reward Labor's union paymasters. This legislation change will provide the unions with unprecedented power in the workplace. For the first time in history, union delegates will have the ability to exercise rights-of-entry powers without any notice. It will be as simple as a union reporting their suspicion of wage underpayment. They can do this without any evidence. What concerns me the most about this power that the unions will yield is the effect it will have on our primary producers whose homes are their offices. Without warning, a complete stranger will be able to enter the home of a farmer. Their home is their workplace, and, more often than not, children will be present, exposing them to strangers entering the place they live and play. It is unsafe and a dangerous practice and one that children should not be subjected to.</para>
<para>Primary producers also have their farm's biosecurity put on the line as union delegates waltz in unannounced. All it would take is for one union delegate to bring disease in from their travels to completely decimate a famer's livelihood. It's tough enough for our farmers, who deal with our country's droughts and flooding rains, without the threat of complete strangers bringing potential biosecurity risk to their property and being forced by the law to let them inside their homes. This policy has taken businesses by surprise, as these policies did not form any part of this government's 2022 election policies, nor were they included in any of the public consultation papers released earlier this year. I will not support legislation which seeks to serve as a payoff to unions nor will I support legislation which will weaken our economy and create turmoil for the small Australian businesses who drive our nation forward.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:56</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr CHARLTON</name>
    <name.id>I8M</name.id>
    <electorate>Parramatta</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>This is an important piece of legislation. It's important because the Australian economy is changing, and this bill updates our industrial relations system to respond to those changes by offering Australian workers more flexibility and more fairness. This bill ensures that our industrial relations system responds to changes in worker preferences and business practices. It closes loopholes in our workplaces, including asymmetric penalties for theft and loopholes in labour hire and casual employment.</para>
<para>This bill is necessary because Australia's workplaces have changed dramatically over the last 25 years. In that time there has been tremendous technological change as well as massive growth in the participation of different categories of workers, in particular working parents, students and older Australians—three cohorts whose workforce participation has grown over the last 25 years at twice the rate of all other Australian workers. The growth in these groups has contributed to a massive change in what people want from their workplace. In particular, it has driven a significantly increased demand for workplace flexibility. Almost six in 10 Australian workers today want jobs that would allow them to juggle other responsibilities in their lives: study, parenting, side businesses, travel plans, health constraints, semiretirement or caring responsibilities.</para>
<para>These additional responsibilities are a common part of the workplace for the increasingly diverse Australian worker. These are workers who, as I said before, now include millions of working parents, students and older Australians. For these workers, the gig economy is an important source of flexible jobs, and the gig economy has grown to meet the demands of these workers. The workers in the gig economy greatly value the flexibility to work when and, in some cases, where they like. A study of the experience of these workers in the gig economy conducted by AlphaBeta, my former business, in partnership with Uber and published last year found that nearly four in five Uber drivers say that they value the flexibility of gig economy jobs. In fact, more than three in five Uber drivers say that they could not work in traditional roles that did not offer this type of flexibility.</para>
<para>This statistic in the report has been used by some to suggest that the study concludes that gig economy workers are happy with flexibility and prefer it to jobs with security or entitlements. But that's not the conclusion of the report at all. Yes, Uber drivers do value flexibility, but they do not believe that it should come at the expense of security, safety or entitlements. These Australian workers don't want flexibility instead of protections; they want flexibility as well as protections. Flexibility is important to gig workers because many of them have chosen this type of work to accommodate other priorities in their lives. Nearly two-thirds of Uber drivers have other jobs. Half have significant family caring responsibilities. Fifteen per cent are developing their own business, 10 per cent are studying, and six per cent are semi-retired. Flexibility enables these people to manage work around other priorities in their lives. But this is the crucial point. There is nothing inherent in flexible jobs that prevents them from also providing workers with basic protections and entitlements. Flexibility and workplace standards are not mutually exclusive.</para>
<para>Gig workers don't believe they should be forced to choose between flexibility and basic entitlements. The same study found that, while most gig workers appreciated flexibility, they were less satisfied with the pay and conditions of their work. Hourly pay rates for Uber drivers were highly variable. On average, drivers earned above the minimum wage, but many workers earned less or more than the average based on when they worked—for example, you earn more if you work on weekends, nights and in peak months—and where they worked—you earn more if you work in busy areas around city CBDs. Workers in the gig economy also did not understand why they had to forgo rights and entitlements that come with traditional employment. Most gig economy workers have no sick pay, no parental leave, no minimum hourly pay and no superannuation. This situation is untenable, especially for the 14 per cent of Uber drivers who derive their primary income from the gig economy and who work hours comparable to full-time work. These workers are effectively employees, just without the rights and entitlements that are normally attached to that employment.</para>
<para>This is the issue in Australia. We have enormous growth in preference for jobs with flexibility and security. That reflects the changes in our modern workplace and the increasing demands on workers juggling a range of different responsibilities in their lives. They want flexibility and they want security. But, unfortunately, the Australian economy is not generating enough jobs with these two traits. Since 2008, the number of jobs that have both high security and high flexibility have increased by just five per cent despite rapidly rising demand for them. There has been slow growth in jobs with high security and low flexibility. Those jobs have increased by just three per cent since 2008, due in part to the decline in occupations such as factory workers, which are down by 13 per cent, and machine operators, which are down by six per cent. Unfortunately, the fastest category of growth in the Australian labour market has been jobs with low flexibility and low security. These jobs have increased by 29 per cent since 2008, many times faster than jobs with high security and high flexibility. This is in part due to the growth of occupations such as carers and aides, which are up by 66 per cent, and hospitality workers, which are up by 41 per cent. Our modern workforce is crying out for security and flexibility to manage their lives, but the economy is giving them jobs that have neither. To support our modern workforce, Australia needs to urgently create jobs that do give Australians both flexibility and security. This legislation does precisely that. It accepts the flexible work practices in the gig economy, but it adds basic standards and protections to them.</para>
<para>The gig economy has grown to cover passenger transport, food delivery, health care and many other industries, and it has created many positives, including flexible job opportunities and attractive customer propositions. But it is time to ensure that gig work comes with the securities and benefits that are fundamental pillars of the Australian industrial relations system and that this type of work reflects Australian expectations of what it means to work in a fair environment. This is not a challenge that Australia has been dealing with on our own. Many jurisdictions around the world, including France, Britain, Canada and several states in the United States, have already changed their laws to provide more rights to gig economy workers or to create new categories of employment for dependent contractors.</para>
<para>The Albanese Labor government is moving, too. This government is committed to modernising Australia's workplace laws to deliver jobs that are both flexible and secure. In the gig economy, that means ensuring that workers are entitled to appropriate minimum standards and protections—to take jobs that already have flexibility and retrofit security into them. Australian workers should be able to access flexible work without forgoing entitlements. As Minister Tony Burke has said, '21st century technology must not mean 19th century working conditions.'</para>
<para>Our friends in the union movement and members on the side of the House come from a long tradition, stretching back hundreds of years, of building a fair workplace, fighting for an eight-hour day, providing people with decent pay that can support a family and enabling basic protections. All the way from the provision of the weekend to the delivery of paid family and domestic violence leave just last year, there is a continuous thread in which this side of the House has sought to improve the Australian labour market and make it a more just and hospitable place for working people. But the technology changes associated with the gig economy threaten to wipe away those centuries of progress, to take us back to an era when there was no holiday pay, there was no minimum pay and there were limited protections and basic safety standards.</para>
<para>The opposition doesn't want this bill. They didn't support that two centuries of progress and they're happy to see technological change erode that progress in the gig economy to create a new class of workers that have none of the protections that have been built over centuries of struggle. We can't allow that to happen, and that's why this bill strikes a balance between flexibility and fairness. I commend the minister for taking such a sensible and practical approach to modernising our workplace laws. I acknowledge all the unions, especially the TWU, and the business and community groups that have contributed to the development of this legislation.</para>
<para>This legislation will ensure that one of the fastest-growing areas of our economy, an area that is creating more and more jobs, can bring more and more workers into the labour market and provide the flexibility that, in many cases, is badly needed to ensure that those jobs don't take us back two centuries ago, before we had basic protections and entitlements. By doing so, this legislation fills the great demand in the Australian economy: to create jobs that are both flexible and secure and that give people the ability to juggle all of their outside work responsibilities without having to give up basic protections and entitlements. That's why this bill is so important. That's why it is such a step forward for this country and why it responds to the demographic and technological changes of the last 25 years.</para>
<para>In addition to those in the gig economy, the government's Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes) Bill 2023 also closes a range of other loopholes in Australia's industrial relations system. Firstly, it ends the asymmetry of wage theft, an asymmetry that meant that a worker stealing from a boss is committing a criminal act but a boss stealing from a worker is not.</para>
<para>We have seen over recent years time and time again cases of wage theft right across Australia, across many different industries. Wage theft in the millions is widespread, where in many cases it's intentional and systematised, and it's gone unchecked. This bill makes the intentional underpayment of wages a criminal offence. Of course, employers who make genuine mistakes will not be prosecuted, but those who do will face the appropriate and symmetric penalties that their workers face if they commit similar acts.</para>
<para>This bill also closes the casual employment loophole, ensuring that the 2.5 million casual employees across Australia and the 32 per cent of them who are on regular work patterns have another avenue towards changing their employment status. If they have been working in regular patterns, that will enable them to be offered a conversion. It also closes the labour hire loophole. For many companies, sure, there is a legitimate need for labour hire. But in those instances where labour hire is simply used to undermine wages and protections, this bill closes that loophole.</para>
<para>This is an important piece of legislation for Australia. It responds to changing demographic trends over the last 25 years, it responds to changes in technology and in consumer and worker preferences, it updates our industrial relations system to provide flexibility and security for Australian workers who badly need it, and closes loopholes to make our system fairer and more just. I commend this bill to the House.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:11</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr TEHAN</name>
    <name.id>210911</name.id>
    <electorate>Wannon</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The only thing the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes) Bill 2023 responds to is the fact that the unions didn't have a government that would do everything at their beck and call to promote their interests above the interests of everyday Australians, and in particular not only everyday Australians but small businesses right across our nation. That is why we are opposing it. I've been out and about in my electorate over the past three weeks while we weren't sitting, and what we are starting to see—and it was reflected in today's national accounts—is the economic climate is getting harder and harder. We know that the cost-of-living crisis for individuals is apparent.</para>
<para>We know that every commitment this government has given about dealing with that cost-of-living crisis hasn't been delivered. The commitment of $275 off your energy bill hasn't been delivered. They made a commitment that your real wages would go up, but your real wages are going down. When you look at something like labour productivity, labour productivity has dropped 4.6 per cent. That is the biggest drop that we have seen in decades of labour productivity, and this bill is going to make that bad situation even worse. This bill has nothing—nothing—going for it, and all we've seen is absolute trickery from the minister in the lead-up to him presenting this bill into this parliament. We had the headline on Monday that small business would be exempt—not true, absolutely not true! As a matter of fact, the minister should come in here and admit that he misled people on Monday in saying that, 'Oh, yes, we are going to exempt small business,' when the exact opposite was true. Sadly, it's going to be small business, the engine room of our nation, that is going to suffer the most from this legislation. When small business suffers, sadly, the Australian people suffer. As we know, what we're going to see is the cost of living rise as a result of this bill because it does nothing to ensure that small business can continue to grow, can continue to employ people and can continue to pay good wages to the people that they employ so that those people can then afford those basic things that they need to see their standard of living improved.</para>
<para>What this bill will do is, sadly, see people's standard of living reduced even further, and what they have seen under this Labor government is their standard of living drop since Anthony Albanese became Prime Minister. We did warn that things wouldn't be easy under Anthony Albanese, and the sad reality is, where a lot of us were hoping, 'Just maybe something might happen so that isn't true,' well, the sad reality is that it is true.</para>
<para>What this government continues to do is not put the legislation in place which would make the Australian economy begin to grow in a sustainable way and see wages grow in a sustainable way. Nothing in this bill, and there's no commitment from the government, says it will lead to real wages going up. We see the minister come to the dispatch box and say wages are increasing. He never mentions what's happening to real wages. It's all very well to say wages are increasing. But if they're not increasing above the rate of inflation, that means they're actually going backwards.</para>
<para>The Australian people know that because they see it in their hip pocket every single day. They see it when they're faced with the choice: can I put the heater on tonight, or do I go to the supermarket and therefore, because I'm going to the supermarket, I'd better not put the heater on. What will this bill do when it comes to food prices? What has the horticultural sector said? What has the National Farmers' Federation said? It's going to make the cost of living worse because the price of your food is going to go up. What's it going to do to having that food delivered to you? It's going to make the cost go up. Everywhere you look when it comes to the bill, costs are going up.</para>
<para>What the government doesn't understand is it's not only the cost to the consumer but the cost to small business as well. I mentioned in the last three weeks I've been out and about and in particular focusing on going around and talking to small businesses in my electorate. What they're starting to see is a couple of things. They're starting to see the red tape burden go up and up and up. They've had to, in Victoria, deal with a lot of extra red tape burden because of the Andrews Labor government. But now what they're starting to see is that there's an additional layer going on top of that. You've got the state-level bureaucracy red tape there already and increases usually every day or every week in Victoria from the state government, and now you've got a Labor government, the Albanese Labor government, putting more and more regulation and red tape on business as well. They're saying enough is enough.</para>
<para>Yet what is the government doing through this bill? They're adding more complexity to those small businesses and, not only that, they're providing uncertainty and extra cost. What happens when the small businesses are faced with extra costs? The sad reality is they have to start letting people go, and the last thing anyone needs in this nation at the moment is to lose their job in a cost-of-living crisis. It's hard enough when you're earning a wage, and the last we want to be doing is putting extra complexity and cost into small business, the engine room of our nation, our largest employer, at this time. We don't want to be seeing anyone losing their job at the moment, yet that is what these laws have the potential to do.</para>
<para>Small business don't want to see that. They're saying to me for the first time they're not out hunting CVs; they actually have a pile of CVs which they can choose from when it comes to putting some additional staff on or getting people to work some additional hours. That balance has changed in the economy, from small business out trying to seek people wherever they can to get people to work for them, to now having CVs sitting in the top drawer that they can draw upon. If you put extra costs on them at the moment and extra complexity on them at the moment, don't enable them to plan for the future with certainty and don't enable them to invest for the future with certainty, then they are going to pause on that hiring. That pause could not come at a worse time and, as I mentioned before, comes at a time when we've seen from the national accounts today that we're in a per capita recession.</para>
<para>The only thing driving the economy at the moment is migration, and this bill will do nothing to add to the engine room of our nation. Nothing. So what the government is going to be relying on is more migration. What's that going to do to our housing crisis, our rental crisis, the congestion issues we're facing and the environmental issues that we are facing at the moment? It's going to put even more pressure on them—I will digress a little for a moment—because the government has no plan when it comes to their Big Australia approach. They're just continuing to use migration as the means to try and drive economic growth without any sort of plan. What this bill will do is make sure that there isn't that lift in the standard of living that Australians are wanting and looking for. As a matter of fact, there is no commitment from the government as to what this will do to employment, what costs it will add to small business or how the regulation burden is going to strangle people. There are no commitments from the government whatsoever when it comes to that.</para>
<para>What we need is for the government to really have a look at this bill again, to go back and consult with people again on it and to go back to the drawing board. The only group that this bill benefits is their trade union friends. I would have thought that the government over the last few days would have learned the lesson of just doing things for their mates. We've seen from the Qatar incident what happens when you just do things for your mates. When you don't consult properly, when you don't follow the proper processes of governing, and when you just look after your mates, it doesn't work out well for the nation. The sad reality here is that that's exactly what the government is doing. They haven't followed proper processes. They've hoodwinked business, especially small business. The minister coming out and saying small business is exempt from this bill is as close as you can get to telling the biggest porky, or one of the biggest porkies, that ever has been told by a minister. There is nothing good about this bill apart from the fact that it looks after the government's union mates. The sad reality is that the minister should have known that for nine years the union movement have been waiting to have the Labor Party deliver for them. Having won government, the Labor Party—this is what the minister should have had the fortitude to do—should have been able to say, 'No, we're not here to govern for our mates; we're here to govern in the interests of all Australians.'</para>
<para>That is why we strongly oppose the bill. We think proper consultation should occur. We think that a proper assessment of what is potentially a $9 billion hit to costs of living in this nation should be properly examined. We think that what we need to do is look at how this bill will lead to higher prices for consumers, making the cost-of-living crisis even worse. We think that the government needs to look at whether or not, especially when it comes to small business, it will lead to people being let go, losing employment at a time when they can least afford to lose it, during a cost-of-living crisis. We think the government needs to be able to say quite clearly how this will deal with one of the greatest drops in labour productivity that we've seen in decades, a 4.6 per cent drop in labour productivity. There is nothing in this bill that is going to fix that issue. We think that the government needs to come and be able to say what this bill will do to raise people's standard of living. We all know that it won't be able to do anything to raise people's standard of living, but the government should step back and think again. These are all the markers, all the things, that need to be considered.</para>
<para>When it comes to consultation—and the minister for workplace relations has form on this—proper consultation needs to take place. You don't have consultation by silencing people, making them sign a non-disclosure agreement, and showing them a bill and then saying: 'Well, that's it; take it or leave it. But the non-disclosure agreement lasts for weeks,' so they have no ability to come out and say: 'What you're leaking to the paper is absolutely wrong in fact.' That is not how you consult. You consult by sitting down and engaging across the board, not only with your union friends but also with employer groups and with those individuals who will be impacted by the cost of living increases that we will see.</para>
<para>So, in summary, this bill will hit the cost of living, not only for everyday Australians but also, sadly, for those people who, potentially, might lose their jobs as a result of the complexity, the costs and the red tape that this bill is putting in place. But also what it will do is to drive labour productivity further down in this nation, making sure that what is happening to people's ability to sustain their living in such a way that they can look forward to the future, diminishes, rather than increases.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:26</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms FERNANDO</name>
    <name.id>299964</name.id>
    <electorate>Holt</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>As we all know, the Albanese Labor government was elected on a commitment to get wages moving and to ensure that our workers are treated fairly and justly. Addressing the loopholes that have long undermined wages and working conditions in this country is essential to achieve this.</para>
<para>The cornerstone of our efforts is in the suites of comprehensive workplace relations reforms that this government has introduced since the commencement of its term. The reforms in this bill are not radical changes, no matter how much the scaremongering by those opposite would lead you to believe so. Instead, they aim to make the current law work more effectively, ensuring fairness and providing a level playing field for both businesses and workers.</para>
<para>Let me break down the four key elements of these reforms. First, we are determined to crack down on labour hire loopholes that have been used to undercut pay and conditions for far too long. This practice is detrimental to both workers and the broader economy. It's time we hold those responsible accountable and ensure that negotiated rates are paid as agreed upon.</para>
<para>Second, we are committed to criminalising wage theft. No worker should ever have to worry about being underpaid or not receiving compensation they rightfully deserve. Strengthening the enforcement of existing rates of pay is essential for maintaining the integrity of our workforce.</para>
<para>Third, we aim to properly define 'casual work' so that casuals aren't being exploited. Our new definition of 'casual employment' clarifies the intended nature of casual work. If you are working regular and predictable hours and desire a permanent position, you should have that pathway available to you. It's about fairness and ensuring that those who want stability have the opportunity to achieve it.</para>
<para>Lastly, we are dedicated to ensuring gig workers aren't being ripped off. The gig economy is an integral part of our modern workforce. We must ensure that these workers are afforded the same rights and protections as any other employee. It's about creating a level playing field for all workers, regardless of their job type.</para>
<para>It's important to note that we announced all four of these policies while in opposition, over two years ago, and took them to the Australian people at the 2022 election.</para>
<para>We have extensively consulted with business groups to refine these measures, but we will not be deterred from delivering on our election promises. These reforms strengthen our current workplace relations framework, providing certainty and fairness. They are about ensuring that workers are not taken advantage of and that businesses can thrive in an environment where everyone plays by the same rules.</para>
<para>In addition to the promises we took to the election, this bill includes a host of other changes that will help workers and unions make sure businesses are doing the right thing. This includes minimum standards for the road transport industry; introducing an industrial manslaughter offence and increasing penalties; new protections for workplace delegates; exemption certificates for suspected underpayment; right of entry; making it unlawful to discriminate against an employee who is or was subject to family and domestic violence; clarifying that Fair Work Ombudsman compliance notices can require an employer to calculate the amount of an underpayment that is owed to an employee; and allowing supported bargaining and single-interest employer agreements to be replaced by single-enterprise agreements.</para>
<para>As a former union delegate and organiser, I could speak about the reforms enshrined in this bill and how they will deliver a better future for every Australian till well into the night. However, in the interest of time, I will focus on a few reforms that are important to those in my electorate and relate to my previous life in the union movement. I am particularly pleased with the reforms to gig economy work contained in this bill. We can't continue to have a situation where the 21st-century technology of gig platforms comes with 19th-century conditions. Many of us here constantly hear stories of people, many of whom are relatively young, being killed due to the demanding pressures placed on them by the platforms they are contracted with. Even if saved from such extreme conditions, the nature of this employment constantly leaves them on the edge. By extending the powers of the Fair Work Commission to include employee-like forms of work, the government will be able to better protect people in new forms of work from exploitation and dangerous working conditions.</para>
<para>This change will allow the Fair Work Commission to make orders for minimum standards for new forms of work, such as gig work. At present, employee-like workers performing work through a digital platform are often engaged as independent contractors, meaning they do not receive rights and entitlements under the Fair Work Act. Unfortunately, several inquiries have highlighted that some of these workers can receive less pay than they would if they were paid under the award safety net, and they would have no protection if they were to lose their work unfairly.</para>
<para>The reforms contained in this bill will mean the Fair Work Commission can set minimum standards for independent contractors who perform work via digital platforms and who have one or more employee-like characteristics, such as low bargaining power, low authority over their work, or payment at or below the rate of comparable employees. This means a digital labour platform, a registered organisation or the minister can make an application for an employee-like minimum standards order, which can include payment terms, deductions, insurance and cost recovery. The Fair Work Commission may also set standards on its own initiative. Workers will also be able to negotiate for conditions more beneficial than the minimum standards, as the bill provides for a new, consent-based collective agreement-making framework that will allow unions representing employee-like workers to make collective agreements with digital labour platforms.</para>
<para>Finally, thanks to this bill, gig economy workers will not continue to be treated as though they can simply be disposed of. Employee-like workers will have new protections from unfair deactivation if they have been working for a digital labour platform regularly for six months.</para>
<para>In particular, they may apply to the Fair Work Commission to seek a remedy if they consider their deactivation unfair, and Fair Work will be able to order reinstatement.</para>
<para>Nearly seven per cent of my electorate work in the transport, postal and warehousing industry, with a large chunk of them employed in road transport. At present, the road transport industry faces a set of challenges that threaten its very existence. Unsustainable business practices and increasing commercial pressures jeopardise the livelihoods of those who depend on this industry for their income. I am pleased that the reforms in this bill implement a Jobs and Skills Summit outcome to empower the Fair Work Commission to set fair minimum standards to ensure the road transport industry is safe, sustainable and viable. Notably, similar to the reform outlined above, a road transport business, a union representing road transport contractors or a business, or the minister can make an application for the road transport minimum standards order.</para>
<para>The bill will also include comprehensive guardrails to govern how the Fair Work Commission is to perform its functions. This includes the requirement to balance a number of competing factors outlined in a new minimum standards objective and a road transport objective when considering the making of the standards. Fair Work's policy will be informed by an expert panel for the road transport industry that will be established within the commission. This will ensure it has the appropriate expertise and ability to set the minimum standards for the road transport industry.</para>
<para>Some of you may know that I joined the Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees Association, or the SDA, the union for workers in retail, fast food, and warehousing, when I was just 15 years old. While I worked at Woolies for 15 years, I also served as a delegate or a shop steward for nearly a decade. This experience was rewarding. It gave me the opportunity to be a shoulder for my friends at work and be the first point of contact when things turned sour. Delegates play a crucial role in assisting their colleagues to understand their rights and entitlements, navigate the work relations framework and engage productively with employers.</para>
<para>The reforms enshrined in this bill will implement a Jobs and Skills Summit outcome to improve employee access to representation for workplace safety and compliance issues. This bill will amend the Fair Work Act to provide clear rights and protections for workplace delegates. The new measures will provide general protections for delegates from employers who are unreasonably refusing to deal with them, misleading them or hindering and obstructing the exercise of their rights as delegates. The workplace delegates will also be provided with specific rights to represent the industrial interests of current and potential union members and to represent them in disputes with the employer. To support these rights, delegates will also have reasonable access to workplace facilities and paid time to undertake workplace delegate related training and communicate with current and potential members about matters of industrial concern.</para>
<para>In addition, the Fair Work Commission will be required to prepare modern award terms outlining rights for delegates to represent workers and to ensure that these rights are appropriately adapted for particular industries and occupations. In doing so, the commission will have the capacity to accommodate different expectations across industries, workplaces and employer sizes. I am pleased that it will be mandatory for all modern awards and future enterprise agreements to include a term giving effect to delegates' rights.</para>
<para>I have had the honour of sharing with this esteemed chamber the comprehensive workplace relation reforms that our Albanese Labor government is committed to. These reforms are not radical changes but necessary steps to make our current laws work more effectively, ensuring fairness and levelling the playing field for both businesses and workers.</para>
<para>These measures are about creating a fair and just workplace for every Australian. As someone who has dedicated a significant part of their life to the union movement and advocating for workers' rights, I am especially delighted by the measures in this bill that enhance employee access to representation and protection for workplace delegates. These provisions will strengthen the voices of workers and their advocates in the workplace.</para>
<para>In closing, these reforms are a testament to our commitment to building a fairer and more just Australia for everyone. We will continue to engage in extensive consultation and remain steadfast in delivering on the promises we make to the Australian people. Together, we will create a future where workers are not taken for granted, businesses thrive and everyone follows the same laws. I commend this bill to the House.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:40</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr GILL</name>
    <name.id>72184</name.id>
    <electorate>Lyne</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>ESPIE () (): This is a really important bill that we are discussing now, the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes) Bill 2023, as it will take Australian industrial relations, particularly in the small and family business space, back 30 or 40 years. The title is misleading as the bill does much more than close a few loopholes. I know many businesses that will close because this will be too complex and to onerous for many small and family businesses. It will increase union control and increase right of entry and access to many small and family businesses. It will interrupt gig workers and their platforms and other small businesses, such as the traditional agribusiness, the family farm, where the farm is the workplace and also the home, and the growing number of home based businesses who have casual people working. Their homes and little annexes to their houses are basically their workplaces.</para>
<para>It will criminalise innocent mistakes and have them interpreted as wage theft for many small and family businesses. There's gaining of access to workplaces on pretty flimsy grounds, like simply suspecting that there may be underpayment or a so-called redefined permanent with the changing definition of 'casual' leading to underpayment.</para>
<para>There is a redefinition of 'casual employment'. What could possibly go wrong with this? There are 15 factors that have to be considered across three pages of legislation! Employing a casual, for many small businesses, will turn into a regulatory minefield. At the moment, people who are employed on a casual basis and doing the same job and role over a 12-month period have the right to become permanent employees, but these regulations and this legislation will allow it to be done at a six-month interval and it will be forced upon them by the Fair Work Commission. Again, it's a really simple test: only 11 factors, four sections and four subsections! I know lots of the little businesses around my hometown of Port Macquarie and Wauchope will be reading this and thinking: 'Oh, my goodness! This is way too complex. You mean I could go to jail because I inadvertently made some mistakes in 1,200 pages of legislation and subsequent regulations that are going to be added to by another 521 pages?'</para>
<para>I'll tell you what: at Long Flat, a little farm business I know there that employs lots of casual people will be very concerned. They will work on getting family working in their business at a lot of these casual jobs. They won't miraculously think: 'Wow! The Fair Work Commission is now coming into my business. I have been waiting decades for this to happen.' No, they will be saying, 'Oh, my goodness; this is all too hard!' and they'll move on to something else or change or shrink their business or no longer employ people once they get close to the six-month mark. People can't do this anymore.</para>
<para>I know lots of employers that it's already a nightmare for, and this is just going to add to the complexity and the cost of being a person who runs a business. And the smaller it is, the proportion of time that you put into compliance and all the complex regulation—like I said, there are 1,200 pages of legislation already in the Fair Work Act. And now lots of people are going to have unions knocking on their door and saying, 'I want to come in and check your books.' It's just outrageous.</para>
<para>I know there are some problems in Australian workplaces. Some in the gig economy and some platform operators haven't been ideal gig or platform employers. But we have fixed a lot of these problems, and a lot of these faulty and less-than-Australian-standard platform employers—I won't mention them by name—have said that they are going to comply with this. We're all familiar with ones that have corrected inadvertent mistakes on large amounts of wages that were not intentionally stolen from their employees. But we have an incredibly complex system.</para>
<para>The same job, same pay provisions are obviously aimed at labour hire, but it will actually capture private service contractors. Labour hire companies have to comply with the law now. One can already, as I mentioned earlier, ask to be converted to regular full-time employment or permanent part-time employment at the 12-month interval. But a simple application to the Fair Work Commission, saying, 'We suspect that this business is underpaying people,' will enable a Fair Work Commission order so that you can go and enter that business and go through their books. It will allow, as I said, unions back into workplaces that have functioned really quite adequately for decades without that. In 1992, 42 per cent of employees in Australia were members of unions. At the moment that's down to 12½ per cent. There's a reason for that. People have voted with their feet and with their freedom to run the business the way they like, and a lot of people like getting paid 25 per cent extra and not having to wait to get all those other conditions that you get with permanent part-time or full-time employment—and a lot of those jobs are feminised jobs. It suits people to be casual.</para>
<para>A lot of people I know have done regular casual work for decades, and it suits them fine. It's not a uniform situation. This will really make it so difficult for some small and family businesses and those that I've mentioned to keep operating under the fear of being hit with criminal charges because, under those complex systems, they've made inadvertent, innocent mistakes.</para>
<para>The other thing about these same pay, same job provisions is that, across Australia, there are many people involved in trades, and many of them become major contractors who have a trusted group of subcontractors. This bill will swoop in and interfere with their existing arrangements, because, if you're doing regular subcontracting work, these terms and provisions will apply to you if you're doing it all the time. There have been cases before where, if you get your work from the one contractor the majority of the time, there's an argument for you to not be treated as a subcontractor. This is going to make that even more complex. I know many tradies who have used regular subcontractors for years who, all of a sudden, will have other onerous provisions forced upon them—and many of those subcontractors will not be happy—when a union turns up at their worksite and says, 'We think you're underpaying people; show us your books.'</para>
<para>Then they're forced by the Fair Work Commission to employ people that are quite happy being a subcontractor or a casual on a regular basis because the terms and conditions of the 25 per cent loading is a much better deal for people who live in the here and now. They want to do that. As I said at the outset, confusion, complexity and extra costs for employers and consumers will be the net result. It takes employment in many cases back to the 1970s. It expands union powers, drives the right of entry into workplaces and expands union delegate powers—none of which were mentioned, by the way, during all the exposures and the consultation with industry. I haven't heard any peak body support this. You only had to have been at the Minerals Council event the other night to hear the insightful words of Tanya Constable—she called a spade a spade there. ACCI and all the other peak bodies are scratching their heads thinking, 'How can we get some commonsense changes in this?'</para>
<para>The gig economy, I should mention, is flourishing, and there are many NDIS workers who are working on the Mable platform, for instance. That's a great platform, and it's allowing people who work in the NDIS to manage themselves. It's a platform that is very user friendly, but all those people that are using that regularly and have people working for them on a casual basis using that platform will be swept up into these changes. It will drive people into regular employment in bigger businesses, because small businesses just don't have the wherewithal to deal with this. It is another sleeping timebomb here. I can see the rebirthing of the Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal, which really destroyed businesses and had the potential to destroy many more owner-operator small trucking businesses, which are the lifeblood of many country towns and regions in Australia, because there is a hidden provision in this bill gives the minister the power to make supply-chain participants, which are fancy words for small trucking businesses, come under the regulation of the Fair Work Commission. So owner-driver businesses will lose control and the flexibility to set their own rates and conditions. It's going to hurt businesses in regional Australia and particularly remote Australia because a lot of the transport in those more remote areas is done by small owner-operators. No-one will be game to do any expansion of their employment when they've got the threat of someone turning up at their business and alleging that they've committed wage theft and are subject to criminal charges.</para>
<para>There are things in schedule 3 that I support. There's no problem with first responders having their workers compensation simplified so that they don't have to prove that their PTSD was due to their work, and there's also no problem the fair entitlements guarantee. But, really, this has to go back to the drawing board. I can't support this bill.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:53</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr DAVID SMITH</name>
    <name.id>276714</name.id>
    <electorate>Bean</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I also rise to speak in favour of the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes) Bill. Only recently, what a marvellous speech we had from the member for Holt. I would like to remind the House of comments I made last year in the House when we were debating the first round of Fair Work legislation. I spoke last year about some of the facts that formed part of the reality of industrial relations in this country over the last decade. The reality is our system is completely and utterly broken and has been for some time. There has been no balance in this system. There has been no fairness. It has been working for neither employers nor workers. Well, for the first time in a decade there is a plan on the table to fix this mess. Last year's changes breathed life back into collective bargaining and the Fair Work Commission, and these changes build on this foundation for fairness. I come to this debate with real experience of industrial relations in this country. Before coming to this place, I spent two decades in workplace relations, including more than a decade in the labour movement, representing working Australians across different jobs, industries and employers.</para>
<para>I've represented scientists, police officers, engineers and pharmacists. I've seen the impact of the growth of uncertain work and the undermining of collective bargaining.</para>
<para>The Albanese government was elected on a promise to get wages moving. We started that job last year, but to do that effectively and with fairness we need to close the loopholes that are undermining wages and conditions. That's what this set of workplace relations reform is largely about—I say 'largely' because the reforms relating to transport are, critically, about worker safety. This legislation contains four main elements: closing the labour hire loophole that has been used to undercut pay and conditions, criminalising wage theft, properly defining casual work so casuals aren't being exploited, and making sure that gig workers aren't being ripped off. These reforms are not new. The Albanese Labor opposition announced all four of these policies while in opposition more than two years ago and we took them to the Australian people at the 2022 election. We've undertaken extensive consultation on the precise design of these measures, including with business groups. Indeed, those opposite could have participated in both the national and regional jobs and skills summits last year. There was an open invitation to be part of this important conversation for all groups that were interested last year.</para>
<para>At the heart of it, these are not radical changes. All we are doing is making the current law work effectively and fairly. Closing labour hire loopholes will simply require an employer to pay rates that it has already negotiated and agreed to through collective bargaining. These are rates of pay that are already set for the work being done and for the classifications covered. Our employee-like 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. They are not radical changes. Our wage theft reforms will simply 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. In fact, it has been a constant message back to us that we need to act on those bad apples.</para>
<para>Our new definition of casual employment will clarify what was intended with casual work: if you are working regular and predictable hours and want to be permanent, you will have that pathway available to you. These laws will strengthen the current workplace relations framework and provide certainty, fairness and a level playing field for both businesses and workers. This government is standing up for casual workers who want to become permanent employees. We are closing the loophole that leaves people stuck classified as casuals when they actually work permanent regular hours. A decade ago they would have been permanent. That means they work just like permanent employees but don't get any of the benefits of job security. This government is legislating a fair, objective definition to determine when an employee can be classified as a casual. These reforms 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. We on this side of the chamber understand that rent isn't casual, electricity bills aren't casual and school fees aren't casual—they're a certainty. But people in insecure work do not have the same certainty about their hours or their income despite those patterns of employment. There are many casual workers who prefer being casual. The government understands this. Under these reforms, no-one will be forced to convert from casual to permanent employment if they don't want to. There isn't a net cost to business. Employers will pay a loading if someone is casual and will pay leave entitlements if someone is permanent. They won't pay both. Eligible employees will have two pathways to change their status: by the definition based employee choice pathway or through the existing casual conversion mechanism.</para>
<para>Labour hire has legitimate uses in providing surge and specialist workforces, and that will continue to be the case. But what this government is concerned about is the labour hire loophole, which companies deliberately use in order to undercut the agreements that they've already made with their workers.</para>
<para>They'd agreed on fair rates of pay with their workers and made an enterprise agreement, and then they undercut that agreement by bringing in a labour-hire workforce that is being paid less. That is a loophole we have to close.</para>
<para>This bill 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 enterprise agreement. We're seeing multiple examples of this with our national carrier, Qantas. Qantas exploited current loopholes and set up multiple labour-hire subsidiaries in order to deliberately undermine and avoid their own enterprise agreement for cabin crew, saving money for the company at the expense of the staff and deliberately undermining wages and conditions. The direct impact on one of my constituents was to almost halve the hourly rates they would have been entitled to under the negotiated agreement. Under the current system, this is perfectly legal. Under this legislation, this extraordinarily unfair business practice will no longer be acceptable.</para>
<para>These reforms will extend the powers of the Fair Work Commission to include employee-like forms of work, allowing the better protection of 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. This legislation is not trying to turn people into employees when they don't want to be employees. The government understands that a lot of gig workers like the flexibility from using this technology, and that won't change under our laws. However, we on this side know that there is a direct link between low rates of pay and safety. Low rates of pay lead to a situation where workers take risks so they can get more work because they are struggling to make ends meet. There is simply no such thing as a safe risk in any workplace, and we know that some gig platforms have unconscionably incentivised risk.</para>
<para>We cannot 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 if they had been an employee. The Albanese Labor government will not let Australia become a nation where you have to rely on tips to make ends meet. These reforms deliver on our election commitment to allow the Fair Work Commission to set minimum standards for employee-like workers, including in the gig economy.</para>
<para>If a worker steals from the till, it's a criminal offence, and there is no argument on that from anyone in this House. But in many parts of Australia, if an employer steals from a worker's pay packet, it is not a criminal offence. Employers who intentionally steal from their workers should face criminal penalties. This is not a large moral leap. The former government did nothing to stop the wage theft epidemic. It took the Liberals and Nationals years to even acknowledge there was a problem. Eventually, those opposite did bring in some half-hearted legislation, but when it came to the Senate they voted against their own legislation. I remember this well. 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. In doing so they decided to send a clear signal to wage thieves: keep it up. Business owners who withhold wages should face the harshest penalties.</para>
<para>We must also 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 criminalised wage theft because they got sick of waiting for the previous federal government to act. Australia needs a national wage theft system to end the rip-offs, and this government is determined to deliver on our promise to Australian workers and make wage theft a crime. This proposal is to introduce a criminal offence for intentional underpayment of employees' wages and certain entitlements and to increase penalties for civil underpayment breaches in line with the government's election commitments. It will include a new way for calculating penalties with the inclusion of the value of the underpayment option to be available to the court where that value exceeds the maximum penalty measured in penalty units.</para>
<para>Under this legislation the Fair Work Commission will be able to set minimum standards for independent contractors who are regulated road transport contractors performing work under a services contract in the road transport industry. The proposal implements a Jobs and Skills Summit outcome to allow the Fair Work Commission to set fair minimum standards to ensure the road transport industry is safe, sustainable and viable. It will help address exploitation in the supply chain.</para>
<para>The measure will give the Fair Work Commission the power to set minimum standards for the road transport industry. Standards may be mandatory and enforceable with civil penalties or for guidance only.</para>
<para>Last month I met workers, independent contractors, industry representatives and Transport Workers Union members as part of the convoy to Canberra. I have also appreciated the many union and industry led briefings on industry reform. At the rally outside of parliament, TWU national secretary Michael Kaine was emphatic as to why reform was needed. He talked of the 325 logistics companies that have collapsed over the last year under the strain of uncommercial contracts, unrestrained supply chain pressures and unfair competition from gig models like Amazon Flex. He also spoke of the 132 people that have been killed in crashes on our roads, including 34 truck drivers. A further two transport gig workers have been killed in the last two months. Under these reforms, road transport safety will be taken seriously. The call for this reform has united industry.</para>
<para>The fair work legislation amendment also introduces a new offence of industrial manslaughter whilst significantly increasing the penalties for the existing category 1 offence. This proposal is to implement recommendations of the 2018 <inline font-style="italic">Review </inline><inline font-style="italic">of the model work health and safety laws</inline> which will strengthen the Commonwealth WHS offence and penalty regime by introducing an industrial manslaughter offence and increasing penalties. This will create an industrial manslaughter offence for the Commonwealth work health and safety jurisdiction with penalties of $18 million for a body corporate and 25 years for an individual.</para>
<para>I'm proud to be part of a government that wants a fair go for workers and understands that this is a key underpinning for a community that delivers for all. This comprehensive legislation represents a government that is ready to address the structural loopholes that have continually hurt some of our most vulnerable workers. These reforms provide a foundation for fairness for workers in the gig economy.</para>
<para>In the last year Australia has had the strongest jobs growth in the first year of any Australian government. Half a million jobs have now been created, and 85 per cent of those jobs have been full time. Wages are growing at their fastest rate for a decade. The gender pay gap has fallen to its lowest level ever, and the number of days lost to industrial action has fallen sharply. The sky has not fallen in.</para>
<para>But many Australians are not receiving the full benefit of these changes because of loopholes that allow pay and conditions to be undercut. For these workers, the minimum standards in awards and enterprise agreements are words on a page with little relevance to their daily lives. This legislation critically rebuilds a foundation for fairness in workplace relations, particularly for those most vulnerable. That's why I chose a career in workplace relations before this place: I was committed to fairness in the workplace. I congratulate the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations for making these changes a priority, the Australian union movement for their powerful advocacy and the Australian Public Service for doing the hard work in terms of consultation and bringing this legislation forward. I commend this legislation to the House.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:08</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr LLEW O'BRIEN</name>
    <name.id>265991</name.id>
    <electorate>Wide Bay</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to speak on the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes) Bill 2023 , and what a bill it is. It's more of a wave of an attack on small business. This is the third wave. The first two have left everyone mortified, with multi-employer bargaining and reckless industrial relations policies at a time when Australia needs stability and Australia needs confidence. We've got an inflation crisis. We've got a cost-of-living crisis. They are the two biggest games in town. Cost of living: every punter, every Australian, out there is paying way too much for their essentials when they go to the store. I'm not an economist, but I know that inflation happens when you've got a lot of money washing around in the economy and not enough goods and services. And what are the government doing? They're putting more money into the economy through subsidies and goodness knows what for energy and other things that they've caused, and they're putting forward policies like this, which are effectively a brake on productivity, on getting more goods into the market. That's what this is: it's a brake on productivity.</para>
<para>There are aspects to this omnibus bill that I do agree with. There are good parts, but, in the usual, tricky Labor Party way, they've snuck them in there. I'm sure they'll use them later on, down the track, and say, 'You didn't vote for this good part of the bill,' and not mention the other, catastrophic parts of the bill that we're voting against.</para>
<para>Voting against this bill is standing up for small business in Wide Bay. There are 26,000 businesses in Wide Bay, and the majority of those are small businesses—mums and dads who have decided to have a go. They've decided to put their assets, their money, their time and their family out in front and take a risk to make a buck. Those small businesses that employ people will absolutely be the victims of this bill. This bill will impose a whole range of new criteria on them. It's just plain unfair. For starters, there's the definition of 'casual'—you can hardly work it out it's so complex. There are about 15 different parts to it. The description says it will come down to a case-by-case basis, for goodness sake! How can you work that out? It's a 'holistic assessment'. It sounds like something that was cooked up in Woodstock. I think some of them might've been on a bit of the stuff they were on in Woodstock when they created this legislation. It's just mindless, and it's being inflicted upon our small businesses.</para>
<para>It's deadset atrocious, and then there's the cost of it! As I said, there's a cost-of-living crisis going on at the moment. Families are kicking off with little kids, trying to get ahead, buying a house, paying school fees—they're all under the pump. This is going to add about $9 billion to the cost of business. That's going to get passed on to those mums and dads, those people that really don't deserve it. It's just shocking. It's typical of the Labor Party. They're all about the ideology. They're all about the experiment. Whether they're reinventing capitalism, or whatever the Treasurer is trying to do, or running a social experiment like the Voice, there is not an experiment they won't try on the Australian people. They look at Australia and see it as a big science lab, not as a country full of people they're meant to be helping. It's: 'Let's give this a go and see what comes out the other side.' It's just disgraceful.</para>
<para>In this bill, as I said, there are a couple of good things. Certainly, the rebuttable presumption in relation to the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act is a good thing. That relates to organisations that deal with that act and first responders who have post-traumatic stress disorder. The presumption is that the workplace has significantly contributed to the PTSD, unless it can be proven otherwise. I see that as a good thing for people who have PTSD, but I also see it as a good thing in that it signals to organisations that they need to look after their workers, otherwise they will face a much tougher test when it comes to court. I'd really like to vote for that, as it's something the coalition supports, but, once again, it is tucked away in this omnibus bill that has had virtually zero consultation. It's been done in a typically sneaky way—a very selective and secretive way. Business groups that were consulted with had secrecy agreements slapped on them. What is this? Is this Russia? Is this China? No. This is Australia in 2023 under a Labor government.</para>
<para>It didn't take them long to show their true colours, I can tell you.</para>
<para>The other aspect of this bill that is a good thing is certainly the protected attribute for family and domestic violence. As a former policeman, I have seen far too much domestic violence and I know the effects that domestic violence can have on people and their lives, just day to day. If it is the case that someone, as a result of family or domestic violence, has had that impact on their workplace, that should never be held against them—it absolutely should never be held against them. Having that as a protected attribute under the antidiscrimination legislation is a good thing, once again, and I would really like to vote for it.</para>
<para>But this bill is full of landmines for our economy; it is legislation that will bring this country to a halt. The only way, obviously, that we're going to be able to fix this is to get rid of this toxic government and vote in a coalition government. So, in conclusion, I'm going to stand up for the small businesses of Wide Bay and say a big no to this toxic bill.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:16</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr THISTLETHWAITE</name>
    <name.id>182468</name.id>
    <electorate>Kingsford Smith</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The defining value of Australian culture is the notion of a fair go. It reflects itself in the value of equality—that all Australians are equal before the law. In World War II, it was a defining characteristic of our troops, and it became evident when a number of our troops were imprisoned in prison-of-war camps in South-East Asia. When food was allocated, the Australians shared it equally amongst their mates. That was a distinguishing feature and characteristic of the Australians, compared to the British, where rank was important in terms of who got access to food. In our workplaces, it manifests itself in the notion of fair wages and conditions.</para>
<para>In most of the world, the employment relationship is an unequal one. There is an imbalance in power in favour of the employer, because, at the end of the day, they can dismiss the employee if they don't like the wages and conditions. You see it in the United States, where they don't have strong unions and they don't have strong workplace laws, and there is an imbalance in workplaces between the power of employers and that of workers. It manifests itself in income inequality, in social disadvantage, in entrenched poverty and in the massive social problems that now exist in the United States of America.</para>
<para>In Australia, since Federation, we have chosen to do things differently, because of that defining value in our culture of the fair go and the idea that we should have more balance in the employment relationship that's based on equality. These laws that we are passing through the parliament ensure that Australia maintains that fair go in our workplaces, as technology changes the nature of the employment relationship—particularly in the gig economy and particularly in the increased use of contractors, whereas, in the past, they would have been direct permanent employees.</para>
<para>The change in the nature of that employment relationship isn't fiction. It's based on fact and evidence. It's manifesting itself in a disadvantage for Australian workers, and that's picked up in some vital economic statistics. In December 2022, the share of income that went to profits in Australia was the largest that it has ever been—larger than in 2020, when the share of profits was maximised because of JobKeeper. But even that was beaten in December 2022, when 29 per cent of national income went to profits—the highest level ever in our nation's history. Yet workers' share of GDP, at the same period, reached its lowest level ever, at 45 per cent. The statistics don't lie. The change in the nature of technology in the workplace has led to an imbalance in the workplace relationship that has led to workers being disadvantaged.</para>
<para>If you add the cost-of-living pressure to that, is it any wonder that over the last couple of years we've seen nurses, teachers, police officers, firefighters, miners and aged-care workers marching in the streets, demanding reform of our workplace relations system, demanding a return to the fair go and demanding more equality? That is what this government is doing. We are listening to those important workers and saying, 'We hear you.' We are going to deliver on our promise that we made in the lead-up to the last election to get wages moving again and to restore balance once again to our workplace relations system. That is the reason why the Australian population voted for the Labor Party at the last election, and we intend to keep our commitment to those workers who voted for us.</para>
<para>I think it's a disgrace that the coalition are saying no to these laws. How can they say that nurses, teachers, firefighters, aged-care workers, miners, all of these important workers and, indeed, the rest of the working population that contribute so much to our economic development and our nation's income don't deserve a wage increase that's fair, permanency of employment and the principle of same job, same pay? I can't believe that the coalition say that they support miners, yet the miners and their unions are saying, 'We're sick and tired of two miners working on a job, doing the same job and working the same hours on the same shift, yet be paid different wages and conditions simply because one of them happens to be employed under a labour hire contract and the other one is a permanent worker.' And this mob think that that's alright. And you say that you support miners? How do you support miners when miners are saying that enough is enough? You're liars. You don't support them, and that is why they said they'd had enough at the last election.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>E0D</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! The minister will withdraw that last comment.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr THISTLETHWAITE</name>
    <name.id>182468</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I withdraw that comment. You misled them at the last election, and that is why they voted for a change of government.</para>
<para>There are four major elements to this bill. Firstly, it's criminalising wage theft. I don't know how you can disagree with that. Criminalising people being stolen from—if you think that reforming that and making that a crime is not a good thing, then blow me away. Secondly, it's introducing minimum standards for workers in the gig economy, which is long overdue—safety standards for gig economy workers and a minimum decent income. It's a funny thing that, in many respects, the people that have been delivering us food through online platforms can't afford to feed themselves, with the wages that they're on. And you think that that's okay. Thirdly, it's closing the forced permanent casual worker loophole. Again, that's another long overdue reform. Lastly, it's closing the labour hire loophole.</para>
<para>We announced these policies 2½ years ago. They haven't come out of the blue, as some would like to claim. They haven't been cooked up in the last six months. They're 2½ years old. Everybody knew that we took these policies to the last election, employer groups included. And the Australian people voted for them. We've got a mandate to deliver them, and that's what we're doing. The introduction of this bill follows months of extensive consultations, including with employer and union groups, and it's clear that these are distinctly Australian reforms, reflecting that fair go that I mentioned earlier.</para>
<para>Alan Fels, former chair of the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, has pointed out that wage theft makes it hard for compliant employers to compete and do the right thing. Why should an employer that does the right thing, meets all their obligations, pays their award wages and does the right thing by their employees be disadvantaged when some fly-by-nighter seeks to undercut them and undertake wage theft? And you guys think that that's okay. That's hardly supporting small businesses that are struggling to make ends meet if they're doing the right thing.</para>
<para>It also affects government revenue if people are employing people off the books and avoiding paying payroll tax. So business owners who knowingly—and that's the key point; you need to do it deliberately—withhold wages, should face consequences. I think the Australian people think that that's fair and that's what they expect. If somebody is deliberately breaking the law, they should face the consequences. We must also ensure that our laws don't water down any wage theft laws that have already been put in place by the states. That is what this reform will ensure. So these reforms deliver on that commitment to criminalise wage theft.</para>
<para>The other important part of this reform is 'same job, same pay'. It's the very simple principle that, if you are working side by side with someone that is doing the same work as you, working on the same shift, you should both be paid the same amount of money. If you want a notion of the fair go, that is it. It has become an unfortunate feature of many industries in Australia that employers seek to undercut either award or enterprise bargaining wages and conditions that have been negotiated in good faith between an employer and their employees by using labour hire. It's been particularly prevalent in the resources sector. A number of miners in the lead-up to the election said: 'We've had enough. It's not fair that I'm working on the same shift and doing the same hours as someone who works beside me, doing the same job, and they are paid a different rate of pay.' They might be driving a truck, operating an excavator or doing detonations—all sorts of jobs—and they are paid a different rate of pay. Why? Because the employer uses a loophole in the law to say: 'We can use a labour hire contractor that will employ that person independently of us on different wages and conditions.' They may not have permanency. They can be sacked with a day's notice and can't complain about it. Is it any wonder miners and other workers said, 'We've had enough of that and we want that changed'? That's what this law does. It restores that dignity and respect for Australian workers by making sure that all of them get access to the same wages and conditions when they work in the same job.</para>
<para>Closing labour hire loopholes will simply require an employer to pay the rate that has already been negotiated and agreed to. There is nothing revolutionary about that. The employer has negotiated a set of wages and conditions through an enterprise bargaining agreement with its employees or they have an award that has been verified by the Fair Work Commission. They have to pay those wages and meet those conditions. What's wrong with that? I think most Australians would say: 'Isn't that already the law? Surely you shouldn't be able to contract out of that?' But that's what was happening. This will ensure that that can't occur. Our employee-like reforms simply require workers to have some minimum standards that are benchmarked against existing award rates when they are working in a way which is similar to employees.</para>
<para>This goes to the issue of gig-economy workers. We have seen an influx of technology and platforms that have allowed people to engage in employment for income and bypass some of the minimum conditions that define an employment relationship and relate to that equality and the fair go that I mentioned earlier. It's resulted in some disastrous consequences where people working in ride-sharing capacities and the like have been killed because the traditional safety standards and other laws didn't apply.</para>
<para>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 are not trying to turn people into employees when they don't want to be employees. A whole lot of gig workers would like the flexibility to keep using this technology, and that won't change under our laws.</para>
<para>We will simply make sure we reflect 21st-century technology with 21st-century laws that define equality. They're the major areas: gig economy workers getting a fair go; same job, same pay; and criminalising wage theft. There is nothing revolutionary about these reforms.</para>
<para>Debate interrupted.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>ADJOURNMENT</title>
        <page.no>115</page.no>
        <type>ADJOURNMENT</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Parkes Electorate: Aboriginal Constituents</title>
          <page.no>116</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:30</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr COULTON</name>
    <name.id>HWN</name.id>
    <electorate>Parkes</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>One of the privileges of representing an electorate like mine is that you get to meet some very interesting people. Last week I got to meet some young ladies who were part of the Sistas in Trade program. They are young Aboriginal women who have decided to have a go at careers that might traditionally be seen as male careers—construction and those sorts of trades. They were just about to graduate from this course. I got to have a cup of coffee and a yarn with them—a great group of young people.</para>
<para>It got me thinking. Over the last few months in this place I've heard some incredibly patronising speeches made about Aboriginal people. In the seat of Parkes, I happen to represent in this parliament the second-highest number of Aboriginal people, and I want to tell you that there are some incredible things happening out there by these people. The idea that nothing's happened, nothing's worked and we've got to come up with a body in Canberra to help them out of this cycle they're in couldn't be further from the truth.</para>
<para>For example, a couple of weeks ago I was at the sod-turning for the Barker cultural centre in Wilcannia. This is a program that's being run by a local committee. It will be a magnificent facility that will feature cultural icons of the Barkindji people, a place where visitors can come and understand a bit more about the culture, and a reason to stop in Wilcannia, learn more about it and understand the beauty of that town. Just around the corner there's a new medical centre built by Maari Ma Health that will provide wonderful medical services in Wilcannia. The Regional Enterprise Development Institute has taken on the store, the supermarket, at Wilcannia because people were getting ripped off. It's now run by local people. The Wilcannia store has got fresh fruit and vegetables, everything any other supermarket would have, at the same price, and is employing local people.</para>
<para>At the other end of my electorate, at Goodooga, it's the same thing. There's a brand-new store run by local people, catering for up to 50 vans a night that are coming to the Goodooga bore baths. That was upgraded, guess what, using local people, and now it's a tourism icon. While I'm on Goodooga, with the assistance of REDI.E, young Tyron Cochrane, an Aboriginal lad of 18, went to New Zealand and beat the Kiwis at their own game of shearing. It's the first time since 1962 that an Aussie has beaten the Kiwis at their own game of shearing, in New Zealand. He's now mentoring other young people in the Dubbo area and working with a shearing contractor.</para>
<para>I got a photo sent to me last week of a young lad from Walgett, aged 15. The shadow minister at the table would understand what this means, but this young lad of 15 sheared his first 100. He was a young fellow that was probably getting into a bit of a dark area with the law. The local police recommended he go to REDI.E, and now he's focusing on his craft. Do the maths; it's about $4 or $5 a sheep. He's 15 years old.</para>
<para>In Brewarrina Shire, six of the nine councillors are Aboriginal. Dave Kirby, the general manager, is a local Aboriginal man who has worked his way up to that position. Eighty per cent of their workforce is Aboriginal. Their local workforce have done, I think, about 150 kilometres of new road in the last three years. They run the cultural centre there. They look after the fish traps. The Brewarrina fish traps are one of the oldest structures on earth. They predate the pyramids—60,000 years.</para>
<para>All of this is going on while we're hearing patronising comments from this place about how hopeless they are.</para>
<para>Through the Clontarf Foundation and others, 76 Aboriginal kids did their HSC last year in Dubbo. They're going into trades, they're going into the professions: we've got nurses, we got doctors, we've got teachers. The office manager in my office—these are Aboriginal people in the Parkes electorate. They are not helpless. They are doing great things and they should be acknowledged for that.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice</title>
          <page.no>116</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:35</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms MASCARENHAS</name>
    <name.id>298800</name.id>
    <electorate>Swan</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I want all Australians to achieve their full potential, and that includes Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders. It's wonderful to hear the member for Parkes talk about his Aboriginal community and how they're achieving amazing things. It is wonderful to hear. The truth is Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders have walked on this land for 65,000 years, and I think that's an amazing thing. They knew about the connection between the moon and the tides well before Galileo. They knew about controlled burning.</para>
<para>We want everyone to achieve their full potential. If you haven't read the <inline font-style="italic">Closing </inline><inline font-style="italic">the </inline><inline font-style="italic">gap</inline> report, I recommend that you do because the thing that we need to do as a government is look at the data. We need to look at the data. If you're not looking at the data then you haven't seen that only four metrics out of the 17 are on track, and that is not good enough. And if we're not looking at it, it means that the people in Canberra have their heads in the sand.</para>
<para>The Voice is actually a generous offer from Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders. It is incorrect to call it a 'Canberra voice'. It is a generous and humble request. It was a deliberative process that started in 2011. It was something that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders from all across Australia came together for. The Uluru Statement from the Heart basically asked for a Voice to Parliament. This is about having the opportunity to have a say in the policies that directly affect them, and that's a really reasonable request. I think it's quite reasonable.</para>
<para>The truth is, I'm an engineer by trade and I like to think that I know what all the solutions are. But the thing that I have seen, that sometimes happens from time to time, is that when communities aren't consulted then the solutions that are built are not fit for purpose. I have seen this happen time and time again. What we want to see is better outcomes for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders, and the way we want to see this is by seeing the dial actually move. I believe in an Australia where everyone can achieve their full potential, and the truth is I think that's what all Australians want to see.</para>
<para>Australians are the kinds of people who step up in a crisis, and that's easy when we see crises like bushfires and floods. But it's a little bit more challenging when we have crises that are slow moving, such as climate change action. But I'd also say that what we've seen with the disparity between Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders has been a crisis that's been happening for quite some time. We, as Australians, will have an opportunity to basically say, 'Can we help up another brother or another sister by doing something as simple as writing "yes" on referendum day,' which will be on 14 October. I am really proud of my community of Swan. It has a grassroots movement where people have come to say, 'Yes, this is something that I care about because I want to see everyone able to have access to the same health, education, and job opportunities as I do.'</para>
<para>I feel really grateful that out of all the countries in the world my mum and dad chose to come to Australia. When my dad first came to Australia—actually when my dad first said he wanted to come to Australia, he was told that he had the right skills, but he was the wrong colour. That's because we had a structural bias in our system in Australia, which was the White Australia Policy. The Labor government dismantled the last parts of the White Australia Policy, and my mum and dad came here. The truth is my dad did not get to finish high school, but now he has a daughter who finished engineering and broke a 101-year record by being the first person of colour and the first female member for Swan. I'm really grateful for what I've achieved, as the child of migrants, but I want this to be an opportunity for all Australians, especially our Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders who have had the opportunity to be a part of this amazing continent.</para>
<para>It is such a rich culture, and it's something that should be a source of pride for all Australians. I believe that Australians will be so optimistic and hopeful in saying that the status quo is not acceptable and that we want to see Australians achieve their full potential. I'm so proud that the Albanese Labor government is supporting this referendum.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Murray-Darling Basin Plan</title>
          <page.no>117</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:40</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BIRRELL</name>
    <name.id>288713</name.id>
    <electorate>Nicholls</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I've been an optimistic sort of guy since I've come to this place, and I've tried to share that around as much as I can. But I do have to report that today is a very depressing day for my electorate of Nicholls. The Murray-Darling Basin Plan legislation that was presented this morning has sent a lot of fear and shock through my community, and there's concern about the main economic driver of my entire community, which is irrigation water.</para>
<para>Just to go back a little bit, the Murray-Darling Basin Plan was supported by all sides of government. I think most right-minded people agree with the concept of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan in that you take some water away from irrigation licence and you have it there for the Commonwealth to give to people who'll be able to use it for environmental purposes. So far, well over 2,000 gigalitres has been taken away from irrigation licence. That has damaged the economy in basin communities, and it has damaged people's ability to farm. But it has been done in good faith to try to get some better environmental outcomes. The way that the then Labor Party started to do it, which was just to buy it wholesale from farmers, caused incredible distress and economic damage around basin communities. So the coalition came up with a better way of doing it, called 'on-farm irrigation efficiency'. That's where, instead of just selling the water, the farmer gives the water to the government for money, which the farmer must then use for an irrigation upgrade, whether it be a centre pivot, improved flood irrigation or the industry I used to work in, which was drip irrigation, using Israeli technology to get the most efficient use. That was a better way of getting water back.</para>
<para>The plan had an extra component called 'the 450 gigalitre upwater'. That was a deal done with South Australia at the last minute to say that South Australia could have some extra water, 450 gigalitres, which is huge. It equates to the annual irrigation of 50,000 to 75,000 hectares of orchard. Crucially, that 450 gigalitres involved a caveat that it could not be taken if it would be socioeconomically damaging to basin communities. It had to be socioeconomically positive or neutral. That was a very important and very well understood part of that extra 450 gigalitres. My understanding of the word and the term 'socioeconomic' means it relates to the society and the economy. Taking that water away damages my society in the electorate of Nicholls and damages the economy in the electorate of Nicholls. Each megalitre of that water is used to grow something that we should be proud of, whether it's apples, pears, peaches or dairy products, and it is so valuable because, when those things are grown, people get employed—not just the farmer who grows the produce but the people who are involved in getting that produce to market and processing the produce. It could be turning milk into cheese, which is done in so many factories across my electorate. It includes people who transport that produce around Australia and, indeed, to the Port of Melbourne so it can go to be enjoyed, be purchased and earn great money for Australia from South-East Asian nations. All of this has an amazing value. We talk about the cost of water, but we don't talk about the value of what it produces. There's that side of it, the socioeconomic impact. I think that the new legislation disregarding the socioeconomic impact test is a retrograde step, and, as I said, it's having a profound, depressing effect on my electorate and my community.</para>
<para>But there's another problem with it: trying to push that much water down the river system—particularly whatever proportion might come from the Eildon Weir, through the Goulburn, through the Barmah Choke and down the Murray towards South Australia—would have a negative environmental impact, because the river would have to run too high at the wrong time of the year and damage the bank. I've been told this by scientists and people at the catchment management authority who are responsible for trying to improve the vegetation along the bank. So, in so many ways, this is such a damaging piece of legislation, and those who have proposed it should be ashamed. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Macarthur Electorate: Roads</title>
          <page.no>118</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:45</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr FREELANDER</name>
    <name.id>265979</name.id>
    <electorate>Macarthur</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Over 20 koalas have died on Appin Road this year—there were another three yesterday—together with countless wallabies, wombats, possums, gliders, snakes, lizards and birds. I've lost count of the number of times I've stood in this parliament and spoken about the need to protect Macarthur's koala colony and the need for sensible development to provide urgent safety upgrades to Appin Road for motorists and wildlife alike. In the last 20 years, over 20 people have been killed on Appin Road in motor vehicle accidents. I've lost count of the number of representations I've made to the state ministers, particularly those responsible for the environment, planning and transport, calling on them to take urgent action. I've been campaigning on this for eight years. To say I'm disappointed would be an understatement. Macarthur residents are beyond tired and frustrated with the lack of wildlife protections and road safety upgrades for Appin Road.</para>
<para>In July, the New South Wales government, through the planning minister, gave conditional approval for a massive housing development to go ahead in Appin, which will displace countless wild animals and place unimaginable strain on local infrastructure. This project is, rightly, under the spotlight, as noted in today's <inline font-style="italic">Guardian</inline>, which shows that the former head of New South Wales planning approved this project before then taking up a job with the developer managing the project. Yet, while they found time to review and approve such a complicated project and look after themselves, they have not found time to approve and implement the upgrades and infrastructure that are so sorely needed to account for this monstrous project, a project that the New South Wales planning department noted would not be needed until 2036. Amidst all this, local wildlife advocates such as Ricardo Lonza, Pat and Barry Durham, Sue Gay and many others, have worked tirelessly helping injured and killed koalas along Appin Road, with many of these deaths and injuries occurring in the vicinity of this project. They are the unsung heroes.</para>
<para>There appears to be, however, a tacit agreement between the local council and the state government Department of Planning and Environment for extinction of our local koalas and continued environmental degradation. This is shameful. It is disgraceful. As I said, I've been informed that three koalas died yesterday on Appin Road. This week, the ABC published a harrowing story which stated that the New South Wales government has not collected important wildlife rescue data and wildlife mortality data since mid-2019, which has severely hampered the case against overdevelopment in these regions. This is outrageous and shockingly pathetic from government departments.</para>
<para>I have called for a royal commission into planning and development in New South Wales. Nothing will satisfy me until this is implemented. I also call for urgent wildlife protections on Appin Road and human protections along Appin Road. If this necessitates a continued police presence along Appin Road 24 hours a day then so be it. This is a situation that would not be accepted in any other part of the country. It is an absolute disgrace that the people of South-Western Sydney have been ignored by governments for far too long. It is unacceptable that this situation is occurring, and it's severely affecting the quality of life for local residents and the local traffic mortality statistics in the area. It's affecting all those who are buying new developments in the area, and it has to stop.</para>
<para>I have met with countless state ministers over a number of governments now, and no action has been taken.</para>
<para>I am sick of the obfuscation, I'm sick of the lies and I'm sick of the lack of interest in the people and the wildlife of south-western Sydney. I demand that action be taken to investigate this. There is nothing further, I repeat, that will satisfy me.</para>
<para>We are in a crisis situation. Koala extinction, and extinction of other wildlife, is happening in front of our eyes. I have called for a twin rivers national park to protect the environment. I have called for protections on Appin Road and for the widening of Appin Road. And yet nothing has been done. The lies have to stop. The diversions have to stop. Action is urgent.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>National TAFE Day</title>
          <page.no>119</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:50</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms SWANSON</name>
    <name.id>264170</name.id>
    <electorate>Paterson</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Well, it's 10 to eight here in Parliament House tonight, and I just want to send a big shout-out to everyone who might have been at TAFE today or, indeed, who is at TAFE tonight, because today is National TAFE Day. I'm proud to say that, within my electorate of Paterson, we've got three robust, fantastic examples of TAFE, at Maitland, Kurri Kurri and Tomaree, offering vocational and real-world education experiences where TAFE students can attend and prepare themselves for the jobs and the skills that we so desperately need.</para>
<para>Many of those who've taken up the education provided through TAFE at one time or another in their career progression have done so because it offers a diverse and industry-specific training opportunity which can equip people with the skills they need at that time of their life, whether they're just out of school and heading to TAFE or whether they're like many in my electorate who fancy doing an apprenticeship later in life. With more than 25,000 employer connections, TAFE has developed courses with industry partners to equip students with a suite of skills absolutely required for employability.</para>
<para>In my electorate, our Tomaree campus, actually located at Salamander, boasts a Connected Learning Centre. I've just got off the phone with Councillor Leah Anderson, who's also our deputy mayor for Port Stephens Council. I said: 'Leah, just bring me up to date with some of the stuff that they're doing at our Connected Learning Centre.' She said: 'Meryl, it is incredible, the things that they do there.'</para>
<para>There are the skills that are available at Port Stephens, right out on the peninsula—which has a lot of challenges for young people, particularly if you don't have a car or you can't afford the fuel to maybe drive in to TAFE at Tighes Hill or down to Maitland. Well, we've got digital technologies, simulation and virtual learning experiences that give students a cutting edge. In addition to these tools that are used, the campus offers courses in business supports, visitor information services—and if you've been to Port Stephens, you know we get a lot of visitors—and hospitality. Again, we have a massive tourist industry in Port Stephens, so we need many, many people to be trained. It's a very professional vocation these days, and we love the fact that we can train people locally.</para>
<para>The campus at Kurri Kurri is set on 135 hectares of beautiful bushland, right near the heart of the Hunter Valley wine region, offering students the opportunity to study in vocations such as sustainable development, building design, energy and water management. Also, it's the home of the Hunter Valley Hotel Academy, offering practical training in a real-world setting. The academy boasts a conference centre and a large commercial kitchen and often hosts some of the Hunter's biggest events, giving students the opportunity to test their skills and learning in a real-life environment. The Kurri Kurri TAFE campus also offers a fully-equipped commercial kitchen and bakery; a training restaurant bar and cafe; modular conference facilities, featuring videoconferencing and audiovisual equipment; hotel-style accommodation; and reception and concierge desks. They also offer a viticulture course, and, as the parliamentary co-chair of viticulture, I can tell you: their Intuition wines have won numerous awards, including in gold, silver and bronze categories in winemaking, so well done to them.</para>
<para>Our Maitland TAFE is also terrific. It was established in 1987. It has a purpose-built plumbing workshop, specialist facilities for building finishing trades, including plastering and painting and decorating, and also provides the MIGAS Apprentices and Trainees Support Centre and building and construction workshops. We have numerous metalwork workshops specialising in training workshops, and there are plenty more courses you can do at Maitland TAFE. You can see that since we have been in government we have announced free- fee-free TAFE, and now we have some 214,000 students enrolled in fee-free courses. This is a Labor government delivering for TAFE to get people jobs. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Energy Prices</title>
          <page.no>119</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:55</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr GILLESPIE</name>
    <name.id>72184</name.id>
    <electorate>Lyne</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise tonight to inform people of a part explanation for why the Minister for Climate Change and Energy keeps standing up in this place and saying that renewable energy is the cheapest form of energy, but your bill keeps going up and up. Not only is he a maestro at engineering and electrical system distribution but he is a master of spin. But might I tell you, people know this because they see their bills going up. They also see their feed-in tariffs for solar panels going down because the market is flooded with unusable energy in the middle of the day. When solar panels first came in, yes, they did put your prices down because you got paid an exorbitant feed-in tariff of 14c or 20c a kilowatt. Now it is down to maybe 4c a kilowatt.</para>
<para>There are lots of days when Essential Energy, which is the distribution and transmission authority here in our part of the world, can't accept any more electrons because, if all the solar panels and all the major solar farms and the windfarms plugged into the electricity grid, you would see sparks flying and fuses blowing everywhere. It is just like when there is too much current going into your kettle and then all of a sudden the fridge and all the lights go out. You have to have the right amount of energy going into the system and coming out of the system. Why the energy ministers is confused about your energy bill is that he doesn't understand how the system works—he is just in charge of it all! But, when you get your electricity bill, the wholesale electricity generation that he talks about as being the cheapest form when he says that renewable energy is the cheapest form, is only 36 per cent of your bill.</para>
<para>Transmission and distribution, like all the charges for poles and wires, make up 48 per cent of your bill. Your retailer charges you about 13 per cent, and green schemes make up six per cent of your bill. All those costs for poles and wires, as we heard years ago, are affected because gold-plating is happening. That refers to building unnecessary grids at a really high capital cost when they didn't really need them, but you haven't seen anything yet because Rewiring the Nation involves this government and you taxpayers out there giving lots of your hard-earned tax dollars to build grids to collect electrons from solar farms that on average only generate for 20 per cent of the time or from windfarms that generate only 30 per cent of the time. The rest of the time they won't have the electrons in them. They have stranded assets everywhere, and all these renewable energy zones will be the same. They'll be great on a sunny day or a windy day, but when it is cloudy or it's nighttime or dawn or dusk, so two-thirds of the time, they will be generating diddly squat because that is what nature does. They are overbuilding everywhere, and there are more solar panels on more roofs than they can get into the electricity system. That is why you are getting a lower rebate.</para>
<para>They have worked out we can't accept electricity generation from other generators and take households' generation because then other big industrial users won't have enough electricity. Also, people don't realise that there are other costs in your bill that will come down the line. Rewiring the Nation will have $20 billion of government assistance to trigger $40 billion of investment. The current grid is valued at about $29 billion, and they are getting a regulated return of about seven per cent, maybe eight per cent. They have hushed up what it is because people have cottoned on to things. But imagine what your transmission and distribution costs in your bill will be if it's not $29 billion but another $60 billion worth of infrastructure that has to get a seven per cent or eight per cent return. Your bill will double or triple, plus all the extra things you need for renewable energy to create direct current, like a battery. When he said the levelised cost of energy in the GenCost report is the cheapest, the levelised cost of energy is not a good indicator of the delivered cost of energy. You need to add the levelised cost of poles and wires, of these new batteries and of the 10 or so Snowy Hydros. It is already costing $12 billion, and it will go through the roof. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
<para>House adjourned at 20:00</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>NOTICES</title>
        <page.no>120</page.no>
        <type>NOTICES</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Presentation</title>
          <page.no>120</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1></debate>
  </chamber.xscript>
  <fedchamb.xscript>
    <business.start>
      <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:WX="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
        <p class="HPS-MCJobDate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
          <span class="HPS-MCJobDate">
            <a href="Federation Chamber" type="">Wednesday, 6 September 2023</a>
          </span>
        </p>
        <p class="HPS-Normal" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
          <span class="HPS-Normal">
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">The </span>
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">DEPUTY SPEAKER </span>
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">(</span>
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">Ms Archer</span>
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">)</span>
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">
            </span>took the chair at 09:29.</span>
        </p>
      </body>
    </business.start>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS</title>
        <page.no>121</page.no>
        <type>CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Discrimination: Sport</title>
          <page.no>121</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:30</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BATES</name>
    <name.id>300246</name.id>
    <electorate>Brisbane</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The AFL is the only elite professional sporting code in the world without a single male player to publicly come out as gay—not one, past or present. You may be wondering why that is. The vast majority of young LGBTIQA+ youth experience discrimination in sport, with many self-excluding entirely. According to Out in the Fields—the first international study conducted into gay athletes and homophobia in sport—the constant use of homophobic language in the AFL is a key factor in understanding why players hide their sexuality.</para>
<para>The AFL Players Association released the second edition of their insights and impact report in June. The report shares the collective insights, perspectives and experiences of AFL and AFLW players. A key insight published was the players' description of a 'culture of silence; in the code, in which they felt 'threatened by the potential consequences of speaking out'. Nowhere in the report was there any mention of the queer players who have not felt safe enough to be open about who they are.</para>
<para>This outcome from the report should come as no surprise. The CEO of the AFL just this year said that the first male player to come out will have to carry a burden. Though our community is strong, it should not be our burden alone to fix such a broken culture. It is incredibly clear that more needs to be done. The don't ask, don't tell situation that has been fostered in the AFL is systemic and beyond disappointing. For now, the only legacy the AFL has created is a culture of silence.</para>
<para>The health and social benefits gained from participating in inclusive, welcoming sporting environments are well established. Diversity in teams is good for sport. Just last month, we united behind the Matildas in their incredible World Cup campaign, a team featuring a substantial number of queer players. In any workplace, diverse teams are better able to solve complex problems and exhibit a high level of creativity and a broader thought process. By allowing employees, athletes and volunteers to bring their full selves to the sport, clubs will see a positive impact on productivity, on-field performance and tenure. We deserve to feel safe, respected and valued, living our lives as equals, free from discrimination.</para>
<para>The A-Leagues have implemented multiple education programs to emphasise the importance of diversity and inclusion across all levels of sport, in addition to new technology to moderate and filter homophobic comments directed to clubs and players' social media. The AFL should be a leader in this space, not dragging its heels.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>National Child Protection Week</title>
          <page.no>121</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:32</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr DREYFUS</name>
    <name.id>HWG</name.id>
    <electorate>Isaacs</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>This week is National Child Protection Week. Nothing is more important to all of us here than keeping our children safe. I want to take this opportunity to talk about the vital work the Albanese Labor government is undertaking to protect all children from sexual abuse.</para>
<para>The National Strategy to Prevent and Respond to Child Sexual Abuse 2021-2030 is Australia's 10-year strategy to do everything we can to keep children safe by preventing and responding to abuse in all settings, including in families, in institutions, and online.</para>
<para>Under the national strategy, the government is working in partnership with law enforcement investigative agencies and the community to progress work in five key areas. This includes supporting and empowering victims and survivors, education and raising awareness, offender prevention and intervention, and enhancing national approaches to children who have displayed harmful sexual behaviours.</para>
<para>The government is developing a national campaign to raise awareness and encourage the community to act to prevent child sexual abuse. The campaign's first phase aims to protect children and young people from sexual abuse by helping adults understand that child sexual abuse is always preventable if they are aware of the risks and committed to communication with the children in their lives.</para>
<para>The Australian Centre to Counter Child Exploitation, led by the Australian Federal Police, does incredible work keeping children safe from exploitation.</para>
<para>The task, at times, seems overwhelming. Last year alone, they received more than 40,000 reports of online child exploitation. The fight against online child exploitation necessarily involves examining large volumes of images and videos—a task that takes a toll on the incredibly dedicated officers involved in this difficult but essential work to keep kids safe from these evil predators. Monash University and the Australian Federal Police are developing artificial intelligence technologies to assist them in this fight by identifying children in safe situations, thus making it simpler to identify unsafe situations and flag potential child exploitation material.</para>
<para>To train the algorithm in a way that does not cause any further harm, the centre has launched the My Pictures Matter initiative. During Child Protection Week, the ACCCE is asking all Australians aged over 18 to help with this project by providing their childhood photographs to the My Pictures Matter project by uploading them through the official website. I will be uploading a photo of myself from my childhood to help contribute to this important initiative, and I would ask all members and senators to contribute their childhood photos too so that we can help make this technology a powerful tool to fight child abuse.</para>
<para>All children are precious and vulnerable members of our community. National Child Protection Week reminds us that we all have a responsibility to keep children safe.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Health Care</title>
          <page.no>122</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:36</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr CONAGHAN</name>
    <name.id>279991</name.id>
    <electorate>Cowper</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I've spoken often in this place about regional health and the resources that we need to keep our population safe and healthy. We're in desperate need of pathways to attract more GPs, which the recent changes to the distribution priority areas have already eroded. We need better access to specialist services and more facilities and better equipment in our hospitals. But, in my recent discussions with the community, the regular closures of ambulance stations in our smaller towns in Cowper have been a grave concern. So I ask: why is the New South Wales Labor government playing with the lives of regional people through inadequate staffing and sporadic operational hours of our ambulance services? Do they not care about the health and safety of our hardworking and burnt-out paramedics?</para>
<para>NSW obviously stands for 'Newcastle, Sydney and Wollongong' because it's genuinely hard to see where the focus is on the regions outside the cities. Fire crews are increasingly being called on to assist overstretched paramedics in regional areas, despite the Minns government promising to boost the number of rural paramedics. I've heard from paramedics who describe the new staffing zones as problematic and dangerous. Where previously there were smaller clusters of service areas, there are now large expanses of zones—like the Mid North Coast zone that covers my electorate—that allocate staff ineffectively for the needs of the region. An area like Macksville and Nambucca Heads, for instance, can be left without services for anywhere from three hours to a full 24 hours. Even Kempsey, one of our larger towns, has been left without services for over seven hours twice in the last month. What happens if a mother goes into a difficult labour, if a child suffers anaphylactic shock or if there is a stroke victim? Minutes count. These communities aren't remote. They're growing regions on the eastern border of New South Wales.</para>
<para>I'll admit that I don't often side with large unions, but I have spoken with paramedics who are members of the HSU. They have described the efforts of their union with the new government as proactive and insistent but, ultimately, futile. This is a government that promised the world but delivered an atlas for the hardworking men and women of NSW Ambulance. I call on the Minns government to respect regional workers and paramedics to whom they made promises prior to the election and whose conditions in the regions have in fact worsened over the past six months since the Minns government came to power. I call on the Minns government to do their job.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Bendigo Electorate: Community Organisations</title>
          <page.no>122</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:39</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms CHESTERS</name>
    <name.id>249710</name.id>
    <electorate>Bendigo</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>In the last few months, I've had the opportunity to touch base with, and visit, a number of community and neighbourhood houses and centres in my electorate. I try to do this annually because it gives me a real insight into the pressures that people in these communities are experiencing.</para>
<para>It's an opportunity to thank the volunteers for the amazing work they do, and it is a chance to touch base with coordinators. By talking to the teams on the ground you do get a real insight into the struggles and challenges that these people in these communities have. I have a big regional electorate, and every town has its own community house or neighbourhood centre, and all are quite different. They really do reflect the grassroots of their community.</para>
<para>At Maldon, I had an opportunity to share lunch with a few locals who've lived there for a long time to hear about what they are experiencing and seeing. Whilst they said things are a bit challenging, they are really pleased to see the development of the streetscape go ahead. Maldon is the first notable town in Australia. It's a town of about 700 people.</para>
<para>In Castlemaine, I learned firsthand from people their concerns about cost-of-living pressures. There's been a lot of growth in Castlemaine with lots of people moving in. The community centre there does a great job at really bridging that divide between old Castlemaine and new Castlemaine. They talked about the need for more investment in early childhood education and the ability to train local workers, and they are really looking forward to the TAFE campus reopening in Castlemaine through Bendigo TAFE.</para>
<para>In Kyneton, I had the opportunity of joining the Kyneton senior citizens table for lunch. They do extraordinary work. They are all volunteers who run a very different organisation to U3A. They really reach out to people who are lonely, like older people who may have had their significant other pass away, and they reach out and help them. We had a great discussion about energy bills. One member was quite surprised at how low her energy bill was because the rebate from the federal government, via the state, had kicked in. So it was happy days there for that team in Kyneton. Energy bills and child care—these are the issues that come up at these lunches.</para>
<para>Finally, I got the chance to touch base with the team at Eaglehawk. They are extraordinary volunteers who not only offer a community lunch but also a pantry. Tuesdays are their busy days. I do want to give a shout out to the extraordinary team of volunteers. I think the saddest thing about what I learned about at Eaglehawk was the number of people homeless and living in the forest. Bendigo is surrounded by forests, and the fact that we have people living in the forests again is a concern and a worry for all of us.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Parkes Electorate: Education</title>
          <page.no>123</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:42</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr COULTON</name>
    <name.id>HWN</name.id>
    <electorate>Parkes</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Australia is blessed to have a parliament with traditions that go back hundreds of years. I think it's really important that younger Australians learn about the parliamentary process, because, if they don't understand how parliament works, they can be taken advantage of by people manipulating them through their lack of understanding. So I was really pleased last week to have the Speaker of the House, the Hon. Milton Dick, for two days as we visited small schools in the north part of my electorate. We visited schools at Bullarah, Rowena, Pallamallawa, Gravesend and Croppa Creek. These schools have between 15 and 20 students all up and are based in quite remote, isolated farming areas. While these kids at the moment probably think they are a bit out of the way and missing opportunities, I'm sure later on, as they reflect on their education, they will understand what a wonderful gift they've had going to these small schools. So I was really proud of these schools. I was able to show the Speaker how resilient these country kids are and how dedicated the teaching staff are in delivering these services in these small, isolated schools.</para>
<para>I've got to say, I think the Speaker had his education enhanced as well. He now knows more of the finer points of pig chasing. He knows exactly where you have to use your knife, and exactly what part of the pig's body the dogs grab hold of, and I'm sure that was something that he didn't know before and now he does. But it just goes to show these kids were confident, they were engaged and they were happy to exchange with the Speaker. They asked questions about parliament and about our jobs, and it was good to have him there.</para>
<para>While we were there, we dropped in and had a look at the facilities at the Wathagar cotton gin as we were going past, because they're in the process of developing a hydrogen facility using solar.</para>
<para>At the moment, the cotton gin is being run pretty well entirely by solar. The hydrogen is mixed with air under the process, developing their own anhydrous ammonia, so a carbon neutral fertiliser. Their cotton is now branded with a rare earth so that you will be able to scan a document anywhere in the world and know what field that cotton came from. I think it's important that these kids are all aware that they're in the middle of this wonderful, innovative area. It was great to have the Speaker there and for him to understand part of my electorate.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>headspace Kiama</title>
          <page.no>123</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:45</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mrs PHILLIPS</name>
    <name.id>147140</name.id>
    <electorate>Gilmore</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>A major milestone occurred last week with the lease signed for the new headspace in Kiama. The Kiama headspace is a much longed for support service for our young people in the Kiama municipality, supporting Gerringong, Kiama, Jamberoo and the surrounding villages. Also, importantly, it supports our schools, youth and mental health services and adults in our community that have wrapped their arms around young people and the community following the tragic loss of many young lives to suicide. It has been an extremely difficult, grief-stricken time for families, friends and our communities as a whole. People were left asking, 'What can we do to support our young people and people struggling in our communities?'</para>
<para>There are many inspiring community-led stories. The grassroots initiative Gezza Cares was created, and the community was mobilised to turn the town yellow to raise awareness and to show support for our local young people. There have been a variety of excellent community driven support services supported by the Illawarra Shoalhaven Suicide Prevention Collaborative, which includes more than 70 individuals, including representatives from 30 local organisations, community members and people with lived experience of suicide. We've seen more QPR training—questions, persuade, refer—a type of first aid training to assist with mental health and suicide prevention.</para>
<para>Headspace provided outreach, but what became apparent was the need for a dedicated headspace service at Kiama. I had previously successfully advocated for and delivered a headspace for Batemans Bay, so I set about advocating on behalf of the community for a dedicated headspace for Kiama. Before the 2022 Federal election, I announced an Albanese government would provide that dedicated headspace for Kiama. Let may be clear: the Liberals in government made no such commitment. And so we are now at the stage where the lease has been signed. The location is perfect, on Manning Street, Kiama, opposite the beach, walking distance to the local high school and train station. Grand Pacific Health, which also operate the headspace at Nowra and Wollongong, are delivering the Kiama headspace. I really want to thank the primary health network Coordinaire, Grand Pacific Health and the manager of the Kiama headspace, Charro. The next stage is getting the building fitted out, with input from local young people. I'm pleased to say that the Kiama headspace is expected to be opened by early next year.</para>
<para>The Kiama community has had to bear a burden that no-one ever wants to happen, but the community has responded with empathy, care, support, creativity and determination. To conclude: this Sunday is World Suicide Prevention Day. There is never a better time to commit to doing QPR or mental health training to help prevent suicide and to reach out and listen to people. I also remind people that Lifeline operates a 24/7 crisis support service for anyone who needs it, on 131114.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Medicinal Cannabis</title>
          <page.no>124</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:48</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ENTSCH</name>
    <name.id>7K6</name.id>
    <electorate>Leichhardt</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I stand before you today as a very happy man, both elated and deeply gratified, to be able to inform members in this place that Cairns, a region that I have the honour of representing, is now home to the first medical cannabis dispensary in Far North Queensland, the Wild Leaf Dispensary. Many members would be aware of my long-standing advocacy for medical cannabis. My conviction to have its benefits recognised was fuelled years ago during a trip to Alaska, where I observed the tremendous positive impact these dispensaries have in local communities. I thought to myself, 'This would be fantastic for Australia,' and here we are today, having come full circle.</para>
<para>In terms of advocacy in this long journey, I'd like to acknowledge a few people, starting with a constituent, Debbi Cliff, whom I met back in 2013. Debbi was grappling with chronic pain due to Ehlers-Danlos syndrome. She conveyed her struggle with conventional pharmaceutical treatments and how medical cannabis was her only relief. I'd also like to pay tribute to Lucy Haslam and her late son Dan, who were national pioneers in this arena.</para>
<para>They were featured in a <inline font-style="italic">60 Minutes</inline> program years ago, which is what really set me on my journey to championing this cause. Lucy's relentless advocacy has undoubtedly shifted the national conversation around medical cannabis.</para>
<para>I also had the pleasure of opening the doors of 321 Sheridan Street on Friday 1 September. The new Wildleaf Dispensary aims to fill a critical gap in our health system. Co-owner and pharmacist Janelle Dockray, who has a personal connection to the benefits of medical cannabis, understands the hurdles patients like her father-in-law, Ian Dockray, face. It brings me immense pleasure to see healthcare providers like Mrs Dockray taking bold steps to ease the access to medical cannabis for patients in dire need. While this is a remarkable milestone, it's important to acknowledge more work needs to be done to harmonise legislation across our states.</para>
<para>I'd like to extend my best wishes to Mal Anderson, Janelle and the entire team at Wildleaf Dispensary. I am proud to have fought for the necessary legitimisation of medical cannabis that has enabled you to bring this critical service to Cairns. I can't wait to see the benefits that it will bring, and I firmly believe that medical cannabis in Australia will enable a more compassionate and progressive healthcare system in Australia.</para>
<para>We've still got work to do, particularly in relation to veterans' affairs, because a lot of our veterans are returning from overseas with some horrendous stories and PTSD, and medical cannabis has to be part of that solution in their treatment, rather than just steering them into other types of pharmaceuticals. So I will certainly be working with Veterans' Affairs on this one.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Singleton Business Awards</title>
          <page.no>125</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:51</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr REPACHOLI</name>
    <name.id>298840</name.id>
    <electorate>Hunter</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I was honoured to have the chance to attend the Singleton Business Awards, and I'm thrilled to say that business in Singleton is thriving. I want to take this opportunity to recognise and congratulate all the award recipients for their well-deserved wins.</para>
<para>Loop Organics were recognised for Excellence in Sustainability. Morgan Engineering were recognised for Excellence in Innovation, and they also took out the category of Excellence in Large Business. Star Club Equestrian Program Inc. took out the category of Excellence in Diversity and Inclusion. They also won the biggest honour of all: Singleton Business of the Year. Well done to all involved in this business on such a great achievement. Meyn Street Meats won the category of Excellence in Retail, and let me tell you I had the privilege of popping into this butcher not too long ago, and it's a meat lover's dream. Hunter Urban Dance Studio won Excellence in Health, Wellbeing and Lifestyle. The category of Outstanding Community Organisation was taken out by the Singleton Neighbourhood Centre. Novaskill Hunter Valley were rewarded for their Excellence in Professional Services. The People's Choice Award for Best Customer Service was awarded to HSV Heaven. Congratulations to Murray Robb from HSV Heaven who won the award Singleton's Most Awesome Tradie. Topping off a great night for HSV Heaven, Jessica Stewart was recognised as Young Business Leader of the Year. The award of Outstanding Start Up was presented to Think.Do.Speak. Hollydene Estate wines took home the category for Excellence in Hospitality and Tourism. Wake Ag Contracting won Excellence in Agriculture. Soldier On won the category of Excellence in Supporting Local Veteran Community. Congratulations to Mary-Ann Holland from the School of Infantry, who was recognised as Employee of the Year. Lieutenant Colonel Richard Thapthimthong from School of Infantry won the big award of Business Leader of the Year. Well done to Mary-Ann and Richard. You should be proud to have received such great honours. Excellence in Micro Business was presented to Supreme Sandstone. SportsPower Singleton won the category of Excellence in Small Business. The President's Award was presented to Bulga Coal in recognition of the flood relief and recovery undertaken in the July 2022 floods that impacted Broke, Bulga and Milbrodale villages. Finally, three well-known local businesses collectively reached 80 years of business operations in this area. Congratulations to HVL Group for 25 years, Ariel Conveyancing for 25 years and Pit Express for 30 years.</para>
<para>Thank you to Danny, Laura and Kelsie from Business Singleton and all of the sponsors for putting on such a great night. Once again, congratulations to all the award recipients. Your businesses are a big part of what makes Singleton a great place. And thank you for all you do in the Hunter as well.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Hope Challenge, KYDS</title>
          <page.no>125</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:54</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr FLETCHER</name>
    <name.id>L6B</name.id>
    <electorate>Bradfield</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>On 27 August I was privileged to attend the Hope Challenge at Loftberg Oval in West Pymble, an annual eight-hour game of touch football where registered players seek sponsorship for each hour that they play and raise money for the Black Dog Institute, a leading mental health charity.</para>
<para>The story behind the Hope Challenge is a moving one. In 2000, several dads at the West Pymble Public School with similar interests decided to organise a regular game of touch footy on a Sunday. One of the original group, Dr Rick Hope, was a much loved and respected doctor—a medical specialist. But Rick took his own life shortly after being diagnosed with bipolar disorder. The men who been regular players with him decided that it would be appropriate to organise an event that would honour Rick and that would raise money and awareness for mental health in his memory. The Hope Challenge is the result of their work, and it's a very appropriate way for Rick's mates to remember him. I was struck by the number of people attending and by the spirit amongst Rick's mates of determination to honour his memory but also to deliver constructive and practical support for the continuing challenge to address the risks that mental health disorders can present in our society. I want to thank participants and organisers, and particularly Phillip Ross, for their work.</para>
<para>I want to acknowledge another important mental health cause in my electorate. Every year I join thousands of other residents in the Lindfield Fun Run. The course runs through the leafy streets of Lindfield—the leafy but surprisingly hilly streets of Linfield! Nevertheless, many people turn out at this event organised by Rotary, which supports KYDS, originally known as Ku-ring-gai Youth Services.</para>
<para>KYDS is a remarkable organisation, founded with community support, which helps young people to understand and manage difficult issues in their lives, including: grief, loss, family breakups, school and study stress and so on. Last year, KYDS provided almost 6,000 face-to-face individual and family counselling sessions and supported over 400 families, and they reached an additional 3,000 students, parents, carers and other family members through their school and community outreach program.</para>
<para>Every community across Australia, of course, is affected by mental health challenges. I want to acknowledge the work of so many good people in my electorate through these two particular causes that I've mentioned in responding to the challenge of mental health and providing support to those who need it.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Butters, Mr Zak, Keeley's Cause</title>
          <page.no>126</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:57</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr RAE</name>
    <name.id>300122</name.id>
    <electorate>Hawke</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>With the might Geelong Cats, sadly, out of the running this year, I will be cheering for the Port Adelaide club through September for the first time. While this is unorthodox for a Geelong supporter from the outer west of Melbourne, I'll be doing so for Darley's very own Zak Butters. Before Zak was dominating through Port's midfield he was playing for the Darley Devils in the Ballarat Football League. Making his seniors debut at just 15, Zak was never the biggest bloke at Darley. However, in the words of one of his Darley coaches, Heath Scotland, 'He has a great sense of character and is mentally tough and resilient.'</para>
<para>I recently had the honour of representing Minister Anika Wells at the AFL Awards night, where I was able to congratulate Zak on taking home three well-deserved gongs. Not only did he win the AFL Players' Association Most Courageous Player award, the AFL Coaches Association Champion Player award and an All-Australian guernsey; most importantly, like all good sons, he brought his mum along for the night.</para>
<para>Along with being a great footballer, Zak is a thoroughly good bloke and a great member of our community. At every opportunity he will make his way back from Adelaide to Darley, where he is more than happy to put on a pair of boots and run water for his mates, sit in the coach's box and take stats or just turn out for a kick with the local kids. Zak's courage in the face of adversity and his loyalty to his family and community make him such a great role model for all young people in our community.</para>
<para>Zak, congratulations on your success on the field and your generosity and community spirit off it. I look forward to seeing what the future holds for you. Just go easy on the Cats next time you come up against them!</para>
<para>I've spoken in this place before about the incredible work that local charity Keeley's Cause does in my electorate. Started by local champion Keeley and her mum, Sharon, Keeley's Cause helps children with autism and intellectual disability to access technology and with their learning. That's why I am very pleased to report that Keeley was recently awarded the 2023 Young Woman of the Year award at the Women Changing the World Awards in London. While remarkable, it is no surprise Keeley's story has gone global. Her drive and passion are palpable, and her hard work translates into real outcomes in our community. In fact, so many more young people in our community have a better start in life thanks to Keeley and Sharon. They are, on a regular basis, raising money all across the community and investing in things like iPads to help kids facing learning difficulties stay ahead with their studies at school. Keep up the great work, Keeley and Sharon. I look forward to catching up with you guys real soon.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>249710</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>In accordance with standing order 193, the time for members' constituency statements has concluded.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>BUSINESS</title>
        <page.no>126</page.no>
        <type>BUSINESS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Rearrangement</title>
          <page.no>126</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:01</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms TEMPLEMAN</name>
    <name.id>181810</name.id>
    <electorate>Macquarie</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That order of the day No. 1, government business, and order of the day No. 1, statements, be postponed until a later hour this day.</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS</title>
        <page.no>126</page.no>
        <type>MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Homelessness</title>
          <page.no>126</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:01</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr HOWARTH</name>
    <name.id>247742</name.id>
    <electorate>Petrie</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise today to discuss National Homelessness Week. National Homelessness Week aims to raise awareness of the impact of homelessness and the solutions needed to end homelessness. During the week, homelessness services and community groups educate the community and advocate for change via national and local community events, media and social media activities. In 2023, Homelessness Week was held from Monday 7 August to Sunday 13 August. The theme for Homelessness Week 2023 was 'It's time to end homelessness'. Thank you to all the wonderful organisations and individuals who hosted events or took action to advocate for an end to homelessness not just in my electorate of Petrie but right around the country.</para>
<para>In my own electorate of Petrie there are a number of local groups that work to help the homeless—groups like the Breakfast Club in Redcliffe, Encircle on the peninsula, Chameleon Youth Housing, the Salvation Army, St Vincent de Paul Society, The Lighthouse Centre in Deception Bay, Tuckerbox ministries ran by Baptist churches, and SANDBAG down in Sandgate and Bracken Ridge. Chameleon Youth Housing, who do a lot for youth in the area in relation to homelessness, recently ran a Housing for Happiness dinner. I want to congratulate Carmel and all the team at Chameleon for the work they do. I also want to congratulate Ozbuild, who have made a commitment to build a home for them, if they can provide the land, that will house four or five young people in need of housing. It was staged by MBRIT—Moreton Bay Region Industry and Tourism—and the dinner would have had probably over 500 people at it. It raised $110,000 on the night, which gave Chameleon a chest of about $450,000 to buy land; they still need a little bit more because they need a 600-square-metre block. Once this is achieved and the house is built by Ozbuild, we will have five more young people in housing.</para>
<para>Why are these young people not housed? Often it's because parents are in jail. They could be on drugs or have other addictions. It could be in relation to DV relationships that are causing one partner and the kids to be homeless. Some parents don't care. And there is also generational poverty, where you've got two or three generations of people that haven't worked, that have been on Centrelink or other sorts of welfare, and it catches up with them and they end up homeless—particularly in the last 12 months, with the massive increase in rents and repayments because of 12 interest rate rises. I want to thank Chameleon for what they're doing. They're doing an exceptional job.</para>
<para>I'd like to talk a little bit about what the coalition did in government. At the end of the day we had a very good record.</para>
<para>The coalition actually reduced acute homelessness. Between 2016 and 2021 homelessness actually fell. In the 2016 census, there were 8,200 people who were homeless. These are people who were rough sleeping and living in tents in 2016. In 2021, there were 7,636. So, despite an increase in the population, acute homelessness dropped. The number of people in severely crowded dwellings also reduced. In the 2016 census, there was 51,088 people living in severely overcrowded dwellings. After five years of the coalition government, that had fallen to 47,895. There were also people staying temporarily with others. It's commonly known as couch surfing. Under the coalition government that also reduced, going down from 17,725 in 2016 to 16,597.</para>
<para>I say this because the Labor government often think they have all the answers when it comes to this space, but the reality is that in the last 16 months, since they've come to office, homelessness has gone through the roof. That's their record. With 11 interest rate rises under them, what that means is that middle income families—mums and dads paying off their mortgages—have seen their mortgages double under the Labor Albanese government, and everyone who rents in my electorate and around the country has seen their rents increase, all under a Labor government. The Greens had some crazy idea about freezing rents, but they don't want to freeze all the costs associated with that. They don't want to freeze the repayments on the houses that investors have. They don't want to freeze the rates. They don't want to freeze the insurance, which has gone through the roof. So I just say to people that homelessness was reducing. The next census will be in 2026, and if the Albanese government does get a second term they'll be responsible for all of that period. It'll be interesting to see what it is then, because right now I'm seeing acute homelessness going through the roof.</para>
<para>The other thing is that the minister, Julie Collins, needs to look at the homelessness figure in the census, which was 123,000 people, and drill down to see how she's going to reduce it. Boarding houses went up in the last census, but we were able to work closely with the Queensland state government, for example, to look at how we could reduce homelessness in boarding houses in Queensland. The coalition government, jointly with Mick de Brenni, the Labor minister in Queensland at the time, sent a letter to all private boarding house owners about how they could improve their boarding houses to ensure that they went from homelessness to housed. Guess what? The Queensland figures dropped. It was the only state where they dropped. In the 2016 census, there were 3,600 people living in boarding houses who were considered homeless because the tenants there had no privacy. You had 20 people in a boarding house with one or two showers and one toilet and a kitchen as big as the one in my office here in Parliament House. That figure dropped down to 2,947, a reduction of 653 people in boarding houses, after the joint letter was sent by the coalition government and the Labor government in Queensland. Guess what? None of the other states wanted to do it and all their homelessness figures in boarding houses went up. So what it would be good for Minister Collins to do is look at that letter, send it out to other states as well and get them perhaps to address boarding houses in those states, because boarding houses, apart from Queensland, went up in the last census.</para>
<para>The other thing that went up was supported accommodation. That's basically housing for women and children escaping DV. The coalition actually built 6,000 of them in government under the safe places legislation that we brought in. That went from 21,235 in 2016 to 24,291 in 2021. The minister could ensure that those safe places give tenants a lease for a minimum three-year period, and you'd actually move all of those people out of homelessness. Some of these properties are brand new, but the people living in them are still considered homeless because they don't have a lease.</para>
<para>The other thing is that the Labor government, not just here but also in the states, talks down the private sector—as do the Greens, through what we see them doing. The reality is that 90 per cent of housing is in the private sector. At the moment, you've got mums and dads, that would normally look at buying an investment property, running as fast as they can from buying an investment property because of all the interest rate rises, the insurance and the inflation under Treasurer Chalmers. All of this stuff is going up, and mum and dad investors are running. We know Labor, deep down in their core, want to tax these people more. In the 2019 election, they wanted to get rid of negative gearing and they wanted to increase capital gains tax. There were a whole lot of taxes they wanted to bring in, and we know—I don't know whether it's Labor's Left or Right, but some of them—deep down they don't support the private sector when it comes to housing, even though 90 per cent of the housing is provided by mums and dads.</para>
<para>The only way you're going to fix this problem is to get investors to build more housing. You are not going to build enough social housing or community housing. In Queensland, the Palaszczuk Labor government ignored community housing for eight years. What did we do in this space? It was us, under Minister Sukkar at the time, that set up NHFIC, the National Housing Finance and Investment Corporation. Labor, in their wisdom, want to rename that. Fine. At the end of the day, what did we do? We provided thousands and thousands more places for community housing. It was also us that set up the First Home Super Saver scheme, the First Home Loan Deposit scheme and the Family Home Guarantee. Labor members in this room and in the government voted against the First Home Super Saver scheme. And what have you done, since coming into government, for people wanting to buy their first home? Nothing. Do better. You don't own this space. We'll keep advocating and talking about this.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>National TAFE Day</title>
          <page.no>128</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:11</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms TEMPLEMAN</name>
    <name.id>181810</name.id>
    <electorate>Macquarie</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>It is a real privilege to be able to speak about the incredible TAFEs that I have in my electorate of Macquarie. From Katoomba and Wentworth Falls, up the top of the mountains, through to the Richmond TAFE in the Hawkesbury, they offer a wide range of skills and training for people young and older. There are so many things to be grateful for that the TAFE system has survived a really tough decade and is still standing. It's standing thanks to the integrity of the TAFE teachers that we have and the support of employers who continue to want to see their workers being trained by TAFE. Of course, it's also thanks to the students, who, over and over again, put their hands up to develop their skills, boost their career prospects and improve and move higher in the profession that they're in.</para>
<para>I want to talk a bit about the incredible work that is being done in my TAFEs, and I don't think I can do that without noting the real boost that we've given TAFE by working with the states to ensure that there are fee-free TAFE places. That has led to more than 214,000 Australians enrolling in a fee-free TAFE course. That is about 35,000 more than the target we set for the year, which was 180,000. So it just shows that, when price isn't a barrier, there is a real desire from people to improve their skills.</para>
<para>In my community, we've seen that happen all over the place. I had the great privilege of meeting with Ayla, who works at Hazelwood Early Childhood Centre. She is one of many Blue Mountains and Hawkesbury early learning educators who are either entering the profession, by doing a fee-free TAFE course, or boosting their skills. Ayla is so typical of the wonderful men and women who come into that early learning sector, loving working with the kids, loving learning about how their brains develop and loving putting what she learns at TAFE into practice in her work almost immediately.</para>
<para>If we talk about the top of the mountains, in Katoomba and Wentworth Falls, there is a real focus on those sorts of caring skills that you can learn.</para>
<para>We also have a very strong hospitality and commercial cooking section, with an industry standard commercial kitchen and an incredible restaurant at Wentworth Falls TAFE. I know that my mum and her friends take any opportunity they can to enjoy the lunches that are served there. It not only gives them a great feed but also helps the students in hospitality and cooking really hone their skills.</para>
<para>There are beauty and hairdressing courses. There are landscape gardening and nursery courses. There are also courses that really fit with our local economy around tourism, like outdoor education training. That's helped by an indoor climbing wall within the facilities at TAFE. So we have an extraordinarily well-supported campus there, but it's fair to say that it has been a really tough decade. There have been many attacks on TAFE. With a change at the federal level to a government with a deep commitment to TAFE and with a change of government at the state level, I look forward to seeing our TAFEs in the region go from strength to strength.</para>
<para>There is a particular course offered at Katoomba around Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander cultural arts that I know is working to support Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander artists to build successful careers through their art. Again, this is something focused very much on the needs of our community, and that's what TAFE should be. It should be about looking at the businesses, the industries and the sectors that are within an environment and at the skills that the community wants to see expanded and offering those. I think we all know that there has been some centralisation in the past, and that means that there's a real opportunity to bring back some courses to local areas. I will certainly be advocating for that. Of course, I'll also be advocating to see more of our arts and cultural courses given higher prominence at TAFE. We've got an arts sector, and, as Special Envoy for the Arts, I've travelled the country and heard the concerns about the lack of technicians in lighting and sound, and there are real opportunities there for TAFE to be able to step in.</para>
<para>I want to talk about the really special campus we have in the Hawkesbury: the Richmond TAFE campus. This is a real hub of agriculture and agribusiness, horticulture and landscaping, livestock and animal care, from wildlife care through to learning how to groom show animals. We've also got courses in IT and programming, providing fundamental skills to so many of our young people. I want to talk about farrowing and equine courses. We used to have an extraordinary range of equine courses, and it continues to be a real scar that some of the really fundamental equine courses were taken from the Richmond campus. It should never have happened. In this area, the horse sector is one of our largest economic drivers, yet the courses where you learn the fundamentals of safety around working with horses aren't available at Richmond anymore.</para>
<para>So there is room for improvement in what we offer, but the fact that TAFE is standing and delivering the quality of courses that it is is a testament to TAFE teachers. This year it's been lovely to see my TAFEs reaching out to people in the agricultural and horticultural sectors and seeking more teachers, because we know that, with the increasing demand—particularly through fee-free TAFE, which applies to so many of our agriculture areas—we could do with a whole lot more teachers. National TAFE Day is a perfect opportunity to call out to people who have high levels of skill and have worked in an industry for a long time. I ask you to put your hand out to TAFE and see if there is a role for you to share the skills you have and help mentor that next generation.</para>
<para>I want to look at some of the data we've got that shows who is picking up our fee-free TAFE places. In New South Wales, it's been tens of thousands of students. We're not talking a small number. This has been one of the most effective ways to inspire people to step up to TAFE.</para>
<para>What I'm very proud to see is that women, in particular, have stepped forward. They represent around 60 per cent of all enrolments in the fee-free TAFE courses. There are also tens of thousands of students who are from households that speak a language other than English at home. That is also a really significant thing to see.</para>
<para>Around 30 per cent of all enrolments have been in courses related to the care sector, which is obviously a high area of priority for us. There have also been more than 12,000 people with disabilities who've enrolled, so opening the access up to more people is a real achievement.</para>
<para>I commend the federal Minister for Skills and Training, Brendan O'Connor, for the work he has done in working really hard with the states. This is not something we, at a federal level, do on our own—we work closely with the states, and I look forward to us being able to work particularly in New South Wales as we really broaden access to education. We are using TAFE to help us fix skills shortages in the coming months and years.</para>
<para>The last thing I want to say is that people who are training for vital jobs would do well to look at TAFE. It is a place that transforms lives. It can boost people's careers and their earning capacity. It's a fantastic place for people to reinvent themselves, and I think we should be very proud in this country of the public TAFE system that we have. To all of those involved—the students, teachers, the administrators and the employers who support our apprentices as they go through TAFEs or internships—I say happy National TAFE Day.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>National TAFE Day</title>
          <page.no>130</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:21</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr STEVENS</name>
    <name.id>176304</name.id>
    <electorate>Sturt</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I too rise to make a contribution today on National TAFE Day. I commend the previous speaker and the minister and shadow minister in the chamber who have already spoken to this motion. I take it as an opportunity to pay tribute the vocational education and training sector, particularly in my home state of South Australia. Of course, we have TAFE, like all the state jurisdictions have TAFE. I also pay tribute more broadly to the vocational sector. There are also RTOs that do excellent complementary training to supplement the TAFE institution proper, and there are some industries were having an RTO and group training makes a lot of sense. Obviously in South Australia—I suspect it's similar in other states—groups like the Motor Traders' Association operate an RTO so that they can provide training for the needs of their industry into the future, and often their members are very heavily engaged with the RTO through on-the-job training working alongside, undertaking an apprenticeship or other training opportunity so that people are being given a skill but also earning an income while they are doing that.</para>
<para>In South Australia we've got an enormous challenge that TAFE will be at the epicentre of, which is training a workforce to meet the needs of the future naval shipbuilding opportunities for South Australia. I think everyone in this country is aware of the AUKUS challenge/opportunity that is not just an excellent defence capability outcome but also, hopefully will be, an excellent Australian industrial sovereign capability outcome. But, for that to succeed, we've got an enormous training challenge for the workforce that will be required to ultimately build, as the government has strictly promised in my home state of South Australia, the AUKUS nuclear submarines. Obviously, there is a wide variety of skills that will be required towards that effort, with lots of very different types of capabilities and different levels of training required, and it's not just in the more direct jobs and roles in that undertaking but a lot of allied and collateral opportunity from undertaking such an enormous industrial task in South Australia.</para>
<para>TAFE will be at the absolute centre of that because we need to train thousands of people in a whole range of different skill sets. We will have to be quite lateral in our thinking around the delivery of that training. Some of it will be extremely explicit. It will be a new training capability that potentially, in some cases, won't exist in this country. We will have to bring people in who have the expertise to undertake that training, but TAFE will be a very logical partner in training for the sorts of skills that will be needed.</para>
<para>I have visited some of the training organisations overseas, particularly in Japan, with obvious skills in submarines, like welding and pressure hull welding, which is extremely specialised. We will need to advocate the ability to train a lot of people in those skills. Clearly, TAFE will need to be at the centre of that. The AUKUS submarine program is an exciting opportunity, but it's also one that we should all have a healthy degree of nervousness around the challenges involved in delivering, and workforce training will be at the centre of that.</para>
<para>Shipbuilding is much more broad than submarines in South Australia. People shouldn't forget that right here, right now, we have the Hunter class frigate program that is already attracting an enormous number of skilled jobs in South Australia, and a lot of those skills and that training is being delivered TAFE. Even in existing programs, such as the Collins class program and full-cycle docking, and now the life-of-type extension—some of these submarines need to have a life extension to fill the capability gap until AUKUS capability comes online—many of those workers at the Australian Submarine Corporation in Osborne have been at through the TAFE system, and many more will into the future.</para>
<para>I strongly endorse the sentiment of other contributions around the value, importance and significance of TAFE. Together, we need to make sure that we're working to support and equip TAFE with the capability they will need in future workforce training requirements. As per my contribution, naval shipbuilding is one of the significant ones, but there are many others. So we wish TAFE all the best on this day. We look forward to working with them and supporting them into the future to achieve those great outcomes for the Australian economy and for future Australian jobs.</para>
<para class="italic"> <inline font-style="italic">A division having been called in the House of Representatives—</inline></para>
<para>Sitting suspended from 10: 27 to 10:44</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Women's Health Week</title>
          <page.no>130</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:44</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr GARLAND</name>
    <name.id>295588</name.id>
    <electorate>Chisholm</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Every woman has a story of experiencing bias in the healthcare system, a story of being dismissed or ignored, a story of delayed diagnosis, a story of overmedication, a story of not being heard. I have my own story of bias in the health system, and I want to share part of that for Women's Health Week this week.</para>
<para>A number of years ago I experienced some very strange pain all of a sudden, and I saw my GP. I had blood tests. I was sent to emergency. I was returned to emergency three times before something finally happened, which was that I had my appendix removed. I did not need my appendix removed. It was discovered that I had a tumour the size of a grapefruit in my uterus. I was told after emergency surgery that, if I were older, they would have considered giving me a hysterectomy. I was really traumatised by this experience of being turned away, of not being listened to and, potentially, of having a decision made about my body that I wouldn't have made. In sharing this story, I hope it encourages other women in our community to share their stories through the end gender bias survey by the National Women's Health Advisory Council. We can't fix what we don't know, so it's so important that these stories of bias in the healthcare system are shared so that we can fix the problems that are in our communities.</para>
<para>We are, though, really lucky to have some incredible researchers in our country who are leading the world in research into women's health. This Women's Health Week I wanted to highlight some absolutely incredible women's health research happening in my electorate of Chisholm. I recently had the great honour of officially launching the 2023 international PCOS guideline at the Monash Centre for Health Research and Implementation at Monash University. This guideline is the culmination of the work of hundreds and hundreds of people from around the world, but it was led by Australia. There were 750 healthcare professionals and consumers involved in the development of the 2023 guideline, and this is a truly multidisciplinary, diverse group of people. There were academics involved, researchers, medical professionals, scientists, allied health professionals and, really importantly, consumers—people living with PCOS. The guideline was led by Professor Helena Teede, a world expert on PCOS.</para>
<para>Polycystic ovary syndrome, PCOS, is a highly prevalent condition affecting about 12 per cent of women. It is undiagnosed, underresearched and misunderstood. It has been misclassified for a long time now as a reproductive disorder of the ovaries, despite the far-reaching implications of PCOS on metabolic, endocrine, dermatologic, psychological, sleep and pregnancy health. PCOS is something I care deeply about. I know many people with PCOS. With one in eight women worldwide having PCOS, we probably all know someone or multiple people who have been diagnosed with PCOS. World-leading research into PCOS and women's health is happening in my electorate of Chisholm, and I'm really proud of all of the work being done, and proud to be able to support all of those involved in this important work.</para>
<para>Although the guideline is evidence based, the contributors emphasise that the research and evidence into PCOS is still low to moderate in quality. This is a serious condition with serious, wide-ranging effects impacting millions of women in our country. Again, this impacts one in eight women. It deserves attention, research and continued investment.</para>
<para>I'm really pleased and proud to be part of a government that is prioritising women's health. Not only are we undertaking our end gender bias survey; we are also taking other steps to make sure that women's health is a priority for our nation. This year we granted a substantial increase in funding through our Medical Research Future Fund to support the development of PCOS resources and tools, including the quite remarkable AskPCOS app. This app and PCOS translation program reaches 196 countries around the world and is available in multiple languages. It is very well utilised by patients who have PCOS.</para>
<para>Our government's funding will continue to advance the personalisation, interactivity, self-management and analysis of individual data. This is going to really improve shared decision-making between patients and their doctors, improve information, improve models of care and provide really important support to people with PCOS. It will also mean that we can expand the AskPCOS App translation to 11 languages, expanding on the four languages that are currently available.</para>
<para>I'm really pleased that our government is taking women's health so seriously. I really hope that the stories we hear from women all the time—and my own story too—are not things we continue to hear into the future, because we have improved the quality of care. We've done the work to work with medical schools and health networks right across the country to improve the understanding of medical professionals when it comes to listening to women and having better ways to diagnose issues that may disproportionately affect women.</para>
<para>We know that cardiovascular disease is the biggest killer of women over 60. Again, this is poorly understood in Australia, given that a lot of the research we have historically relied on to understand cardiovascular illnesses has predominantly looked at the way it has presented in men. Clearly, we need to break down the gender bias here too, to be able to save lives. So I was delighted to hear the assistant minister's statement this morning in the House, and I'm looking forward to keeping on working in the government to make sure that women's health is the priority it ought to be.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:51</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms SHARKIE</name>
    <name.id>265980</name.id>
    <electorate>Mayo</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm really pleased to speak on this during Women's Health Week, whose theme is 'grow your knowledge'. I think that is a theme that all of us, as members of parliament, should personally embrace. I myself, a woman, had very little understanding of issues such as endometriosis before becoming a member of parliament. I must really acknowledge the former member for Boothby, who was a very big champion in this place on the issue of endometriosis. For so long endometriosis and menopause have been issues that are not spoken about; they're whispered. And what we need to do is bring them out into the fore, particularly with respect to endometriosis.</para>
<para>This is an issue that affects one in nine women. For a young woman in my community it took years for her to be diagnosed, and it takes several years for most women to be diagnosed with endometriosis. For her it was so bad that by the time she was diagnosed the only avenue available to her—a young woman not yet 30—was a hysterectomy. It is appalling that we have a system with respect to women's health where they are underdiagnosed. Given that it's one in nine women, many GPs are not immediately asking women, 'Have we thought about endometriosis?' Rather, than in many cases women are told: 'It's usual to have that level of period pain. It's usual to have those symptoms.' I've heard some women say that they were told that it was really all in their head and they just needed to go home and have a Panadol.</para>
<para>We're seeing inroads into specialist endometriosis and pelvic pain clinics. They are being established across the country. One of the great shames in South Australia was that the only clinic established in South Australia was in Kadina. It's been fantastic for those who live in Kadina, but it's only now that we have heard from the assistant health minister, after a lot of advocacy particularly from myself and, I'm sure, other members, that we're going to have a clinic in the Adelaide metropolitan area. Imagine being a young woman suffering with endometriosis and the closest clinic to you, the only clinic in South Australia, is several hours away, and you live in the metropolitan area. I'm pleased that the government has fixed this, but it took a lot of advocacy to get there—and I think very unnecessary.</para>
<para>Women with menopause are finally able to share data on platforms such as VITAL, a national perimenopause initiative, to help grow knowledge about menopause and how to survive and thrive.</para>
<para>This is an area of health that has been so neglected. I'm of a certain age now. For us women who are going through menopause, there is very little support available to know what to do: 'Is this normal? Where do I go? Are there treatments available?' There was a very big scare around hormone replacement therapy. A lot of women are not having hormone replacement therapy. A lot of women are not seeing their GP about this, and, unfortunately, a lot of GPs do not have a lot of knowledge in this area to properly support their patients. We need to get real when it comes to women's health. Our health shouldn't just be focused on our reproductive years; it needs to be across the whole life span.</para>
<para>Across the board women spend more on health care, with the ABC recently reporting rising out-of-pocket costs for radiology, particularly for women—that is, for pregnancy ultrasounds. When I had an ultrasound the first one was very expensive; I think they get slightly cheaper as you go. But what you do if you don't have that money in your bank account? The 2022 Grattan Institute report also showed women spend more on health care over their lifetime, from pregnancy through to menopause and complex health conditions such as cancer.</para>
<para>I want to raise lymphedema. This is another issue we're not talking about that has huge debilitating effects, particularly for women post breast cancer treatment. The cost with respect to getting the bandages you need to wear—if you don't wear those bandages, you have enormous swelling. It has huge health impacts, and a lot of women really struggle with the lack of support and the lack of information around. In my community, women have banded together and created their own lymphedema support network.</para>
<para>There is a lack of bulk-billing even for the self-collection option of cervical screening. Just last week I had an email from a constituent who was ready to do her self-collection cervical screening, but she needed to have a GP appointment to collect the script in order to do it. The challenge is finding the money for that GP service. We really need to ensure, if a patient is going to do their own personal cervical screening, that it is a requirement that GPs bulk-bill that treatment. We're seeing women foregoing having that cervical screening simply because of cost, and that's dangerous.</para>
<para>There are strict limitations on magnetic resonance imaging, MRIs, under Medicare for breast scans for women with breast density issues or a high genetic risk of cancer. We're talking about several hundreds of dollars in out-of-pocket fees. I've heard from one constituent regarding high fees for radiotherapy following breast cancer. The Cancer Council confirms this concern, citing inconsistent radiotherapy charges across postcodes and providers. This is an area that desperately needs review, with health funds unable to cover sometimes hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of out-of-pocket costs because it's seen as an outpatient service. We need to do much more to support women with significant conditions, with earlier and better screening.</para>
<para>We just need to be heard. Women need to be listened to more. When my children were young and I took them to the doctor, my biggest pet peeve was when the doctor—who knew my name—turned to me and went, 'Oh, it's okay, Mum.' It is the most demeaning, condescending treatment you can experience in a GP clinic. I think we need to listen to women and support women. Menopause and endometriosis are not just things in your head; these are clinical issues women are experiencing. We need to ensure the support is there. I hope to see this Women's Health Week raise awareness for these issues and help ensure they are properly funded into the future, and that women feel respected and supported when they're in a medical facility.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:59</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms TEMPLEMAN</name>
    <name.id>181810</name.id>
    <electorate>Macquarie</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>It is really significant that in Women's Health Week we are discussing what isn't working in terms of keeping women healthy and helping them find treatment for conditions that they experience.</para>
<para>We know that every woman has a story about not being listened to by a GP and not being able to get to the bottom of a condition or symptoms that they are experiencing—of not even being sure if it's worth going to the doctor. When you combine many of things that have been talked about in this chamber already—women experiencing endometriosis, fertility issues, perimenopause and menopause—there is a lifetime of women's health issues for women to engage with. We want women to tell us their stories. That is the first step in being able to address the issues from a systemic perspective—to get our health system working better for women.</para>
<para>We particularly want to hear from the communities that often experience additional challenges. I know that people with mental health issues often find it much harder to get treatments for physical ailments that they are going through. We know that First Nations people have challenges in engaging with the system. There are people from culturally and linguistically diverse communities, the LGBTIQ+ community and people from regional and remote communities—and that includes many parts of my electorate where it's a really long drive to get to a GP. And, of course, there are people with disabilities. So we are asking for feedback. The way to provide that is to go to the health department's online portal. With that survey, we want people to think about whether they've had delayed diagnosis, whether they've been concerned about over-medicating, whether they've had their pain or other symptoms dismissed or whether their treatment is not suitable. We want to hear those stories. That will be one of the really key outcomes of Women's Health Week—if every woman can jump on and fill in that survey.</para>
<para>We already have some insights into the things that challenge people. I've spoken previously about menopause and the fact that we are now talking about it, which is a start. We want to do more than talk, though; we want to take action to really address those issues. One of the issues that we have already started to tackle is the challenge for women trying to get treatment for endometriosis and pelvic pain. I was delighted that, over the weekend, we were able to announce an additional endo and pelvic pain clinic in Western Sydney. Two clinics in Sydney were already announced by the Albanese government, but this third Endometriosis and Pelvic Pain Clinic at the Rouse Hill Town Medial and Dental centre in Western Sydney will make access for people in my electorate—in the Hawkesbury, in the mountains, across through Penrith, around the hills and in the north west Sydney area in particular—much easier.</para>
<para>This is part of an Australia-first rollout that we have done in government to make sure women have access to multidisciplinary care to help diagnose and treat endometriosis and pelvic pain. Endo stories are really quite hidden. A year ago, I held an event to bring together women who've suffered from endometriosis. It was an extraordinary gathering of young women, older women, sisters and mothers who all understood that this was a condition that was not being well identified, diagnosed or treated, and that women suffering from this were carrying a really big burden. As it turned out, that was a day I had COVID. My daughter, who is an endo sufferer, was able to be there in my place and share her story of the challenges of getting appropriate treatment.</para>
<para>The research tells us that nearly 50 per cent of women experience pelvic pain at some stage, and up to half of those women won't discuss their symptoms with a doctor. It has a significant impact on their lives. It affects their ability to work, study and care for their family. From a productivity perspective, it's costing the Australian economy almost $10 billion a year, so this is worth investing in. One in nine women identify as having endo. That is why these clinics are so important, supported by the work we're doing as part of the National Action Plan for Endometriosis.</para>
<para>When we talk about bringing these specialised services together in these locations, what are we talking about? They're practices that already have expertise in treating women with pelvic pain and endo, and they bring together a whole range of specialisations, not just those of a GP. There is no one fix for it. This is the other key thing. There is no one pathway for treating endometriosis or pelvic pain. That's why all those specialisations need to be brought together under one roof.</para>
<para>I also want to touch on some of the other areas where, as a government, we have already started to put women's health front and centre. That's not to take away from the fact that, over many years, we've had to work hard to get men to talk about their health, too. It wasn't that long ago that you wouldn't hear the word 'prostate' come out of any middle-aged man's mouth. So we have made real achievements there. Now, we're refocusing on some of the things for women that have been overlooked. We're doing that through the Women's Health Advisory Council. That starts the conversation, particularly for people to bring to light instances where there is a gender bias in treatment. I've talked about our endometriosis initiatives, and I'm so looking forward to young women not having to go to a multitude of different doctors but being able to go to one place and get the treatment that helps them.</para>
<para>We've also looked at miscarriage. We've provided $5 million over four years to deliver high-quality, evidence based bereavement care for women and their families, especially in higher risk populations that have experienced stillbirth or miscarriage. This is another area of women's health that is often just not focused on because it's such a difficult area to talk about. We've also looked at IVF and committed $11.6 million over four years for the ongoing assisted reproductive technology storage funding program. This is a payment of up to $600 a year to support patients who face extra costs to preserve their fertility because they have cancer or are at risk of passing on a genetic condition. This is another painful area for women and their families.</para>
<para>We've also looked at long consults with a GP. Over 60 per cent of the longer consultations are used by women, and we've committed nearly $100 million to introduce a new item for consultations of 60 minutes or more to support better access and affordability for patients with chronic conditions and complex needs. That will absolutely support women, whether it's around mental health conditions, whether it's around family, domestic and sexual violence or whether it's around chronic conditions, as well as reproductive health matters and menopause. We're also looking at, over four years, a longitudinal study. We need the data. There's a gap, and we really need data that supports women's and girls' health outcomes.</para>
<para>These are just some of the initiatives that we've taken. One of the wonderful things women get to do is to have babies, and building a maternity workforce is key. This is a government that is serious about seeing improvements in women's health.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:09</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mrs McINTOSH</name>
    <name.id>281513</name.id>
    <electorate>Lindsay</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I would like to support the member for Macquarie's comments around the Endometriosis and Pelvic Pain Clinic for women in Western Sydney. In terms of the work on endometriosis, the support has always been bipartisan, I think, in this place, and it's pleasing that we are making some progress in ensuring better treatment and care for women who suffer so much pain from this condition.</para>
<para>I'd also like to consider the responses of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and the shadow minister for women. I'll take a couple of moments to highlight some of the measures the coalition took, when we were in government, to improve the outcomes for women's health. These measures include over $100 million for improvements to cervical cancer and breast cancer screening programs to help detect these life-threatening cancers earlier, which can lead to improving survival rates across the nation. There was almost $100 million for new tests on the Medicare Benefits Schedule for pre-implantation genetic testing of embryos for specific genetic abnormalities. The work that is being done in the genetic space is extraordinary. I hope that all levels of government continue to invest in this technology in the future and ensure that Australia is at the forefront, globally, which I know we are.</para>
<para>The coalition provided almost $50 million to support the mental health and wellbeing of new and expectant parents, including funding for the Perinatal Anxiety and Depression Australia helpline and, by working to deliver universal perinatal mental health screening and improved data collection across public antenatal and postnatal care sessions. I'm very passionate about mental health and investment in this space, particularly for women who are in the stage of their lives when they're thinking about having children or are having children and also as they go through menopause and experience mental health issues during that time—a time which is coming, as the member for Macquarie said. Menopause is something that we're talking about more, and it's coming more into the light. It's something that we should be seriously addressing.</para>
<para>Other coalition measures included almost $27 million to provide support for people with eating disorders and their families, noting that women account for almost two-thirds of eating disorder diagnoses; $22 million for additional gynaecology items on the MBS, including for assisted reproductive technology and long-term reversible contraceptives; $21.6 million for women's health initiatives, including Jean Hailes for Women's Health and the Pelvic Pain Foundation of Australia—again for endometriosis; almost $20 million for the PBS listing of Oripro to prevent women going into premature labour; almost $14 million for the Australian Preterm Birth Prevention Alliance to reduce preterm birth rates; and $6.6 million for Breast Cancer Network Australia to operate its helpline, provide rural and regional information forums and extend its consumer representative training programs.</para>
<para>I now come to this year's budget relating to women's health. I've discussed certain points previously during consideration in detail on the budget, but I want to emphasise that the coalition is strongly committed to health, to improving the health, safety and wellbeing of Australians, and to ensuring that all Australians have affordable access to the health care they need across our country. As we have stated, we will support good policy put forward by this government in this area, but, equally, we will not hesitate to hold the government to account where we feel they could be doing better.</para>
<para>A measure that has our support is the provision of $16.8 million to introduce a new MBS item for a test that determines a patient's risk of recurrent breast cancer. We know that genetic testing is a way to increase early diagnosis of breast cancer and to increase breast cancer prevention for at-risk women, so it's great that this women's health item will be listed on the MBS. The absence of key funding for ovarian cancer is a concern, though. We were disappointed to see that the government didn't come to the table on Ovarian Cancer Australia's budget submission. We would like to see that rectified in future budgets. As the opposition leader stated in the budget reply speech, the coalition has a proud record in committing funding for endometriosis, stillbirths, breast cancer and ovarian cancer.</para>
<para>In continuing this strong support for women's health, the opposition leader committed to investing $4 million in Ovarian Cancer Australia so that they can continue their critical work of supporting women battling ovarian cancer and also supporting their families. Additional support in this area can make a serious impact on the lives of those battling this horrific cancer.</para>
<para>Further, a coalition government will allocate $5 million to review women-specific health items on the MBS and corresponding treatments on the PBS. The review would identify what best-practice women-specific medical services are not listed and ensure clinically effective services and treatments remain affordable and accessible. Additionally, it will help to determine where additional funding is required to better support women's health and wellbeing. It is really critical that Australian women have affordable access to the health care they need, which is why it is, as I said, a disappointment that the government didn't provide the support for the brave women across the country battling ovarian cancer.</para>
<para>We know that the health of Australian women and girls is also critical to their overall wellbeing. That's why, when we were last in government, we provided significant funding to initiatives supporting the maternal reproductive health of Australian women and girls that would support the National Women's Health Strategy 2020-2030.</para>
<para>We understand that one in nine Australian women are affected by endometriosis, which can affect women's health, fertility, education and employment outcomes. I noted that the member for Macquarie, in her speech, talked about the announcement of an endometriosis and pain clinic in Western Sydney. I'd like to add that the coalition invested $58 million to support women to get diagnosis earlier and to ensure women with endometriosis have access to resources to make informed choices for their own health, and doctors will be provided with guidance on the best treatment plans. The coalition was pleased to see this government commit to funding our $58 million package for endometriosis and pelvic pain, which is what we're seeing come through with these pain clinics across the country.</para>
<para>We recognise how important this investment is for women who need it. Another key measure the coalition will take to the election is a return of something I'm really passionate about: the Better Access program for the 20 Medicare-subsidised psychology sessions. This is a significant measure for women, given the rise in mental health issues, particularly mental health issues impacting girls. According to Beyond Blue, in Australia, during their lifetime, around one in six women will experience depression and around one in three women will experience anxiety. Women also experience post-traumatic stress disorder and eating disorders at higher rates than men. These are alarming statistics, which is why the coalition wants families to be able to have more government assistance for girls and women and wants to help them financially when they're reaching out for help. In a cost-of-living crisis the government should never have taken away the mechanisms to support families and women in accessing mental health treatment.</para>
<para>In Women's Health Week, I also want to give a special shout-out to all the female workers on the front line in the healthcare, medical research, technology and medtech sectors. They do such an amazing job, and I'd like to say that we can't thank you enough for your contribution to the betterment of women's health across this country.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:18</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms DOYLE</name>
    <name.id>299962</name.id>
    <electorate>Aston</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise today to speak about Women's Health Week and the importance of equal access to safe, effective, affordable and appropriate healthcare services and support for Australian women and girls. The Albanese Labor government has made women's health a priority and is working to break down the barriers to women accessing the quality care they need and deserve. We are ensuring that Australian women and girls have the equitable access they deserve to health care and we are addressing the significant biases that exist in health care on the basis of gender. This is a priority for our government.</para>
<para>But, first, I'd like to talk about a girl of 14 from country Victoria who, back in early 1985, was experiencing significant pain on the right side of her lower abdomen. She was sent to the local hospital with suspected appendicitis. Upon examination under general anaesthetic, the male GP who was operating discovered the appendix wasn't really that inflamed, so he went looking further and found instead a large, egg-sized dermoid cyst on her right ovary. Without pausing the operation or consulting the girl's mother, who was waiting anxiously in the hospital waiting room, the GP made the decision to remove the cyst, as well as the girl's whole ovary. When the girl awoke, groggily thinking she'd just had her appendix removed, she was being told, at the age of 14, 'Don't worry, you'll still be able to have kids of your own.' That girl was me.</para>
<para>I then went on to experience more dermoid cysts on my left—and remaining—ovary from the age of 16 to 20 and was told the pill was the only option to keep these types of ovarian cysts from forming. I had more operations at the age of 20 to remove them and, when I went off the pill one time and they'd begun forming again, I was told to just stay on the pill if I ever wanted to have kids of my own. I did that until the age of 25, when I was diagnosed with breast cancer and was told by my oncologist at the time that the pill could be dangerous and that I needed to cease taking it if I wanted to avoid a recurrence of breast cancer.</para>
<para>I was then, at the age of 25, put in the situation of choosing a possible cancer recurrence over one day having kids of my own. I didn't even know at that point if I wanted to have kids. It was all too much to handle. I went off the pill, as I wanted to avoid having a recurrence at all costs. Of course, this meant the dermoid cysts returned, and then my remaining ovary was at risk of dying. I had an operation to remove a dermoid cyst that had formed within the centre of the ovary and was lucky enough to have a fantastic, qualified gynaecologist who was able to conserve enough ovarian tissue for me to be able to conceive my son in late 2000 and then my daughter in late 2003. Without this man's expertise I might not have my two beautiful kids, who are now 22 and 19 years old—I'm sorry, but I get a bit emotional.</para>
<para>Because that remaining ovary were so tiny, I then started having hot flushes at 37 years of age. I knew what this was and had been half expecting it. I told my GP, but I was fobbed off—almost laughed at, in fact. I got a gynaecologist's appointment, but he also fobbed me off when I asked for a menopause test. He told me I was way too young, even though he had my complete medical history before him. I was so infuriated by this. Finally, he granted me a blood test to see if I was going through premature menopause, almost to shut me up, I felt. It came back positive; I knew it would. He couldn't even give me the results himself, preferring to get his receptionist to give them to me over the phone—in a very chirpy matter, no less. I was pretty upset, to say the least.</para>
<para>In my view, I believe the male GP from the country hospital should never have acted in the way he did in removing my right ovary without proper consultation first. It should never have happened like that to a 14-year-old girl. There was no warning—nothing. I should have been referred to a qualified gynaecologist at the very least to see if my ovary could've been saved. That's my personal story.</para>
<para>Ged Kearney has established the National Women's Health Advisory Council, consisting of leading Australian experts in women's health to advise on the barriers facing women and girls in the health system and how the government can address them. I'm very passionate about this. The council is focusing on four key areas: research; safety; access, care and outcomes; and empowerment. Ged Kearney and the council are undertaking a widespread consultation across the country and they're hearing that every woman, like myself, has a story, but nobody has ever asked them to tell it. The bias against women in the health system is deeply embedded.</para>
<para>The reality is that women have been dismissed and ignored as far back as we have recorded, their ailments chalked up to hysteria, hormones or just women's weakness. The consequences of this bias are dire—misdiagnosis, under or over prescribing—and the problem bleeds into a lack of medical research and a lack of an evidence base for how conditions affect women. For example, women were excluded from clinical trials until the 1990s. A perfect example of this is how women make up 70 per cent of chronic pain condition patients, however 80 per cent of pain medications have only been tested on men.</para>
<para>We know that often these experiences in the health system can be sensitive and difficult to share—yes, they are—so being able to share their experiences in their own language can be really helpful for people. All components of the consultation are available in 17 languages.</para>
<para>I urge anyone who has faced or witnessed gender bias in the health system to tell us about it. You can find the council's survey by visiting health.gov.au and searching 'women's council'. We can't fix what we don't know, and an Australia-first public consultation is an important step towards understanding the issue and how best to address it.</para>
<para>Endometriosis and pelvic pain—endometriosis affects at least one in nine Australian women and can have an extensive devastating impact on the daily lives of those with the condition. Sufferers wait on average seven years before diagnosis. New research shows that one in two Australian women experience pelvic pain and half of those women do not discuss their symptoms with a doctor despite significant impacts on work or study. I'm experiencing pelvic pain right now because of the many operations I've had over the years. I'm experiencing pain right now and have for years because of adhesions, and I can't get anyone to help me with that pain, so I know about this from personal experience.</para>
<para>The impact of pelvic pain is felt beyond individuals as it is estimated to cost the Australian economy almost $10 billion a year. We, as a government, have committed a $53 million package to support endometriosis and pelvic pain management. A key component of this commitment was establishing 22 specialised endometriosis and pelvic pain clinics across Australia, providing multidisciplinary care with a focus on reducing diagnostic delay and promoting early access to intervention, care and treatment options for endometriosis and pelvic pain.</para>
<para>Miscarriage—early pregnancy loss, or miscarriage, is the most common pregnancy complication and can be a devastating and traumatic experience for parents, their families and support people. It can have significant personal, social and sometimes financial consequences. The government has provided $5.1 million over four years from 2022-23 to deliver high-quality evidence-based bereavement care for women and families from higher risk population groups who experience stillbirth or miscarriage, including First Nations people, culturally and linguistically diverse families, refugee and migrated communities, women and families living in rural and remote areas and women younger than 20 years.</para>
<para>IVF—the Albanese government is committed to supporting Australians to access a wide range of assisted reproductive technology treatments, including IVF, by providing rebates for services listed on the Medicare Benefits Schedule and subsidising medications available through the PBS.</para>
<para>I could talk about this from a personal perspective until the cows come home, but I'm running out of time. The measures that the Albanese government are taking to address these issues are very welcome to people like me and to families whose members have experienced endometriosis. I can't speak more highly of them. Thank you.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DE</name>
    <name.id>290544</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>That was a very powerful speech. Thank you.</para>
<para>Federation Chamber adjourned at 11 : 2 9</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
  </fedchamb.xscript>
</hansard>