2023-09-07 2 1 0 House of Reps 0 1

Thursday, 7 September 2023

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

MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS 1 MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS World Suicide Prevention Day 1 Reference to Federation Chamber 4 09:20 Ms McBRIDE 248353 Dobell by leave—I move: That further statements in relation to World Suicide Prevention Day be permitted in the Federation Chamber. Question agreed to. BILLS 4 BILLS Statutory Declarations Amendment Bill 2023 4

Statutory Declarations Amendment Bill 2023

First Reading 4 Second Reading 4 09:21 Mr DREYFUS HWG Isaacs I move: That this bill be now read a second time. Introduction The Statutory Declarations Amendment Bill may seem unassuming and modest, but, make no mistake, it will have an impact. Each year Australian small-to-medium businesses and individuals spend an estimated 900,000 hours executing more than 3.8 million statutory declarations. These documents are used to create reliable statements and attest to events for administrative, civil, commercial and private purposes, whether it be to: provide evidence to support an application for sick leave accompany an application for child support or other government service, or provide evidence of facts in administrative proceedings, including those before a dispute resolution body or administrative tribunal. Historically, these documents have been strictly paper based, requiring ink signatures and in-person witnessing for valid execution. Following the successful pivot to digital processes in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the Australian community, and businesses in particular, expect government to offer innovative digital solutions and pathways that modernise old systems and established processes. The bill will go some way to meeting those expectations. The bill will establish a framework for making Commonwealth statutory declarations that is fit for purpose and less cumbersome and reflects the way that Australians want to engage and communicate digitally. The bill will allow a statutory declaration to be executed in one of three ways: traditional paper based execution, using ink signatures and in-person witnessing electronically, by allowing electronic signatures and witnessing via an audiovisual communication link, and digitally verified, through the use of an approved online platform that verifies the digital identity of the declarant through an approved identity service. The three methods of execution will be equally robust and result in an equally valid and legally effective Commonwealth statutory declaration. Importantly, the bill responds to community feedback on the advantages of modernising the execution requirements for these solemn documents and in providing choice in relation to their execution. The bill will particularly benefit those who face barriers engaging with paper based processes, such as those in rural, remote or regional parts of Australia, and those Australians experiencing low mobility or sensory concerns. Those without adequate access to technological devices or internet connectivity, or those who simply prefer not to engage with the electronic or digital execution options, will not be disadvantaged by this bill. The traditional paper based method of execution will continue to be available. Electronic execution The COVID-19 pandemic demonstrated that technology can be used successfully and reliably to facilitate the making of Commonwealth statutory declarations. The bill will make permanent the temporary measures put in place during the pandemic that allow a Commonwealth statutory declaration to be witnessed remotely via video link and signed electronically. These measures were introduced to assist individuals who, as a result of the pandemic, were either unable to meet in person to have a statutory declaration witnessed or could not meet in person because of stay-at-home or other restrictions on movement. The temporary measures provided for the continuity of business operations and government services during the COVID period, without compromising the solemnity or integrity of the Commonwealth statutory declarations framework. Stakeholders have told us that the temporary measures save time and money, and provide convenience and flexibility. This bill will ensure Australians continue to enjoy the benefits of these temporary measures enabling electronic execution after they expire on 31 December this year. Digital verification method The Australian government is committed to its vision of delivering simple, secure, and connected public services for all people and business through world-class data and digital capabilities. Since 2021, across various forums, business and community stakeholders have consistently told government that they want use technology, such as digital identity frameworks, to engage with legal documents like statutory declarations in new ways. Australians want to engage digitally to access government services, and expect that government is responsive to the changing technological expectations of the community. This bill responds to this feedback by introducing a digital verification method for making a Commonwealth statutory declaration. The economic case for allowing statutory declarations to be executed digitally is also strong. Research undertaken in 2021 estimated that digital execution could result in time and cost savings of over $156 million per annum across the economy. The bill will allow a person to leverage their digital identity to make a statutory declaration, end-to-end online, on their computer, smartphone or other portable device. Framework To future-proof the act, the bill will provide a framework that will set out the requirements to execute a Commonwealth statutory declaration through digital verification, with technical requirements and conditions to be prescribed by regulation. The framing of these provisions is important, noting the ever-evolving nature of technology and the need for the government to respond quickly to these changes as they arise. Requirements Like the other methods of execution, the digitally verified statutory declaration will require use of the prescribed form, which must be signed by the declarant. Unlike the other methods, there will be no requirement that the declaration be witnessed, in-person or via audiovisual link. Instead a number of requirements and conditions will be imposed by the framework, through the bill and through regulations, that together achieve the legal purposes behind witnessing and provide legal certainty and surety to requesting entities. These include: Identity verification—the declarant will be required to verify their identity to a prescribed identity proofing standard each time they make a declaration through an approved identity service, such as myGovID. Evidence of execution—the declaration must be made through an approved online platform, which would be required through regulations to include information on the statutory declaration confirming that it was validly executed in accordance with the requirements of the act, including through the use of an approved identity service, the platform it was executed on, and the time and date the declaration was made. If there is a dispute about whether a digitally verified statutory declaration is bona fide, a third party will be able to verify its execution through the PDF version of the declaration, which the regulations will require include a digital certificate that is encrypted to provide authentication details that verify the declaration was, in fact, made through the online platform. Through robust technological processes, the digital option will negate the need for physical witnessing while still satisfying the underlying rationale for witnessing requirements. Safeguards The government recognises that it must ensure that any digital option produces a legally effective document within appropriate safeguards that mitigate against fraud and the misuse of personal information. Statutory declarations may contain a large volume of personal information and this bill introduces new ways of executing statutory declarations that engages with technological services. The bill therefore contains a number of safeguards to protect Australians' personal information, and maintain confidence in the framework, including: An obligation that an approved online platform not retain any copy of a statutory declaration that is made using its service. This is consistent with the process for paper declarations where the witness does not keep a copy of a statutory declaration made before them. If the approved online platform fails to comply with this prohibition, their approval to provide the service can be revoked. Subsection 14(3) of the bill lists the matters that the minister must be satisfied of before prescribing a digital service to be an approved online platform or identity service, including being satisfied that the entity operates in a way that complies with the Privacy Act, the effectiveness of the entity's protective security (including security governance, information security, personnel security and physical security) and fraud control arrangements. There is also an ability to prescribe further matters for consideration under this provision. An approved online platform will be required to report annually to the minister on the use of the platform, including how many statutory declarations were undertaken using the platform in the financial year, compliance with the requirement not to keep copies of statutory declarations and to report any eligible data breach within the meaning of the Privacy Act. This report must be tabled in parliament, and will be accessible to the public. Finally, two years after commencement, the act must be reviewed. The review must consider if the digital option is working as intended to allow Australians to make statutory declarations online safely and securely. The provision enabling the minister to prescribe further standards that a prospective digital service must meet will provide the ability to require: that an approved identity service be accredited under the Trusted Digital Identity Framework and onboarded to provide identity services within the Australian Government Digital ID System (the AGDIS), and that an approved online platform be a participating relying party operating within the Australian Government Digital Identity System (AGDIS). Being accredited under the Trusted Digital Identity Framework will ensure that entities meet strict requirements for privacy protection, security, risk management and fraud control. The Australian Government Digital Identity System has been designed to protect privacy and security so that the individual is able to control their personal information. This means that, at least at first, the government will be able to prescribe myGov as an approved online platform and myGovID as an approved identity service able to verify a declarant's identity to a prescribed identity level. Through prescribing entities and requirements, the bill will have the flexibility to adapt and grow with any expansion of the Australian Government Digital Identity System to the private sector and states and territories. However, noting that digitally verified statutory declarations are a first of their kind, the government would carefully consider the appropriateness of prescribing other providers. As I mentioned, copies of statutory declarations and personal information associated with the declaration will not be stored on the approved online platform or any other database. The approved online platform will only keep the minimum de-identified data required to verify execution in accordance with the requirements in the bill. Australians will be able to be confident that the digital option is robust and reliable, and that their personal information is secure and protected. Conclusion In conclusion, the bill modernises and reimagines how individuals and businesses engage with solemn documents and, through extension. with the Australian government. This bill will provide the framework for a standalone digital statutory declaration execution service that will leverage established Australian government digital infrastructure to allow Australians to safely and securely make a statutory declaration end-to-end online. Consistent with the principle of consent that underpins the Australian government digital ID system, the bill will also continue to provide options from which Australians can choose based on their personal circumstances and preferences, including electronic execution and traditional paper-based execution. This bill will respond to how Australians want and expect to engage and communicate digitally with government by providing options to make Commonwealth statutory declarations facilitated by technology. This bill is an important milestone in driving the digitisation of government services. It will deliver a world-class, simple and secure public service for all Australians. I commend the bill to the House. Debate adjourned. BILLS 7 BILLS Royal Commissions Amendment (Private Sessions) Bill 2023 7

Royal Commissions Amendment (Private Sessions) Bill 2023

First Reading 7 Second Reading 7 09:36 Mr DREYFUS HWG Isaacs I move: That this bill be now read a second time. The Royal Commissions Amendment (Private Sessions) Bill proposes to amend the Royal Commissions Act 1902 to enable a sole commissioner or the chair of a multi-member royal commission that is permitted to hold private sessions to authorise, in writing, a suitably qualified, experienced and senior member of staff of the royal commission to hold private sessions. A member of staff who is authorised for this purpose will be called an assistant commissioner. Private sessions Part 4 of the Royal Commissions Act enables certain royal commissions to hold private sessions. Private sessions were first established for the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse to enable individuals to tell their experience about the highly sensitive and personal matters into which the royal commission was inquiring, in a trauma-informed and less formal setting than a hearing. Subsequently, royal commissions prescribed by the Royal Commissions Regulations 2019 have been able to utilise private sessions. This includes the two current royal commissions, the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide and the Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability. Participation in a private session is voluntary and participants have similar protections to witnesses. The information that participants give is not considered as evidence and it is not taken on oath or affirmation. There are strict limitations on the use and disclosure of that information, which apply both during and after a royal commission's inquiries. Currently under the act, only a sole commissioner, the chair of a multi-member royal commission, or another commissioner who is authorised in writing by the chair, may conduct private sessions. Resourcing and cost implications of private sessions Private sessions have implications for the resourcing, cost and constitution of a royal commission. Amending the act to enable a suitably qualified, experienced and senior staff member to be authorised as an assistant commissioner to conduct private sessions will provide more flexibility to royal commissions to conduct their inquiry. It will assist the sole commissioner or chair of a multi-member royal commission to ensure resources are used appropriately and that the inquiry is conducted in an effective and efficient manner, while still enabling a private session participant to have their private session conducted by a suitably qualified, experienced and senior member of staff. The am endments The bill proposes amendments to part 4 of the act to introduce a new definition of 'assistant commissioner' into the act and related amendments to enable an assistant commissioner to hold private sessions for royal commissions, whether they are constituted by a sole commissioner or multiple commissioners. The proposed role of an assistant commissioner is solely to hold private sessions, as authorised in writing by the sole commissioner or chair of the royal commission. An assistant commissioner will not be authorised to undertake any other role or to exercise any powers of a commissioner for the royal commission. The proposed amendments outline how and when an assistant commissioner can be authorised to hold private sessions. They provide that the chair of a royal commission or a sole commissioner may authorise a person to be an assistant commissioner for the sole purpose of holding private sessions for the royal commission. The person must be a member of staff of the royal commission and the authorisation must be in writing. The chair or a sole commissioner of a royal commission can authorise a person to be an assistant commissioner if they consider that: the person has suitable qualifications and experience, and an appropriate level of seniority, and circumstances exist that justify the person holding private sessions for the commission. The sole commissioner or chair of a royal commission will determine whether circumstances exist that justify authorising an assistant commissioner for the purposes of holding private sessions for the royal commission. The sole commissioner or chair of a royal commission will also decide if the person to be authorised has suitable qualifications and experience and an appropriate level of seniority. The sole commissioner or chair should ensure that individuals who share their personal accounts in a private session feel confident in the process. The proposed amendments make it clear that an assistant commissioner will only be appointed where such an appointment is justified. The provision may enable a royal commission to hold more private sessions over the duration of its inquiry than it otherwise might have and therefore allow more people to engage with a royal commission and have their experience heard. It may be that some individuals who wish to participate in a private session would prefer to share their personal accounts with the chair of a royal commission or with a sole commissioner—rather than with an assistant commissioner. By contrast, there may be individuals who would feel more comfortable participating in private sessions held by experienced members of a royal commission's staff who have specialist training in engaging with vulnerable people. The proposed amendments would enable the chair or sole commissioner to take these preferences into account in determining whether circumstances exist that justify authorising an assistant commissioner to hold private sessions. Protections The amendments also provide that an assistant commissioner for a royal commission who holds private sessions for the royal commission has the same protection and immunity as a justice of the High Court. An assistant commissioner will be performing the same role as a commissioner when conducting a private session. As such, an assistant commissioner should be provided the same level of protection and immunity as a commissioner. Subsection 7(1) of the Royal Commissions Act provides that a commissioner shall have the same protection and immunity as a justice of the High Court in the exercise of his or her duty as a commissioner. A judge of the High Court enjoys judicial immunity, which means that no criminal or civil action can be brought against them for acts done within jurisdiction in the course of hearing and deciding a case that is before them. A judge of the High Court is also immune from being compelled to give evidence or disclose their decision-making. This immunity will be extended to assistant commissioners under proposed section 6OEA. Limitations and protections This power to authorise an assistant commissioner is not able to be delegated and can only be used where the sole commissioner or chair considers that circumstances exist that justify the person holding private sessions. Compatibility with human rights This bill is compatible with the human rights and freedoms recognised or declared in the international instruments listed in section 3 of the Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Act 2011. The bill promotes the right to privacy, the right to effective access to justice and the right to freedom of expression. It does not engage or limit the right to a fair trial or hearing. Conclusion This bill will provide more flexibility to royal commissions to conduct their inquiry and ensure resources are used appropriately and that the inquiry is conducted in an effective and efficient manner, while ensuring that individuals who wish to participate in private sessions in a less formal and trauma informed setting are able to do so. I commend the bill to the House. Debate adjourned. COMMITTEES 9 COMMITTEES Migration Joint Committee 9 Membership 9 09:44 The DEPUTY SPEAKER E0D I have received advice from the Chief Opposition Whip that he has nominated Mr Caldwell to be a member of Joint Standing Committee on Migration in place of Mr Wood. 09:45 Ms COLLINS HWM Franklin by leave—I move: That Mr Wood be discharged from the Joint Standing Committee on Migration and that, in his place, Mr Caldwell be appointed a member of the committee. Question agreed to. BILLS 9 BILLS Parliamentary Workplace Support Service Bill 2023, Parliamentary Workplace Support Service (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2023, Members of Parliament (Staff) Amendment Bill 2023 9

Parliamentary Workplace Support Service Bill 2023

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

Members of Parliament (Staff) Amendment Bill 2023

Second Reading 9 09:46 Mr TAYLOR 231027 Hume I rise to speak on the Parliamentary Workplace Support Service Bill 2023, the Parliamentary Workplace Support Service (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2023 and the Members of Parliament (Staff) Amendment Bill 2023. Everyone deserves to have a safe and respectful workplace. All parties have a role in improving the parliament's culture. There have been challenges in our workplace, and we are working with all other parties and parliamentarians to address those challenges. We take these changes that we're talking about today very seriously. It's why we accepted and implemented the recommendations of the Foster review, including an independent complaints mechanism, workplace training and improved independent support services. It's why the former government accepted the Jenkins review and committed to working towards all 28 recommendations. There have been concrete changes that will make our workplaces more safe and respectful. We now have in place an independent and confidential complaints mechanism for current and former parliamentarians and staff. We have a confidential 24-hour support service, for current and former parliamentarians and staff. We have new training and education programs for all our staff, and parliamentarians as well, to keep our workplaces safe and respectful. The work to implement these changes is being led by the Parliamentary Leadership Taskforce, the PLT, which represents parties and parliamentarians from across the parliament. There is more work to be done, but the coalition is committed to working with all parties, Independents and staff to continue to make sure that we do have that safe and respectful workplace—a place where everyone feels safe and valued. It was the former coalition that established the current Parliamentary Workplace Support Service, following the Foster review. That service was created to be bespoke to our workplace. It's confidential, independent, trusted, and placed inside this building. It's a testament to that body that the service, that has proven itself to the extent that this bill is before us, will carry on the name in the new body. This new statutory body is designed to continue that work, with the status of a body independent from government but accountable to parliament. The legislation before the House responds to recommendation 11 of the Set the standard: report on the Independent Review into Commonwealth Parliamentary Workplaces, known as the Jenkins review. That review recommended that the Australian government should establish an Office of Parliamentarian Staffing and Culture within 12 months, to provide human resources support to parliamentarians and Members of Parliament (Staff) Act employees, that is, first, centralised and accountable to the parliament, with enforcement of standards, and, second, designed to provide human resources support and administrative functions in the area of policy development, training, advice, support and education. What is important about the Parliamentary Workplace Support Service Bill, and significant for the overall implementation of the Jenkins review, is that the body it creates will enable the implementation of a further five recommendations. The legislation comprises eight parts. Part 2 of the bill establishes the PWSS and its functions, and its obligations in relation to reports and action against parliamentarians for certain noncompliance. These functions include: human resources support, complaint resolution, policy development, education and training, reviews, and reporting on diversity, culture and work health and safety. The bills also allow for the creation of policies or training that are mandatory for parliamentarians and staff. These mandatory policies and training will be made mandatory by the CEO of the PWSS only after the CEO has been given agreement by the advisory board, and would be disallowable. This provides an appropriate balance between the independent powers of the PWSS and the necessary oversight of these powers. Part 3 establishes the chief executive officer and the arrangements for the CEO's appointment, conditions and termination. It's important to note that the independence of the CEO is integral to the operations of the powers and functions of the PWSS. The bill is explicit and clear. No parliamentarian will be able to direct the CEO in his or her duties. It's also important to note that the CEO will be appointed only following an appropriate consultation. The minister has provided assurance that this process will be genuine consultation with relevant parliamentarians and parties prior to the appointment. The opposition is advised that recruitment is currently underway for this position. Part 4 outlines arrangements for staff, including consultants. It's important that the PWSS will be staffed by specialists and experts who can assist our workplace in developing best practice. To this end, it's noted that the PWSS will be able to seek external advice and expertise when required. Part 5 establishes the advisory board and its procedures, including membership and members' terms and conditions. The board will assist the CEO in relation to the performance and the functions of the PWSS. As I've stated, it also has the important function of considering whether to approve or reject proposed mandatory policies or procedures and proposed mandatory education or training programs and requirements for completion of these programs. Part 6 establishes the PWSS consultative committee and its functions and membership. That committee will be comprised of an independent chair, parliamentarians and staff. This committee is a crucial body, as it would enable employers and employees within our workplace to speak directly to the PWSS. This is essential in building trust in the operation of the PWSS and ensuring it meets the needs of parliamentarians and their staff. Part 7 outlines the information-sharing arrangements—for example, between the PWSS and other Commonwealth entities, and in relation to requesting information from parliamentarians and MOPS employees. This is an important measure that will assist in the operation of the PWSS—in particular, in seeking information for reviews and reports. Finally, part 8 provides for the making of rules and for regular reviews of the new body. It is important to continually assess how this body is performing in its role to support our workplace. The PWSS bill provides for some administrative and transitional measures. The first of these is to provide continuity of the current arrangements for the treatment of documents and records of the PWSS. These arrangements exist to support and engender trust and confidentiality in the PWSS and its processes, following consultation with staff across the parliament under the former coalition government. The arrangements will exempt the records of the PWSS from the FOI Act and prevent the release of any of these records through the Archives Act for a period of 99 years. The second measure is to remove the determination that established the current PWSS. The final measure will allow the work of the current PWSS that may have occurred, is currently underway or is being managed, to be taken up by the new body following the closure of the old body. While the measures in these bills have the in-principle support of the opposition, at this time the opposition will be reserving its position, noting that the Minister for Finance has committed to the shadow minister to consider some minor technical changes to this legislation to improve its operation and provide clarity for staff. The coalition in government and in opposition has consistently taken the approach that these matters should remain nonpartisan and dealt with by consensus, and the Labor Party has worked to do the same, particularly when reasonable and sensible compromise can be achieved. This is important and appreciated by the opposition, as we have consulted widely since the legislation was made public a month ago when it was introduced. The views of staff on these matters are paramount, and we appreciate that the minister recognised the hundreds of coalition staff who will be impacted by this new framework and the feedback from our staff that has been provided. We note the need for this legislation to pass soon to ensure it can achieve the scheduled start date of 1 October this year, and to that end we will assist with the passage of the bill while the discussions between the minister and the opposition continue. Finally, on the Members of Parliament (Staff) Amendment Bill 2023, the opposition supports this bill entirely and appreciates the detailed and sincere consultation that the minister has engaged in with our shadow minister. Consistent with the past practice in these matters over successive parliaments and governments, Minister Farrell has provided an approach that has allowed consensus on legislation that provides for the support of the parliament and the operation of parliamentarians and their staff. The opposition very much thanks the minister and his office for their sincere and genuine engagement in the development of this legislation to allow it to pass without the need for amendment and with the consensus of the parliament. This bill originates from recommendation 18 of the Set the standard report and the recommended comprehensive review of the operation and effectiveness of the MOPS Act to ensure consistency with modern employment frameworks that was recommended in that report. The MOPS Act establishes a framework for parliamentarians and office holders to employ people on behalf of the Commonwealth. This employment currently operates for three categories of staff—personal staff, electorate officers and consultants—and is done through determinations made through the Prime Minister or the Prime Minister's delegate, nominally the Special Minister of State. It is important to note that this legislation has been in effect for 39 years and had not changed in any significant way until the Jenkins review and changes made by the former coalition government. The review resulted in 15 recommendations which were agreed in principle by both the government and the opposition. The bill will implement 11 recommendations of this review of the MOPS Act. The remaining recommendations will be implemented by the proposed new statutory Parliamentary Workplace Support Service, the PWSS, to be established under the PWSS bill. The changes in this bill fall into six categories over four schedules. First, the bill clarifies the roles and responsibilities of parliamentarians, office holders and employees, including their obligations under workplace laws. In practice, the bill clarifies the roles of parliamentarians, office holders and the Prime Minister by articulating that parliamentarians are responsible for their workplaces and are beholden to various acts, such as the discrimination acts. This is an important measure as it improves the relationship between the employment framework and modern workplace law, noting, as the review of the MOPS Act stated, that the parliamentarian has day-to-day management and decision-making in relation to employees. Second, the bill will bring the act into line with current practice. It will streamline the MOPS Act, including by reflecting categories of employment as they are referred to in contracts and agreements and removing obsolete provisions in the act, such as the one relating to consultants engaged by parliamentarians. These changes define categories of employees that better reflect those categories rather than by who employs them. Third, the bill will enhance transparency of employment arrangements with a new requirement that the determination of terms and conditions for employment under the act are made publicly available on the Federal Register of Legislation, unless they would impinge on the privacy of individuals or small groups of individuals. While many determinations are already published on the Department of Finance website, this requirement will ensure a single and clear source of information for interpreting the conditions created under the act. Fourth, the bill includes requirements intended to guide decision-making by parliamentarians about employment matters and to support fair outcomes and processes when making significant employment decisions. Parliamentarians would be required to recruit employees based on their assessment of a candidate's capability to perform a specified role. This requirement reflects the value of establishing at the start of employment clear expectations that can be met, while preserving the parliamentarian's ability to specify the role and skill requirements as well as the variety of needs the parliamentary officers may have, depending on geography and duties. Fifth, a new provision for temporary suspension of employment will offer an alternative to termination of employment. Suspension could occur with or without pay. Parliamentarians would also be required to consult with the new PWSS prior to making a decision to terminate the employment of a staff member or suspend a staff member without pay. The bill also allows for the PWSS to step in as employer in circumstances where there is no longer a sitting parliamentarian, such as in the case of the death of a parliamentarian. Sixth, the bill will make changes to the act's automatic termination provisions and clarify the intended operation of these provisions. As reflected in the review of the MOP(S) Act, this was sought by staff and will increase job security for electorate staff or staff of parliamentarians who occupy particular offices, such as ministers and party leaders. The measures in the bill also provide for minor and technical amendments of other acts that refer to it to ensure consistency of language across all of those acts. Noting the significant time between the introduction of the act and the current changes, the bill also provides for a further review within five years of the amendments commencing, as was recommended by the MOP(S) Act review. We support the improvements that these three bills provide to our Commonwealth parliamentary workplaces and the parliamentary employment framework, and we very much look forward to continued engagement with the government on these matters. 10:02 Ms CLAYDON 248181 Newcastle Reports of bullying, sexual harassment and sexual assault in our parliament have justly shocked the nation and highlighted the need for urgent reform to ensure that all Commonwealth parliamentary workplaces are safe and respectful places to work. In the wake of these shocking revelations, a number of reviews were undertaken with regard to the behaviour and culture in our parliament, perhaps none as important as the Australian Human Rights Commission's Set the standard report. An extensive body of work, the report of the independent review into Commonwealth parliamentary workplaces was sobering reading for anyone who read it. I don't think any of us walked away, after the many months of testimony and reading those submissions, thinking that there wasn't an urgent need for reform in this workplace, and not just this workplace. When we talk about Commonwealth parliamentary workplaces, we're talking about every place where Commonwealth members of staff and members of parliament are conducting business. I want to pay tribute to Kate Jenkins's exceptional work in leading that report and the very delicate work of providing a safe place inside a notoriously unsafe space for a lot of workers and people in this building to tell their story—to know that they could do that, that they would be listened to and believed and that there would be a series of recommendations made to this parliament. I appreciate the comments from the member for Hume, who spoke just before me, about wanting to continue to engage on these matters, but I remind every single member of this House and the other place that there was a very clear commitment from all of us to implement each and every one of the recommendations from the Jenkins report. This really is, as the former Sex Discrimination Commissioner, Kate Jenkins, said in that report, 'an opportunity for the leaders of our country to transform Commonwealth parliamentary workplaces to become what they already should be', and that is 'workplaces where expected standards of behaviour are modelled, championed and enforced, where respectful behaviour is rewarded and in which any Australian, no matter their gender, race, sexual orientation, disability status or age, feels safe and welcome to contribute'. It's hard to think that anybody might want to argue against those standards. I welcome the multiparty support for these reforms and certainly for the bills before the House today. I think it is critical that we never lose sight of the intent of those recommendations and that original commitment that we made to the thousands of people that work in this place and in all of the other Commonwealth workplaces across the nation. This is a government that is absolutely serious about improving workplace behaviour and culture, and we are deeply committed to implementing all 28 recommendations of the Set the standard report. I've often said in this House that making the laws, passing legislation and drafting codes of conduct—that's the easy part. Every single one of us should be able to do this in a very timely manner right now. The really big work that is incumbent on all of us is driving cultural change. That's the long-term work that needs to be done and that's the hard work, where everybody has to step up and play their role. As challenging as some aspects of these pieces of legislation might be for some, I say again: this is the easy part. There has been significant work across the parliament, across the Parliamentary Leadership Taskforce, to develop this bill, and lots and lots of discussions and negotiations to try and get this right. Progress is being made, but we have a lot more to do—and I don't think any of us can pretend otherwise—including working across the parliament to establish enforceable codes of conduct. We've all agreed to those codes in principle, but they sit there in a space where they cannot be properly exercised at this point in time. We need to establish enforceable codes of conduct, and that will only happen when we do the work to embed the Independent Parliamentary Standards Commission, and that's the next step for this parliament. Beyond these two bills that we're talking about today, I want to flag with everybody that there is another body of work to be done—to establish an independent parliamentary standards commission because, without that, as so many members of staff told me and other members of the Parliamentary Standards Committee that were drafting the codes of conduct at the time, those codes are worthless. They are nothing but words on paper if we do not have the Independent Parliamentary Standards Commission to hear matters and then follow through with proportionate sanctions. I welcome the member for Hume going through some of that detail. I don't wish to repeat that, but both the Jenkins report and the committee I chaired on parliamentary standards agree there should be a range of enforceable sanctions depending on the nature of the offence or the nature of the breach of those codes. That is a big body of work that is yet to be undertaken by this parliament. Not one of us should be under any false illusions here; that is critical work yet to be done. As I said, as a member of the Parliamentary Leadership Taskforce and the chair of the Joint Select Committee on Parliamentary Standards, I am very pleased to have been involved in this process to date. I think every person on that task force and likewise on that committee has a really deep personal commitment to ensuring that we do the hard work of driving the cultural change in this building. I believe that there is a very deep public expectation that this reform will take place. Every other parliament has squibbed this in the past. There is no place for us to get weak at the knees now. For half a century we've been talking about codes of conduct for this place. We've squibbed it every other time. We cannot be the parliament that does not stand by our word to ensure that the implementation of all the recommendations is done and done in full. The 47th Parliament has this incredibly unique opportunity before us to make good on all of those past mistakes and to leave a legacy for future generations of people who come and work here. That's what I want my legacy to be, and I'm pretty sure most people in this parliament would want something to pass on to the next generation of parliamentarians as well. The Parliamentary Workplace Support Service Bill, or the PWSS Bill, which is before us now, will implement recommendation 11 of that Set the standard report, which recommends the Australian government establish an office of parliamentarian staffing and culture. After a lot of consultation, we've decided that the naming of that place should remain Parliamentary Workplace Support Services. That's what people are now very used to, and there's been an establishment of a trusting relationship there, so I guess that's where there's been a slight deviation from Jenkins's recommendation. I can assure the House that Kate Jenkins was never wedded to the title of that body and is very, very happy for the Parliamentary Workplace Support Services to fill what she had envisaged as being the parliamentarian staffing and culture office. Its fundamental role is to provide those important human resources supports to parliamentarians but also to all our MOP staff. I think it is critical that that is trusted, confidential, independent advice and support, and we know that there's a good track record for PWSS now. The bill is also going to enable the PWSS, once established, to implement a further six recommendations of the Set the standard report, and those are recommendations 7, 12, 13, 15, 16 and 19, together with parliamentary departments to additionally implement recommendation 14. Time won't allow me to go into those details, but they are all well recorded. The MOPS Amendment Bill responds to the MOPS Act review—a really important body of work. That review was undertaken in response to recommendation 18 of the Set the standard report. This package is the first tranche of structural reforms recommended by Jenkins. This is the first of a series of bills that we need to deal with in order to deliver all of those reforms. The second tranche, as I said, will legislate the independent parliamentary standards commission. That's going to be responsible for the enforcement of the codes of conduct, the investigations of alleged breaches and sanctions, including sanctions against parliamentarians. So we're holding ourselves up to a standard here, and that's important. It's important that we model some behaviour for our staff and visitors and everybody else in this building too. In February this year, the former Sex Discrimination Commissioner Kate Jenkins said that great progress was being made towards reforming this workplace culture, one that would be safe and respectful, and, whilst this legislation is an important part of that work, we cannot stop here. There's a lot more to be done. I hope that the bipartisan, or I should say multipartisan, spirit that's driven the work so far continues. We are all in this together. It's not just the job of government, although you can be absolutely assured this government is going to drive and lead this process. But we all have a role to play, and the legislative package will make important reforms to support the professionalisation of the employment framework for staff, support for parliamentarians with their employer duties and support parliament to be a workplace which is safe and respectful. That's a big change. There is going to be a very clear onus on parliamentarians in our role as employers, and that should be made very, very clear to everyone in this building now. We have a clear role as an employer and certain obligations as a result of that. Many people have been involved in this journey. I really want to do a shout-out to our staff and those people who came forward to tell their stories. That was a really tough time for our staff. Their experiences to date had not given them a sense that they would necessarily be afforded safety and privacy and would not suffer sanctions and consequences themselves if they were to tell their stories, so I don't underestimate for one moment the courage of all those people who did come forward. This MOP(S) Amendment Bill has been a long time coming. The setting up of the PWSS as a new statutory authority is an important adjunct to the MOP(S) work that has been done. It will modernise the MOP(S) employment framework, and that is terribly important. The new act will provide clarity of roles and responsibilities and improve transparency. The amendments made by these bills today are the product, as I've said, of extensive consultation with parliamentarians and with staff across the parliament, including the leadership task force, the staff consultation groups and union representatives, bringing everyone to the table, as it should be. I deeply thank everyone who has been engaged in the development of this legislative reform, through collaborative effort, to implement the Set the standard recommendations. That's how we're going to drive that long-term cultural change and find safe and respectful workplaces for everyone in this place. 10:17 Ms DANIEL 008CH Goldstein In November 2021 the Australian Human Rights Commission released the Set the standard report, a powerful body of work led by the then Sex Discrimination Commissioner, Kate Jenkins. Based on contributions from 1,700 people, the report condemned the workplace culture here in Parliament House. It found that 51 per cent of all people currently working in Commonwealth parliamentary workplaces had experienced at least one incident of bullying, sexual harassment or actual or attempted sexual assault. It revealed that one in three workers had experienced sexual harassment, with young women and people who identified as LGBTQIA+ the most vulnerable. It was laid bare for all to see—the nation's parliament was an unsafe place to work. Kate Jenkins noted that, while men and women spoke of their experiences, the harassment and bullying was disproportionately aimed at female staff and MPs, and it was largely driven by power imbalances, gender inequality and exclusion and a lack of accountability. The contributions from those interviewed in the report are harrowing. One person said: I am now in the privileged position to have a good job, a home and family of my own, but the scars from this period of my life run deep. I left the office after basically having a nervous breakdown. Another said: I will never work in a political office again, it's not worth it. Another: I did not want to stay in an environment where I was going to be subject to that level of abuse. And another: From the get-go there's no incentive to actually report because it's not going to change it and it's probably actually going to make it worse. The report recommended, among other things, an expansion of the powers and jurisdiction of the Parliamentary Workplace Support Service. This is long overdue. The Parliamentary Workplace Support Service Bill implements recommendation 11 of the Set the standard report, which recommended that the Australian government establish an Office of Parliamentarian Staffing and Culture to provide human resources support to parliamentarians and employees. The objects of this bill are to support safe and respectful workplaces for parliamentarians and staff, support positive cultural change in those workplaces and provide centralised human resources support to parliamentarians and employees. The proposed new PWSS would continue the support, complaint resolution and review functions of the existing PWSS, but it would be independent of the Department of Finance. The new service would be headed by an independent office holder. The bill makes clear that the CEO cannot be directed by any person in relation to the performance of their functions or exercise of their powers. Importantly, the CEO will be able to obtain expert advice from an advisory board and will also be able to obtain views from parliamentarians and staff whom it services through a consultative committee. The proposed new PWSS will report annually on key indicators of cultural change and progress in preventing misconduct like bullying and sexual harassment. But the new PWSS is just the first step—an important first step, that must unlock much needed further reforms. Once established it would give effect to a further six Set the standard recommendations, including the establishment of the Independent Parliamentary Standards Commission. The commission is the other main structural reform recommended in the Set the standard report. It would have the power to enforce the code of conduct and to suspend parliamentarians. This is why the PWSS must be up and running as soon as possible: so the rest of the pieces can be put in place. Legislative change is critical, and I commend the government for introducing this bill, the MOPS amendment bill and the consequential amendments and transitional provisions bill. But we also have to change the way we speak about working in this place. In the past, it's been too easy to say, 'Parliament is a unique workplace; there's no other workplace like it.' This narrative has to stop. By speaking about parliament this way, either intentionally or unintentionally, we excuse antisocial behaviour. Yes, it's the national parliament; it's the imposing house on the hill. But the people who work here have every right to feel safe and respected. The people who work here should have the systems they need to go about their work in a safe and respectful environment—no exceptions. Society has a problem with the way it treats women. Excusing poor behaviour perpetuates myths and misconceptions about sexual assault. The facts are: sexual assault is an underreported and under-prosecuted crime. The Australian Bureau of Statistics reported that, in 2021, an average of 85 people were sexually assaulted each day in this country. According to experts, 87 per cent of those that experience sexual assault don't ever report this crime, meaning the true figure is much higher. In recent weeks, we've all heard about the prevalence, for example, of sexual assault on university campuses. The 2021 National Student Safety Survey shows the magnitude of the problem. One in 20 students reported being sexually assaulted since starting university. This equates to 14,300 sexual assaults per year, or 275 each week, every week. The sexism and power imbalance in this parliament is not peculiar to this place; it's a community-wide problem. To reiterate: this place should be setting the standard and modelling behaviour. Otherwise, if it's okay here, what do we expect to see elsewhere? Before I conclude, I'd like to thank staff who came forward during this process. It's not easy to do that. I would specifically like to thank Brittany Higgins. Ms Higgins has left an important legacy. She was the catalyst for the Independent Review into Commonwealth Parliamentary Workplaces led by Kate Jenkins, and she is the reason we are debating this bill today. The reforms that will follow must create a stronger and safer culture in Australia's parliament. I'll finish by saying that, while these fine words on paper in this chamber are one thing, actions in this chamber and in this building are entirely another. Self-awareness among those who work here and reflections on their continuing behaviour inside this chamber and outside it must happen to make these reforms meaningful. I endorse the remarks of the member for Newcastle: squibbing it on this is not an option. This bill must pass. The further reforms must happen. This behaviour must change, for all of us. 10:25 Ms TINK 300124 North Sydney I rise to speak to the Parliamentary Workplace Support Service Bill 2023 and the consequential amendments. As an outspoken advocate for positive cultural change in this parliamentary workplace and a key participant in the creation of a parliamentarian code of conduct, I welcome this bill. While there is still a long way to go, this is a significant moment in parliamentary reckoning to lift the standards in this place. This bill would give effect to the recommendations the Australian Human Rights Commission Set the standard report, an instrumental review of the Commonwealth parliamentary workplace culture. It would do so by establishing the Parliamentary Workplace Support Service as an independent statutory agency which will work to support positive cultural change across Commonwealth parliamentary workplaces. This comes at a time when behaviour in this place has been bruising and far from meeting the expectations of our communities. In recent weeks, I stood up in parliament to call out what I have seen as completely inappropriate, disorderly conduct and to remind everyone in this place that not only do ordinary Australians join us every day in the galleries but thousands more watch from home and many are dismayed by the actions and behaviour they witness in this place. Too many debates between members in this place have been driven by party politicking, and I believe Australians expect better of us. As leaders of our communities, we must be able to deal with difficult issues respectfully, sensitively and, ultimately, productively. To reduce these conversations to bombastic cross-chamber yelling reduces us all. The establishment of a specialist parliamentary human resources agency charged with preventing workplace issues and resolving problems earlier is a positive step in dealing with misconduct in Parliament House and addressing the elements of toxic culture that obviously still have a hold in this place. This legislation comes nearly two years after the Set the standard report was released. The report provides a road map to drive the cultural and practical change necessary to make our parliamentary workplaces safe. The report found that over three-quarters of people currently working in these workplaces have experienced, witnessed or heard about bullying, sexual harassment or an actual or attempted sexual assault in Commonwealth workplaces. That doesn't include the intimidation that takes place both in this place and outside this chamber on a daily basis. It presents findings of unacceptable experiences driven by power imbalances, gender inequality and exclusion, and a lack of accountability. I know those elements are still prevalent in this place today. We must consider the over 4,000 people working in Parliament House on any given sitting day and the thousands more working across the country in electorate offices and the impact our behaviour is having on them. All people in all Commonwealth parliamentary workplaces deserve protection, and we need to have systems and structures in place to keep them safe. The Set the standard report found that human resources systems to support parliamentarians and MOPS employees were fragmented, unclear and inadequate, with few standardised policies and processes, including to prevent and manage misconduct. It found that there was an absence of clear expectations or guidance for Commonwealth parliamentary workplace participants. Recognising these as contributing risk factors for misconduct, the Set the standard report made a number of recommendations, with the aim that people working in Commonwealth parliamentary workplaces are clear about their roles and responsibilities and that consistent and standardised systems, processes and advice exist to support performance. The report made 28 recommendations related to leadership, diversity, equality, inclusion and systems to support performance, standards, reporting, accountability, safety and wellbeing. In summary, the report was incredibly thorough. Recommendation 11 of the Set the standard report recommended that the Australian government establish an office of parliamentarian staffing and culture to provide human resources support to parliamentarians and MOPS employees that is centralised and accountable to parliament, with enforcement of standards, and designed to provide human resources support and administrative functions in the areas of policy development, training, advice and support, and education. Recommendations 12 to 16 go to the functions of the office of parliamentarian staffing and culture, once established. This bill will give effect to these recommendations by establishing the PWSS and providing the statutory functions commensurate with those recommended in the Set the standard report. In more practical terms, the function of the PWSS include providing centralised human resources support to parliamentarians and MOP employees; support and complaint resolution services and education; and training to Commonwealth parliamentary workplace participants, as well as determining key workplace policies and procedures. It will also review complaints about certain misconduct and will make recommendations. It will promote transparency and accountability by regularly reporting on key indicators of cultural change across Commonwealth parliamentary workplaces, and it will support and provide resources for professionalised management practice in offices. Trading and guidance for MPs for the implementation for the code of conduct and behavioural standards will be central. It's important to dig deep into what these reforms actually mean. It is valuable to see the direct translation of the Set the standard report recommendations into this legislation. To have an independent human resources entity for staff and parliamentarians with these functions enshrined in legislation is a good step in the right direction. It plays a part in ensuring that, as the highest office holders in the land, we hold ourselves to the highest standards. But in discussing this legislation, it's important that we reflect on how we got here and how far we have to go. It was the courage of victims that resulted in the Jenkins review, whose recommendations led to the Parliamentary Leadership Taskforce and the Joint Select Committee on Parliamentary Standards. The Respect@Work report completed by the Australian Human Rights Commission in March 2020 was a milestone moment, not just for our country but for this place. It has very much paved the way for the 2021 Set the standard report on which this legislation is based. It particularly identified and called out the weaknesses in this place, a place which should be consistently modelling the highest standards of behaviour, and the role that the Set the standard report has subsequently played in moving this place's culture in a new direction should not be understated. But it is simply gently nudging rather than taking a sledge hammer to it. I've said this before, and I will say this again: I want to sincerely thank the far too many courageous people, the victims-survivors and everyone who bravely shared their stories to inform this important work. I want to thank the commissioner at the time, Kate Jenkins, for her fearlessness. The Respect@Work and Set the standardreports were both developed following a long and thorough process, finally bringing to light what many women have known to be true for decades. We need to do better in workplaces right around the country, including this one. That ultimately led to the development and endorsement of the first-ever code of conduct for parliamentarians and their staff, and the findings and recommendations followed. For me, watching the appalling treatment of our first female Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, was heart-wrenching. To then see Brittany Higgins's brave expression of her experience as she stood in the face of a barrage, to hear Julia Banks's accounting of her time in parliament, to read reports of Bridget Archer's treatment within parliament and then to watch Annabel Crabb's series Ms Represented were all instrumental moments in me then agreeing to run as an independent candidate. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 265979 Order. I call the member for Petrie. Mr Howarth 247742 Under standing order 64, I would ask that members be referred to by their correct titles. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 265979 I thank the member. Is that noted? Ms TINK 300124 Noted, thank you. Having witnessed all of these things and learning of findings of the reports, I was devastated and couldn't escape the feeling that I had to do something. It was at this time that the people from within my community approached me to run as an independent for the seat of North Sydney. And while it was not something I had ever foreseen myself doing, I said yes—not because I had ideas of grandeur or entitlement, but because I believed that if I could drive a higher profile discussion about the reform needed at this level simply by campaigning on this and other topics, then the personal cost of saying yes would be worth it. It's within this context then that I committed, if elected as the member for North Sydney, that I would do whatever I could to ensure the recommendations of the Set the standard report would be realised. I'm proud to have been part of Joint Select Committee on Parliamentary Standards that saw the parliament endorse the behaviour standards and codes of conduct as presented late last year. The committee developed behaviour standards which set clear expectations of upholding laws that support safe and respectful work places, including laws regarding bullying, harassment, sexual harassment or assault and discrimination or intimidation in any form. The announcement in parliament that the draft codes of conduct were to be endorsed and adopted is a win for all who want to see politics done differently. This bill has taken yet another significant step forward in changing the climate in Canberra, and the people of North Sydney can be proud of the role they continue to play in moving this agenda forward. But I need to point out that merely obeying the law is not going to be enough. The realities remain that Australians have lost faith in democracy, and it is going to take more than this work to see it restored. The cultural shift that is required involves individual responsibility and self-checks. The committee also set clear guidelines which focus on respectful behaviour, encouraging diverse perspectives and recognising the power and influence we have, ensuring not to abuse it. For many Australians, it would seem completely illogical that up until this year there was no binding code of conduct for parliamentarians, their staff or people visiting a parliamentary workplace. But codes are often only as effective as the people who uphold them. The behaviour of late shows us we still have a long way to go to change the culture in this place. Indeed, I would argue that, after yesterday's behaviour, many in this place need to go back and read that code that they themselves already endorsed. I call on my fellow parliamentarians to revisit the code, refresh your memory and reset the standards of behaviour that follow: (1) act respectfully, professionally and with integrity; (2) encourage and value diverse perspectives and recognise the importance of a free exchange of ideas; (3) recognise your power, influence or authority, and do not abuse it; (4) uphold the laws that support safe and respectful workplaces, including antidiscrimination, employment, work health and safety and criminal laws; and (5) understand that bullying, harassment, sexual harassment and assault or discrimination or intimidation in any form, including on the grounds of race, age, sex, sexuality, gender identity, disability or religion, will not be tolerated, condoned or ignored. This is our national parliament. We should set the standard for workplace culture, not the floor. The government says it is still committed to implementing all 28 recommendations of the Set the standard report, and I will hold the government to account for this. While the Parliamentary Workplace Support Service Bill 2023 and its consequential amendments are welcome progress, I call on the government to reiterate its endorsement of the code of conduct for all parliamentarians and to ensure its implementation at pace. While the establishment of the PWSS as an independent statutory agency is a welcome step in improving parliamentary standards, I highlight the need now for an independent parliamentary standards commission that would enforce the code of conduct for parliamentarians and staff. The code of conduct is long overdue. Positive culture in this place cannot come soon enough. All of us in this place have a responsibility to display exemplary individual leadership and the role to play to set the standard for an inclusive, respectful and professional workplace, not just here in Parliament House but in any work environment right across Australia. While I, like other members of the committee, strongly support the recommendation to establish a confidential, independent and serious investigative body with an effective sanctions regime to drive long-term cultural change, it must be known we will move ahead with new expectations of behaviour even without it. I was sent by the people of North Sydney to help change the culture in our federal politics for the better, knowing full well that changing any culture is always one of the hardest things to do in any environment. As stated at the opening of the Set the standard report, this is an opportunity for the leaders of our country to transform Commonwealth parliamentary workplaces to become what they should already be—workplaces where expected standards of behaviour are modelled, championed and enforced, where respectful behaviour is rewarded and where any Australian, no matter their gender, race, sexual orientation, disability status or age, feels safe and welcome to contribute. By acting on this report, this parliament has the unique chance to leave a historic legacy for future generations of people working in the parliament and, through them, for all Australians. If we are to lead our nation to a better place, we must be prepared to model the behaviour we expect to see of all of our citizens, on every street corner, on every road pathway. That is the call that I put to my fellow parliamentarians today. We must do better, and it starts with us. 10:39 Ms SPENDER 286042 Wentworth As colleagues here would be aware, I was only elected to this place last year. I don't have the depth of experience and connection that long-time members have. But I do bring the perspective of my community. Many Australians had not given much thought to the workplace experiences of parliamentarian staff before 2021, but what they have learned since Brittany Higgins brought her allegations to public attention is horrifying. The Set the standard report that followed transformed our understanding of what goes on in this place and the experiences of staff and others in this building. The report reveals a workplace where bullying, harassment, abuse and assault occur, and occur all too often and often without consequence. That report found that almost two-thirds of female parliamentarians and half of the LGBTIQ people working in parliament have experienced sexual harassment, more than the national average for women, which is 39 per cent, and significantly more than the one-quarter of men who have experienced it in parliament. Most disturbing of all is that this appalling workplace is our workplace, our national parliament. The behaviour documented by Commissioner Kate Jenkins would be unacceptable in any workplace in the country. One of the findings that really resonated with me was the finding about the leadership deficit in parliament. In a building full of national and local leaders, there was a comprehensive failure of leadership when it came to creating and maintaining a workplace culture that was safe, respectful and inclusive. With an absence of leadership in this place has come a culture where standards are not established or enforced, where misconduct is tolerated and where serious wrongdoings occur. We are all familiar with the worst consequences of this, but it is worth reflecting on the more mundane consequences too. Good people see this culture and choose not to make a career in politics, as members or staff, and the Australian people lose respect and faith in our parliament. Last night I had the privilege to speak to a group of women from across the country who sit outside politics but who sat in the gallery yesterday for question time. They were absolutely appalled, outraged by what they saw. They saw it as behaviour that would not be acceptable in any one of their workplaces but which is encouraged and condoned by the leadership in this place—a waste of time, with shouting, mockery, abuse. And this was, frankly, a pretty typical question time in this place. There is also, they felt, a complete lack of accountability, which is what question time is meant to about. It is meant to hold the government of the day accountable to the people of Australia, but, because of the standing orders, where answers can basically be avoided, they gained absolutely nothing productive from the 90 minutes that they sat watching. Frankly, that's often how I feel too. I often think about the kids who come down and watch us, who look to us as leaders in this place. They look at how we behave, and they wonder, would their teachers condone that? Frankly, they wouldn't. This is one of the cultures that we need to change in this place. We are naive to think that you can walk out of question time, where people are shouting and baying and calling each other names, and then walk back into your offices and create a respectful and respectable workplace. We are absolutely kidding ourselves. This is just one part of the culture in parliament that falls far short of what Australians expect, but it's also one of most visible parts of our culture. The disrespect, bullying and harassment outrages the community, and it devalues all of us. We cannot call ourselves leaders in this country until we fix the culture of how we interact and work together in this place, and specifically in this chamber. Every Australian should be able to visit the parliament and be treated with dignity, with respect and in accordance with the law. Every Australian should be able to watch behaviour in question time and be reassured that their elected representatives treat their colleagues, and others who work here, with respect and that we focus on the most important issues that the country faces, not political pointscoring. Set the standard has shone a light on the very worst behaviour in this place. We owe a great deal of debt to Kate Jenkins and the individuals who came forward to reveal their own painful experiences in the hope that documenting the past could improve the future. I welcome the Parliamentary Workplace Support Service Bill 2023, because what it achieves—the creation of the Parliamentary Workplace Support Service, the implementation of the Set the standard recommendations and the behavioural codes—are all steps towards ensuring that improved standards will persist, whether we have a minority government, a pandemic, a war or whatever else confronts the parliament. It takes us further on the journey towards an independent parliamentary standards commission which would permanently embed behaviour standards in parliament. We clearly have a long way to go before every person in this place is treated the way they ought to be treated. We are starting on the right path, but I fundamentally believe that, if we do not fix question time, if we do not fix how we behave towards each other and if the leaders, particularly of the major parties, do not also change their own behaviour, then we will not change the culture here. Coming in as a crossbencher, I had no expectation that this was how it would be. But I imagine how different that is as a new MP from one of the major parties, because you see your leaders at the front shouting, baying and, I think, frankly, bullying and mocking—all the things I don't want my kids to do—every single day, and obviously we all follow our leaders. I think that is the benefit of the crossbench—having a different perspective. I have the perspective of my community and the seven or eight workplaces I've ever worked in. If I had behaved like this in any of my workplaces, I would have been out of on my ear and I would have deserved it. We need to make changes in this House, but I support where the government is going in supporting this bill. 10:46 Mr STEVENS 176304 Sturt I rise to express support for the Parliamentary Workplace Support Service Bill 2023 in the context of the point made by the lead speaker for the opposition that we want to see this move through the parliament. We know the start date of 1 October is one that's important, and he did note that there are some ongoing discussions between the opposition and the government that might see some changes or adjustments to the bill in the Senate. As the lead speaker, the member for Hume, said, we really want to make sure that legislation of this kind is bipartisan and in fact unanimous throughout the parliament and we want this to be an opportunity for an enduring reform that does contribute to dramatic improvements to the way in which staff are supported in the workplace. I'm very confident that this bill will achieve those objectives, but we hope that a couple of those discussions with the government yield good, sensible, minor adjustments that will be in the best interests of some observations that we've got from experience. We completely support the principle of what's happening here, of course, and I thank Kate Jenkins, as I've done in the past in some other contributions on matters on this topic. We appreciate the very hard work that she undertook in her report and we acknowledge how sobering and concerning it was to hear some of the experiences that were reflected on, without identifying people, in the body of work that she has done and in the commentary that she has provided on that process as well. None of us want to be in a workplace where our staff are anything but respected, supported and proud to be here and to work for those of us that have the honour of serving in the Commonwealth parliament. Whilst, first and foremost, it's important that the reality of that respect is in place, it's also important, equally, that that is the perception in the community. I've felt at times in the last few years, when there were revelations about experiences that people had had in this building, a sense of great shame that, in a workplace that should be setting the highest standard of any, there were clearly people that were having the exact opposite experience and being treated in the exact opposite way. We are in a different era from some of the awful stories from decades gone by about the treatment of people in any workplace. We've got to be the most progressive on these matters, and I think having these statutory provisions in place for the Parliamentary Workplace Support Service are going to ensure that it is an agency that holds parliamentarians to the highest of standards and makes sure that we have an awareness of our obligations in the workplace and that we are held to those obligations and standards—equally, staff, who in many circumstances would feel that they are employed in a situation where there can be significant power imbalances and a whole range of other complexities in working in politics. We all know that staff tend to have a fairly heavy engagement in the fortunes of the political side of the person that they work for, and that at times they've got networks within the political parties, or the political movements in the case of Independents et cetera, where there are broader and further consequences for staff around their relationship and perhaps their future prospects in other things relating to the person that they work for. Those things create their own complexities, but certainly, when I reflect on the situation prior to where we find ourselves now with this new workplace support service, I also think it hasn't been in the interest of parliamentarians to have a Rafferty's rules-type situation where no-one really knows where to turn. With the greatest of respect to the excellent support that we have had from the departments and public servants, it has been very difficult in the frameworks that were in place in the past to manage the sorts of standard issues that come up in any workplace, let alone the additional issues that come up in one that's unique, as is working in the Australian Parliament House. I commend the work of Kate Jenkins and the excellent work of all of the members of this place and the Senate who have served on the working group that has been progressing to this legislation and other elements of the workplace support structures. I thank everyone for that, and I do have great sense of hope that this will be seen as somewhat of an epochal moment in the culture of this building. No-one has disputed in any debate that I have heard that we need culture change. Regrettably, it has taken some fairly specific instances that have come to light to make everyone aware of a broader cultural issue, although these instances have had a different level of awareness to different members of parliament, depending on what your experiences have been. But the process that Kate Jenkins undertook has certainly made sure that we have a definitive and comprehensive body of work that we can reference to drive the cultural change we need, such as this legislation that is coming through the parliament now. I commend the work of everyone in this process. It hopefully will be part of drawing a line under a dark chapter in the discourse of the way in which the parliament operates, and I express sincere regret and apologise as a member of parliament to all and any staff that have had the bad experiences that have led to us doing what we are doing here. I hope the action that we are taking means that people that have had bad experiences in the past and everyone in this building into the future will not have anything like those sorts of experiences again. On that basis, I commend these bills to the House. 10:53 Dr HAINES 282335 Indi I rise today in support of the Parliamentary Workplace Support Service Bill 2023 and the Members of Parliament (Staff) Amendment Bill 2023. These bills are another significant step towards improving our parliamentary workplace culture. We are a unique workplace, but for too long parliamentarians and our staff have not had the right structures in place to ensure that we are a safe, respectful and professional workplace. Before I became a member of parliament, I worked in hospitals and university departments, and these workplaces had strong human resources support and complaints processes to minimise power imbalances and harmful workplace environments. They were not always perfect, but they were strong frameworks, nevertheless, to help support a better workplace environment. Like many others in this place, when I first came here, I was very, very surprised that the same structures did not exist. That our nation's parliament did not exemplify the standards of a professional workplace was seriously problematic for me. In 2021, not long after I was elected, an independent review was established to investigate the Commonwealth parliamentary workplaces, and it found that unacceptably high numbers of people, particularly women, in Commonwealth parliamentary workplaces experienced bullying, sexual harassment or attempted or actual sexual assault whilst at work—shocking. We've all seen the grave impacts of this; I certainly have. Throughout that process, I sat down with brilliant people full of potential who came here to contribute to their country and who are now dealing with the consequences of a culture which disbelieved and sidelined them when they tried to speak up about that abuse. Our workplace failed them. The review produced the Set the standard report, which made recommendations to ensure parliament is a safe, respectful place and that, importantly, it reflects best practice in prevention and then in the appropriate response to bullying, sexual harassment and sexual assault. The Parliamentary Workplace Support Service Bill 2023 implements recommendation 11 of that Set the standard report. It legislates the Parliamentary Workplace Support Service, or PWSS as we've come to know it, to provide centralised HR support and develop policies for workplace strategies, work health and safety, and training. These policies, structures and trainings may seem simple, but they are fundamental to a strong workplace culture where people can truly thrive, not just survive, in their careers. In the interim, this bill creates a function of the PWSS to respond to misconduct and provide early intervention and resolution for workplace conflict. I note that these functions are temporary, pending the establishment of an independent parliamentary standards commission. Such a commission is vital so that everyone in this building, be it a parliamentarian, staffer, journalist, public servant or independent contractor, has somewhere trusted and independent to go when they experience misconduct. I urge the government to go further than this bill and legislate this independent parliamentary standards commission. It is a critical pillar of reforming the workplace in our parliament and one that I've been advocating for a very long time. In 2020, I introduced the Commonwealth Parliamentary Standards Bill, and that bill complemented, in fact it was the sister bill to, my Australian Federal Integrity Commission Bill, a bill that now is almost identical to the National Anti-Corruption Commission Bill that this parliament historically passed last year as another important step towards strengthening public confidence in this Commonwealth parliament. The Commonwealth Parliamentary Standards Bill that I set out back then specifically set out a new parliamentary standards commission to assess, investigate, resolve or refer serious alleged breaches of the code of conduct. The commission would use the code of conduct, which is in place and was endorsed this year in this parliament, as a clear metric to identify and assess unethical conduct, conduct that we've unfortunately seen countless examples of in this parliament and that must not be repeated. Under my bill it was an independent office of the Parliament House within the Department of Parliamentary Services and reported through to the relevant privileges committee, to the Prime Minister or to the minister as specified. Another key feature of that bill was that the parliamentary standards commission was to have the same powers as the Auditor-General to conduct investigations with appropriate safeguards to protect the rights to procedural fairness, rights to privacy, protection of personal reputation and advancement of public interest. It included provisions to deal with vexatious, frivolous or otherwise unreasonable claims. The commission I proposed was empowered to refer the most serious and systemic cases of potential corruption to the now National Anti-Corruption Commission for stronger objective investigation, if that was appropriate. The Prime Minister said, earlier this year, that the independent parliamentary standards commission will be established in the future. The Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister reiterated this when introducing the bill before us now. So I'll be watching closely when they do and making sure that a new parliamentary standards commission has the strong powers it needs to deliver on this crucially important role. Like I did with the establishment of the National Anti-Corruption Commission, I look forward to working with the government to make sure that the oversight body meets the standards of the Australian people and that bad behaviour is never again simply swept under the rug out of sight. Our position as elected officials should never trump the safety of the people who come to work in this place. I thank Kate Jenkins and her team for their work on the Set the standard report, now a touchstone for this parliament workplace culture. I also thank the Parliamentary Leadership Taskforce, who oversees the implementation of the Set the standard report's recommendations, and the staff consultation group, including a member of my own team, their work on these incredibly important bills. These bills are indeed a truly critical component of the national pro-integrity framework, but there is certainly much more work to do. I think we're up for it. I look forward to participating in it. I want to see us be an exemplar workplace, and I know others in this place do too. I commend these bills to the House. 11:00 Ms THWAITES 282212 Jagajaga I am really pleased to have the opportunity to speak briefly on these very important bills, the Parliamentary Workplace Support Service Bill 2023 and related bills, and reform for this parliament. Like so many others who have been in this place for some time now, I have been very clear that we need to do things differently here—that we cannot have a parliament that tolerates or allows for instances of bullying, sexual harassment and sexual assault to occur in this building and in Commonwealth parliamentary workplaces around the country. Fixing this is part of what this bill will do, so it is very, very important work for this parliament. It is important work about how we must do better. I want to be really clear to people in this place and to people in the Australian community that it is not okay for people in this parliament to think this is something that Australian people don't really care about—that actually, as long as we're getting on with passing bills and making laws, they don't care what our standards are and they don't care what our behaviour is. It's just not true. I also want to tackle the assumption that some people have put forward that this is such a special and unique workplace that we couldn't possibly have the types of rules and standards that other workplaces have in place. In fact, this is a special workplace. This is the workplace that sets the rules for workplaces around the country. That's one of the reasons why it is so important that we hold ourselves to the highest possible standards and that we have the structures in place to help us hold ourselves to the highest possible standards, and that's what this bill will do. I know that Australians are with us as we continue to call out the failures, the mistakes, the terrible things that have happened in this parliament in the past, and as we commit ourselves to the changes that this parliament needs to see. This must be a safe workplace for all people. It must be a place where people feel they can contribute, behave appropriately and be safe. I pay tribute to people across the parliament who have done a wealth of good work to get us to this point, particularly the Minister for Women, the member for Newcastle and many others who have championed this reform and the work that is yet to come. I pay tribute to the people outside of this parliament who shared their stories, who raised their voices, who demanded change, who made sure that we could not leave things as they were. I thank the former Sex Discrimination Commissioner Kate Jenkins for giving us a blueprint for reform. It is because of all of these people standing up and doing the good work that they have done that we are going to have a better parliament and that we are going to be representatives who do our jobs in the manner in which they should be done and in the manner in which the Australian people should expect us to do them. The Australian people can have confidence, and workers and staff in this place can have confidence in going about their work, that they are in a better environment, one that does hold perpetrators of bullying, harassment or assault to account. We have made progress, and there is more to come. We need fundamental cultural change in this parliament, and I still believe that that will only happen when we have stronger structures in place to protect women, when there are strong consequences for men's actions and when we get the subsequent behaviour change from that piece. This piece that flows from the Set the standard report, which comes from the hundreds of individuals who shared their experiences of working in parliament and in other Commonwealth parliamentary workplaces, is so important. That report heard that for too many people these workplaces have not been safe environments. That has been driven by power imbalances, by gender inequality, by exclusion and by a lack of accountability. These experiences have left a trail of devastation for individuals and their teams, and they've undermined the performance of our parliament, to the nation's detriment. That is part of what we are trying to address here today. It is important. I want to briefly address the work that still needs to happen. In addition to the great addition of the PWSS, which we are putting in place with this bill, we also need to work towards the introduction of another part of the Set the standard report's recommendations—the new Independent Parliamentary Standards Commission. This is a key part of making sure that we are held to account for poor behaviour. It is a key part of making sure that there are consequences and that people know there is an independent structure that will deal with complaints and issues brought against parliamentarians and other people in this workplace. It is not beyond this parliament to hold ourselves to account. It is not beyond us to have consequences for members and others in this place who do not behave in the way they should in this workplace. This is a fundamental standard that we must hold ourselves to. This bill does good work on the way to putting in place some of the structures and reforms we must have, but there's more work to do. I look forward to joining with colleagues and the government as we do so. 11:06 Ms STEGGALL 175696 Warringah It is with pleasure that I rise to speak on the Members of Parliament (Staff) Amendment Bill 2023 and the Parliamentary Workplace Support Service Bill 2023. These bills came about as a result of the shocking findings of the Human Rights Commission's independent review of the workplace culture here in Parliament House and across the country in Commonwealth parliament workplaces, and the resulting Jenkins Set the standard report. We should remember the facts that came out of that report. The Set the standard report heard that 51 per cent of all people currently working in Commonwealth parliamentary workplaces have experienced at least one incident of bullying, sexual harassment or actual or attempted sexual assault. The report found there was an absence of an adequate, authoritative people-and-culture function for parliamentarians and their staff and a lack of standardised people management processes. The report was asked to make recommendations to ensure that Commonwealth parliamentary workplaces are safe and respectful for all those who work in this place and in the parliamentary electoral offices around the country. I commend the work of Kate Jenkins and her Set the standard report, which laid the foundation for this legislation. The bills are the product of extensive consultation with parliamentarians and staff across parliament, including through the Parliamentary Leadership Taskforce, its staff consultation group, and union representatives. I've had the pleasure of being on the Parliamentary Leadership Taskforce. Whilst there has at times been robust discussion, it is pleasing that we have gotten to the point of now having legislation before the parliament to progress some of the recommendations of the Set the standard report, but it's clear that there is still so far to go. I'd like to thank all the members of the taskforce for their contribution, especially the current and past staff who shared really confronting experiences and stories, who trusted in a system that had let them down during their own employment, in the hope of bettering the system for those who would come after them. These bills seek to implement a start to better processes and standards. The federal parliament is one of Australia's most prominent workplaces. The people that work here should have the systems they need to go about their work in a professional, safe and respectful environment. The Members of Parliament (Staff) Amendment Bill will modernise the act, improve transparency and clarify the employment framework for parliamentarians and their staff. This bill will support cultural change in our parliamentary workplaces. The bill will underline the responsibilities and obligations of members of parliament as the employer, and it includes requirements intended to guide decision-making by parliamentarians about employment matters and to support fair outcomes and processes when making significant employment decisions. Appropriately, the bill provides for a further review within five years of the amendments commencing, which means that we'll have the opportunity to better this. I don't think any piece of legislation will be perfect in improving the standards. The Parliamentary Workplace Support Service Bill 2023 implements recommendation 11 of the Set the standard report. It's an important step as the first major legislation to deal with the recommendations made in that report. Importantly, it establishes the Parliamentary Workplace Support Service, PWSS, as an independent statutory agency to provide human resources services for parliamentary staff to prevent workplace issues and resolve problems earlier. Its key functions will be around human resources support for staff, policy development, education and training, review, monitoring, evaluation and reporting. The PWSS must prepare annual reports on gender and diversity of employees; gender equality and remuneration; employment of MOP staff; progress in prevention of and response to unacceptable conduct; culture and performance; and work health and safety matters. It is a very broad remit that the PWSS will seek to improve. Parliamentarians would also be required to consult with the new PWSS prior to making a decision in relation to the employment of staff, especially if it's in relation to termination or suspension of staff members with or without pay. The new provision for temporary suspension of employment will offer an alternative to termination and will be another mechanism to address risks in this workplace, as far too often those that have spoken up have seen themselves shuffled on or moved aside or seen their employment terminated. There is still much that can be done better. We know that it's been slow getting to this point, with many changes still to come: more legislation, especially in relation to codes of conduct implementation and the IPSC, the independent parliamentary standards commission. It's now been two years since the Set the standard report was handed down. We need to work quickly. I know the Parliamentary Leadership Taskforce is focused on the task in relation to establishing the independent parliamentary standards commission, which is a body which will ultimately implement the codes of conduct. I think there needs to be a greater level of training in employment law for ministers and members of parliament, because we need to remember, for all those in this place, there hasn't automatically been experience when it comes to managing or employing people. As we take on the responsibilities of representing our electorates but also employing staff, it is important that more training and awareness of the requirements is had by members of parliament. Whilst there's a lot more to be done and more legislation to be implemented, I support these bills as an essential first step in making parliament a safer workplace. Finally, it's impossible to talk about this legislation and the progress it represents without talking about even the events of this week. No legislation can ultimately change what is wrong with the culture of this place. It needs to come from members themselves, and it needs to come from leadership, especially when it comes to the major parties. This week's events in this place during question time have shown we still have a long way to go. We have seen senior members of major parties, in particular the opposition, behave in a way that is unbecoming of this parliament during question time. We should not have pointing, heckling, yelling or encouragement of people in the gallery to participate in the proceedings of this place, disregarding the warnings that have been made by the Speaker in relation to the conduct that is appropriate and befitting for this place. Over the last two days, I think that has shown just how much that culture still has to change. This should be a place of debate, of respectful exchange of ideas. It can be robust, but it should never be disrespectful, and it should never be to a point and to a standard that is not befitting a place like here. We have children in the gallery. They are here now, but they are here during question time as well. They come away incredibly disillusioned and horrified that this is the standard. If this is the place, the heart of our nation, where we come up with laws that will direct the lives of so many millions of people, and this is the behaviour and conduct that's accepted, then what example are we setting the next generation, these children that come and watch? Last night, I had the pleasure of attending an event for the International Women's Forum. These are leaders in business, the arts and not-for profit and profit organisations, with vast experiences in a world outside of this place. They sat through question time yesterday and were horrified. They were horrified at the incredible waste of time and taxpayer money that this represented, because there were no serious answers provided and there was conduct that was entirely inappropriate and that would never be accepted in any other workplace. So I ask each and every member of this place to pause, to think about their conduct and to take responsibility for their conduct in this place and what example it sets and never let the fire or conviction of the rightness of their argument overcome what is correct and appropriate behaviour. We need to make sure that the culture in this place changes, and that is a responsibility of each and every one of us. While this legislation starts to improves things, we have to do more. You cannot assume that you can conduct yourself in this place in an aggressive, bullying, harassing way and walk out of this chamber and then become a respectful boss for your employees and that you are somehow going to then adopt a whole different standard of conduct. This is where it is a slippery slope, and this is where the problems start. So it's incredibly important that every member in this place and the other place pause and reflect on their conduct and ensure they apply at all times the highest of standards. 11:16 Dr GARLAND 295588 Chisholm I'm really glad to have the opportunity to speak on these important, historic bills, the Parliamentary Workplace Support Service Bill 2023 and related bills, although I have to say at the outset that it is a little strange as someone who well before I became a candidate and then a member of parliament gave evidence to the Set the standard inquiry that of course informs the legislation before us today. I want to, at the outset, acknowledge all of the people who gave evidence to the process that led to the Set the standard report for being generous and brave with their stories and for being part of the important change we are now seeing in this country. So terrible was the reputation of the parliament of Australia that, when I first became a candidate and I knocked on thousands of doors in my community of Chisholm, every single day someone would ask me if I was sure that I wanted to be a member of parliament and whether it was safe for me to be in this workplace. That was the extent to which the community felt so deeply ashamed of what they saw from Canberra. So to be able to support these bills today does a couple of things. It demonstrates that there is absolutely an appetite for change here in the parliament and to make things better for future generations of people who walk through the doors, whether as staff or as elected representatives or as guests to this building. It hopefully provides assurances to the community that there is significant change being made. I've reflected myself publicly on the change that I've seen in the 10 years since I worked in this building to now as a member of parliament, although I do want to acknowledge the fact that I occupy a role with different privilege and power now to that which I occupied before. So I acknowledge that my experience of this workplace is not everyone's experience, perhaps. These bills today commit us to making sure that this place is going to be safer now and in the future. I know so many people are pleased to see these important pieces of legislation come before the House. The purpose of these bills, as we've heard from other speakers, is to deliver the commitments made in response to the recommendations of the Jenkins review. I want to thank and congratulate former Sex Discrimination Commissioner Kate Jenkins for her fearless, fierce and vital work. This work really has meant that we are now going to head into a more positive era. There were some awful stories we heard of harassment, assault and discrimination widely reported in the media and to the inquiry. As is said often, sunlight is the best disinfectant. I think that what we have seen through this whole process over the last almost two years since the Set the standard report was released is that there is change being made. Unfortunately, there were some pretty awful numbers that came out in the analysis of the interview data. Nearly a quarter of all people working in Commonwealth parliamentary workplaces completed the survey, and 33 per cent reported that they had experienced some form of sexual harassment; 37 per cent had experienced some form of bullying; 51 per cent had experienced at least one incident of bullying, harassment or actual or attempted sexual assault in a Commonwealth parliamentary workplace; and 77 per cent had experienced, witnessed or heard about bullying, sexual harassment and/or actual or attempted sexual assault in Commonwealth parliamentary workplaces. The saying goes that the standard we walk past is the standard we accept, and, for too long, too many people accepted a standard that was not fitting for this place and certainly not the kind of example leaders in this country should be setting for Australians right across our communities and our country. I want to emphasise how important it is that this place set the standard because, while we are talking about the parliamentary workplace now, we must remember that harassment, discrimination and assault are experienced—often in a gendered way—by people right across this country all the time in workplaces as varied as factories, farms, offices and educational institutions. So it is for all of those workers, too, that these changes are so important—to set a standard for everybody in this country around what constitutes a safe, respectful and acceptable workplace. The Parliamentary Workplace Support Service will go some way to making the change that we all want to see in this place. It will go some way to making sure that people feel appropriately supported in their time here. Obviously, we can do more. We can always do more, and it is on all of us in this place to be ever vigilant about making sure that we're always doing the right thing and that we're never walking past behaviour that we should be calling out. Cultural and behavioural change are difficult. I want to acknowledge that. That's why we all have to work hard every single day. Passing this legislation is just the beginning of ongoing work here. I want to see an independent parliamentary support service review every now and then, too, so that we can evaluate how well things are working. We do not want to have another situation, where, in years to come, evidence is given to an inquiry and the numbers haven't changed and people are still experiencing discrimination, harassment and assault. It is really heartening to see that so many people in this place want to do better and lift the standard. It is encouraging, too, that the community are behind us. I certainly feel that way. But the culture, the safety and the standards of this workplace won't improve unless all of us do the necessary work every single day to maintain those standards and, where necessary, lift them. 11:23 Mr BANDT M3C Melbourne The Set the standard report found that one in three parliamentary staffers in this building had experienced some form of sexual harassment as had many female parliamentarians. This is unacceptable. Everyone has the right to a safe workplace, whether that's in Parliament House or anywhere else. The Greens welcome and support these bills, which give the Parliamentary Workplace Support Service, the PWSS, statutory authority and an expanded mandate. The accompanying changes to the MOPS Act will make improvements to the rights of our workers by requiring employment conditions to be publicly available and clarifying the triggers for automatic termination of employment. These are positive and overdue reforms to create a safer and more respectful workplace. Establishing an independent PWSS is a key recommendation of the Set the standard report, and it's already been delayed for too long. This bill has gone through all the due processes. It has taken account of feedback from staff and the unions. Now it is time to pass it so that staff and the community can see real action on the recommendations. The PWSS has been a huge step forward to improving parliament, but without enforcement powers it can't solve the problem. That's what the future Independent Parliamentary Standards Commission will do, and we urge the other parties to push along to get that done. The PWSS education, reporting and monitoring roles will keep parties on track for their commitments to improving diversity within parliament. We've made some progress, but we still have a long way to go. Cultural diversity is still lacking in our workplace. The Greens will continue to push for the reforms to parliamentary culture and other procedural protections to be rolled out nationally as a matter of urgency. And I want to recognise the strength and resilience that Brittany Higgins as well as many others have shown in driving this change. To end Australia's culture of sexual violence, harassment and abuse we must start by supporting victims to come forward, and dismantling power imbalances and gender stereotypes that deter them from doing so. Staff and the community deserve to see action on all the Jenkins Set the standard recommendations and they deserve that action now. The Greens will continue to monitor the PWSS to ensure it has the resources and the powers it needs to create a safe and respectful workplace. But, of course, the ultimate test is whether staff feel safe at work, whether parliamentarians feel safe at work and whether people watching this place think that parliament is somewhere that they would want to work. I support these bills and briefly, in conclusion, I'd like to place on the record my thanks to the PWSS for all the work they've done so far. I can't speak for others, but I know my team have found them invaluable and of huge assistance. If any member of this place hasn't yet engaged with the PWSS in its old role or its new role, I encourage you to do so. The support has been terrific and has been invaluable. I also place on the record my thanks to our Greens senators Larissa Waters and Mehreen Faruqi, who've been part of bringing these reforms into practice on behalf of the Greens. I commend the bills to the House. 11:26 Mr GORMAN 74519 Perth The Parliamentary Workplace Support Service Bill 2023 and the Parliamentary Workplace Support Service (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2023 advance the government's commitment to implement the recommendations of the Australian Human Rights Commission's Set the standard report. In summing up this debate, I will outline again what we seek to do in these bills and the associated Members of Parliament (Staff) Amendment Bill 2023 and then note some of the valuable contributions made by all sides of this chamber over the course of today. The implementation of the report's recommendations is a shared responsibility of this parliament. In recognition of that joint responsibility, the Parliamentary Workplace Support Service Bill package is a product of extensive and close engagement with members of the Parliamentary Leadership Taskforce along with the task force's staff consultation group. The government would like to thank the task force members and staff for their engagement with the bill. The bill stays true to the guiding principles of the Set the standard report. Members contributing to this debate want to see not just the parliament lift standards, we want to see this parliament set the standard. These bills demonstrate that parliamentarians are taking that responsibility as leaders seriously. I also want to thank the many members who've had longstanding commitment to progress on these issues in this chamber but who have not spoken in the debate because they've chosen to prioritise transmission to the Senate. I thank all of those members. I thank those members, including those in the coalition, who continue to engage with the responsible minister on this bill and its passage. The bill provides for a new human resources entity to support the employment relationship between parliamentarians and their staff. The new Parliamentary Workplace Support Service will play a key role in advancing the professionalisation of that relationship. A significant distinction from the existing arrangement is that the new Parliamentary Workplace Support Service is independent. It cannot be directed by any person in the performance of its functions or exercise of its powers. Furthermore, and consistent with an overarching theme in the Set the standard report, the new Parliamentary Workplace Support Service will have functions concerned with making Commonwealth parliamentary workplaces safe and respectful. It is imperative we can see progress being made on that front. That is why the new Parliamentary Workplace Support Service will be required to publish annual reports. These reports will cover the culture of the parliamentary workplace as well as progress in preventing workplace misbehaviour. As we have heard, the parliament is both a unique and a prominent workplace. The people who work here should have the systems they need to go about their work in a professional, safe and respectful environment. I would also like to acknowledge the staff of the Parliamentary Workplace Support Service who, as many members have noted, are an incredible benefit and addition to this building, and it was really a great honour to have them join us in the gallery when this bill was first introduced. I hope I speak for all members and senators when I say we greatly appreciate the work that you all do. The Members of Parliament (Staff) Amendment Bill complements the Parliamentary Workplace Support Service Bill package. It does this by modernising the employment framework for parliamentarians and their employees. It implements recommendations from the review of the Members of Parliament (Staff) Act undertaken by the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet last year. That review in turn implemented recommendation 18 of the Set the standard report. The bill clearly sets out the responsibilities of parliamentarians and employees under modern workplace laws. This includes employment principles to set expectations for the workplace. The bill will provide greater clarity and certainty both for MOP(S) Act employees and for parliamentarians. Together with the Parliamentary Workplace Support Service Bill package, these bills are important reforms for the Commonwealth parliamentary workplaces. I want to thank all members who contributed to this debate, and I'll start by thanking—and I think members will understand why—the member for Newcastle for her contribution in the debate and her contribution to the development of this bill. Her work as the chair of the Joint Select Committee on Parliamentary Standards has been widely recognised this morning and across the parliament in recent months. Again I want to note that it is, I think, 10 years to the day that we've had the fantastic contribution of the member for Newcastle, and this bill is one example of that. As she said, in speaking on behalf of that committee, every member of the committee 'has a deep personal commitment to ensuring that we drive cultural change in this building'. I also want to note, in that regard, the work of the member for Blair in assisting the development of that committee's work. We also had a contribution from the member for Jagajaga, who spoke on behalf of not just her community but all Australians when she said, 'I know that Australians are with us as we continue to call out the failures, mistakes, the terrible things that have happened in this place in the past, and as we commit ourselves to the changes the parliament needs to see.' I think, again, members can agree with that sentiment. I want to note that the member for Chisholm said that this is not just for all of us now but for those who might seek to join the parliament in the future or seek to work in a parliamentary workplace in the future. I also acknowledge the fact that by doing this work today we enhance the quality of the experience for those who visit this building, including those from the Shire of Laverton who are in my office at the moment, as I am here delivering this speech. I am sorry I have missed part of that meeting. We also had very thoughtful contributions from the member from Hume, noting that 'there have already been concrete changes that will make our workplaces more safe and respectful'. He also took the opportunity to highlight the work of the Foster review in ensuring that we now have what is the Parliamentary Workplace Support Service, and I add my thanks and the government's thanks to Stephanie Foster for that work. We had the member for Sturt, who pointed out the obvious, in that none of us wants to be in a workplace where our staff are anything but respected, supported and proud to be here. I endorse that comment. I thank those on the crossbench. The member for Goldstein talked about the importance of having the systems that are needed to ensure that people can go about their work in a safe and respectful way. The member for North Sydney pointed out that we have over 4,000 people working in Parliament House on any given sitting day and thousands more across the country in electorate offices. I thought it was very appropriate that she highlighted the work that our electorate office teams do across this huge country we call Australia. The member for Wentworth highlighted that we 'owe a great debt to Kate Jenkins and the other individuals who came forward to reveal their own painful experiences in hope that that document could improve the future'. The member for Warringah noted, again: 'The parliament is one of our most prominent workplaces. The people here should have the systems to go about work in a professional and safe environment.' And I thank the member for Melbourne for his contribution, just noting that, as he did, the power of this being now a statutory authority with an expanded mandate will give us an even stronger Parliamentary Workplace Support Service. With those concluding comments, I commend the bill. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced. Third Reading 26 11:35 Mr GORMAN 74519 Perth by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Parliamentary Workplace Support Service (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2023 26

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

Second Reading 26 Third Reading 26 11:37 Mr GORMAN 74519 Perth by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Members of Parliament (Staff) Amendment Bill 2023 27

Members of Parliament (Staff) Amendment Bill 2023

Second Reading 27 Third Reading 27 11:38 Mr GORMAN 74519 Perth by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. MOTIONS 27 MOTIONS Standing and Sessional Orders 27 11:39 Mr BANDT M3C Melbourne I'm presuming that everything has been concluded with respect to those previous bills and we're at a gap in business. I move: That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the Member for Melbourne from moving the following motion immediately— That standing order 104(a) be amended to read: An answer must directly answer the question. People want governments to answer questions, especially during something called 'question time'—not to dodge the question, not to talk about something else, not to answer a question that they wish they were asked but to answer the question. Ministers have huge power. We have been trying all week to get a straight answer about why the minister for environment is approving coal projects. Each time we ask the question—we've got a question time coming up again today, which is why it's critical to get an answer to this— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 265979 Sorry, the member for Melbourne. Did you seek leave to suspend— Mr BANDT M3C No, I moved that standing orders be suspended. We have been trying all week to get a straight answer from the minister for the environment about why they have been approving coal projects. We ask a very tight question about it, and we get a minister who talks about renewables, talks about things that happened 15 years ago and talks about anything else other than coal and gas, even though they know it is critical. It is the thing that we are asking about. It is time for straight answers. It is time to answer the question. This is a simple test. We've had it not just this week but year upon year upon year. And it has been Labor and Liberal; this isn't just something that one side does. Every time people come to this place on behalf of the people of this country and try to get a straight answer from a minister, the minister talks about something else. People are sick of it. What we've found out is that it's permissible. It's in the rules to do this, which is why it has gone on for so long. So what we need to do is change the rules, if that's the case. We need to change the rules to require that, when a question is asked, you get the question answered. It may not be the answer that you like, but it is an answer to the question. At the moment, what we know, as we have seen year after year after year, is that, when you ask them a question, they can talk about anything but in their answer. It doesn't matter how tight your question is. It doesn't matter how much preamble you cut off. If you ask a really simple question, you don't get a simple answer. Ministers have huge power. Ministers of all political stripes have huge power. The point of this place should be to be able to hold them to account and get an answer to how they're using that power, to understand why in the middle of a climate crisis a minister wants to approve new coal and gas projects. But it seems that no matter how simple and straightforward we ask the question, we don't get a straightforward answer about it. People have had enough. So, if it's within the rules to do that, then we've got to change the rules, and that's what this will do. It is very simple. The new words that are proposed to be included are: 'that an answer must directly answer the question'. Most people in this country would probably think that's what question time is for. So I'm calling on the other establishment parties who for years have just dodged the questions that they're asked to now change the rules so that they'll answer the questions. It's a simple test. Are you prepared to answer the question that the people are asking you and give a straight answer? The DEPUTY SPEAKER 265979 Is the motion seconded? 11:44 Mr CHANDLER-MATHER 300121 Griffith It is seconded. There are a lot of reasons why people don't like politicians, but probably way up on that list is that so often they don't answer questions directly. How often have we seen media interviews where politicians of all stripes will dodge and refuse to answer very basic and direct questions? Surely, the one place where ministers should be at least compelled to answer questions directly—actually answer them—is in question time and in parliament. It's an incredibly low bar. In fairness to the Labor government, it has not just been Labor enforcing this rule; it has been years of the coalition government doing it as well. I would argue that the question for both the Labor government and the coalition opposition is: are you going to clear this bar—probably one of the most basic bars for how parliament should function? Are you going to agree to a change in the rules that requires ministers to answer questions directly? It's pretty basic. Right now—let's be frank—question time, by and large, is an enormous and extraordinary waste of public resources and everyone's time. On the one hand, often you have government members get up and ask cutting questions, that—I'll paraphrase here—go along the lines of, 'Why is this government the best government in the history of governments?' We get a direct answer to that. Then, on the other hand, we'll get questions, sometimes useful questions, that ministers refuse to answer directly at all, including, recently, the Minister for the Environment and Water, who failed, repeatedly, to give a basic response and directly address why this government keeps approving coal and gas mines. It's a basic reform. It's a basic request. I think if the public were asked—it's a pretty basic pub test—'Do we think that, in question time, when a minister is asked a question, they should answer it directly?' 99 per cent of people would say yes. The other one per cent, I suppose, would be government and opposition members and their staff. 11:46 Ms CHANEY 300006 Curtin I rise in support of this motion to suspend standing orders and amend standing orders so that questions must be actually answered in question time. I'm new to this place and, coming in last year, new to politics. There's a lot to learn. Some of the things that you learn here make sense and have been built up over the course of the development of our democracy over hundreds of years. Other things don't make sense and are out of step with the opinions of the general public. The inability of a parliament to draft standing orders in a way that means questions are actually answered is one of the things that doesn't make sense. The crossbench has been working to try to reform question time, so that some common sense applies, since the beginning of the 47th Parliament. In trying to improve the rules of question time so that we get answers—or what the average person would consider to be answers—we've written to the Leader of the House, we've written to the Manager of Opposition Business, we've written to the Speaker, we've written to the Procedure Committee twice, we've made a submission to the Procedure Committee's current inquiry, and a number of us have also given evidence in a private hearing to the Procedure Committee. Despite all of this work within the rules of the House, we are not seeing any sign of reform in line with community standards. We've met with both sides of the House to try and drive this reform. The way this amendment is drafted may not be perfect, but I think that it should not be beyond this parliament to come up with a form of words that actually requires people to give a commonsense answer to questions that are put in question time. Both sides of parliament are used to a style of questioning and answering in question time that means you can avoid it. It is considered clever within the culture of this House if you can avoid giving an answer. But this is not how the community sees it. It really detracts from the trust in our politicians if people do not give straight answers to really simple questions. So I think this is an urgent matter. It is something that our parliament needs to deal with. We've had about 83 question times in this parliament, with about 20 questions in each of those question times. That's a lot of questions and a lot of time that we've spent listening to answers that often, if not usually, don't actually answer the question. So I support this motion. I think that we can really do better as a parliament to rebuild trust in the community in what we are doing here as leaders and use question time to actually hold the government of the day to account. 11:49 Ms DANIEL 008CH Goldstein I also rise in support of this motion. I do believe it is particularly urgent, given the conversations in this House in recent times around the definition of 'relevance'. I think the fact that we're having to have those conversations goes to the very point that 'relevance' is too broad a definition when it comes to answering questions. Indeed, if you even look at the dictionary definition of 'relevance', it refers to something being closely connected or pertinent to or having something to do with the question. I don't think that's good enough for the Australian public. If you look at the definition of 'answer', it is a reply to a question or a correct response. I agree with the member for Curtin's position that this is a community trust issue. This government purports to have a view that it wants to do politics differently. I believe that the Leader of the House actually does adhere to that position. I think that now is the time, with community sentiment and social licence for this kind of change, that the government should be seriously considering whether standing orders as they stand are relevant to our community, whether they stand up to scrutiny within our community and whether they meet community expectations. I would also add before I finish that, while trust is an enormous factor here—and as a former journalist I have lots of experience in asking politicians questions and not getting answers—there is also the simple matter that the government actually could take some ground here by understanding that it has an opportunity to answer questions directly. It might take some ground in the public popularity stakes by stepping into this space, because I think this is what our communities want. I think that the definition as it stands is too broad. The lack of ability to ask follow-up questions makes it very difficult to get simple answers to questions that the public want to know. 11:51 Dr RYAN 297660 Kooyong I also rise in support of this motion to suspend and amend the standing orders such as to require ministers to actually answer the questions asked of them in this place. My constituents of Kooyong want their representative, me, to be able to ask questions of ministers in this House. They expect the government to answer their questions. They deserve that respect. All we ask is that the House improves its own procedures in a way which is modest and reasonable and which requires the ministers of this government to give appropriately detailed and accurate responses to the questions asked of them by the opposition. I commend the motion to the House. 11:52 Ms SPENDER 286042 Wentworth I rise in support of this motion. This country faces real issues, but question time does not deliver answers to those questions that we have to face as a country. It delivers a show for the benefit of the media, but it does not deliver to the young people, to the people in the audience or, frankly, to the Australian people. It is the major parties' shouting match. It is unedifying, and it actually is incredibly detrimental to people's understanding and belief in politicians and in our democratic processes. I had a dinner last night with 30 women who were from around the country, women leaders, who spent 90 minutes in question time and basically asked, 'What on Earth was that all about?'—because it was completely pointless in terms of benefit to the Australian people. It is self-indulgent and wasteful. I think this is an opportunity where we should demand answers to questions. It is not unreasonable that in question time we get reasonable answers to questions. That is what the Australian people expect of us, and that's what we should expect of ourselves. 11:53 Ms STEGGALL 175696 Warringah I thank the member for Melbourne for bringing on this suspension of standing orders so that we can address this question. I think it has been a problem for some time. What is the value to taxpayers of question time? That is what this question really goes to. The origin of question time is that it was established to ensure that there was an opportunity to ask questions of the government of the day for, ultimately, the benefit of the Australian people. There was a time when, in fact, government also used question time to actually make announcements, policy announcements, that really would benefit, again, the Australian people. Unfortunately, we've moved to a question time now being this sort of parody process. It's a farce, ultimately, where we don't really get responses to questions. There might be peripheral addressing of the topic or a word. Section 104 of the standing orders sets out on replies to questions that an answer must be directly relevant to the question. Unfortunately, 'direct relevance' has been interpreted that, as long as a minister's answer responds in a peripheral way to any word that might have been used in the question or in any preamble, that can still constitute a directly relevant answer. I'd have to say that is not what the Australian people expect. I think it is not the kind of standard and answer that the Australian people would like to hear. I appreciate that sometimes the questions are hard to answer, and there shouldn't be a problem with a minister actually identifying that and saying, 'I will take that question on notice and I will come back with an answer on that.' It's not just this idea of gotcha moments in question time. If it's not possible to answer the question genuinely, honestly and directly then there is the opportunity to take it on notice and come back at a later date. Instead, what we get is three minutes of diversion and talking about everything and anything but the actual question. So I think this amendment makes a great start in trying to amend the standing orders so that we actually require a direct answer to the substantive question, not just broad relevance. So I welcome this opportunity. I hope the government will take this on and consider this because whilst in opposition they found incredibly frustrating the lack of direct answers by ministers. So now, in government, there is that opportunity for them to set a new standard, to improve the quality of the debate in this place, to give taxpayers value for question time and to give the children and other people in the public gallery that come and watch question time an opportunity to see real accountability and real debate occur. Coming from the legal profession as a barrister, where debating and asking questions is incredibly important in court proceedings, I have found the process of question time quite disconcerting and in particular the fact that the answers are often so far from the mark but also the repetitive nature of the gotcha questions that often come from the opposition. It's really looking at question time as a performative opportunity to be adversarial, to perform for the cameras, as opposed to genuinely giving something of value to the Australian people. I would urge all the members in this place, but in particular the government and the Leader of the House, who's here to hear this debate, to think carefully about where we can we take question time. How can we improve and progress this system and actually give some benefit and value to the Australian people? 11:58 Mr GEE 261393 Calare I rise in support of this motion. It is a very important motion for the constituents that we represent. I think that, when our constituents send us to this place and we have the opportunity to ask questions on issues affecting our nation but also our local communities, our constituents want to get answers to those questions. A really good example of that occurred earlier this week, when I asked about a project in my electorate called Dixons Long Point and whether the government would support that project and what happened to the $27.8 million that was sitting in the kitty for that project. I asked, 'Where has it gone, and why can't that money be spent improving the existing road even if the government doesn't want to spend another dollar on that project?' Unfortunately, we just didn't get an answer on it. What happened was the answer, I would say, degenerated into petty pointscoring between the government and opposition, which was very disappointing because the constituents of our area want to know what's happening with that project and were really disappointed, I think, that we didn't get the information that we needed. So that's why I'm supporting this motion, and I think the government should be supporting it as well. As the member for Warringah stated, those members who are in government were once in opposition and they would've been supporting this. I know it's now perhaps a case of poachers turned gamekeepers, but, from the point of view of our constituents, we want these questions to mean something. I know that I speak on behalf of my crossbench colleagues here: we want to turn question time into answer time and make it count for the people that we represent. They expect nothing less. 12:00 Mr BURKE DYW Watson Normally, I'd respond after the seconder, but I wanted to make sure that I didn't use too much time and stop other people from speaking, which means I now have very little time! I will firstly refer to the examples that were given, because I think a couple of them are not accurate reflections of what happened. I refer to the example that the member for Calare just gave, in terms of the answer that was provided about that road. I haven't had a chance to grab the Hansard and check, but my recollection is that the response from the minister was that there had not been enough money provided by the previous government to fund that project. That's a direct answer. Even on what's proposed in this motion, I think it would've been easily satisfied in that particular question. Similarly, with the question that the member for Ryan had asked, which was referred to by the member for Griffith—the framing of that question was 'How does the minister justify those decisions?' and part of the minister's justification was what's been happening in renewable energy projects. In terms of a direct answer, I think those ones all stacked up. As to the balance of what happens in question time, there is a different standard that is used for questions that are on notice, compared with what you would expect for questions that are without notice. Some parliaments around the world—New Zealand, for example—have a system where notice is given to each minister of the particular narrow topic areas that are going to be asked about. The first question is completely with notice, and then the questions that follow are without notice. It involves ministers turning up with very specific knowledge of the direction that things are going to go. It's a different system. We have the flip side here. Yes, you're right—there is more range for ministers when something is completely without notice. Sometimes you'll get the straight one-word answer that is directly on point. Sometimes, in the context of something provided without notice, ministers will provide what information they have that is relevant. But I should also add, because I think we have to be honest about the balance across the chamber, we have questions that are not questions. I think it's fair to say that everybody who's participated in the debate—and I include myself, when I've been asking questions—has asked questions that are effectively statements with a small question at the end for the purpose of making a point. Similarly, we have points of order that are not points of order—they are an attempt, halfway through, to make the point again, regardless of whether or not someone is being relevant, even though people know that what's being responded to was part of the question. It's about getting that point of emphasis. That's the balance that happens across the chamber at the moment. We have questions that are not really questions, we have points of order that are simply moments to get another grab, and then we have answers that simply have to be relevant to the topic area, which is a different standard to what we demand when a question is placed on the Notice Paper. That's the total balance. If we're simply proposing to vary one corner of that, it's not a true reflection of what's going on in question time at the moment. I don't think any of us would want to defend what things degenerated into yesterday, but I have to say I don't think it was the fault of the current standing orders. I respect what's been put and I respect the reasons why it's been put, but I do think we are missing part of the point of what happens in question time if we don't also look at the broad range of what's currently allowed in the way questions are asked and the way points of order on relevance are more often than not taken. The SPEAKER 53517 The question before the House is that the motion be agreed to.

The House divided. [12:09]
(The Speaker—Hon. Milton Dick)

 16 AYES Bandt, A. P. Bates, S. J. Chandler-Mather, M. Chaney, K. E. (Teller) Daniel, Z. Gee, A. R. Haines, H. M. Katter, R. C. Le, D. Ryan, M. M. Scamps, S. A. Spender, A. M. (Teller) Steggall, Z. Tink, K. J. Watson-Brown, E. Wilkie, A. D. 51 NOES Ananda-Rajah, M. Burke, A. S. Burnell, M. P. Burney, L. J. Burns, J. Butler, M. C. Byrnes, A. J. Chesters, L. M. Claydon, S. C. Collins, J. M. Conroy, P. M. Doyle, M. J. J. Dreyfus, M. A. Fernando, C. Freelander, M. R. Garland, C. M. L. Georganas, S. Giles, A. J. Gillespie, D. A. Gorman, P. Hill, J. C. Lawrence, T. N. Laxale, J. A. A. Leigh, A. K. Lim, S. B. C. Mascarenhas, Z. F. A. Miller-Frost, L. J. Mitchell, R. G. Mulino, D. Neumann, S. K. Payne, A. E. Phillips, F. E. Plibersek, T. J. Rae, S. T. Reid, G. J. Repacholi, D. P. Rishworth, A. L. Roberts, T. G. Rowland, M. A. Ryan, J. C. Scrymgour, M. R. Sitou, S. Smith, D. P. B. (Teller) Stanley, A. M. (Teller) Swanson, M. J. Templeman, S. R. Thwaites, K. L. Watts, T. G. Wells, A. S. Wilson, J. H. Zappia, A. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

 BILLS 32 BILLS Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes) Bill 2023 32

Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes) Bill 2023

Second Reading 32 12:17 Dr WEBSTER 281688 Mallee Australians have a right to work, and it's pleasing that 96.4 per cent of our population are exercising it. You have to go back 49 years, to 1974, according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, to find a lower unemployment rate in Australia. In my electorate of Mallee, the unemployment rate is even better, lower than the national average, at 2.4 per cent in the north-west of Victoria. The right to work I mentioned is a fundamental human right, including the right to choose to work in the way individuals want to. Australia's employment diversity includes the gig economy, casual, labour hire and independent contractor arrangements, but these non-employee arrangements are anathema to the union movement that controls the Albanese Labor government. So, in light of Australia's near full employment, Labor chooses now to bring this bill forward for a radical industrial relations shake-up—not at a time of double-digit unemployment, not at a time of mass retrenchments, sackings or redundancies. This is when Labor bring this awful legislation to parliament. Perhaps the unions fear their wholly owned subsidiary the Australian Labor Party won't be in office for long, so it's best to get on with the real agenda. Minister Burke tries to sell his new industrial relations bill, the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes) Bill 2023, by describing it as 'very modest'. As my colleagues on this side have mentioned already, the same description of 'modest' is the selling point for the radical constitutional change proposed for the referendum on 14 October. In fact, nothing could be further from the truth. One of my constituents is a building company owner, Paul Locke, who says: 'The bill takes the gloss off running a small business. It is typical of Labor policies, more red tape. They're putting the brakes on the building industry, and what we need is a stable economy, not the roller-coaster we are experiencing. The fact is, if you get a good worker, you pay more to keep them, especially in light of our unemployment rates. We don't need government controlling everything. Business can work it out themselves. Small business is the backbone of the nation. Why try and chop them off at the knees?' To be clear, when I'm talking about small business, I'm talking about 2.5 million businesses in Australia, over 97 per cent of all Australian business with fewer than 20 employees, according to the ABS. As the provisions in the Fair Work Act apply to those with 15 or more employees, to say the least, it is confusing for those simply trying to run a business. This bill affects builders like Paul at a time when the building industry is in dire straits. The housing construction industry is on its knees due to rising interest rates, ongoing supply challenges, energy costs and workforce shortages, and there is a huge need for housing to address housing affordability and homelessness. Let's remember, today's news that the mortgage interest rate bill of $83 billion this year has doubled in the past financial year, cooling home building activity. In fact, the Master Builders Association told me that, of the five major reforms to industrial relations law in the past 30 years—30 years—this bill represents the worst. The Minerals Council are horrified at what this bill could do to Australian businesses and productivity and ultimately to Australian jobs and the cost of living. Those opposite say this is scaremongering, but that's not true. Business owners need to know that this bill will expand the right-of-entry powers by union officials to exceed police powers. Under the ACTU's policy, which is part of this bill, unions will have more powers than police to engage in searches and seizures, including in private homes, and to interrogate individuals. And, in business offices, to gain immediate entry—no warning—the union only needs to assert that they suspect, without evidence, mind you, a case of wage underpayment. By contrast, police can only enter premises or access documents with a warrant. They cannot go fishing for information. But the union reps, regardless of their criminal record I might add, can waltz in under this bill. I represent regional communities where for most farmers their workplace is also their home. Union thugs should not be able to storm into people's homes unannounced, threatening and intimidating farming families not to mention posing biosecurity risks. Livestock producers have already faced animal activists entering their farms. Now the union activists are coming too. The Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry Chief Executive, Andrew McKellar, hit the nail on the head when he said: …the only winners in this are union chiefs. The only loophole this bad legislation is looking to close is that of plummeting union membership. That brings me back to my opening point about unemployment. Labor is holding the union knife to our productivity. About 2.7 million Australians choose the flexibility and higher rates of pay that come with being employed as a casual worker. This bill's new definition of casual employment is actually three pages long. A business breaks the law if it cannot tick the boxes of a 15-factor test, even if the employee wants to be a casual worker. For farmers and horticulturalists and other seasonal businesses like tourism that abound in my electorate, the implications of this are staggering. They don't have the capacity to keep employees for 12 months of the year. That's a fact, in seasonal work. They will be letting go of good workers after 5½ months. Farming, for instance, is reliant on weather and seasonal needs. How is the government assisting farmers? By further restricting their workforce. As I said, unemployment in my electorate is just 2.4 per cent, leaving more work on farms and in small businesses to be done by mum and dad and, if you're lucky, your mum doing the books, and dad on the tractor, or your father and mother-in-law, or perhaps even your children, roped in to do even more work on farm, just to bring the harvest in. You see, Labor likes to ignore our farmers. In contrast, the Nationals stand with our farmers. We stand against Labor railroading farmers with transmission-line rollouts. We stand against ridiculous biosecurity levies, damaging water buybacks and wage hikes for migrant workers. Now we call out Labor's disastrous industrial relations laws, which will hurt our farmers. Our fruit and vegetable growers need tens of thousands of pickers, but, on 1 July, Labor hiked the Temporary Skilled Migration Income Threshold to set a migrant minimum wage of $70,000 per annum—a 22 per cent increase on what it was on 30 June: 65 per cent higher than the minimum wage and slightly above Australians' average wage. Labor also mandated that Pacific Australia Labour Mobility, or PALM, scheme workers, had to be offered at least 30 hours per week, as I've mentioned before—rain, hail or shine; harvest or not. These changes are not designed to assist the workers or the farmers. They are, at the behest of unions, designed to force farmers to recruit imaginary people, imaginary Australians, who supposedly exist, who are willing to work in the sun picking oranges or grapes or stone fruit. Labor also believes in imaginary farmers with deep pockets, who are immune to the elements and markets and who can pay a fortune for unproductive workers. Labor talks about closing labour hire loopholes, but this is rebadged same job, same pay policy. It is unfair and unjustified. The dire shortages of both skilled and unskilled labour are a brake on our economy, as is the backlog in migration cases for workers to enter the country or remain here. It is reckless for the government to add to that pain with this bill that makes it harder for businesses to secure labour. Labor's rebadged same job, same pay policy won't reward workers for hard work and experience. We saw Labor mint this approach in horticulture, taking away piece rates based on how much fruit you picked; you now get an hourly wage. Labor spurns productivity and loves entitlement. One man might sit on his haunches all day, barely lifting a finger, while his co-worker next to him works his fingers to the bone. If I may quote Labor's mates in Industry Super, 'compare the pair': the bludger and the hard worker; the leaner and the lifter. Under Labor's rules, under this law, they get paid the same. When it comes to gig workers, the minister himself has admitted that these changes will make your food delivery and your ride home more expensive. Minister Burke has previously referred to the gig economy as 'a cancer'. Australians have embraced the gig economy, as have others around the world, because it meets a need in the market. Workers are choosing to do gig economy work—often as a second job, particularly for students and parents and retirees. Gig workers are innovating to take advantage of the work opportunities digital platforms offer. Some log in on multiple apps simultaneously to access gig assignments that optimise their time and minimise costs. These gig workers are self-managing when and how they work, giving them choice and new work opportunities. Labor's paternalistic policy approach in the workplace arena talks down the gig worker. Gig workers are not stupid. They leverage this business model to their own economic advantage. Labor can't stand the thought that people have self-determination and choose how to organise their own lives and working conditions. Then come the elements of this bill that attack independent contractors, such as self-employed tradespeople and owner-driver truck businesses, forcing them into the IR system and taking away their freedom to be their own boss. A trucking business owner in my electorate, Anthony Dal Farra, tells me: … big concerns with the 'same job—same pay' laws and the Fair Work Commission interfering with pay rates and conditions for owner drivers—it will spell the end of these guys being able to competitively tender their services and compete for work. This bill will play into the hands of the big trucking companies, who, of course, the unions do deals with to recruit members far more easily than with the host of owner-drivers and small-business owners who are all over my electorate. The agenda here, as it always was with the Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal before it, is the full unionisation of every workforce. According to the ABS and the Ombudsman, 60 per cent of Australian businesses are non-employing. They are sole traders or potentially independent contractors. The Fair Work Commission will be given the power to approve agreements between big business and unions, and that in turn fixes prices in commercial contracts through the supply chain. Whatever happened to economic competition and the free market bringing prices down? How will this help the building industry or indeed a logistics sector that not long ago was crippled by the pandemic and flooding? As reported in the Financial Review yesterday, this all-encompassing omnibus bill will give huge, sweeping powers to Minister Burke to change laws to rope in more businesses over time. The Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry chief executive Andrew McKellar counted at least 32 cases where the minister proposes to give himself a new regulatory power in the bill. This legislation is anything but modest. It is radical, it is dangerous and it robs Australians of choice and their right to work in the way that suits them. 12:32 Ms TEMPLEMAN 181810 Macquarie I wish I'd kept count of the number of times, when I was doorknocking in the lead-up to the last election, that people told me their stories about unfair working conditions and unfair pay. Those conversations, from Bligh Park to North Richmond, in Blaxland or Katoomba, highlighted the many loopholes that were being used to unfairly penalise workers. We were elected on a promise, a commitment to get wages moving and to make things fairer. To do that, we need to close the loopholes that are undermining wages, conditions and safety of workers, and that's what these workplace relations reforms do. There are four main areas in this very comprehensive piece of legislation that I rise to support, the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes) Bill 2023. We're cracking down on the labour hire loophole that's used to undercut pay and conditions. We are criminalising wage theft. We are properly defining casual work so casuals aren't being exploited. And we're making sure gig workers aren't being ripped off. I'm also pleased that there are measures that support emergency services workers who have PTSD as a result of their work and that support victims of domestic violence. All the policies in this legislation were announced while we were in opposition, many of them more than two years ago. We took them to the Australian people at the 2022 election. Since May last year, we've consulted widely, including with business groups. They are not radical changes. We are making the current law work more effectively. We're closing labour hire loopholes, which will simply require an employer to pay the rates that have already been negotiated and agreed to. They are rates of pay that are already set for the work that is being done by workers. Our 'employee-like' reforms are really just about making sure workers have some minimum standards to be benchmarked against the existing award rates when they're working in a way which is similar to an employee. The wage theft reforms will simply strengthen the enforcement of existing rates of pay. Most employers out there do not want to do the wrong thing, nor do they want to be undercut by the bad apples in their sector who are doing the wrong thing. They want an even playing field, and that's what these reforms will do. Our new definition of 'casual employment' will clarify what was always intended as casual employment—that is, if you are working regular and predictable hours and you want to be permanent, you'll have that pathway available to you. The laws are going to strengthen the current workplace relations framework and they will provide, really importantly, certainty, fairness and a level playing field both for businesses and for workers. I want to be very clear about small business. The way we think about small business is we know it's different to big business. There will be a number of exemptions for small businesses with 15 or fewer employees. Like the minister, I grew up in a small business family. I also ran my own small business for 25 years. I know absolutely the pressure small business carries; the weight of responsibility it has for the people it employs. That's why, as part of the closing loopholes bill, there are the exemptions for small businesses. In order to support small businesses, we are going to include the following exemptions. Exempting small business employers who use labour hire from the pay obligations under the closing the labour hire loophole measure. Small businesses with 15 employees or less will be exempt. There will be a longer, 12-month service period for casual employees of small businesses to access the new voluntary casual employee choice pathway to change to permanent, so double the time to do it. There will also be an exemption around the businesses who inadvertently underpay workers, and there will be the development of a voluntary small business wage compliance code to provide certainty for any small business with fewer than 15 employees who inadvertently commits wage underpayments, ensuring that only intentional wage theft is punished. Small business will also not be required to provide access to paid time for workplace delegate training. These are adjustments that recognise the additional pressures that small businesses have and the fact that they don't have an HR department on hand. And while we want to see the same rights for every worker in every workplace, we do recognise that there are special considerations needed for small business so that the burden is not too great. Small business remains at the heart of our government's decision-making, and we will continue to do things that support them. I would like to look in a bit more detail at some of the elements of this bill. I'll start with casual workers. We are standing up for casual workers who want to become permanent employees, and that means closing the loophole that leaves some people stuck, classified as a casual when actually they are working permanent regular hours. It means they work just like a permanent employee, but they don't get any of the benefits of job security, and that has real implications for their lives. It affects whether they can qualify for a mortgage. Their bills aren't casual, their bills come in week on week. Without that job security, the pressures are much greater for some employees. So employees who want to follow a pathway to permanent work will now have an additional pathway, but let's be really clear: no-one is going to be forced to convert to permanent and lose their casual loading base. For some people that casual loading base is more important than the permanency. We're legislating a fair, objective definition to determine when an employee can be classified as casual, which could help more than 850 casual workers who have regular work arrangements and give them greater access to leave entitlements and more financial security if desired. There is no net cost to business in this measure. Employers will pay a loading if someone is casual, and they will pay leave entitlements if someone is permanent. They don't pay both. The new employee choice pathway recognises the objective status of the employee. It applies where their working arrangements have changed so they no longer meet the definition of being casual. The employee choice pathway is entirely employee driven, and employer obligation is to respond only if the employee notifies that they believe their status has changed. Employees in medium and large businesses will be able to access the employee choice pathway after six months, but, in small business, it won't be until after 12 months. Small businesses will continue to be exempt from the existing casual conversion pathway. The pathway will remain for larger businesses, which is an obligation to proactively assess all casuals after 12 months of service if they have a regular pattern of work and offer them conversion, but small business will continue to be exempt from that obligation. Another of the key changes is around the labour hire loopholes and closing those loopholes. Labour hire has a legitimate use in providing surge and specialist workforces, and that will continue to be the case. We're concerned about a loophole where companies deliberately undercut the agreements they've already made with their workers. They've agreed on a fair rate of pay with their workers, they've made an enterprise agreement and then they bring in another group of workers, undercutting that agreement by paying those labour hire workers less. That's a loophole. This is delivering on our commitment for same job, same pay. The way it will work is that employees, unions and hosts can apply to the commission for an order that labour hire employees be paid at least the wages in a host's enterprise agreement. I want to point out that the process for this is going to be a low-cost process because, again, there will be exemptions for small-business employers, and a default three-month exemption period will apply because we don't want to impact labour hire arrangements for surge work and temporary replacements and we want to make it a fair and reasonable process for people to be able to do. Again, this is something we said, and we are delivering on things we said we would do. The gig economy is another area of important reform in this bill. The current rules have cost people's lives—people like Burak Dogan, a 30-year-old Turkish student who was killed by a truck in Sydney. He was denied workers comp because Uber said he wasn't working at the time, despite being logged on to the app and receiving Uber Eats orders on his phone as he lay dying under the truck. The current rules have also cost people's dignity and safety. Nabin Adhikari is a food delivery worker in Canberra, working for multiple apps, which many in the gig economy need to do. After costs, he currently earns $13.60 an hour and sometimes as little as $4 per gig, but there is such a lack of transparency over earnings and the algorithm that this is often difficult to measure. With every order, he's also worried about the potential to be deactivated from the app if the algorithm decides he hasn't made enough deliveries or he is too slow, and, as a result, he's under immense pressure to rush through traffic. These are just some of the many stories that have been shared with us about the issues we face in the gig economy. We are extending the powers of the Fair Work Commission to include employee-like forms of work, allowing it to better protect people in the new forms of work from exploitation and dangerous working conditions. The change will allow the Fair Work Commission to make orders for minimum standards of new work, such as gig work. We're not trying to turn people into employees when they don't want to be employees—and a whole lot of gig workers like the flexibility—but just because someone is working in the gig economy shouldn't mean that they end up being paid less than they would have if they'd been an employee, nor should it mean that they are working in a more dangerous situation. That really brings me to the new requirements around the transport industry. I want to talk about these because one of my constituents, Jasmine Payget, whose son was tragically killed by a truck driver, has been a huge advocate of improving the standards for the transport industry, and that's what we'll be doing in this piece of legislation. I really honour her advocacy and the advocacy of the TWU to persist in ensuring that 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 transport industry. There'll be ongoing work on this, but it will save lives. I turn to the amendment to criminalise wage theft. You wouldn't think we'd need to do this. You'd think that, if it's theft, it would already be a crime. If a worker steals from the till, it's a criminal offence, but, if the employer steals from the worker's pay packet, it's not. That needs to be changed. I'm conscious that some states are ahead of us on this, because this has been a push for many years and those opposite refused to act on this, and Labor governments in Victoria and Queensland have already done it. Our proposal will not undercut what the states have done. It introduces a criminal offence for intentional underpayment of employees' wages. If it is unintentional, it will be treated differently, particularly for small businesses, but the safe haven framework will ensure that this measure is focused on intentional wage theft. There are many details that I'll be very pleased to discuss with the members of my community. We're also introducing an industrial manslaughter offence and increasing the penalties. We're extending the functions of the Asbestos Safety and Eradication Agency in this bill so that it addresses silica related diseases. This is part of a suite of things we're doing to keep people safe at work and ensure there are some standards should they become unwell. The bill also makes it unlawful to discriminate against an employee who is subject to family and domestic leave, and it supports first responders who sustain PTSD, meaning they will not be required to prove their employment contributed. These are important reforms. 12:47 Mr VIOLI 300147 Casey Complexity, confusion, cost—that is what the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes) Bill will deliver for employees, businesses and Australian consumers. This bill has many components, and I want to address the issue of wage theft first because it's vitally important. The coalition has zero tolerance for any exploitation of workers, including underpayment of wages and entitlements by any employer. Deliberate rip-offs of workers are not acceptable and should have serious sanctions, but these should only apply to intentional conduct, not mistakes. Reforms around wage underpayments and theft should also come with reforms to simplify the workplace system to avoid underpayments in the first place. The Fair Work Act is already over 1,200 pages long, and this bill seeks to add over 200 extra pages to it. If those opposite were serious about wage theft, then why did they vote down the coalition's proposal to legislate a wage-theft provision in the Fair Work Act in 2021? Why won't they separate wage theft out of this bill? All in this House want Australians to have meaningful employment where they are rewarded for their effort, but the truth is this legislation goes far further than just wage theft. It covers everything: changes to the gig economy; changes to casual work; the reintroduction of the Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal; same job, same pay policy; changes to rights of entry for union officials; redundancy packages; and implementing the agenda of unions—and that's just to scratch the surface. They've presented us with this huge bill, which has created uncertainty, with over 800 pages in legislation and explanatory memorandums. It will impact over 260,000 independent contractors in building and construction alone, let alone the many other corners of our economy. The one certainty we have is that this bill will make life tougher for Australian small businesses by increasing their costs, their complexity and red tape. As I said before, we all want employees to find meaningful and well-paid employment. However, this has to be done while also improving productivity to keep inflation down. What Labor doesn't seem to understand about running a business is that, for employers to have to meet these costs without improving productivity, businesses will have to push up prices for their consumers. These changes will impact many sectors, from road freight to the gig economy, resulting in further inflation, driving up prices for Australian families and businesses that are struggling with the rising cost of living. Don't take just my word for it. The minister himself has admitted that this legislation will push prices up and drive inflation up. He has confirmed that all Australians will pay more for everything—groceries, electricians, movies, UberEATS, everything—when we can least afford it. Even the department confirms it will cost businesses more. The department's solution for increased costs on businesses is that they can pass that extra cost on through 'higher prices for consumers or third-party businesses'. The minister doesn't see business as the job creators of this country. Labor do not see small business and recognise their contribution not just to our national economy but to local economies, local communities and local workforces. Small business have outright rejected these proposed changes, but Minister Burke and those opposite have abandoned small business. The complexity in this bill will be impossible for a small business to cope with. The increased red tape is something small business simply don't have the resources, time or money to invest in trying to understand and implement. They want to spend their time doing what they do best, running their local bakery, their farms, their building companies, their manufacturing operations, their cafes or their shops. Business are already managing increased costs of supply, energy, rents and wages, and we don't need small business owners having yet another reason to turn away from what they do best. I am deeply concerned that this added pressure amidst this cost-of-living crisis is going to send small business and small business owners into a very dark place. I am concerned for the tradies, the casual workers, the farmers and the small business owners and employees in my community. As the representative for the electorate with the highest number of tradies in building and construction in the country, I know that independent contracting is critical to the industry's structure and to the successful execution of construction work. Master Builders Australia has described the IR changes as like 'tieing a rope around the hands of tradies and creating loopholes for the union movement to increase their stranglehold on the building and construction industry'. This bill will jeopardise the rights of independent contractors to carry out work on their own terms and for self-employed tradies to be their own boss. This bill takes us back in time and not in a good way. It's about reversing decades of history in which Australia moved away from centralised wage fixing to pay and conditions based on productivity and reward for effort. It's about eroding choice and flexibility for individuals who want to work in their own time and on their own terms. It's about putting constraints on business and employers wanting to expand or manage their operations in their own way. Labor thinks governments know what's best for business. The fact is no-one knows what's best for business and their employees than the business owner and the employees themselves. Australians need to be empowered to make their own decisions, not constrained by further red tape. When we discussed the last round of industrial relations changes, those opposite were very happy to quote from respected organisations like the Business Council of Australia and the ACCI. However, they don't seem as keen to do that this time. So let's see what the BCA and ACCI have to say about this legislation. The Business Council of Australia has spoken out against Labor's reforms. Chief executive Jennifer Westacott said: 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 … "These changes will create confusion and extra costs for consumers, make it harder to hire casual workers and create uncertainty for employing anybody. "Any government that's serious about cost of living would not do this. I echo the words of Jennifer in this House today: the government should not be adding cost and complexity when people are struggling to pay their bills and put food on the table. The ACCI chief executive, Andrew McKellar, said the legislation will be bad for productivity, those wanting to be their own boss and consumers struggling with the cost of living crisis. He said: "The only winners in this are union chiefs. The only loophole this bad legislation is looking to close is that of plummeting union membership … "This is a continuation of a radical industrial relations agenda, and we are again bracing ourselves for further risky changes to our workplace system. "The government has not made a case for these changes. It has not been able to outline how this legislation will enhance productivity, lift wages, or make it easier to generate more jobs. "If you're in labour hire or want a casual job, prepare for unemployment. If you are a service provider and want to advertise online, prepare for unemployment." Let's hear what Sally McManus, the ACTU president, has to say about casuals: "I'll just say … one step forward at a time … … in the union movement, we would love to go 100 per cent now and have a situation where you could just say that they couldn't put people on casual in the first place. Could you be more out of touch with how a business is run? I was fortunate to work at a great company called Yarra Valley Snack Foods. We grew that business from seven employees to over 130 when I left 6½ or seven years later. Casuals allowed us to expand, because when you have demand at Christmas you need to bring people on for three months. When you pick up a new contract, you might want to add a new afternoon shift and you need casuals to help with that. But guess what? Once those sales increase and they're at a sustainable level, those casuals become full-time employees when you can do it sustainably. For the union movement and a government run by the union movement to think that casuals should not exist in our economy is an absolute disgrace. It will send us backwards. This is another step, as Sally McManus has said, on their journey to getting rid of casuals altogether. And that's before we even talk about seasonal tourism businesses in the Yarra Valley, or farmers that need support for two to three months when they are picking their crops. They don't have work for a full 12 months. They need casual employees. 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. The focus of any industrial relations reform should be to make us more productive and to create more sustainable and secure high-paying jobs. It should make our nation more prosperous, but this is not what we see in this bill. In the words of the National Farmers Federation: These changes would impale Australia's productivity at a time when it desperately needs a shot in the arm. The NFF is particularly concerned about new rights of entry without notice, which would allow union representatives to enter farms unannounced. The farms in my community of Casey, including my family's farm, are more than just a workplace. They are often the family home. The farm is the kids' backyard, and Labor's bill will allow union officials to waltz in, unannounced, at any time. We must ensure workers aren't being exploited. But under this bill, union officials only need to suspect a case of underpayment to allow them free entry to private farms. The coalition has attempted to engage on our concerns with this bill. Those opposite refused our proposal that this 278-page bill be referred to a parliamentary committee for the proper scrutiny it requires. They've refused our request for more time to study the details of this bill, which was only made public on Monday. Labor has avoided scrutiny throughout the entire process of crafting this bill, having forced those who were consulted to sign legally binding non-disclosure agreements to prevent them discussing the bill's contents. When a government goes to such efforts to avoid scrutiny and examination, there can only be one conclusion: it's a bad bill, and they know it. As I said at the start of my speech, this bill will deliver complexity, confusion and cost to small businesses and to all businesses, and those costs will be passed on to consumers, as the minister said, at a time when we can least afford increased costs. Families are struggling to put food on the table, and this government is focused on the union agenda to make Australians pay more for their food. 13:02 Ms MILLER-FROST 296272 Boothby I rise today to speak to the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes) Bill 2023. Despite those opposite being confused, that's simply all the legislation seeks to achieve. It does what it says on the tin or, in this case, the title. This bill will close loopholes that allow Australian workers to be taken advantage of, loopholes that cheat hardworking Australians of wages that they have earned or conditions that they are entitled to. Specifically, I wish to speak to a part of this legislation that will support workers that are being taken advantage of in the gig economy and through labour hire companies. While there are many types of work that are subject to the extreme casualisation of work that the gig economy represents, I'm going to talk about the experiences of disability workers in this area and what this bill will mean for them. Work providing services supporting people with disables is important work. It's often physically and emotionally demanding work, and,, as with many of the caring professions, it is arguably not well paid. It's certainly not paid at the same level as the work is valued by the recipients of care, their families and their loved ones. Our most vulnerable members of the community need to be supported by workers that have stable, secure jobs, which in return provide stability and security for those that need it, and these two elements go hand in hand. If it isn't hard enough to put together a living wage, pay your mortgage or rent and feed your kids on a casualised wage or in series of part-time jobs, imagine finding out that your employer is ripping you off. Imagine finding out that your colleague is being paid more than you simply because you're employed through a gig platform or a labour hire firm. Imagine finding out that, no matter how hard you work, how much of your heart and soul you put into your valuable work, your work isn't valued—you are not valued—sufficiently to be paid properly, to be paid according to an enterprise agreement. That's what this bill is about: closing the loopholes, valuing workers according to their work, not according to whatever loophole an employer can find to underpay you. The bill does what it says on the tin: it closes loopholes. I've met with workers in the disability sector, through their union, and they've told me their stories. They're heartbreaking. This legislation is welcomed by unions that represent disability workers, as they've listened to these heartbreaking stories and they've heard directly from their members how unstable work through labour hire companies means they struggle to make ends meet. Around 40 per cent of the community services workforce, and more than 60 per cent of the disability support workforce, is in part-time or precarious employment, without entitlements. The submission made by the Australian Services Union to the Senate Select Committee on Job Security goes to the heart of this issue. The current legislation is not robust enough to protect disability workers and, by extension, their clients. Work in all sectors of the economy has been transformed in recent years by the growth of insecure or precarious employment. This precarious employment comes in many forms, including temporary or casual jobs, greater reliance on nominally independent contractors and other forms of self-employment, and the use of digital or online platforms to recruit and deploy labour. There has been a rapid rate of growth in all forms of precarious employment, but the growth of this kind of instability has negatively affected not only workers in the disability sector but their clients as well. It is a defining feature of the disability sector that workers are employed most often in some form of precarious employment. The labour market has evolved with the disability sector in response to changes in funding arrangements and the impact of 10 years of mismanagement of the NDIS by the former government. This mismanagement opened the doors to workers being taken advantage of and letting these platform providers undermine the workers and their pay. It is not technology that workers in the community and disability sectors fear but rather how that technology is implemented, managed and controlled and whose interests prevail as the process unfolds. It is systemic issues—laws, institutions and social expectations—that determine the impact of technology and other changes in the workplace on working people and on their families. It is therefore the responsibility of government and its regulators to ensure workplace rights for all workers, and that is what this legislation seeks to do. This legislation provides stability for workers, which in turn provide stability for those they care for. The growth of precarious work poses fundamental challenges to the traditional model of employment and to traditional methods for regulating work and ensuring minimum standards for the rapidly growing disability workforce. Traditional labour regulations which have been developed over time and are most familiar to workers in other sectors of the economy often exclude temporary or independent workers. While employment across the disability sector is marked by the highly insecure nature of the employment, there has been an alarming increase in the number of workers employed as so-called platform workers. The submission by the Australian Services Union found that, in Victoria, platform work is more prevalent than previously thought and is growing. Independent contracting arrangements are very common, and there has been a steady increase in ABN registrations as a result. The report describes the major characteristics of modern precarious work. Several factors have facilitated the expansion of precarious forms of employment, including independent contracting, self-employment, casual or temporary jobs and digital platform work in the disability sector in recent years. Technology such as smartphones and computers has played a role, by allowing employers to tap pools of labour, assign them to tasks and supervise and compensate them more easily. Broader economic conditions have also been important—particularly, the ongoing existence of a large pool of underutilised labour. All these factors contribute to the problem and are creating a situation that employers and conservative governments like those opposite can take advantage of, and workers are the victims of this. The Albanese government were elected on a promise to fix these loopholes, and that's what we're doing. To do that, we need to close the loopholes that are undermining wages and conditions. That's what this set of workforce relations reform is all about. We are cracking down on the labour hire loophole that's used to undercut pay and conditions. We are criminalising wage theft, properly defining casual work so casuals aren't being exploited and making sure that gig workers aren't being ripped off. Closing labour hire loopholes will simply require an employer to pay the rates that it has already negotiated and agreed to. These are rates of pay that are already set for the work being done. These employee-like reforms simply require workers to have some minimum standards benchmarked against existing award rates or employment agreements when they are working in a way which is similar to employees. These wage theft reforms will simply strengthen the enforcement of existing rates of pay. Most employers out there don't want to be undercut by the bad apples, their competitors, doing the wrong thing. This new definition of casual employment will clarify what was always intended with casual work—that, if you're working regular and predictable hours and you want to be permanent, you will have that pathway available to you. This is cost neutral. Employers will either pay casual loading or pay leave entitlements, not both. These laws will strengthen the current workplace relations framework and provide certainty, fairness and a level playing field for both businesses and workers. We know that labour hire has legitimate uses in providing surge and specialist workforces, and that will continue to be the case. What we're concerned about is the labour hire loophole where companies deliberately undercut the agreements they've already made with their workers. They've 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's being paid less for the same work—and that's the loophole we have to close. Simply put, the 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's enterprise agreement. I hear those opposite talking about this costing employers $1 billion a year, and I can only presume that this is how much they guesstimate is being stolen from Australian workers now. If they're making an issue of it, I guess they're okay with it. If your business model cannot support a living wage for your workers—if you cannot meet your legal obligations to pay people according to the award and the enterprise agreement—then maybe you need to be rethinking your business model. This 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 work conditions. We're not trying to turn people into employees when they don't want to be employees. There are a whole lot of gig workers who like the flexibility from using this technology, and that won't change under these laws. But we know there is a direct relationship between a low rate of pay and safety, and it leads to a situation where workers take risks so they can get more work because they're struggling to make ends meet or they're unsure whether they'll be cut off the platform. And there have been tragedies. We can't continue to have a situation where the 21st century technology of gig platforms comes with 19th century work conditions. And we don't want to be a nation where you have to rely on tips to make ends meet. The evidence is in. A number of inquiries have highlighted that some of these workers receive less pay than they would if they were paid under an award safety net, and they have no protections if they lose their work unfairly. This measure gives the Fair Work Commission a new power to set minimum standards for employee-like workers performing digital platform work. Standards may be mandatory and enforceable with civil penalties or for guidance only. The Fair Work Commission can only set minimum standards for independent contractors who perform digital platform work, also known as work in the gig economy, and also have one or more employee-like characteristics, which are low bargaining power, low authority over their work, receiving remuneration at or below a rate of comparable employees or other characteristics that may be prescribed in regulation. The bill provides a non-exhaustive list of content that minimum standard orders can cover, including payment terms, deductions, insurance and cost recovery. Orders must include coverage and dispute resolution terms. The Fair Work Commission must not make standards in relation to rostering and overtime arrangements, matters that would change the nature of engagement or status of workers, or matters relating to work health and safety that are dealt with comprehensively under another law of government. The bill provides comprehensive guardrails to govern how the Fair Work Commission is to perform its functions, including the requirement to balance several competing factors included in the new minimum standards objective when considering making standards. And, importantly, orders cannot change the form of engagement or the status of employee-like workers' engagement. Noncompliance with minimum standards orders carries a civil penalty, and the Fair Work Ombudsman has the responsibility for education, compliance and enforcement. The bill also provides protection for unfair deactivation for employee-like workers. This is where an employee-like worker has been operating on a platform for six months or more and is deactivated without fair reason. For deactivation to be fair, the deactivation would have to be for a valid reason and the process consistent with the new digital labour platform deactivation code. The Fair Work Commission can order reinstatement but not compensation. This bill does exactly what it says it does. It closes loopholes. It seems an obvious thing, but loopholes that mean Australian workers are unfairly underpaid or have unsafe or unfair work conditions should be eliminated. I'd like to thank the Australian Services Union for their submission. Australians, as a whole, are a hardworking bunch, and we in government want to see them be able to get ahead as a result of their labours, and that's what this bill does 13:17 Ms BELL 282981 Moncrieff The reality is that the Australian people must understand that the changes proposed by this bill are far from very modest, as the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations describes them. This is a radical re-ordering of Australian workplace law, which every business organisation in Australia has pleaded with this government not to go ahead with. But it falls on deaf ears. The minister doesn't care. He has no interest that the job creators of Australia are telling him that it will be harder to keep people in jobs. That means the people who employ other people will not be able to employ them under this regime, and the government, again, is not listening to their concerns. This sort of complexity and the costs associated with it will be impossible for small business and medium business with more than 15 employees to deal with. In my electorate on the Gold Coast—everybody enjoys Surfers Paradise; they enjoy the central Gold Coast—there are 32,000 small and family businesses who could be impacted by this regime. There are 72,000 small and family businesses on the Gold Coast. Medium businesses—I don't have a number for you, Deputy Speaker—will definitely be affected by this legislation, and so will the local economy when it comes to job losses as a consequence. Once again the Labor Party seeks to erode the choice and flexibility of individuals who want to work in their own time, on their own terms. This is an affront to liberalism. Choice and flexibility are the bedrock of the Liberal Party of Australia, and they're the bedrock of entrepreneurialism, which is the bedrock of the Gold Coast. Therefore I see this as an affront to any family or any individual who wants to get ahead on their own terms and build something worthwhile. It's an example of big government intervention at the behest, of course, of their union masters, moving the dial so that unions have access to a whole new marketplace of membership fees. That is what it blatantly is; let's be clear. It's about putting significant constraints on businesses and employers who wish to expand—in other words, grow—build something and construct new projects and infrastructure or simply manage their own operations in their own way. It is taking away choice, not delivering choice to more Australians. That's the basic difference between us on this side of the chamber and those on the other side of the chamber, who seek to take away your choice, who seek to tell you what to do, who seek to come into your business and instruct you on what you should be doing behind your business doors. When running a business gets impossibly complex, impossibly hard, impossibly uncertain and costs just too much, what do Australians across our nation understand happens? Businesses close their doors. They don't employ those Australians any longer. So those families who work in businesses, small and medium, are at risk of being on the unemployment line. But those on the other side don't seem to understand that as a basic premise—that its job losses; it's livelihoods that will be lost. This bill also does nothing to increase productivity. Business groups and employers say that the proposed IR changes will smash productivity, investment and job creation. This is at the very time, as we've heard from the shadow Treasurer, that we have entered a per capita recession. Labor puts the brakes on productivity as we've entered a per capita recession. It's unbelievable that they would choose this time in the Australian economic landscape to introduce these changes. Ultimately, it will lead to an economic slow-down that could lead to a full-blown recession. In a cost-of-living crisis, Labor is introducing this. They are slamming it through the parliament quickly at a time when Australians can't pay their bills, can't pay their mortgages and can't pay for their grocery bills. It's unconscionable. Australians are barely making ends meet. This government is ramming through this legislation to make things more expensive by $9 billion in one decade, and that's just the tip of the iceberg because those additional costs get passed on to consumers. That adds to inflation. The Department of Employment and Workplace Relations said that business would likely be able to pass on extra costs through higher prices for consumers or third-party businesses. The minister himself admitted that the new laws will increase costs for consumers for everyday services they have come to rely on—with a smile. You've been told that this bill will increase prices to you as an Australian consumer by a minister, with a smile on his face, telling you it's going to cost more. Let's be clear. During a cost-of-living crisis for Australia, he's ramming this legislation through the House, which will cost you more. If you don't believe my words or you have doubts about my words, you should listen to the chief executive of the Business Council of Australia, Jennifer Westacott. Mr Pearce 282306 What did she have to say? Ms BELL 282981 A highly regarded and highly experienced business person in Australia, she said: Australians should have safe jobs, well paid jobs and rewarding jobs— we agree with that— but the government's radical shake-up of the industrial relations system will not deliver that … She said: These changes will create confusion and extra costs for consumers— that's the $9 billion in wages I just mentioned— make it harder to hire casual workers and create uncertainty for employing anybody. Any government that's serious about costs of living would not do this. They should not add costs and complexity at a time when people are struggling to pay their bills. If you don't believe me today, listen to Tania Constable of the Minerals Council of Australia. You saw her this week on your TV screens. Tania very eloquently said: The Albanese Governments latest industrial relations legislation changes are some of the most extreme, interventionist workplace changes that have ever been proposed in Australia. 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. I would think that, by now, Australians are sick and tired of paying more and sick and tired of waiting for this Albanese Labor government to deliver cost-of-living relief. It's just not coming. It's getting worse. I would also like to outline what Andrew McKellar, the ACCI chief executive, said. He said the legislation: … will be bad for productivity, those wanting to be their own boss— remember entrepreneurialism: the great dream of Australians to build something worthwhile— and consumers struggling with the cost-of-living crisis … The only winners in this are union chiefs— there it is; it's highlighted— The only loophole this bad legislation is looking to close is that of plummeting union membership— I couldn't have said it better myself— This is a continuation of a radical industrial relations agenda, and we are again bracing ourselves for further risky changes to our workplace system. The government has not made a case for these changes. It has not been able to outline how this legislation will enhance productivity, lift wages, or make it easier to generate more jobs. I think they're pretty believable quotes from well-respected leaders across our nation. We should listen, and so, too, should the Albanese Labor government and the industrial relations minister. They're pretty scary words for the future of our country. Small and medium business is not a magic pudding. It is not something that the government can put its hands into and rip the guts out of. We on this side will not stand for that. We will not stand for this government ruining, destroying, what Australians have worked their whole life for, for generations. We will not watch you pull it apart and tear it down. Those on the other side think that small and medium business people are rich and that their money can be accessed and given to others. Well, that is not the case. Australian employers play a crucial role in creating those jobs, and we applaud them for it. The Australian labour market is indeed diverse. It provides various forms of work for people of different circumstances and different needs, and it should be diverse. The Albanese government has no respect for that diversity. They only respect union controlled forms of work. Under this legislation, a union boss can get a waiver from the Fair Work Commission to give you, as a business owner, 24 hours notice to enter your business if they suspect—not if they have proof, not if they've heard it through a complaint—that you have underpaid anybody on your team. To be able to enter a business on a suspicion is not democratic. It's heading towards socialism, and worse. Mr Neumann HVO Communism! Ms BELL 282981 That's right. We banned communism in the 1950s. The minister can't answer the question about what people who are working from home can expect. An honourable member interjecting— Ms BELL 282981 He hasn't. I think there are some members on the other side who've actually been members of that party in the past. The minister can stand at the dispatch box and yell all he likes at the coalition, feigning his passion for this bill, but what we know he's doing is working on behalf of the unions. They are assaulting entrepreneurialism. They are assaulting businesses that have been built over generations. That's what it's about. So this so-called closing loopholes legislation equals closing businesses and closing jobs. That's what it should be called: 'the closing businesses and closing jobs legislation'. We are not going to support reforms that will weaken our economy and continue to make a bad situation worse for Australian small and medium businesses. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour. If you have some continuation, you'll be granted leave to do so when the debate is resumed. STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS 43 STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS Antonio, Mr Paul 43 13:30 Mr HAMILTON 291387 Groom I'd like to take the opportunity to put on record my gratitude to and respect for the recently retired mayor of the Toowoomba regional council, Mr Paul Antonio. There's a special place in Australian politics for a regional mayor, a mayor of places that have a sense of identity that you don't find in the suburbs of the capital cities. There, the mayor is more than an administrator, a figurehead and a manager; the mayor is something of a shepherd, a steward and a stalwart of the city; someone who can keep their community's place at the table, no matter who's in government; someone who can work with anyone, and yet still clearly be of their people. For over four decades in local government, firstly with Milmerran Shire Council and later with TRC, Paul walked that line with distinction. He oversaw major projects, like the second range crossing and Inland Rail, being won for our region. He showed a deep understanding of the need for immigration in our local economy by making Toowoomba a Refugee Welcome Zone. As deputy chair of the South-East Queensland Council of Mayors, he pushed for the then South-East Queensland Olympic bid, when neither state nor federal government would. There would be no Brisbane 2032 without Paul Antonio. I'm proud to have worked with him, but I'm more proud to call him a friend. I want to take this opportunity to acknowledge the many kindnesses he showed, particularly to my wife, Louise, when the realities of public life broke loose on our unready household. As he did for every citizen of his patch, he took every care that he could. He's returned from public life as he began: a humble farmer from Milmerran, with a fair bit of go about him. Thank you, Paul. Northern Australia: Defence Facilities 43 13:31 Mr GOSLING 245392 Solomon The Defence Strategic Review reconfirmed the centrality of northern Australia to Australia's defence posture. It emphasised the importance of improving the ADF's ability to operate from northern Australia. That's why the Albanese government has committed $3.8 billion to improve our northern bases, ports and barracks. This will create many exciting opportunities for us in the north. It will bolster our maritime capabilities and infrastructure, including through redevelopments at HMAS Coonawarra, where the offshore patrol vessels will be based. We are cracking on with building a new ship lift, which will also build on Darwin's role as a regional maintenance hub for commercial operators, as well as for the Navy, as the Australian Defence Force's Fleet Base North. The stepped-up operational tempo of Australian and allied naval deployments and visits in the coming years will create many more jobs in my electorate of Solomon, not only in the construction sector but also in the maintenance of these vessels and their crew. That's just one way that the Defence Strategic Review is delivering for the north. I want to thank the ADF member who has been with my office this week, Lieutenant Mitch Rand. He is a great credit to the Royal Australian Navy. It's fantastic to see members of the ADF up here on the hill with all of us. Australian Constitution: Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice 44 13:33 Mr HASTIE 260805 Canning Across Australia, the cost-of-living crisis is hitting hard. In seats like Blair, it's is getting harder for many Australians to balance the family budget. Rents are up, interest rates are spiking and there are many Australians who can't find somewhere to live. People are locked out of the housing market. Yet those opposite are focused on the divisive Voice referendum, led by an army of activists and backed by the big end of town. It's true. The 'yes' campaign has the backing of big government, big business, big tech and big sport. It's the battler, in places like Blair, versus the big end of town. Qantas—supposedly our airline, that carries the spirit of Australia—has rorted Australians by selling tickets for cancelled flights. But the Qantas budget, along with its fleet of aircraft painted in pro-Voice livery, is supporting the Prime Minister's 'yes' campaign. The big end of town is colluding against battling Australians, with a radical and risky change that will divide our nation. On my side of politics, we remain focused on the issues that matter to you: national unity; prosperity; security; equality before the law. We want to move forward together, as one people, as one country. But those opposite and the activists have made their ambitions clear. They talk about treaty, reparations and compensation—dividing Australians. And you know who'll be paying for this? The Australian people. Mr Katter HX4 Yes—separatism! Mr HASTIE 260805 And the good news is, Member for Kennedy: we all have an opportunity to be heard on 14 October. Vote 'no' on that day. Seed Industry 44 13:34 Mr BURNELL 300129 Spence As a young kid growing up on our family farm in Sunraysia, I couldn't in my wildest dreams have imagined that one day I would see myself elected to this place and also sit on the House Standing Committee on Agriculture. I've always contended that the agriculture and horticulture industries are in my DNA. As the old adage goes, 'From little things, big things grow.' That's very true of these industries, but it is particularly true of our seed industry. It was an honour to have been asked to represent the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry at a gala dinner held as part of the Australian Seed Federation Seed Business Convention, which was held at Adelaide Oval roughly a fortnight ago. I'd like to congratulate all of the award winners that were announced on the 9th, especially Michael Leader's ASF president award for his lifetime commitment to the seed industry. I'm grateful for the warm welcome and positive reception from those at the gala dinner, and in particular Rowena Petrie, the president of the Australian Seed Federation—someone who I also bumped into yesterday in this building during the inaugural launch of the Parliamentary Friends of Australia's Organic Industry, headed up by none other than the member for Hunter and the member for Casey. I look forward to engaging with your industry and seeing it grow for years to come. Finally, we've got the Wallabies kicking off tomorrow, but, more importantly, the Pies start their finals campaign tonight. Go the Pies! Tasmania: Child Safety Officers 44 13:36 Mr WILKIE C2T Clark National Child Protection Week is a timely backdrop for the current industrial action by Tasmanian child safety officers, who have walked off the job in protest over staff shortages. It's also timely given the imminent release by the state government of the report of the Commission of Inquiry into the Tasmanian Government's Responses to Child Sexual Abuse in Institutional Settings. I have met a number of child safety officers, and I can vouch for them working in one of the most important and toughest jobs going in Tasmania. They are good, compassionate people trying to help the kids as best they can, but they are chronically underresourced and lack support, and their industrial action has my full support. The Tasmanian government is well aware of the problems besetting child safety but remains hands off and is ignoring the desperate calls for an emergency workforce package. But there's also a role for the federal government, and, to that end, I have raised Tasmania's dire workforce shortage with the Treasurer and the education minister, urging them to provide fee-free training for relevant workers and to introduce measures to attract and retain staff. Frankly, the child safety system in Tasmania and elsewhere is on the brink of collapse, and governments need to step up. To do anything less would be to betray the children terribly. SecondLife Recrafted 45 13:37 Dr REID 300126 Robertson I rise to acknowledge SecondLife Recrafted, a brilliant local small business from Saratoga in my electorate of Robertson. In early 2022, husband-and-wife duo Mark and Katie Silvia decided to act on an idea they both had for a long time, and so began SecondLife Recrafted. The business is centred on repurposing recycled timber that would otherwise have been taken to landfill and discarded. Mark, a carpenter of 20 years, handcrafts this recycled hardwood into magnificent homewares and kitchenware for sale. All purchases are accompanied by the history and background of each handcrafted item, which is a really unique selling point of the business. Mark and Katie specialise in repurposing and reusing locally sourced hardwood from demolished structures, as well as American oak whisky and French oak wine barrels. The idea behind SecondLife Recrafted was heavily influenced by Mark's work and seeing, too often, good timber from construction sites being wasted. Mark could see that the timber still had plenty more life in it, but, because it was not needed, it would end up in a waste heap. Second Life Recrafted has been embraced by the Australian community not just on the Central Coast but across the nation. The business won an Australian Post Local Business Heroes business package totalling $6,000 worth of support. I want to congratulate Mark and Katie on the success of SecondLife Recrafted, and I would encourage all Australians to support local small businesses in their communities, as there are exceptional enterprises out there. Rugby League, Aviation Industry 45 13:39 Mr KATTER HX4 Kennedy I represent the Australian banana industry—almost all of our bananas are grown in North Queensland. With it, we grow great rugby league talent, from a tiny little area of about 60,000 people: Kerry Boustead, Ty Williams, Craig Teitzel, Billy Slater, Matty Bowen and Lionel Williamson. Thomas Flegler, who's about to take over at the Dolphins, is our latest. Thomas comes from a banana-growing family. Jake Clifford returns to the Cowboys, God bless him—another banana and sugar cane farming family. We're very proud of these people. I have to add to what the honourable member for Canning said about having Qantas led by a person who paid himself hundreds of millions of dollars of personal salary, had his workers sleeping on concrete under a blanket and offshored thousands of jobs overseas. I am going to name in this place the members of the board that put him in place and kept him there, whilst the airfares for the people that founded Qantas and—for the honourable member from Tasmania—the airfares in regional Australia went through the roof. While he's paying himself a $20 million a year salary and involving himself— (Time expired) Australian Constitution: Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice 45 13:40 Ms THWAITES 282212 Jagajaga October 14 is a historic day for this country. It's a chance for Australians to come together, to listen to the call from the Uluru Statement from the Heart, to vote yes for recognition of First Nations people in our Constitution through a voice to parliament. I'll be proudly voting yes, and I know so many other people will be in my community and right across Australia. I also note this referendum, like many referendums, will be tight. It is disappointing that too many on the opposite side, including the Leader of the Opposition, have taken the low route: stoking division, spreading misinformation and sowing fear, mistrust and doubt, instead of being prepared to examine the proposal on its merits. The Leader of the Opposition says he supports constitutional recognition. In fact, he now says he will hold a second referendum. You know what? He could just vote yes on this one. Despite the best efforts of the coalition, I have faith in my community and Australians right around the country. If you share my passion and our belief that there is a better future ahead of us, then join us. Join Jagajaga for Yes, a great local group of campaigners, campaigning at train stations, doorknocking, having kitchen-table conversations and doing the work to make sure this is a successful referendum and our country steps forward together. Internet Content 46 13:42 Mr HAWKE HWO Mitchell The feedback continues to come in relating to the government's Communications Legislation Amendment (Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation) Bill 2023. I'm inspired by Australians who are examining the propositions that the government is putting forward that the government will have a regulator to censor, essentially, free speech in Australia. They are deeply concerned at the ideas that are contained within this bill, and I want to add my voice to their voices and to those of the bodies of journalists and people interested in free speech around Australia who are concerned at the idea that we will have a government regulator effectively deciding what is true or not true online, given our experiences around the world with so many countries. Every time we hear from the Iranian citizenry that's fighting for human rights at the moment, we hear they have no rights against their government. They have no right to get online and even talk about the issues they are facing. We know in Russia there is no information or access to anything other than state run information. We know in China, under the CCP, people can't talk about their criticisms of the government and are unable to even express their basic views. Sometimes, in our liberal and democratic society, it is easy to forget the fundamental nature of our freedoms, which include freedom of speech, freedom of thought and freedom of worship. The fact this bill says that the government itself, if it makes a statement, cannot be wrong, is perhaps the most incredible statement of all in this bill. Government can be wrong. Government is wrong. The nations that are going through this around the world—most of the world's population today—know that freedom of speech is an essential foundation of a free society. Cushing, Mr John James, OAM 46 13:43 Mr NEUMANN HVO Blair I honour today the late John Cushing, who passed away recently aged 89 years. John served as an Ipswich city councillor and was a champion of Ipswich hockey. In 1992, John was awarded an OAM in recognition of his service to the sport of hockey and the community. He was granted life membership of Hockey Queensland in 1995. In recognition of five decades of significant contribution to the sport, John was awarded the Australian Sports Medal in the year 2000. He was named Ipswich Citizen of the Year in 1991 for his community service. His lifetime of service included 20 years on the Ipswich ambulance board, 12 as chair. He was a diligent railway fitter and supervisor at the North Ipswich Railway Workshops, where he worked for more than 46 years. Railmotors were his passion. Recognised by the railways commissioner for suggesting the relocation of an oil-filling position on the 2000 class rail motor, he earned a bonus of $5 in 1973. John had a simple approach to getting things done: 'I'm dedicated but low-key—I don't like a lot of fuss and glory.' He was Mr Hockey in Ipswich, a lovely, generous, honest caring man. I feel honoured to have known John. My thoughts are with the Cushing, Mantell and Woodford families. John was a true local hero. Vale, John. May you rest in peace. Petition: Natural Disasters Response and Recovery Planning 46 13:45 Mr HOGAN 218019 Page My community is feeling betrayed. The money promised by the federal and state governments for the Resilient Homes Program is half what was initially promised. Many of those hoping to get funding for a house buyback, a relocation, a house raising or a retrofit now look as if they will miss out. I recently asked people to sign a petition calling on the government to fully fund the Resilient Homes Program. Thousands have done so. To remind everyone: my community suffered the biggest natural disaster in Australia's history. Thousands of people, 18 months on, are still not properly back in their homes. They are in caravans, staying with family or friends, or scraping together whatever they can. There is still no clear plan on what is going to happen for these families and/or their homes. We also need flood mitigation proposals. We need families and businesses to feel safe. The Prime Minister said no-one would be left behind. Right now, many in my community are feeling left behind. The Prime Minister and the government need to show leadership. They promised to stand by communities and fully support all necessary funding, and this needs to happen urgently. I thank all the community members for their support in signing the petition, and I seek leave to table the petition. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 The petition has not been approved by the Petitions Committee? Mr HOGAN 218019 No. Leave granted. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 The document will now be forwarded to the Petitions Committee for its consideration, and it will be accepted subject to confirmation by the committee that it conforms with the standing orders. Taylor, Ms Michele 47 13:46 Mr REPACHOLI 298840 Hunter Teachers are some of the most important people in our community. They are almost single-handedly responsible for teaching the next generation of young Australians , who will grow up to one day be tradies, doctors, lawyers and, some of them, even politicians. The Hunter is lucky to have so many amazing teachers who dedicate so much of their lives to the students that they teach. But I rise today to recognise one very special teacher in my electorate, Michele Taylor, who works at the wonderful Booragul Public School. Michelle was recently presented with a Department of Education Regional North Performance Directorate Excellence Award. This is a well-deserved recognition for a teacher who goes above and beyond for her school community. Michele is a dedicated teacher who does all she can to support her students and their families. Michele is a giving, selfless and humble person who gives so much of her time and energy to the school community. Michele, you're an example to us all. Thank you for what you do. Your students and Booragul Public School as a whole are very lucky to have you. Congratulations on receiving this award. You deserve it. Keep up the good work, Michele. Cheers. Father's Day 47 13:48 Mr HOWARTH 247742 Petrie The first Sunday in September celebrated the important role that fathers play in a person's life. Last Sunday, 3 September, was Father's Day. I want to thank all the fathers who celebrated on that day, and not just fathers but grandfathers, stepfathers and anyone else who steps up to fill the gap of a father. Thank you for all that you do for our nation's children. Being a father is not only a privilege but an honour. I took the time to listen to some dads in my electorate over the weekend and asked them what makes a good dad. As dads, we owe it to our children to shape their future as best we can. Dads in my electorate told me that their role was to 'teach their children to work hard and get ahead'. Andrew Reibelt from Rothwell told me that his dad was someone who 'always worked hard' and was 'always there for advice'. Andrew says that he has always tried to do the same thing for his kids. Bernard from Bald Hills told me, 'Time and engagement is what makes a good dad.' Mark Thompson from Griffin says that it's important to lead by example. As a proud father of three sons myself, I know that being a dad isn't always easy, but it's an absolute privilege. I'd say to all fathers in Petrie and around Australia: Thank you for what you do. Continue to do your best. It's never too late to put in 100 per cent. Our children throughout the country need you. Well done. Continue to step up and get involved in their lives. Cranbourne Bowls Club 47 13:49 Ms FERNANDO 299964 Holt Cranbourne Bowls Club was established in 1963, and the club provides a range of surfaces to challenge both the novice and experienced bowlers. Since its founding, the club has not just been a place for bowls; instead, it's a community, a family and a source of pride for everyone who lives in Cranbourne and surrounds. Bowls is a sport that embodies the principles of mateship, sportsmanship and respect for one another. It's a game where age and experience can often triumph over youth and strength, where strategy and precision are just as important as raw talent. I was pleased to roll the first ball down the perfectly manicured lawns of the club and officially open the 2023-24 pennant season. Let this pennant season be one filled with unforgettable moments, personal achievements and the kind of joy that makes the Cranbourne Bowls Club a truly special place. I would like to acknowledge the hard work and unwavering commitment of the executive of the club to organise the upcoming season. Lastly, a big shout-out to Stan for teaching me how to bowl last week. Good luck, and I look forward to visiting you all soon. Energy 47 13:51 Mr JOYCE e5d New England The views of CSIRO are obviously well thought out, but they don't come from Mount Sinai; they come from a room and modelling. CSIRO is one source of views on nuclear power, but the Ontario Energy Board Regulated Price Plan is another. For them, the cost of wind is 50 per cent higher than the cost of nuclear, and the cost of solar is 400 per cent higher. Power prices are the cement that keeps the economic house together. If they are not viable, the economic house falls over. Net Zero Australia, which includes Princeton University, the University of Queensland and the University of Melbourne, has put the cost of a 2060 target at $7 trillion to $9 trillion. That is more than the redevelopment costs of western Europe after the Second World War, under the Marshall Plan. It is completely and utterly untenable. Examples of that are being seen now, with Snowy Hydro 2.0 blowing out from $2 billion to $12 billion. From talking to others, I know it will go higher. There is even consideration by some at the site that they should just stop it. Transmission lines, wind factories, solar factories—I know a little about lots but lots about politics, and the sentiment towards this renewable nirvana is completely and utterly changing. The battle will be lost over time, because that is exampled all around the world. At the National Party Federal Conference this weekend, these issues and others must be discussed for proper transparency. Pensions and Benefits 48 13:52 Mr LAXALE 299174 Bennelong Fourteen hundred and seventy-four—that's how many people in my electorate of Bennelong were victims of the Liberals' illegal robodebt scheme. That's 1,474 vulnerable people who were illegally targeted by their own government unjustly accusing them of owing the government money, 1,474 people who were entitled to dignity and respect and were instead treated as political pawns by the Liberals and Nationals. Let us be clear: robodebt was not about catching welfare cheats; it was about targeting vulnerable citizens and doing so for political reasons. Families were pushed to the brink, faced financial ruin and emotional distress and, in some tragic cases, had to deal with the loss of a loved one. Astonishingly, in the face of 46 days of public hearings and over 100 witness testimonials, those responsible opposite still seek to distance themselves from the consequences of their actions. We had the member for Cook get up in this place and reject completely each of the findings that were critical of him. We've had the Leader of the Opposition acknowledge that maybe some individuals made some mistakes, but he was then happy to describe the Royal Commission into the Robodebt Scheme as nothing more than a political witch-hunt. The Liberals' refusal to take responsibility for their actions is a slap in the face to the 1,474 individuals in Bennelong who were illegally targeted. They need to take a long, hard look at themselves and apologise today. Minister for Government Services 48 13:54 Mr FLETCHER L6B Bradfield Under this government, the delivery of government services is getting worse and worse. If you call Centrelink, you're waiting longer than ever. Call hold times in the 'disability, sickness and carers' category, to take just one example, have risen from just over 20 minutes under the coalition to 28½ minutes under the member for Maribyrnong. In a genius move, the member for Maribyrnong has dumped the specialised call centre operator Serco, which will only make things worse. He has fired over a thousand specialist IT staff, meaning that work to improve digital service delivery has effectively ground to a halt. He has failed to respond to the myGov user audit and its 10 recommendations, despite being asked to do so by 1 July. When he gets asked about his poor performance, the member for Maribyrnong gets very tetchy. Earlier this year, he stood up in parliament to complain that I was wasting his time by asking too many questions. His default approach is simply not to answer. In August we learned he'd failed to respond to 275 questions on notice relating to his portfolio. In another troubling episode, his office failed to respond to Services Australia and give any guidance on how it should respond to a freedom of information request, and Services Australia sought extra time to respond from the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner. I'm pleased to say they rejected that request. The member for Maribyrnong might not like it, but he has to comply with the law like everyone else. Australians deserve better from the member for Maribyrnong, whose portfolios impact the lives of millions of people. He needs to do better and respond to questions. Coalition Government 48 13:55 Ms CHESTERS 249710 Bendigo Today is 7 September, and it is the 10-year anniversary of the 2013 election, where some very fine individuals were elected to this place for the first time, including you, Deputy Speaker Claydon. It was also the election of possibly the most chaotic, disastrous government that this Commonwealth has ever seen. I am talking about the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison government. Let's remember just how chaotic and disastrous they were. I may need more than 90 seconds. 'The least productive since 1971' was how they labelled the Abbott government. He brought back knighthoods. He tried to water down section 18C, and somebody in his team in the other place defended it and said it was your right to be a bigot. There was the ideological vandalism of climate change and the abolishing of the Climate Commission. The 2014 budget was so bad that rallies happened around the country to bust that budget. Turnbull's government was paralysed by division, right-wing opposition and a backbench. We had Gonski 2.0, Snowy Hydro 2.0, Turnbull 2.0, and, in the middle of the citizenship crisis, he declared from the dispatch box 'and so the High Court shall rule'. Aren't we glad that period is over? Capricornia Electorate 49 13:57 Ms LANDRY 249764 Capricornia Today marks a significant milestone in my time as the member for Capricornia. On this day 10 years ago my constituency elected me as their representative. I vowed that I would serve my community and fight for their fair share. With over $6 billion of investment into Capricornia over the past decade, I have held true to my word. I have fought tirelessly to make Capricornia the best place in Australia to live and work. There are far too many projects to name them all. However, I do want to touch on just a few that I know have changed the lives of those who live in my community. Rockhampton Hospital parking was virtually non-existent. Unwell patients and families were forced to walk blocks in the CQ heat to get to the hospital. After years of inaction by the Labor state government, I was able to secure $7 million to get the ball rolling on construction of the multilevel car park onsite at the Rockhampton Hospital. No longer are patients forced to trek uphill to seek the medical help they need. Another very special community project that's close to my heart is the Collinsville QCWA hall redevelopment. The QCWA is the backbone of country towns. They support and fundraise for those most in need, and their halls are the epicentre for community gatherings. When the women of the Collinsville branch approached me for help to replace the asbestos filled hall, I lobbied successfully and secured $425,000, and this month the new hall will be opened. I want to thank my supporters and, in particular, my loving family—my mum, Gloria, and late father, Bill, my daughters, Jessica and Kirsten, my son-in-law, Tim, my brothers and my gorgeous grandbaby, Fitzwilliam—for their support over the last 10 years. Thank you. Vocational Education and Training 49 13:59 Dr ANANDA-RAJAH 290544 Higgins When I recently handed out gold medals, it was not for sport but for skills. WorldSkills Australia was a celebration of excellence in the trades, like cybersecurity, construction and nursing. Skills are the bedrock on which we build our lives. They are the bedrock for a competitive economy, for our net zero transition and for our bold defence and manufacturing programs. When we think about Australia's wealth, we often turn to the stuff we dig up. In fact, our wealth walks beside us. Diverse practical pathways for young people that take them straight into in-demand careers are the gift of TAFE. However, there were at least 85,000 fewer vocational training places in 2021 compared to 2013 because the Libs failed to invest in our most valuable asset, our people. While human capital is one stock the Albanese government has backed in, our 180,000 fee-free TAFE program has been oversubscribed with take-up by women, First Peoples, peoples with disability and over 50,000 jobseekers. We don't believe in trickle-down economics, but we do believe that skills are the pathway out of disadvantage and into participation, and so do thousands of young and older Australians. Remove the cost barriers, and they will come. Provide the skills, and they will prosper. The SPEAKER 53517 In accordance with standing order 43, the time for members' statements has concluded. MINISTRY 49 MINISTRY Temporary Arrangements 49 14:00 Mr MARLES HWQ Corio I inform the House that the Minister for Skills and Training will be absent from question time today. The Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations will answer questions on his behalf. MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS 49 MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS Death of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II and Accession of His Majesty King Charles III: First Anniversary 49 14:01 Mr MARLES HWQ Corio by leave—A year ago today Australians awoke to the end of an era. While we knew that it was coming, it was still a shock. The death of Queen Elizabeth II is a moment that we will never forget, and in the ensuing 12 months what we have seen is the full colour, the full majesty, of the British ceremony and ritual which is a bedrock of the world—the proclamation, the funeral, the coronation. And with the perspective of a year, the life of Queen Elizabeth II is all the more astounding. Her calm, her presence and her image defined half the 20th century and the beginning of the 21st. Her sense of constancy was a source of reassurance to millions, and her selfless life of service is an example to others that will endure through the ages. In the last 12 months, with a sense of assuredness and grace, we have also seen Prince Charles become King Charles, and in the beginning of his reign we have come to understand that he is unique because, in the entirety of British history, he is the monarch about whose thoughts and ideas we know the most—his passion for urban planning and architecture, his passion for the environment and his passion for the rights and progress of the first nations peoples of the world. Receiving some of his education in our nation, King Charles has a special connection with Australia. As I travel around the country, people often struggle with the name, an Indigenous word, of my electorate. More often than not I am incorrectly described as the member for Corio. I have had the opportunity to meet King Charles once, and that was at the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in Rwanda last year. It was a delight to me that with perfect pronunciation, he said to me, 'I understand that you are the member for Corio.' Not only does King Charles have a strong affinity with Australia, he knows my hometown of Geelong very well, and so on this anniversary of the death of Queen Elizabeth II, we acknowledge her life but at the same time we celebrate and congratulate King Charles III on the first anniversary of his reign. 14:04 M 00AKI Dickson r DUTTON (—) (): on indulgence—I associate the coalition with the remarks of the Acting Prime Minister. It was one of those moments in history where people will be able to recall to their children and grandchildren where they were when they first learnt of the news of the passing of Queen Elizabeth II. For many of us, our adult lives have been consumed by stories of the life of a wonderful lady who had given to her country and to the realm as well. The continuation now, the seamless continuation, of one monarch to the next is something that we mark today. As the Acting Prime Minister points out, the work of King Charles III continues seamlessly from that of his mother, and that is something that is reassuring to us in Australia but also, obviously, to the United Kingdom and other countries in the Commonwealth as well. I appreciate the Acting Prime Minister's own story of his encounter with the King. It reminds me a little of Robert Menzies' recall of his moment with Queen Elizabeth II as well. I never thought I'd hear those words in this parliament, but it was a great story, and I can see and hear the emotion in the Acting Prime Minister's recall of that dalliance. It's a wonderful fact that you're able to recall here to the parliament, Acting Prime Minister. I think, when you look at the outpouring of grief at the passing 12 months ago of Queen Elizabeth II, it reflects humanity, and it reflects the respect that the world had for a leader who provided support to people in many parts of the world—her discreet interventions, in relation to points in history, in the United Kingdom and elsewhere, for the better. She dedicated her life, as I say, to the betterment of her people, and that is why she was revered and respected, and it's why we have great honour in recognising the first anniversary in this chamber today. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 50 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Minister for Defence 50 14:06 Mr HASTIE 260805 Canning My question is to the Acting Prime Minister. Australians are seeing the prices of everything go up under this government, including airfares, which are up as much as 50 per cent from three years ago. To add insult to injury, Qantas flights are regularly cancelled, and luggage is lost. How many times has the Acting Prime Minister taken a defence VIP flight from Canberra to Avalon Airport to go home from work? 14:07 Mr MARLES HWQ Corio I thank the shadow minister for his question. Certainly, these are tough times in terms of the cost of living, and we very much understand the pressures which are upon the budgets of household Australians and businesses, and it is why the focus of our government, from the very first day of our election, has been on easing the burden of that cost of living—be it seeking to increase the minimum wage, be it providing for more affordable child care, be it cheaper medicines or be it putting downward pressure on our energy bills— Government members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order, members on my right. I'll hear from the member for Canning, on a point of order? Mr Hastie 260805 Yes, on relevance. We know the Minister can stretch himself— The SPEAKER 53517 Resume your seat. Mr Sukkar interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order, Member for Deakin! Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order, members on my left. I give the call to the Leader of the House. Mr Burke DYW Mr Speaker, not only was the Acting Prime Minister speaking specifically on the issues that were in the preamble of that question, every part of the point of order was a deliberate abuse of trying to get up some prepared lines. He knew exactly what he was doing, and it was a complete abuse. The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The member for Hume and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition will cease interjecting. The SPEAKER 53517 The Leader of the House and the Leader of the Nationals will cease interjecting. The member for Canning understands the standing orders and will not abuse them. Mr MARLES HWQ Thank you. In every one of those efforts, we acted in the face of the opposition of those opposite. As I said on Tuesday, everywhere I have been and everything that I have done has been in pursuit of my duties acting on behalf of the Australian people. I stand by every flight that I took on the special purpose aircraft or commercially. But I would also make this point. The question we just heard from the shadow minister is the eighth question that he has asked since the election. Since that time, we made a decision to acquire nuclear-powered submarines. That was quite a big deal—not a single question on that. We made a decision to engage in the single biggest reposturing of Australia's Defence Force—not a single question on that. But now we have had three questions on the special purpose aircraft. Those opposite get 70 minutes each and every parliamentary day to raise the most significant questions facing the Australian people, and this is what the shadow minister chooses to raise. It says everything about a party which gave us seven different defence ministers in the course of the last decade who could not make a decision in relation to our submarine capability, opening up enormous capability gaps. It's never about the policy; it's always about the politics. But we didn't need to know that to understand this. On 4 January 2020 we absolutely understood how they were about the politics when in the face of the biggest bushfires that we'd had as country they used the Australian Defence Force to cut an ad to raise money for the Liberal Party. It's always about the politics, never about the policy. Honourable members interj ecting— The SPEAKER 53517 The level of noise is completely unacceptable. The level of noise yesterday was completely unacceptable. I'm issuing a general warning today. There won't be any more warnings: people will just be excluded by their behaviour. National Security 51 14:12 Mr KHALIL 101351 Wills My question is to the Acting Prime Minister. What is the importance of a person honouring their word in managing our international relationships, our national security and governing Australia? 14:12 Mr MARLES HWQ Corio I thank the member for his question. On Tuesday, the Leader of the Opposition said on indulgence: I want to offer very strong words of support to the Prime Minister. …   …   … We wish the PM every success in the trip because it is important for our country's future, and we stand ready to support the outcomes of the statement the Prime Minister referred to as well. As our Prime Minister embarked on an important series of engagements in the Indo-Pacific, the sentiment was welcomed. But, within one day, yesterday, as Hansard now records, the Leader of the Opposition was mocking the Prime Minister for going on this very trip. This is the starkest insight into the attitude which, in government, saw those opposite completely trash our international relationships, leaving Australia's global standing in the worst position that it has ever been in. It saw the stopping of trade and the loss of thousands of Australian jobs, which this government has had to rebuild. The constant addiction to low-rent politics is why we saw a revolving door of defence ministers give rise to a lost decade in defence policy, but they still had the time to use the Australian Defence Force to cut an ad to raise money for the Liberal Party. But what yesterday revealed the most was the character of the Leader of the Opposition. Yes, there was the trademark anger, the want to wreck. But what we now know is that the value of the Leader of the Opposition's word lasts for precisely 24 hours. What he says today is literally meaningless tomorrow. When the Leader of the Opposition says that there is an issue above politics, what the Australian people now know is that he's only ever about the politics. In that, as his position as the leader of his party actually denotes, he is the genuine heir of the Morrisonian legacy. Australians cannot trust this man to act in their interest, but they can rely completely on the fact that no matter what the stakes, he will always act in his own personal interest. For those of us who are a part of the Albanese Labor government, it is genuinely the great privilege of our lives. But that privilege is grounded in our having the opportunity to be in the service of the Australian people, and in that the Albanese Labor government is completely committed to working for Australia. Aviation Industry 52 14:15 Mr FLETCHER L6B Bradfield My question is to the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government. Can the minister inform the House which of her cabinet colleagues she consulted with prior to making her decision on the application for additional Qatar Airways flights to and from Australia on 10 July? 14:15 Ms CATHERINE KING 00AMR Ballarat As I said yesterday, as you'd expect, my department undertook consultations with all the relevant aviation stakeholders, and I was well aware of different stakeholder views when I took this decision. As you would know, as a former minister for infrastructure in the transport portfolio, as other transport ministers would know, you would regularly consult with ministerial colleagues, but this is a pretty routine decision that ministers make. In particular, it's a routine decision that ministers for transport take. I certainly consulted with ministerial colleagues, but the decision was mine. Unlike those opposite, we do have a government of ministerial responsibility. We do have a government that runs by ministerial responsibility—unlike those opposite, who had a Prime Minister who signed himself into all of your ministries because he didn't trust you. Aviation Industry 52 14:17 Mr GEORGANAS DZY Adelaide My question is to the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government. After years of inaction, how is the Albanese Labor government delivering a more competitive aviation sector while at the same time securing Australian jobs and strengthening consumer rights? The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The minister will pause. The member for Deakin will leave the chamber under 94(a). The member for Deakin then left the chamber. The SPEAKER 53517 I'm going to ask the member to restate the question. And if anyone interjects in this question, they will join the member for Deakin. The member for Adelaide has the call. Mr GEORGANAS DZY My question is to the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government. After years of inaction, how is the Albanese Labor government delivering a more competitive aviation sector while at the same time securing Australian jobs and strengthening consumer rights? 14:18 Ms CATHERINE KING 00AMR Ballarat I thank the member from Adelaide very sincerely for that question. I know that he knows just how important aviation is to his city and the huge potential Adelaide has as a growing international travel destination. Today I am very proud that the government released the aviation green paper. This is an important step in undertaking consultative and genuine reform of the aviation sector because this government does understand the importance of Australia's aviation sector to the economic prosperity of our nation and to the lives of all Australians who rely on this critical service. But as we know, the previous government left the aviation policy space in absolute tatters. They gave billions of taxpayer dollars to Qantas with no strings attached. They stood by, frankly, as Virgin collapsed into administration, only for it to be snatched up by a foreign private equity. They saw the mass outsourcing of jobs and a labour hire mess that drove down wages across this sector. The SPEAKER 53517 The minister will pause. The Manager of Opposition Business on a point of order. Mr Fletcher L6B On relevance, the minister was asked about what she's doing to deliver a more competitive aviation sector— The SPEAKER 53517 Resume your seat. The question included 'years of inaction'. She is entitled to compare and contrast as a result of that part of the statement. I give her the call. Ms CATHERINE KIN 00AMR Thank you, Mr Speaker. As you stated, I was asked about the years of inaction, and, of course, we saw the previous government give billions of dollars of taxpayer moneys to Qantas with no strings attached. They stood by as Virgin collapsed into administration, only for it to be snatched up by foreign private equity. They saw the mass outsourcing of jobs and a labour hire mess that drove down wages and conditions across the sector. They commissioned the Harris review into the Sydney Airport, only to spend almost two years sitting on it, leaving it for us to sort out. They cut JobKeeper to Dnata workers and left those families in the lurch. Today marks a turning point. The aviation green paper is an important step in developing our sector out to 2050. We want an aviation sector that maintains Australia's world-leading safety and security standards. We want an aviation sector with stronger consumer protections that provides secure jobs now and into the future. The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The minister will pause. The member for Herbert has been continually interjecting during this answer and every other answer since I've issued the warning. He will leave the chamber under 94(a). This minister will be heard in silence. Ms 00AMR We want an aviation sector that is reliable, competitive and affordable, and that is what Australians expect and deserve from our aviation industry. That's why we've released the aviation green paper today, to gather the views of the aviation sector, people who rely on it and people who are employed in it. The aviation green paper highlights, in particular, the critical role that aviation plays in our regions who rely on aviation services to access everything from education to health care. The green paper considers how we will transition our aviation industry to net zero, another space those opposite vacated when they were in government. We know the green paper wants to look at stronger consumer protections, improvements to complaint-handling processes and improved accessibility for people with disabilities. I encourage everyone to engage with that process. We need an aviation sector that is strong in this country. (Time expired) Mayo Electorate: Infrastructure 53 14:22 Ms SHARKIE 265980 Mayo My question is to the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government. Minister, on 1 May 2023 you announced a 90-day review of infrastructure projects. This decision is causing delay and frustration, particularly for projects underway such as the $250 million upgrade to the South Eastern Freeway in my electorate that was announced in October 2020. Minister, we're now at day 130. When will you provide certainty to my community that a longstanding infrastructure promise will indeed be honoured? 14:23 Ms CATHERINE KING 00AMR Ballarat I thank very much the member for Mayo for both her question and her longstanding advocacy for the people of her electorate. I know she has been in this place for a long period of time and feels very strongly about delivering for her community. As I have already said in the media, I've recently received the independent strategic review of the Infrastructure investment report. It is a fairly lengthy and complex report, but it does highlight, which I think even the member's question does, just how badly the Liberals and Nationals managed the infrastructure pipeline during their wasted decade. I am considering the report in detail, and a government response to the recommendations will be announced in due course. It does involve complex negotiations with every state and territory. But I can give you some of the highlights from the report today. The review has found in fact that, in the pipeline, there is $33 billion of known cost pressures. That is what those opposite actually presided over. That's $33 billion of known cost overruns across all Infrastructure Investment Program projects, which is 41 per cent of the total budget for the infrastructure program. It also states that there is a very high risk of future cost overruns. This is the mess left by those opposite. They were so fixated on the press release, so fixated on the announcements. In fact the review highlights, very significantly, that the previous government tripled the number of projects in 2015 and in 2019, both leading into election years. That's the problem you have when you had a government that was so fixated on the press release and could not deliver—you now have an infrastructure investment pipeline that is $33 billion in known cost overruns. We're making our way through that report. We're working with states and territories on that to provide certainty to the community, but this is, yet again, the absolute mess and disgrace that those opposite left. When it comes to infrastructure in this country, we want to get on with the business of delivering. You can't drive on a press release, and those opposite should be absolutely ashamed of themselves for the state that they left the infrastructure pipeline in. Economy 54 14:25 Mr LAXALE 299174 Bennelong My question is to the Treasurer. What do this week's national accounts say about the importance of responsible economic management, and what approaches has the government rejected? 14:25 Dr CHALMERS 37998 Rankin I thank the outstanding member for Bennelong for his question. The national accounts this week provided an important snapshot of our economy. Our economy is steady and sturdy in the face of some pretty intense pressure. It's holding up pretty well despite the rate rises which are already in the system and the slowdown in China. We're optimistic about the future of our economy and the future of our country, but we are also realistic about pressures on Australians right now, the way that our economy is slowing and the difficult months that we anticipate ahead. There is always a premium on responsible economic management, but especially in uncertain times like these. That's why we are working for Australians, rolling out relief, getting wages moving again, getting the budget in better nick, investing in the future and cleaning up the mess that was left behind by those opposite. We're seeing welcome progress in moderating inflation and in the national accounts, especially when it comes to wage and salary income over the last financial year, growing at the fastest rate in three decades. We see it in the fastest employment growth over the last financial year of any time in any financial year since 1985. Half a million jobs created our on watch, more people in work and earning more, the first surplus in 15 years—all of that is putting us in good stead for the uncertainties ahead. That's what responsible economic management looks like, and that's what was missing in the wasted decade before we came to office. Speaking of the last decade, I heard the member for Bendigo, the member for Capricornia and others say that today is the 10th anniversary of the 2013 election. I congratulate my colleagues on their anniversary—even the member for Hume, as I understand it. Having been here for a decade now, I'm sure it's not lost on the member for Hume how strange and unusual and potentially unprecedented it is that, in the week of an RBA board decision and the national accounts, he's yet to ask me a single question this week—not about the economy, not about anything at all, not even a 'how's it going'. There's been not a single question from the shadow Treasurer opposite. And the lengths they went to yesterday to prevent him asking a question! They sat there and they had a choice: shall we let the member for Canning humiliate himself, or shall we let the member for Hume humiliate himself? The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The Treasurer will resume his seat. The Manager of Opposition Business on a point of order. Mr Fletcher L6B On relevance, Mr Speaker, even on the broadest interpretation of the words 'What approaches has the government rejected?' This continuation of the Treasurer's abuse and lack of respect for the shadow Treasurer needs to stop. It's unparliamentary. He's a serial offender. If he's got nothing useful to say he should sit down. The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Hume has the MPI today. If the member for Hume interjects once more, we will not be having an MPI. That's your responsibility. I'm going to ask the Treasurer to return to the question. Dr CHALMERS 37998 Thank you, Mr Speaker. You make a good point. The shadow Treasurer does have the MPI today, and it's a reminder that he gives the press conferences before question time and the speeches after question time but never in prime time. Never does he ask me a question in prime time, when the nation is watching. And that's because the responsible economic management that we are providing is unrecognisable to those opposite because they spent the best part of a decade making a mess of our economy and a mess of our budget—and I spend a great deal of my time cleaning it up. Aviation Industry 55 14:30 Ms LEY 00AMN Farrer My question is to the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government. Can the minister confirm the date the Prime Minister or his office was informed of her decision on the application for additional Qatar Airways flights to and from Australia? The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Barker will leave under 94(a). The member for Barker then left the chamber. The SPEAKER 53517 Anyone else who wants to interject before a minister even speaks can leave now. 14:30 Ms CATHERINE KING 00AMR Ballarat As I've repeatedly said, these are routine decisions of government. There's nothing remarkable about transport ministers making decisions on international air service agreements to reflect our national interest. I've done it, we did it when we were last in office and former ministers opposite did exactly the same. I acknowledge that the member for Riverina is noting that. On 10 July, I took the decision not to agree to Qatar Civil Aviation Authority's request to double, by 28 services a week, the number of flights from Australia's four major airports—four times any request that has ever been granted before. I informed the Prime Minister— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. Ms CATHERINE KING 00AMR I informed the Prime Minister prior to my decision being made public, and normally these decisions are not made public. And, for context, my office had received multiple media requests about the women who were escorted off a Qatar Airways flight in Doha and subject to invasive searches and their views on the air services agreement request from Qatar. The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The Deputy Leader of the Opposition has asked her question. Ms CATHERINE KING 00AMR Can I just say, the deputy leader—this is constant. I'm just about to get to that, if you'd just— Ms CATHERINE KING 00AMR I am just about to get to that. The SPEAKER 53517 The Leader of the Opposition can just listen to the minister. I want to hear what she has to say in response to the deputy leader's question just as much as anyone. Ms CATHERINE KING 00AMR Again, I said, for context, my office had received multiple media requests about the women who were escorted off the Qatar Airways flight in Doha and subject to invasive searches and their views on the air services agreement requests from Qatar. We responded to the media requests on 18 July, by which point the Prime Minister was aware of the decision that I had made. Medicare 56 14:32 Ms ROBERTS 157125 Pearce My question is to Minister for Health and Ageing. How is the Albanese Labor government working to strengthen Medicare? Why is urgent action needed to repair the damage caused by a decade of cuts and neglect to Australia's primary health care system? 14:33 Mr BUTLER HWK Hindmarsh I thank the terrific member for Pearce for her question—such an amazing representative of the northern suburbs of Perth, first as mayor and now as a widely respected member of our government in this place. She understands the critical importance of strengthening Medicare. I remember that, when I first met her, she told me that her constituents had been telling her it had never been harder and never been less affordable to see a doctor than it was right then, back in last year. We know that, after 10 years of cuts and neglect to Medicare, bulk-billing rates were in serious decline when we came to government, and gap fees were rising sharply. That's why the Treasurer, in the May budget this year, delivered a $6.1 billion strengthening Medicare package. The centrepiece of that package was the biggest investment in bulk-billing in the 40-year history of Medicare, tripling the bulk-billing incentive. We also delivered the biggest across-the-board increase to the Medicare rebate in more than 30 years, since Paul Keating was Prime Minister—in one year, more than the former government managed, in 10 long years, to increase the Medicare rebate. We also recognise that GPs deserve more than just our thanks after their extraordinary efforts over the 3½ years of the pandemic. They deserve tangible support to strengthen their practices, which is why we've delivered $220 million in Strengthening Medicare General Practice Grants, including to 38 general practices in the member for Pearce's electorate. I'm happy to say the member for Pearce and I visited the Clarkson Medicare Urgent Care Clinic last week, one of the 58 urgent care centres we'll be opening over the course of this year. The waiting room was full, mainly with parents with kids who had urgent but non-life-threatening emergencies, which we're all familiar with as parents—people who would likely have been waiting hours and hours in the Joondalup emergency department if the urgent care centre hadn't been opened. Dr Koh, the terrific manager of that practice, told us how busy the urgent care centre had been in the short time it had been open—just one of the centres operating seven days a week, extended hours and fully bulk-billed, delivering urgent care in the community when and where people need it and taking much pressure off our hospital emergency departments. Tripling the bulk-billing incentive, the biggest increase to the Medicare rebate in more than 30 years, Strengthening Medicare General Practice Grants to more than 6,800 general practices and rolling out Medicare urgent care centres right across Australia—that's our commitment to strengthening Medicare. The SPEAKER 53517 The Minister for Home Affairs and Minister for Cybersecurity is warned. Aviation Industry 56 14:36 Mr TAYLOR 231027 Hume My question is to the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government. Can the minister confirm the exact date when the Prime Minister or his office were informed of her decision on the application for additional Qatar Airways flights to and from Australia? 14:37 Ms CATHERINE KING 00AMR Ballarat I thank the member for Hume for his question. As I just said previously, I took the decision on 10 July not to agree to Qatar Civil Aviation Authority's request to double their flights into Australia. I informed the Prime Minister prior to my decision being made public. This is not something that's routinely done. You normally would not— The SPEAK 53517 The minister will pause. The Leader of the Opposition on a point of order? Mr Dutton 00AKI Mr Speaker, this is the second attempt to ask the minister for a direct answer. The question is deliberately drafted in accordance with your previous directions about the tightness of questions. There can be no ambiguity about what is being asked. The minister has been asked for a second time, and I seek your ruling, Mr Speaker, in relation to whether the minister is relevant to the question that has been asked. The SPEAKER 53517 The minister is entitled to a preamble. She's 30 seconds in. A point of order on relevance has been taken. She has so far mentioned a date that I heard her say. I'm going to listen to her carefully to make sure her answer is relevant to the question. Under the standing orders, her answer must remain relevant to the question. Ms CATHERINE KING 00AMR As I said, I took the decision on 10 July, so that's the first date that you've asked. I did inform the Prime Minister prior to my decision being made public, and it's not something that is routinely done, and I doubt very much whether the former minister did that either, because decisions are not routinely done— Mr Pike 300120 Give us a date! The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Bowman will leave the chamber under 94(a) The member for Bowman then left the chamber. The SPEAKER 53517 This is not an excuse to be simply yelling at anyone at the dispatch box. Ms CATHERINE KING 00AMR For context: I had received multiple media requests about the women. That is well canvassed now. I responded to the media request on 18 July, by which point the Prime Minister was aware of the decision I had made. In that same conversation I had with the Prime Minister, he let me know that he had had a conversation with the Virgin CEO, which he has canvassed. Mr Dutton 00AKI Mr Speaker. The SPEAKER 53517 We're moving to the next question. Mr Dutton 00AKI I have a question for you. The SPEAKER 53517 You may ask me a question at the end of question time. Mr Dutton 00AKI I raise a point of order. The SPEAKER 53517 What's your point of order? Mr Dutton 00AKI It is in relation to disorderly conduct in this chamber. I seek your clarification, Mr Speaker, in relation to the conduct of the minister. The minister was asked a specific question on two occasions— The SPEAKER 53517 Resume your seat. Honourable members in terjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 You're asking me a question about a minister who has concluded her answer, which is whether the answer was in line with your view or whether the question was being answered—is that right? Mr Dutton 00AKI I am seeking the call— T 53517 To raise a point of order? Mr Dutton 00AKI Yes. The SPEAKER 53517 The Leader of the Opposition has the call. Mr Dutton 00AKI This has been a fairly volatile question time. You've excluded a number of colleagues, Mr Speaker. So, in efforts to help you— Mr Dutton 00AKI The minister interjects. The standing orders operate equally to each side. I'm trying to make a point to you. The SPEAKER 53517 Get on with it. Mr Dutton 00AKI I will. The point is that the minister has been asked, with a specific question, whether or not she can nominate the date. If she wants to take it on notice, that's fine. But the point is that she cannot be in order, and I seek your clarification as to whether or not you will enforce the standing orders to instruct the minister to answer the question that has been asked. Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order. I'll hear from the Leader of the House. Mr Burke DYW Under standing orders and under Practice, a point of order is taken about an event at the time. The point of order on direct relevance was taken at the time. Your ruling was given immediately. The answer has now concluded. What has just been put by the Leader of the Opposition is maybe a question to the Speaker—I don't know. But it's certainly no longer a point of order, because the question has concluded. There's no ruling you can possibly make. The SPEAKER 53517 Under the standing orders, on page 53—I'll read standing order 104 for the benefit of the House so people understand exactly what we're talking about. When it comes to answers of ministers: (a) An answer must be directly relevant to the question. (b) A point of order regarding relevance may be taken only once in respect of each answer. (c) The duration of each answer is limited to 3 minutes. The Leader of the Opposition took a point of order on relevance. I explained to the House where I was at with dealing with the minister. There is nothing in the standing orders to allow the Leader of the Opposition to simply get up and say, at the conclusion of an answer: 'Was that answer fulsome? Was that answer enough?' So, if there are questions, I'm happy to take them at the end of question time, to do with the administration of the parliament. In the meantime, we're going to move to the next question. I give the call to the honourable member for Werriwa. Child Abuse 58 14:42 Ms STANLEY 265990 Werriwa My question is to the Attorney-General. What work are the Australian Federal Police and the Australian Centre to Counter Child Exploitation doing to tackle the scourge of child sexual abuse, and how can Australians help? 14:43 Mr DREYFUS HWG Isaacs I thank the member for Werriwa for her question. This week is National Child Protection Week. One of the Albanese government's top priorities is keeping children safe. The Australian Centre to Counter Child Exploitation, led by the Australian Federal Police, does extraordinary work to prevent harm to children. The task is great. Last year alone, the centre received more than 40,000 reports of online child exploitation. Currently, the centre's work involves the manual examination of tens of thousands of images each year. A project called My Pictures Matter can change that. The Australian Federal Police and Monash University are inviting adult Australians to share images of themselves as children to support a new ethical artificial intelligence tool that will detect child abuse material in videos or photos shared online or seized during criminal investigations. This new tool will be able to quickly detect child abuse material on websites and offenders' electronic devices and triage them for investigators. The project was launched in 2022, but it needs more images to succeed. I understand that if just 100,000 Australian adults contribute a photo from their childhood, the tool can be put to work within 12 months. I'll be sharing an image of my childhood to support this project, and I hope other members will too. All adult Australians can take up the fight against child abuse by sharing a photo of themselves. Visit mypicturesmatter.org, upload a picture and help keep our children safe. 14:45 Mr DUTTON 00AKI Dickson on indulgence—I want to congratulate the Attorney-General and, through him, the Australian Federal Police on this initiative. The technology that the Attorney-General refers to has led to breakthroughs in investigations already, and that it goes to the next stage is a great credit to the investigators and those who run the Australian Centre to Counter Child Exploitation. When you visit the centre you can sense the palpable dynamic there. The not-for-profit organisations who are there with the investigators are providing support to victims, but also helping to disseminate a message of information and awareness. As the Attorney-General rightly points out, I would also encourage all Australian families and parents to go to the Australian Centre to Counter Child Exploitation web site during this week. There are five messages there, steps that the ACCCE is asking parents to be aware of. It's an engagement, having a conversation, an awareness of what your kids are looking at online. And even though it's difficult to have that conversation, it's about reporting the information to the authorities so that another victim can't fall into the hands of one of these monstrous individuals. There's a lot more information, particularly around the protections, the settings on phones and on devices. It's the most important issue that our country can deal with in protecting our children, and we stand with the government in providing additional resources and every effort and support to those who are working at the Australian Centre to Counter Child Exploitation. Aviation Industry 59 14:46 Mr DUTTON 00AKI Dickson My question is to the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government. Can minister confirm the exact date the Prime Minister or his office were informed of her decision on the application for additional Qatar Airways flights to and from Australia? 14:47 Ms CATHERINE KING 00AMR Ballarat I refer to my previous answer. Threatened Species Day 59 14:47 Mr ZAPPIA HWB Makin My question is to the Minister for the Environment and Water. How is the Albanese Labor government acting to protect Australia's threatened species? What are the threats facing our native plants and animals? 14:47 Ms PLIBERSEK 83M Sydney I want to thank the member for Makin, who I know is a great fan of our beautiful Australian wildlife. We saw members of parliament from both sides today, from this chamber and the other place, visiting our wonderful animals brought into parliament by Aussie Ark, Wildbark, Priam, the Australian National Botanic Gardens and ACT Wildlife, bringing those animals and plants in for Threatened Species Day. I want to thank the conservationists who brought the animals in, the scientists who came in today and the volunteers who care for injured animals. We saw them bring in little Tassie devils, Charlie and Lola, Pebbles the wombat, Banjo the blue-tongue lizard, Marshmallow the python, a glossy black cockatoo called Fifty, Marla the joey and a range of other very beautiful Australian animals. It really was a celebration of native wildlife today, so thank you to those who brought the animals in and thank you to the members of parliament who came along to see them. Threatened Species Day has a very serious message as well, and today we released a number of additional documents that will better protect our threatened species, including a document for consultation on how we deal with the enormous threat that is feral cats in Australia. We know that cats kill about six million animals in Australia every night. We know that they've played a role in about two-thirds of extinctions that have already occurred in Australia and there are about another 200 animals on the threatened species list that are vulnerable to cat predation. We're releasing a consultation document, because we know that, of course, there is a role for the Commonwealth government, there is a role for state and territory governments and there is very certainly a role for local councils and other organisations in dealing with the threat posed by cats attacking native animals. We saw a great example of one of the responses to feral cat predation, and that was the Felixer machine, which we are seeing rolled out across Australia to deal with feral cats. We want to make sure that we provide cat-free environments, islands and fenced areas and other solutions to prevent feral cats attacking Australian animals. Our government is investing $500 million in protecting against these threats. (Time expired) DISTINGUISHED VISITORS 60 DISTINGUISHED VISITORS Genetet, Mme Anne, Mitcham Primary School 60 14:50 The SPEAKER 53517 I'm pleased to inform the House that present in the gallery today is Ms Anne Genetet, member of the French parliament and president of the France-Australia friendship group. On behalf of the House, welcome to the Australian parliament and question time. In the northern gallery today we have school students from Mitcham Primary School in the member for Boothby's electorate. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 60 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Small Business 60 14:51 Ms STEGGALL 175696 Warringah My question is to the Treasurer. Small businesses make up 97.5 per cent of businesses in Australia, and they are facing a perfect storm of impossible cashflow situations, with high interest rates and increased levels of debt from COVID and delayed rents now falling due and also rising. Add to this high energy prices, supply and staff shortages, and a downturn in consumer confidence and spending, and many are facing closure. What additional measures will the government consider—including delaying ATO reporting requirements—to assist them through this difficult period? 14:52 Dr CHALMERS 37998 Rankin Thank you to the member for Warringah for her question and also for the opportunity to speak with her about some of these issues in recent days. We know that Australian small businesses are doing it tough; I agree with you. This is because of, as you rightly identify, the inflationary pressures that they are under and the ongoing impact of higher interest rates. While we know that the vast majority of Australian businesses meet their obligations, we do understand that, for different reasons, some are struggling to do that. There was a pause in collections during COVID, and this year the ATO has increased its engagement to try and help businesses catch up on their tax and superannuation obligations. We understand that this can be difficult, but it ensures that businesses that don't meet their tax obligations don't get an unfair advantage over those that do follow the rules. The ATO does provide support to businesses who need help meeting their tax obligations, including payment plans. There are also a number of steps that they can take to help businesses stay on top of their obligations: SMS messages, myGov, phone calls, overdue letters and the like. So, if a small business is struggling, whether it's in the member for Warringah's area or indeed in any of the communities represented here in this House, I encourage them to reach out to the ATO as soon as possible to discuss what payment options might be available. The ATO is willing to work with businesses to help them meet their obligations, but in order for that to happen we need the small business to reach out to the ATO. They will always try and work with people who are genuinely trying to meet their obligations. The member for Warringah asks me about new measures to support small business. Here I pay tribute to the Minister for Small Business for the new measures that we are funding in recognition of the difficult circumstances that small businesses face, whether it is the small business energy incentive, the targeted energy bill relief that those opposite voted against in this place, the instant asset write-off, the Industry Growth Program in the industry minister's portfolio, or the cyber wardens. This comes on top of all the support we're already providing by developing digital solutions; changing the Commonwealth Procurement Rules to favour small businesses; providing help with unfair contract terms; making sure small businesses are paid on time; and continuing the work we're doing on the franchising sector. All of this is in recognition of the genuine pressures that small businesses in particular are under. We are grateful for the representation of the member for Warringah. We encourage small businesses to reach out if they need help as the ATO continues its important work. Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes) Bill 2023 60 14:55 Ms SWANSON 264170 Paterson My question is to the Minister for Workplace Relations and Employment. How does the Albanese Labor government's 'closing the loopholes' bill help deliver the pay and conditions that working Australians are entitled to? Has there been any misinformation in response to this bill? 14:55 Mr BURKE DYW Watson I want to thank the member for Paterson for the question—someone who, in particular, in her whole time here, has been calling on this parliament to close the labour hire loophole that effects so many of the miners in her electorate. When we were announcing the closing loopholes legislation, a few months ago, an ad campaign started. I said right from the start that the ad campaign was incorrect and that the legislation was never going to do what the ads were claiming—that somehow you'd lose the capacity to pay someone who has a lot of experience a different rate to that for someone who was brand new. Now that the legislation is here, I'm pleased to tell the parliament that they've stopped that ad of misinformation. They've now replaced it with two ads with different forms of misinformation. I just want to explain one of those too. It's an ad authorised by the National Farmers Federation. I've been dealing with the National Farmers Federation for a long time, right back to when I was agriculture minister. As an organisation, they often provide very good advice on policy, but they've never been that good when it comes to the rights of workers, historically. They just haven't been. Honourable members interjecting— Mr BURKE DYW No, it's about the National Farmers Federation. In the ad that they've launched, they've said— Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! Members on my right, I can't hear what the minister is saying, because there is far too much noise in the chamber. I want to hear from the member for Wannon on a point of order. Mr Tehan 210911 The NFF aren't here to defend themselves, and I think— The 53517 Resume your seat. Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order. Member for Wannon, you're asking for a withdrawal on behalf of an organisation outside the parliament. Is that the point of order? Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Resume your seat. Mr Burke DYW To the point of order, I think the standing orders apply the same to employer organisations as they do to worker organisations—exactly the same. Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The minister will just pause a moment. The minister for the environment will cease interjecting. Member for Wannon, I just need you to state the point of order, not give a statement. The member for Wannon has the call. Mr Tehan 210911 I said it would assist the House if the minister withdrew that. The SPEAKER 53517 Resume your seat. Honourable members interjecting— Mr Rob Mitchel M3E Never get between a Liberal and money! The SPEAKER 53517 The member for McEwen will leave the chamber under standing order 94(a). Before the member for McEwen leaves, I just want to see if he can withdraw the statement that he just said. I didn't hear what he said, but I'm going to ask him to come back and withdraw. Mr Rob Mitchell M3E Let the grown-ups talk! I withdraw. Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order. The member for McEwen will leave the chamber. The member for Casey is on thin ice—very thin ice. I'm going to continue with the minister's answer. Mr BURKE DYW It might help if I explain what's in the ad. The ad claims that the labour hire loophole is going to affect farms and therefore is going to affect prices at supermarkets. That's the argument in the ad. I thought, 'Well, hang on; the labour hire loophole only applies if you have an enterprise agreement.' How many farms in Australia have an enterprise agreement where this loophole could possibly be used? Certainly there are some, but, to work it out as a percentage of the industry, I went to the regulatory impact statement that was prepared independently for the bill. I'll admit here that there are rounding errors, but, for the sector, where they say 'proportion of employees on enterprise agreements'—so there'll be a rounding error here; it's only to the nearest one-tenth of one per cent—the figure is 0.0 per cent. So I thought, 'What could it be that they're opposed to in the bill, if they're not affected by the one that's in the ad?' It's not exactly gig economy work. So many of the casuals are itinerant; they'd never qualify for the casuals exemption. But there is one part the bill closes down that is a real problem in agriculture, and it is wage theft. That is the measure most relevant. Take cases of people like Kate, who was paid $4 an hour to pick oranges and who went dumpster diving to get food at the back of a Coles because she wasn't earning enough money. Mr Littleproud 265585 You've opened up union thugs going to farms! The SPEAKER 53517 The Leader of the Nationals will cease interjecting immediately. Mr BURKE DYW Talk to the ombudsman who found the mango farm, where, out of 12 workers, four were paid nothing and the others were paid as little as $2.68 an hour. They are affected, but the ads are dishonest. (Time expired) Mr McCormack 219646 And they preach it three times a day, every day! The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Riverina, I want you to be quiet. The Leader of the Opposition has the call. MOTIONS 62 MOTIONS Aviation Industry 62 15:01 Mr DUTTON 00AKI Dickson I seek leave to move the following motion: That the House: (1) expresses its concern that this Government appears to have done a sweetheart deal with Qantas Airways, to block the application for additional flights to and from Australia by Qatar Airways; (2) notes that the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development has: (a) failed to give any clear or consistent explanation for this decision; (b) offered up to nine different explanations; and (c) shown she has a selective memory being somehow unable to recall any details of discussing this matter with Qantas, the principal financial beneficiary of her decision, even though she does have recall of other meetings she had over this matter; (3) condemns the Albanese Government for decreasing competition in the aviation market and increasing air travel prices for Australian families; (4) reminds the Albanese Government that it promised before and after the last election to be transparent and honest with the Australian people; and (5) further notes that the Albanese Government has clearly broken this promise with its efforts to avoid proper scrutiny in the House regarding its sweetheart deal with Qantas. Leave not granted. Mr DUTTON 00AKI I move: That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the Leader of the Opposition from moving the following motion forthwith— That the House: (1) expresses its concern that this Government appears to have done a sweetheart deal with Qantas Airways, to block the application for additional flights to and from Australia by Qatar Airways; (2) notes that the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development has: (a) failed to give any clear or consistent explanation for this decision; (b) offered up to nine different explanations; and (c) shown she has a selective memory being somehow unable to recall any details of discussing this matter with Qantas, the principal financial beneficiary of her decision, even though she does have recall of other meetings she had over this matter; (3) condemns the Albanese Government for decreasing competition in the aviation market and increasing air travel prices for Australian families; (4) reminds the Albanese Government that it promised before and after the last election to be transparent and honest with the Australian people; and (5) further notes that the Albanese Government has clearly broken this promise with its efforts to avoid proper scrutiny in the House regarding its sweetheart deal with Qantas. 15:04 Mr BURKE DYW Watson Under standing order 47(e), I'll require, given we effectively had this debate yesterday, that this be dealt with immediately after the MPI. Debate adjourned. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 63 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE National Disability Insurance Scheme 63 15:04 Dr MULINO 132880 Fraser My question is to the Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme. How does the minister respond to some of the fear campaigns being directed at NDIS participants by digital disability platforms like Mable? 15:04 Mr SHORTEN 00ATG Maribyrnong I thank the member for Fraser for his question. This goes to the issue of the industrial relations reform and the NDIS and misinformation. Just to set the scene for the House, there are 610,000 participants in the NDIS. There are about 325,000 workers in the sector. They're employed by a variety of ways—principally, enterprise agreements, awards, casuals. A relatively small number, about two per cent, are employed at any one time through NDIS provider platforms. An NDIS provider platform refers broadly to businesses who are online intermediaries connecting workers with participants. Some of the online providers—there are about 12—are registered. Some are not. Maple is a for-profit unregistered NDIS provider platform. It charges 17 per cent on every dollar transacted, 10 per cent from the worker and 7.95 per cent from the disabled person. Recently Maple has made some regrettable, arguably paranoid, comments to some NDIS participants about the new IR reforms. For me, the judgement about these reforms in terms of the NDIS starts with the principle that NDIS participants have a right to quality services and to safe services. Therefore, the industrial relations issues concerning people on these care work platforms are important. We need a fit-for-purpose industrial relations system to help the NDIS focus on participants receiving safe and high-quality services. In addition, disability workers should have quality careers, secure work, basic standards, and they should not be underpaid. However, in evidence given to the disability royal commission, in March this year, Dr Fiona Macdonald, of RMIT, said that there are concerns that the care work platforms are controlling labour, setting prices, disciplining workers while avoiding the risks and costs and responsibility of employment. The proposed changes go to the responsibility to maintain minimum standards for disability workers. Adhering to minimum standards builds quality workforces and secure workforces and ultimately delivers higher quality, safer services for people with disability. I hear daily from participants and their families about the need for high-quality services. But participants and families shouldn't have to choose between flexibility on one hand and quality on the other. The NDIS is driven by the principle of people being able to choose the service which best suits them. In a competitive market, service providers who deliver quality and flexible services will be absolutely attractive to NDIS participants. The IR legislation reforms do not change any of the above. There is a place in the NDIS market for digital platforms, and, in some cases, Australians with disability find them convenient. The IR reforms are not changing the form of engagement or the technology; they're just providing guardrails to protect workers. For me, this is ultimately a debate about the safety of participants. So, I say to Maple: loopholes are not a business model in the NDIS. Intermediaries between providers and participants shouldn't be able to cherrypick the bits of the law they like and the bits they don't like. The SPEAKER 53517 The member's time has concluded. Housing 64 15:07 Dr HAINES 282335 Indi My question is to the housing minister. I acknowledge the government's commitments of $500 million to the Housing Support program, $2 billion for the Social Housing Accelerator and $3 billion through the new homes bonus. But, despite one in three Australians living outside a major city, not one of these announcements is dedicated to funding housing in regional, rural or remote Australia. Why won't this government guarantee funding for dedicated housing supply in regional Australia? 15:08 Ms COLLINS HWM Franklin I thank the member for Indi for her question. The member for Indi and I have had many conversations about how important it is to make sure that regional Australia does get its fair share of housing. Whether they be regional towns, regional centres or regional cities, we hear very frequently that there are housing shortages, and it is particularly impacting businesses that can get workers, because there's nowhere for them to live, and particularly key workers in essential services—nurses, doctors, police. They have nowhere to live in these regional towns. So we understand how critical it is. Indeed, we understand how critical it is across the country but particularly in those regional towns with the impact it's having. That's why, of course, we brought forward our Regional First Home Buyer Guarantee. I'm pleased to update the member that 9,000 people in regional Australia have now bought their first home because we brought forward that program. We now have over 9,000 Australians in their own home because of that. I also want to reassure the member that, when it comes to the Housing Accord, the 10,000 affordable homes that the Commonwealth are committed to, we have taken steps to ensure that each state and territory and, indeed, regional and rural Australia gets its fair share of homes from the Housing Accord. The SPEAKER 53517 The minister will pause so I can hear the point of order from the member for Hume. Mr Taylor 231027 on relevance—why isn't the minister delivering housing in the heart of regional Australia? The SPEAKER 53517 I'll hear from the Leader of the House. Mr Burke DYW On a point of order, I think it's important that a penalty under standing orders is taken as a penalty. What we saw just then was an agreement between the member for Hume and the Leader of the Opposition to try to control this so that he doesn't have to give a speech. The SPEAKER 53517 Resume your seat. Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 The Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the House will both resume your seats. Resume your seats. Just resume your seat for a moment. Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! Members on my right will cease interjecting. So will on members on my left. The member for Hume raised a point of order. I called the Leader of the House on that point of order, and he better get to his point of order. Mr Burke DYW Under 96(a), I suggest the member for Hume, in the interests of the House and the order of the House, should be allowed to stay in the chamber! Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! Mr Taylor 231027 What are you hiding from? Why won't you deliver housing? The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The member for Hume, because I'm feeling generous and it's been a big week, will cease interjecting. I give the call to the Minister for Housing, Homelessness and Small Business. Ms COLLINS HWM I would say the member for Indi and many other people in this room actually care about regional Australia and housing and actually want to hear this answer, unlike those opposite. We're going to make sure—and I reiterate our commitment— Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The minister will come to her conclusion of the answer. Ms COLLINS HWM I reiterate our commitment that, under the Housing Australia Future Fund, the 30,000 houses will be going to regional and rural Australia in their fair share as well as, of course, around the rest of the country, and each state and territory will get their fair share. Mr Marles HWQ Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper. H onourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! Members on my right will cease interjecting. Order! The Treasurer will cease interjecting. I want to hear from the member for North Sydney in silence. She has indicated that she is seeking the call on indulgence. QUESTIONS TO THE SPEAKER 65 QUESTIONS TO THE SPEAKER Parliamentary Conduct 65 15:13 Ms TINK 300124 North Sydney I'm rising on indulgence in light of yesterday's events in this chamber to ask you to please provide some guidance around what is and what is not acceptable behaviour in this place to ensure we all feel safe, both in our seats as we sit here during debate but also after any vote has taken place. I ask this of you as someone who has worked in a number of different environments over the last 30 years, many of which have been male dominated and have involved participating in an environment where debate was essential to bring the best ideas out of everyone. However, yesterday's behaviour left me feeling like my senses had been assaulted by what I experienced as excessive and unconstructive noise and aggression being thrown around the room. Sadly, this is not the first time I've experienced that sensation during question time in this chamber. Some may argue that yesterday's was an exceptional circumstance, where the opposition chose to dissent from your ruling, as they were entitled to do so under our standing orders. But, be that as it may, once the dissenting motion was moved by the opposition, I believe the tone of the debate was overly aggressive and personalised, with numerous examples of condescending and offensive language designed, I believe, to intimidate others within this chamber. In any other professional environment this sort of behaviour would be completely unacceptable. As all in this place know, I stood yesterday to ask you to bring the chamber to order, and I thank you for doing that. If I could have, Mr Speaker, I would have left the chamber yesterday, but it is my understanding that, ironically, that is not acceptable behaviour. I then voted on the subsequent motions as I thought was appropriate, and it was following the votes that perhaps the most confronting experience took place, for me, personally, yesterday, with one particular member from the opposition, while returning to his seat, yelling aggressively at me, and at others on the crossbench. He aggressively challenged my voting decision, referring to the testimony I had provided two nights earlier to a procedure committee inquiry into standing orders, during which I had expressed a desire to see questions answered more directly. His tone was hostile and his body language was aggressive. To the best of my recollection, his words were: 'Well, where were you today, then, hey? You say you want clearer answers? Well, that was your chance. And where were you?' As he yelled this at me, he was shaking his head and looking at me in a way that I found to be aggressive, and, honestly, quite confronting. Had this been the first time I'd found myself the direct attention of this sort of behaviour, I may have brushed it off, but this follows a pattern I've experienced more than once since I entered this chamber. And I've noticed many other female colleagues have experienced this sort of treatment, particularly our member here in the front row, Angie Bell—sorry; member for Moncrieff—just as you expelled somebody from this chamber. As a member of this parliament, someone working here in this place, I do not feel proud of the way my workplace was represented yesterday. And, quite frankly, I did not feel safe. I've thought long and hard about asking this of you today, because I am mindful that, in speaking out, I might inflame rather than tame the situation. I came to this place wanting to speak for my community in what I consider to be the highest chamber in the land, and I did that because I believe this place should be a place of mutual respect, learned discussion and, dare I say it, a capacity to listen to each other. But, as evidenced in yesterday's display, I fear we are such a distance from that reality. This morning, many of us spoke in support of the legislation to establish the Parliamentary Workplace Support Service, and this legislation is to be welcomed. But, as I found out upon leaving the chamber yesterday and reaching out to it for advice and support, that body will not be able to reach into this chamber. So I ask of you today, Mr Speaker: how are we expected to behave in this place, and what responsibility do each of us bear to do better, today and every day hereafter? 15:17 The SPEAKER 53517 I thank the member. By any measure, this has been a combative week in the chamber. Such behaviour does not reflect well on the House or on any of us. It's expected that parliamentary debate will expose differences of opinion, but we have to find ways of engaging in debate that also maintain respectful behaviour. We are simply not meeting the standards we should be meeting. This requires change. Before question time, as members know, the House passed legislation through the parliament, which has gone to the Senate, that will help us build a safer and a more respectful parliamentary workplace. But the legislation is just words and pieces of paper, unless the House, all of us—unless we all act differently. I hope this means something to all of us. We must do better. DOCUMENTS 66 DOCUMENTS Presentation 66 15:18 Mr BURKE DYW Watson Speaker, these documents are tabled in accordance with the list circulated to honourable members earlier today. Full details of the documents will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings. MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE 66 MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE Economy 66 15:18 The SPEAKER 53517 I have received a letter from the honourable member for Hume proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: This Government driving Australia into a per capita recession. I call upon those honourable members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places. The mover of the MPI does not appear to be present. Members shall resume their seats. The MPI lapses for want of the mover. MOTIONS 66 MOTIONS Aviation Industry 66 15:19 Mr DUTTON 00AKI Dickson This government can duck and weave, it can try and pull tricky manoeuvres within this chamber, but, I tell you what, Mr Speaker, the Australian public is onto the Albanese government. The Australian public understands that this minister now has a serious credibility issue. There are now nine different positions taken by the minister in relation to a substantial matter in our country's interests, and there has been no consistency offered at all, including, I might say, in a train wreck of an interview this morning that was very telling in relation to the minister's own position. The minister provided the latest version of why she had rejected the application by Qatar Airways to bring additional capacity into Australia, which would reduce airfare prices for Australians travelling overseas but also help to reduce or bring downward pressure on domestic airline fares. When the minister made a reference to the abhorrent situation that was faced by Australian women at the Qatar airport, she used that as at the latest excuse for why she rejected the application by Qatar Airways to apply for additional routes to their network here in Australia. It doesn't take too long to contemplate why that is a flawed argument. The fact is that Qatar Airways already comes into Australia. If the minister is so aggrieved by the shocking conduct towards and treatment of those women in Qatar, why wouldn't she have stopped the Qatar Airways Group current exposure and usage of the routes here in Australia? If it was a credible argument put by the minister—her ninth position—why would she not have taken a decision to step back and say that, so egregious is the conduct of the Qatari government, or the Qatari people, in her judgement Qatar Airways should leave Australia's airspace. But she didn't do that, because that's not the reason why the minister took a decision in relation to these matters. It's obvious that there is a very close and personal relationship between the Prime Minister of this country, Mr Albanese, and Mr Alan Joyce, the outgoing CEO of Qantas Airways. Now, there are many things that you could say in relation to Qantas. If you read the online blogs, if you see the experiences Australians have had over the last couple of years, you can see very clearly what Australians are saying about Qantas Airways at the moment in relation to various activities that Qantas is undertaking. But it is clear that there was a financial gain for Qantas and for Mr Joyce personally out of the decision taken by the minister, who now says that, in contemplation of her decision, weighing up all of the facts for her to make an informed judgement, she can remember speaking with stakeholders who had lobbied her, including Virgin and a third party, who made representations on behalf of Qatar Airways. She has perfect recollection of that element, but she comes into this chamber and says, with a straight face, I might say, that she can't remember whether or not she discussed this matter with Qantas—with Mr Joyce or other senior executives or board members of Qantas Airways. It doesn't pass the pub test. It doesn't at all. This cosy relationship between the Prime Minister and Mr Joyce is something that needs further examination. We asked today a very simple question; in fact, we asked it three times: could the minister provide details to this House of the exact date that she advised the Prime Minister—because the Prime Minister has given a version of events which now doesn't make sense either. He's given it to this House and he's given it to the Australian public. Even though the minister can recall the date on which she made the decision and she can recall every other date that is tangible and that is applicable to her decision-making and the public announcement that she made, she comes in here and says, 'I can't recall. I don't know the exact date that I advised the Prime Minister and/or his office in relation to this decision.' There are ministers in this government who, when in opposition, made a very significant issue around transparency, and that was one of the hallmarks of the Albanese leadership when he took control of the Labor Party. There are independent members of this chamber who have made a virtue of transparency and accountability, and, to their great credit, they've been consistent in relation to that. They, too, should join this debate and ask this Prime Minister for detail—detail that his minister will not provide. That's the reality of the situation that we're provided with at the moment: we have a minister who is not being honest with the Australian public. What happened is this murky deal—this sweetheart deal—was done between government and Qantas to exclude Qatar from coming in and reducing airfares, which would have resulted from that. Just think about where we're at. This deal is a sweetheart deal. It is a murky deal that needs to be understood by the Australian public. We've had the Assistant Treasurer and other ministers go out with different versions of events. It was about competition; it wasn't about competition. It was about the treatment of the women at the Qatar airport; it wasn't about that. There are many other versions that have been given by this minister and other ministers, but it doesn't add up, and the Australian public can smell a rat here. I think this chamber deserves honesty from the minister, but we are not getting it. The selective memory—the way in which some details can be recalled and some details can't—is, again, not acceptable. The minister didn't come in here and say, 'Look, I don't have my diary with me. I haven't had a chance to check with my department. I haven't looked at the records of conversation in my office. I'll take it on notice,' as ministers have always done in this chamber, where they've been able to provide the detail. There was no sincerity in what the minister was saying. Instead, the minister stood in this parliament today and gave a version of events to the Australian public and the Australian parliament which doesn't pass the pub test. There's nothing this minister is saying that adds up. It is at odds with what the Prime Minister is saying. We know that this Prime Minister has a relationship with the former CEO of Qantas Airways. They have been happy to be photographed at every red-carpet event. At every top-end-of-town event, there's been the Prime Minister alongside Alan Joyce. Now they can't even mention his name. Why? If you have a decision that has been made in our country's best interests, why not detail it so that your decision can be understood and agreed with? But that's not what's happened, and this is not without consequence. As I say, Australians at the moment are facing huge cost-of-living pressures. We know that, because of decisions made by this government in two subsequent budgets, we've got higher interest rates, we've got higher inflation and people are getting less for what they're paying at the checkout at the supermarket. They're paying more for every cost-of-living line item in their budget. When they go overseas to see family, when they save up to go on a holiday overseas, when they go to Perth or fly to Melbourne, Sydney, Hobart or wherever it might be, they are paying more for their airfares under this government. We deserve to hear from the minister in an honest and transparent way, and that hasn't happened. This parliament rises this afternoon. The government has played all sorts of tricky tasks over the course of this week, but next week we will revisit this. (Time expired) The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 Is the motion seconded? 15:28 Mr FLETCHER L6B Bradfield I'm delighted to second this motion because, as the Leader of the Opposition has rightly pointed out, standing orders need to be suspended this afternoon because this minister needs to give a clear explanation to the Australian people of why the government took the decision it did to block the application for additional flights to and from Australia by Qatar Airways. We have seen from this minister a multiplicity of explanations. Every time she's under pressure she comes up with another explanation. It's quite extraordinary. But what we don't see is any consistency of explanation, and we don't see any principles of good administration being demonstrated by this government when it comes to setting aviation policy, fostering competition and assisting Australians by putting in place the right policies that will enhance competition, drive down prices and give Australians more choice. Australians are naturally asking the question: why on earth would it be that this minister would make such an extraordinary decision? That's why the opposition has been seeking the answers that the Australian people are entitled to know. What advice did the minister's department give her? What discussions did she have with her cabinet colleagues? Senator Farrell was asked about that this morning in the media and was unable to cast any light on the issue. What discussions did she have with the Prime Minister? What directions did the Prime Minister give her, if any, after one of his many engagements with Mr Joyce? Honourable members interjecting— Mr L6B Don't take my word for it. Look at the public record. Look at all the photographs of the two of them smiling together at various glittering events around the country. We are expected to believe that at none of these glittering events, apparently, did Mr Joyce just once whisper in the Prime Minister's ear, 'I'm not too keen on that Qatar application; that would be bad news for us.' The minister has been given, as indeed has the Prime Minister, every opportunity to explain to this chamber exactly what happened, but all that we have for the moment is an incredibly murky and rather inconsistent set of claims and the very limited eking out of information that has been provided to us. The minister today, being very cagey in her wording, tells us that the decision was taken on 10 July. We know, from what the Prime Minister was forced to admit when he had to come back into the parliament the other day and correct his answer, that as at 13 July she hadn't got around to telling him. How do we know that? Because he tells us that he had a conversation with the Virgin chief executive about this matter on 13 July. He said, 'During that discussion, I did not know that the transport minister had made a decision'. All we have heard from the minister today—the most she has been prepared to inform us—was that, by that point on 18 July when the matter became public, the Prime Minister was aware of it. We don't know how he became aware. It's perfectly possible, on what we have been told, that he became aware when he saw it in the newspaper. Australians might well ask: is this how you competently run a government? Is this how you professionally administer the affairs of this nation in the interests of the Australian people? I think Australians might well be looking at this and saying it is more than evident that this is not a competent, well-organised, professionally-run government—quite the contrary. That is why this motion is so important. That is why standing orders need to be suspended. Let's be clear: fundamentally, this is about the interests of the Australian people. Under this government, everything is more expensive. That includes airfares. Typical airfares are up to 50 per cent higher than they were before the pandemic. What's this government doing about it? What it should be doing about it is fostering competition and taking every opportunity to increase the choices and the options that are available to the Australian people, because, let's be clear, for most people, when the flights are being cancelled and when the flights are very expensive, you don't have the option of dialling up a government jet and saying I don't need to worry about it. For most people, what you need, if you were to have the opportunity to travel, is airlines that are offering good services at good prices. That ought to be the public policy priority, you would think, of any capable and rational minister for infrastructure and transport. On the contrary, this minister has made a decision which is extraordinarily difficult to understand. It has been roundly criticised by the current chair of the ACCC, a former chair of the ACCC and, rightly so, the Australian people will be wondering what's going on. This motion is about giving them the explanation they deserve. (Time expired) 15:33 Mr BUTLER HWK Hindmarsh As the Deputy Leader of the Opposition points out, there is plenty of opportunity for this airline to increase their flights into Adelaide, if they chose to. There are plenty of rights to expand a range of other markets. But I just want to explain to some of the members who have only been here less than a decade what is actually happening here. What is happening is a government is permitting a debate on a suspension motion. For those who experienced life under the last several years of the former government, particularly under the prime ministership of the member for Cook, this will be an utter novelty to them. Time and time and time again, every time the former opposition, now the government, sought to suspend standing orders to have a debate, we know what happened. Every single time, there was a gag. There were a record number of gags preventing the opposition from having any opportunity to raise a suspension of standing orders. For those who haven't been here for more than 10 years, this is what is happening. It is called an actual debate over a suspension of standing orders moved by the Leader of the Opposition. It used to happen very regularly when we were last in government. The then Leader of the Opposition, the then member for Warringah, would raise one of these things every 24 hours or so, and every time the debate was allowed to flow. So this is a novelty. I am sure we are all enjoying it. I am certainly enjoying it. It's much better than just having chamber duty and going through my correspondence. At least the Manager of Opposition Business dipped his cap to some degree to the idea of a suspension, which is to argue in this chamber why standing orders and the usual business of the chamber should be suspended to deal with the subject matter of the motion that has been moved by the Leader of the Opposition. For those who, again, maybe haven't been here a very long time, this is quite an extraordinary circumstance. The Leader of the Opposition effectively marched the shadow Treasurer out of the chamber so that he was not able to deal with the matter of public importance that presumably he felt sincerely was a matter of public importance and had argued the case for in the opposition's tactics room. He decided not to seek the call to ask the Treasurer a question about GDP figures in spite of the fact that GDP figures were released this week. The Leader of the Opposition marched the shadow Treasurer out of the room. He wasn't quite a gazelle, like we all remember the former member for Sturt sprinting up the stairs one time, but it was a pretty extraordinary sight to see. It reminded us again of yesterday, when the Leader of the Opposition forced the member for Canning, who clearly wasn't prepared, to second the dissent motion in the chair and went from being the next leader to the former next leader. It just shows the level of ruthlessness of this Leader of the Opposition. Not only does he play politics with the government, not only does he play politics with the Australian people; he plays politics with his own frontbench colleagues. We were ready to have the matter of public importance debate. We all stood supporting the member for Hume, as we often do, and his intention to have a full-throated debate with the Treasurer of the country about the state of the economy. I have read the matter of public importance that the shadow Treasurer put before the parliament, and genuinely it is important. We on this side of the House understand, and I think some genuinely do on the other side as well, the pressures our economy is under and the degree to which those pressures are flowing right through Australian households and Australian businesses with the global inflation shock that swept through the world economy as we moved out of the emergency phase of the pandemic. It's an inflation shock that economies right around the world, including ours, are still coming to grips with. The degree of work we as the government have had to do on this side of the parliament, that the Reserve Bank has had to do and that businesses and households have had to do to deal with— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 Member for Farrer, are you seeking the call for a point of order? Ms Ley 00AMN It's a point of order on relevance. The minister at the dispatch box has not mentioned the suspension order once. I ask that he come back to the substance of the debate. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 That is untrue. Sit down. It is entirely relevant. If you want to start raising relevance in this debate, you could have been silent for the last two speakers. I am giving the call to the minister. Mr BUTLER HWK The Deputy Leader of the Opposition hasn't been here long, but this is a suspension debate, not a debate over the airline. If you win the suspension debate, you then get to debate the question of Qatar. This is a suspension debate. The point I am making is that what you are seeking to suspend is a debate about the state of our economy, a debate that the shadow Treasurer, to his credit, wanted to initiate about the state of the economy. The Leader of the Opposition's priority is not to talk about the economy, not to talk about cost of living, not to talk about the price of medicines and not to talk about the loopholes legislation. If this suspension motion wasn't being proceeded with and if the MPI had been canned by the Leader of the Opposition when the shadow Treasurer had been marched by him out of the chamber, we would be moving to the loopholes legislation, but apparently that is not of any particular importance. There has been no question of the minister on that legislation—lots of interjections but no questions of the minister on that legislation. It just goes to show the priorities of this Leader of the Opposition. His priority is not about having a discussion about the state of the economy, in a week where our GDP figures were released. No question from the shadow Treasurer to the Treasurer about GDP figures, seeking to press and probe what is good about the state of our economy right now and what the real pressures are—absolutely nothing. Finally, on Thursday afternoon, we thought we might have a debate about it—but, no, the Leader of the Opposition thinks it's more important to have a debate about the landing rights of a Middle Eastern airline located on the other side of the world. The only cost of living he is willing to talk about right now is international airfares. No debate about the price of medicines—a bit of cat-calling and yelling out, and encouragement of people up in the gallery, but no real debate about the price of medicines and what that means for households. No debate about the impact on energy prices of the legislation they opposed in December—the substantial relief against all the upward pressure caused by the global gas market on energy prices for households. Instead, it is this obsession by the other side with the landing rights of one Middle Eastern airline located on the other side of the world. Frankly, I think all of us and those who journey into question time have learned more than we ever thought we'd have to know about the arcane area of landing rights and the negotiations between different aviation authorities about that. As we have learned, this is not something particularly new to this minister or this government; this is something the former minister, the member for Riverina, had to traverse as well. He is a great bloke, much loved across the chamber, but it is an area that he's had to traverse just as much as anyone else. We are not going to support this suspension. We wanted a debate about the state of the economy. We wanted the shadow Treasurer to finally, this week, have his moment in the sun. Instead he was marched out of the chamber by the Leader of the Opposition, forced out with his tail between his legs, to have to humiliatingly fail to turn up to his own party. He sent the invitations out, ordered the booze and canapes, but failed to turn up to his own party where we could have a full-throated debate about the state of the economy. Okay, if they don't want to do that, let's get on with the debate about closing loopholes, about wage theft, about the impact of the gig economy on all those workers who have to undertake all those hours of work without basic protections just to make ends meet. But no—instead, this Leader of the Opposition wants to play politics with the landing rights of one Middle Eastern airline on the other side of the world. This is just an extraordinary display of this Leader of the Opposition's priorities. Nothing to say about cost of living, nothing to say about health policy—which is probably no surprise, given he was voted by doctors as the worst health minister in the 40-year history of Medicare. Instead, he just wants to go in to bat for the landing rights of one airline based on the other side of the planet. We will not be supporting this motion. If you're not willing to have a debate about the global economy, we'll deal with this suspension, we'll oppose it and, if the will of the parliament is not to accept it, we'll get on with debating the Fair Work legislation and closing loopholes. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 The time for this debate has expired. The SPEAKER 53517 The question is that the motion be agreed to.

The House divided. [15:48]
(The Speaker—Hon. Milton Dick)

 51 AYES Bell, A. M. Birrell, S. J. Boyce, C. E. Broadbent, R. E. Caldwell, C. M. Chester, D. J. Coleman, D. B. Coulton, M. M. (Teller) Dutton, P. C. Entsch, W. G. Fletcher, P. W. Gillespie, D. A. Goodenough, I. R. Hamilton, G. R. Hastie, A. W. Hawke, A. G. Hogan, K. J. Howarth, L. R. Joyce, B. T. G. Landry, M. L. Leeser, J. Ley, S. P. Littleproud, D. Marino, N. B. McCormack, M. F. McIntosh, M. I. McKenzie, Z. A. Morrison, S. J. O'Brien, E. L. O'Brien, L. S. Pasin, A. Pearce, G. B. Pike, H. J. Pitt, K. J. Price, M. L. Ramsey, R. E. (Teller) Sharkie, R. C. C. Stevens, J. Sukkar, M. S. Taylor, A. J. Tehan, D. T. Thompson, P. van Manen, A. J. Vasta, R. X. Wallace, A. B. Ware, J. L. Wilkie, A. D. Willcox, A. J. Wolahan, K. Wood, J. P. Young, T. J. 76 NOES Aly, A. Ananda-Rajah, M. Bandt, A. P. Bates, S. J. Bowen, C. E. Burke, A. S. Burnell, M. P. Burney, L. J. Burns, J. Butler, M. C. Byrnes, A. J. Chalmers, J. E. Chandler-Mather, M. Charlton, A. H. G. Chesters, L. M. Clare, J. D. Claydon, S. C. Coker, E. A. Collins, J. M. Conroy, P. M. Doyle, M. J. J. Dreyfus, M. A. Elliot, M. J. Fernando, C. Freelander, M. R. Garland, C. M. L. Georganas, S. Giles, A. J. Gorman, P. Gosling, L. J. Hill, J. C. Husic, E. N. Jones, S. P. Kearney, G. M. Keogh, M. J. Khalil, P. King, C. F. King, M. M. H. Lawrence, T. N. Laxale, J. A. A. Leigh, A. K. Lim, S. B. C. Marles, R. D. Mascarenhas, Z. F. A. McBain, K. L. McBride, E. M. Miller-Frost, L. J. Mitchell, B. K. Mulino, D. Murphy, P. J. Neumann, S. K. O'Neil, C. E. Payne, A. E. Phillips, F. E. Plibersek, T. J. Rae, S. T. Reid, G. J. Repacholi, D. P. Rishworth, A. L. Roberts, T. G. Rowland, M. A. Ryan, J. C. Scrymgour, M. R. Shorten, W. R. Sitou, S. Smith, D. P. B. (Teller) Stanley, A. M. (Teller) Swanson, M. J. Templeman, S. R. Thistlethwaite, M. J. Thwaites, K. L. Watson-Brown, E. Watts, T. G. Wells, A. S. Wilson, J. H. Zappia, A. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

 BILLS 72 BILLS Treasury Laws Amendment (2023 Law Improvement Package No. 1) Bill 2023 72

Treasury Laws Amendment (2023 Law Improvement Package No. 1) Bill 2023

Returned from Senate 72 Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes) Bill 2023 72

Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes) Bill 2023

Second Reading 72 15:52 Mr GO 74519 Perth RMAN (—) (): I was elected in 2022 to this place to get wages moving again, and the Albanese government was elected to this place to get wages moving again. That's because the Australian people had seen year on year on year what the deliberate policy of those opposite when they were in government to keep wages low was doing to their incomes and to their ability to ensure that they were getting what all Australians support, which is a fair day's pay for a fair day's work. That's what the set of workplace reforms in the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes) Bill 2023 is all about. It is about cracking down on the labour hire loophole that has been used by too many for too long to undercut the pay and conditions of hardworking Australians. It is about making sure that we finally criminalise wage theft, which takes money out of the pockets of people who are earning it and puts them in the incredibly difficult situation of having to go through very complex processes in order to get back the money that they themselves have earned. We seek to finally and properly define 'casual work', so that we remove the exploitation that casuals have been experiencing in workplaces, and I will go to some of those stories in a little while. We want to make sure that gig workers aren't being ripped off. We know that the gig economy has changed the nature of employment in this country, and, as many Australians choose to use services such as Uber, they want to know that the people who are delivering the services they're buying have fair industrial conditions, fair pay and the sorts of protections that Australians would expect when they are working in an Australian workplace, whatever the nature of that may be in 2023. I think it is important to note for this debate, because some of the commentary we have seen from those opposite has implied that somehow this whole proposal was a huge shock to them when it was announced that we would be introducing this legislation, that this policy was announced by those who are now in government when we were in opposition. It was announced more than two years ago, and we took these ideas to the Australian people. We put them out there for all to see. We were very transparent about our commitment to cracking down on the labour hire loophole, very transparent in our commitment to criminalising wage theft, very transparent about our desire to properly define casual work and very transparent about making sure that gig workers are not being ripped off when they're doing their work. As the minister has outlined, there has been extensive consultation on the precise design of these measures, including with business groups. But the most important consultation of all was that consultation we did with the Australian people when we went to the election, saying that this is exactly what we would do. In many areas, these are not radical changes—indeed, they are about making the current law work more effectively. I've heard all sorts of commentary from those opposite in terms of how they see this particular piece of legislation. They claim that they hate red tape, but they're very happy to tie that red tape up in little loopholes that allow wage theft. They are very happy to tie that red tape up in little loopholes that allow the exploitation of casuals, and they are very happy to tie that red tape up in ways that rip off gig workers. Like many in this place, I don't mind using UberEATS on a Friday night, but I want to know that the people who are working for Uber are being treated as any other worker in Australia should be treated—with respect and with fair pay and conditions. When it comes to the exploitation of casuals, we saw a debate in question time today about the exploitation that is happening and we have seen reports on people who work in the agriculture sector. My two-year-old loves raspberries, and, if she could, they would be all she eats. I want to know that the people who are picking those fruits that many Australians love and enjoy, including my two-year-old, are getting paid for a fair day's work and are not experiencing wage theft. Similarly, when it comes to closing labour hire loopholes, it is a really simple proposition, simply requiring an employer to pay rates that have already been negotiated and agreed to, or the rates of pay that have already been set for that work. When we talk about the employee-like reforms, we are simply requiring workers to have some minimum standards benchmarked against existing award rates when they are working in a way which is similar to employees. Again, we're making sure that people are not treated differently and that people are instead treated with dignity, fair wages and respect in the workplace. When it comes to our definition of casual, this will just clarify what was always intended for casual work. If you are working regular and predictable hours and you want to be permanent, you will have that pathway available to you. We're not defining the entirety of the employment relationship at the point at which someone is initially employed, but recognising that, over time, the nature of that relationship starts to become more like that of a permanent employment relationship, and so it should be recognised as such and employees who wish to have it should be given a pathway to permancy. This is about strengthening Australia's existing workplace relations framework and providing certainty, fairness and a level playing field for both businesses and workers. I want to go to what we saw in the impact analysis that was provided, again as referred to by the minister in question time today. The impact analysis goes to the question: what is the challenge that we are trying to address when it comes to casual workers? It acknowledges that some employees choose to be casual because of the benefit that it gives to them. But it also notes evidence in the impact analysis that is in front of this parliament, on the table right now, of some of the 'significant negative impacts of job insecurity that can come about from casual work'. It notes that it can contribute to poorer physical and mental health. It notes that it can result in some Australians being less able to afford medical care. The impact analysis notes that it can lead to difficulty in securing adequate and affordable housing, and the impact analysis notes the negative consequences of not being able to access paid sick leave, particularly when you're in a long-term employment relationship. It also references the review, which identified a range of problems with the current framework. It noted that there were some really problematic challenges that had come about from people who find themselves stuck in long-term casual employment, and these aren't just problems for the individual employees; the impact analysis notes the detrimental aspects of casual work, including the fact that it can often result in an incentive structure where people attend work while they are unwell. It can often result in people choosing not to take leave, which we would obviously all want them to do, to support the wonderful Australian tourism businesses and other things, because they have a fear about endangering their future employment. It notes the challenges of long-term casual employment resulting in people's inability to 'properly balance work, personal and caring responsibilities'. It notes that people who are in long-term casual employment where they've been unable to transfer into permanent employment experience last-minute changes to working hours and, equally, sudden loss of what had been, for sometime years at a time, regular work. Again, it results in people losing those opportunities around a career path. There's limited access to training, poorer health and safety outcomes, and there's the inability to secure a home loan or finance. I would have thought, for the party who are always lecturing about how important it is to help people buy a home, so much so that they want to raid people's superannuation to do it, that, when you've got a piece of legislation that will actually helps people get better-paid, secure jobs, jobs they're already doing, this is the sort of thing those opposite would want to support. We saw, again in the impact analysis, stories from people who do absolutely essential work, such as casual teachers. We saw Kristie, a full-time casual teacher. She's been a full-time casual teacher for six years. She notes: Teachers, with degree qualifications, are working day to day casual or on temporary contracts for literal YEARS on end, not knowing what we are doing from one day to the next. Hopefully we get a contract, and then we spend time fighting others for our jobs each year … The system we've got now is literally forcing the teachers who educate the next generation to fight it out for work, when we know we have a shortage of teachers in this country. Indeed, we want to make sure the kids in those classrooms are happy but also the teachers in those classrooms are happy. We see the comments that come from the National Foundation for Australian Women, which notes that the current statutory definition for casual 'licenses constructive impermanency and the downward pressure on wages'. That's the system we've got at the moment. Again, we see these stories time and time again, and it becomes clearer and clearer that we do indeed need change when it comes to our industrial relations system. This bill, the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes) Bill 2023, does deliver the change that is needed for so many. I'll go to the labour hire loophole in a bit more detail. On this side of the House, we recognise that there are legitimate uses for labour hire in providing surge and specialist workforces, and this bill does nothing to change that from being the case. But what we're really concerned about is the loophole which companies deliberately use in order to undercut the agreements that they've already made. They've agreed, through fair processes, through the existing legislation that has been in place for many, many years, on fair rates of pay for their workers made by an enterprise agreement, and then, despite having made an agreement, they undercut the agreement by bringing in a labour hire workforce that's paid less. When there's an agreement in law or honour, we have a general principle in this place that agreements should be kept. That's why this is a loophole that we have to close. And then we go onto gig workers. What we are seeing more and more and more often is that those who work in the gig economy are, indeed, in employee-like forms of work. That's why we're going to give power to the Fair Work Commission to ensure that it provides rights and protections for people in those employee-like forms of work, allowing it to better protect people in new forms of work from exploitation and dangerous working conditions. This will enable the Fair Work Commission to make orders for minimum standards for new forms of work such as gig work. We're not trying to turn people into employees where they don't want to be employees. Many gig workers enjoy the flexibility from using this technology, and that won't change either. But we do know there is a direct link between low rates of pay and safety. It leads to situations where workers take risks so that they can get more work because they're struggling to make ends meet. We can't continue to have a situation where 21st century technology platforms are resulting in people working in 19th century conditions. Just because someone is in the gig economy shouldn't mean they end up being paid less than they would have been if they were an employee. Time and time again we've seen stories like that of Lihong Wei, the widow of food delivery driver Xiaojun Chen, who died in Sydney. Lihong Wei has dedicated herself to fight for the rights of those who work in the gig economy. She has very generously shared her story of fighting for personal injury compensation for her family after her partner died some two years ago. We've had some five riders across various food delivery companies pass away in the last year or so while working in the gig economy. During COVID, we saw stories of outbreaks of COVID increase for those working in the gig economy. We've seen increases in injuries. And we've seen so many people struggle to make ends meet when they're relying on gig economy work. I'll finish by noting something that I started with, which is these reforms have been consulted on widely. They were taken to the Australian people. Indeed, as the minister noted in the West Australian just a week ago: The Government announced these policies when we were in Opposition two-and-a-half years ago and we took them to the Australian people last year. So, we consulted with the Australian people. We've spoken to a range of businesses. We've consulted with workers in the gig economy, casual workers, those on labour hire. We have a commitment to get this done. We made a promise to the workers who are seeing their pay packets shaved off because of these loopholes. We made a commitment to the Australian people we would get this done. We've brought the legislation into the parliament and it is just so, so disappointing that those opposite are not just seeking to express their views on this, but in the other place today we saw a deliberate attempt to slow down the progress of the parliament, to slow down the consideration of this legislation and preventing senators from considering this and preventing those who work in casual and labour hire from getting fair rates of pay. 16:08 Mr HOGAN 218019 Page There's no surprise about this. You always know that when the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations gets up and says that something is very modest, you can almost be assured that it's complete overreach. When he gets up and says things like he's consulted widely, you can almost be assured that he's under the direction of and mouthing solely the views of the union movement in whatever he happens to be talking about. So there are no surprises with this legislation, the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes) Bill 2023. This legislation is signed, sealed and financed by the Australian union movement. Everything that is in this legislation is by order of the people who fund the Labor Party, who pre-select the Labor Party and who choose who's pre-selected for the Labor Party. The one problem the Labor Party have is they are a one-dimensional party. Everyone on that side of politics is a union operative or has been a union operative. That's good. Unions are an important part of any society and any community. In the history of Australia, the unions have been a very important part of Australia's evolution and a very important part of our economy. But, that being said, they're not the be-all and end-all. Because of the one-dimensional structure of the Australian Labor Party, they are solely owned, financed and funded by the Australian union movement, and that's to their great detriment. The world has moved on from the days of capital versus labour, from the days where there were those two competing influences. Every employer and every business in this country knows their greatest asset is their staff, and people look after their staff. They want to look after their staff. We have an award movement, an award system, here that makes sure there are minimum rates of pay and minimum rates of things that happen within the workplace so people aren't abused or exploited. We know that. Those over there will go: 'Of course you're going to say this. You're never going to agree to this.' As the previous minister just said, he's disappointed in this and he's disappointed in the views of others. Well, don't take my view. I'm going to read out the opinions of some people who aren't in this chamber and who may have some interesting insights into this. Tania Constable, the CEO of the Minerals Council of Australia—let's look at the Minerals Council of Australia. They're looking after our mining industry. What do they do? Just a few minor things, like have hundreds of billions of dollars of the exports of this nation. That's what they represent. They represent the coal workers, the gas workers and the mining industries of this country. What's their spokesperson said? It's not me; it's not the bad Liberal and National parties. This is from the CEO of the Minerals Council of Australia: 'This is jeopardising the nation's future.' It's not me. This is Tania Constable representing the Minerals Council of Australia. She goes on: Let's not sugarcoat it. These industrial relations changes are some of the most extreme interventionist workplace changes that have ever been proposed in Australia. That's not me. That is the person who is representing all the mineral miners and those people in this country. Let's go on. I've got another one. It's from the CEO of the Business Council of Australia, Jennifer Westacott: This will only add confusion and costs, while limiting the opportunities for people to get jobs with the flexibility they need. That's not me. That's not from this side of the politics—those over there think we're all these horrible people—that's the Business Council of Australia. She represents the people who employ everyone. She represents the people who provide jobs in this country. Adding confusion and adding cost—that's all we need. Let's add a bit of cost to everything. Let's add confusion and cost to things right now, when we have a cost-of-living crisis. Let's add costs and confusion to the people who are generating jobs for people in Australia. Then we have this from Andrew McKellar, CEO of the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry. It's quite clever, the way the bill is called closing loopholes; that sounds like a good idea. This is what Andrew McKellar from the ACCI said: The only loophole this bad legislation is looking to close is that of plummeting union membership. That's the loophole that he sees. That's the view of the ACCI. Does that surprise us? No, because this is not actually motivated for the good of Australian workers and business. This is motivated to increase union membership because the unions fund every single person who sits on that side of the chamber. That's what this is about. It's nothing more complicated than that. Don't disguise it by saying this is good for workers and good for pay. This is only designed to get increased union membership across this country. They don't care if that makes things more expensive for business. They don't care if that makes the cost of living worse in this country or even makes unemployment high in this country. All they are concerned about is the percentage of union membership in this country. This legislation has one sole purpose, and that is to increase union membership in this country. That's it. I'll go on and I'll give you some more quotes. The Master Builders Association says: … the worst fears of the building community have been realised with the introduction of a radical omnibus industrial relations Bill that takes the sledgehammer to tradies right across the country. Why are they taking a sledgehammer to tradies? I'll tell you why they're taking a sledgehammer to tradies. The Labor Party would like to think they represent all the tradies out there—the plumbers, the electricians and all those workers in high-vis. Well, they don't. The vast majority of tradies don't belong to a union. They're small-business people who employ people, or they're tradies who work for a small-business operator. That's what they are. The Labor Party don't like them, because they're not unionised. So that's the person who represents the tradies in this country. Let's move on. Matthew Addison, from the Council of Small Business Organisations of Australia, said these changes would require every business to dedicate more resources, more time and more money to trying to understand and implement onerous new obligations. That's not me saying this; it's the person who represents small business across this country. Of course, those opposite don't like small business either. Small business doesn't fund the Labor Party. The unions don't like small business, because they're not members of a union, either. Again, this is not about the people who are in small business. It's not even about people who work for small business. It's about trying to get everyone to have a union membership, and that's it. The reason why people are quite concerned about this legislation—not just us but all the people I've just mentioned—is that it is unfortunately going to make Australia a less competitive country. It's going to make us a less productive country and a less prosperous country. Our standard of living, productivity and all these things will fall because of this legislation. With all due respect to the minister, he's doing his job. This minister is paid for by the union movement. He's the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, so his stakeholder consultation process is to speak to as many unions as he can. The more unions he speaks to, the wider his consultation; that's how he would measure that. So congratulations to him. He's certainly representing the movement that he works for and looks after. He's certainly paying the piper, but this will have many damaging and long-term consequences for our country. I want to stay for a moment and re-emphasise the biggest concern I have about this legislation. Besides the loss of productivity, the loss of efficiency and this being about higher union membership, the thing about this legislation that is going to really hurt and cause the biggest consequence is that it won't be good for employment and the flexibility of the workplace. The cost of people in the workplace is going to make employers very nervous. There will be certain people they would've employed that they won't employ. Very concerningly, it's going to put up the cost of living. That's the one true thing that the minister said. The minister himself said that, yes, this legislation will increase the cost of food and the cost of transport. He admitted that. He said it's going to increase the cost of living. This is terrible legislation, consulted on solely with the union movement. I'll finished by reiterating that this is disappointing but not surprising. The Labor Party have been speaking about this for a long time, over a decade, nearly two decades. They are a one-dimensional party. The unions have far too much control over the Labor Party and the Labor MPs. Labor MPs, as we know, are preselected, funded and sponsored by the unions, and many of them have previously been union delegates. This legislation is the result of a one-dimensional party. It is solely about increasing union membership in this country. It's going to make us a less productive and less competitive country with a higher cost of living, and I think it's going to be a very sad day when this legislation passes through this parliament. 16:19 Ms STANLEY 265990 Werriwa I rise to make my contribution to the debate on the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes) Bill 2023. Article 23 of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights deals with employment and workplaces. The article states: Everyone has the right to … just and favourable conditions of work. Article 23 then goes on to add: Everyone … has the right to equal pay for equal work— and 'just and favourable remuneration', and 'the right to form and join trade unions'. I know that scares those opposite, but it is there. Australia was one of only eight nations involved in the drafting of the declaration. Both HV Evatt and Fred Whitlam, the father of my predecessor in Werriwa, were actively involved in drafting the document. Importantly, Australia committed itself to the document at the earliest opportunity by being an original signatory in 1948. These points are important because the bill before us today adds further layers to our country's commitment to those original principles espoused all those years ago. Workplace rights are just that; they are rights. They are not just rights for some; they should be universal. And those rights need constant attention. This country has seen in recent years any number of attacks on workers and their rights. Who could forget Work Choices in 2005? Certainly not the workers of this country; their rights to collective bargaining and protection from unfair dismissal were severely threatened and curtailed. And certainly not the unions; their power to protect the rights of their members was similarly threatened to the point of extinction. Thankfully, the Australian public completely rejected the extremist Work Choices agenda. At the ensuing federal election in 2007, the then Prime Minister lost not only government but his seat. It was a devastating indictment of a leader in a government that went way too far. It was equally an emphatic demonstration that the Australian public want workplace protections. They want to be treated fairly and respectfully in the workplace. In short, they don't want to be ripped off. Those of us on this side of the chamber have always known this. Protecting the worker and their rights isn't something we pay lip service to. It isn't something we just note and then file away. On the contrary, it's something we passionately believe in. That's why I'm delighted to speak on this bill today. This bill, in a very real way, builds on the spirit and essence of article 23. Back then, just after the war, workplaces were very different. There weren't gig workers or a gig economy, and casual work was nowhere as common as it is now. So this bill is timely, the way all good legislation is—that is, it addresses very real and contemporary issues and the changes it seeks to bring forward are not radical. They are necessary and are changes that I think those who drafted article 23 would agree with. The legislation before the House today will implement the next tranche of industrial relations reform and implement the policies the Albanese government took to the last election—and you know what? We won that election. This legislation will strengthen workers' rights and ensure Australians can continue to seek well-paid and secure work. We've seen the continued rise of casualisation and whilst some employees enjoy the flexibility, this is not always the case. Many Australians are classified as casuals yet work the same number of hours as full-time employees but without job security and entitlements afforded to full-time employees. This bill will legislate a new, fair and objective definition of what it means to be a casual employee and provide workers with two pathways to change their status. The first is through the employee choice pathway that allows casual employees to notify their employer that they believe their status has changed. The second is through the existing casual conversion pathway, an obligation on large and medium-sized employers to assess all their casuals and offer them conversion if they have a regular work pattern and 12 months of service. Importantly, the changes are about choice—the choice for casual workers who work regular hours to convert to a more secure classification should they wish but also the choice to say no should they wish to stay casual. These new pathways require active and conscious decisions. No-one will be forced to convert. The new framework will support more Australians to move into secure work because they deserve to have certainty and entitlements that help them plan their lives. Employees will be able to seek reclassification under the new pathways six months from 1 July 2024 or 12 months from 1 July 2024 if they are employed by a small business. The second major reform in this bill relates to labour hire. Labour hire plays an important role in many industries, providing surge and specialist workforces. However, there is a glaring flaw in the current system, a loophole that undermines the pay and conditions of workers. That is the use of labour hire to undercut and undermine enterprise agreements between a workforce and their employer by using a labour hire workforce that is paid and entitled to less than current workers. It is a loophole that undermines workers and undermines the simple principle that workers should be paid the same amount for the same job. This is the loophole that this bill seeks to close. It empowers the Fair Work Commission to order that labour hire employees be paid the same wages as in an existing enterprise agreement covering their employer in circumstances which are fair and reasonable. From royal assent of this bill, employers, employees and unions can make applications to the Fair Work Commission for such an order to be made should they believe the circumstances are warranted. From 1 November 2024, the orders become enforceable. If you work the same job you should get the same pay as your colleagues. It's that simple. It's an extension of the fair and egalitarian society that we believe Australia is. The third major reform in this bill regulates to the gig economy. The gig economy has been on the rise for several years and, whilst it has brought with it flexibility for both consumers and workers, it has unfortunately lowered the workplace rights that many of us take for granted. The gig economy is part of our economy now and, as such, should be subject to the regulations that protect workers from both exploitation and harm. Since 2017, 14 workers have lost their lives in the transport gig economy and, unfortunately, that number may be a low estimate. Each worker has a right to be safe at work, to be able to come home safely at the end of the day, no matter what their employment status is. We know that there is a direct link between low rates of pay and safety. It leads to workers taking risks as they try to make ends meet. Workers in the gig economy, just like all workers, deserve minimum pay and conditions. Australia is not the US. We will not become a nation that forces our lowest paid in society to rely on tips to survive. The measures in this bill will strengthen the powers of the Fair Work Commission, giving them the ability to set minimum standards for employee-like independent contractors who work in the gig economy. It will allow employee-like collective agreements between employee-like workers to come to an agreement with digital labour platforms. It will protect workers against unfair deactivation and extend protections that already cover employees to cover employee-like workers. Workers in the gig economy deserve minimum standards, they deserve to get home safely and they deserve fair pay. This bill will also introduce similar measures in the road transport industry. Much like in the gig economy, workers in the transport industry are in a race to the bottom, creating an environment for unsafe and unsustainable practices. An environment that leads to unsafe work practices goes against the hard work of the thousands of workers who have fought for better conditions not just here in Australia but across the world. The Fair Work Commission will now be empowered to set a minimum standard in the road transport industry, a key measure proposed at last year's Jobs and Skills Summit. To ensure that the Fair Work Commission is adequately advised on minimum standards, an expert panel on the road transport industry will be established within the commission. It will be comprised of people with expertise and contractors or businesses that represent the road transport industry. Similar to the measures introduced for gig economy workers, a new collective agreement-making framework will be created, allowing workers to negotiate better pay and conditions. Eligible contractors will also gain protections against unfair contract terminations and can apply to the commission to seek a remedy. This bill also introduces an industrial manslaughter offence in the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 and increases penalties, because, again, being safe at work is a right. It is the expectation of all workplaces that they provide a safe work environment, and breaching work health and safety duties should carry serious and significant penalties. The new offence— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 I'm just going to need to interrupt. Debate interrupted. ADJOURNMENT 79 ADJOURNMENT Victoria: Forestry Industry 79 16:30 Mr CHESTER IPZ Gippsland I rise to raise my concerns with the illogical and reckless decision by the state Labor government in Victoria to ban the native hardwood timber industry in that state. This is a world-class and sustainable industry, which is being shut down without any due respect to the hardworking timber community families in my electorate, and they've been given less than six months notice that they'll be losing their jobs. Now, some of those opposite have suggested to me that this is the federal parliament and this is a state issue. I can understand, to some extent, why they would be arguing about why I would be raising this issue and involving the federal parliament in this debate. The reason I'm doing it, and the reason I'll continue to do it, is that this issue has both national and international implications. I stand here today out of sadness and frustration, and a fair level of disgust as well, that the communities of Victoria that rely on the hardwood timber industry have been treated so poorly. But I want the parliament to understand that it's not just about the communities in places like Gippsland who will be impacted. This Victorian ban will result in some very obvious implications for the rest of the nation. What we will see is the continued demand for hardwood in this country, and what that means is that Victoria will simply raid other states for their hardwood supply. Victoria will also go overseas to source timber from other countries, many of which have poorer environmental protocols than our own nation does. So, just as a matter of pure logic, this does not make sense. Three of the top five countries from which we currently import timber products into Australia are China, Malaysia and Indonesia. Now, I'm not going to stand here today and criticise those countries for their environmental protocols, but does anyone in this place really believe that those three countries have higher environmental standards than the Australian hardwood timber industry? No-one believes that to be true. So this issue has federal implications, and I want people to think about the national supply chain. A lot of people don't think about the national supply chain very much, because they just go to the grocery store and the food's on the shelves and they get the products and they go home. But think about the national supply chain. Products are shipped around our vast nation on hardwood pallets. It's not the sexiest industry in the world, I confess. Hardwood pallets underpin the national supply chain. These pallets are made from hardwood—some of them, in my electorate of Gippsland, and some in Dandenong in Victoria as well. When we have a shortage of pallets brought on by a supply problem with hardwood, it will impact food delivery. Now, if you're still sitting at home saying: 'Well, this doesn't bother me. It's not really going to impact on me at all,' then try this one. I remember, as a young boy, working for my dad, who was in the recycling business, and we ran out of hardwood pallets to return empty bottles to the Carlton & United Brewery. Guess what? Then we started running out of beer as well, because the pallets are used hundreds, if not thousands, of times, as part of the supply chain. If we don't have hardwood pallets—if we don't have hardwood timber coming from the Victorian industry—then you won't have food on your table and beer will not be distributed this Christmas. Surely, someone, now, is starting to understand the importance of the national supply chain and the importance of the hardwood timber industry. This is a social, environmental, economic and cultural disaster for my community, but it's a Dan-made disaster. It's a Dan-made disaster because Premier Dan Andrews has relied entirely on political science. There's no environmental science behind this at all. It's purely about the politics of this issue. And this Dan-made disaster is going to devastate country towns. I have come in here on several occasions and put this challenge: for a single Victorian Labor MP to come to my electorate and understand the industry, or even to show just a tiny ounce of courage and raise their concerns with the Premier on the course he's taking here in Victoria. What's also going to happen is that my community is going to be less safe because those skilled workers in the bush will not be there in the next bushfire, and their equipment won't be there either. So, at a time when people are being forced to leave the towns they love and families are struggling with the cost of living, we have the Premier of Victoria, with his political science, valuing Green preferences more than blue-collar votes. I want to encourage the House not to sleepwalk into this Dan-made disaster. Shapcott, Mr James (Jim), Wounded Heroes Australia 80 16:35 Mr NEUMANN HVO Blair I'd like to honour the founder of Wounded Heroes Australia, the late Jim Shapcott, who passed away on 20 August. My thoughts are with his wife of 63 years, Elise, and his children and grandchildren. Jim was deeply committed to Australian military personnel and veterans and the challenges faced by our defence families. He was commissioned as an Army officer in 1966 and retired in 1973 with the rank of captain. Jim would have a wry smile and a chuckle to think that a federal Labor MP was paying tribute to him in parliament. In his younger years, Jim was friend of neither the Labor Party nor the Liberal Party. He helped Lady Flo Bjelke-Petersen to launch her famous pumpkin scones, and helped with running two of her Senate campaigns. In 1975, he ran for the Country Party against Bill Hayden in Oxley. In 1970, he ran against Clem Jones and Don Cameron in Fadden. Jim even helped Lady Flo in the launch of her successful Senate campaigns and was a life-long supporter of conservative causes. Jim founded Wounded Heroes in 2007. He was approached by his former Army unit to provide a place where the families of deployed soldiers could meet and support each other. Jim helped to raise over $80,000, and a community centre was built at Enoggera. Just this May, Jim was on hand to open the brand new national headquarters for Wounded Heroes Australia at Bundamba in my electorate of Blair. The site also houses a veterans centre. At that event, Jim spoke to those assembled, as did Uncle Les Beckett, vice-president Julie Hall and president Martin Shaw. They were joined by one of the patrons of Wounded Heroes, ADF Chief of Joint Operations, Lieutenant General Greg Bilton AO CSC. Among Wounded Heroes patrons is the Speaker of the House. As Wounded Heroes President Martin Shaw said in May: Thanks to Jim's passion, Wounded Heroes Australia has grown to become the leading provider or 24/7 crisis support to prevent veteran suicide across Australia. As Jim always said, our veterans have sacrificed so much. It's our mission to help them. Wounded heroes Australia is proud to continue Jim's legacy. I'm proud to have known Jim Shapcott, and I discussed politics with him on many occasions—a very fine and decent man. Wounded Heroes Australia is now a national community organisation that supports Australian military personnel and their families. For 16 years, it's provided that kind of support. It's provided support for those deployed and wounded personnel and their families. In most cases, this is done through short-term emergency relief to personnel and their families. I have mentioned Martin Shaw and Julie Hall, but I especially want to mention the important work done by Sue Luxford, who was the driving force behind many Wounded Heroes' community activities. One is the Horses 4 Heroes equine healing program at Wacol, which helps current and former military personal. Equine healing has an important role to play for people experiencing mental health issues such as depression, anxiety or post-traumatic stress disorder. Horses 4 Heroes participants work through a range of practical interactions with horses. Participants connect very well. The majority of the financial assistance provided by Wounded Heroes is for those suffering panic attacks, PTSD and major depression. The work they do is extraordinary. They are supported by many local organisations, but they are in urgent need of funding as well. The rehabilitation programs they provide are really critical. The op shop is very, very important as well. The recovery process and the impacts on families are severe when people are suffering from anxiety, PTSD and mental health issues. That emergency funding and other assistance makes life easier and helps a family of a wounded veteran cope with the demanding set of new circumstances. Counselling for children, short-term financial aid, respite for a spouse and domestic assistance are some way that the families' challenges can be eased, and Wounded Heroes is on hand. Emergency, crisis and frontline services are what Wounded Heroes is all about. It is to Wounded Heroes that many other organisations, like RSL, turn. I call on the Albanese Labor government, which is currently considering delivering $20 million in a targeted funding program to improve veterans' and families' services, support and coordination, to support Wounded Heroes in my electorate and nationally. It's a terrific community organisation. Jim Shapcott's memory is honoured by its ongoing service to military families and veterans, and the 10,000 people who live in Ipswich and surrounds really value Wounded Heroes. I thank them for the great community service and for the love, affection and community support they provide for veterans and families in my electorate as well. Queensland: Resources Sector 81 16:40 Mr KATTER HX4 Kennedy We have done some national publicity recently, and we highlighted to the best of our ability that North Queensland, if it was a separate country, would be the wettest country on earth, wetter than Brazil. We have massive water assets, and we highlighted that we have the richest mineral provinces on earth in North Queensland. We have the North West Minerals Province, the vanadium deposits along the mid-west, the lithium deposits and the giant Chillagoe mineral province at the back of Cairns, which hasn't been touched. We have the richest mineral province on earth, we have the richest water province on earth, and the Queensland government doesn't allow us to touch either! The only water they've given out in 30 years they gave to two corporations with absentee landlords, and one is a foreign corporation. The only people who got any water were a foreign corporation and an absentee landlord company. I want to say to the ALP in Queensland that that dumb government gave a golden handshake worth tens of millions of dollars to the two biggest hitters for the National Party, now called the LNP, in Queensland. I'll give you the dimensions of how inappropriate, irresponsible and dumb the people who are running Queensland are. Having said that, the other issue is the mineral province. We are desperately short of copper. We have a $5,000 million copper and fertiliser industry that is dependent upon the copper industry. We are having to get the copper from Olympic Dam. I mean, Mount Isa is near the Gulf of Carpentaria in Queensland, and Olympic Dam is in South Australia. That is the desperation of it! When we looked at the resources—and there are major copper resources—the entire North West Minerals Province is covered by mining leases, mining lease applications or exploration permits—the entire area—so you're locked out. To give you an idea of who owns these resources, one of the major resources is owned by a person I spoke to, but I won't use the gentleman's name. I said, 'So what have you got up there?' He said, 'Copper, silver, lead, zinc.' I said, 'Yes, but what have you got, so how big is the resource?' He said, 'We don't worry about things like that. ' He doesn't worry about things like how much ore he's got in the ground! No, he doesn't. All he's doing is playing stock market games with his other bludging, blood-sucking mates who call themselves corporates. They've given the entire mineral province to these people. The great 'Red Ted' Theodore, the founder of the great Labor movement in this country, immediately on taking office in 1915, moved the 'use it or lose it' clause. The resources of Queensland will not be used as a play thing for the idle rich to play monopoly with each other, so he introduced use it or lose it. Every government in Queensland history has kept the legislation, use it or lose it. Now we haven't got that legislation, the entire field is locked up, we can't access any copper and the copper stream for Mount Isa Mines—and I won't hesitate to say it—is in great jeopardy. Five years ago, they announced the closure of the entire copper stream in Mount Isa, costing the Australian people—about $3,000 million a year was vanishing. I won't go into the extraordinary efforts that you yourself, Mr Speaker, went to, and you played a vital role in rescuing us, and we bought time—but all we bought was time. We have not bought the access to the copper that we need to keep that production facility going. The copper is there. I myself, of course, am an ex-mining man, and I know the copper is there, I can tell you. But you can't access it while there are people there. So 'use it or lose it' must be restored in Queensland. (Time expired) Population Growth 81 16:45 Mr ZAPPIA HWB Makin Our planet is heading towards a global sustainability crisis caused by a convergence of human actions, all of which impact on each other. Climate change, biodiversity loss, pollution, diminishing resources, pandemics, global wars and now artificial intelligence are individually and collectively raising anxiety and creating a worrying uncertainty about humanity's future. Climate change is already taking its toll on the environment, on human lives and on economies. July was the hottest month on record, and this year we have seen devastating heatwaves across Mediterranean countries, North America, China and South-East Asia; out-of-control fires in Canada, Europe and Hawaii; and destructive rains in India, Korea, Japan and China. Meanwhile, the loss of biodiversity and the extinction of living species, all of which are essential for a healthy planet, are reaching critical levels. The air, land and oceans are becoming increasingly polluted and even poisoned. Food shortages, often caused by climate change effects, are all too common. As I speak, nearly one billion people live with severe food shortage. Uncontrolled land-clearing continues, with 64 per cent of tropical rainforest, the lungs of the earth, now having disappeared or being under threat. Wars and internal conflicts, mostly arising from control of scarce resources, are elevating international security fears. Depleted fish stocks in the ocean are causing international friction. I can recall here in Australia a decade ago having to ban supertrawlers because of their destructive effects. The common denominator in all of those matters is rapid global population growth. In the past 70 years, the global population has increased from 2.5 billion to nearly eight billion. It is projected to increase by around another 25 per cent, to over 10 billion, in the next half-century. Population growth, more than any other contributing factor, adds to the difficulty of reaching climate change emission targets. However, population growth is encouraged by powerful global corporates, who profit from increased consumption. It is also supported by those governments who rely on population growth to grow their GDP in an effort to salvage their sinking economies. Population and economic growth always put more demand on our already stressed planet. Climate change and environmental degradation, both frequent topics of public discussion, are symptoms of an unsustainable population, yet global discussions about climate change continue to ignore population impacts. In the communique at the end of COP27 last year in Egypt, I found nothing about population growth. It is puzzling why sustainable population discussions get no traction. There are some views that the global population will likely plateau in around 50 years and then maybe begin to fall. That seems like a reasonable prediction, based on current trends. However, in the interim, if the current environmental trajectories continue, there is a real risk that environmental and climate change tipping points will be reached and irreversible damage will be done. Regrettably, as the population grows, so too do inequality, human trafficking, slavery, child exploitation, refugee numbers, mass migration and even pandemics, all in turn adding to demands on government and leading to a life of misery for more people. Interestingly, there are now calls for an Earth system treaty to manage the existential threats to civilisation. Global overpopulation is at the core of those threats, and, as with climate change, the issue requires a global response. Also as with climate change, as each year of inaction passes, the problems magnify, and future generations are left to deal with the multiple difficulties they have inherited because of the failures of today's leaders. Sensible, sustainable population policy is possible, and it should be a priority on the global agenda. Economy 82 16:50 Mr HAMILTON 291387 Groom There's never been a more important topic for MPs of any persuasion to consider than how best we work to avoid recession in our economy. I was the age of the kids up in the gallery when the last recession went through in the early nineties. I remember that period of instability. It was fascinating as a child to watch the debates at the time. It's what brought me into politics—the idea that something as big as this could be influenced by politicians here on the floor. But, as favourable as the memory of coming here is, the memories of back home are very different. I watched my parents really struggle through those years, not understanding what it means to have economic pressures applied to the household budget. It's only in hindsight you realise just how difficult it was for parents going through those times. My father was a builder and concreter at the time, and business just dried up—simple as that. There just wasn't work there. The demand fell away, and no matter how good he was, no matter how productive he was, there just wasn't the ability for him to contribute and to bring money home. It was a formative experience of mine and one that shapes my political beliefs. I'm sure for many people of my age who stand here it is something we remember and we look back on. For me, it drives my beliefs on reward for effort, the need for small government and the reason small business deserves our fulsome support. The experience I had is probably similar to what is playing out across the country now. Although we're not in a recession, we're in a per capita recession, and that's got to feel exactly the same for those families out there who are feeling the brunt of this. It feels exactly the same. A per capita recession is the exact same feeling that we felt. The economic output per person is going backwards. That experience is playing out despite the promises made going into the last election, I want to point out, by the now government of cheaper mortgages, cheaper electricity and cheaper groceries. This experience is playing out across the economy. What's really difficult is thinking now: what's the difference? What is keeping us from that full-on recession? What is the magic thing that is stopping that word from being applied? It's immigration. That's it. It's immigration. We are relying upon a doubling of the immigration figures. Under the Morrison government, immigration was capped at 160,000 per year. We've got confirmation from the minister here we'll have 1.5 million new Australians joining us over the next five years, 300,000 a year—a near doubling—with expectations of that being more. To point out how tenuous a solution this is—this is the solution we have at the moment to keep us out of a recession—this is in the middle of the worst housing crisis on record, with record low supply. The heads of all the major four banks sat in front of the Economics Committee and agreed we have never had a worse situation when it comes to housing supply. In the middle of a per capita recession, what we're going to do is to flood the market with more demand. This is the incredibly unsustainable solution. Being a reasonable member, I fully acknowledge the need for immigration, proper immigration. We have benefited from it in Toowoomba. But it cannot be how we solve this problem. When you look at this problem in the context of a record drop in productivity, what is the broader solution we're seeing? We are seeing IR policies come forward. Even according to the Productivity Commission, when you take people off individual agreements and put them onto enterprise-level agreements, you reduce productivity. We've got record low productivity and then we've got IR legislation coming through that will drop that down further. In terms of investment to help us drive out of this, we've seen price caps in the energy sector that have driven away in droves further investment in our nation. What happens if we fail? What if we can't keep ourselves out of this? I keep going back to that generation of 25- to 29-year-olds right now who cannot save. Their money is going on rent, on groceries and on electricity. They cannot save. They cannot get onto the property ladder. Demand is about to spike like it has never done so before, and they are waving goodbye to any opportunity they have of getting on the property ladder. It's an absolute shame. Biodiversity, Housing 83 16:55 Ms TEMPLEMAN 181810 Macquarie Australia is the mammal extinction capital of the world. That's not something we should be proud of, but it's a legacy that we've been left with due to insufficient efforts to protect our precious native plants and animals. The Albanese government wants to leave nature better off for future generations, and that includes better protecting our precious native plants and animals. We're determined to turn things around and we're taking actions like setting a goal of zero new extinctions to give a clear signal that we want to save our threatened species. We're investing over $500 million to better protect threatened plants and animals and to tackle invasive species, and we're investing $200 million to clean up urban rivers and waterways, which are home to nearly a quarter of our threatened plants and half our threatened animals. I look forward to making a local announcement around that soon. We've launched the Threatened Species Action Plan, which sets out a pathway for threatened species conservation and recovery over the next 10 years. We've got a target of protecting and conserving at least 30 per cent of Australia's land and 30 per cent of our oceans by 2030. That's to restore habitat that these threatened species call home. So far we've protected an extra 40 million hectares of Australian ocean and bush. That is an area bigger than Germany. We're doubling the number of Indigenous rangers and investing in 10 new Indigenous protected areas. We've invested $1.2 billion to protect and restore the Great Barrier Reef, which should be there for future generations. We're rescuing the Murray-Darling Basin Plan, and we're tripling the size of the Macquarie Island Marine Park to better protect things like the penguins, albatross and seals that live there. We are seeking people's input on a plan to declare war on feral cats. We have opened consultation on a new action plan to stop feral cats from decimating native wildlife and driving vulnerable native species to the brink of extinction. We know that cats kill two billion reptiles, birds and mammals every year. That's almost six million every night. In places like the Blue Mountains and Hawkesbury, many responsible domestic cat owners do the right thing. We're not talking domestic cats here; we're talking those feral ones. The plan is available for public consultation until December, and I urge you to take a look at it. No-one will be surprised to hear me talk about koalas as one of the key threatened species in my electorate. It is incumbent on every level of government to work on protections for our koala population. It is very concerning to learn that data on wildlife has gone missing because that makes it harder in New South Wales to know what things have been going on, and I note that the environment minister in New South Wales was deeply concerned to find that out and is working on it. I also want to urge our local councils to not use codes to clear bush that should be there for koala habitat, to not find dodgy ways around things and to not allow developers to do that, because the habitat we have—the koala habitat in the Hawkesbury—is absolutely crucial. Every day at the moment I'm seeing videos on Facebook and social media because koalas are out and active. The young ones are being kicked out of their mums' area, and it's coming into breeding season and they're going walkabout. We are very lucky in the Hawkesbury to have koalas in our backyards, and we need to keep it that way. I want to speak briefly about housing because it is an issue that troubles so many people. I'm going to focus on one part of it, and that is getting a better deal for renters. There are nearly a million renters in New South Wales, and, at the federal level, we're working with New South Wales to deliver a better deal for renters. It means trying to get nationally consistent policy to implement requirements so that there are genuine reasonable grounds when evictions occur. We want to work with the states so they move towards limiting rental increases to once a year, and we want to ensure that victims of domestic and family violence have the support they need to secure a safe and affordable home. We're also giving additional depreciation support so that people are encouraged to build more rental properties. These are the tangible things we're doing to make sure that renters are getting a fair deal. House adjourned at 17:00 NOTICES 84 NOTICES Presentation 84

Thursday, 7 September 2023

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Payne ) took the chair at 09:30.

 

CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS 86 CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS Climate Change 86 09:30 Dr RYAN 297660 Kooyong I rise to speak on behalf of the people of Kooyong, to share their concerns about the federal government's continued approval of new fossil fuel projects. Recently, I've received more than 100 emails from constituents extremely concerned about the billions of tonnes of climate change emissions arising from the Burrup Hub. Woodside plans to extend two key components of its massive LNG megaproject, Burrup Hub, off the coast of Western Australia. The Minister for the Environment and Water will soon consider these proposals: the extension of the North West Shelf onshore gas processing facility, out to 2070, and the development of the Browse offshore gas field. Scientist Peter Newman, from Curtin University, has observed: The world is going to look at this and say this is the biggest global contribution to climate change in the history of Australia that is about to be approved. Everything else we're doing fades away in comparison. The International Energy Agency categorically stated, in May 2021, that no new oil or gas projects can be compatible with our agreed goal of restricting global warming to 1.5 degrees. Development of these gas fields would be in direct contradiction with our obligations to urgently reduce emissions and work towards a net zero future. It's not just the emissions. Industrial noise, oil spills, toxic water discharge, light pollution and heavy shipping from gas fields and processing facilities will endanger marine life. This expansion is also highly likely to impact Australia's western coral reefs and threaten breeding and nesting habitat for threatened species such as the ancient turtles, not to mention the potential threat to the Murujuga rock art through chemical emissions—a threat which has been acknowledged by the Western Australian Environmental Protection Agency. Today, on Threatened Species Day, I note that the billions of tonnes of emissions from the Burrup Hub will most certainly have a significant and detrimental effect on the sea turtles and whales that inhabit the Scott and Mermaid reefs. As was highlighted in the recent State of the environment report, the need for action to protect our plants, animals and ecosystems from extinction has never been greater. The science is clear. For the sake of our climate, the biodiversity of our oceans and the preservation of threatened species, I implore the minister to stop expansion of the Burrup Hub and to honour her own Threatened species action plan: towards zero extinctions. Saratoga Oval 86 09:33 Dr REID 300126 Robertson On the Central Coast, we are privileged to have some outstanding sporting and recreation facilities. Unfortunately, there have been some facilities in my community that have gone overlooked for too long. They have fallen into disrepair or are not being appreciated for the potential that they have. Saratoga Oval is one of them. Saratoga Oval sits on the breathtaking and spectacular Brisbane Water. It is a recreation space that is beloved by its community and by residents in Saratoga, Davistown, Yattalunga and from all over the Central Coast. People enjoy and love coming to visit Saratoga Oval and know that it can be so much better. I recently met with several community stakeholders who use Saratoga Oval regularly. However, they are experiencing issues with this community space which are inhibiting use, access and enjoyment of the oval's facilities. For example, the Saratoga Hawks cannot use or play on the oval after rainfall because of lack of drainage. Similarly, the Kincumber Avoca Cricket Club cannot use Saratoga Oval after rainfall, and they have concerns about infrastructure constraints. The Central Coast is a growing urban population, and, with this increase, infrastructure should and must keep pace. That brings me to my next point. Community members from the 3 Villages Community Group have also raised concerns about the absence of playgrounds, pathways, landscaping and infrastructure to support visitors while using the oval. One member of this group penned an impassioned letter to me about the need for a recreation space like what is available in other areas. They mentioned that after a recent family road trip through the New South Wales countryside, they were amazed at the parks that were available in much smaller communities across the state. They said that a region like the Central Coast surely can and must do better and that we deserve the same quality infrastructure. I agree—Saratoga Oval can be better, and we should make it better. Following on from my meeting, and after speaking with many others, I've committed to establishing a community petition calling on all levels of government to upgrade the Saratoga Oval. I am pleased to update the parliament and this chamber that this petition has been very successful and quantifies the level of support for this upgrade. Almost 600 people have taken the time to complete my community petition, and I wish to thank all of those signatories for their support. I know that we can keep the momentum going and reach more than a thousand signatures. I encourage anyone who has not signed the petition to please do so—the greater the number of signatures we have, the stronger the campaign. Let us show how much our community on the Central Coast deserves Saratoga Oval to be upgraded. Moore Electorate: Roads 87 09:36 Mr 74046 Moore GOODENOUGH (—) (): Today marks the 10th anniversary of my election as the member for Moore. During this time, I have successfully delivered major road funding for the extension and widening of the Mitchell Freeway through the electorate and improved east-west road access by the construction of traffic bridges at Joondalup Drive and Ocean Reef Road. However, the job is still not done, and now is not the time to rest on one's laurels. I look forward to working with the City of Joondalup at the Joondalup Business Association to secure the necessary road infrastructure funding to facilitate the future development of the northern part of Joondalup city centre. We need to plan ahead for the future infrastructure needs brought about by population growth and the development of our regional city centre to add vibrancy. At present, Shenton Avenue is one of the major access roads connecting the Mitchell Freeway and the Joondalup city centre. At peak times, Shenton Avenue is at full capacity as vehicles queue at the congested intersection of Shenton Avenue and Joondalup Drive seeking access to Lake Joondalup Baptist College during school drop-off times, the Winton Road business park, Lakeside Joondalup shopping centre, Grand Boulevard and the Joondalup hospital. Traffic engineers are considering plans to add extra lanes to Shenton Avenue, which will require widening the bridge over the railway line to accommodate increased volumes of traffic seeking to access Joondalup CBD. Alternative access routes are also required to more evenly distribute traffic flows into Joondalup from the Mitchell Freeway. At present, Moore Drive is the only major east-west road with no connection with the Mitchell Freeway. Federal road funding is required to construct entry and off-ramps at Moore Drive onto and from the Mitchell Freeway to improve northern access to our major sporting facility at HBF Arena Joondalup, Lake Joondalup Baptist College, the residential areas of Currambine and Joondalup and Joondalup hospital, and facilitate future development of more than 10 hectares of vacant land in the northern precinct. The construction of a roundabout at the intersection of Joondalup Drive and Lakeside Drive will also open up access to Joondalup hospital and the Joondalup Learning Precinct from the north, allowing residents exiting Joondalup city north to turn right more easily onto Joondalup Drive, providing access to Wanneroo and the Mitchell Freeway via Burns Beach Road. Federal funding is essential to provide the necessary road infrastructure to facilitate the development of Joondalup city north. I call upon the Albanese government and the minister for infrastructure to provide the necessary funding in the upcoming federal budget. Sydney Electorate: Housing 87 09:39 Ms PLIBERSEK 83M Sydney I know that right around Australia many people are feeling the pain of rental increases, but my electorate is particularly affected. We have a large proportion of residents who are renters, and the rent jumps have been shocking. I've had conversations with people in my own electorate whose landlords have put the rent up 30 per cent to 50 per cent in one jump. It is incredible pressure, and it comes after a decade of undersupply of housing. We simply have not been building enough houses in Australia for the last decade, and we have to turn that around. We absolutely have to change that. There are some people who will tell you there's one simple answer to rent stress. Of course there's not. We need to do everything, everywhere, all at once if we want to tackle the housing affordability challenge we've got. We need to build more social housing. We need to strengthen renters' rights. We need to support private sector housing supply. We need to help young people enter the market. These are all things we are doing right now as a government. Once again, we are asking the Senate to pass the Housing Australia Future Fund. This is a key investment of $10 billion, the biggest single investment in social and affordable housing since I was a minister in the Rudd Labor government. It will deliver 30,000 new social and affordable rental homes within the first five years, including 4,000 homes for families fleeing domestic violence. If you support housing, if you support social justice, if you support emergency accommodation, you will support this bill. We need every tool at our disposal to address the problems we're facing. That's why we're also working with the states and territories to change our planning laws to see the delivery of 1.2 million homes over the next two years. It's why we've got $2 billion dedicated to the Social Housing Accelerator. We are increasing funding for NHFIC to make more funding available for community housing. Next year we're rolling out a help-to-buy shared equity scheme for 40,000 people, low- and middle-income families, to help them by their own home. It's why we've increased Commonwealth rent assistance by 15 per cent; this is the biggest increase in Commonwealth rent assistance for the last 15 years. We're working with National Cabinet to increase renters' rights right around Australia. We're expanding tax incentives for build-to-rent projects. We're providing the states with $1.7 billion this year for housing and homelessness services as we work with them on a longer-term plan for housing and homelessness. The best way to deal with housing issues is to build more homes. That's what we're doing. Energy 88 09:42 Dr GILLESPIE 72184 Lyne People in the Lyne electorate are now facing 20 to 30 per cent increases in their electricity bills. Around the National Electricity Market, electricity prices continue to rise regularly. All this is self-made harm on the back of really bad energy policy. The national energy market rules and the renewable energy targets that deliver continual subsidies for wind farms and solar panel farms, and the restrictive trade practices the National Electricity Market rules install, prevent coal-fired power stations from remaining economic. These rules have led to the closure of several big power stations, the latest being Liddell. Finally, there is someone who has grown up and deals in reality rather than models, and someone in the New South Wales government has realised that, if Eraring closes, New South Wales and the whole grid will probably collapse. It's not like a tree fell onto a wire, and there is a blackout in a suburb. When a grid collapses, you get Adelaide mark 2. We need to realise there is no-one in the world who is doing what Australia is doing. Our renewable energy plan for 43 per cent, let alone 82 per cent, reminds me of fairyland. I know people are in love with the concept of renewables but they are very dilute, intermittent, low-energy density forms of energy. They are weather dependent; they're not available all around the clock. You are putting 10 times more minerals into solar panels and batteries which don't generate anything. They consume way too much of our precious minerals on this earth. People have got to realise we need high-energy density to have an industrial system. If we have a dilute and intermittent energy system, we won't be able to have energy the way we do. Cities won't operate. Data centres will need their own independent energy sources. Your charging relies on a grid with a lot of energy. The trouble with too many renewables means all the plans go out the window, because you have to charge the batteries. The cost of it is ridiculous. Princeton University did their repowering America for 2050 plan. They've done that with Melbourne University and Queensland University, and we've got repowering Australia. It's only going to cost $7 trillion! McEwen, Mr Mark 88 09:45 Ms RISHWORTH HWA Kingston It is with great sadness that I rise today to speak about the passing of a much loved member of my community and an extraordinary contributor to the South Australia labour movement, Mark McEwen. Mark passed away suddenly and very sadly last month at just 73 years of age. First and foremost, Mark was a loving husband to Josie, a loving father of Chris and Kate, and a very proud grandfather of Mimi and Catalina. In his working life, Mark was a signwriter for the Adelaide City Council for almost 40 years. He was also an active member of the CFMEU and a passionate advocate for workers. He achieved significant change for council workers through his union activities. Mark was key to bringing unions together to negotiate an EBA for council staff. I'm told he was always the brains and strategist behind the negotiations between the union and the council. Mark believed in the importance of core protections for workers, and his advocacy was instrumental in securing an extra one per cent in superannuation for council workers. Mark's membership with the CFMEU continued on for 52 years, including an incredible 30 years of service on the state branch committee of management. But Mark's love for the union movement did not stop when he retired. He was also an active and motivated member of the Retired Unionist Network of South Australia. He would encourage others to get involved and regularly organise events, rallies and protests. Not surprisingly, Mark was also a true believer in the Labor Party, its values and its plans. Mark was also ahead of his time. Mark was a passionate supporter of the Indigenous Voice to Parliament and a strong advocate of improving outcomes for Indigenous Australians long before the Voice became a commitment of this government. For a time, Mark was raising motions about supporting the Uluru Statement from the Heart at every FEC meeting, until the office bearers reminded him it was actually against the rules to submit the same motion over and over again. He was extremely committed to his causes and generous with his time. Mark was always one of the first to answer the call for volunteering for the Labor Party. He would invariably pick up more than his fair share of letterboxing, and he was also keen to hit the doors and speak with voters about the Labor Party's progressive ideas. In a true indication of Mark's commitment, and also the unfairness of his passing, Mark was out only two weekends before he died doorknocking for the 'yes' campaign. With Mark's passing, the union movement, the Labor Party and the southern suburbs of Adelaide, as well as his friends and family, have experienced a great loss. Vale, Mark McEwan. Diffuse Intrinsic Pontine Glioma 89 09:48 Mr ROBERT HWT Fadden September is Childhood Cancer Awareness Month, and I rise today to speak about the most deadly and aggressive of all childhood cancers, diffuse intrinsic pontine glioma, which is known as DIPG. It is a rare and fast-growing brain tumour that affects the part of the child's brain responsible for vital functions like breathing, sleeping, bladder control and balance. It is one of the only cancers that still lacks an effective treatment. The average five-year survival rate of children with brain tumours is 74 per cent. However, for children with DIPG, it is isolated to a figure of less than two per cent. I have been touched by the tragic and heartbreaking story of a family from my electorate, Beau and Terry Kemp, who tragically lost their only son, Ryley, at just eight years of age. Beau describes her son as sweet, kind, funny and cheeky—a normal little boy. That was until their lives were turned upside down when Ryley was diagnosed with DIPG. Ryley bravely battled this awful disease for 14 months, but tragically passed away earlier this year. No family should have to witness their child endure this pain and suffering. The Kemp's story is truly harrowing, but sadly they are not alone. This is the heartbreaking reality for around 20 Australian children each year who are diagnosed with DIPG. That's why it is vital that funding is prioritised for research into this devastating disease. DIPG research has not received the attention and funding it warrants. Sadly, just $970,000 has been committed to medical research since 2015, just a fraction of what is required to unravel the mysteries of this deadly disease and save precious young lives. During my first week in parliament, I joined Beau and Terry, along with other affected families, in meeting with the shadow minister for health, Senator Anne Ruston. Sadly, the Labor Minister for Health and Aged Care, Mark Butler, was not willing to make time to meet these passionate families. These families are fighting to have their voices heard, to raise awareness and to receive their fair share of funding for medical research, in the hope that fewer Australian children will have to suffer at the hands of this devastating disease. It should not be this hard. There is some amazing Australian-led research being conducted by Professor David Ziegler of the Children's Cancer Institute and Professor Matt Dun of the University of Newcastle, but unfortunately the government has not provided any funding support to advance this critical research. I make special mention of Professor Dun, who understands firsthand the devastation, having lost his daughter, Josephine, to DIPG in 2019. I commend the work of Professors Dun and Ziegler for their work and dedication to this, and I urge the government to dedicate the vital funding required to advance this critical research and bring us closer to a cure. Pearce Electorate: Community Organisations 89 09:52 Ms ROBERTS 157125 Pearce Today I proudly stand to celebrate the achievements and progress of clubs within my Pearce electorate. The support provided by the government through the Stronger Communities Program has proven instrumental in helping these clubs realise their goals, fostering inclusivity and strengthening our local community bonds. The Stronger Communities Program provides between $2,500 and $20,000 for not-for-profit community organisations and local governments to deliver small capital projects that deliver social benefits and boost local community participation. The Wanneroo Giants Baseball Club is located at the Kingsway Regional Sporting Complex. This fantastic club has displayed its commitment to inclusivity through its challenger program, which provides a platform for children with diverse abilities to participate in the joy of baseball. Recognising the challenges faced by children with mobility difficulties, the club has embarked on a mission to improve their accessibility. Their request for assistance will enable the creation of additional gate access points, allowing these young athletes to get onto the field with ease. This will not only foster direct engagement with the game but also facilitate interaction with their buddies, who provide unwavering support. These changes will uplift the experience for the players, the umpires and the ground crews and will also lay the foundations for increased community participation, empowering more wheelchair-bound children to participate in sports. I also recognise the wonderful Ridgewood Little Athletics Centre, which has five member clubs: the Butler Boomers, the Clarkson Cougars, the Mindarie Mustangs, the Quinns Rocks Sharks and the Yanchep Dolphins. A story of growth and aspiration, this club recognised the importance of upgrading its facilities, to upgrade its timing gates, computers for track events and advanced high jump mats to ensure the safety of its members. The club's dedication to safety and the development of our youth stands as a testament to their commitment to creating a stronger community. Further, I applaud the welcoming and inclusive Yanchep Sports Club, which has undergone a transformation in response to changing demographics. With the influx of young families into the region, the need for a safe and enjoyable space for children became apparent. The club embarked on a mission to not only accommodate the changing needs of the community but also encourage family engagement. The creation of a safe, enclosed area for youngsters to gather, play and learn fosters a strong sense of community and belonging. This integration enriches the club's offerings, strengthening connections and relationships within the community. It is heartening to witness these clubs leverage the support provided by the government to create lasting positive change while sowing the seeds of a stronger, more united society. In conclusion, I wish to recognise the remarkable dedication of club executives, committees, coaches and all who have worked hard to bring these visions to life. Peel Health Campus, Australian Constitution: Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice 90 09:55 Mr HASTIE 260805 Canning When we come to this place we represent our constituents, and that's why today I'll be expressing the disappointment of my constituents in the three state Labor MPs who represent our region in the WA state parliament: the member for Mandurah, David Templeman; the member for Dawesville, Lisa Munday; and the member for Murray-Wellington, Robyn Clarke. Over the last six months or so, I have been reflecting on their performance because they are failing our community. At the 2021 state election, our community trusted them to do one job. Each of these Labor members promised to upgrade the Peel Health Campus—our local hospital which services the Peel region. In the case of Mr Templeman and Ms Clarke, they have been telling us since 2017 that they will fix the Peel Health Campus, but they have not delivered on their promises. Instead of delivering the Peel Health Campus upgrades—up to $160 million worth—they have wasted time by making excuses for Labor's failed Aboriginal cultural heritage laws. This attack on property rights in WA has impacted many people: local councils, shires, small businesses, farmers and homeowners. In fact every Western Australian with more than 1,100 square metres of land was impacted by these laws. You needed a permit for activities such as clearing trees or building a fence line. Thousands of people in my electorate struggled with these laws. We had a big turnout—more than 250 people—a few months ago on a rainy winter's night to talk about this very issue. It's now over a month since Premier Roger Cook promised to scrap this legislation, but it's still on the books. What have David Templeman, Lisa Munday and Robyn Clarke been doing? They've been campaigning for the Voice to Parliament. Instead of delivering upgrades to our local hospital, instead of advocating to parliament and to their cabinet for funding and for speed of delivery, they've been trying to convince Western Australians to vote on the most radical change to our Constitution in 122 years. The Voice to Parliament, in the words of the WA Premier Roger Cook, does the same as thing as the Aboriginal cultural heritage laws. Last week Lisa Munday hosted the Attorney-General in the Dawesville electorate. By all accounts it was a sad affair because there is little enthusiasm for the division the Voice would bring to my community. Only a handful of locals went along, but these included a band of 'no' voters who, without any prompting from me, protested with their own home-made 'No' signs. You would think that the member for Dawesville would be proud to advertise a visit to our electorate of the nation's first legal officer, but it was nowhere to be found on her social media and was barely mentioned in her monthly newsletter. Our state Labor MPs have lost their focus. They were given a very specific task by our local community, which was to fix the Peel Health Campus and deliver the $160 million worth of upgrades. Instead they're focused on state issues like the Aboriginal cultural heritage laws, and now they're focusing on federal issues like the Voice to Parliament. They need to get back to delivering for the Peel region and for the people who sent them to parliament. Vocational Education and Training 90 09:58 Ms ROWLAND 159771 Greenway I've always believed that education is the great enabler. Good quality education transforms personal circumstances, allows us to provide for our families, fills skill shortages and contributes to long-term economic growth. The Albanese government believes that postcode and income shouldn't be a barrier to accessing these life-changing educational opportunities. That's why we promised that we would deliver 180,000 fee-free TAFE places to assist in upskilling the nation. This was at a time when our country was facing a serious skills shortage under the mismanagement of the former government. In fact, according to the National Skills Commission's 2022 skills priority list which was released last year, more than half of our largest-employing occupations were facing skills shortages. We knew we had to do something to get our economy back on track. Today I'm pleased to say that, since we made our fee-free TAFE promise in 2022, the Albanese government have not just delivered on our commitment to provide 180,000 fee-free TAFE places; we've reached over 214,000 enrolments so far. This means there are 214,000 fee-free TAFE places to educate our future construction workers, hospitality workers, IT workers, as well as health, disability, aged care and early education workers here in Greenway and beyond. And, of course, it means we can increase our sovereign capability in areas like manufacturing and defence. Fee-free training offers huge cost-of-living relief for students, grows the recruitment pool for businesses and eases the skill shortages that hold our economy back. Our commitment also promises to provide access to priority cohorts, including women, Indigenous Australians and those living with a disability. In the words of the Minister for Skills and Training, Brendan O'Connor: 'Fee-Free TAFE is the spark that is igniting a renewed sense of optimism and potential in our vocational education and training sector and I'm looking forward to building on our success.' With some 7,000 students already attending our Blacktown TAFE, I, too, look forward to seeing how this fantastic commitment benefits the good, hardworking people of north-west Sydney now and into the future. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 282237 In accordance with standing order 193, the time for members' constituency statements has concluded. MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS 91 MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS Homelessness 91 10:01 Ms MILLER-FROST 296272 Boothby On any given night, over 122,000 Australians are without a home. This is an increase of five per cent on the 2016 census. Of those, around 54,000, or 44 per cent, are female. Women account for 81 per cent of the increase in homelessness since 2016. There were 17,646 who were under 12 years of age and 11,302 who were aged 12 to 18. That's around 29,000 young people under the age of 18 who were homeless on census night in 2021, and we know that if you experience homelessness as a child you're much more likely to experience it as an adult as well. In my former life I was the co-chair of the Adelaide Zero Project from 2017 to 2021 and I had the honour of working with Baroness Louise Casey from the UK and Dr Nonie Brennan, the previous CEO of All Chicago, in their work for the Institute of Global Homelessness. This gave me fascinating insights into homelessness around the world and, specifically, what works and what doesn't work in a First World context. What works is 'housing first'. Keeping people on the streets while you make them fix their other problems that brought them into homelessness or that they've developed since being on the street just doesn't work. However, 'housing first' doesn't mean 'housing only'. It's important, when you put someone in a house, that they have the services in place to help them stabilise, resolve the issues that brought them into homelessness and resolve the issues that are a result of being on the streets. The Adelaide Zero Project was based on the sector working together cooperatively—the not-for-profits, the government agencies, such as Health, police, drug and alcohol services, and the local council. Agencies shared data, with consent, on the people experiencing homelessness, those sleeping rough in the CBD—their service needs and their housing needs. This ensured that we were using our resources effectively and efficiently. The resulting by-name list, a list of people sleeping rough in the Adelaide CBD, as well as enabling tailored service provision, provided important population-level data. Eighty-five per cent of participants on the by-name list reported having a medical condition, 15 per cent had two conditions and 11 per cent had three or more. It's not a healthy population. We know that, while some people become homeless as a result of medical conditions, sleeping rough is not good for your physical or mental health. Rough sleepers have an average life expectancy of around 50 years, and if you don't have mental illness when you go on the streets, you probably will have soon after. As a result of hypervigilance from never being sure if you're safe, poor sleep, poor food, never knowing if you're actually going to get a meal, exposure to the weather, the chances are that you'll develop depression and anxiety, not to mention the physical illnesses that come from that level of exposure. The health burden means that rough sleepers are frequent attendees at emergency departments. Dr Cameron Parsell from the University of Queensland did a costing on how much it costs us as a society to support someone living rough on the streets. Between homelessness services, health services, police, council et cetera, it costs $45,000 a year to support someone who is living on the streets, and that was 2016 stats. Putting someone into social housing with full support services—keeping in mind that not everybody needs full support services and, for many, the services are only short lived—costs $32,000 a year on average. So we can save $13,000 a year, per person, by doing the right thing by people who are homeless. It's not only good from a human rights and empathetic perspective; it's also good from a financial perspective. What is the answer to homelessness? Ultimately, housing ends homelessness—although, as I've mentioned, it needs to be housing with services. I'm pleased to see the Minister for Housing and Minister for Homelessness focus on the housing crisis generally, and also on the homelessness response. The renegotiation of the National Housing and Homelessness Agreement with the states, with a one-year extension to current funding to enable this to happen, is a really important step forward. The homelessness sector is keen for reform. They're keen to make sure they're providing the most effective services to end homelessness forever for each individual, and to work on preventing homelessness—to turn off the tap, so to speak. But they need their agreements and their funding from government to enable them to make that reform. Ultimately, housing supply—and supply of social housing, in particular—is a particular problem for ending homelessness. When someone is homeless, they're unlikely to be able to access any other form of housing other than social housing. The $2 billion Social Housing Accelerator will deliver $135 million for South Australia to boost social housing stock. The historic increase in Commonwealth rent assistance, which is the largest ever, will help people exiting homelessness to be able to pay rent in social or affordable rental properties. Working with the states to strengthen renters' rights, including minimum rental standards, and working towards ending no-cause evictions will also help people stabilise in properties. That's so because, even though people exiting homelessness are rarely in a position to move into affordable housing or purchase homes, the housing sector as a whole benefits from additional supply in any part of the sector. Relieving pressure in one area relieves pressure across the sector. The National Housing Accord, aiming for 1.2 million new homes, federal funding last year to deliver an extra 10,000 affordable homes across the country, the additional $575 million into NHFIC's National Housing Infrastructure Facility, and the Home Guarantee Scheme—which has helped more than 67,000 people across the country into homes since the election—are all making a difference not only to the housing crisis but also, specifically, to homelessness. I'm personally looking forward to the Help to Buy scheme. We've had a shared equity scheme in South Australia, along similar lines, operating for 30 years through HomeStart. For many people exiting homelessness after a few years in social housing, this is a viable pathway into homeownership. We know that owning your home is a great safeguard against future homelessness. Finally, the Housing Australia Future Fund is still being held up in the Senate by the Greens, Liberals, Nationals and One Nation. I recently visited Housing Choices Australia in Adelaide and saw their plans to redevelop a city block in Adelaide for their new facility for Catherine House women's homelessness service, together with additional social housing. Catherine House, where I used to work, does a fantastic job helping women find a pathway out of homelessness, but their current properties are ageing and are not fit for purpose. This proposed combined facility, with social housing on site, will enable them to provide step-down support to women as they move from homelessness through social housing and then, hopefully, into private rental. I was told that these plans are ready to go, and they're awaiting the HAFF for funding. The community housing sector wants certainty of funding over time, and that's what the future fund provides. They want to build now, but they also want to build next year, the year after and the year after that. I urge those standing in the way of more social housing to put those experiencing homelessness first, before their political gain. National TAFE Day 92 10:09 Dr ANANDA-RAJAH 290544 Higgins When I recently handed out gold medals to podium finishers, it wasn't for sport but, rather, for skills. It was a wonderful evening celebrating 470 young Australians from all over Australia, competing in 60 skills to be named Australia's best apprentices and trainees in the WorldSkills Australia championships. These students came from schools and vocational training colleges from across Australia, having been selected to compete in areas like cyber, construction, patisserie, manufacturing, game design, fitting, automotive and nursing to name a few. Wave after wave of youngsters came to the podium to rapturous applause from their peers, their families and their carers bursting with pride. It's about time we create diverse and faster economic pathways for young people that take them straight into in-demand careers. And that is the gift of TAFE. Human capital, with the right investment, will form the basis for our future prosperity, something the Albanese government upholds by regarding an apprenticeship as equivalent to a university degree. We do not privilege one above the other; they are the same. This is why one of our earliest initiatives was the Jobs and Skills Summit in September of last year, followed by the release of 180,000 fee-free TAFE spots in areas of demand. Whether it's clean energy, the care economy, agriculture, hospitality and tourism, construction, technology or the need for cyber and manufacturing capability, investing in a skilled workforce is vital to our energy transformation and the workers needed for an ageing population and in reindustrialising Australia, as we move from a country that digs stuff up to a country that value adds to that stuff and starts to make things again. This stands in contrast to what we inherited when we came to government. There are at least 85,000 fewer vocational training places in 2021 compared to 2013, because excessive Liberal governments failed. They failed to plan and they failed to invest in our most valuable asset—our people. We came into government faced with the sobering assessment that Australia had the second highest labour shortage per capita amongst OECD countries. New figures show that not only have we exceeded our 180,000 goal but we have absolutely smashed it, with close to 215,000 Australians subscribing to this program. Sixty per cent are women, over 50,000 people are previous jobseekers, 15,000 students live with a disability and over 6,000 students come from First Nations communities. The data shows that we are creating pathways out of disadvantage with students including previous jobseekers, people with disability and First Nations Australians. Our government believes that skills are the pathway out of disadvantage and into participation, so do thousands of young Australians. Given the success of this program, we have created a further 300,000 fee-free TAFE places for 2024, but we're not signing off. Apprentices need support, as dropout rates approach 50 per cent. There are unacceptably high. There is need for scaffolding to support these students and improve completion rates. That's why we're providing $54.3 million in critical non-financial supports to improve completion rates. These supports and services will target improving outcomes for disadvantaged students—those from First Nations communities, apprentices with a disability, those who live remotely, women particularly in gendered trades that are male dominated and others who experience barriers to completing their apprenticeship. We've also invested $436 million in the Commonwealth foundation skills program. This is to bolster the basics—numeracy, literacy and digital skills—which are often the barriers that stop these youngsters from progressing and completing their courses. At a macro level, we are investing in the TAFE Technology Fund. This is a $50 million program that will help provide modern facilities to TAFE colleges, including laboratories, workshops, telehealth simulators and so on. We are directing 70 per cent of VET funding to TAFE because we want to support and invest in TAFE. In addition to this, we are creating what are going to be called TAFE Centres of Excellence. I came from medicine where I was very familiar with centres of excellence and research in medicine. These are capacity building institutions. They train people who go on to become leaders in a field and train others. They are in effect a force multiplier, and we are going to be investing in TAFE to create such a model. In addition, we understand there is no training or education without educators, which is why we are investing in TAFE leadership networks to promote and support excellence in teaching, particularly in sovereign capability, energy, the care economy and digital. Investing in skills is transformative not only for individuals but for the economy as well. In fact, our race to net zero depends upon it. The Australian Energy Market Operator, AEMO, has predicted our energy workforce itself needs to grow by 12,000 jobs by 2025 and peak at 81,000 jobs in 2049. That's why we are investing $95 million to support 10,000 new energy apprenticeships. We have made a $40 billion investment in renewable energy across two budgets, but in order to make this transformation a reality we must invest in talent. I recently had the privilege of visiting Holmesglen TAFE. It is a remarkable institution; I've been there about three times. It's based in Chadstone, in my electorate, and it was founded back in 1982, providing a humble 90 programs back then. It now caters for over 50,000 students, providing 600 programs. When I visited, I saw engaged students with sweat on their brows but broad smiles across their faces. These are happy students who are learning in a practical, hands-on way. I went to the TAFE on this occasion to celebrate the 75th anniversary of their adult migrant English program. This program has had bipartisan support for 75 years, and it's fantastic. The Albanese Labor government has committed a further $20 million to support this program, because we understand that migrants come with valuable skills to Australia. But without language proficiency they are held back from full participation. The career pathways for our young and older people who are seeking to retrain run through the vocational training sector and university. Programs like English language and foundational skills provide the scaffolding, which is then further strengthened by strong communities and, at a micro level, by mentors, educators, families and carers, who swell with pride when these students thrive. I want our community to know that VET is a great choice, that TAFE is a great choice, for anyone who wants to study what they love in a practical, hands-on environment, where learners get real-world experience that makes them employable. 10:17 Mr BRIAN MITCHELL 129164 Lyons I'm very pleased to get to my feet and speak about National TAFE Day. I had the great privilege yesterday, during National TAFE Day, to look at the inaugural Australian Education Union national photography competition. I met a wonderful young Tasmanian finalist, Senara, who unfortunately does not live in my electorate of Lyons; he lives in the electorate of Franklin. He took a beautiful photograph of the Clarence campus, down there on the eastern shore of Hobart, and the aged-care facility at that campus, which is like a real-life aged-care ward—or a hospital ward—where students who are learning to be aged-care workers can get very hands-on experience. I had the privilege of touring that facility earlier this year with the minister, Brendan O'Connor, and the local member, Julie Collins—and also the Tasmanian minister, Felix Ellis, because TAFE is a jointly funded thing between the feds and the states. It was a great pleasure to meet not only Senara yesterday but also the wonderful AEU officials and educators; they are the backbone of TAFE. The educators, the ones who do the teaching, are the absolute backbone of TAFE, and the dedication they show to their profession in what has been some pretty tough times, particularly over the last decade, is really something. Hats off to all those involved in TAFE and providing a pathway for young people to get skills. I want to briefly mention how proud I am of the government's achievements with fee-free TAFE. This is one of the signature policies of the government. Our ambition was 180,000 fee-free TAFE places by now, and we've achieved 214,000. That is the appeal of this program. We've got young people and older people going to TAFE fee free and getting a trade. For people who are undertaking a Certificate III in Individual Support, they're saving $1,150. For people undertaking a Certificate III in Early Childhood Education and Care, they're saving $1,600. For those undertaking a Certificate IV in Information Technology, they're saving $1,200. These are real savings for people. Indeed, when I visited the Clarence campus some months ago with the minister, we had an older woman there, a student, who was about to graduate. She said she would not have been undertaking that course if it were not for the fee-free status. It's making a difference to her life, but, just as importantly, it's making a difference to the people in aged care she'll be caring for once she graduates. My congratulations, on National TAFE Day, to all involved in TAFE: the students, the educators and the union officials of the AEU. Thank you for all that you do. You do wonderful work. I'm sure you have the gratitude of every member of the House. Thank you. Women's Health Week 94 10:21 Ms MILLER-FROST 296272 Boothby In Women's Health Week I am pleased to speak on how our government is taking our commitment to gender equality seriously by making women's health a priority. We are working to break down barriers women face when trying to access quality care. As an exec in SA Health, I ran women's health across northern Adelaide. This included two specific multidisciplinary clinics for women. As well as the clinical services, I also ran the domestic violence services and counselling; a perpetrator rehabilitation service; and BreastScreen SA, which is a statewide mammography service providing population based screening for the early detection and diagnosis of breast cancers. These women's services were particularly important in some of the less socially advantaged areas of northern Adelaide and some of the specific populations including CALD communities and Aboriginal communities that have traditionally faced additional barriers to accessing care. Women often have difficulty accessing care, due to their focus on caring duties and putting others before themselves, and their experiences of health care, where symptoms may have been dismissed, ignored or minimised, do not encourage them to do the same again. But the barriers to women accessing effective health care are much more systemic. The reality is that women have been dismissed and ignored for centuries, with their illness chalked up to hormones, and their pain to hysteria. The very word 'hysteria' is based on the Greek word for the uterus, 'hysterikos'—thanks for that! When we're in pain, we're told it's just those pesky hormones—'Have a panadol and lie down.' And when we're sick, we're sent away with suggestions of, 'It's probably your period,' or, 'Have you tried losing weight?' Going to the doctor can be a fight, but we must fight to be heard, believed and, most importantly, diagnosed. A correct diagnosis can transform someone's life, allowing them to manage their symptoms and pain rather than suffer with them. But the diagnosis may not be so easy for women to obtain. Cardiac conditions are the leading cause of death in women globally. Almost every hour of every day, an Australian woman dies of coronary heart disease, including a heart attack or stroke. On average, women are diagnosed with heart disease seven to 10 years later than men, and research shows that women are much less likely to undergo treatment for heart attack or angina in hospital compared to men. Polycystic ovarian disease, a condition affecting up to 13 per cent of women of reproductive age, often takes more than two years and more than three medical practitioners to be diagnosed. This condition puts women at higher risk of heart disease and diabetes, as well as infertility. An average endometriosis diagnosis takes around seven years—seven years of pain and of struggling; seven years of telling and retelling your story with no relief. And, of course, a debilitating condition like endometriosis does not just affect your health; it impacts your ability to work or hold down a job, your ability to have a social life and your relationships with family and friends. Chronic pain such as endometriosis can take over a woman's life and impact it in all areas. On average, it takes 2½ years longer for women to receive a cancer diagnosis. I could go on, but this cannot continue and the Albanese government is working to address these problems. Our Assistant Minister for Health and Aged Care, Ged Kearney, has established the National Women's Health Advisory Council that will look at how we remove the barriers that women face in the health system. The council will provide recommendations to address complex systemic bias against women and will help us make real and lasting change for women seeking care. For the council's first year, we are focused on four priority areas: research; access, care and outcomes; empowerment; and safety. The safety subcommittee of the council will consider the cultural, social and physical safety of health care for women and how the healthcare system can play a stronger role in supporting, promoting and protecting women. This is the first step in ensuring women have equitable access to health care, and it is another step the Albanese government is taking to make gender equality a reality in Australia. At the same time as having made historic investments in the health system as a whole, our government has also invested more than $65 million in targeted support for the health and wellbeing of Australian women, girls and gender diverse people. Australia's first endometriosis and pelvic pain clinics are opening across all states and territories. We initially had 16 in our election commitment, then it was 20 and I'm proud to say that, as of last week, it is now 22. I joined Assistant Minister Ged Kearney on Sunday this week to open an endometriosis clinic at Glenelg in Adelaide. This clinic has been called on for years, and I can tell you that my friends in the women's health sector are very excited about this. The clinic has already had an approach to join a major endometriosis study. The clinic will use a multidisciplinary approach to help women experiencing pelvic pain get the appropriate diagnosis and to treat or manage their symptoms. It's GP led and includes a gynaecologist, an exercise physiologist, a practice nurse and a dietician, amongst others. I'm very much looking forward to seeing the results of the evaluation of all the endometriosis clinics to inform us further about best practices in care for this debilitating condition. We all know that domestic violence is a scourge across Australia. On average, one woman a week is killed by gender based violence. There were 257 last year. GPs are often the first people that a woman discloses to. They are also often the ones who are in a position to notice a woman's injuries and talk to her about them, but this can be a really tough and challenging conversation. The Labor government's 10-year National Plan to End Violence Against Women and Children, released in October 2022, invests $48.7 million to help GPs and other primary care providers to better identify early signs of family, domestic and sexual violence and child sexual abuse, and to help take action. In Women's Health Week, I'm very pleased to see women's health and safety front and centre of this government's agenda. ADJOURNMENT 95 ADJOURNMENT Economy 95 10:28 Ms SPENDER 286042 Wentworth Last week's monthly inflation rate was celebrated by many for showing that inflation is finally returning to the target band. After more than 18 months and 12 interest rate rises, the worst of this crisis might finally be over. But it is only over in a political sense. For millions of families around the country, prices are significantly higher than they were three years ago, and they will stay at those higher levels. Returning inflation to a target does not fix that. While the government likes to talk about wages growing faster than they have in a decade, the truth is that wages are not growing as fast as inflation and Australians are worse off in real terms. This is borne out by yesterday's national accounts, which shows an economy where costs continue to rise faster than wages. It shows households have eaten through half the savings they held a year ago, which was already down on COVID levels. The pressure people are feeling is real, and lower inflation won't make it go away. Every day I hear stories from constituents who are struggling, whose lives are harder because of this crisis, and who are desperately trying to make ends meet. For them, the sense of celebration about falling inflation is frustrating, because the hardships aren't yet over for them. They feel that not enough has been done to support them, and they worry that the political interest in this issue will fade. Some people are happy to dismiss the economic worries of Wentworth. They think of us as tech leaders and corporate executives in mansions and that our community can take care of itself. But Wentworth is not homogeneous. It is a rich and diverse community, where almost half of our residents are renters, where the majority are not in the top income quintiles and where some people are doing it really tough—just as they are in every single other electorate. It's a community where housing is unbelievably expensive, and those with mortgages have had to deal with the crushing hikes over the last 18 months. We have enormous numbers of small businesses, including bRU Coffee Bondi, which is an absolute favourite for those of us who spend time in Bondi. I know the owner, Sondra, pretty well, and she is an absolutely outstanding businesswoman. She has won awards for her sustainability and the work she does. But she tells me about how hard it is to run a business right now and the challenges she faces in keeping things open and keeping her staff employed. Many of these businesses are like bRU; they're struggling, particularly as residents with soaring mortgages and rents have to cut back on their spending at local businesses. For anyone who hasn't been in this situation, it's difficult to explain how stressful it is to run a business in tough times. The weight of responsibility can be completely overwhelming—of course you want to keep the doors open, you want to keep your people employed, and you want to keep serving your community. But, for so many small businesses, it's also their only real financial asset. It's the way they earn their living and pay the mortgage, and it's their retirement plan. A small business not only supports the owner's family but also supports the families of so many others. It supports every single employee, all of whom have put faith in that small-business person to keep their own families going. That's the burden of being a small-business owner. There is no magic bullet to solve these problems. There's nothing that I, as your local member, or this government can do that will make these challenges magically disappear or completely go away. But the work I'm doing on tax reform, housing, child care, climate and mental health, and in a host of other areas, is aimed at finding ways to ease the pressure and making it easier to build and grow businesses and grow real wages because that's what really counts. We can all work to ensure we don't prolong the pressure any more than is necessary or make it any worse than it needs to be. We can all work together to lay the foundations for a better, stronger, more resilient economy for the future. Yalukit Willam Nature Reserve 96 10:33 Mr BURNS 278522 Macnamara I'm very pleased to rise to speak about a project in my electorate that the Albanese Labor government is helping to deliver. This is a project that many young students in Melbourne will be learning more about in the years to come. It is an extremely exciting development and a project that is essential to the residents of Ellwood. The project I'm talking about is the transformation of the old Elsternwick golf course, or, as we affectionately knew it, the royal Elsternwick. It was a golf course where many of us lost many balls over the years, especially in the water down the middle. The Elsternwick golf course has been transformed into a nature reserve. It's a project that has been led by the Bayside Council. I've been very pleased to work in collaboration with the member for Goldstein on this, as this park falls right in the middle of both of our electorates. The old Elsternwick golf course has been completely transformed into the Yalukit Willam Nature Reserve. At the top of the Yalukit Willam Nature Reserve is a chain of ponds. It's an incredibly beautiful system of small ponds where locals can walk and enjoy a tranquil and special experience. There are Indigenous meeting points. At the bottom of the Yalukit Willam Nature Reserve is where the new parts are going to be developed. The federal government, through our $10 million commitment, will be allocating funds to help build the southern wetlands, and these wetlands will be absolutely spectacular. They're going to be a place where people can go, walk around and have one of these absolutely pristine natural environments right in the heart of Melbourne. At the edge of the wetlands, there is another project that we have been involved in, in collaboration with the City of Port Phillip, which is the $1.7 million commitment to the urban river water policy, which will collect stormwater from the wetlands, capture it, treat it and recycle it. It's a really important way of recycling the water, but it's also a really important mechanism to make sure that the water that then flows into the bay is as clean as possible. We want to make sure that we don't have polluted water flowing into the Port Phillip Bay. The other part of the project that I wanted to mention in this adjournment debate is the educational gateway building. This is a building that's going to be at the top of the park, where the old clubhouse used to be, and it's going to be a brand-new building. The City of Bayside is working in collaboration with the federal government and the federal department of infrastructure to go through the design processes. But what this I going to be is an educational hub for students in local schools to be able to come, visit and learn about the different wildlife, the different natural Indigenous plants that have been restored and all of the different habitats and parts of the Yalukit Willam Nature Reserve. There have been many parts and many contributors to the design and natural environmental considerations that help create this incredible place in Elwood. Students will be able to come to this gateway building and learn about the importance of Indigenous species, Indigenous wildlife and Indigenous plants to our local area. It's going to be a really special gathering point, one where, once students have learnt about what's actually happening in the park, they'll be able to then walk through, experience, look out and see all of these different interactive aspects of what's going on around us. It's going to be such an important gathering point, it's going to be a community centre and it's going to be a hub of educational experiences for young locals that I'm really proud to be part of. The final part of it—and this is a really important aspect of the entire precinct—is that, while we are developing the Yalukit Willam Nature Reserve, we are also working in collaboration with Melbourne Water because Elwood is a flood-prone area. Melbourne Water has confirmed their plans for a big bypass of the water that would usually flow into Elwood during a high tide or high-rain event to capture it and divert it through Head Street, which is about a kilometre down the road, and there will be massive piping to divert a whole lot of water. So this project has education and flood mitigation. It has an absolutely magnificent park for people to enjoy. It's a collaboration between all layers of government. I'm very proud to see it continue. Murray-Darling Basin Plan 97 10:38 Mr McCORMACK 219646 Riverina This week has seen the water minister, the environment minister, introduce to the parliament the Water Amendment (Restoring Our Rivers) Bill 2023. It should be called the 'Water Amendment (Destroying Our River Communities, Farmers and Food Security) Bill 2023'. With due deference to you, Deputy Speaker Archer—I know we're not allowed to use props—and due deference to the members for Macnamara and Hawke opposite, this is the new map of Australia, according to Labor. It is a country without Victoria, because it is a Murray-Darling Basin plan with Victoria excluded. I don't know how you can have a Murray-Darling Basin plan without Victoria, and I don't know how you can have a plan without one of the Labor states. More's the pity that each and every one of the mainland states are under Labor governments. But wouldn't you possibly think that, if Labor were to introduce a Murray-Darling Basin plan, it would include all the Murray-Darling Basin states? No, this is the new paradigm. I am absolutely intrigued by a book I purchased for way too much money. I hope my wife doesn't find out; I hope she doesn't read Hansard. It's a book written by Ernest Favenc, published in 1888, called The History ofAustralian Exploration from 1788 to 1888. It's dedicated to the Hon. Sir Henry Parkes, the oldest ruling statesman in Australia, and it was supported by the then New South Wales government. Interestingly, in its conclusion, the author writes: By close comparison of the work done by the men who have laid bare so many of the secrets of the interior, and by deductions to be drawn from the physical conformation and climatic peculiarities already revealed, we may, to some extent, conjecture the possibilities of the future. With every variety of climate between temperate and tropical, with enormous mineral treasures—the extent of which, even at the present time, can only be conjectured—boundless areas of virgin soils, and a coastline dotted with good harbours and navigable rivers, we have all the elements of a nation yet to take rank among the recognised powers of the world. He continues on, and, interestingly, says— Many a dry watercourse, that is now but a slight depression, could be utilised as a channel for conducting the flood waters to the back country. What would be impossible in an island of bold mountain ranges, becomes easy in the flats of our dry interior. He continues— In the dry inland plains, a water supply that will relieve the frontage from overstocking during the droughty months, means the preservation of some of our most valuable indigenous fodder plants. He talks about water security. He talks about water infrastructure, as such. Then, they had it. They knew it. They understood it. Yet, now, we seem to not understand it. We don't get it because we have this absolute innate refusal to build dams. Try as I might to get states on board when I was infrastructure minister, though I was lucky with Tasmania—they built the Scottsdale dam from start to finish during my time as the infrastructure minister, so good on Tasmania, and good on the Liberal government there—none of the other states seemed to want to get on board with the same passion that the Commonwealth government of the time had. This latest plan being introduced by Minister Plibersek has the capacity to take an additional 450 gigalitres out of the system. I don't know how you push that much water, almost a Sydney Harbour's worth of water, through the system, through those low-lying areas, through those river flats, through those caravan parks, through the Barmah Choke, through the bridges and through the roads. I don't understand that. Maybe somebody smarter than me—and there are plenty of them—may have that answer. I don't understand how you do it. I also don't understand how you take away up to 75,000 hectares of fruit growing areas, horticulture and vineyards, and then expect people to pay the same amount they are now at the grocery checkout. It's simply not going to happen. We're in a cost-of-living crisis. People are going to have to pay more because there's going to be less food. Why we, in a situation where the world is crying out for more food security, are making plans to grow less of it makes no sense to me. And it makes no sense to me that we are going to lower our exports as well. This is a bad plan and it should be condemned. Australian Defence Force Parliamentary Program 98 10:43 Mr BURNELL 300129 Spence I'd like to speak on something that has been a big part of the week not just for me but for many members across both chambers and across the political divide. I think it's important, before embarking on another sitting week, to contemplate and celebrate one thing that has certainly united this building. I am, of course, referring to the Australian Defence Force Parliamentary Program. I started my journey with this program earlier this year, back in April, when I had the good fortune to spend three nights on a submarine, the HMAS Rankin,along with the member for Flinders. As a parliamentarian, my definition of 'close quarters' was being forced to share the back seat of a Suzuki Swift with my good friend the member for Hunter. The ADF Parliamentary Program is not just about politicians embedding with the ADF; it is a reciprocal program that affords ADF personnel the opportunity to spend a week with us in parliament. I had the absolute privilege to host Major Cameron Elston in my office for the week, and would like to tell you a bit about what I learned from him over the course of the week. Major Elston started his Army career at Duntroon at the age of 17. He has spent the past 20 years of that career serving our nation, which includes international deployments in both Afghanistan and the Solomon Islands. Major Elston, like many other ADF members, was deployed to provide logistical, planning capability and operational support to state emergency services battling bushfires throughout the country. Almost immediately afterwards, Major Elston was redeployed to Christmas Island to set up Australia's first COVID quarantine facility, which allowed the government to evacuate citizens from Wuhan, China, whilst protecting the Australian mainland. Major Elston's most recent deployment is one that I find it particularly interesting, namely Casey Station in Antarctica. He was deployed there at short notice in order to resupply the station. It was a deployment which took Major Elston away from his family over Christmas and the New Year period. He assures me that this deployment was the most fulfilling opportunity of his career. However, when you are so far away from the North Pole on Christmas, those at Casey Station could at least count on Major Elston to ride in on his sleigh and work on the logistics necessary to ensure the station has adequate supplies to persevere through punishing conditions. I want all members to understand that the ADF Parliamentary Program is an opportunity, one that I hope those participating in use wisely. For those yet to participate, I hope this would encourage you to put some thought into doing so in one of a vast number of opportunities that the program provides us to participate in over the coming months. The real opportunity this program provides us is that of insight, an insight into our Defence Force members, and a chance to understand their unique skill sets they offer. It is these unique skills and capabilities that our government and our nation will continue to rely upon in the future. Near the end of this sitting week, I asked Cameron if he could kindly share his experiences in the ADF and the sitting week which is now almost over with this chamber. So, in most part, these are his words, words that would give my regular speechwriter a run for his money: Major Elston says that he will look back on his time participating in the ADF Parliamentary Program as a career highlight, as having the opportunity to immerse himself in the day-to-day running of parliament has provided him with unique insights into how policies are introduced, debated and how decision-makers operate within the very heart of our democracy in Australia. Major Elston was pleasantly surprised to see that members on all sides of the aisle come together on a range of issues, much more than what is betrayed in the media. He was particularly reassured to see this particularly when members are discussing defence matters, where the adversarial is replaced with bipartisanship. Major Elston found it refreshing to see all sides of politics work collaboratively and respectfully, although he contends there is still much room for improvement in the area, and I can't exactly disagree with Cameron on that point either. Major Elston took particular note of an industry breakfast briefing where he saw parliamentarians, industry employer groups and unions working together collaboratively to achieve better outcomes for Australians. I truly have to thank Major Elston for sharing his lived experiences and perspectives with me, along with his fellow ADF members across this week of parliament. I would also like to give a very honourable mention to Lieutenant Colonel Andy Martin who facilitates this program. I look forward to being a part of many more exchanges in the not-too-distant future. Major Elston, Cameron, you truly are a credit to the ADF, the uniform you wear and the nation you proudly serve. Thank you for your service. Genetic Testing And Life Insurance 99 10:48 Ms KEARNEY LTU Cooper I rise to address the chamber about the important and complex issues relating to genetic testing and life insurance. Throughout history, people have noticed that some diseases run through certain families or different cultural groups. This has been witnessed and experienced even when medical science was in its infancy and before we had sophisticated treatments for different cancers or heart disease. Now, due to the rapid scientific developments of recent years, we have genetic testing that can identify changes in genes, chromosomes or proteins that can confirm or rule out a suspected condition or determine a person's chance of developing a disease. The science is amazing. It unfurls a person's DNA sequences to identify mutations and builds a picture of possible disease risks that lay ahead in an individual's future. This technology means that instead of knowing that your uncle developed bowel cancer or your grandmother died of breast cancer and worrying that you may develop the disease, you can actually test to get answers about your genetic predispositions. It can give people a sense of control and agency when it comes to preventing diseases to make lifestyle changes earlier in life. It is clear that this kind of testing can and does save lives. It gives people answers. It gives families an opportunity to avoid health pitfalls. It unlocks information about intergenerational disease and potentially gives people the opportunity to extend their lives. This technology is increasingly available and set to become a more mainstream part of health care as people seek it out in Australia. However, in Australia, we find ourselves in a situation where insurance companies are discriminating against consumers based on the outcomes of genetic testing. Currently, life insurance companies can require applicants to disclose their results from genetic testing. Under current Australian law this practice is legal. This means insurers who are, of course, profit driven and risk averse by nature could potentially refuse to cover an individual who is identified to have a genetic disposition to a certain disease, like bowel or breast cancer. They could charge higher premiums based on genetic results, and insurers are not required to give the reasons for their decisions relating to higher premiums or refusing coverage. This lack of transparency creates reasonable concerns. I have been contacted by a number of constituents who've been affected by this concerning situation, such as Hazel. Hazel is a genetic counsellor who sees people avoid genetic testing because they are concerned about the financial implications. Yet, she observes, people who are taking proactive steps to protect their health are actually being penalised. And there's Sarah, who works in a pathology lab. She is concerned that fewer people will access genetic testing because of this issue. She makes the case that individuals who better understand their inherited disorders are in a better position to live longer lives whilst also saving the health system money as conditions are actually caught upstream. These issues are something our government should look into and consider changes. I'd like to acknowledge my colleague, the member for Macnamara, Josh Burns, for introducing a motion this week on genetic testing and life insurance. This is picking up the work of the 2018 Senate inquiry into the life insurance industry. I'd also like to acknowledge the hard work and advocacy of Dr Jane Tiller from Monash University, who's been a pivotal voice on this issue. And I would also like to thank my constituent Associate Professor Paul Lacaze for all of his work to drive change on this as an individual who's been affected by this situation and also as a researcher and scientist in public health and preventative medicine. We know that prevention is better than a cure. And what is better is knowing exactly what that prevention looks like, through the amazing technological advances of genetic testing. This is where people can make decisions to help prevent diseases and stay healthy, should this be supported, and it's beyond our understanding and our comprehension that life insurance companies don't see the benefits of this and can't see that people who take the effort to get genetic testing so that they can alter their lifestyle, so that they can take preventative action and so that they can make sure, to the best of their ability, that they will live longer are not actually better risks. This is something I look forward to working with my colleagues on and the wonderful constituents who've raised this issue with me. Australian Defence Force Parliamentary Program, Housing 100 10:53 Mr HOWARTH 247742 Petrie This week I've had the opportunity to partake in the Australian Defence Force parliamentary exchange, and I have been joined by Commander Janna Houen, who is a maritime human resource officer in the Royal Australian Navy. I want to welcome her to parliament and everyone who's in the program. I think there is 42 participants here in Parliament House this week. Mr Burnell 300129 Forty-six. Mr HOWARTH 247742 Forty-six, thank you to the member for Spence. Commander Houen joined the Navy 22 years ago after graduating from the University of Western Australia. Her motivation for joining the Navy was based around the career and training opportunities, the opportunity to travel the world and an underpinning desire to serve her country, Australia. As I am the shadow minister for defence personnel, many of our discussions this week have revolved around the opportunities for young people joining defence today. Specifically, I asked Janna to highlight the three key reasons why Australians should consider a career in the Australian Defence Force today. First, there are opportunities to work on new and emerging technologies. The Australian Defence Force offers Australians the opportunity to work on new and emerging technologies. Whether that be the opportunity to train in cybersecurity, emerging nuclear technologies or weaponry, there are exciting and endless opportunities for everyday Australians wishing to consider a career in the Australian Defence Force. In regard to training, for the majority of careers with the Australian Defence Force no experience is required. The Australian Defence Force provides Australians wishing to join with access to all the world-class training they require, whether this be through a university degree, through the Australian Defence Force Academy or through nationally recognised industry training in a technical trade. The Australian Defence Force offers school leavers and all Australians exceptional training and career opportunities. And it doesn't have to be just school leavers. You might have been out of school and been working; you might be in your mid-twenties and looking for a new opportunity. You can apply now as well. There are opportunities to serve. We live in a great country. Ultimately, one of the fundamental reasons people consider joining the Australian Defence Force is the opportunity to serve one's country, Australia. In recent years, the Australian Defence Force has been involved in a number of national and regional operations to protect our national interests, whether this be assistance to respond to national disasters in our region or as part of an international response. It's more than a career and an opportunity to make a difference to those in need. I myself have a son in the Australian Army. I couldn't be more proud of his and his colleagues' commitment to service, courage, respect, integrity and excellence. I know from my own involvement in the Australian Defence Force Parliamentary Program—and I'm sure other members in this chamber who have participated know—that all of the people whom I've met are first-class Australians. I couldn't be more proud of the men and women who serve in the ADF. I would encourage anyone finishing high school or anyone looking for a new challenge or adventure to consider a career with the Defence Force. Not only is it rewarding; you will be guaranteed of living a life whose story is worth telling. For more information, I think it's adfcareers.gov.au. It was defencejobs.gov.au, but I think it's now adfcareers.gov.au. If you have friends or family in Defence Force, talk to them. They might be reserves or they might be full time. I'd encourage all Australians to talk to them, because it is certainly a career worth having. I just want to talk really quickly about homeownership. Australia is a land of opportunity. It's a land of hope and optimism. I think every Australian can get into their own home and I want to encourage everyone in my own electorate to look at some of the incentives that the Australian government provides. Since I've been in parliament there have been a number of programs that the Australia government has offered, particularly around the first home super saver scheme, the First Home Guarantee and, for single parents, the Family Home Guarantee. The first home super saver scheme is a way for you to save tax and get your deposit much more quickly than saving in a bank. The First Home Guarantee means that, if you're working full-time and you can get a loan, the federal government will ensure that your mortgage insurance is paid for, saving you a lot of money. You can use other state based schemes as well. The Family Home Guarantee has helped single parents get in. Look it up. It's on my website at lukehowarth.com.au. Federation Chamber adjourned at 10:58