2023-09-12 2 1 0 House of Reps 0 1

Tuesday, 12 September 2023

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

 

PARLIAMENTARY OFFICE HOLDERS 1 PARLIAMENTARY OFFICE HOLDERS Speaker's Panel 1 12:01 The SPEAKER 53517 Pursuant to standing order 17(a), I lay on the table my warrant revoking the nomination of the honourable member for Higgins and nominating the honourable member for McPherson to be a member of the Speaker's panel to assist the chair when requested to do so by the Speaker or the Deputy Speaker. RESOLUTIONS OF THE SENATE 1 RESOLUTIONS OF THE SENATE Climate Change Authority 1 12:01 The SPEAKER 53517 I have received a message from the Senate informing the House that the Senate concurs with the resolution of the House relating to the referral of a matter to the Climate Change Authority for review. COMMITTEES 1 COMMITTEES Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs Joint Committee 1 Membership 1 12:01 The SPEAKER 53517 I have received a message from the Senate informing the House that the Senate concurs with the resolution of the House relating to the variation of appointment for the Joint Standing Committee on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs. BILLS 1 BILLS Social Security Amendment (Australian Government Disaster Recovery Payment) Bill 2023, Statutory Declarations Amendment Bill 2023, Royal Commissions Amendment (Private Sessions) Bill 2023 1

Social Security Amendment (Australian Government Disaster Recovery Payment) Bill 2023

Statutory Declarations Amendment Bill 2023

Royal Commissions Amendment (Private Sessions) Bill 2023

Reference to Federation Chamber 1 12:01 Mr BURKE DYW Watson I declare that unless otherwise ordered the Social Security Amendment (Australian Government Disaster Recovery Payment) Bill 2023, the Statutory Declarations Amendment Bill 2023 and the Royal Commissions Amendment (Private Sessions) Bill 2023 stand referred to the Federation Chamber for further consideration at the adjournment of the debate on the motion for the second reading of each bill. COMMITTEES 1 COMMITTEES Public Works Joint Committee 1 Report 1 12:02 Mr PERRETT HVP Moreton On behalf of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works I present the committee's report No. 6 of 2023 entitled Department of Defence—Fishermans Bend Redevelopment. Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e). Mr PERRETT HVP by leave—On behalf of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works I present the committee's sixth report for 2023. This report considers a proposal referred in June from the Department of Defence for the redevelopment of the defence, science, technology group's Fishermans Bend site in Victoria. The Fishermans Bend site is a specialist science and technology research establishment of national significance that supports Australia's Defence Force and Australia's broader national security needs. The total cost of the proposed project is $161 million. After an inspection, the committee can confirm that the condition of the existing services at Fishermans Bend is poor and rapidly approaching its end of life. In its current state, these issues pose a risk to the current and future capability of the site. The upgrades will ensure that the site is compliant with all relevant Australian standards, Defence design guidelines and the National Construction Code, significantly prolonging the life of the site. The proposed works at Defence's Fishermans Bend site will also upgrade the entry precinct to improve security and traffic flow. The works will generate local industry employment opportunities and reduce the health and safety risks at the site by improving the interface between base users and local traffic, particularly at the existing entry point. The committee would like to thank personnel from the Department of Defence for facilitating the site inspection and delivering a presentation in Melbourne. The site visit gave members of the committee an opportunity to explore the site, learn a bit of history and better understand the scope of the works that need to be carried out to keep the site operational for tomorrow. The committee would also like to thank the University of Melbourne, who are neighbours to the Defence site, for appearing at the public hearing and sharing their long-term vision for the Fishermans Bend employment precinct overall. The committee considers that this project represents value for money and is meritorious in terms of need, scope and cost. The committee recommends that it is expedient that the proposed work be carried out, and I'm supported by the deputy chair in making that statement. I commend the report to the House. BILLS 2 BILLS Social Security Amendment (Australian Government Disaster Recovery Payment) Bill 2023 2

Social Security Amendment (Australian Government Disaster Recovery Payment) Bill 2023

Second Reading 2 12:05 Mr LITTLEPROUD 265585 Maranoa I'm pleased to inform the House that the federal coalition will be supporting the Social Security Amendment (Australian Government Disaster Recovery Payment) Bill 2023. This is because the amendments outlined in this bill aim to deliver faster automatic processing of the Australian Government Disaster Recovery Payment, the AGDRP, by Services Australia to eligible people in the event of a natural disaster. This is especially important given that the anticipated 2023-24 high-risk weather season could potentially pose processing delays to Services Australia if there are widespread fires or floods. Overall, the bill includes a number of minor technical changes to strengthen quicker and more efficient assessments of online claims, and this will be achieved by legislating more consistent objective criteria. For example, this legislation has an amendment which allows the Minister for Emergency Management to determine by notifiable instrument an amount of time that an applicant must have been in Australia before a major disaster in order to qualify for an AGDRP. Until now, the accepted minimum time was 13 of the last 19 weeks. Meanwhile, another amendment will provide changes to how the payable rate for the AGDRP is calculated with respect to a person who qualifies for a payment and has a child or children in their care. Both of these changes will secure faster automatic processing of online claims. It's on this important basis that the federal coalition will not be standing in the way of this bill's passage through the parliament. We appreciate that it's vital for financial payments to flow quickly and effectively to those Australians who need them the most during times of natural disasters, whether they be floods, fires or cyclones. Given that the government has claimed the amendments in this bill will improve and speed up the existing online processing for the AGDRP, we therefore expect that this legislation will deliver exactly that. In terms of how emergency management is structured in Australia, it's worth recognising that the federal government provides financial assistance for those impacted by natural disasters through the following measures: indirectly, via the Disaster Recovery Funding Arrangements with state and territory governments, or directly, through disaster recovery payments which are made under the Social Security Act 1991. On the second measure, there are two main assistance payments managed by the Australian government, which are provided by Services Australia to people in need during or following a disaster. It's these two payments which are impacted by this bill. The first of these payments, the AGDRP, is a lump-sum non-means-tested payment of $1,000 per adult and $400 per child. The second is the Disaster Recovery Allowance, which is a short-term means-tested income support payment with rates equivalent to JobSeeker or youth allowance to help Australians whose income has been affected by natural disaster. The Minister for Emergency Management makes determinations to activate these payments, and they are paid by Services Australia. Indeed, Services Australia has an integral role in delivering these government assistance payments, and the numbers reflect how high demand currently is for the sort of financial assistance provided. At Senate estimates in May this year, we heard that over the past 12 months alone this agency has processed over 160,000 claims for emergency assistance and paid over $105 million in financial support to more than 105,000 Australians affected by floods, fires and cyclones. It is expected that our nation's high-risk weather season will begin in October. We already know that there are drying conditions across northern New South Wales and Queensland in particular. In fact, last week, Queensland was issued with the highest fire danger ratings the state has seen since 2018, ahead of the upcoming bushfire season. The Darling Downs and Granite Belt regions have been issued with catastrophic fire ratings, while an extreme fire danger has been predicted for the Maranoa, Warrego and Channel Country districts. Frequent wind and consistent 33-degree weather have caused vegetation growth in these areas to dry out, while a lack of rainfall following La Nina has also contributed to this. But, of course, it's not just Queensland. All levels of government across our nation need to be vigilant because Australia will face a potentially dangerous spring and summer bushfire season. According to a warning from the Australasian Fire Authorities Council, parts of the Northern Territory, New South Wales, Victoria, Queensland and South Australia will all face an increased bushfire risk during spring. Significantly, areas impacted by bushfires in recent years, including the devastating Black Summer bushfires, can expect an increased risk as a result of more vegetation growth. As the CEO of Australasian Fire Authorities Council, Rob Webb, has said: Almost the entire country can expect drier and warmer conditions than normal this spring, so it is important for Australians be alert to local risks of bushfire over the coming months, regardless of their location … Understand your risk, know where you will get your information, and talk to your family about what you will do. As we prepare for this year's upcoming high-risk weather season, we must have an emergency management system that is strong, responsive, fit for purpose and efficient. Given that the amendments outlined in the Social Security Amendment (Australian Government Disaster Recovery Payment) Bill 2023 will aim to secure quicker processing of support payments for individuals and families impacted by natural disasters, the federal coalition will be giving our support to this legislation, and we commend the bill to the House. Debate adjourned. Statutory Declarations Amendment Bill 2023 3

Statutory Declarations Amendment Bill 2023

Second Reading 3 12:11 Mr FLETCHER L6B Bradfield I rise to speak on the Statutory Declarations Amendment Bill 2023. This bill will provide practical savings in time and cost for Australians dealing with administrative tasks in life, work and business. The process of swearing a Commonwealth statutory declaration is something that many Australians undertake—for example, to support an application for sick leave or to verify a claim for a government service or payment. Around 3.8 million statutory declarations are executed each year by individuals and businesses alike. It takes time and effort. You have to find a justice of the peace or other suitably qualified witness. You have to find the form. There are several things you have to do. This bill will make life simpler for Australians and deliver time and cost savings. The bill will expand the ways in which Australians can successfully execute a Commonwealth statutory declaration. Electronic and digital methods of execution, which the bill gives effect to, will finally take their place alongside the traditional paper based method of using a wet-ink signature and in-person witnessing. For these reasons the Statutory Declarations Amendment Bill is uncontroversial, and the opposition is pleased to support it. I want to express, though, my disagreement with the words of the Attorney-General, who, in introducing this bill last week, described it as 'unassuming and modest'. That observation simply highlights the reality that this Attorney-General and this government are not much interested in the productivity and efficiency benefits that digital identity can bring. This bill is a positive step, but the government could have done so much more. In my contribution to this debate, I want to, firstly, put this bill in its proper context by explaining its origins; secondly, make the case for urgent action on digital transformation and costumer focused leadership; and, thirdly, canvas the digital identity aspects of the bill and once again call for urgent action from this government on legislation for a national digital identity system. Let me turn firstly to the origins of this bill, which arises from the hard work of the former coalition government. During the pandemic, the then coalition government introduced a range of temporary measures, including an amendment to section 8 of the Statutory Declarations Act. This allowed for a Commonwealth statutory declaration to be witnessed remotely via video link and signed electronically, in recognition of the COVID-era restrictions on movement, which applied under health orders and which, in turn, meant that witnessing a statutory declaration in person would have contravened those health orders. One of the things the bill before the House now does is to make permanent these measures which were originally proposed as temporary. What is fairly obvious when you examine the bill is that there hasn't been much deep or original thinking by this government in legislating what is, we agree, a sensible change. The idea of making permanent electronic execution of statutory declarations was taken forward by the previous government under our Deregulation Taskforce, and we issued the modernising document execution consultation paper in mid-2021. We brought together the states and territories through the Council on Federal Financial Relations, where it was agreed in June 2021 to prioritise working together towards a common approach for document execution. I mentioned our Deregulation Taskforce, which took a systemic and factory-floor approach to cutting red tape. We worked systematically through the various steps which an ordinary business or consumer is required to take when interacting with government. Our aim was to identify and then be in a position to minimise or indeed eliminate some of those maddening bottlenecks, dead-ends and feedback loops that are the enemy of productivity and the enemy of good customer service. Through the work of the task force it was discovered that in 2019-20 small and medium enterprises took around nine million hours a year in printing and collecting statutory declarations, in travelling to the locations of authorised witnesses, in discussing and filling out declarations with witnesses, in making copies and finally in submitting completed declarations. I draw the attention of the House to this short case study on what has been traditionally involved in completing statutory declarations in the traditional way and the savings that are possible in terms of time and cost through electronic execution because I want to make a broader point that, for the coalition, scrapping outmoded regulation is not the end in and of itself. It is a means to an end, and the end is improved productivity, reduced cost and better service delivery. Central to all of that is a customer-centric mindset when a government is engaging with citizens. I want to turn therefore to the broader case for digital transformation. We have seen in Australia a very impressive demonstration of what can be done by a government which sets out to serve its citizens better. I refer of course to the former New South Wales coalition government and the tremendous work of then minister Victor Dominello, minister for customer service and digital government, backed by successive premiers in Gladys Berejiklian and Dom Perrottet. When the coalition government first came to power in New South Wales following many years of some of the worst Labor governments ever inflicted on the people of that state, Boston Consulting Group found that New South Wales had some of the worst customer satisfaction rates of any government, languishing between 69 per cent for individuals and 66 per cent for businesses. By 2019 that satisfaction rate had risen to a remarkable 95 per cent. That is a terrific example of how a customer service focus and the intelligent use of digital technology can improve the experience of citizens in dealing with government. The federal coalition government sought to learn lessons from the success achieved in New South Wales, and we took the decision in 2019 to create Services Australia. Unfortunately, if you look at what is happening under the present government, we have seen a lack of progress, a lack of energy and a lack of enthusiasm when it comes to delivering better service to citizens, including through digital channels. We were told that there was going to be a federal whole-of-government digital investment fund, but that is nowhere to be seen. The myGov user audit was commissioned by this government and released in January, but the government is still yet to formally respond to it. We are now in September. There is still extensive use of paper based forms, particularly in relation to Medicare and the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme amongst others, and opportunities are being missed on a daily basis to use digital channels to better serve citizens in place of traditional paper-shuffling methods. So there is a lot to get on with, but unfortunately the current Minister for Government Services, the member for Maribyrnong, does not show much enthusiasm or energy in this space. He's much more interested in playing politics, continuing to milk as much of the limelight as he can, if I can horribly mix a metaphor there. He's much more interested in trying to get as much attention as he can through seeking to continue to direct attention to the findings of the recent royal commission. That's what, it seems, excites the member for Maribyrnong. He's not at all excited or enthused about the day-to-day task of how to deliver better customer service to citizens. He has been conspicuous by his absence in debates on these issues in this parliament. The last time a bill went through this House which directly concerned his agency, Services Australia, the member for Maribyrnong couldn't be bothered to speak to it. That, of course, was the bill which axed the successful cashless debit card. I do hope we will see the Minister for Government Services, the member for Maribyrnong, speaking on this bill, and I do hope that he will also lift his game when it comes to the very poor customer service experience which Australians are increasingly facing under his stewardship. Under this government we've seen a sharp rise in wait times for calls being made by Australians to Centrelink and pursuing Medicare payments. In 2020-21, under the coalition government, it took, for somebody calling the Disability, Sickness and Carers line, on average 20 minutes to reach a customer service officer. Under this government, over the period from 2022 to 31 March 2023, that average call hold time blew out to 28 minutes. That is an unacceptable deterioration in customer service. And just last month a top agency official admitted on Melbourne radio that Services Australia were 'understaffed in our service delivery'. Of course, we saw this minister, the member for Maribyrnong, in June this year dump 600 call centre jobs after he scrapped a multimillion-dollar contract with the specialist call centre provider Serco. I have no particular brief for Serco or any other provider, but I do make the point that experience suggests that, when you move away from using providers who are very specialised in this field, whose focus and expertise is to do with how you make the customer experience in calling into the call centre as good as possible—when you move away from specialised players like that—the likely outcome is a deterioration in the service that will be experienced by citizens in dealing with Centrelink and Services Australia. The member for Maribyrnong has also fired over a thousand specialist ICT workers, which does raise the obvious question: what possible prospect is there of improving digital services in the digital service delivery channel when you have axed the talented tech workers who are needed to drive that transformation? It's for these reasons that the opposition has called for a review into the viability of Services Australia's current workforce arrangements, including examining the impact of its contractor cuts and the health of its digital service delivery channels. Of course, so far the government has completely failed to engage with this perfectly sensible call. I want to turn next to the most consequential elements of the bill before the House, which I reiterate is certainly not unassuming and modest, despite the ill-judged words of the Attorney-General. The consequential part of the bill goes to the introduction of digital verification. When the provisions in this bill come into law, an Australian will be able to choose to digitally verify his or her statutory declaration through an approved online platform, using that person's digital identity. Further, once this bill passes into law, the government will be empowered to prescribe myGov as an approved online platform and myGovID as an approved identity provider. There is a strong economic case for using digital identity in this way. In his second reading speech, the Attorney-General cited some analysis that was done in work launched by the former coalition government under our Deregulation Taskforce, to which I have already referred. This economic analysis, which was conducted in 2021, estimated that digital execution could result in time and cost savings across the economy valued at over $156 million a year. More recent work on this front has been carried out through the myGov user audit, which I referred to previously, an important piece of work even though more than eight months later the government has not chosen to respond to any of its recommendations. According to that work, the old way of using a written signature and physical witnessing is costing small and medium businesses and consumers over $400 million a year in direct costs and time. Plainly, if we can transform a paper based process into a digital one, that will have a positive economic effect. I do welcome the fact that the government has taken up the economic analysis developed under the previous government which highlights the time, cost and productivity benefits of the greater use of digital methods of, in this case, executing statutory declarations. But it's not just the economic analysis which this government has taken from the previous coalition government. The technological and regulatory foundations for digital verification were all put in place by the coalition government. In order to expand digital verification, the government will need to be satisfied that the digital identity service is an accredited entity under the Trusted Digital Identity Framework, the TDIF. The only approved online platform referenced in the explanatory memorandum to this bill is myGovID. Both the Trusted Digital Identity Framework and myGovID are the product of a sustained reform process carried out by the previous coalition government. We funded it, designed it and delivered it in our term in office. So this bill in many ways is a vote of confidence in the system that the previous coalition government put in place to secure Australia's digital future. But, having made that statement at a level of principle, it's important to look at some of the details. In clause 13 of the explanatory memorandum, it states that only online platforms and identity providers which operate within the Australian government digital ID system will be able to offer digital verification. In other words, private sector or third party involvement in digital verification will not be happening for the foreseeable future. This is a good encapsulation of the current state of digital identity policy and implementation work under the Albanese Labor government. Frankly, it is in the doldrums. That is highly regrettable for several reasons. The first reason is that, if we had a fully functioning digital identity system with Australians able to build a relationship with their chosen trusted digital identity provider, the way that an Australian would typically go about establishing an account with a bank, telco or insurance company would be through authorising the release of a digital token from their trusted digital identity provider to the bank or the telco. So if you are opening a new service, such as establishing a new phone service with Optus or establishing a private health insurance service with Medibank Private, the process you would go through as a new customer would be to authorise a token to go from your trusted digital identity provider. That would allow Optus, Medibank Private or whichever company it was to be satisfied that this new customer was the person who he or she said that he or she was. It would provide the necessary identity details. The consequence of that would be that, in establishing new relationships with customers, businesses would not be building up extensive copies of the identity documents of those individuals and maintaining extensive records of all of those features of an individual's identity. In turn, that would greatly reduce the risk to Australians of their personal details being the subject of a hack, a cyberbreach, of the kind that sadly we saw impacting on customers of Optus, Medibank Private, Latitude Financial and many other companies and organisations over recent years. One of the strong reasons why it makes sense to proceed as quickly as possible with digital identity is that, in a systematic way, it will help reduce the risk to Australians of cybersecurity breaches against private sector companies because, even if there is a breach, that company is much less likely to have a honey pot of personal data of individual Australians. The second reason why it's deeply regrettable that progress on a national digital identity system is in the doldrums under this Albanese Labor government is because there is a very clear linkage between digital identity and improvements in productivity. And if there's one thing we know it's that under this Albanese Labor government Australia's productivity is dropping like a stone. We need to be improving productivity, and productivity is going backwards. There is a measure open to this government to proceed with alacrity establishing a national digital identity system and this government is drifting. The recent five-year Productivity Commission report had an entire volume devoted to Australia's data and digital dividend. The commission rightly urged the government to get moving on digital identity. The myGov user audit, which I've already referenced, was similarly compelling in making the economic case for expanding and enhancing digital identity. It called on the government to urgently progress legislation. Given the safety benefits, given the economic and productivity benefits of a national digital identity system, it is perplexing why the Albanese Labor government has not made this a priority. Instead, after some 15 months of government, there is a lack of commitment and a sense of drift. This was well captured in comments made recently at a public forum by finance minister Katy Gallagher, who refused to give a firm commitment on a legislative timetable, saying instead the government was looking to have legislation in place by mid next year, but going on to say that she didn't want to be held to that timetable. It is hard to draw any other conclusion but that this government is happy to sit on its hands, even at a time when Australians are exposed to the risk of their data falling into the hands of criminals and hostile state actors engaging in the widespread cybersecurity breaches that we know Australian businesses are facing. This lack of action from the Albanese Labor government stands in very sharp contrast to the focus and progress demonstrated by the previous coalition government. We established the Data and Digital Ministers Meeting, the peak cross-jurisdictional ministerial forum to drive actions on key issues such as credentials, recognising that some credentials are issued by state governments, such as driver licences, while others are issued by the Commonwealth government, such as passports. We invested over $600 million in creating the Trusted Digital Identity Framework and creating myGovID and other components of what is now the Australian government Digital Identity service. We conducted extensive formal consultation with a very wide range of stakeholders and, in late 2021, we released an exposure draft of the Trusted Digital Identity Bill. So the previous government has done so much work here. The current government simply need to take this forward. Sadly, they seem to be consistently missing the opportunity. It is a consequence of a number of factors. It's deeply regrettable that under this government there is no minister for the digital economy and there is no digital economy strategy, and it similarly seems to be the case that no one minister shows any energy or enthusiasm for stepping forward and taking ownership of digital identity. It was revealed last month, for example, that responsibility for identity and biometrics policy has been transferred from Home Affairs to the Attorney-General's Department. It's entirely unclear how those responsibilities align with the work of the Department of Finance, which is apparently still leading work on digital identity. The Digital Transformation Agency, which under us sat within Prime Minister and Cabinet, has now been nobbled. It has been put deep into the bowels of the Department of Finance. It's a very long way away from being the whole-of-government digital coordinator and driver that it was intended to be. And the consequences of the malaise when it comes to digital identity policy, the consequences of the drift, the consequences of the lack of focus, the consequences of the lack of energy, of buy-in, of commitment are very clear when it comes to the bill before the House this afternoon. One of the consequences specifically is that, because this government has not yet legislated a national digital identity system, those Australians who do choose to verify their statutory declaration digitally—and I encourage people to do that; it will save you time and effort, and time of course is money—will do so without the full set of protections and safeguards that might otherwise have been provided, had a full legislative framework been put in place. For example, this bill does not contain some of the digital-identity-specific protections that were contained in the Trusted Digital Identity Bill exposure draft issued by the previous coalition government. Instead, this bill principally relies on provisions in the Privacy Act. Again, to be clear, this bill is a positive development. The opposition is pleased to see digital identity being used this way, helping to make everyday business being done by Australians will easier, quicker and more convenient. But what this bill also highlights is the big policy opportunity this government is missing. This government should be working as quickly as possible to establish more cases for digital identity use for Australians to further build confidence and trust. And that trust is critical to create the network effect that will help spur greater private sector interest and participation in digital identity, in turn generating more competition and more innovation in a digital identity system. If you want to look at an example of a digital identity system that is underpinning efficiency, economic growth and indeed savings in public money, look at the Aadhaar national digital identity system in India. I've had the chance twice this year to visit India to learn about Aadhaar, to meet with public officials involved in its development and to meet with businesses which are developing service offerings based upon the Aadhaar platform. Over 1.3 billion Indians now hold a digital identity, which has made it quicker and easier to open bank accounts, to transfer money from one person to another and to receive government benefits. And, when you speak to Indian government officials, they make the point that, while Aadhaar has improved outcomes for citizens, it has also saved Indian taxpayers money by reducing fraudulent claims for social services benefits. Indeed, they cite savings that are some 10 times the cost incurred in developing the system. In public policy you don't very often get a payback like that. So I do again urge this government to get out of the slow lane when it comes to the national digital identity system. There was an enormous amount of work done by the previous coalition government. Take that work and run with it, rather than drifting. I conclude by observing that I've used these remarks to put this bill into its proper context by identifying the very significant work streams carried out under the previous government, on which this bill draws extensively. I've pointed out that the digital transformation agenda under this government is somewhere between anaemic and non-existent, and I've canvassed the lamentable progress—or lack of progress—demonstrated by this government on the task of legislating and implementing a national digital identity system and the fact that that makes this bill less of a positive development than it could have been. It is a positive development; again I underline that point. But it could have been better. These issues are formally acknowledged in the second reading amendment that I now move: That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: "whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House notes that: (1) the electronic execution of a Commonwealth statutory declaration was first implemented under the former government; (2) digital verification relies on MyGovID and the Trusted Digital Identity Framework, both of which were created by the former government; (3) the government is yet to formally respond to the MyGov User Audit; and (4) the government is yet to establish a legislated national digital identity system". I started this debate by reminding this House of the benefits that can flow when digital transformation is done properly. It can make life simpler and safer for Australians when interacting with government, with business and with each other, and it can create a substantial economic prize through better productivity, more growth and new opportunities. This bill before the House makes some contributions towards those objectives. It is sensible, and the opposition supports it. But there is a much bigger prize, and I urge the government to keep its eye on that big prize and do the work that needs to be done. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 74046 Is the amendment seconded? Mr Hastie 260805 Yes. Debate adjourned. Royal Commissions Amendment (Private Sessions) Bill 2023 7

Royal Commissions Amendment (Private Sessions) Bill 2023

Second Reading 7 12:40 Mr THOMPSON 281826 Herbert I will start by acknowledging the Australian Defence Force, our veterans and their families, acknowledging that the freedoms that we enjoy today are on the back of hard-fought battles that they or their family have served in. To the families that have lost loved ones who succumbed to their war within, who died by suicide: I'm sorry. No family of an Australian Defence Force member should have to bury loved ones who have died by suicide. I rise to speak on the Royal Commission Amendment (Private Sessions) Bill, which amends the Royal Commission Act 1902. If passed by the parliament, this bill will change the act so that a royal commission could appoint an assistant commissioner to conduct private sessions with people who want to tell their story. It is a bill that will affect every current and future royal commission. If passed by the parliament, it will allow every royal commission that conducts private sessions to appoint an assistant commissioner. In reality, this bill came about as a result of the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide, and the community that it affects first and foremost will be our defence and veteran community. Every death by suicide in our defence and veteran community is a tragedy, and the effects are far-reaching. We know that the effects of every death by suicide are felt by families, friends, parents, children, those who served alongside them, and others in the community. We know that the problem is far too prevalent in our defence and veteran community. Too many of our veteran service men and women are dying. We owe it to them and their families to hear their stories and to make changes that will make a difference in the long-term. This bill goes some way to doing that, and we in the coalition will support the bill. If serving and ex-serving personnel who have lived with suicidality want to tell their stories to the royal commission, we will support them to do so. If the families and friends of those who have died want to talk in private session and they are happy doing so with an assistant commissioner, which this bill would create, they should be allowed to do so, and we will do what we can in this place to ensure that they have the opportunity as soon as possible. I'd like to take a minute to reflect on what a private session is and how this bill would affect them. Private sessions are a relatively recent addition to the Royal Commissions Act. The private sessions regime was introduced to support the work of the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse, and in 2019 the coalition amended the Royal Commissions Act to allow private sessions to be used in any other royal commission prescribed by regulations. Private sessions are not a hearing of a royal commission. A person who appears at a private session for a royal commission is not a witness. The information they provide is not part of the evidence given to the commission. Commissioners cannot use the stories told in private sessions to make findings and recommendations. They are private, and there are strong protections in the Royal Commissions Act to ensure that the information given in private session cannot be disclosed. The restrictions on the disclosure of information given in private session allow people to come forward confidentially, without fear of reprisal. This means that people who want to share their story can choose to remain anonymous. Importantly, the legislation ensures that the restrictions continue after the expiry of the royal commission. This legislation framework is designed to support a person in telling their story to a royal commission in a way that is beneficial to them. We recognise and acknowledge that these stories often include significant personal trauma and details that are difficult to speak of publicly. Currently, only one commissioner, the chair of a multimember royal commission or another commissioner who is authorised in writing by the chair may conduct private sessions. The gist of the bill is that it will authorise a person who is not a royal commissioner to hold private sessions. The person authorised to do so will be called an assistant commissioner. This is a senior staff member who will be required to be suitably qualified and have the necessary experience, at the discretion of the sole commissioner or chair of the multimember royal commission. The commissioner or the chair of the royal commission must also consider the circumstances that exist that justify the person holding private sessions for the commission. The bill gives the assistant commissioner the same protections and immunities that are provided to a justice of the High Court. As way of the background to this bill, it's appropriate that we take a moment to reflect on the way this bill came to be before the chamber. The genesis of the bill was a request from the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide. On 15 May this year, the royal commission revealed that it had received more than 1,140 requests for private sessions prior to the closing date, which was 28 April this year. It is not surprising that they have been flooded with requests. As the royal commission itself noted, sitting down with current and former ADF members, their loved ones and their mates had been incredibly powerful. We know that at the time that the royal commission released the information they had completed more than 470 one-on-one sessions with people with lived experience of suicide and suicide ideation, which helped to identify common issues, themes, risks and proactive factors. We also know from reports in the Guardian about four weeks ago that, several days before releasing that information. they had written to the Prime Minister. The royal commission wrote to the Prime Minister on 11 May, asking for its reporting date to be extended by 12 months. This was not a request that was made lightly. It is worth taking the time to read parts of the royal commission's reasoning into Hansard. They wrote—in the royal commission's words: We Commissioners wrote to the Prime Minister, the Hon Anthony Albanese MP, on 11 May this year requesting a 12-month extension to this inquiry. The decision to seek a further extension to the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide was not taken lightly. We are acutely aware that serving members of the Australian Defence Force and veterans are seeking change urgently to prevent further deaths … The commissioners' statement goes on: Our request for more time was in the hope that we could complete the most thorough inquiry possible, delving more deeply into the many complex issues than had previously been possible, and make findings that are both fully justified by the evidence and persuasive enough to induce action instead of the inertia demonstrated by previous governments and Commonwealth bodies. We know there will not be another Royal Commission into this problem in our lifetime. The royal commission made a careful, considered and balanced request to seek more time so that they could do the job properly. It was not the first time they had done it. We in the coalition granted a similar request last year. As is the case now, it was a request that was not made lightly. Equally, the extension was not granted lightly. But in granting the extension we recognised that it is the interests of Australian serving members, veterans and their families that must be prioritised. The Prime Minister has taken a different approach. He waited until August before ultimately refusing the commission's request. As a result, the commission looked to alternative initiatives to meet its original reporting date. This bill is one of those alternative initiatives. We recognise that the bill is intended to do some good, but we should reflect on the circumstances. What we know is what the royal commission put in its own statement on the issue. On 1 August we were informed that the extension had not been granted and the royal commission's final report is expected to be handed down, as planned, by 17 June 2024. We would have preferred for the Prime Minister not to wait so long before responding, and we would have been happy to support an extension. Alternatively, we would have preferred for this bill to come into parliament in June, July or August. We are disappointed that it has taken so long to bring this bill forward. We would have preferred to allow veterans and their families to express a view on the bill through the normal parliamentary processes. But that is not position we find ourselves in today. However, the coalition will support this bill. When I served in the Army and had deployments to East Timor and Afghanistan, I was wounded in Afghanistan. I didn't wake up the next day and think, 'One day I will be sitting in Parliament House.' But I also didn't think I would have to bury my mates. I didn't think that at the age of 21 I would be saying goodbye to friends of mine who had died by suicide. It is not just a failure; it is a national tragedy. I don't think mothers, fathers, sons, daughters, brothers and sisters or mates should be burying our bravest. The people who put on the uniform every day in service of this nation, those brave men and women, deserve a parliament and deserve governments of all persuasions to support them. We should not be waking up to the news of another soldier, another aviator, another sailor dying by suicide. I, like so many of my friends, could have ended up with my name chiselled on the wall at the Australian War Memorial as we all could very easily have succumbed to our own war within. If it wasn't for friends of mine, especially my friend turned girlfriend turned wife who pulled me out of a very dark hole, I know that I wouldn't be here today. Many of my friends didn't come out of the black hole. This royal commission highlights shining a very bright light into the darkest corner of our military and our veteran community. It is a must that these recommendations from the royal commission get implemented on time. We must get these recommendations implemented within the time frame that's been set out because veterans are dying by suicide still today. It wasn't too long ago, when I was back in Townsville, that I got a message from someone that used to live in the north and moved to the Gold Coast. Her partner had died by suicide. He shot himself. He left behind not just a wife but a little baby girl, a daughter that will grow up now without her father. This simply should not be the case. This nation, who supports its veterans, should have policies, procedures and programs and ex-service organisations that do their job in supporting our veterans. As a veteran who has seen my mates die, I have read books to the children after the funeral who will never see their father again. Many are too young to remember what their dad looked like. Suicide doesn't have a gender bias and doesn't affect only men. I served in the infantry unit, so most of the people that I know that have died by suicide were males. Jesse Bird was at my wedding, someone I called a brother. I had to travel to Melbourne to say goodbye to him and bury him. Brad Carr and I lived together. He was another fantastic bloke who succumbed to his war within. If you always do the same thing, you will always get the same result. This royal commission's job is to give harsh, frank and fearless recommendations to government, and it is the government's job to ensure that we implement recommendations that will save our veterans' lives. I want to read you a submission. This submission was put in by Justin Huggett, a Medal Of Gallantry recipient. I won't read his whole submission, but I want to read this part: SUICIDE RATES 148. It seems the last 4 or 5 years I have had a constant need to have a suit dry cleaned and ready to go in my wardrobe. The devastating rate of self-harm and suicide is beyond heartbreaking. For me personally it is a double tragedy. Not only have I have lost another mate and need to attend a funeral, as a bloke that has been advocating for a number of years, I will now need to assist his wife/partner and kids through the DVA War Widows Application process and I get to see first-hand, the grief and despair that has been left behind. 149. I think it is difficult to figure out what caused the people I know who have served in the Army to end their lives. I think that often it is a combination of things that have caused them to die—whether mental health diagnosis, depression and anxiety which can lead to losing a career, and then stress about how to look after your family, which can result in a marriage breakdown and then splitting time with kids—that's just one example. Some guys just can't get over the fact that they have seen something on a deployment they are not able to do anything about. But I think for most people, it is a slow burn of the combination of things over a period of time, and then all of a sudden there is a fracture point where they think that they can't come back. What is so heart breaking is that in their minds things are so bad that their wife and kids are better off without them. 150. I have had my issues before. I've never felt like ending my life is the solution, but I can see how some people would end up in that position. I don't think that it is the case that I have better support or family around it—some people have a great friend network and still die by suicide. It's hard to understand from the outside. We are all trying to figure out what it is that we can do to help that person in that moment, how to make them press pause on how they are feeling when things become too much. He goes on in his conclusion to talk about the comments that he made throughout this process and how he was very blunt and angry. He's a mate, and I'm sure he'll be fine with me saying this, but he's extremely angry because he wakes up in the morning hoping and praying that his phone hasn't been blown up because of people who have died by suicide, a mate who has died, or a wife or a loved one reaching out, saying, 'I need help; I don't know where he is.' I saw that firsthand with Tristan Hardy. He was posted to 1 RAR. He went missing, and we had his spouse looking for him, police and everything. He subsequently died by suicide. The anger's real because this isn't a game. This isn't something you can push pause on. This isn't something where you can respawn. Life is—you only get one shot, and it's so precious. I honestly believe that these strong words, these tough words, this reality check that has gone to the commissioners—who, as I've seen through watching some of the royal commission, have been left with their jaws on the floor—need to be heard. I believe in meaningful employment and meaningful engagement for our veteran community. I think there should be programs that focus on the thing that will get you up in the morning, something to care about doing. Someone to love is always a positive step, but, for those who may not have a spouse, it's getting up in the morning with something to do, something that you want to do. And you don't have to work full time. You don't have to be working a 40-hour week, but if people want to get up and do something—I don't know what it is, but, whatever it may be, I think the royal commission needs to focus on looking at programs that will get our veterans active and moving and out of the house. When I was 21, I got told by a doctor, by an advocate and some other people, 'You don't have to work again; you'll get a pension; you don't have to do anything'—the worst advice that I ever got. I had no life accountability, so when I woke up in the morning I didn't have anything to do or anywhere to be. I started drinking heavily. I started causing more trouble than usual. Then I started not leaving the house. That spiral turned from one day into two weeks and then into years. If it wasn't for my wife, Jenna, that spiral would have ended up with me dying by suicide because that's where my mind went to in those really dark times. The royal commission has a very important job, and the reason that we are supporting this bill is that we support having an assistant commissioner who can work in the private sessions. Every veteran's voice, every family member's voice and the voice of anyone who has been involved in this space who cares for our people or who has been touched by suicide, suicide ideation or poor mental health is so important. If they don't speak—if they hold back and don't tell their story or touch points that they have seen—we'll continue to see high rates of suicide. This royal commission needs to hear from everyone, and they need to give recommendations to this government and to this parliament. They need to table them in federal parliament, the nation's parliament, so that we can ensure that there are policies and programs that help our people. I started by acknowledging our ADF veterans and their families. I want to really reiterate that second bit. No husband, wife, daughter, son, brother, sister or mate should have lost someone they cared about—their loved one—to suicide. To our Australian Defence Force members and veterans who have succumbed to their war within, who have found themselves not being able to get out of that dark hole and who haven't found the support that could help: I'm sorry. I'm sorry that we weren't there for you. Life is precious. You are cared about and you are loved. In our veteran community, we stand together in support of our brothers and sisters. I know my good friend the member for Braddon, Gavin Pearce, thinks exactly the same. He told a story only a couple of days ago about someone he knew from his service who had succumbed to their war within and died by suicide. This is something that we must be better on. It is not just a disgrace; it's a national shame that we are losing our bravest. On that, the coalition will be supporting this bill. As I said before, we recognise that Defence members, veterans and their families must be put first, and I hope this bill does the good it's intended to do. I commend this bill to the House. Debate adjourned. Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes) Bill 2023 10

Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes) Bill 2023

Second Reading 10 13:03 Mr PITT 148150 Hinkler I rise to speak on the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes) Bill 2023, a bill for which the coalition has been allowed just over a week to prepare to speak on what are significant changes to fair work legislation. There are hundreds of pages, in fact, adding to the already hundreds of pages which employers in this country have to wade through to try and ensure that they are not making any mistakes, any breaches or any errors when it comes to employment in this country. This bill makes things even more complicated. In fact, 15 minutes is nowhere near enough time to cover all of the elements, so I'll stick to only a few in the time that's allotted to me. The first thing I want to go to is Leader of the House, Minister Burke, and his claims about wage theft. We have seen the minister come to the dispatch box and it's been worthy of Hollywood, with his lip quivering while he is shaking with indignation and absolute outrage! The quotes have been something like this: 'How is it possible that it's a crime for an employee to steal from an employer, but it's not a crime for an employer to steal from an employee?' I sit here as a former employer and I find that outrageous because, last time I checked, it is illegal and it is unlawful. Wage theft can't be done legally. It just can't. Given the contribution from the minister and how strongly he's pursued this line, whether in question time or elsewhere, I thought maybe I'd got this wrong and I'd better check. This is probably the only occasion this will happen; I took the advice of the Leader of the Greens and I googled it. I googled: is wage theft a crime in Australia? Guess what? It popped up with all of these answers that said, 'Yes, it is.' I thought: 'A good member of parliament won't just rely on Google. I should go and ask some others for some advice.' So I did. We went to the Parliamentary Library. We asked the Parliamentary Library: is wage theft by an employer considered a crime? It answered, 'Yes.' How about that? There's potential under both general criminal laws and specific wage theft offences in Victoria and Queensland. In fact, most states and territories have general criminal legislation that could be applied to underpayment of wages. Given my background of a trade and in engineering, I like belts and braces. This time I thought I should go for the third confirmation. So I went and checked on the Queensland governments website. This is from the Office of Industrial Relations. Under the heading 'Wage theft and wage recovery information for workers' it says: Wage theft is a criminal offence in Queensland. How about that! It also says: Employers engaging in deliberate wage theft from their employees face the risk of up to 10 years imprisonment. That sounds like a pretty big penalty to me. So I think Minister Burke should reconsider what he's contributing to this House. Perhaps it was a mistake. Maybe he just accidentally misled the House. Maybe it's just untrue. Maybe he didn't do the research. I don't know. But I think the minister should reconsider the way that he's positioned this legislation because it is already unlawful to commit wage theft in this country. The minister's got form when it comes to blaming the coalition for all sorts of things. In the debate on this bill, we have seen him rail against the former coalition's government's nine years when apparently we didn't do anything. I thought I'd check some of that, too. And guess what? That's not right either. In terms of wage theft and people who are treating their employees incorrectly—and I know because I was heavily involved in the establishment of this—there's this thing called Taskforce Cadena. Taskforce Cadena, according to the Parliamentary Library, does a whole pile of things, particularly around horticulture and where there are individuals who are maybe using illegal workers and not paying them the correct rates, who are robbing them. Did they do any work in the period of the last coalition government? According to the Parliamentary Library, yes, they did. I want to show a couple of examples because I want to demonstrate just how misleading the proposition has been from the minister. Here's one from October 2015, with compliance operations targeting five karaoke bars in Melbourne and Perth. Almost $11,000 was recovered for 19 employees who were short-changed their minimum wages. In December 2016, there was a compliance operation targeting labour hire intermediaries and employers suspected of exploiting foreign workers in the agricultural industry in the far south-east of Melbourne. They seized more than $400,000 in cash. They sound like pretty strong activities in terms of attacking those who are doing the wrong thing by their employees. For the last example, in December 2017, there was a successful criminal prosecution under Taskforce Cadena resulting in execution of warrants in May and June at a citrus packing plant in New South Wales and a residence in Melbourne. A 59-year-old man pleaded guilty to 12 counts of employment related offences. He was convicted on all charges and fined $100,000. So the proposition being put forward by Minister Burke appears incorrect. So what are the real reasons? Why are they making these changes? Let's look at what others have said. We have seen contributions from representatives from the Business Council, the mining council and a number of others. Stakeholder comments go along the lines of: The Albanese Government's latest industrial relations legislation changes are some of the most extreme, interventionist workplace changes … ever … proposed in Australia. So says Tania Constable of the MCA. The ACCI chief executive, Andrew McKellar, 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 … And who is going to pay the price for that? In an unfortunate turn of events, it will be employers in this country. It will be those who are struggling with the cost of living already. It will be those individuals who quite simply can't make the bills for the week because the cost of everything will go up. We have already established that it is a crime to steal your employees' wages, and, in fact, there have been prosecutions already. We've demonstrated where that has already happened. So what are the reasons for these changes? You can only say, as has been outlined by those who represent employers, it's about doing what unions want. The changes around casual employment in particular makes something which shouldn't be that difficult so incredibly complex. How can those businesses who are not large businesses, who do not employ industrial relations specialists, actually meet the requirements of the legislation? I mean if we look at some of the descriptors, there are now 15 factors proposed to determine if you're casual. The claims from the minister that the coalition government didn't do anything about this—we did. We made changes in government that every 12 months every employee has the opportunity to go from casual to part-time work if that is what they elect to do. Now, there are many people out there who choose to work casually because it suits them. It suits their lifestyle; it works better for them. They like the higher rates of pay, which include—while I've got the opportunity—an allowance to cover their holiday pay and all of the other things that come with permanence in employment, but it's something they want to do. What's it really about? It is about union delegates' power. A new workplace right to protect them against employers that refuse to deal with them, can you imagine it—mislead them, hinder them, obstruct their rights in the workplace. As a former employer, the best thing you can do in terms of your business is have the best staff you can find, pay them well, give them the opportunity to shine, because they are absolutely what your business is about, and without them you don't survive. There are bad eggs out there—there is no doubt about it—but it's not as many as those opposite are making it out to be. The idea is that we will have to include powers for a union delegate to roll in basically unannounced because they have 'a suspicion', if I recall the definition correctly, and demand to see wages. They can kick the doors in. Seriously, if unions want more membership, they quite simply should do a better job. They should represent their workers in a way which means more individuals will sign up with them. You can't simply legislate for people to become members of a union because of the laws that have been put forward in this place. I don't want to take up too much time in the House because I know we've got other business to cover, but quite simply this is not what it's about. We need simplified workplace laws in this country. We need to make it easier for people to employ, because the more Australians that are in employment, the better our country is and the more opportunities we have for individuals to start their own businesses. Can you imagine someone starting up trying to comply with some of this legislation? It is hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of pages that they simply can't get across on top of all of their other workload including running a business, making wages, paying their bills and paying their employees. It is not as easy as those opposite put forward to run a business in Australia. It really isn't. I can tell you, as someone who's had many sleepless night about whether I'd make wages the next week, who has cut my own salary and income to make sure that I do because that's what's required, there are not that many employers out there doing the wrong thing—and in the market where the unemployment rate is under four per cent, even more so. So let's call this out for what it is: it is about paying off union bosses and providing more union powers. We have already demonstrated it is not about wage theft, because that is covered already and exists. It is not about what those opposite put forward. It is quite simply about paying off those individuals who want to meet a union agenda. There is a long list of demands. When we have an environment in which the economy has high inflation, where interest rates are increasing, where unemployment is under four per cent, where mortgages are out of control, where real wages are going backwards, what is the solution from the Labor government? Their solution is to make employment harder, to make it more difficult for individuals to employ more people, to make it more complex. I'm yet to see it—maybe it's in there—but how on earth is Fair Work going to manage all of these additional responsibilities in terms of what they have to sign off, whether it's in a dispute or not? It is going to be a mess, and I can understand why employers are up in arms. I understand why they are going to go out and campaign against this Labor government, because these changes are wrong. They are the wrong direction for the country. They are the wrong direction for employers. They are the wrong direction for employees. Quite simply, not every employee in this country can be a union member. Not every single one wants to work in a big company with big unions and big IR and big problems. Many of them are quite happy to work for medium-sized businesses. They're quite happy to be part of family businesses. They're quite happy to contribute and continue to work, as long as they are paying their bills and putting a roof over their head. This Labor government is making that harder, not easier, and we need to see change. 13:16 Mr BURNS 278522 Macnamara I am very pleased to rise to speak on the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes) Bill 2023. From the previous speaker, you get a taste of where those opposite come from. You get a taste of what drives those opposite. There has never been a wage increase for Australian workers that those opposite have supported, and there never will be. When the Prime Minister said that we should lift the wages of those workers on the minimum wage, they went bananas. Just like we saw from the previous speaker, those opposite have never supported wage increases or a safer workplace or any of the hard-fought gains that are there to protect Australian workers that the Australian Labor Party fought for and earned in collaboration with the hardworking people of this country. There has never been an industrial relations measure that the Liberal Party have put forward where they have stood shoulder to shoulder with the working people of Australia. It's not in their DNA. Everything has been fought against by the Liberals and the National Party. Everything has been fought against by those opposite, and everything has been put forward by those people on the Labor side of the House. This bill is no exception. This bill is another example. There are loopholes out there that affect the hardworking people of Australia, loopholes that those opposite didn't mention in their contributions, loopholes that are allowing companies, after making enterprise bargaining agreements, to push them aside and undercut the pay and conditions of workers. This bill is designed to stop some of those things. It's also designed to support those workers in the gig economy, a completely unregulated environment, something that the previous speaker didn't even touch on but something that I'm going to go through in my contribution. Let me start by saying this clearly, unequivocally and proudly: we in the Labor Party are proud to stand with the hardworking people of Australia, we're proud to stand with our colleagues in the union movement and we're proud to stand and work collaboratively with the business community of Australia, because we know that, when unions, business and government are all working together, they can get the best outcomes. That is our objective, unlike those opposite, who want to shut out the workers of this country. That is not our philosophy and that is not our approach. Our approach is to bring workers with us and support the working men and women of our great country. We were elected on a promise to get wages moving, and that is exactly what we are doing. The legislative reforms that we are presenting encompass four main elements: closing the labour hire loophole, criminalising wage theft, properly defining casual work and ensuring gig economy workers are not exploited. These reforms are not radical; far from it. These reforms are about making the current law work more effectively and they're about ensuring that workers are paid fairly for the time that they operate for the businesses that they work for. Let's go into some of these reforms. The first one concerns casual employment. Casual employment works for many Australians, and it does play a vital role within our workplaces. However, there exists a clear loophole when someone is classified as a casual on their payslip or contract but essentially functions as a permanent worker. These individuals follow permanent work schedules, accept shifts as permanent workers do and anticipate ongoing employment without a fixed end date. Now in such cases it's only fair that these workers have the option to choose secure, permanent employment if they wish. The ability to label someone as a casual employee against their preference, despite performing duties similar to permanent employees, is an unjust loophole and we are committed to closing it. The core definition of a casual worker will remain unchanged: someone without a 'firm advance commitment' to ongoing and indefinite work. However, this legislation empowers employees and employers to assess the actual working conditions, moving beyond what's stated in the contract. If an employee believes they no longer meet the casual definition, they can notify their employer of their desire to transition to permanent status. And to provide business with certainty, casual employees will remain as such unless they actively opt for a different status. Importantly, if an employee chooses to become permanent, there will be no backpay obligations. While most eligible casual workers may opt to retain their loading, there are those who depend on their job to support their household and seek the security of permanent employment. Rent and bills are not casual, and they need an ongoing and more reliable option. To ensure fair resolution in the case of disputes, the Fair Work Commission will have the authority to intervene, including through arbitration as a last resort or in exceptional situations. This measure aims to prevent employers from intentionally and unfairly misrepresenting employees status as casual when, in reality, they should be considered permanent. We know that labour hire plays a vital role in providing specialised and surge workforces; however, the loophole that allows companies to use labour hire to undercut existing wage agreements is very concerning. This practice undermines the agreements that have already been made with workers, and we're determined to close this loophole. Our proposed legislation empowers the Fair Work Commission to make orders that require labour hire employees to be paid at least the wage stipulated in a host's enterprise agreement. This measure aligns with our commitment to same job, same pay and ensures that workers receive the agreed-upon rates of pay regardless of their employment arrangement. There are also minimum standards for employee-like workers, and I'm referring to those in the gig economy. The gig economy has completely revolutionised the way people work, offering flexibility for many. However, this flexibility should not come at the cost of exploitation or unsafe working conditions. Our government is extending the powers of the Fair Work Commission to protect employee-like forms of work, including gig workers, from exploitation and dangerous conditions. This will allow the Fair Work Commission to establish minimum standards for new forms of work, ensuring that gig workers are not paid less than they would be as employees. People who are working in the gig economy should not be paid less than the minimum wage. It is essential to clarify that we are not trying to force gig workers into employment. We respect their choice for flexibility; however, we don't accept a situation where 21st century technology is accompanied by 19th century conditions. Finally, I want to touch on one other really important part of this legislation, and that is the support of survivors of family and domestic violence. I know some of my colleagues have spoken to this, and I would like to add my support. This bill will make sure that employees dealing with family and domestic violence don't face discrimination at work. I was proud to work with those across the parliament and proud to stand in this place when this government introduced legislation for 10 days paid leave for family and domestic violence situations. This legislation commenced on 1 February. This was an important reform for victims and survivors. No person should have to choose between employment and leaving an abusive relationship, and today's legislation takes this one step further. Today's legislation, which those opposite are apparently opposing, ensures that workers won't face any repercussions for disclosing their experiences with family and domestic violence. Violence doesn't discriminate and neither should the law. This bill is an important reform, and I am hopeful that every member of this House will be committed to ensuring that a person who comes to their workplace and talks about the fact that they are in a position where they are facing the most unimaginable circumstances at home are not discriminated against. This is an important package of reforms. It is an important package of reforms that says to someone that, if you are in a company for an extended period of time and you are essentially working as a permanent employee, you deserve the opportunity to have a pathway to permanency. If you choose to remain on casual employee status then that is entirely a matter for you. That is fine because that comes with loading and comes with some of the flexibility that some people choose, depending on the circumstance in their life. But what we know about the experience of too many people in the Australian workforce is that the opposite is true, that people are overwhelmingly not choosing to stay on as casual employees, but they are stuck in a position where they can't choose to get a permanent employment situation. They're in a position where they can't choose to have all of the other entitlements and benefits that come with ongoing permanent employment. Many people in Australia are locked in a position where permanent employment isn't a possibility for them, and we on this side of the House say that we want to change that. We want to make sure that those workers who want a pathway to permanency, to give themselves and their families that certainty, have that choice. This bill also goes to the fact that, for companies who agree to pay their workers an amount in accordance with their enterprise bargaining agreement, those companies are not then able to find a loophole that allows them to undercut those arrangements. We want to make sure that, once they've agreed upon a set of pay and conditions, they cannot find, through ongoing labour hire arrangements, the ability to get people to do the exact same job but for less money and with less favourable conditions. That is unacceptable, and we seek to change that so that workers who have an agreed position with their employer via an enterprise bargaining agreement, get what they deserve and get what they bargained for. I reiterate that I don't think—and I don't want to generalise—that there would be any member of this place that hasn't at some stage benefited from or sought the services of those people in our gig economy. Especially during a pandemic, those people working in the gig economy turned up to work and made sure that food and other essential items were delivered to people in their homes. They kept turning up to work, and the least that we can do, as people in this place, is to have their back and to empower the Fair Work Commission to make determinations about what the minimum standards are for the people who at times risk their lives and at times have lost their lives working in the gig economy. I want to take this moment to recognise the tireless advocacy of the Transport Workers Union who have fought for this reform for years. They have fought for their members and for those people who have lost their lives at work. We absolutely unequivocally say that no-one should lose their life at work, but we know that the conditions of those people in the gig economy are not up to scratch. This is an important set of reforms that will enable the closing of a range of loopholes. These reforms say to people that, if you want a pathway to permanency, it will be possible. They say to those people that, if you have bargained for an agreed set of pay and conditions, that will be honoured. It is an important set of reforms that says that, if you are a gig economy worker, you will be protected and have minimum standards at work. It is an important set of reforms that also says that, if you are experiencing the worst form of violence or family and domestic violence at home, you will not be discriminated against at work. If those opposite want to come in here and defend one of those propositions, then let them. But we on this side of the House proudly stand by our record on industrial relations reform. We proudly stand by the fact that each and every hard-fought gain in workplaces for the pay and conditions of Australian workers was led by the mighty Australian Labor Party in partnership with the Australian trade union movement and in partnership with the hardworking men and women who have made our country everything it is. This is an important set of reforms. It says to our workers, the hardworking people that make our economy tick: you are worth it, you are valued and you deserve the pay and conditions that befit the Australian people. I commend the bill to the House. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 74046 The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour. STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS 16 STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS Parliamentary Friends of School Chaplaincy, Bowman Electorate: Schools 16 13:30 Mr PIKE 300120 Bowman Yesterday, here in parliament, we launched the Parliamentary Friends of School Chaplaincy group. I know that the benefits of federal investment in school chaplaincy programs are well recognised within this building. Last Friday, I had the pleasure of attending the 21st Redland City Mayoral Prayer Breakfast. It's an event which celebrates and raises funds for the amazing school chaplains who operate across the state schools in the Redlands. Chaplaincy benefits close to 15,000 local students in my community each year. The former coalition government established a deductible gift recipient category to support pastoral care and wellbeing services to students. Sadly, the Albanese government has allowed this DGR status to lapse; from 1 July this year, donations will no longer be tax deductible. This hampers the ability of these groups to fundraise, and it should be reversed. At the prayer breakfast, the work of our local school chaplains was showcased and honoured. The Pastor Glen Gray Award was this year awarded to Neale Collier, who has been the chappie at Cleveland District State High School for the last 20 years. Neale is a great Australian. Not only has he helped countless students within the Redlands community, but he's also found time to be a driving force behind the Library Project, an initiative of schools across the Redlands to improve education outcomes in Vanuatu. I want to thank all the amazing chaplains who are working tirelessly across the schools in the Redlands. Your work is greatly appreciated, not just by the students and staff but by the whole community. Child Protection Awareness Day 16 13:31 Mr REPACHOLI 298840 Hunter Astrid Hocking is extremely passionate about protecting vulnerable children. She has fostered more than 90 children over 24 years, ranging from emergency stints to long-term stays. Earlier this year, Astrid was named 2023 Lake Macquarie Senior of the Year for her work with the Hearts and Hands Community Development Umbrella Hearts project. Today is the very first Child Protection Awareness Day, and I'm proud to be the ambassador for it. It's not okay to hurt a child; everyday it's not okay. If as a society we could remember that statement, we would not have statistics that showed 72,900 cases of child abuse and neglect in Australia in 2021 and 2022. In a world where children are our most precious resource, we all play a critical role in creating an environment where they can thrive. It takes parents, caregivers, educator, community leaders and every concerned individual to build a protective shield around our children. On this Child Protection Awareness Day, help us raise awareness across the country and the globe. It's a simple ask: wear an umbrella ribbon to show you care to be aware. Have open conversations. Take up the challenge and share the message that protecting children is everyone's business—it's not okay to hurt a child; everyday it's not okay. Thank you, Astrid, for your tireless work on this subject. Hinkler Electorate: Golf, Hinkler Electorate: Australian Defence Force 16 13:33 Mr PITT 148150 Hinkler I want to put out an open invitation to Deputy Prime Minister Richard Marles: come up to the electorate of Hinkler. Jump in the Uber Air Force One. Bring the Pings, the Titleists and the Callaways. From 30 October to 1 November we have the 2023 Val Bazley Bargara Ladies Open Classic at the Bargara Golf Club. It's a fantastic opportunity down at the beach. Come and have a hit. If that doesn't float your boat, near the beach, the Bundaberg Golf Club has an opportunity, or you can go to the Coral Cove Golf Club. There's also the Isis Golf Club at Childers, on the beautiful red soil of my local district. The Burrum District Golf Club, down near the river, is another fantastic opportunity. And if you want to go to Hervey Bay—there are still a few whales about at this time in the season—there's the Harvey Bay Golf Club, the Harvey Bay Golf Driving Range and the Fraser Lakes Golf Club. Finally, there's a brand new facility, which I'm sure the Deputy Prime Minister would want to check out, and that is the new minigolf facility at Hervey Bay, which opened on 25 August 2023. It is an 18-hole course of over 3,300 square metres. The Deputy Prime Minister can play day or night, under lights, whatever opportunity he wants to take. While he's there, the Deputy Prime Minister might want to make an announcement for defence spending, because my electorate has one of the lowest expenditures for defence in this country. We've got a number of reserve units. They're good people out there, having a crack for our nation. Deputy Prime Minister, you're welcome any time. Jump on the RAAF jet, get yourself up to Bundaberg and Hervey Bay and show them that you care about the people of Queensland. Connelly, Ms Rosie 17 13:34 Mr BURNELL 300129 Spence Yesterday at Parliament House, I, along with a number of lucky members and senators, was able to hold aloft the 2023 AFL Premiership Cup as it stopped by on its tour of Australia over this month. However, I'd like to mention a much more prestigious award that was bestowed on someone in Parliament House later that night. I am of course referring to Rosie Connelly, who, along with a handful of other teachers from across the nation, was awarded the Early Career Teacher award at the 2023 Commonwealth Bank Teaching Awards. Rosie is a teacher at Playford Primary School located in Craigmore in my electorate of Spence. I was proud to see Rosie get further recognition for the work she is doing, particularly for her work with students with special needs and students with autism. After she was recognised by the South Australian Department of Education last year as the primary teacher of the year, it is little wonder that, after listening to her story and the work she does, her work translates very well to the national stage, which aims to recognise the best and the brightest. And, as far as the brightest goes, Playford Primary School truly has one of the best in Rosie Connelly. It's very rarely about the recognition, but you should be, amongst your peers across the country, recognised for just how profound an impact you are having on so many young minds and lives. Thank you, and well done to Rosie Connelly. Housing 17 13:36 Mr CHANDLER-MATHER 300121 Griffith When Labor first introduced the Housing Australia Future Fund legislation to this parliament in February, it didn't guarantee a cent of funding for public and affordable housing. As a result of pressure from the Greens and as a result of pushing and fighting, there is now $3 billion of direct investment going into public and community housing. If the Greens had listened to many of the Labor MPs in this place and much of the political and media establishment and had just passed the HAFF as it was, we would have got nothing. Instead, we held firm and got $3 billion of direct investment in public and community housing. There are now tens of thousands of people who will get to move into a public and community home because the Greens pushed back on a plan that didn't guarantee a cent in funding for public and community housing. What we weren't able to do was secure a freeze and cap on rent increases. We did force National Cabinet, the Prime Minister and every Labor Premier and First Minister in this country to meet around the table, at least talk about a plan for national renters' rights and admit that the one-third of the country who rent are real people and deserve dignity. What we couldn't get them to do was cap rent increases. So, from here on in, every rent increase that happens, every time someone's rent go up, that is Labor's fault. Every time someone gets evicted because they can't afford the rent, that's Labor's fault. My promise to renters is that we will not stop fighting. We will not stop fighting, no matter how much pushback we get, until we're standing here celebrating a freeze and cap on rent increases and changing millions of people's— (Time expired) Budget 17 13:37 Ms CHESTERS 249710 Bendigo I'm proud to stand here today to say that, in just over a week, on 20 September, the changes that we committed to in the budget to the social security safety net will commence for so many. I am talking about rent assistance. The biggest increase that we've ever seen in rent assistance will go towards helping some of the most vulnerable people in our community be able to afford to pay their rent. For single parents, lifting the parenting payment single to age 14 for children—making sure that more people who have young children, and children into teenagehood, get the support that they need. There's the $40 boost to JobSeeker and youth allowance payments for people who are looking for work. These are changes that are happening because of a Labor government. We understand that it is tough for people out there, particularly people who are trying to survive on government support. That is why in our budget we put forward these changes. I'm proud to say that next week these changes will kick in. This will be welcomed by people, particularly people who are doing it tough, people who are our most vulnerable. We are practical, we are smart and we are doing it in a way which helps people who are the most vulnerable: people in regional areas and people who are in those suburbs that are struggling. This is the change that we're doing, and it starts next week—practical change that will help so many. Vietnam War: 50th Anniversary 17 13:39 Ms LE 295676 Fowler I had the honour to attend the 50th anniversary of the Vietnam Veterans' Day in Cabravale Memorial Park on 19 August. It's a day that holds immense significance in our nation's history. Together with Fairfield City Councillor Kevin Lam, we gathered to commemorate a pivotal moment—the withdrawal of Australian troops from Vietnam—and to pay our heartfelt tribute to the courageous men and women who served in Australia's longest conflict in the 20th century: the Vietnam War. The day that marks Vietnam Veterans Day, 18 August, also coincides with the anniversary of the Battle of Long Tan in 1966. On that fateful day, Australian soldiers, alongside their allies, confronted overwhelming odds. They displayed unwavering courage and determination, ultimately prevailing against adversity. As the first Vietnamese Australian of refugee background elected to federal parliament, I carry with me a profound sense of gratitude. I owe my freedom and the life I now lead not just to my beloved late mother but also to the many Vietnam veterans who fought and in some cases made the ultimate sacrifice for us. Their service, sacrifices and unwavering commitment to preserving our way of life are the cornerstones of the nation we have today. Once again, a heartfelt thank you to the Vietnam veterans, their families and all those who have served in the name of our great nation. Your dedication and your legacy will serve as a guiding light on our path towards a more prosperous and harmonious Australia. (Time expired) Victoria: Education Workforce 18 13:40 Ms RYAN 249224 Lalor Before the last election, I rose in this place to make a 90-second statement to urge the people of Victoria to vote for an Albanese Labor government so that we could have a Labor federal government and a Labor state government working together for the people that I represent here. Today I stand proudly to say that the Labor government of which I'm a member introduced 20,000 new Commonwealth supported places in the education system as of this year, 4,000 of which were in teaching. Today in Point Cook at Saltwater P-9 College, Premier Daniel Andrews and Minister Hutchins announced that in Victoria, in 2024 and 2025, if you enrol to do secondary teaching training, you will have your HECS paid for by the Victorian government for a two-year commitment to a state school in Victoria. I understand the teacher shortage. I understand that it's very critical in my electorate. I'm so pleased to have a federal Labor government and a state Labor government working on the solutions created by a former federal government who couldn't see beyond their own noses. This shortage was predictable. It was coming. I'm glad to see that the state Labor government and the federal Labor government are getting on with doing something about it. To anyone who thinks about becoming a secondary teacher, it's a fabulous career. I had 25 years of the best days of my life in secondary classes in the west of Melbourne. Durack Electorate: Community Events 18 13:42 Ms PRICE 249308 Durack Every year my team and I attend various local community agricultural shows. So far this year, we've attended shows in Kununurra, Dowerin, Mullewa, Karratha, Port Hedland, York and Mingenew, and last weekend we were in the wonderful town of Northam. These events, as you can imagine, are the centrepiece of each town's calendar, and they provide a wonderful opportunity for the community to come together for a great day of festivities and to put their local produce on display. Whether it be the watermelon-eating contest in Kununurra—which I'm going to enter next year, mark my words—or the young farmers challenge in Northam last weekend, there are plenty of opportunities for all to get involved and to have a great time. I'd like to commend the work of the grassroots organisations and the hundreds of volunteers who make these events happen so successfully. As a stallholder, it's a great opportunity for me to engage directly with my constituents as they wander the market grounds. I always enjoy these conversations. It's a great opportunity to hear what the most pressing issues for them are. The consensus opinion I am sensing and hearing consistently at the moment is that regional Western Australia is feeling left behind and ignored by the Cook and Albanese governments. The Albanese government's failure to combat the cost-of-living crisis is having a very dire impact on many of these communities in my electorate. Actions like delaying pivotal infrastructure upgrades and phasing out live sheep exports send a clear message to our regions. (Time expired) Omid Support Services 18 13:43 Ms FERNANDO 299964 Holt I had the pleasure of attending the launch of Omid Support Services. I was joined by the state member for Bass, Jordan Crugnale, and the City of Greater Dandenong mayor, Eden Foster. Omid—the Dari word for hope—is an NDIS provider that aims to support people from diverse backgrounds. They are particularly focused on the growing Afghan community in the south-eastern suburbs of Melbourne and on ensuring staff will have an understanding of cultural and linguistic sensitivities. People from CALD backgrounds, including the Afghan community, often face unique hurdles when trying to access disability support services. This is where service providers like Omid Support Services come into play by assisting people from their own community. I am proud that the Albanese Labor government is working to empower people with disabilities in Australia and to improve the quality and safety of their support and services. I am equally proud of members in our community like Ali Yeghobi, who are ensuring that the government's vision is achieved in each and every corner of this great nation. Australian Top Tourism Town Awards: Tasmania 19 13:45 Mr PEARCE 282306 Braddon The Australian Top Tourism Town Award winners are set to be announced this Thursday. In an amazing achievement, the electorate of Braddon, which covers the north-west of the west coast and King Island in the state of Tasmania, is home to three out of those four Tasmanian finalists. Leveraging off our government's $10 million investment into the Living City project, Devonport is running to be named Australia's Top Tourism Town. The engine room of our state's prosperity, the historical and re-imagined mining town of Queenstown on our rugged west coast, has been nominated for Australia's Small Tourism Town Award. Nestled in the base of an extinct volcanic plug that we call The Nut, our jewel in the crown, the beautiful hamlet of Stanley, on the far north-west coast is Tasmania's representative in the Tiny Tourism Town category. Congratulations to the Tourism Association, to councils, to local chambers of commerce, to all our hardworking tourism operators out there, to business owners and to community volunteers for all that you've done. It's been an outstanding effort and an outstanding achievement. I've said many times in this place that our region punches well above its weight, and this is another fine example of that. Good luck to Devonport, to Queenstown and to Stanley, on Thursday. National Week of Deaf People 19 13:46 Ms MASCARENHAS 298800 Swan I believe in an Australia where everyone belongs and everyone can be understood, including deaf people. Next week is the National Week of Deaf People, which is a celebration of the Australian deaf community. The deaf community is rich in culture, and Auslan is a beautiful language; often, hearing people don't recognise this. The National Week of Deaf People is an opportunity for the hearing community to be better understood. Married couple George and Sharon Szczepanik are both deaf and live in the heart of Swan. I'm good friends with their daughter Anne whose first language, growing up was Auslan. It is my privilege to know them and have them as wonderful community members. Next week we will have a Deaf Connect interpreter for a mobile office I'm hosting with Cassie Rowe, the member for Belmont in WA. The mobile office opens at 10.30 am on Monday at Centenary Park. I would love to see the Swan deaf community come out. I also note that tomorrow Deaf Connect and Deaf Australia are hosting a parliamentary breakfast to acknowledge the National Week of Deaf people. I look forward to meeting the Brent Phillips, the Deaf Connect Chief Impact Officer. It's time for people to become more aware of the local deaf community, recognise their achievements and, most importantly, include them. In fact, my favourite memory is of a City of Perth community concert and watching Auslan interpreter Dianne Prior dance while she translated. Montrose War Memorial 19 13:48 Mr VIOLI 300147 Casey It was an honour to attend the unveiling of a new World War I plaque on the Montrose War Memorial on Sunday. I want to say thank you to Montrose veteran Doug Hill for unveiling the plaques and all of those who put on such a moving service in honour of our local veterans. Thank you to Montrose Men's Shed life member and inspiration behind the project, Max Lamb. I also thank poet Jim Brown; piper Ian Townsley; bugler Tom Steele; Montrose Fire Brigade and Montrose township group member and a legend in Montrose, Eddie Tischler; Yarra Glen RSL and Outer Eastern Melbourne Vietnam Veterans Treasurer, Stephen Shortis; the Mount Evelyn RSL President, Matt Crymble; and local historian and Secretary of the Mount Evelyn RSL, Anthony McAleer. This was a moving service to pay tribute to those who gave their lives in World War I. When you hear about the ages of those young men—19, 20, 24—I pay tribute to those veterans of World War I, remembering that there are many veterans in this House and also serving today and their families who have sacrificed so much. It is important we continue to pay tribute to those who have served and kept our country free for so many years. We must never forget it isn't just the veterans but their families and their communities that are impacted by the devastation of war. Sitting suspended from 13:49 to 14:00 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 19 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Australian Constitution: Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice 19 14:00 Ms LEY 00AMN Farrer My question is to the Minister for Indigenous Australians. Moments before question time, the Australian and the Bunbury Herald reported that Professor Marcia Langton, a member of the referendum working group appointed by the minister, has accused 'no' voters of opposing the referendum because of 'base racism' or 'sheer stupidity'. Will the Minister for Indigenous Australians condemn Professor Langton's comments? Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! Members on my left and the minister for the environment will cease interjecting so I can hear from the Leader of the House on a point of order. Mr Burke DYW On page 554 of Practice, there's a prevention of, or a ruling as out of order, questions that ask for ministers to comment on 'statements by people outside the House'. The SPEAKER 53517 I'll hear from the Manager of Opposition Business. Mr Fletcher L6B Professor Marcia Langton is a member of the referendum working group appointed by the Minister for Indigenous Australians. A minister can be questioned on the following: 'matters for which he or she is responsible or officially connected', public affairs or administration. This appointment is the minister's appointment. The SPEAKER 53517 I'll deal with this matter. Practice says 'statements by people outside the House including other members, notably opposition members, and senators'. I'll allow the question and I'll just ask the minister to make sure she's being relevant. 14:02 Ms BURNEY 8GH Barton I thank the member for her question. I want to say this very clearly. I call on everyone involved in this referendum to act respectfully and with care for their fellow Australians. We are a great country. We are enhanced by listening to a diversity of views and opinions, and, fundamentally, the Voice is all about the act of listening—listening to some of the most disadvantaged Australians, First Nations people, and listening to remote communities, so we can help close the gap and improve lives because we know listening leads to better results. Of course, there is no room for racism of any kind in this country. We are a diverse country, and that diversity is one of our greatest strengths. Whether your family arrived here 60,000 years ago or six years ago, we're all part of this country's story. I encourage all Australians to vote yes on 14 October because it is time to listen; it is time for recognition. Housing 20 14:03 Dr REID 300126 Robertson My question is to the Minister for Housing and Minister for Homelessness. What difference will the Housing Australia Future Fund make to Australians needing a safe and affordable place to call home, and how has it been received? 14:04 Ms COLLINS HWM Franklin I want to thank the member for Robertson for that question. He understands how important the Housing Australia Future Fund will be, as do many members in this place—members on this side and members of the crossbench over there. It is important because it will actually provide a pipeline of funding to help build social and affordable housing right across this country. The fact that it is there not just for a few years but in perpetuity is important to provide confidence to the sector and, importantly, confidence for Australians who need homes the most. This will change housing in Australia. It will change the lives of people who are waiting for social and affordable housing in this country, not just for now but for generations. We've heard from the sector about the difference this will make on the ground. Master Builders have said: The Housing Australia Future Fund legislation is a vital piece in the housing puzzle by encouraging investment in the social and community housing sector. Kate Colvin from Homelessness Australia said that the homes delivered through the Housing Australia Future Fund will each make an enormous difference to the people who would otherwise be homeless. Her comments were echoed by Emma Greenhalgh, the CEO of National Shelter, who said, 'The passage of these laws is critically important.' I want to take this opportunity again to thank all in the sector, whether it be the community housing sector, the homelessness service sector or the building and construction sector, because they understand how important this bill and our broader housing agenda are to the parliament and to the people of Australia. We know how hard they work, day in and day out, whether it be on the front line or whether it be getting up homes for Australians that need them most. This fund is part of our broad housing agenda, whether it be our $2 billion Social Housing Accelerator, whether it be the Housing Australia Future Fund or the Housing Accord, or whether it be our build-to-rent changes, our Commonwealth rent assistance changes or the additional funding for financing for more social and affordable homes. We have investments right across the housing spectrum from homelessness services to public and social housing, to rental housing right up to improving homeownership. Right across the housing spectrum we are investing for Australians that need it most. The Housing Australian Future Fund passing the parliament is critically important because it's important for those people that need it most. It's important for older women at risk of homelessness, important for women and children fleeing family and domestic violence and important for the veterans who need housing—who need a safe space to stay at night. This legislation will change lives for thousands of Australians. I look forward to its passage and continuing to work for Australians so that more Australians have a safe, affordable place to call home. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice 21 14:07 Ms LANDRY 249764 Capricornia My question is to the Minister for Indigenous Australians. Can the minister confirm whether members of the Voice would be elected or appointed, and how would the government's objective of gender parity be achieved? 14:07 Ms BURNEY 8GH Barton I thank the member for her question. I thank the member because the question relates to constitutional recognition. The Uluru Statement from the Heart is very clear, and, if people had taken the time to look at the principles that outline what the Voice will be about, they would have seen that one of them is gender parity. It is gender parity, which is very important and has been a very consistent theme, as Julian Leeser would be able to tell you, in the inquiry that he and Patrick Dodson undertook. The important thing about the Voice is this: it is absolutely about listening. It is about the establishment of an advisory committee that will provide advice to this parliament. It is also going to be made up of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, and, as the principles say, it will represent local communities, it will be chosen by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, and it is very clear in those principles. Housing 21 14:09 Mr NEUMANN HVO Blair My question is to the Treasurer. How will the Housing Australia Future Fund help ease the housing shortage and strengthen the economy after a decade of neglect? 14:09 Dr CHALMERS 37998 Rankin I appreciate the question from the member for Blair. There's no harder working local member than the member for Blair, representing the suburbs of Ipswich and the communities surrounding. The member for Blair is part of a government that takes the big issues in our economy and our society seriously. There is no bigger challenge than the inflation challenge in our economy, and housing is a big part of that. That's why it is so important that the Housing Australia Future Fund will pass this parliament. Inflation is moderating in our economy, but it is still too high. That's why our highest priority as a government is to take some of the edge off the inflationary pressures in our economy without making those pressures worse. That's why we are rolling out billions of dollars of relief for Australians right around the country—energy bill relief, increases in government payments, dealing with some of the out-of-pocket health costs that people confront, getting wages moving again and making it easier to work more and earn more by making early childhood education cheaper. The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Casey will cease interjecting. Dr CHALMERS 37998 But a big part of our plan to combat the inflationary pressures that people are confronting is to build more houses in our economy and in our local communities as well. Our agenda for housing is a broad and ambitious agenda. The Housing Australia Future Fund is an important part of that, but it's not the only part of that, as the Minister for Housing ran through a moment ago. Whether it's the Housing Australia Future Fund or the social Housing Accelerator, these are all of the different ways in which we are pouring literally billions of dollars into building more homes so that we have more supply and we can start to make up for the fact that the wasted decade left us too far behind when it came to the building of social and affordable housing in our economy. The first part is to build more housing and get more supply so that we can address this longstanding challenge in our economy. At the same time we're doing that, we're also making sure that we can take some of the edge off these high rents that people are paying for rental properties around the country. That's why we are proud to be rolling out the biggest increase in Commonwealth rent assistance in three decades. This housing challenge has been ignored in our economy for too long. Australians, particularly Australian renters, are paying the price for the wasted decade of missed opportunities that those opposite presided over. Our job—and we embrace this enthusiastically—is to work for Australia to continue to build new homes in our economy, in our communities, and we'll keep doing that despite the negative and nasty and angry politics played by those opposite. DISTINGUISHED VISITORS 21 DISTINGUISHED VISITORS Indigenous Police Recruitment Our Way Delivery, Pidgeon, Mr Allan, AM 21 14:12 The SPEAKER 53517 I'm pleased to inform the House that present in the gallery today is a delegation representing IPROWD, an Indigenous police recruiting program run by TAFE New South Wales. I'm also pleased to inform the House that present in the special visitors gallery today is Allan Pidgeon AM, the Chair of the Australian National Flag Association. Welcome to question time. I encourage all members to visit the Great Hall tomorrow to see the Parliament House flag up close and to meet a descendant of the original designer. Honourable members: Hear, hear! QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 22 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Services Australia 22 14:12 Ms SPENDER 286042 Wentworth My question is to the Minister for Government Services. Constituents from Wentworth and across the country are becoming increasingly frustrated at the wait times, calls not being answered, hang-ups and inaccessibility of Services Australia. In some cases, the agency's failure to provide support, promised by law, has pushed people into extreme financial hardship. Will you make a commitment to the House to urgently improve the agency's performance before the end of the year with a published plan and clear goals on reporting metrics? 14:13 Mr SHORTEN 00ATG Maribyrnong I thank the member for Wentworth for raising an important issue. I'd just like to acknowledge the inconvenience and the frustration caused to Australians, not only in your electorate but across Australia, by delays in telephony in Services Australia. In answering your question fully, I'd like to explain why I think some of this is happening and I'd like to talk to you a little bit about what Services Australia are doing and some of the improvements that we've made. First of all, demand is up. There's no question about that. Between last financial year and the year before, the number of people seeking a childcare subsidy increased by 36 per cent; the number of Commonwealth seniors seeking a health card increased by 85 per cent; indeed, after the COVID debts, which were paused, they were then un-paused; and, also, the more generous treatment under this government of paid parental leave and childcare subsidy has led to more benefits. But it's not just on the demand side. It's also true that between 2017 and 2020 the number of people working in Services Australia was reduced by the then government by 3½ thousand people, and they commissioned IT projects which have significantly failed. Let's have a thought for the people working at Services Australia. Let's think about the people who actually work on the front line here. Yesterday they answered 227,000 phone calls. Last year they answered 55 million phone calls. There are 5,000 people today working on answering phones. There are 6½ thousand people working in the service centres. Last year they saw 10 million people. There are 3,000 people processing payments. Right now, every day, there are 270 people just processing parental leave claims. There were 1.1 billion online transactions with Services Australia last year, and there were half a billion customer interactions. Last year Services Australia paid out $1.4 billion promptly to 1.2 million people who had suffered from natural disasters. Also, I just remind people here that Services Australia staff experienced 9,000 abusive incidents of which 1,200 were most serious. What we've been doing is having the robodebt royal commission and rebuilding the culture of Services Australia. We've committed— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The minister will pause. The member for Wentworth on a point of order? Ms Spender 286042 It's on relevance. I'm asking how the performance of Services Australia can improve. Mr SHORTEN 00ATG I'm explaining— The SPEAKER 53517 I haven't ruled, Minister. The question was about commitments to improve performances with clear plans and published goals. The minister has got another 24 seconds. He is being relevant to the topic, and he is in within the standing orders, but I'll just bring him back to the question. Mr SHORTEN 00ATG You can't understand the improvements until you understand what the problem is and what's actually happening. We've had the robodebt royal commission. In the last budget, we put 850 extra staff on to help with natural disasters. We've commissioned the myGov audit, and we've now created an app to encourage people to go online, which has seen three million downloads. Interestingly, though, when we came to government, there were 1,819 separate virtual cues from under the old government. Now we've reduced that to— (Time expired) Housing 22 14:17 Ms PAYNE 144732 Canberra My question is to the Prime Minister. How will the Housing Australia Future Fund build a better future for Australians, and is there any opposition to the bill? 14:17 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I thank the member for Canberra for her question. I am pleased that there is now a majority in the Senate for the Housing Australia Future Fund. This is an important policy that I announced as part of a budget reply and that we took to the election and we have an endorsement for. It's a policy that will see 30,000 social and affordable homes built, including 4,000 for women and children fleeing domestic violence. It will see homes built for frontline workers and for veterans. It will fix up housing in remote and regional communities. This is the single biggest investment in housing in more than a decade. It ensures that more Australians have a safe and affordable place to call home. We're working for Australia and we're delivering on our commitments each and every day. I thank the crossbench in both the House of Representatives and the Senate for their support. But those opposite, of course, continue to say no. They continue to say no to this like they say no to absolutely everything. They've borrowed some rhetoric from some others in this place. They've borrowed some rhetoric now from one of the crossbench parties, those opposite, in saying that it's all about a punt. I don't know what they think the Future Fund is. It's chaired by their mate Peter Costello, so maybe he can explain it to them if they give him a call. Their only policy, of course, is to let people raid their own super to buy a home, even though we know that that is stealing from tomorrow to make the problem worse today. The opposition is determined to say no to everything. If we'd waited around for them, six million Australians would still be waiting for cheaper medicines, five million households would still be waiting for energy bill relief, one million families would still be waiting for cheaper child care. They are the blockers; we are the builders. And I refer them to the statement of Robert Menzies when the Liberal Party was formed. Way back in 1944 he said this: '… on far too many questions we have found our role to be simply that of the man who says no.' Remind you of anyone? He went on to say: There is no room in Australia for a party of reaction. There is no useful place for a policy of negation. Those opposite say no to absolutely everything. It doesn't matter whether there is a mandate, doesn't matter how broad the support for a policy is. It is just no, no, no, no, just the one sound coming out of this Leader of the Opposition. (Time expired) Aboriginal And Torres Strait Islander Voice 23 14:20 Mr FLETCHER L6B Bradfield My question is to the Minister for Indigenous Australians. The Minister for Education today said it was 'rubbish' and 'a lie' that some of the people who helped design the Voice are seeking reparations through treaty. But Voice architect Professor Megan Davis has written: Treaties are about reparations for past injustices … How can these things be excluded? …   …   … … a Voice to Parliament is the first step, and treaty-making follows. Minister, who is right, the Minister for Education or one of the members of your First Nations Referendum Working Group? 14:21 Ms BURNEY 8GH Barton I thank the member for his question. The Voice to parliament, this referendum, is not about reparations. We have made that point on a number of occasions. It is about entrenching a voice, enshrining a voice in the Australian Constitution. It is about listening, it is about making sure that we, collectively as a parliament, get advice directly from First Nations people, and it will result in better outcomes. That is what the referendum is about. All of the things that you raised and others have raised are just attempts to play politics. This is above politics. This is about making sure that our founding document, the big lawbook of this country, reflects the truth about something that all of us should be proud of. The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The member for Groom is warned. Ms BURNEY 8GH We live in a nation that is older than any other. We live in a nation where we should be proud of the human history of this country. I make this point very clearly: the Voice will be about things that affect First Nations people, health, education, jobs and housing. And I also make this point, which seems to be miraculously forgotten by those that advocate no: the third part of the proposed constitutional amendment is extremely clear about our collective role in this place in relation to the referendum. It says: The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws with respect to matters relating to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice, including— And I say this very clearly, to those of you taking notice— … its composition, functions, powers and procedures. How that is forgotten is beyond me. All you have to do is read the question and then read the three parts to the amendment, and you will realise what our responsibilities are. Murray-Darling Basin 23 14:24 Ms MILLER-FROST 296272 Boothby My question is to the Minister for the Environment and Water. How is the Albanese Labor government protecting the Murray-Darling river system, and why is it important that all members of parliament support these efforts? The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The Deputy Leader of the Opposition knows my policy when it comes to interjecting as ministers are approaching the dispatch box. I want to hear from the Minister for the Environment and Water in silence. 14:24 Ms PLIBERSEK 83M Sydney I want to thank the member for Boothby for her question. She, like most South Australian MPs in particular, knows how important it is to fully deliver the Murray-Darling Basin Plan as it was promised, as it was designed. I introduced legislation last week to do just that. And, if you ever need a reminder of why this is necessary, you can go back to the Prime Minister during the millennium drought, who said: … the old way of managing the Murray-Darling Basin has reached its use-by date. …   …   … In a protracted drought, and with the prospect of long-term climate change, we need radical and permanent change. That dangerous radical, born and bred in the inner west of Sydney, was John Howard, of course. He spoke a great deal of sense that day, and we've seen another outbreak of good sense today, from the member for Sturt, and I thank him for this. He told the Australian newspaper that we should be delivering the 450 gigalitres of environmental water, including through voluntary water purchase. Also, Senator McLachlan, the Liberal Senator for South Australia, said it is 'imperative that we prioritise the welfare of our natural world' by securing this water. I want to thank both of those members for their contribution, because protecting this river system should be a priority for all political parties. In fact, this legislation has something for everyone. The Liberals and the Nationals have said that they want longer for the water-saving infrastructure to be delivered, as did the National Farmers Federation. That is what my legislation delivers. The Greens political party should know that delivering the 450 gigalitres of additional environmental water is absolutely critical as well, because this is about a million square kilometres of inland Australia, 16 Ramsar wetlands, 35 endangered species and 120 different waterbirds. I have to say that the member for Mayo and members of the crossbench have pointed out how important it is to deliver the full Murray-Darling Basin Plan. Labor's proposal is sensitive, sensible and balanced, and I was so pleased to see this outbreak of common sense today from members of the Liberal Party. I trust that members of all political parties will live up to what they have said they support in the past. Aboriginal And Torres Strait Islander Voice 24 14:27 Mr DUTTON 00AKI Dickson My question is to the Minister for Indigenous Australians. I refer to the minister's previous answer. Minister, can the parliament really override the provisions of the Constitution? Honourable members interjecting— Mr Dreyfus HWG What a ridiculous question. What an absurd question. You're not fit to be the Leader of the Opposition. The SPEAKER 53517 The Attorney-General will cease interjecting, as will the member for Deakin and the deputy leader. Anyone else down there as well can zip it. Mr Burke DYW On a point of order, Mr Speaker: in the ordinary course, something about the Constitution would be directed to the Attorney-General and it would also be out of order if it were a legal opinion, and I'm not sure what else this question could be considered as. The SPEAKER 53517 The way that it's stated it's possibly seeking legal opinion, but I want to hear from the Manager of Opposition Business. Mr Fletcher L6B It's well accepted in this parliament that questions can be asked seeking clarification of what has been said by, in this case, a minister in a previous answer. In this case it's the answer she's just given. The SPEAKER 53517 That's different to what the opposition leader did ask. I'm going to allow the question, if he could rephrase it to make sure it is following what the manager just advised. Mr DUTTON 00AKI My question is to the Minister for Indigenous Australians. I refer to the minister's previous answer. Can the minister confirm her advice, in her previous answer, that the parliament can override the provisions of the Constitution? The SPEAKER 53517 I'll allow the question. Ms Plibersek 83M It's not her advice! The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The Minister for the Environment and Water will cease giving comment each time a minister approaches the dispatch box. 14:30 Ms BURNEY 8GH Barton I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his question, which relates to constitutional recognition and the Uluru Statement from the Heart. My previous answer went to what the amendments are to the Constitution. They are very clear: firstly, there shall be a body, to be called the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice; secondly, the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice may make representations to the parliament and the executive government of the Commonwealth on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people; and, finally, the parliament shall, subject to this Constitution—'subject to this Constitution'; listen to what I've got to say—have powers to make laws with respect to matters relating to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice, including its composition, functions, powers and procedures. It's extraordinarily clear, and you have a role to play. I will ask the Attorney-General, who this should have been addressed to, to conclude the answer. 14:31 Mr DREYFUS HWG Isaacs I'm more than happy to add to the answer that has been given very competently by the Minister for Indigenous Australians. This question from the Leader of the Opposition shows entirely, puts on full display, his role as the leader of the misinformation and disinformation that is symptomatic of the 'no' campaign. He knows that the constitutional provision is extremely clear. He knows that the legal nonsense that he has repeated for month after month has been dismissed by the former Chief Justice of the High Court of Australia Robert French and by the leading constitutional lawyer Bret Walker, who said of that sort of question that it was too silly for words. That is what we have heard repeatedly from this Leader of the Opposition, who will stop at nothing in his campaign of disinformation and misinformation. Mr Dutton 00AKI Mr Speaker, on a point of order— Mr DREYFUS HWG What have you got to say for yourself? The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The Attorney-General will resume his seat. Opposition members interjecting — The SPEAKER 53517 Has the Attorney-General concluded his answer? Mr DREYFUS HWG No. The SPEAKER 53517 Thought so. I'll hear from the Leader of the Opposition on a point of order. Mr Dutton 00AKI The point of order is relevance. The contempt that this government shows for millions of Australians— Honour able members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! Resume your seat. I'm going to ask the House to resume order. The Attorney-General has 25 seconds remaining on his answer. Mr DREYFUS HWG As I was saying, this Leader of the Opposition is the leader of a misinformation and disinformation campaign. He knows it. He has misled the people of Australia repeatedly throughout this campaign, and he should be ashamed of himself. Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The member for Fairfax, the member for Riverina and the member for Gippsland—the trio—shall cease interjecting. I want to hear from the Leader of the House. Mr Burke DYW Mr Speaker, I'm rising to seek a withdrawal from the Leader of the Opposition. During that answer, I had the chance to go to the live minutes of the answer that had been given by the Minister for Indigenous Australians— Mr Burke DYW I'm raising a point of order. I'm seeking a withdrawal. Mr Dutton 00AKI Is this a question for you, Mr Speaker? The SPEAKER 53517 Is it a question to me? Mr Burke DYW No. I'm raising a point of order to seek a withdrawal for disorderly conduct and for unparliamentary language. Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! Everyone will cease interjecting. The Leader of the House is not asking me a question. He would do that at the end of question time. He is asking for a statement to be withdrawn. I want to hear what he has to say. I couldn't hear what was happening. He's got the minutes. I just want to hear what he's saying. Mr Burke DYW The statement that I'm asking to have withdrawn is the claim in the previous question from the Leader of the Opposition that the Minister for Indigenous Australians had said that the parliament can override the provisions of the Constitution. I have gone through the live minutes. That was not said. To completely misrepresent in this House a member immediately in that way, when you know it is not true, you know you've said something that's— The S 53517 Order! Resume your seat. The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Groom will leave the chamber under 94(a). You were on a warning. The member for Groom then left the chamber. Mr Fletcher L6B Mr Speaker, that was very clearly an abuse of standing orders by the Leader of the House. There was no point of order. If he wants to ask you a question after question time, he's entitled to do that, but he's certainly not entitled to do what he just did. The SPEAKER 53517 He is seeking for a statement to be withdrawn. I'll hear from him again. Mr Burke DYW Mr Speaker, this is misinformation on live TV. Everybody saw it. He knows it wasn't true. He should withdraw it. He knows it wasn't true, and he knew it when he said it. The SPEAKE 53517 Order! Resume your seat. The Leader of the Opposition on the point of order? Mr Dutton 00AKI Mr Speaker, to the point of order: it's very clear that this was an abuse of the standing orders. It was an opportunity— Government members interjecting— The 53517 Order! Members on my right! Mr Dutton 00AKI Mr Speaker, you asked that people at the dispatch box be heard in quiet. Government members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! Members on my right! Mr Dutton 00AKI Stop the confected outrage, for goodness sake. It is unbecoming, even for you. Government members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! Members on my right will cease interjecting. The minister for the environment will cease interjecting and so will the minister for infrastructure, to assist the House. Mr Dutton 00AKI Mr Speaker, I have watched this Leader of the House's confected outrage on many occasions. It's hard to imagine a more egregious example of it than today. The proper process to be followed here, if there is any substance to what the minister is putting to you, is that it be dealt with by way of questions to you as Speaker, at the end of question time. That is consistent with your ruling to us last week. The S 53517 Order! Resume your seat. I just want to be clear for everyone what the process is. There are questions to the Speaker around the administration of the House. The time to do that is at the end of question time. This was not about the administration of the House. The Leader of the House is seeking a withdrawal of a statement that the Leader of the Opposition made regarding a question. The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Solomon and the member for Wills are now warned. This is not a laughing matter. The question did contain a statement. I'm not sure of whether that statement was accurate or not, but the Leader of the House has indicated that the minutes indicate that it's a different statement. But if I am to adjudicate on every question or every statement that is made regarding whether it's accurate or not—I'm not in a place to do that. But I just want to be clear: if people are asking questions, they're entitled to do so. I just ask them to be accurate and make sure they are not misleading in terms of any other statement that the member has made. I'm just going to move to the next question. Citizenship 26 14:39 Dr FREELANDER 265979 Macarthur My question is to the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs. How is the Albanese Labor government delivering a fairer citizenship system for Australian residents from New Zealand? What will this mean for long-term residents who have been building their lives in the Australian community? 14:39 Mr GILES 243609 Scullin I thank the member for Macarthur for raising a very important question. As he well knows, Australia is a country that is built on citizenship. Citizenship is the common bond for all Australians, whether we are Australian by birth or by choice, and it's something that lies at the heart of a unified, cohesive and inclusive nation. We in the Albanese government recognise that there are many New Zealanders here on special category visas who have been stuck without a clear pathway to citizenship, despite their contributions, despite very significant contributions—raising families, working, paying taxes and building lives in this country. That is why on 1 July we opened the direct pathway to Australian citizenship for New Zealand citizens living in Australia, and all special category visa holders are now able to apply directly for citizenship as long as they meet the residency and other standard requirements. I was so delighted to be with my friend the member for Lalor on Saturday to welcome the first couple to become Australian citizens under the new pathway. I'd like to share a little of their story. Mr and Mrs Kingy, Rio and Teresa, have lived in Australia since 2007, having come here to work and to find new opportunities. Since then, as small business owners, for the past 13 years they have contributed to the local community, paid taxes and also employed Australians—for more than a decade. But, despite this great contribution, until now they haven't really been able to call Australia home. As Mrs Kingy said to me on Saturday, 'It's actually a real privilege to become Australian citizens after so long. For our family and our friends, we just wanted to set the example and put it out there that it's not so hard anymore.' What a beautiful and affirming message. And it doesn't end there, because yesterday a citizenship ceremony was held right here in Parliament House to mark Australian Citizenship Day later this week. A further 13 New Zealanders acquired Australian citizenship at the ceremony, including Eli and Katherine, two Kiwis who came to Australia for a better life for them and their families. For Katherine, the pathway means she'll finally be able to fully be part of the Australian community, after moving here for love. For Eli, who moved here almost 20 years ago for his son's rugby league career, it provides him with the certainty that he'll be able to stay here and watch his grandchildren grow up. It's only fair that our closest friends and allies are able to be full members of our community. In the coming months we will be seeing more and more Kiwi families celebrating. I'm pleased that nearly 3,500 New Zealanders have already passed the citizenship test. Of course, all of this is possible because of the work that we have done on citizenship processing, with wait times decreasing more than 50 per cent since we came to government. This landmark pathway is changing lives for the better. It serves to further strengthen the bond between Australia and New Zealand and of course our local communities too. (Time expired) Australian Constitution: Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice 27 14:42 Mr THOMPSON 281826 Herbert My question is to the Prime Minister. In an interview with Neil Mitchell three weeks ago, the Prime Minister confessed he had not read the Uluru Statement from the Heart in full. The Prime Minister said, 'Why would I?' Has the Prime Minister now read the Statement from the Heart in full, and does the Prime Minister accept his failure to read the statement in full has contributed to his failure to convince Australians to vote yes in the referendum? Government members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! There is far too much noise on my left, and ministers are continually interjecting during questions. It will not continue. 14:43 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I have read the Uluru Statement from the Heart in full. It's on the wall in my office, and here it is. Here it is. And the nonsense opposite—we just saw an example where the Leader of the Opposition stood at this dispatch box and attempted to verbal the minister for Indigenous affairs by putting words in her mouth that she did not say. It's called Hansard. The Leader of the Opposition seems to be unaware of it. On page 1 of the Herald and the Age today they reported that the 'no' campaign had a deliberate strategy of promoting fear—fear—over fact: 'No callers urged to use fear over fact'. And that is what we are seeing. The 'no' campaigners out there are saying this: 'When reason and emotion collide, emotion always wins.' That's one of the quotes. They are very consciously over there—with the Advance campaign made up of former Liberal party people and others from some very strange groups. But there are people who have backgrounds in the Liberal Party. Chris Kenny, a former chief of staff, indeed, to a Liberal Prime Minister, has made a very clear statement. He says this about the nonsense about the Uluru Statement: The claim is false. The documents they refer to are background papers and meeting summaries from consultations leading up to Uluru. They have been public all along (including during five years of Coalition government) and no one has signed up to them … The "longer" statement claim is a confection aimed at sustaining a scare campaign but, incredibly, some persist with it. That is what Chris Kenny has had to say about this nonsense. But there they are, telling their campaigners to promote fear rather than hope, to promote division rather than unity, to hope the entrenching of values rather the better future, to promote ignoring rather than listening, to promote exclusion rather than recognition. The Uluru Statement from the Heart is a gracious statement of around 440 words, but the constitutional recognition referendum question is very clear as well. Recognition, then there shall be a Voice, then it may make representations on matters affecting Indigenous people, and the third is the primacy of the parliament. The SPEAKER 53517 The member for New England will cease interjecting. DISTINGUISHED VISITORS 28 DISTINGUISHED VISITORS Commonwealth Bank Teaching Awards, Fairley Leadership Program, Collier, Mr Barry, OAM 28 14:46 The SPEAKER 53517 I'm pleased to advice that in the gallery today, there are recipients from the Chief Opposition Whip's electorate who are winners of the School Plus Commonwealth Bank Teaching Awards. I'd like to recognise 12-month teaching fellowships, Sara Curtis from Marsden State High School and Kiri Griffiths from Loganlea State High School; and the scholarship for early-career teachers, Abbey Tamsen from Marsden State High School. Honourable members: Hear, hear! The SPEAKER 53517 Present in the gallery today are representatives of the Fairley Leadership Program in the Goulburn-Murray Valley Victoria, who I had the pleasure of meeting earlier today with the member for Nicholls. Honourable members: Hear, hear! The SPEAKER 53517 We also have Barry Collier OAM, the former member for the New South Wales state electorate of Miranda and his wife, Jeanette. A warm welcome to you all. Honourable members: Hear, hear! QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 28 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Defence Funding 28 14:47 Mr REPACHOLI 298840 Hunter My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister. How is the Albanese Labor government cleaning up the mess in the Defence budget, and what obstacles does it face doing this? 14:47 Mr MARLES HWQ Corio Can I thank the member for his question and also thank him for the hospitality that he showed me at Edgeworth on Friday. The Liberals have two great conceits: their economic management and defence credentials. But the truth, as borne out by the former Liberal government's economic management of Defence, is that they are both incompetent and inept. Those opposite engaged in the extraordinary practice of making huge Defence announcements carrying massive price tags while completely failing to put in place the necessary funding. For the Guided Weapons and Explosive Ordnance Enterprise, with a cost of $35 billion, they allocated just $1 billion. Their announcement to increase Defence Force personnel carrying a budget of $38 billion was allocated not one dollar of new money. For those who've been involved in Defence budgeting or have been watching that closely, it has been an open secret that under the Liberals the numbers simply did not add up. What that meant was that we saw hundreds of public servants working on programs which would never come to pass. The innate uncertainty under the Liberals of which programs ultimately would survive gave rise to a confusion at a time when, given our strategic circumstances, what the country needed was precise planning activity. The Defence Strategic Review is the single largest re-tasking of our Defence Force in 36 years, and we are committed to getting the books back in order. That does mean making difficult decisions such as reducing the infantry fighting vehicles plan number from 450 down to 129 as just one example. But given that is a difficult decision, the reaction from those opposite has been the predictable reflex of hysteria, as we have watched the Leader of the Opposition run around the country screaming at the top of his voice that Labor is cutting the Defence budget. This information was repudiated by ABC Fact Check just this month. The truth is that under the Liberals, defence spending was going to go to 2.1 per cent of GDP over the next decade. Under Labor, defence spending will go to 2.3 per cent of GDP over the same period of time. That's almost a 10 per cent difference. It's more than what we committed to at the last election, and it's certainly a lot more than what those opposite were willing to spend on defence. Climate Change 29 14:50 Ms WATSON-BROWN 300127 Ryan My question is to the Minister for the Environment and Water. Next week in New York the UN Secretary-General will host an urgent Climate Ambition Summit with an expectation that developed countries attend with pledges to end support of fossil fuels. Minister, will you or someone from the government attend the summit, and how will you explain your approval of coal and gas projects? An honourable member interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Yes, I just want to hear from the— An honourable member interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 The question needs to be directed to the relevant minister. Under the standing orders the question can be directed to the relevant minister, but I'll hear from the leader of the Greens. Mr Bandt M3C Thank you, Speaker. Just on who the question was directed to in the first place, I don't know if the suggestion was that it was addressed to the wrong minister, but it was about the approval of coal and gas projects, which is the Minister for the Environment and Water's responsibility. The SPEAKER 53517 The question was about next week's UN summit and who would be attending that summit. An honourable member interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Yes, I know there was another part of the question, but I think anyone would make the assumption that is the part of the question that needs to be addressed. I'm going to give the call to the Minister for Climate Change and Energy. 14:51 Mr BOWEN DZS McMahon Thank you very much, Mr Speaker, and I'm sure we all thank the honourable member for her question because it gives us the opportunity to make clear the foreign minister will be representing Australia at the UN Secretary General's summit. We have been invited as a country with an appropriate policy on climate change. It might not have occurred a few years ago, but it has occurred now, and Australia has been invited. Australia will be very well represented at the summit by the Minister for Foreign Affairs, who will be making clear this government's policies and approach. The leadership we bring to international forums, like the Prime Minister brought last week, like we are taking to COP this year, means we are in very good company arguing for the strengthening of the world's action on climate change. Australia is back at the table of climate leaders. We are no longer left out of international summits because our previous climate policy wasn't good enough to get an invitation. Energy 29 14:52 Mr GOSLING 245392 Solomon My question is also to the Minister for Climate Change and Energy. How is the Albanese Labor government working with First Nations communities to improve climate change and energy outcomes? How will recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people through a Voice strengthen this work? 14:53 Mr DZS McMahon BOWEN (—) (): I appreciate the member for Solomon's question. The member for Solomon and the member for Lingiari both know very well that Indigenous people in remote Australia suffer levels of energy insecurity that we would, quite frankly, expect to see in the developing world, not a developed country, in 2023. More than 90 per cent of Indigenous Australians who live in remote Australia suffer energy disconnections at some point in the year. Well over two-thirds suffer those disconnections more than 10 times a year. We are not talking about disconnections of a couple of hours; in many instances we are talking about disconnections of days at a time. Indigenous Australians in remote Australia are amongst the very few groups of Australians who are required to pay for their electricity before they use it, not afterwards. Now, let's think about this for a moment. In some of the hottest places on the planet, Australians who are First Nations people are being disconnected from their electricity on many, many occasions. Let's think about the impact of this on disadvantage. Not only are we talking about some of the hottest places on the planet but we are talking in many instances about Australians who are suffering from multiple health conditions. They are suffering from comorbidities, which, in many instances, require medicines which should be refrigerated, and they are being disconnected—91 per cent of them—from their electricity at least once a year. These are incidents of great irony, like in the community at Tangentyere, which I visited, where they told me they'd love to have solar energy. It makes sense in some of the sunniest places on the planet, but it's very hard to make this work with the energy system that they are operating on. We have plans and policies to try and improve this situation. We have a First Nations clean energy strategy. We have a First Nations emissions reduction committee. But we have to also be very honest and say, with the very best of intentions, that all governments have had good intentions, but so often they have fallen short because we have too often done things to Indigenous communities and not with Indigenous communities. More than six years ago, Australia's First Nations communities sent a message to Australians from the heart asking to be consulted on matters that affect them. We know that outcomes improve when we talk to people and hear from people about matters that affect them. We have a chance on 14 October to respond to that request with a resounding yes, not by sending messages of fear and doubt but by having messages of fact and hope. That is what we can do as Australia on 14 October—to say yes to the chance to bring people in the centre of Australia into the centre of this building's conversations more than they ever have been. That is what Indigenous people asked us to do. That is what we can say yes to on 14 October. MOTIONS 30 MOTIONS Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice 30 14:56 Mr DUTTON 00AKI Dickson I seek leave to move the following motion: That this House expresses it's grave concern at this Prime Minister's comprehensive mishandling of the Voice referendum, including: (1) a failure to explain to the Australian people how the members of the Voice will be appointed or elected, what the consequences will be for government decision making processes, and what the scope of the issues will be on which the Voice will have the power to make representations; (2) an unwillingness to consult in relation to the words of the constitutional amendment, or to consider limiting the amendment to the issue of constitutional recognition; (3) the arrogant assumption that the Australian people will be ready to vote in support of the Voice when they have not been given the details of how it will operate and how it will be structured; and (4) the Prime Minister's actions dividing the country in an unprecedented and reckless way. 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 this House expresses it's grave concern at this Prime Minister's comprehensive mishandling of the Voice referendum, including: (1) a failure to explain to the Australian people how the members of the Voice will be appointed or elected, what the consequences will be for government decision making processes, and what the scope of the issues will be on which the Voice will have the power to make representations; (2) an unwillingness to consult in relation to the words of the constitutional amendment, or to consider limiting the amendment to the issue of constitutional recognition; (3) the arrogant assumption that the Australian people will be ready to vote in support of the Voice when they have not been given the details of how it will operate and how it will be structured; and (4) the Prime Minister's actions dividing the country in an unprecedented and reckless way. The reality is that this Prime Minister has misled the Australian public. The SPEAKER 53517 Resume your seat, the Leader of the Opposition. You've moved the suspension. The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Cooper is warned. The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat so I can hear from the Leader of the House. Mr Burke DYW I require this debate to be continued after the MPI under standing order 47(e). QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 30 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Health Care 30 14:59 Ms STANLEY 265990 Werriwa My question is to the Minister for Health and Aged Care. How is the Albanese Labor government's cheaper medicines policy helping Australians lead healthier lives? What obstacles has the government faced in delivering this cost-of-living measure? The SPEAKER 53517 Order, Minister for Climate Change and Energy! I don't know what is going on over there, but the House must come to order. The SPEAKER 53517 The Treasurer will cease interjecting. I want silence in the House so I can hear from the Minister for Health and Aged Care. 15:00 Mr BUTLER HWK Hindmarsh I thank the Government Whip and member for Werriwa for her question. She promised her community cheaper medicines, and we're already delivering on that promise. Just last July, we slashed the amount that pensioners and concession cardholders will pay for all of their medicine needs by 25 per cent to just $5 per week over any given year. To the end of June, 450,000 more pensioners and concession cardholders had already qualified for free medicines for the remainder of 2023 than had qualified at the same time last year. On 1 January, we delivered the biggest cut to the price of medicines in the 75-year history of the PBS, slashing the maximum payment from $42 a script to just $30. I can inform the House that in just the first eight months of that measure $160 million has been saved. That's $160 million back in the pockets of hardworking Australians during a global cost-of-living shock. On 1 September, almost four million Australians qualified for 60-day scripts for around 100 common medicines used to treat a range of ongoing health conditions. That's two scripts for the price of one, effectively halving the cost of those medicines for almost four million Australians. Two million more Australians will qualify for 60-day scripts next year. That's good for their hip pockets and good for their health. We continue to put more and more medicines onto the PBS. This month, we listed two new, cutting-edge, life-saving medicines used to treat the blood cancers lymphoma and leukaemia, Onureg and Brukinsa. Before this listing, patients would have had to pay $100,000 and $150,000 respectively just for one course of treatment. But, after this listing, around 1,500 patients will be able to access this treatment at just $30 a script. Mother of three Skye Hollingsworth recently had intensive chemotherapy for acute myeloid leukaemia, or AML. Happily, she is in remission, but, unfortunately, AML often comes back to bite the patient again. With the listing of Onureg, she now has a much better chance of continuing to live cancer free. She said this: It's incredibly important for peace of mind, and to make sure something is working on my body so I don't need to go through this again. Cheaper medicine truly does change people's lives. E-Cigarettes and Vaping Products 31 15:02 Dr SCAMPS 299623 Mackellar My question is also to the Minister for Health and Aged Care. In the May budget I welcomed the government's announcement of stronger legislation and funding to address the rising rates of vaping, particularly amongst schoolchildren and young Australians. Since that announcement, however, a number of convenience stores that sell vapes have opened up in my electorate of Mackellar. These stores are typically located close to busy school bus stops and they are selling vapes to school-aged children. What is the minister's timeline for shutting down the illegal sale of vapes to children? 15:03 Mr BUTLER HWK Hindmarsh I want to thank the member for Mackellar for her question. She is one of a growing group of health professionals elected to this parliament really adding value to the debate about the important policy issues around health care. As a very experienced general practitioner, she knows a public health menace when she sees one—and that is what this has become. More evidence is released almost every month about the harms being done to our youngest Australians from this product. Only yesterday, a research institute and university from New South Wales released evidence about the second-hand and third-hand harms that are being caused to young Australians from the chemical residues that vapes leave on the surface of clothing and other surfaces as well. They're very sticky residues that contain very harmful chemicals. I remind members of this House that vapes contain more than 200 chemicals, some of which are typically used for weedkiller, nail polish remover and other poisonous products like that. This product was sold to global communities as a therapeutic good to help hardened smokers kick the habit. It was not sold as a recreational product or, in particular, as a recreational product for the youngest members of global communities, but that is what it has become. That is why these things are marketed with unicorns on them. That's why they're marketed with bubblegum flavour. That's why they're disguised as highlighter pens and USBs so kids can hide them in their pencil cases at school. As the member said, it is no surprise that these vape stores are being opened right across the country, right next to schools, because that is the target market for this insidious product. Let's be clear; this is a product being shamelessly sold to recruit a new generation of nicotine addicts, and, tragically, it is working. Under-25s are now the only cohort in the community where smoking rates are actually going up. We know from evidence from the University of Sydney that you are three times more likely to take up smoking if you vape, and it is now the No. 1 behavioural issue in school communities, as the Minister for Education has said time and time again. Some people, including some in this parliament, say that it's all gone too far and that we should just raise the white flag and continue the market. Well, that's not approach of this government. It's not the approach of every state and territory government who have also joined. By the end of this year, I intend to put in place an import control regulation that will make illegal the import of these vapes. To his credit, Greg Hunt tried to do that, but he was rolled by his own coalition party room, and so you've had open borders for all of these years. This public health menace has exploded over the course of the last few years, but this government is absolutely determined to stamp it out. Infrastructure 32 15:06 Ms BYRNES 299145 Cunningham My question is to the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government. How is the Albanese Labor government getting on with the job of delivering the infrastructure Australia needs, particularly through working with regional communities? 15:07 Ms CATHERINE KING 00AMR Ballarat I thank the member for Cunningham for the question. She is a very strong advocate for the people of the Illawarra, who of course know firsthand how important it is for the Commonwealth to not just deliver for regional communities but actually work with regional communities to ensure that our investments deliver a better quality of life for Australians all across the country. Over the last 18 months that's exactly what this government's been doing: working for regional communities but, more importantly, working with regional communities. First, we've redesigned regional investment programs to ensure best practice transparency and consistency of process, as well as fairer distribution of funds, to ensure people can have confidence in these new programs. Last month, expressions of interest for the $300 million Growing Regions Program closed. Communities across the country have now submitted their expressions of interest, which are for the first time being assessed by a multiparty panel. Members of the Liberal Party, members of the National Party, Independent members and members of the Labor Party are undertaking those assessments of the expressions of interest, and I want to thank them very much for the work they are about to do. What this program is going to do is deliver capital works that will improve equity, support social inclusion, grow local economies and make our regions an even better place to live. At the same time, our new $400 million Regional Precincts and Partnerships Program is now open for applications. Unlike traditional grants programs, this program will always be open. It's a program that will bring together governments and communities to deliver regional precincts that are tailored to local needs and have a shared vision for how each precinct connects to the community. We've taken inspiration from places like Muswellbrook, with the Upper Hunter Innovation Precinct, and also the terrific precinct in the University of Tasmania, at the Inveresk campus. There's the Housing Support program—$500 million—a competitive funding program for local and state governments to kick-start housing supply. This new funding will see a significant proportion go to our regions, making sure we're tackling housing shortages and putting downward pressure on rents and the cost of living in regional communities. And, of course, there are over 300 Commonwealth funded major transport infrastructure projects currently underway or under construction. Many of them are in the regions, including Coffs Harbour Bypass, the Tanami, Santa Teresa Road and projects up and down the Bruce Highway, because we are actually building; we're not riding on a press release. We saw those opposite make an announcement and then not deliver. We're actually getting on the job. We're working hard and working with local communities to deliver the infrastructure they need and deserve. Mr Albanese R36 I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: ADDITIONAL ANSWERS 32 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: ADDITIONAL ANSWERS Australian Constitution: Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice 32 15:10 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I table the article I referred to earlier today, 'No campaign's "fear, doubt" strategy revealed', which speaks about how volunteers are told not to introduce themselves as working with the 'no' campaign. STATEMENTS 32 STATEMENTS Personal Explanation 32 15:10 Ms BURNEY 8GH Barton Mr Speaker, I rise to make a personal explanation. The SPEAKER 53517 Do you claim to have been misrepresented? Ms BURNEY 8GH I have been. The SPEAKER 53517 You may proceed. Ms BURNEY 8GH In question time today, the Leader of the Opposition claimed I made the following statement: that the parliament can override the provisions of the Constitution. At no time had I said that. The Leader of the Opposition's statement is untrue, and I suspect he knew that when he was saying it. Personal Explanation 33 15:11 Mr BROADBENT MT4 Monash on indulgence—I wish to make an unreserved apology to Professor Catherine Bennett, Chair of Epidemiology at Deakin University. Last night in the Federation Chamber, I spoke on the government's misinformation and disinformation bill. In reading directly from the information provided to me by Professor Ian Brighthope, I inadvertently attributed Professor Brighthope's comments to Professor Bennett. I again sincerely apologise to the parliament and to Professor Bennett for my mistake. STATEMENT BY THE SPEAKER 33 STATEMENT BY THE SPEAKER National Flag Day 33 15:12 The SPEAKER 53517 I remind members that tomorrow morning the flag will be presented in the Great Hall for all members to inspect, and Allan Pidgeon will be joining us with a descendant of one of the original designers of the Australian flag. I invite all members to attend. DOCUMENTS 33 DOCUMENTS Presentation 33 15:12 Mr BURKE DYW Watson Documents are tabled in accordance with the list circulated to honourable members earlier today. Full details of the documents will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings. BUSINESS 33 BUSINESS Leave of Absence 33 15:13 Mr BURKE DYW Watson I move: That leave of absence from the determination of this sitting until 22 October 2023 be given to Mr R Mitchell and Mr Wallace on the ground of public business overseas. Question agreed to. MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE 33 MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE Wages 33 15:13 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: The collapse of real wages under this Government. I call upon those honourable members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places. More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places— 15:13 Mr TAYLOR 231027 Hume I am absolutely delighted to be speaking on this MPI and delighted that my colleagues supported me on this. I'm disappointed that Labor didn't stand up and support me on this one as they did last week, but the truth is they know that real wages are collapsing under this government, and they don't want to hear us talk about that. We heard them talking a moment ago about disinformation. I tell you what: the disinformation we are getting from the other side on wages is absolutely extraordinary, because, under Labor, real wages are going backwards. Australians are feeling poorer, and that's because they are poorer. Someone might want to let the Treasurer know. I know he ran for the door. He doesn't want to hear the reality that real wages are going down. We saw yesterday in this chamber and in the press gallery and in the other place the spectacle of the Treasurer, the Minister for Finance and the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations spinning a laughable claim that Australians are better off than a year ago. Well, Australians don't feel that way. Is the Treasurer serious? The truth of the matter is that real wages are going down in this country, and the Treasurer on the other side does not want to admit it. The truth of the matter is that real wages are a function of your wage and what you have to pay for the goods you buy with that wage. You don't get a wage for nothing. You get a wage so that you can buy the goods and services you need for yourself, for your family, for the future. If the reality is that prices are going up faster than wages, Australians are worse off. Let's actually look at the numbers. Prices for a working family in the last 12 months have gone up by 9.6 per cent. Wages have only gone up by about one-third of that. In fact, let's do the simple maths. This doctor of spin on the other side—he's not a doctor of economics. We've got a doctor of economics in the chamber on the other side, and there's another one who sits back there, but no doctor of economics at the dispatch box. He's a doctor of spin. He hasn't worked out that when you subtract 9.6 from 3.6 you get minus six. That's how much worse off a typical Australian working family is compared to a year ago. They can buy less with the money they earn than they could a year ago, by six per cent. This isn't the first time the Treasurer has been tricky. We've got a tricky Treasurer. He was a tricky Treasurer when he put out his welfare budget, where he ignored 11 interest rate increases when he was looking at mortgage stress. He wanted to tell Australians they weren't under any mortgage stress, so he used numbers from before the 11 interest rate increases. Talk about an out-of-date and out-of-touch Treasurer, a tricky Treasurer, a walking talking point who is not interested in fighting inflation. He is focused on reinventing capitalism. He's focused on wasting money, raising taxes and reshaping the Productivity Commission so it doesn't focus on productivity. He's focused on his big-taxing, big-government, big-union agenda. The truth of what is going on in the economy right now is, as I said, real wages are going down by six per cent. There are a couple of parts to that. The economy is shuddering to a halt. We saw in the national accounts just last week that the growth per person in Australia has been negative for two quarters in a row. That's a per capita recession. And the truth is growth is felt by people. When growth per person is going backwards, Australians feel poorer, and they do now. It turns out the only thing now left driving the Australian economy is population growth. We have an economic growth strategy from those opposite that is nothing more than more population growth. Around 75 per cent of that is immigration growth. That's the only thing left. That's the only source of growth they've got left in the economy, and it's why Australians are feeling worse off. In the last year alone, we've seen population growth in this country of over 620,000 people, of which 433,000 have come through immigration. We believe firmly that Australia is a great immigrant nation, but you cannot drive the growth of an economy on population. It has to be based on prosperity. We believe in prosperity, productivity and population—all of the above, not one as a replacement for the others. The Labor government has given up on prosperity and is replacing it with population growth. If you look at productivity, the picture is absolutely appalling. In the last five quarters since Labor came to government, labour productivity in this country, as output per hour worked, has dropped by 6.6 percent. As the member for Parramatta opposite has written on a number of occasions, strong labour productivity growth is a necessary condition for prosperity. When it has dropped by 6.6 per cent in a single year, you know Australians are going to be worse off. They are worse off under this government. Meanwhile, as I said a little earlier, we have had a 9.6 per cent increase in prices. We have seen 11 interest-rate increases under this government. In fact, the last time we saw interest rates anywhere near where they are today was under another Labor government. Meanwhile, on energy prices, you only have to walk down the street before an Australian pulls you up and says, 'I've got an energy bill; they promised me a $275 reduction.' No sign of that. No sign of that at all. Meanwhile, the cost of groceries, the cost of insurance and the cost of housing are all going up under this government. Australians are suffering for this. This is having an impact everywhere you go. I've been touring a number of food banks right across this great country in recent months. Traditionally, you'd see people there who are really doing it tough, who you would expect to see at a place like that—people who have lost their jobs or who are renting. Now we're seeing people with a mortgage, people with jobs, not able to put food on the table for their families. You only have to look at what has happened to the price of everything to see what is going on. Australians are responding. They're responding as they have to. How are they responding? They're digging deep into their savings. We've seen a collapse in savings in this country because that's all they can do. They have to give up on their aspirations for the future. They have to give up on their aspirations to save, to put together money to buy a house, to pay down the mortgage. They're digging deep into their savings to pay for this huge increase in the price of absolutely everything. But they're going further than that. They're working harder. They are putting in more hours. They are taking the opportunity to put in more hours because that's the only way they can do it. When they do that, they are making sacrifices. It means they can't pick up the kids from school. It means they have to give up on going to that school concert they expected to go to or taking the kids to sport. These are the sacrifices that Australians are making, and nowhere is that worse than amongst small-business people. We are seeing small-business people who can't make money unless they put in extra hours for nothing. That's what's going on. That's what goes on under a Labor government that is distracted and focusing on all the wrong things. They are focused on their Canberra Voice— Mr Coleman 241067 Focused on themselves. Mr TAYLOR 231027 They are focused on themselves, as I just heard from one of my colleagues—absolutely right. They are focused on anything except for the hardships that Australians are facing right across this great country. There is much the government could do—focusing on supporting small business and entrepreneurship and focusing on an incentive-based tax system. They could stop arguing amongst themselves about the stage 3 tax cuts; get on with it and provide Australians with lower taxes. We've seen a sharp increase in the taxes being paid by Australians. They could be enhancing incentives for work instead of encouraging more welfare. We believe in work, not welfare, and those opposite should do the same, re-emphasising sustainable budgets and getting the basics right on energy, infrastructure and education. It is time for a government that is focused on the hardships that Australians face every single day. 15:23 Mr GORMAN 74519 Perth This government was elected to get wages moving. That is why the people of Australia voted for the Albanese government on 22 May 2022, and we didn't waste a day in working to get wages moving in this country. I've got to say it was a long time coming for that MPI from the member for Hume. Some of us have been hanging out since last Thursday for that MPI, and I'll note that it wasn't those on this side of the House who denied him the opportunity. I actually came into this chamber last week and voted for the member for Hume to be able to have his MPI. Then I went back to the Hansard. I thought, 'Why didn't he have an MPI on Thursday? What happened? Why did his colleagues abandon him?' Then I went and looked at the Hansard, and it said very clearly: The mover of the MPI does not appear to be present. Having heard what I did for the last 10 minutes, it's not that much better when he is present. That was a long time coming. After the amount of time he had preparing for that MPI, the quality that came with that long preparation, that long run-up, is deeply disappointing for the Australian people. I'm getting a lecture about getting wages moving from those who sat around the cabinet table for almost 10 years when low wages growth was a deliberate design feature of their economic policy. So, if I am going to give the member for Hume credit for anything, I will start by giving him credit for at least turning up to give his MPI. But I haven't had a chance to fact-check everything that the member the Hume said. What I do know is that, when we fact-check what the member the Hume says, often he gets things very deeply confused. We know that in May of this year he burst out and proudly said: … in the last month alone, the price of Vegemite has increased by eight per cent … But the member for Hume was completely wrong. He had managed to get annual and monthly inflation confused. He managed to get it confused on peanut butter. He got it confused on yoghurt. He is probably fortunate that whenever he walks into a supermarket he manages to walk out with something given how confused he is over groceries and the basics over the difference between monthly and annual inflation. What we have also seen in this MPI is a huge turnaround in the member for Hume's approach and that of the entirety of the coalition government when it comes to wages. It was in June of last year that they were saying that they were worried about a wage-price spiral. They were telling us that we had to be sustainable and responsible when it came to wages growth and they didn't want to see too much wages growth. They were concerned that wages growth would take us back to the 1970s. I know that KISS will be playing at the AFL grand final later this month, but I don't think we're actually going back to the 1970s! But what we are seeing is the same reluctance that we have seen from those opposite for decades and decades when it comes to trying to get wages moving in this country. I would say very simply that, if those opposite want to get wages moving, they should support the closing loopholes bill. If they think that wages should go backwards then they should oppose the closing loopholes bill. If they want wages to go forwards then they should stand in this place and support it. What we have instead is those opposite opposing closing a loophole that prevents gig workers from being treated as workers. They are defending that loophole in the way they are voting in this place. They are defending the loophole that means that gig workers have no minimum standards of employment. They are defending the loophole that stops people from be able to transfer into a permanent job. They are defending the loophole that allows labour hire to undercut agreed and negotiated wage rates. They come in here day after day with speech after speech defending those loopholes. They are wrong on that just as they were wrong when they opposed the secure jobs, better pay bill. We know that bill sought to make long overdue changes to make sure that people could get secure jobs and a fair day's pay for a fair day's work. It was really simple stuff. Improving access to bargaining was opposed by those opposite. Putting gender security and job security at the heart of the Fair Work Act was opposed by those opposite. Expanding access to flexible rostering was opposed by those opposite. Limiting the use of unfair fixed term contracts was opposed by those opposite. We came into this place trying to terminate the Howard era Work Choices zombie agreements, and even that was too far for those in the coalition. When there was one last little bit of Work Choices, they clung to it like a life raft and said, 'No, we can't ever truly let go of our commitment to Work Choices.' They hung onto it. They even opposed the idea to ban advertisements that advertised jobs below the legal minimum award. They opposed that. We had a speech that was the classic catastrophising in speeches we get from those opposite in November last year from the Leader of the Opposition. He said, 'It doesn't improve the lives of Australians.' He said it was going to lead to 'economy-wide strikes the like of which we have not seen in recent memory'. November was a while ago. Where are the Leader of the Opposition's so-called strikes? Where are these people who are being sacrificed at the altar? What I can tell you about, though, is the people whose lives it has improved. It has improved the lives of people who want to get a fair day's pay for a fair day's work. The one thing I did agree with in the Leader of the Opposition's speech on the 'secure jobs, better pay' bill last year was when he said, 'Our industrial relations system is far from perfect.' I agree. It's another reason why those opposite should come into this place and support the closing loopholes bill, so we can continue to do the work of getting wages moving. Last year the Australian people chose to elect the Albanese government, and we advocated for an increase in the minimum wage. A 5.2 per cent increase was absolutely supported by members on this side. In July this year, we saw the minimum wage go up by 8.6 per cent—the largest on record. I challenge any member of the opposition speaking on this MPI to tell me that would have happened if they were in government. I think the Australian people know it would not have. We also had the very good news last month that the gender pay gap in this country, which has been too wide for too long, is the narrowest on record, at 13 per cent. We know there's a lot more to do, but things are heading in the right direction. Again, let's look at what's happened, taking aged care as one example. We supported a wage increase for aged care workers. It took effect on 1 July this year. We committed $11.3 billion in our budget to fund the Fair Work Commission's interim decision for a 15 per cent pay increase. That has meant that 250,000 workers in aged care, over 85 per cent of whom are women, have been able to get a serious pay increase. Registered nurses, enrolled nurses, assistants in nursing, personal care workers, head chefs and cooks, recreational activities officers—the largest ever pay increase for aged care workers, ensuring that they finally get some more recognition for the incredibly important work that they do. When it comes to matters to support household budgets, outside of wage increases, we've delivered cheaper child care, benefitting 1.2 million families. We've delivered cheaper medicines, helping 11 million people, saving Australians $138 million in seven months. When that latest round kicked in, on 1 September, I was joined by the Assistant Minister for Health and Aged Care, Ged Kearney, at View Street Medical in North Perth, where we talked to GP pharmacists about how it would benefit their patients. We've boosted bulk-billing. Despite the lack of help from those opposite, we got the energy price relief legislation through last year. We've expanded paid parental leave. In the final moments available to me, I want to speak about industrial relations and the powers of the states, the territories and the Commonwealth. Industrial relations matters are something that the Australian parliament is able to act upon because of the powers that are given to us in section 51—subsections xx, xxix and xxxv—of the Constitution. This is an important thing that we legislate upon, passing laws in this place. Under what power do we do it? It tells us at the start of section 51, which you might want to pass on to the Leader of the Opposition: 'The parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power'—that's where the power to make sure that we can get wages moving again comes from. (Time expired) 15:34 Ms WARE 300123 Hughes I rise to speak on this matter of public importance, and I thank the member for Hume for bringing it. Australians have seen a collapse of real wages under this government. I've just heard the member for Perth talk about everything but the collapse of real wages that has occurred under his watch and under the watch of all of those opposite. In simple terms, a collapse in real wages means that prices are increasing at a greater rate than income and wages. While the member for Perth spoke a lot about IR and closing-the-loopholes legislation, and he spoke about childcare workers and aged-care workers, childcare workers and aged-care workers in my electorate know that every time they go to the supermarket, every time they fill up their car, every time they pay their rent, every time they pay their mortgage, it is costing more and more. It is taking up a far greater proportion of their take-home pay. That is what this MPI is about. If those opposite don't believe the member for Hume, they can maybe have a good look at what happened last week with their own national accounts, which revealed that we are now in a per capita recession. What that means is that we've now had two quarters where growth per person is negative. Productivity has gone backwards. Outside of the pandemic, this is the first per capita recession we've had since the mid-2000s. That has happened after only 12 months of this Albanese Labor government. Economic output per person in this country is going backwards under this government. That is what's being felt on the ground. That's what we are all hearing from Australian families and from Australian businesses. It's what families and businesses in my electorate are telling me every day. The real concern here is that this is not just a bad economic position that Labor has put Australians in. It's not just an economic issue. It's not just a financial issue. It's a very personal issue and it's a social issue. In particular, I draw the attention of those opposite to Suicide Prevention Australia's recent report State of the nation in suicide prevention. It states that the most significant risks to suicide rates over the next 12 months are cost of living and personal debt. And that can be sheeted home to this government. This government has not got control of inflation. It has left everything to the Reserve Bank of Australia, which has at its disposal a very blunt instrument—that is, to increase interest rates. Twelve interest rate increases have occurred under this government. We heard from Anthony Albanese, when he was campaigning, that Australians would be better off under this government. Australians are not better off under this government, and Australians now know that they are not better off under this government. The evidence is there when we see productivity declining and real wages going backwards. This demonstrates that this is an economy under strain after a year of inaction on inflation under Labor. When Labor talk about challenges on the global horizon and blame events overseas or try to distract the country with events here, that is simply not good enough. It is not an adequate excuse for a lack of an economic growth agenda. It is not an excuse for their failure to address inflation. This government has an excuse for everything; it's events overseas or it's something else internally. It has excuses but no plan at all. Honourable members interjecting— Ms WARE 300123 I hear those opposite. So what do you say when Lifeline, for example, is reporting that 80 per cent of its calls now relate to cost-of-living pressures? That is something that has happened on your watch. This is on your watch. Real wages have fallen significantly under those opposite. They need to come up with a plan to address inflation and increase productivity. (Time expired) 15:39 Dr CHARLTON I8M Parramatta Real wages measure the increase in wages relative to increases in other prices in the economy, and, over long periods, real wages are what drive Australians living standards. If real wages are rising, it is easier to put food on the table and pay the bills. If real wages are falling, it is harder to make ends meet. So it is important that we discuss real wages and look hard at those numbers, and it's important that we get those numbers right. Let's have a look at what the shadow Treasurer, the mover of this motion, said in his speech to this parliament. He said, 'Real wages are collapsing.' He said, 'Inflation is running at 9.6 per cent, and wages are growing at 3.6 per cent.' He said, in a little maths lesson from the shadow Treasurer, 'If you subtract one from the other, we have negative real wage growth of six per cent.' I try and track the economy reasonably closely, and I have to say I couldn't find this number—this 9.6 number. Has anybody ever heard of 9.6 as the CPI? I was sitting here, I was scratching my head and I was wondering what on earth he was talking about when he said the number was 9.6. I googled just to check and the most recent CPI number is six per cent, annualised. That's the most recent CPI number, very strange. Then I went back—have I missed something here? Was there a previous number that was bigger? I'll quote the ABS, 'The peak of inflation was 7.8 per cent in December 2022,' the biggest we've had in the last two decades. So where on earth was the 9.6 number that the shadow Treasurer is talking about? Are we having a vegemite moment here, friends? It's hard to tell. I had a little google, 'Where is that 9.6 number?' It turns out that it's not the CPI; the 9.6 number is the number for goods inflation, part of the CPI that excludes all of the services component of that CPI. It's a bit of cherry-picking. Here's the beauty of it, friends: it's not even the most recent number! It's the goods CPI number for September 2022. That number is over a year old! Can you believe it? The shadow Treasurer, the mover of his own motion, comes into this House, gives us a CPI number that is, (a) wrong and (b) old, and then he has the gall to subtract that from his 3.6 wages number. That number was easy to find. He's on firmer ground here, colleagues—3.6 was the June '23 wage price index—but you can't subtract a June '23 wage price index from a September '22 inflation number of your choice. When you calculate real numbers, you don't just pick the date at which you want the numerator and pick another date for the denominator, whatever makes you feel best. You can't do this. This is the act of a sloppy and lazy shadow Treasurer. Could you get more incompetent than getting the inflation number wrong in your own MPI, subtracting wages from a different year from that inflation number? Do you know what this actually shows, Deputy Speaker? It shows that the shadow Treasurer actually doesn't care about real wages at all. He actually doesn't care about the living standards of ordinary Australians. This is another outrageous mistake. Let me give the actual facts on where real wages are going. If he'd let his fingers do the walking, if he had looked for the most recent data, he would have found that in the June quarter, the most recent quarter, CPI was running at 0.8 per cent and the wage price index was running at 0.8 per cent. If you subtract one from the other, what do you get? You get real wages that, for the first time in a long time, are no longer negative. To suggest that real wages are collapsing when, for the first time in the most recent data, they have come out of negative territory is absolutely wrong. I'll help the shadow Treasurer out: zero is not a big number. I'll let him know that. Zero is a small number—a little math fact for the shadow Treasurer! But I'll tell him what zero is bigger than: it's bigger than minus 1.5. Minus 1.5 was the real wages growth in the last quarter that those opposite left us with. Minus 1.5 is their legacy. Today it has come out of negative territory for the first time. It is outrageous that we have a shadow Treasurer who would come into this House and give us sloppy and factually incorrect numbers in his own MPI. (Time expired) 15:44 Mr VIOLI 300147 Casey I know the member for Parramatta loves his numbers. He obviously likes talking about them. I really hope— Mr VIOLI 300147 Accurate? Okay, we're going to talk about accurate numbers, because I really hope he speaks to the Treasurer and everyone opposite who talks about the trillion dollars of debt that doesn't exist—it is $517 billion. Go and have a look at ABC Fact Check. They're very happy to sit there and talk about those numbers. Are you going to talk to the Prime Minister and the Treasurer? I know the member for Hawke likes to use the $1 trillion debt misinformation line from those opposite. It's very easy to get up and talk about numbers—we can all talk about numbers. The real wages growth number to June this year is -2.4 per cent, and the member for Parramatta talks a lot about insider stuff when we talk about these numbers. But let's actually go back to what we're talking about, which is families. Australian families know they're doing it harder than ever. Anyone that speaks to people in their community knows that it's tough to pay the rent, to pay the mortgage, to put food on the table. Just today the latest Westpac sentiment report said that Australian families are more worried about the state of their finances than at any other time in the last 30 years. The member for Parramatta and those opposite can laugh about whether it's 9.6 per cent or whether it's -2.4 per cent for real wages growth, but the reality is the Australian people are doing it harder than ever. This government has no answers. It has no nothing. The Treasurer gives us lectures, the member for Parramatta gives us lectures. They do not give the Australian people the solutions they're looking for. As a candidate I had the unfortunate need to listen to the then opposition leader, now Prime Minister, and to listen to the shadow Treasurer at the time. They spoke a lot about real wages. On 24 June last year, when they had just got into government so were not quite across the numbers, the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, Tony Burke, said: We're fighting for real wage growth from day one … He said Labor would fight for real wage growth in its first term and had been pushing for growth from day one. That was on 24 July last year. Every time he stands at the dispatch box now, every time the Treasurer stands at that dispatch box, every time the Prime Minister stands at that dispatch box, they will talk about wage growth. They will never use the term 'real wages growth'. The reason they don't is that they know it is going backwards, and Australians are worse off today than they were on 21 May last year. That is a fact that those opposite know, and Australians know it. They know it every time they go to the petrol browser. They know it when they get their mortgage bill. They know it when their electricity bill comes in. The member for Hawke thinks those in the community are doing better than ever, and they've never had it better. It must be a little different over in Melbourne because I know in my community they are struggling. People are having to make choices about whether they can eat or heat. That is the reality of winter for many families. It is a reality that my family went through over 30 years ago. And that is what we're talking about. The economy is in a worse place for families than 30 years, but we have a prime minister and a Treasurer that don't offer solutions. They offered plenty of criticism about this when they were in opposition, but they are not providing any solutions for the Australian people. And it is even worse than that. This Prime Minister doesn't even want to get across the detail of the economy. Since he has been Prime Minister, seriously, this Prime Minister has not got one briefing from Steven Kennedy, the Secretary of the Treasury, and that was said in Senate estimates. That is not misinformation. In Senate estimates the Secretary of the Treasury said he has not given him one briefing. The Prime Minister has spent more time at the Australian Open tennis than he has getting a private briefing from Steven Kennedy, the Secretary of the Treasury. You don't have to listen to what they say, you look at what they do. This Prime Minister doesn't have a plan to improve and bring real wages up. We all know they are going backwards, which means every dollar you are earning is worth less. Inflation is still well above the target of two per cent to three per cent. This government has no plan for the Australian people. (Time expired) 15:49 Dr GARLAND 295588 Chisholm I'm pleased to use this parochial phrase from this Victorian, but those opposite clearly have more front than Myer in this debate. I guess we should welcome the more courageous attitude from the member for Hume this week. At least he stayed for the start of the MPI today, although I know he is no longer in the chamber. On this side of the House we do know that people are under pressure, and we do take the cost-of-living issue really seriously. I do want to pause and reflect on this. I would have hoped that when we talk about issues as serious as suicide, they wouldn't be weaponised for cheap political shots. I want to say that in this chamber because I do think it is a really serious issue. We had World Suicide Prevention Day yesterday. I am quite concerned at the way suicide sometimes does get bandied around in political debates in ways that I don't think actually show genuine compassion about people's mental health. Moving on from that, let's look at the facts, as the member for Parramatta and the member for Perth began to do in this chamber, unlike those opposite. We know that people are doing things tough, but the reality is, despite the fact that those opposite might not want to admit this, since we came to office, we've seen wages increase while inflation has fallen. That's a fact. Treasury analysis shows earnings for the average full-time worker increased 3.9 per cent in the first year of our government. In dollar terms, the average full-time worker is earning around $3,700 extra per year since we came into office. Under our government, wages are growing at their fastest pace in a decade, and we have the first budget surplus in 15 years, which took pressure of inflation when inflation was most acute. It is completely disingenuous of those opposite to feign concern about the real wages of Australians when wage stagnation was at the heart of their economic policies. It was a deliberate design feature of their plan. In their last two budgets they planned for real wages to fall. In this place just last week, when those opposite were given the opportunity to help lift wages, they voted to delay the closing the loopholes bill and they failed Australians once again by saying no. They voted to delay pay increases for mine and aviation workers. They voted to trap permanent casuals in insecure work for longer. They voted to delay the criminalisation of wage theft. They spent their entire time in government keeping wages low and holding workers back, and they're still doing it in opposition. For 10 long years those opposite had a deliberate policy of keeping Australian wages low. If they were serious about real wage growth, they would have done something about it. And of course they didn't because they're not serious. This tells you everything you need to know about the Liberal-National coalition. They're not concerned about the people they represent. They're concerned about making cheap political points. I wish they cared about the welfare of Australian people. I wish that we could take this motion seriously. Australians can see through this charade. We have learned over the last few months that those opposite would rather stand in the way than help when it comes to easing pressures on the household budget. We remember what life was like when those opposite were in government. We remember the decade of stagnating wages. We remember the costs of child care, health care, energy and education all increasing. In my own electorate of Chisholm, the cost to see a GP went up by 38 per cent. We know Australians are under pressure. That's why we are doing something about it. We're rolling out responsible cost-of-living relief without adding to inflation. It's not just that we're getting wages moving again, it's also about doing what good governments do to support Australians with cost-of-living relief. Cheaper child care benefits 1.2 million families. Cheaper medicines—we're boosting bulk-billing. We've achieved a pay rise for aged-care workers. We worked to make sure that we could deliver energy price relief. We're a responsible government. Those opposite are being disingenuous in everything that they say, and this is just another example. (Time expired) 15:54 Mr WOLAHAN 235654 Menzies Thank you to the speakers who have come before me, on both sides. The member for Perth mentioned the Constitution. I like to flick through it when I'm waiting for an actual relevant answer. A n honourable member interjecting— Mr WOLAHAN 235654 The same page, yes. There are some other parts of section 51 that you might like to hear. It says: The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution— Apparently that doesn't have any meaning, but it does have meaning— have power to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of the Commonwealth— Good government of the Commonwealth—it might be worth picking that part up and flicking through it every now and then because good government is what you are put here by the Australian people to do. We haven't had good government from this government, and that is a serious thing. We've had many interjections through this debate, and I'll mention a few of them. We had the member for Higgins say, 'Why did you suppress real wages for a decade?' Sorry, I've misrepresented you. I said 'real wages', and you said 'wages'. We always leave the 'real' part out. The interjection was: 'Why did you suppress wages for a decade?' When I was growing up, I remember watching Sesame Street. There was always the word of the day and the number of the day, and that's how I imagine the government members meet; there's a word of the day. It's quite clear that the words of the day—there are two of them—are 'misinformation' and 'disinformation'. You've all come in here and repeated them again and again, throughout this parliament. I remember when it was called 'fake news', but we've moved on to 'misinformation' and 'disinformation'. When you think about those words, they're a great way to say, 'I'm not listening to you; I'm not listening.' We know why you're saying that, in these last five weeks before the referendum. 'I'm not listening.' You talk about listening, but you don't actually do it. In this motion, I'd like to take the points that were made by the member for Parramatta, who is a friend of mine on the House economics committee. He is a distinguished economist, but I think Google let you down today. You were quite quick to jump to your feet to correct the shadow Treasurer on his use of a particular number. If you were to open up Google on your laptop or your phone, I'd urge you to go a media release dated 2 August 2023, with the heading 'Employee households see biggest rise in living costs'. Under the subheading 'Employee households' it says: Living costs for employee households recorded the largest annual rise of all household types, at 9.6 per cent. So it's not a number that the shadow Treasurer has just plucked from thin air. It has real consequences. I'd like to go to the contributions by my friends the member for Hughes and the member for Casey. They talked about the real consequences for people. The words of the day today aren't misinformation and disinformation; the word of the day is 'real'. It's about what real Australians are facing out in the real world, not here. What they're facing is a 15.7 per cent increase in electricity prices. They were promised a cut of $275. That's never the number of the day. It's never the word of the day, either. It doesn't appear in the Sesame Street briefing that you get in the morning. Then we have gas prices going up sharply, almost 14 per cent in the latest data, and from the good state of Victoria, like the member for Chisholm—enjoy your gas at record prices, because it won't be there in the future, thanks to our Premier. We've had milk and bread prices going up by 10 per cent or more, and Australians are paying. People are noticing their insurance bills, when they open them, are at astronomical prices. The worst thing of all, which we don't hear about from the members opposite, is the interest payments on mortgages. An average mortgage in a city area of $750,000 area sees that family pay $22,000 more a year. When you look at the average wages that people get, that is just off the chart. People have to make choices, and they have to make compromises. We're not here to politicise the horrible scourge of suicide in this country. We're not here to do that; none of us are, on either side. I would never accuse you of doing that. That's not what we're doing. But we all have food banks in our electorates, and I challenge any of you to say they aren't seeing more people queueing up than before. I challenge any of you to say that. I've got six in my electorate, and the queues are out the door. Those people are doing it tougher than they ever have. They're relying on you, and you're letting them down. 15:59 Mr LAXALE 299174 Bennelong It truly beggars belief that of all people in this place it is the opposition bringing this matter of public importance to the parliament today, because the issue of low wages growth is one that has been persistent in our economy for many, many years. Low wages growth isn't a problem that started at the date of the last federal election. It isn't a problem that started last week. It is a problem that was manufactured by the Liberal Party of Australia during their nine years of government. We know this because low wages were a deliberate design feature of their economic plan. From 2013 to 2022, under the former Liberal government, wages remained largely stagnant, barely keeping pace with the rising cost of living. Between 2013 and 2022, the annual wage growth rate averaged a mere 2.3 per cent, which barely kept up with inflation, effectively resulting in zero real wage growth. In practical terms, this meant that the average Australian worker's wage barely kept pace with the rising cost of goods and services. In fact, when accounting for inflation, the real wage growth effectively amounted to zero. The stagnation of wages under the previous government inflicted a heavy toll on everyday Australians, leaving them to grapple with the harsh reality of their eroding purchasing power. The deliberate design of the Liberals' economic plan meant that it was harder for Australian families to make ends meet. It was hard for Australians to pay their bills and harder for Australians to provide for their families. None of this is opinion or editorial. We've got the receipts. This is what former finance minister Mathias Cormann revealed in March 2019 when he said that low wages were 'a deliberate design feature of our economic architecture'. Thankfully, we now have a government that cares deeply about ensuring Australians' wages are moving in the right direction. Labor was elected on a promise to get wages moving, and that's exactly what we've started to do. It is this government, after nearly a decade of those opposite, that genuinely recognises how hard Australians work, from the cleaners who clean our hospitals to the tech workers who drive innovation and the care industry workers looking after our most vulnerable. Our commitment to them at the last election and today is to get wages moving for them. I know that all on this side of the House will continue to work to help our lowest paid workers get the pay rise that those opposite never helped deliver. As a result of our government's actions, we are seeing annual wage growth rates that have not been this high since 2012. In the June 2023 quarter, wages rose, marking the first time in 11 consecutive quarters where real wages didn't go backward. Earnings for the average full-time worker increased by 3.9 per cent in the first year of our government. That's about $3,700 going straight back into Australian workers' pockets. Not only has our government supported the national minimum wage rises—it has increased by 8.6 per cent, which just so happens to be the largest increase on record—we have also secured and funded a long overdue 15 per cent increase for aged-care workers, benefiting 250,000 people across Australia. It tells you everything that you need to know about the modern Liberal Party that they have the gall to bring this matter of public importance to this place while they vote against genuine cost-of-living relief and wage growth measures. Again and again they voted against supporting wage growth in this parliament and supporting cost-of-living relief. When the Fair Work Commission was tasked with determining the minimum wage rise last year, what did those opposite say to making a submission to support wages going up? They said no. When the Fair Work Commission was tasked with determining the minimum wage rise this year, what did those opposite say to making a submission to support wages going up? They said no. When it came to passing the secure jobs legislation to improve access to bargaining for our lowest paid and most feminised sectors, also expanding flexible working arrangements for working families, what did those opposite say? They said no. And when it comes to debating and passing the legislation now before the House to close employment loopholes, ensuring minimum wage rates for our gig economy workers, we know what they'll say. They will say no again. I would encourage the Liberal Party to get on board and support the government's efforts to get wages moving and reduce cost-of-living pressures. I would encourage them to also acknowledge the impact their terrible policies had on our wages and our economy. 16:04 Mr STEVENS 176304 Sturt I appreciate the opportunity that the shadow Treasurer is providing to members to talk about the situation of real wages going backwards in this country. I regret that the government contributors have decided not to address that central point, though I suppose they wouldn't want to because, if we look at the situation with inflation and look at the situation with wages, inflation in June, for the financial year, was six per cent, and wages growth was 3.6 per cent. So real wages in the first financial year of this government are going backwards. Those are ABS statistics. They can't be disputed, so the talking points will be every attempt imaginable to put some sort of spin on this diabolical situation that Australian families find themselves in. Not as many of them as some might like are listening to this debate, but they're certainly feeling it in the hip pocket when they're having discussions around the kitchen table about the family budget, when they're getting bill shock from opening the electricity bill, when they get to the check-out at the supermarket and they see what the weekly or fortnightly shop is costing them, and when they see the power of their pay packet going backwards. As their costs are rising dramatically, their wages are going backwards relatively. That's the reality of the first 12 months of this government. Many of those opposite, who get the talking points from the Treasurer's office, were instructed to talk about the previous government. Bizarrely, they were even conceding that there was growth under the previous government; they were just saying it wasn't high enough. Under this government, it's going backwards. You don't have any real growth. You've got negative growth. You've got a deterioration in the spending power of the average worker. That's indisputable when you compare the annualised CPI and the annualised wages growth. So workers in this country, the ones the government claims to support, are going backwards under this government. With interest rates, the fixed rate is now in the sixes. A lot of people who are coming off three-year rates that were in the low twos are now getting rates in the low sixes. I was talking to a couple on the weekend who have just last month seen their interest repayments triple as they have matured from a three-year fixed rate. Their total mortgage has gone up threefold. Their electricity bills are going up—and for their groceries. In Adelaide right now, fuel is way over $2 a litre. Regrettably, with the Aussie dollar where it is and oil prices where they are, that's only going to go up in the weeks ahead. So all of the major outputs from the average family budget are going up, but real wages are going down, and that's the point of this MPI. It's an opportunity for those in this parliament, particularly those who are members of a government that committed to addressing real wages growth, as they call it—there's no growth going on. It's going backwards under this government. That's something that is shameful and something that you would think would be a priority—not a referendum, not that major distraction from the core issue that all Australians, Indigenous and non-Indigenous, are facing, which is the dramatic escalation of cost-of-living pressures across all the major elements of the household budget. This government has the wrong priorities. They don't want to talk about the statistics for their time in government. They don't want to talk about the reality of increasing electricity and other utility prices across the board, increasing mortgages and increasing rents, and real wages going backwards in this high-inflation environment. All we've heard is commentary from talking points distributed by a minister, no doubt about the previous government. There is no pride in the record of the first 12 months or more of their government because, on this topic and so many others, there is absolutely nothing to be proud of. The $275 reduction in electricity prices—we never again heard that commitment discussed in this chamber by those opposite. An explosion in interest rates, an explosion in rental costs, inflation out of control and real wages going backwards are the reality of the record of this government. There was an opportunity to dispute those facts from the Australian Bureau of Statistics and others. But, of course, if I was in a government with that record I probably would give a speech that was all about the last government because I wouldn't be proud of the record of the government I was part of, and that has become patently clear in this debate today. 16:09 Mr RAE 300122 Hawke Those opposite have been at pains—it's been painful for me—to explain the difference between wages and real wages, or at least try to. I thank them for displaying the might of their collective economic intellectualism! We all understand that, when inflation exceeds wages growth, working people and their families are worse off. It should also be obvious then that the fastest way to reverse this difference and lift real wages is to bring inflation under control and get wages moving again. While those opposite seemingly refuse to believe that both can be done simultaneously, the proof is in the numbers. Inflation has been steadily moderating since the end of last year, while annual wages growth is at the highest levels since Labor was last in power, in 2012. In fact, analysis out of Treasury shows that the average full-time worker is $1,400 better off than if wages had continued to stagnate as they did under the Liberals. It's clear that the interventions of this Labor government are working and that the Liberals' real-wage freefall has been turned around, despite the enormous magnitude of their economic negligence. When the Albanese Labor government came to office, real wages were stagnant. Productivity had slumped for a decade. Inflation growth was out of control. Despite these clear failures, the Liberals insisted on persisting with their broken economic plan to deliberately suppress the wages of Australian workers. After spending nearly a decade in government intentionally keeping wages low, those opposite have desperately tried to continue to block any effort to get wages moving again. After opposing a $1 an hour increase to the minimum wage—a one single dollar an hour increase to the minimum wage—in the dying days of their government, they have since opposed our secure jobs, better pay bill and opposed the protecting worker entitlements legislation, and just last week we heard that they'll also be opposing the closing loopholes legislation currently before the House. Their obsession with keeping wages low is blinding them to the economic realities that we face. The divergence between returns on capital and returns on labour has created an environment of unsustainable profit performance at the expense of our long-term economic health. Despite what those opposite say about our agenda to get wages moving, it is in fact the erosion of the pay and conditions of workers to unsustainably pad corporate bottom lines that damaged productivity during their nine years in power. Our long-term economic prosperity relies on achieving and maintaining an equilibrium between the returns on productivity inputs. This isn't a complex economic proposal. It's simply about ensuring that the returns on investment of both labour and capital are sufficient to drive the investment of each. Sadly, however, it appears that even this basic economic principle is lost on the Liberals opposite. To make matters worse, while they were deliberately suppressing wages for Australian workers, they were failing to adequately safeguard our economy from the supply-side pressures that saw inflation start to take hold under the former Liberal government. For years, they wilfully sabotaged our sovereign capability and domestic manufacturing, even daring manufacturers like General Motors to leave. And their lazy approach to market concentration further suppressed economic productivity. They failed to identify and protect supply chain vulnerabilities, exacerbating global supply pressures and putting more strain on household budgets, businesses and, indeed, our whole economy. However, what's most astonishing is that, despite all these failings, they still managed to rack up $1 trillion of Liberal debt. They pump-primed the demand side of our economy, and they racked up a trillion bucks of debt—$1 trillion of Liberal debt, taxpayer money—in order to do it. I know the fragile egos on that side of the room have to face up to reality here. I know it's very difficult. The reality is that the modern Liberals are hopeless economic managers. They've proved it. They spent a decade proving it for Australians. This Labor government is relentlessly focused on attacking the cost of living for Australian families. Inflation growth is down, and wages are up, but it's plain that the Liberals' economic credentials are all over the place. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 The discussion has now concluded. MOTIONS 42 MOTIONS Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice 42 16:15 Mr DUTTON 00AKI Dickson We're here at this time of the day because the government refused to take this debate during question time, which would be the normal course of events, but I don't think the Australian public would be surprised at all by that decision of the Prime Minister. It's clear to the Australian public now that they have been deceived by the Prime Minister. It's clear that detail around the Voice has been deliberately kept from the public. It's clear from the minister's own answer to a basic question today about the composition of the Voice—as to whether it would be elected, whether it would be appointed, how people would make up that body. None of that basic detail was even known to the Minister for Indigenous Australians. Australians, I think, are bemused. Many people are sad. It's an unfortunate set of events that the Prime Minister has presided over here. The reality is, as we march toward 14 October, there are many Australians who have a reasonable question to ask of the Prime Minister, of the referendum working group, of the minister, as to how the Voice would work in practice. There are many concerns, for example, around the breadth of the words being proposed to be inserted into the Constitution, but the question really is whether the government has any intent to provide that detail ahead of 14 October. So far it's obvious from the minister's contributions or lack thereof to this parliamentary debate, and the Prime Minister's own obfuscation, the way in which he's refused to answer basic questions to members of the press gallery or in here, that they are going to go to 14 October with millions of Australians, in an unprecedented way, unable to gather the detail that is relevant to the decision that they want to make. I have the utmost respect for Australians, and people will decide for their own reasons, based on their own judgements and their own research, to vote yes or no. I strongly advocate that Australians vote no, because I believe very strongly that this is not a proposal that's in our country's best interests. We've come to this position without any constitutional convention, without a contest about the proposition being proposed. The words haven't been tested in a constitutional convention. There is a split within the legal community as to the interpretation from the High Court about the breadth of the application of the Voice. It's clear from the words proposed by the Prime Minister to the Australian public that there will be a very liberal interpretation—and open to a very significant wide interpretation otherwise—by the High Court. That is indisputable. The minister can come in here and say—I'm sure with sincerity—that the Voice only applies to education, to closing the gap in relation to very important indicators, but the fact is it goes well beyond that. There are no words in the words being proposed to the Australian people at the moment which limit it to those particular aspects. That's why all Australians at the moment, when they look even in a cursory way at what's before them, know that this has a much broader application and, therefore, a much more significant impact for the way in which this parliament contemplates legislation, the way in which the budget is compiled, the way in which the government can make decisions around awarding of contracts. The Voice will have a say in every single element of that executive power being—the minister shakes her head, but on what basis, Minister, do you shake your head? You're holding up a book, a pamphlet, that looks to be about 14 pages long in A5. Maybe it's double-sided, but it's not going to trump the Constitution. This parliament, even in a moment of unity when it comes together and we all sit on one side—the Liberal Party, the Labor Party, the Greens, the Independents—can't outdo the provisions in the Constitution, so let's have an honest debate. It's clear at this point that the Prime Minister does not want an honest debate, and we saw that at the end of question time today when the Prime Minister tabled a Sydney Morning Herald article critical of the 'no' campaign. He was pleased with himself—there was no doubt about that—but there was another story on the referendum today that didn't make it into the PM's act. What the Prime Minister didn't do today was table the Bunbury Herald front page, which features a member of his own referendum working group, not a lay contributor to this debate but somebody who was appointed personally by the Prime Minister and Minister Burney. The story reads: '"Racist or just stupid: Voice to parliament no voters are siding with either racism or stupidity," Professor Marcia Langton told a referendum forum in Bunbury on Sunday. If the Prime Ministers didn't have the Bunbury Herald on hand—maybe he didn't, but I suspect it is a great read—then surely he could have tabled the Australian's lead article, which had this headline: 'No voters branded racist, stupid by prominent voice campaigner Marcia Langton'. But did he table that today? Opposition members: No! Mr DUTTON 00AKI No, because we have heard from this Prime Minister in a biased way in relation to this debate, which I don't think is becoming of his office. In question time the opposition called on the Minister for Indigenous Affairs to condemn Langton's comments. Did she? No. Given the opportunity to expressly condemn those comments, she did not condemn those comments. This is Professor Marcia Langton, who was appointed by the Prime Minister and Minister Burney as the head or the chair of the referendum working group. The principal adviser to the Prime Minister of this country goes out suggesting that millions of Australians, including one in three Labor voters who are going to vote no or are indicating they are voting no on 14 October, are 'racist or just stupid'. The Prime Minister doesn't condemn those comments. He doesn't table the article. I have never seen anything like it, and I've been in this parliament for over 20 years. When you go back through the history books of this country, there is not a prime minister who has treated the Australian public with more contempt. This Prime Minister is dividing the country unnecessarily. This Prime Minister is going to a referendum without explaining it in detail to the Australian people. This Prime Minister is reading the published polling, as we all are, and seeing the internal polling, which frankly reflects what we're seeing in the newspapers across different banners, different media groups, but all consistently saying that a 'no' vote is likely to prevail on 14 October. But does the Prime Minister take a step to stop the referendum from going ahead? Does he turn it into a unifying moment for our nation? No, he doesn't! He doubles down, and he stands before the Australian people as the first Prime Minister in our country's history who would seek to divide our country right down the middle. This Prime Minister has taken a proposition that was supported 60-40 by the Australian public and turned it into something more akin to 40-60. That takes a special talent, and it shows how the Australian public are treating this Prime Minister. They don't see a competent government when they look at the Albanese government. It is not just in relation to this. Look at the detail around the Prime Minister's relationship with Alan Joyce. Look at what has happened in relation to Qatar Airlines. Look at what has happened over the course of two budgets, where they have taken economic decision after economic decisions that has resulted in Australians paying more for their energy at a time when they can least afford it. Australians at the moment are looking to their Prime Minister to lead in a time of need. Instead, he is dividing in a way that he thinks will deliver political advantage to him and the Australian Labor Party, and it should be called out. This Prime Minister is knowingly and wantonly going to the referendum on 14 October, which will divide our country, and he should be condemned for it. Is he here in the chamber to contest this today? Of course, he is not. He never is, and he never stands up for the Australian people. (Time expired.) The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 Is the motion seconded? 16:24 Ms LEY 00AMN Farrer It is entirely appropriate that the Leader of the Opposition moves this suspension today, and it is entirely expected that the Labor Party runs away from it. They know why they run away. It's because they know that this issue is dividing Australians. It's dividing Australians straight down the middle. That is what is so awful and what makes us on this side so angry. We know that Australians deserve the truth and they deserve answers. Minister, you may laugh as you sit there, but today what did you do? You ignored questions from quality members on this side of the House. The member for Herbert, a quality and serious individual who represents his community, made a powerful speech on veteran suicide earlier today. He's somebody who brings the passion and conviction of his electorate into this parliament, and you just dismissed him. Also the member for Capricornia, a strong rural woman who stands up for her western Queensland people—Minister, you just laughed it off. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 I remind the member for Farrer to direct her comments through the chair and stop personalising this debate. Ms LEY 00AMN Australians are fair-minded and fair dinkum. The problem is that this government is not. They come in here every question time with their confected moral outrage on the issue of the Voice. How about coming in here and providing some details for the Australian people? How about coming in here and answering the questions that we absolutely, on behalf of the Australian people, deserve answers to. Time and again this government has been caught speaking out of both sides of the mouth on voice, treaty and makarrata. The problem is the Prime Minister signed us all up to the Uluru statement in full but refuses to explain what it looks like in full. We have a prime minister in hiding and a minister for Indigenous Australians who appears to be doing more harm than good, who is just not up to the job, who is all over the shop. This loss of confidence has come through the refusal of members of the government to clearly explain what this voice is about and what it will mean for all Australians. Remember when we asked the minister about the Voice and Australia Day? Remember when she said the Voice would not provide advice on Australia Day, only to be immediately contradicted by legal experts and members of the 'yes' campaign? Time and again she has misled this House and hidden from scrutiny. Remember the millions of dollars allocated to the makarrata commission? The minister did not even appear to know about taxpayers' money being allocated for something this government claimed did not even exist. These are the sorts of questions that we are asking on behalf of the Australian people. Today, when given the chance to hold to account her own appointee to the Referendum Working Group, Marcia Langton, the minister failed to do so. We saw Marcia Langton label those advocating the 'no' position as either racist or stupid. This is a window into the psyche of the 'yes' campaign and a window into the psyche of the modern Labor Party. They refuse to accept that everyday Australians do not like what they see when it comes to the Voice. This is now a test for the Minister for Indigenous Australians. If she does not remove Marcia Langton from the working group, then she's actually endorsing those views. She's endorsing those views. This is the 'yes' campaign's deplorables moment, and it's really disappointing. We want a fair and honest debate. We don't want personal sledges. We don't want the attacks that are used to morally blackmail the Australian people in the same way that the Leader of the House tried to do with the Leader of the Opposition today, making people on this side accountable for remarks by the 'no' campaign. It's time for the Minister for Indigenous Australians to consider that in question time the job is to answer questions. Why would we, as a country, not go forward with something that we could all agree on—constitutional recognition of Indigenous Australians? This is the appeal that the Leader of the Opposition made, even before the writs were issued to the Prime Minister, but the Prime Minister has tied constitutional recognition of our First Australians to a concept called the Voice which he cannot explain, which his ministers cannot explain and which the key minister—the Minister for Indigenous Australians—cannot explain. This is a prime minister who runs and hides and lacks conviction to argue the case. If I was a 'yes' campaigner, I would be so disappointed by the Prime Minister not standing up for the cause that he believes in and not having the courage of his convictions. We in the Liberal and National parties have the courage of our convictions. We ask, on behalf of all Australians, for the detail that this government refuses to provide on the Voice. (Time expired) 16:29 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler The front page of the Herald and the Age today spelled out the dishonest and divisive strategy of the 'no' campaign. It is as cynical and as shameful as you'd expect—pretend to care, try to impersonate a concerned Australia, do anything you can to sow fear and doubt and, whatever you do, avoid the facts and also, unbelievably, don't even identify that you are from the 'no' campaign. There's no wonder. There is material being circulated around saying—this is just one—'The Voice to Parliament will affect every property owner. The United Nations has given the Australian government a mandate of ownership for all housing, property, farms and businesses countrywide that will come onto effect.' It goes on and says: 'If Indigenous people are to be written into the Constitution, the United Nations will own all Australian land.' That is what is being circulated by the 'no' campaign. The bottom line headline on it is 'The final conflict for all Australians'. That is in there. That is what is being promoted by the 'no' campaign. Do you know who is on the board of the Advance Australia campaign? Tony Abbott, the former Prime Minister. The fact is that the speech from the Leader of the Opposition followed those instructions to the letter. It's disappointing but in no way surprising because, when it comes to dishonesty and division, when it comes to fear campaigns and falsehoods, this bloke wrote the book. I have news for the Leader of the Opposition. The referendum isn't about him and it's not about me. It's about an idea that came from the people, and it will be decided by the people. If this bloke ever works out how to go back in time, he will be out there campaigning against Federation, revving up the 'no' campaigners to send out telegrams across the colonies warning them of all the horrible dangers of a united Australia. This bloke boycotted the apology. He didn't just boycott it; he stood up, along with only Wilson Tuckey, and walked out of the apology because he thought it was so bad and was going to have such a devastating impact that he threatened to resign from the frontbench on that basis. This bloke's only got one trick and one answer—no. The Herald article today outlines exactly the fear, division, sneakiness and nastiness of what is being projected. Even the text of the motion captures the bad-faith approach of the Leader of the Opposition. It says: (2) an unwillingness to consult in relation to the words of the constitutional amendment … I put forward a draft form of words in my speech at Garma in July 2022. We established working groups. The Leader of the Opposition attended those working groups on two occasions, on 2 February and 16 February. Those groups worked alongside a group of constitutional experts, including senior academics and a former High Court judge. Following their consultation and advice, on 23 March we put forward the updated form of words for the referendum question and the proposed constitutional amendment. During that period, I met with the Leader of the Opposition no fewer than seven times to try to seek agreement. But, of course, at no stage in the process did the Leader of the Opposition suggest any alternative words—none. Then in April, after losing the Aston by-election in a once-in-100-year debacle, and before the joint select committee process had even begun, the Leader of the Opposition went to his party room and came out and said he would be campaigning for 'no' and then changed the words that went to the Liberal party room which spoke about a national voice and went into a press conference and spoke about local and regional voices. He couldn't even tell the truth between his own party room and that press conference that was held. He just said no and cut loose the person who he had personally chosen to be the shadow minister for Indigenous affairs and shadow Attorney-General, someone who had more than a decade of involvement in the process which occurred leading up to the Uluru Statement from the Heart that occurred under the former government in a process appointed under the former government. That happened under Tony Abbott, with that press conference that was held at Kirribilli House way back in 2014. That happened under Malcolm Turnbull, in the lead-up to the 2017 Uluru Statement from the Heart. That happened under Scott Morrison, and that included, of course, the appointment of Marcia Langton and Tom Calma by the former government to give advice to their cabinet. That advice went to the cabinet not once but twice and was rejected, in spite of the support of the former minister for Indigenous affairs, Ken Wyatt. The Leader of the Opposition comes in here and speaks about that. We had the legislation. It went to the Senate and then returned, of course, here. The truth is, though, that he sat here on this side of the House and voted for the referendum to go ahead. Under the constitutional arrangements for the referendum, if you're going to support 'yes', you sit on this side of the House and you get to participate in the wording of the pamphlet that goes out. If you're going to vote no, you sit on that side of the House. That's the process that occurs. Opposition members interjecting— Mr ALBANESE R36 He sat here. And there wasn't a single vote on any amendment. There was nothing put forward in the House of Representatives and no divisions in the Senate either, just the process going forward. Then, after all that's over, he comes up with the idea of a second referendum. If this is defeated, he will go to an election, and if he's ever Prime Minister he will hold a second referendum on a process that no-one wants. Indigenous people themselves determined that they wanted constitutional recognition with substance, not just with symbolism, and that's what the Voice is about. David Axelrod described democracy as an ongoing battle between cynicism and hope. It's hard to imagine a more perfect demonstration than this referendum. In the cynicism corner is the opposition leader, Mr Dutton. The interjections across this chamber from the former—not once but twice—Deputy Prime Minister and others say all of what it's really about. Those opposite speak about it being all about politics and—as members of the Liberal Party have been quoted saying—all about causing damage to the government. There is no concern whatsoever for Indigenous Australians and closing the gap. There is no alternative plan. They say they support constitutional recognition—both sides do—and they say that they will legislate for a voice. Mr Pike 300120 Because it's changing the Constitution. The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Bowman is warned. Mr ALBANESE R36 So what is this about? The big distinction here and all of this fearmongering is about whether the existence of a voice—a body—should be enshrined in the Constitution. But within that the other clauses are very clear as well on what the Australian people will vote for. The first thing is: In recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the First Peoples of Australia: That's the recognition. Then it says, 'There shall be a body'—the voice. The second bit is, 'The voice may give advice on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people.' The third is the primacy of the parliament over the functions, procedures and composition of the Voice. That will be ongoing. That is the clause that is absolutely critical to ensure the primacy of this parliament going forward, yet those opposite are incapable of saying yes. The referendum is about something very simple: recognition and listening. The Voice is an advisory body only. It does not have a right of veto. It's not a funding body. It won't run programs. What it will be able to do is give advice to parliament and to government in order to get better results. If you keep doing the same thing, you should expect the same outcomes. We have an eight-year life expectancy gap. Indigenous young men are more likely to go to jail than to go to university. An Indigenous young woman is more likely to die in childbirth than a non-Indigenous woman. There used to be a moderate wing of the Liberal Party. Now there are some brave people who are out there, to their great credit, showing courage, but instead of a moderate wing you now have people who will say to you in private that they support a voice and they hope 'yes' gets up, but they cannot, in the modern Liberal Party and what it's become—a reactionary party, a party with nothing that is liberal and certainly a party that is not conservative either, as it trashes our institutions. (Time expired) The SPEAKER 53517 The time for this debate has now concluded. The question before the House is that the motion moved by the Leader of the Opposition be agreed to.    

The House divided. [16:44]
(The Speaker—Hon. Milton Dick)

 53 AYES Andrews, K. L. Bell, A. M. Birrell, S. J. Boyce, C. E. Broadbent, R. E. Caldwell, C. M. Chester, D. J. Coleman, D. B. Conaghan, P. J. 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. Katter, R. C. Landry, M. L. Ley, S. P. Littleproud, D. Marino, N. B. McCormack, M. F. McIntosh, M. I. McKenzie, Z. A. Morrison, S. J. O'Brien, E. L. O'Brien, L. S. Pasin, A. Pearce, G. B. Pike, H. J. Pitt, K. J. Price, M. L. Ramsey, R. E. (Teller) Stevens, J. Sukkar, M. S. Taylor, A. J. Tehan, D. T. Thompson, P. van Manen, A. J. Vasta, R. X. Violi, A. A. Ware, J. L. Webster, A. E. Willcox, A. J. Wilson, R. J. Wolahan, K. Wood, J. P. Young, T. J. 90 NOES Albanese, A. N. Aly, A. Ananda-Rajah, M. Archer, B. K. 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. Chaney, K. E. Charlton, A. H. G. Chesters, L. M. Clare, J. D. Claydon, S. C. Coker, E. A. Collins, J. M. Conroy, P. M. Daniel, Z. Doyle, M. J. J. Dreyfus, M. A. Elliot, M. J. Fernando, C. Freelander, M. R. Garland, C. M. L. Gee, A. R. Georganas, S. Giles, A. J. Gorman, P. Gosling, L. J. Haines, H. M. 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. Neumann, S. K. O'Connor, B. P. J. O'Neil, C. E. Payne, A. E. Perrett, G. D. Phillips, F. E. Plibersek, T. J. Rae, S. T. Reid, G. J. Repacholi, D. P. Rishworth, A. L. Roberts, T. G. Rowland, M. A. Ryan, J. C. Ryan, M. M. Scamps, S. A. Scrymgour, M. R. Shorten, W. R. Sitou, S. Smith, D. P. B. (Teller) Spender, A. M. Stanley, A. M. (Teller) Steggall, Z. Swanson, M. J. Templeman, S. R. Thistlethwaite, M. J. Thwaites, K. L. Tink, K. J. Vamvakinou, M. Watson-Brown, E. Watts, T. G. Wells, A. S. Wilkie, A. D. Wilson, J. H. Zappia, A. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

 BILLS 48 BILLS Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes) Bill 2023 48

Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes) Bill 2023

Second Reading 48 16:49 Dr FREELANDER 265979 Macarthur Our economy, our society and our nation rely on our workers, and they in turn rely on strong government backing to support and protect them. That's why I am proud to stand here with my colleagues and speak in support of the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes) Bill 2023, which is incredibly important. I'd like to thank the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations for his tireless efforts in this space protecting the most vulnerable people in our society. Australians expect and are used to having safe and fair working conditions. In the last decade, many working conditions have changed, and our industrial relations policies have not kept pace with that change. It's very important that we have legislation that underpins our strong workforce and helps ensure that hundreds of thousands of mums, dads, sisters, brothers, sons and daughters go to work and come home safely each day. This expectation, however, is grounded in the strong and tireless efforts of workers, labour advocates and governments fighting for these entitlements and protections. This bill covers many things, from closing the labour hire loophole to tackling wage theft and covering greater protections for workers, particularly in the digital labour and transport industries. We've all seen how our workforce has changed with the use of things like Uber and with labour hire companies taking over many roles in things like construction and mining, and our legislation and our worker supports have not kept up with these changes. This bill covers many things, from closing the labour hire loophole to tackling wage theft and covering greater protections for workers, particularly in the digital labour and transport industries. For too long, certain workers have been missing out on greater workforce protections and supports due to loopholes, which have been exploited by unscrupulous companies and individuals, that allow pay and conditions to be undercut. This sometimes affects people on very low incomes in insecure jobs, and it is shameful. We know that stealing from the till, forging cheques or robbing a bank is criminal, and people get prosecuted for it. Yet companies and people that steal wages are left untouched by the criminal justice system. This bill will change that. The minister noted in his second reading speech that this bill would make this behaviour criminally punishable, as an employer convicted of wage theft could face up to 10 years imprisonment. I know the vast majority of employers do the right thing, but when they don't they need to be held accountable. We'll also make sure with this legislation that the penalty for wage theft is greater by granting courts the ability to impose fines of up to three times the amount of wage underpayment in both civil and criminal contexts, thereby ensuring that penalties are proportionate to the scale of the misconduct. Whether it's underpaying their wages or their superannuation contributions, it is wrong that these loopholes are even there in the first place, and they must be closed. I would like to thank the strong men and women from the union movement for their tireless advocacy in addressing issues with these loopholes. Particularly, I'd like to thank Gerard Hayes of the Health Services Union; Paul Farrow of the AWU, our great local councillor; Richard Olsen and Michael Kaine of the TWU; and Sally McManus of the ACTU. They've worked tirelessly on this. Without their efforts and the efforts of their members, workers would be much worse off. Casual labour hire workers, particularly those who are or have been on this in the longer term, have missed out on serious workplace and workforce protections and benefits while doing the same work and job as other workers who may be part time or full time. The ramifications of this are significant and must be addressed, which this bill will do. This is a major issue for those workers who are injured, who are often not called back to work and are replaced by another worker sent by the labour hire provider in their place. Without protections, these injured workers struggle to gain additional employment, and they do not receive the same workplace protections as those with fixed work arrangements. This is particularly true in the gig economy. We've seen that with injured delivery drivers and with injured short-term workers in the construction industry left destitute by the lack of protections. I should note that it's not that the labour hire providers are always in the wrong. Some do protect their workers. Those people who do the right thing will not be affected by this legislation. If an employer or business asks a labour hire worker to do the same job as non-labour hire workers but for less, then that is a labour hire loophole, and this bill, very importantly, will close it. It's very difficult for workers without permanency to obtain leases for things such as cars—even leases for houses these days, in the rental crisis that we're seeing in Sydney and around the country—refrigerators, televisions and stoves. It's very difficult for people in non-continuing work to be able to get leases for this sort of equipment, and this bill will help close that loophole. One member of my staff recently informed me of a period in their life when they were a casual worker whilst at university and needed to obtain a loan to purchase a car to get to and from work—my work. However, as they were on a casual contract, the only loan they could get and secure was one with a sky-high interest rate, which they had no choice but to accept. We've changed that for people like them, but it was a big loophole that they found very difficult to overcome. As they put it, no car equalled no job, and the financial risk was deemed worth it to secure ongoing employment. This scenario plays out every day around our country and is a very real stress that too many Australians have had to unfairly endure. That is why this bill is so important. We are seeking to reduce such experiences and help more Australians get into stable and long-term employment. Some people may not want regular employment. They may want to work intermittently on a casual or part-time basis—no problem with that. This is about individual choice and helping people secure permanent work when they need it. Why should workers, especially those engaged in long-term jobs, be ostracised from the benefits of permanent, part- or full-time work and have their labour efforts milked by those who seek to make greedy gains off them? We know that some companies and some people have exploited that, and it's very important that this loophole is closed, which is what this legislation is about. It is about closing loopholes. It's well known that there is a direct link between low rates of pay and safety issues at work. And, tragically, we've seen a number of workers lose their lives in places like the construction industry, which is a dangerous industry, and the mining industry, which is a dangerous industry. Even food delivery services can be quite a dangerous occupation. Recently, whilst visiting central Sydney, I saw a food delivery driver knocked off his bike by a motor vehicle. He fractured his leg, but his main concern, as we stopped to help him, was that he wouldn't be able to work, would therefore lose his income and wouldn't have any way of paying for a roof over his own head. That's a tragic situation in a country like Australia—a wealthy country like Australia. So that needs to change. Even more at risk are those working in other parts of the gig economy, as they're more likely to be pressured into working longer hours, taking more risks—and we certainly see that in the mining and construction industry—and feeling pressured to take on more work due to their real fears of not having any long-term, permanent paid employment. Some days ago, the family of Burak Dogan called for this parliament to pass this bill. Burak was a 30-year-old Turkish student and Uber Eats driver who was killed in April 2020 between jobs, when he was hit by a truck in Sydney. So this is reality. This does happen, and this bill is extremely important in closing this loophole and providing some safety net features for those in the lowest-paid employment. For Burak and his family, obviously his death insurance and workers compensation were not covered under existing legislation, meaning that the benefits and funeral expenses could not be claimed. That's terrible. It really should not happen in a country like Australia. This is wrong on many levels, and it means that already grieving family and friends are often left with additional stresses and trauma to deal with during such troubling times, including sometimes transporting bodies overseas to their families. In my view, what has been happening—and it's a term that is bandied around—is really unAustralian. We need to do much better, and this legislation is very important in supporting that. It's why, as I mentioned earlier, that so many Australians expect safe and robust working conditions to protect them, their children, their employment prospects and their family. Without strong protections, our workforce and our economy would be greatly at risk, not the other way around like those members opposite wish to project. It is important that even the lowest paid in our community get those protections that we all expect. Unfortunately, for the last decade we've had a laissez faire approach to protecting the lowest paid workers in the country. That approach is not appropriate. We have too many resources and too many people doing extremely well in this country to let those who are most disadvantaged pay the costs for this. We're working to ensure that this bill provides the Fair Work Commission with the powers to include employee-like reforms of work which will allow it to better protect people in the new forms of work, such as the gig economy workers and workers who work in some of the most dangerous conditions, from exploitation and dangerous working conditions. This will be done through the commission's ability to set minimum standards for thousands of workers in places such as the digital platform, where we are seeing more and more people, even in my own field of health care, being involved in work which can often be unseen and sometimes, up until now, unprotected. It will reduce unsafe practices and deter both employers and employees from taking chances with risky behaviour. The race to the bottom by those wishing to exploit and abuse Australian workers must and will stop. It has gone on for far too long. In relation to this, this bill will help ensure that employees who are experiencing family and domestic violence will not be discriminated against in the workforce, which shockingly can and does occur even in this day and age. We've seen it happen. This legislation acknowledges that far too many Australians, often women, have had to face dreadful decisions and choices about losing their jobs or putting up with violence in their relationships, and this government has worked extraordinarily hard to make sure that they are protected, and this legislation will further close loopholes in that regard. For far too long we've seen women severely injured from domestic violence. Unfortunately, a woman a week dies because of domestic violence in this country. We have to change that. There is no other answer other than to protect these workers. It's not right, and this bill ensures that workers are not penalised in any way if they disclose that they are or have been experiencing family and domestic violence. This builds on our government's work from earlier this year when we introduced 10 days paid family and domestic violence leave, which saves lives, helps victims and protects our workforce. It is for these reasons that I am very proud to support this bill and to defend Australian workers from exploitation and from being neglected. I again thank the minister and his team for their efforts. The minister has worked extraordinarily hard and extraordinarily long to try to make sure that workers are protected, and I congratulate him on this bill. I congratulate my colleagues and those in the union movement and the labour movement who have worked incredibly hard to look at these protections in a very methodical and practical way. This bill allows people from my electorate of Macarthur and around the country to now have the option of secure work with secure protections for their working lives. I'm very proud to be part of a government that believes in the philosophy of this bill and closing these terrible loopholes that have allowed very poor people to be exploited. 17:03 Ms LEY 00AMN Farrer I am pleased to speak on this industrial relations bill, the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes) Bill 2023. Those opposite have been very calculated in how they've framed the debate about the industrial relations bill that sits before us today—very calculating indeed. We're told that this is all about closing loopholes. They want so much of our focus to be on this framing that they even titled it the closing loopholes bill. In fact, I have heard that the minister is in line for a Guinness world record for his relentless use of the word 'loophole'. The frequency and the intensity of his exhortations sparked my curiosity because in my time in this place I have learnt that when a Labor government wants to hide something they really lean into the framing, and they've done exactly that with this legislation. But there is something they've missed. In their attempts to confuse and confound with loopholes of loopholes, they have missed that it is actually a word with a double meaning, and its other meaning reveals an apt metaphor for what is going on with this bill today and how this Labor government treats the Australian people. The word is derived from the Middle English 'loupe', meaning an opening in a wall, and 'hole', from the Germanic. Historically, a loophole was one of those slits in a castle wall that would allow an archer to shoot arrows down on an enemy and remain protected from those who wanted to see what was going on behind the wall or, indeed, wished to attack it. Nowadays, of course, it has come to signify a means of escape or a tricky way out, but for a long time the word represented a slight opening in a seemingly impenetrable wall. You see, just like a French mediaeval archer, this government loves to hide behind loopholes. We see it time and time again, and we see it today with this bill. The minister and his union buddies have all been bunkering down in their own little comrades castle, constructing their dream legislation while selectively feeding pieces of information like arrows through those loopholes, never showing too much, never exposing themselves to risk of scrutiny. I think this is a far more apt representation of what we have seen from this Labor government when it comes to industrial relations and when it comes to this bill, but, thanks to Australia's parliament, the minister has been forced to put down his drawbridge and bring his 'frankenbill' into the sunlight for the world to see, and it is ugly. If it were up to the opposition, we would put a stake right through its 'frankenheart'. Here we are, a year on from the charade that was the Jobs and Skills Summit, and not even those who played along then would stand up for this bad Labor government now. It's getting very lonely for the government on the battlements. It's not a surprise, because this really is a bad bill. It's as simple as that. The Albanese Labor government's closing loopholes bill will make life a lot tougher for Australian businesses that are already feeling cost-of-living pressures. This bill will increase costs, increase complexity and introduce more red tape that will likely lead to job losses. According to the government's own estimates, this bill will cost employers up to $9 billion in extra wages over the next decade alone. The Department of Employment and Workplace Relations said that businesses will likely be able to simply pass on these extra costs 'through higher prices for consumers or third-party businesses'. Doesn't that just sound like something that comes out of the bureaucracy? The reality is that the changes proposed by this bill are far from 'very modest', as the employment minister described them. The employment minister does not care that the job creators of Australia are telling him that it will be harder to keep people in their jobs. Mr Burke himself has admitted that the new laws will increase costs for consumers for everyday services that they have come to rely on. This is a radical reordering of Australian workplace law which every business organisation in this country has pleaded with the government not to go ahead with. Industrial relations reform is without a doubt one of the most important of all of the economic reforms required to make Australia more productive and competitive. The focus of any industrial relations reforms must be to make us more productive and create more jobs. Australia needs a modern workplace relations system that delivers a safety net for workers, recognises the shared interests of managers and workers in an enterprise's success and gives all enterprises the agility they need to compete and succeed. Any changes must be designed to improve productivity, grow wages and enhance competition. These are the ingredients of a successful economy. That's not what we see in this bill. These workplace relations changes will add uncertainty and complexity to the employment of millions of casuals, contractors and labour hire workers. That's not good for the economy. There is no reason to attack existing arrangements that are working well. Business groups and employers say that the proposed IR changes will smash productivity, investment and job creation. Jennifer Westacott, chief executive of the BCA, said: Any government that's serious about cost of living would not do this. I believe she also said that these measures are 'unnecessary' and 'unworkable'. She also said: They should not add cost and complexity at a time when people are struggling to pay their bills. The government has failed to demonstrate how these new laws will make it easier for businesses to employ people, increase productivity, create a higher skilled workforce or raise living standards. In fact, this bill may even exacerbate our already dire housing crisis. Chief Executive of Master Builders Australia Denita Wawn said the government's goal of building an extra one million homes by the end of the decade 'will be significantly in jeopardy if the IR laws are passed, because of the constraints on productivity'. She also said: … there is a real risk the radical industrial relations agenda being pursued by Minister (Tony) Burke will negatively impact these efforts. It's like watching a lone dancer perform a different routine amidst a synchronised troupe—counterproductive and out of place. Millions of Australians are already suffering under the crippling cost-of-living crisis of this government's own making. Why do they want to make matters worse? These workplace relations changes will add uncertainty and complexity to the employment of millions of casuals, contractors and labour hire workers. That's not good for the economy, and it definitely doesn't support the housing and construction sectors. This bill is about eroding the choice and flexibility of individuals who want to work in their own time and on their own terms. The bill will introduce a new definition of casual employment that will replace the existing definition that was inserted in the Fair Work Act in 2021. This measure is unnecessary. The permanent-casual loophole has already been closed. All casuals have the right to convert to permanent status after 12 months if they work regular hours. The government plans to add a new right after six months in addition to the existing system allowing conversion after 12 months. The new definition is three pages long and includes 15 factors to determine if an employee is a casual. An employee will be a casual only if they meet these factors. If not, then the business is breaking the law if they tell the employee that they are casual, even if the employee wants to be casual. Even the new conversion process is eight pages long and is separate from the existing conversion regime after 12 months. There will be two streams regulating the same thing. Employers can be exposed to involuntary arbitration by the Fair Work Commission if a worker or union disputes their decision or their interpretation of the definition. Employers would have no choice but to force workers to move to a permanent role, losing their additional income and choice of hours. The legislation will, in effect, discourage casual employment and make it too risky for many businesses to even consider. We all want Australians to have safe, high-wage, sustainable jobs and to be rewarded for their hard work and experience. This sort of complexity and the costs associated with it will be impossible for small business to deal with. This bill will make Australians pay more in a cost-of-living crisis. It will add additional cost to businesses, especially our valuable small businesses. It will make it more expensive to build houses. It will weaken our economy. It will make a bad situation worse. Whenever the government move legislation of this sort, they always stand at their dispatch box and they read quotes from all of the organisations and individuals who support what they are doing. This bill has no friends. These measures do not have support. Everywhere we go in the community, when we talk to business large and small and to people who work in this area, they cannot find a single good thing to say about this bill. That is actually quite surprising to me as someone who's been in this place for many years. What is even more surprising—well, perhaps not surprising—is that the minister for workplace relations has given himself extraordinary powers in this bill. He's given himself powers to make regulations. He has also given extraordinary powers to the Fair Work Commission. He's given them powers to make decisions that overturn previous concepts of common law—for example, 'employee-like'—and make them into something that they are not at this point in time. The incredible intervention is bad enough, but, if you're someone who is subject to this bill, what it means is that you don't have any confidence, because you can't see what it will mean for you or for the people you represent or for the business you work in or for the industrial relations landscape that you need to know about because you need to provide the advice to businesses and workers. You don't know. You can't tell. You just get from the government, 'Well, it won't mean this,' or, 'It might mean that,' or, 'Wait and see,' or the dismissive laughing gestures that we so often see from members opposite—that we see all the time—with a smirk and a sneer and a jeer and a lack of deep, careful analysis. Well done to the Senate and Senator Michaelia Cash in the other place for actually putting off the detailed debate on this bill until February next year. That is so important. I think there are about 800 pages of the bill. I think there are maybe 500 pages of explanatory memorandum. Like many in this place, I want to look at it in detail. I want to understand it. I want to hear from business and industry. I want to know what it really means. But what I do know is that, when I walk into small businesses, onto manufacturing floors and into communities across this country, they are exhausted and they are fed up. They are just beaten down with everything that they have to deal with. I know that the good members opposite know this because they are in their communities too and they hear the same things. They understand the cost-of-living crisis that their people are experiencing. With that knowledge, members opposite, please make the necessary representations to your minister. I am not sure what circles he is moving in, but this bill will be so difficult and so bad for our economy broadly and for our small businesses. When I say small businesses, I don't mean just the business. I don't mean just the mums and dads who work tirelessly 24/7 in their own business, who don't pay themselves a wage, who work on weekends, who are struggling to get workers and who are at the point of not knowing what to do. It is a situation of such despair. I don't mean just the business; I mean the fabric of the communities in which those small businesses are. In rural and regional Australia, where I come from, those small businesses and the people who run them are the volunteers. They are the mums doing canteen duty. They are the people at school sports day. They are the communities. They are the fabric of our extraordinary, resilient and battling Australian communities. We're not going to support reforms that will weaken our economy and continue to make a bad situation worse for Australian small businesses and families, and I urge the government to come out from its battlements, listen to the community on this issue and stop hiding behind its loopholes once and for all. 17:16 Ms COKER 263547 Corangamite Safe and fair working conditions are one of the foundations of our Australian working life. These conditions give workers and their families a sense of security, hope for the future and the basis on which to build a productive and meaningful life. Labor governments have always understood this. It was Labor that introduced enterprise bargaining, outlawed sex discrimination in the workplace, passed the Fair Work Act and removed the WorkChoices program, and passed the secure jobs, better pay legislation. Labor governments continue to enshrine safe and fair working conditions as the cornerstone of industrial relations policy, and that's what this legislation, the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes) Bill 2023, is all about. It continues this proud tradition because what we know is that fair working conditions are not set in concrete. They can be easily eroded. They can be buffeted by a changing economy, new and different work practices, technological change and the pressure of consumer expectations. We have all seen this happening over the past decade with an increasing reliance on the casual workforce, labour hire, gig workers and independent contractors. With these changes we have a growing insecure workforce whose conditions are not always safe and not always fair. I understand and the Albanese government understands that businesses need to make a profit and workers need to be secure and safe in their workplace. One should never be at the expense of the other. There must always be balance in our industrial relations system, to deliver for both businesses and workers. That is how we improve productivity. That is how we get better outcomes for businesses and for workers. But at the moment we know this balance is not right. So far this year, 91 workers have been fatally injured in the workplace, and that is 91 too many. We know that some employers are intentionally underpaying staff and taking advantage of labour hire so that people doing the same job are paid different wages, and we know that some businesses are taking advantage of casual workers. The Albanese government recognises that the vast majority of businesses are doing the right thing. They value their employees, they care for them and they pay them accordingly. This legislation is about protecting workers from those unscrupulous employers who exploit loopholes and who put the success of their business above the welfare and conditions of their workers. Such unscrupulous behaviour has a detrimental effect on all workers. Take casuals, for example. If we want casuals to have a pathway to secure work, we need to close the loopholes in our industrial relations system. I note that casual employment does suit many Australians and plays an important role in our workplaces, but when someone is called casual on their pay slip or their contract, and yet is rostered like a permanent worker, then there's a clear loophole. A worker like this should be able to choose secure employment if they want it. The ability to treat someone as a casual, against their wishes, when they are working like a permanent worker, is simply unfair. Under this bill, a casual will still be defined as someone who does not have a firm commitment to continuing, indefinite work, but now employees will be able to notify their employer that they wish to be made permanent if they believe they no longer meet the 'casual' definition. To provide certainty to business, casual employees will remain casual unless they actively choose otherwise, and, where an employee chooses to become permanent, no back pay will accrue. Our government acknowledges that most casuals who are eligible won't convert. Most will prefer to keep their loading. But those casuals who are supporting a household are more likely to choose security, because we know their rent isn't casual; their bills aren't casual. If we want enterprise agreements to determine minimum rates of pay at a workplace, as they should, we need to close the loopholes. If we want gig workers and those in road transport to have safe work conditions, which they deserve, we need to close the loopholes. And, if we want labour hire workers to be paid fairly and equitably, we need to close the loopholes. On this point, I understand there is a legitimate role for labour hire in Australia. Because of the inherent insecurity, labour hire workers are usually paid higher rates of pay, and those cases are completely unaffected by this legislation. But, when a business agrees to rates of pay in an enterprise agreement and then asks labour hire workers to work for less, this is a labour hire loophole, and this bill will close it. As far as wage theft is concerned, it is already a crime for a worker to steal from an employer, yet it's not a crime an employer to steal from a worker. Through this bill, we will close that loophole. Our nation's workers have waited for far too long for these changes. Now they have a government that is ready to stand up, to act, and to ensure our IR system is fit for purpose for the challenges posed by rapid technological transformation. Over the last decade, and especially through the COVID pandemic, we have seen enormous growth in preference for jobs that have flexibility and that have security. This reflects the changes in our modern workplace, and the increasing demands on workers juggling a range of different responsibilities in their lives. They want flexibility and they want security. But, since 2008, the number of jobs that have both high security and high flexibility has increased by only five per cent, despite rapidly rising demand. Unfortunately, the fastest category of growth in the Australian labour market has been jobs with low flexibility and low security. These jobs have increased by 29 per cent since 2008. Our modern workforce want security and flexibility to manage their lives, to care for their families and to enjoy everything that our nation has to offer. But it is a challenge. It is often giving them jobs that offer neither security or flexibility. This bill is about changing that reality. It accepts that flexible work practices are required in the gig economy but it adds basic standards and reasonable, fair protections. We know that the gig economy has grown to cover passenger transport, food delivery, health care and many other industries. It should be noted that it has created many benefits for workers, including flexible job opportunities. But it is time to ensure that all gig work is secure, safe work. It's not only in Australia that this IR reform is occurring. Countries including France, Britain and Canada, and several states in the United States, have already changed their laws to provide more rights to gig economy workers and create new categories of employment for dependent contractors. Like many of our friends around the world, the Albanese Labor government is committed to modernising workplace laws to deliver jobs that are flexible, secure and safe. In the gig economy, this means ensuring workers are entitled to appropriate minimum standards and protections. This means taking jobs that already have flexibility and retrofitting security into them. As the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations has said, 21st-century technology must not mean 19th-century working conditions. Those in the union movement and my colleagues on this side of the House come from a proud tradition, stretching back hundreds of years, of building a fair workplace, fighting for the eight-hour day, providing people with decent pay that can support them and their families, and ensuring safe, secure workplaces. But the technological changes that are arriving with the gig economy threaten to wipe away centuries of progress, to take us back to an era where there was no holiday pay, no minimum pay and limited protections and safety standards. Unlike the former coalition government, who cast a blind eye to this challenge, the Labor government and the minister for workplace relations are proactive in reforming workplace relations across our nation. This approach is already reaping rewards for workers, who are now able to access 10 days family violence leave. The gender pay gap has also reduced, while we have seen a 15 per cent pay increase for aged-care workers, along with an increase in the minimum wage. I'd like to take a moment to acknowledge the work of the unions—particularly the ACTU and Sally McManus, and the TWU—businesses and community groups, who have all been consulted and have contributed to the development of this legislation. I commend their proactive commitment to seeing its introduction in this place. This legislation underpins the Albanese Labor government's commitment to continuing our mission to enshrine safe and fair working conditions and practices into industrial relations policy. This bill puts flexibility, security and fairness at the centre of IR policy. It closes loopholes that exploit workers and recognises and supports the vast number of businesses that are doing the right thing and valuing their workers. In closing, with this bill we continue the mission of all Labor governments who came before us, to make sure that safe and fair working conditions remain enshrined as foundations of our Australian way of life. I commend this bill to the House and I urge all in this parliament to support it, because, when we support it, we are supporting all working Australians. 17:28 Mr PASIN 240756 Barker In Romeo and Juliet, Juliet says: What's in a name? That which we call a rose By any other name would smell as sweet. Of course, that's William Shakespeare using those lines in his play to convey that the naming of things is completely irrelevant. So it is with respect to the bill presently before the House, the Fair Work Legislation Amendment—and here comes the Shakespearean contribution—(Closing Loopholes) Bill 2023. If it were just as easy as that! I've got some alternatives which I was just penning down when the member for Corangamite was eulogising the involvement of the union movement, which I'll get to at some point during this contribution. But here's an alternative: 'Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Complexity, Cost and Confusion) Bill 2023' or perhaps, more saliently, (Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Doing the Unions' Bidding) Bill 2023'. You see, there's nothing in a name, and the people of Australia ought not to be hoodwinked by what the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations would insert into the brackets. So it is that employer groups around this nation have come together and condemned and called out this effort, because they get that it's not about what's in the brackets; it's about what's in the bill. Given that I am following on from the member for Corangamite, who made such glowing references to the union movement, let me say that it would be right for Australians to think, at a time when we've got almost record levels of employment, when employers are desperate to hold onto employees, 'Why are we looking to undertake these reforms?' I'm sure, Mr Deputy Speaker, that, as you travel around your electorate and speak to employers, you hear the same as me. Employers tell me, 'The challenge is finding people to fill roles.' At a time when the employment market is so tight, why are we looking to undertake these reforms? The answer is a simple one. It's time to pay the piper, with respect, Mr Deputy Speaker. The piper is, of course, the union movement, who, for nine years, stood steadfast alongside the Australian Labor Party, providing gargantuan contributions to their campaign funds. Of course, these contributions don't come without strings. What we're seeing writ large in the parliament, both in tranche 1 and tranche 2, which is supposedly less controversial—let's all hold our collective breath for tranche 3, which I think has been described as the 'controversial' contribution to the reform agenda—is effectively the Australian Labor Party, through its minister, paying the piper and making good on that compact between the Australian Labor Party and its union bosses. This is about expanding union memberships, which are in decline across the country. It's about effectively acquiescing to a long list of union demands, which are all about the union agenda, which is to grow union memberships, union power and union control of the economy, in the same way that those very same unions exert immeasurable control over those opposite and their agenda. I want to talk about a couple of specifics, and one in particular. I'm particularly concerned about the impact that this bill will have on group training organisations. In my electorate, many of the apprentices that are placed into host businesses aren't employed by those businesses; they're employed by group training enterprises. I had the great pleasure of visiting one of the best of such employers just last Friday. MTASA, Motor Trade Association South Australia, are, I expect, the largest single employer of apprentices in the automotive vehicle and mechanical space in South Australia. They use their economies of scale to train people to exceptional standards, and they place those apprentices and trainees in host businesses. I'm very concerned about what these changes will do to that model, because, of course, that looks a lot like a labour hire arrangement, but it's not labour hire in its traditional sense. So I'm very concerned about what impact that will have on the ability of that organisation to provide training to these individuals at that very high level. But I'm equally concerned about what it says around flexibility. I said earlier that we're in a phase of the Australian economy where employees are in the strongest bargaining position they've been in probably my lifetime. That strong bargaining position has meant that individual arrangements can be entered into that speak to flexibility, remuneration and other things. But, effectively, by this approach we are going to disincentivise employers from taking up those flexible arrangements. We're saying to a young tradie that theirs is a life effectively of servitude to a large employer and they will not be able to effectively, entrepreneurially, develop their business and skills via a subcontractor model. There's nothing wrong with the subcontractor model. In fact, many people enjoy the flexibility that it offers, allowing them to work hours of their choosing on the basis of their own negotiated arrangements. We should be looking to create more flexibility in the industrial relations system in this country, not less, but, of course, that's not a model that those opposite prefer. Those opposite prefer a very command and control style arrangement, where unions are at the heart of not only the industrial relations system in this country but also every small business, whether it's the tearoom, the car park or the factory floor. I visit many employers in my electorate, very few of whom have high levels of union membership. But, equally, I speak to their employees, and they couldn't be happier with the individual arrangements they're entered into, the flexibility et cetera. The other impact this bill is going to have on the small-business sector in particular—small- and medium-scale enterprises—is that it's going to operate as a disincentive. Millions of Australians take the plunge, and I remember doing it myself, when I went from someone who was employed in a business, taking home a wage every fortnight, to someone who established their own business. I remember taking that plunge, signing the lease, sitting behind the desk from IKEA that I'd spent the weekend putting together and thinking to myself, 'Goodness this better work, because I've mortgaged my house to do it.' It's a real threshold question, and not one that's easily taken. I've got to make an admission: I had the support of my family in making that decision, and not every Australian has that. I remember my parents encouraging me to make that step and saying to me, 'Son, if it goes bad, we're there for you.' Not every Australian has that safety net. But what those opposite are doing via this bill is raising that threshold even higher so that a young tradesman who has worked in that trade, has become a young professional, knows that they've got the business skill to operate their own business and can see a path forward now has to think seriously about how they would go about that, because that transition from employee to business owner can't go via the subcontractor model, which is, with respect, a soft-landing place for people, particularly in the building trades—going from working for a builder to running your own private enterprise. There is that space in the middle where you can continue to offer your services to your principal client, if you like, but have the ability to do additional work in that space. This is going to take that ability away from a young tradesman, and I think that is a very difficult thing to contemplate. There is also the other concern that I have, and in the time I have remaining to speak I want to address this. I can't for the life of me understand why those opposite effectively make decision after decision after decision, in the midst of a cost-of-living crisis, that will do nothing but drive up the cost of living. Of course, members of the opposition, very many of whom who were here during the period of the last government, dealt with a crisis of their own. The COVID-19 pandemic was a crisis like none that I have faced while I have been in this place, and I've been privileged to be here for a little over 10 years. But we faced up to that crisis. We had a plan and we executed it. We didn't get everything right, but I'm not sure we made decision after decision after decision to make that crisis worse. We did our level best to assist Australians to maintain their lives—and save their lives—and livelihoods. Yet those opposite, facing their crisis—because every government faces challenges—a cost-of-living crisis, come in here day after day as if the crisis is not taking place. It would be as if in our situation we had denied the existence of COVID-19. Of course we didn't do that. We faced up to it and sought to do our best in light of it. But we have members of the now government coming into this place, question time after question time, effectively telling Australians they've never had it better, when all the while every decision they are taking is putting greater pressure on cost-of-living challenges. Whether it's the bill we will debate next, which is about ripping irrigation water out of irrigation communities, only to put up the price of fresh food in this country—and, for those that are listening in from home, returning 450 gigs to the Murray-Darling Basin is the equivalent of ripping out 35 million orange trees—or whether it is energy, fresh fruit or wages, which impact every single aspect of our lives, we're seeing prices going up. It is time for those opposite to face up to their challenge. It's a cost-of-living crisis in this country. Australians don't want you talking about the Voice. They want you focused on their challenges. They don't want these reforms. There's plenty in a name, but nothing in this bill's name. It's not about closing loopholes; it's about driving up the cost of living. 17:43 Mrs ELLIOT DZW Richmond I too rise to speak on the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes) Bill 2023. Our government, the Albanese Labor government, was elected on the commitment to get wages moving. To do that, we do need to close the loopholes that are undermining wages and conditions, and that's exactly what this set of reforms are intended to do and what this bill is all about. The bill contains four main elements: criminalising wage theft, introducing minimum standards for workers in the gig economy, closing the forced permanent casual-worker loophole and closing the labour hire loophole as well. We announced all of these four policies whilst in opposition and we took all of these to the Australian people at the election in 2022. People were very supportive of this in terms of providing those better conditions for workers. This legislation is very extensive. It does a number of different things. First of all, it legislates a fair and objective definition of 'casual employee', with a new pathway for eligible employees to change to permanent employment if they wish to do so. It protects bargained wages and enterprise agreements from being undercut by using labour hire workers who are paid less than the minimum rates. Importantly, it allows the Fair Work Commission to set out fair minimum standards for employee-like workers in the gig economy, introduces a new criminal offence for wage theft which applies to intentional conduct, allows the Fair Work Commission to set fair minimum standard to ensure the road transport industry is safe, sustainable and viable and introduces a new offence of industrial manslaughter in the Work Health and Safety Act. It also extends the functions of the Asbestos Safety and Eradication Agency to address silica related diseases. Very importantly, it makes it unlawful to discriminate against an employee that has been or continues to be subjected to family and domestic violence. All of these changes that are contained within this bill are not radical; they are very, very reasonable changes. All we are doing is making the current law work more effectively. Closing labour hire loopholes will simply require an employer to pay rates that have already been negotiated and agreed to. These are rates of pay that are already set for the work that is being done. Our employee-like reforms simply require workers to have some minimum standards benchmarked against existing award rates when they are working in a way which is similar to employees. Our wage theft reforms will simply strengthen the enforcement of existing rates of pay. Most employers out there don't want to be undercut by those who are doing the wrong thing. There is support for these changes. Our new definition of 'casual employment' will clarify what was always intended with casual work—that is, if you are working regular, predictable hours and you want to be permanent you will have that pathway available to you. In this bill, the Albanese government is also standing up for casual workers who want to become permanent employees. We're closing the loophole that leaves people classified as casuals when they actually do in fact work permanent, regular hours. That means they work just like permanent employees but don't get any of those benefits of job security currently. We're legislating a fair, objective definition to determine when an employee can be classified as casual, and this will help more than 850,000 casual workers who have regular work arrangements, giving them greater access to leave entitlements and, really importantly, greater financial security. The fact is that household bills aren't casual. That's the reality. Rent isn't casual. Electricity bills aren't casual. School fees aren't casual. They are absolute certainties. But these people in insecure work do not have the same certainty about their hours or their regular income. The fact is that no-one will be forced to convert from casual to permanent employment if they don't want to. Employees should not be stuck as a casual when they are working just like permanent employees but don't receive the benefits of job security or leave entitlements. That's why we brought in this incredibly important change. We are also closing the labour hire loophole. We know that labour hire has legitimate uses in providing surge and specialist workforces, and that will continue to be the case. But this bill amends the Fair Work Act 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. The bill is delivering on the government's 'same job, same pay' election commitment. The loophole is that the Fair Work Act allows employers to use labour hire workers who are paid less than the rates of pay agreed to in a workplace's enterprise agreement as a way to circumvent the agreed rates of pay. What the government is concerned about is the labour hire loophole which companies deliberately use to undercut the agreements they have already made with their workers. This loophole is simply unacceptable, and that is why we are changing it. We are also introducing minimum standards for employee-like workers, particularly those in the gig economy. This bill will also extend the powers of the Fair Work Commission to include employee-like forms of work, allowing it to better protect people in new forms of work from exploitation and dangerous working conditions. The bill implements an election commitment to allow the Fair Work Commission to set minimum standards for those employee-like workers, especially those within the gig economy. The bill provides a list of content that minimum standard orders can cover, like payment terms, deductions, insurance and cost recovery. We all know how important it is to address this, particularly when we have seen the growth in the gig economy and many great safety concerns. We have acted on that because we understand how important it is to have these changes there. Very importantly, this bill makes it unlawful to discriminate against an employee who is or was subject to family and domestic violence. These proposed changes are so incredibly important because they ensure that workers are not penalised in any way if they disclose that they have been subjected to family and domestic violence. It's very important to have this in place for those victims-survivors. On top of this, we saw the government's reforms last year in terms of employees in this country having access to 10 days paid domestic and family violence leave. That indeed is a work entitlement that will save lives, and this change will also save lives. Particularly, on those 10 days of paid family and domestic violence leave, this was an issue that many, many people campaigned and advocated for so many years. We were very proud to be delivering that as a Labor government and are equally proud to be delivering these changes to ensure that there isn't any discrimination against employees who are subject to family and domestic violence. This government, as we have stated many times, is absolutely committed to ending violence against women and children in one generation. We've made that incredibly clear, and we have also had lots of bipartisan support for all of these measures. I know that everyone in this chamber shares that view, with all of us working together to get to that point. We have also had a record investment of $2.3 billion to address gender-based violence. So we do have that whole range of measures, but the aspects in this bill are incredibly important. This proposal is to implement a jobs summit outcome to provide stronger protections against discrimination by including a new protected attribute of 'subjugation to family and domestic violence' in the Fair Work Act. We know family and domestic violence can affect all aspects of a person's life, including their wellbeing and their productivity at work, and they should not be subject to discrimination in the workplace because of what has occurred to them. This proposal will clarify and strengthen protections and assist victims-survivors so as to make available to them these important workplace rights. These amendments will prohibit national system employers taking adverse actions such as termination of employment against employees because of their subjugation to family and domestic violence. So this is a very important provision within the changes of these bills. Another one that I would like to talk about that is also incredibly important is that our government will make it easier for first responders who develop post-traumatic stress disorder to access workers compensation. We know that first responders suffering from mental health conditions such as PTSD can often find the workers compensation claims process challenging and stressful. It's so vital they get all the support that they need. As part of this bill, affected workers will no longer be required to prove that their job significantly contributed to their PTSD when making a compensation claim. This is referred to as 'presumptive provisions', effectively reversing the onus of proof from the injured worker to the employer. The specific reforms in this bill cover Commonwealth and ACT government first responders, including Australian Federal Police employees, ambulance officers and paramedics. This government will always provide support for and stand alongside the first responders who keep our nation safe. I'm very pleased to be referring to this too; as a former frontline police officer, I know how important it is to have these measures in place and how widely they have been welcomed, to provide that support to our first responders who do an incredible job. In this bill, the government is particularly taking action to make our trucking industry safer, sustainable and more viable. As part of this bill, the Fair Work Commission will have the power to set fair minimum standards for the road transport industry. Setting standards in the road transport industry will save lives. That is the reality, not just for those in the industry but for all of us who share the roads. That's why these changes are equally important. For too long, we have all heard so many stories of the very deadly impact of the cost-cutting and many of the unrealistic deadlines, which are often placed upon many of those people. We saw that in the very starkly illustrated Senate report Without trucks Australia stops. That's why having this in place will make a major difference—unsustainable business practices and increasing commercial pressures are also threatening the viability of the road transport industry. That's exactly why we're acting and why we do have these very important changes here now. Under our legislation, the Fair Work Commission will have the discretion on what those minimum standards will cover, such as fair payment terms, and must be satisfied that its orders won't adversely impact the viability or competitiveness of road transport contractor workers as well. We have taken very decisive action across a whole range of measures to provide greater job security, greater conditions and better wages for a whole range of workers, particularly those in the emerging areas such as the gig economy. That is an area we are all very familiar with, and for quite a substantial period of time people have been calling for changes in this area to ensure there's greater security and greater safety. So across a whole range of measures we have acted because we know how important it is to provide that support to workers. And we were elected on that mandate. We were elected on the mandate to get wages moving, to make workplaces fairer for everyday Australians. In conclusion, that's exactly what they've done. I certainly commend the bill to the House. 17:55 Ms CHESTERS 249710 Bendigo In rising to speak to the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes) Bill 2023, I thought it would be good at this point of the debate to give a few examples—workers stories, stories of people that I've met, people's stories that I've heard firsthand—of why this bill is so important and how the loopholes that exist in our industrial relations are affecting them. It's not something that is new to me; it's something that has been occurring in our labour market for the best part of two decades. Yes, once upon a time if you were employed to work as labour hire in a workplace it was considered surge workforce. You'd come in; you'd get paid a premium above what those working on the site would get paid; you worked for a short period. It was incredibly important for some of those workers. They really enjoyed that short burst of work, particularly if they were uni students and they did that surge work during their holiday period or if they were people at that point of time in life working in that capacity. But there was reward for doing that insecure work. That was what happened, and organisations and firms would pay that premium to those workers to make sure they could get their jobs done. However, what happened at some point in our industrial relations, particularly in organised industries where we have long-standing collective agreements, HR teams and companies started to work out that you could pay workers less if you went to labour hire firms. This happened in the mining industry. This happened in the manufacturing industry. And what happened next was it wasn't just for short periods anymore. People were engaged for long periods on these labour hire arrangements. I'd just like to let people know what was occurring. I visited the site of a well-established bakery in my electorate—you might have heard of the brand Tip Top Bakeries. As a union official it was part of my job to meet workers and talk to them about what was going on. They had a few labour hire workers on site. One of those workers had been there for a decade on a labour hire arrangement. It wasn't a short-term gig; it was a decade. They were being paid less than their co-workers, who were on the collective agreement. This isn't uncommon. Unfortunately, this isn't rare. What we were seeing happen across our economy, particularly in manufacturing and in mining industries, were collective agreements that were negotiated by the employees employed under that agreement, but then as new workers came onto the site they weren't being directly employed. They were being employed by a labour hire company or a labour firm and they were employed on a different rate of pay, which quite often fell below the award. So they were doing the same job but not getting the same pay. This wasn't just happening in manufacturing, and it wasn't just happening in my electorate; it was also happening at some of our big food manufacturers. I do want to acknowledge the efforts that some of our food manufacturers made to say to their labour hire firms: 'Look, we want to do the right thing. We want to see site rates be paid.' I want to acknowledge an abattoir in my electorate tried to address this issue when it was raised with them, but not all have done that. They saw the savings. In one particular case, they saved a dollar for the company and a dollar for the labour hire, and that worker literally got paid $3 an hour less than the other workers. And it was completely legal. It is legal in this country to employ somebody on an award, and it is legal in this country to employ somebody under a collective agreement, and it's an employer relationship that is recognised. We have seen, in a number of industries and a number of workplaces, employers deliberately using a loophole to recruit new workers by having these labour hire arrangements in place. That is why this bill is so important. It's not just in manufacturing; it's in mining—it's rife in mining. It's in transport: one of the big gripes and concerns we have about Qantas is the fact that they went from directly employing all their workers to using subsidiaries and different companies, paying their workers less and breaking up the way in which they bargained. This has become such a common issue in our workplaces and in our community that it's really changed the traditional notion that we all have of what is a workplace, who is an employer and who is an employee. That is why we're working hard in this bill to close those loopholes. We talk about wage theft. This is why I cannot believe the opposition's opposition to this. How many stories do we have to hear of migrant farm workers being exploited before we do something about it? We hear about $4 an hour for blueberry pickers around the Coffs Harbour area, some workers not being paid at all, and the Fair Work Ombudsman working overtime to try and recover money for these workers. When it becomes so systemic, we have to do something legislatively about it. You cannot expect there to be a Fair Work Ombudsman on every farm and in every cafe trying to clean up the fact that migrant workers aren't being paid properly. We need reform, and that is what our job is. One of the other key areas that this bill is seeking to address is making sure that people are aware that if you steal from your workers that is a crime. If you knowingly and deliberately take money from your workers' pay, that is not allowed—that is a crime. We would say obey the law, whether you're that worker or that employer. Too many examples have gone through. These aren't rare cases; these are multiple systemic cases. It's occurring in some industries specifically, but it is widespread. We know that from the work that the ombudsman does. We know from the reports and the inquiries that were done under the previous government how big a problem this is. That is why we are looking to close the loopholes and make sure that people know that they cannot take from their workers. There are changes to casuals. Once upon a time, casual was casual. I say 'once upon a time' because there was a period in Australian employment law when employers respected a casual was someone who came in infrequently—who didn't have that regular roster. The previous government said that they fixed it, but the problem is that they made the rules so hard that nobody has been able to successfully challenge their casual employment status. I do accept there are a few workers out there who like to have that flexibility on their roster, but there's a whole bunch that don't, and they are trapped in insecure casual relationships. If you get a regular roster every single week and you have that roster for 12 months, it is no longer irregular. It is a set roster, and you should be able to exercise your right as being a permanent employee. That is another loophole that we are trying to change in this bill. On the transport industry and food delivery drivers: this is where we have to modernise our industrial laws to recognise the changing nature of work. People like to have delivery to their doors. Uber Eats, particularly, during COVID became a really big thing. I don't think there's anybody here, unless they live in an area where there isn't Uber Eats, who hasn't often used it. Yes, we do struggle sometimes to get those drivers in Bendigo, but those drivers are workers. Those drivers are workers, and they should be paid properly. Maybe if they had a minimum standard we'd get more of them in regional Queensland, in Shepparton and in regional Victoria, because it could be a job that guaranteed a minimum pay. That is what we're talking about: a group of workers who rely on an app for their work. It is the new form of lining up, waiting to be picked: 'Do you have work today?' It's now done remotely on an app. Those workers deserve minimum standards. That is the role of this parliament and what this bill does. It's modernising our laws to reflect the changing nature of work and saying to a predominantly migrant workforce, a group of workers who might be here studying or on another visa arrangement: 'You too are workers and you have minimum rights.' In my part of the world a lot of these workers can be parents that are picking up extra money to help pay the bills. They're not that demographic that you sometimes assume it is when it comes to your Uber Eats delivery driver and so on. But they quite often turn over very quickly in these roles because they realise how exploitative they are. This bill says that those workers deserve a minimum standard, that they deserve a minimum rate. I want to very quickly touch on the idea that this will scare small business, that this will create such a shock and horror for them. No, it won't, because, if you're doing the right thing by your employees, then it won't affect you. That's the critical point that those opposite always seem to forget. They seem to assume that every small business is exploiting these loopholes, exploiting employees. They are not. The vast majority of small businesses have a great relationship with their workers, and they get frustrated when big firms use their lawyers and their very expensive HR resources to undercut them, and they lose contracts. It happens in cleaning. It happens in security. It happens in hospitality. It happens across the board. So I say to you that small business, when they understand what these changes are, will be on our side, because these changes go after corporate Australia, who are exploiting workers, using their knowledge to manipulate the IR system—and shame on them for doing that. Shame on Qantas. Shame on BHP. Shame on all these big firms who implemented it as a business model to pay workers less. I know the fear campaign they are running. They are saying to those vulnerable workers, 'If this reform goes through, you will lose your job.' That's exactly what they are saying in those workplaces. The unions and workers can see it a mile off. This is about restoring fairness and respect and saying to that insecure worker, 'After a decade of working in that mine, you deserve the same rights as the person who's been working there a decade and a day longer than you.' Quite often, the difference between being directly employed and being employed by the labour hire firm is the day that you started. Some of these labour hire arrangements go back that long. It goes back to when the corporates decided, 'Here's how we can save some money.' Quite often, the old-school workers who have worked in that mine for three generations can tell you exactly when that day was and how it broke the back of good, secure jobs in those regions. We want to be a country that makes things. We want to be a country that has secure jobs in health, in education, in cleaning, in security, in hospitality, in every industry. These changes before us help bring back that job security and restore that relationship that so many employers and employees want: you turn up, you do a job, same job, same pay. You know who your employer is. If you get that direct relationship, you can have a decent conversation. That's the other thing on small business. They directly employ their employees. If you are a labour hire employee, it's really easy to get rid of you. You just get told that day that you are no longer required to be at that site, and then you're waiting for the next engagement—and that does happen when people raise issues. Finally, on the changes that are happening around union officials being able to enter workplaces: it used to exist, and the world didn't collapse. You used to be able to go in and inspect the books and make sure people got paid the for the hours that they did. We used to do it. The world didn't collapse, and we had a lot fewer underpayments going to the Fair Work Commission. Quite often, that union organiser, or that delegate, sitting down with the supervisor was able to point out to them that they had missed an allowance, that they had applied the wrong rate and that was worked out. The world did not collapse. Mr Littleproud 265585 They turn up at your house, where kids live. They don't have to give notice, union thugs— Ms Kearney LTU Deputy Speaker, I would like the Leader of the Nationals to withdraw the comment that union members are thugs. I'm a union member. I was a union leader. I was the head of the ACTU and I was the head of the ANMF. Mr Littleproud 265585 I didn't say union members were thugs. Ms Kearney LTU You did. Mr 265585 I didn't say that union members were thugs. Ms Kearney LTU What did you say then? Mr Littleproud 265585 I said 'union thugs'. Ms Kearney LTU I'm not a union thug. Mr Littleproud 265585 I'm not saying that you are— Ms Kearney LTU I'm not a union thug. I'm a member of a union and I was a leader of a union for many years. I think you should withdraw. Ms O'Neil 140590 Just withdraw it. Mr Littleproud 265585 I'm happy to withdraw. Ms CHESTERS 249710 In the final time that I have, I want to give a shout-out to the hardest working unionists in this country— Mr Littleproud 265585 They turn up to homes. Ms Kearney LTU You're talking about me. The DEPUTY SPEAKER E0D Order! The member for Bendigo has the call, and she'll be heard in silence. Ms CHESTERS 249710 And they are the workplace delegates, the people who put their hand up to represent their co-workers, raising underpayment issues and job insecurity issues. I thank them for their advocacy. That is why we have this bill today. It is through their hard work and their raising the changes they wanted to see in their workplace, not just in meetings in this place or with their local MPs but with their union leaders, who brought about this advocacy. They've fought for every one of these changes, and I thank them. Debate adjourned. Ordered that the resumption of the debate be made an order of the day for a later hour this day. Social Security Amendment (Australian Government Disaster Recovery Payment) Bill 2023 61

Social Security Amendment (Australian Government Disaster Recovery Payment) Bill 2023

Report from Federation Chamber 61 Third Reading 61 18:11 Ms O'NEIL 140590 Hotham by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Water Amendment (Restoring Our Rivers) Bill 2023 61

Water Amendment (Restoring Our Rivers) Bill 2023

Second Reading 61 18:12 Mr LITTLEPROUD 265585 Maranoa I can say categorically that in no way, shape or form could the coalition support this bill, the Water Amendment (Restoring Our Rivers) Bill 2023. This is a breach of faith with Murray-Darling Basin communities and it is a breach of faith with this parliament. This legislation was brought in under the previous Labor government in 2012, when the member for Watson was the Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities. What they are doing is tearing down the very legislation that they put in place and opening up basin communities to the trauma that they faced in 2012. These communities had stoically moved on and were prepared to accept their lot to be able to say that that was the end of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. But, in one of the nastiest and most callous pieces of legislation, this government wants to reopen the trauma for communities right up and down the basin. In 2012 there was a Basin Plan that asked to recover 2,750 gigalitres in a bipartisan way. That bill was agreed to by both sides of parliament. In addition to that, after the agreement of 2,750 gigalitres, the then minister, the member for Watson, who is now the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, added an additional 450 gigalitres to be recovered for the environment. He did something very smart and something I very much respect—he made sure that the additional 450 gigalitres had a social and economic neutrality test. Even the member for Watson at that point knew intrinsically what would happen to basin communities if you ripped another 450 gigalitres out of the consumptive pool—you'd tear away their economies and you'd destroy their very essence. We already saw that with what 2,750 gigalitres would do. Proudly, we have recovered over 2,100 gigalitres, and we are on track to recover the full 2,750 gigalitres. And, proudly, we had an agreement with all the states to find a way to have that neutrality test that the now industrial relations minister put in place to give protection to regional communities. That was agreed to by all the states and the Commonwealth, and this has been torn up by one of the most callous governments that couldn't care less about regional Australia. This will destroy regional communities. The fact that there is not even an acknowledgement of the recovery of over 2,100 gigalitres and the impact that that has had on the regional communities up and down the basin shows the callousness and the nastiness of this legislation. This is actually going to go even further than that original 2,750 gigalitres, and we agreed, in extending the time lines. I've got to say that that bipartisanship that was struck in 2012 was extended when I was water minister in 2017, and I worked with the member for Watson to make sure the legislation that he put in place was finalised. One of my biggest parliamentary achievements was to make sure that the SDLAM was put in place and that the Northern Basin Review was legislated. What that meant, particularly for the SDLAM, was that we could use infrastructure, rather than the blunt instrument of buybacks—a lazy, blunt instrument that destroys regional communities—to recover water. You know what? Everyone sits there and goes, 'The farmer gets the money.' That's well and good, but the farmer toddles off to the coast, and what's left behind are the regional communities that were once there to support them. It's about the machinery dealers, the agronomists and the irrigation shop. It's actually the cafe and the hairdresser that also lose. That's what happens when you have buybacks. It's a blunt instrument that does nothing but destroy regional communities. What the member for Watson and I were able to strike with the SDLAM mechanism meant that we could recover that water with infrastructure. That's common sense. That was a bipartisan approach that we were able to put through this parliament to make sure we gave protection to those communities. I'm proud of the fact that, before me as water minister, the then water minister, the member for New England, was able to put in place another safeguard mechanism, which was a cap on the number of buybacks that could be taken up—up to 1,500 gigalitres of the 2,750 gigalitres. That gave protection and that meant that there was investment confidence in putting in infrastructure for the recovery of water for regional communities, rather than using the blunt instrument of buybacks. That is how parliament should operate: by understanding what happens out there in the real world, not the ideology of what happens in here. I paid tribute to the member for Watson, while I stood on that side, for the bipartisan way that he worked with me in making sure of the SDLAM and the Northern Basin Review, and they mean that, in my part of the world, in Queensland and northern New South Wales, we only had to recover 320 gigalitres, rather than 390 gigalitres, because the science said so and because we had the common sense to use the infrastructure to be able to deliver that water back to the environment. We worked together as a parliament. The now minister for water was in this parliament in 2012 and voted for the original Murray-Darling Basin Plan, for the SDLAM and for the Northern Basin Review. She sat in here, with bipartisanship. Now, in laying basin communities at the political altar of the Labor Party, the minister is prepared to tear all that up and tear apart the livelihoods of people up and down the basin. What sort of government governs for just one part of this country and just thinks about the capital cities and how this may look? The practical reality is that this will decimate communities. In fact, the government doesn't even understand the practical realities of delivering this water. An additional 450 gigalitres on top of the 2,750 gigalitres is near impossible to deliver without environmental damage. There is this little thing called the Barmah Choke, and it's what they call a physical constraint. It's a physical constraint in how you deliver water down the Murray, down to South Australia. If you put too much through that Choke, what happens is this thing called a flood. What happens is that it destroys the environment where that water floods out over. In fact, when I was water minister we had trouble with the Commonwealth water holder letting too much water out, with perverse environmental outcomes, across the Barmah Choke. This is where common sense and reality don't meet the ideology of what this government is doing. This is all about ideology. The additional 450 gigalitres are really in essence what we are arguing about. What we are arguing about is honouring an agreement, honouring what we sat in this parliament and agreed upon. But to turn your back on that and to turn your back on basin communities is something that is all about politics rather than the care and understanding in what this is going to do and what you signed up to. Where is the integrity of this government? In fact the Prime Minister was also here and signed up to the Murray Darling Basin Plan 2012. He signed up to the amendments that I put in place to ensure that the Basin Plan could be completed in time. But now they want to turn their back on that and walk away. We agree with elements of this bill around extending time for the delivery of the Basin Plan. There's been commentary from the Minister for the Environment and Water saying that the National Party and the Liberal Party have been sabotaging this plan. Well, 2,100 gigalitres have been recovered, and, yes, they recovered most because they used the blunt instrument of water buybacks. They couldn't care less about regional communities, so what we did was put a cap on it and then we went to infrastructure. That was the sensible way that has got us to 2,100 gigalitres and will get us to 2,750 gigalitres if we give the states time. But let me tell you about the sabotage piece. The infrastructure hasn't been completed. I don't know where the environment minister has been, but there was this little thing called COVID. Unfortunately, what happened was much of that infrastructure couldn't be built. The states couldn't build it, although the money had been set aside and projects had been brought forward. There is an acknowledgement that some of those projects haven't gone all the way through to fruition. We appreciate that, but the states have been collaborative in their efforts to continue to bring forward new projects to deliver the 2,750 gigalitres. That is the magic number, and that can be delivered with infrastructure. We are saying we need to give the states more time to build that infrastructure. It has been delayed because of this little thing called COVID, even though that seems to be an oversight in the politicisation of this by the environment minister, who happens to live in Sydney and has very rarely gone anywhere near a basin community. When she does, it is by invite only, which goes to show the actual transparency of this and actually embracing of basin communities. Their livelihoods are going to be ripped apart, but we had a members in speeches in the previous debate talking about people being exploited for wages. Well, this government is exploiting regional communities. This government is exploiting the livelihoods of regional communities by taking away the very tools they need to make a living. But yet, with a smile on her face, they are prepared to take away their livelihoods because we are just political collateral. What sort of government does that to their fellow Australians? What sort of government cares that little about regional Australians and the tools that they need, despite the amount of heavy lifting that they have done for this environment in putting 2,100 gigalitres back through the mouth of the Murray? No congratulations, no thanks, but just, 'We want more.' What sort of government does that to their fellow Australians? What sort of government wants to tear away at a nation's food security? What sort of government wants to continue to drive up food prices because our farmers don't have the tools to produce your food and fibre? Yes, you can turn up to Coles and Woollies every Friday to do your shopping, but there might not be as much on the shelves as there was because we don't have the tools to be able to produce it. How can the government understand an agricultural production system if they are not prepared to get out of Sydney and sit there and listen to basin communities, sit there and listen to the supply chain companies about the challenges they are facing? Instead, we have an environment minister that tucks herself away in Sydney, hides away and won't even talk to basin communities. What sort of government does that to their fellow Australians? There is a commonsense way through this, and I had a bipartisan way with the member for Watson. We worked collaboratively to get that legislation through, and I am very proud of the 450 gigalitres. I'm also proud of what he did when he was minister to understand that we needed a safeguard mechanisms for the 450 gigalitres, the extra water, to make sure that regional communities won't hurt. He did the right thing by this nation, and he did the right thing by basin communities by putting in place a social and economic neutrality test. I'm proud to say that in December 2018 I got every state to sign up to that test. That was akin to getting peace in the Middle East. South Australia signed up to the neutrality test. They understood that not only South Australian communities but communities right up the basin to Queensland were going to be impacted if we didn't put that in place. So they gave us that commitment, and we worked together. Now we have a government that is going to breach that confidence with the states and with us and what we achieved in a bipartisan way. Our parliament should be better than this. Our parliament should understand the impacts for every Australian. It's not about a political headline. We were able to get that neutrality test, and the environment minister walks in here and says we've only recovered two gigalitres of it. That's because you have to prove the social and economic neutrality test. If the environment minister put the energy into delivering the infrastructure to recover the full 2,750 gigalitres that we all signed up to, we'd all agree to sign up to that. This parliament did that. To come back and change the goalposts and change the rules for these basin communities—what sort of government does that? It's a government that doesn't care, that doesn't understand and that is prepared to put them on the altar of political expediency. That's an Australia that we should not be proud of, and we can be better than that. So let me make this clear: the coalition can't support this political facade that is going to destroy communities. Study after study after study—economic studies everywhere—has shown the economic impact on our regional communities, and the minister comes in and says, 'Well, I'll give you some sort of economic package.' She can't even quantify it. She can't even justify it. But we don't want it. We just want you to deliver the plan, the 2,750 gigalitres, and get out of our lives. The 450 gigalitres, the neutrality test, should stay to give that protection. But then to open up buybacks to achieve those 450 gigalitres plus what's left of the 2,750—they don't like what the states have done—means it could potentially be in excess of 700 gigalitres. The minister can't even quantify how much that's going to cost the Australian taxpayer. It's somewhere between $5 billion and over $20 billion. Who's going to pay for that? The Australian taxpayer is going to take it in the neck, and then they're going to take it in the neck the second time around when you rip away agricultural production and up goes your food price. Those people sitting out there today in the cities who have the comfort of going to Coles and Woolworths are thinking things are tough at the moment. Well, wait until you rip away the very tools that we need to produce your food and fibre, because you'll pay. You will pay and you should pay because this government has got it wrong, and farmers shouldn't have to bear the cost. You'll bear the cost, and that's because of an ideology that doesn't meet the practical reality. The environmental outcomes of this can be achieved with common sense and infrastructure, not with buybacks. We are waiting for this government to come back to the table in a bipartisan way, as I did in 2017 with the member for Watson and as we did in 2012 to let this through, which was one of the hardest decisions—I wasn't here—I would suspect any coalition government had to sign up to. We had the courage to say that we needed to do something and we needed to use the common sense and the solutions that would protect our regional communities. Never in our wildest dreams would we think that, one day in the future, a government that is still riddled with the same members who put this in place would walk away from the very piece of legislation that they put in here. Where are their values? Where are their morals for them to do this to regional Australia? Those who sat in those chairs on the Treasury benches and designed this legislation and put this through in a bipartisan way then come and change the rules. Where are they? Where is the minister for environment? Where is she to come up and to justify her decision about changing the very legislation that she passed in 2012? You've got to ask where is the ticker. This is more about politics than anything else. So we can't support buybacks on the 450. We can't support removing the buyback cap on the 1,500 gigalitres. It will decimate communities. I've seen it myself in Dirranbandi and St George. When I was a bank manager out in St George, the first job I did was a mortgagee in possession for the local council. They were selling the last block available in Dirranbandi. It sold for $500. I was there for two years. Water developments were going on. Cotton was coming through. When I left two years later, the last block in Dirranbandi sold for $15,000. That's not a lot to you people in the city, but to the people in Dirranbandi that was big. It was investment in a new motel. The pub got redeveloped. A machinery dealership turned up. An irrigation shop turned up. And then, in 2012, along came the Labor government. It was riddled with the same people as this one. Dirranbandi went down. It had 500 kids in the school and that went down to 100 overnight as soon as the Murray-Darling Basin Plan came in. So don't you think we've taken the pain? Don't you think that the hurt that you've inflicted already is enough? Don't you think that we deserve a fair go? Don't you think that regional Australians, those in the basin, should have the same opportunity to get up in the morning, make a living and be given the tools to be able to do it and not have them taken away because of some ideological whim? That's not the Australian way. The Nationals and the Liberals can't stand anywhere near this. This is a line in the sand. It is a line in the sand for regional Australians. We've had a gutful. Ever since the Albanese government got in, we have been in their firing line, whether it is taking away live sheep, whether it be what we could see in the new cultural heritage laws about our ability to go about and produce your food and fibre or whether it be about the biosecurity tax. We have a government that are going to tax their very own farmers so that their foreign competitors can bring their product in and put it on the shelf to compete against Australia farmers. How do they make this stuff up? This is the ideology that has come through. The most disappointing, most callous and nastiest thing about all this is that everybody on that frontbench that sits across from me was here and asked for bipartisan support in 2012, and they got it. Now they've come back and just ripped us apart. What sort of party does that? That is how regional Australians and those up and down the Murray-Darling are feeling tonight. There's no confidence. People up and down the basin are scared. What government makes their own people scared? They don't see a future, because they have gone through this before. They don't deserve to go through it again—not because of a government that set the rules originally. How can we ever trust them to even cut a deal to be bipartisan in any way if we know that one day they'll come back and change the goal posts. That speaks volumes about the Albanese government. To make this clear, we have had a gutful. Victoria have already said, 'We're out.' I hope that Queensland has the courage. I hope my lot in Queensland in October next year when they get rid of Annastacia Palaszczuk say, 'We're out too.' This takes political courage, but, more importantly, this takes national leadership. Every state should say to this government, 'We're out.' If you really care about where your food and fibre comes from, if you are worried about the price of living, if you are worried about food security, you should be out. This isn't just for us. Every person in this country, no matter where they live, is going to cop this in the neck. If you take away our tools to produce your food and fibre, you'll have to pay more and you should pay more. Farmers shouldn't do that, but our communities shouldn't have to foot the economic and social bill for it. To make it clear, this is one of the most callous things I have ever seen in my seven years here. It is disgraceful to think that we have a Prime Minister and a water minister that asked for bipartisan support in 2012 and now have just ripped the guts out of us. That is not the Australian way. 18:34 Ms STANLEY 265990 Werriwa I rise to make my contribution on the Water Amendment (Restoring Our Rivers) Bill 2023. The Albanese Labor government is working to ensure that we pass on Australia's environment, our land, sea and rivers, in better health to future generations. We're acting to protect, repair and manage nature so it grows stronger. That includes managing the water resources of our most productive region, the Murray-Darling Basin, to withstand longer and deeper droughts, more frequent floods and bushfires, and everything else that climate change will throw its way. Irrigated agriculture in the basin produces about 15 per cent of Australia's food and fibre, contributing $8.6 billion to our economy every year. The basin is valued for its productivity and also its beauty, and its tourism is worth $11 billion. It's home to 2.3 million Australians, and more than three million people drink its water each and every day. It's home to 16 internationally significant wetlands, 35 endangered species and 120 different species of waterbird. The Water Act 2007, passed with bipartisan support, and the Murray-Darling Basin Plan 2012, adopted by the Australian government and all basin states, sets the amount of water that can be taken from the basin each year, leaving an environmentally sustainable level for the rivers, lakes, wetlands, plants and animals. The Water Act and the Basin Plan set two water recovery targets: firstly a target of 2,750 gigalitres to bridge the gap to long-term average sustainable diversion limits; and secondly a target to recover 450 gigalitres of additional environmental water, a condition of South Australia's support for the plan. These works built on cooperative works to save rivers pushed to the brink by the millennium drought. It came from a period of environmental catastrophe, and it was designed to avoid another catastrophe from occurring. Basin governments, including the Australian government, signed onto the plan—a promise to the Australian people that we would work as one to protect what was valuable. The plan was developed to manage the basin as a whole connected system, including by setting sustainable water extraction limits. Unfortunately, successive governments who took up the plan were unable to fully implement and achieve these targets. Those opposite spent the best part of a decade sabotaging the plan whenever they could. They blocked water recovery programs, tried to cut the final recovery targets and tie up water-saving projects by imposing impossible rules. In nine years, they delivered two gigalitres of the 450-gigalitre target. At that rate of progress, if you can call it that, the plan would be complete sometime around the year 4000. What might be news to those opposite is that we don't have that long and neither do the rivers. Sir Angus Houston, Chair of the Murray-Darling Basin Authority, has provided advice that unequivocally finds that full implementation of the Basin Plan will not be possible before 30 June 2024. Sir Angus's assessment was that, while much has been achieved in the decade of implementation, the Murray-Darling Basin Authority remains deeply concerned about key aspects of the Basin Plan's delivery. Although over 2,000 gigalitres has been recovered, the shortfall by the original 30 June 2024 deadline is expected to be over 700 gigalitres, which is 1½ times the size of Sydney Harbour. Implementation is now at a critical juncture, and it is important that governments act to overcome these challenges inhibiting the full delivery of the plan as soon as possible. That's why the Albanese government ran a series of consultations this year. Consultations were undertaken with primary basin stakeholder groups, including irrigated agriculture, industry, local government, communities, environmentalists, First Nations and academics. Consultation was also undertaken with the Murray-Darling Basin Ministerial Council with ministers from New South Wales, Victoria, Queensland, South Australia and the Australian Capital Territory. At the February 2023 Murray-Darling Basin Ministerial Council meeting, ministers asked officials to develop a package, including accountability measures and work programs, to deliver the Basin Plan in full. Many aspects of the package, which were negotiated over several months by basin governments and announced on 22 August 2023, are reflected in this bill. In addition, the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water ran a five-week public consultation process from 29 May to 3 July 2023 seeking additional innovative ideas which would contribute to delivering the Basin Plan in full. They collected 131 submissions during the consultation process. The submissions captured a range of ideas and views, including support for extending the Basin Plan deadlines; allowing a wider range of options to achieve recovery targets; and improved use of science, data, information and technology. Key concerns raised in the submissions included the need for greater community involvement, including with First Nations people, in decision-making; program design; and addressing socioeconomic impacts of water recovery. These will be further explored through consultation with communities as the program rolls out. The package also includes funding for transitional assistance programs where water purchasing occurs. An exposure draft of the water market reform measures in the bill was released for limited consultation with basin states and peak bodies of affected stakeholders, including irrigation infrastructure operators and water market intermediaries, in July 2023. The water market reforms are broadly supported by stakeholders, recognising the regulatory gap that currently exists in water markets. Further consultation will be undertaken to assess the regulatory impact on affected groups in the development of related regulations and legislative instruments. This will allow stakeholder feedback to appropriately be included. We have heard calls for greater flexibility in achieving water recovery targets, calls to extend time frames and calls for investment in measures that deliver tangible environmental outcomes. These insights inform the agreement struck between basin jurisdictions last month to get the plan back on track. Basin water ministers worked hard and in good faith in recent months on the package of measures. We agreed on the need for more time, more money, more options and more accountability. We know the next drought is just around the corner. The threats to the health of our iconic rivers and the people, plants and animals that rely on them are increasing. It is more critical than ever that our rivers are managed in the interests of nature as well as the interests of communities and industries. If we are to pass the Murray-Darling on to future generations in better health, we must finish what we started. This bill makes sensible and practical amendments to the Water Act 2007 and consequential amendments to the Basin Plan 2012. The purpose of the Water Amendment (Restoring Our Rivers) Bill 2023 is to amend the Water Act and the Basin Plan to implement the Basin Plan in full, including recovering the 450 gigalitres of additional environmental water. We are also implementing the recommendations of the Water market reform: final roadmap report to restore transparency, integrity and confidence in water markets. This fulfils an election commitment to work with basin governments and stakeholders for the delivery of water commitments in the Murray-Darling Basin. We are doing this by holding basin jurisdictions to their commitment to deliver environmental outcomes equivalent to those that would have been provided by the 605 gigalitres of water through supply and constraint easing measures. We have also insisted that the 450 gigalitres of additional water—which was the basis for South Australia agreeing to join the plan—be delivered. We have also identified and are rectifying the cause of the delays in the delivery of projects that ease constraints, consistent with the constraints management strategy. These measures will restore integrity and confidence in decision-making by working with the basin jurisdictions to ensure market surveillance and other integrity functions are conducted. We are also working towards requiring all water market participants in the Murray-Darling Basin to have a unique common identifier, to enable trades to be traced and traders to be identified. We are extending Basin Plan time lines to achieve water recovery targets and time lines for states to deliver water infrastructure projects that will keep water in productive use. We're also removing the overly restrictive rules so that we can recover the 450 gigalitres of water for enhanced environmental outcomes and getting rid of the cap of voluntary water purchases. These changes are necessary to deliver on the agreement struck between the Murray-Darling Basin water ministers to provide the long asked for certainty to basin stakeholders. This bill also introduces a suite of water market reforms that will bring integrity and transparency into the system. Basin water markets have grown in value and complexity, outstripping the current rules in place to manage them. These staged reforms mean those buying and selling water can have confidence that the market is operating fairly. Everyone is subject to the same rules, and everyone has access to the same information at the same time. The bill removes restrictions on the recovery of water, such as a cap on voluntary water purchases or buybacks, and extends time lines. This includes water-saving and efficiency projects being delivered by the basin states, allowing the government to deliver our election commitment to deliver the basin plan in full. The Albanese government has promised that it will always fight to protect our environment. This legislation is another example of continuing that promise. I commend the bill to the House. 18:46 Mr McCORMACK 219646 Riverina I like the member for Werriwa, the previous speaker, but unfortunately she, like so many of the other Labor members, will come into this place for this debate and read from the notes that they have had provided to them by Labor's dirt unit. And that is an unfortunate fact. It's almost like AI listening to the Labor members, many of whom do not have in one sense a stake in this game—and this is an important game. But, in essence, every single member in this place, and in the Senate over there, has a stake in this debate. I'm not reading from any notes because it's in here, it's in my heart. It's also in here, in my head. Why everybody has a stake in this debate is because three times a day, every day, every member will sit down and have something to eat. And that something to eat will be provided by a farmer. That farmer will come from Griffith or Shepparton in the member for Nicholls' electorate, or Deniliquin where Senator Perrin Davey has probably forgotten more about water policy than the collective wisdom of all of those opposite will ever know. Or it will come from elsewhere, like Renmark or some of the mighty irrigation areas of South Australia. Heaven help them if they come from Victoria though, because Victoria's not part of this plan. It's not part of the Labor Party's new, 'Let's get the basin plan in, done and legislated'. Victoria doesn't want a part of it. What we have is a policy, a piece of legislation, going to the parliament with no Victoria. A map with Victoria taken off it. And why would that be so? Well, don't ask me, I don't know the answer to it. Ask the water minister. I see the member for Hunter chortling away there—and he's right to chortle! He's right to laugh. It is laughable. It is preposterous that you've got a government wanting to implement a plan without a key state. Absolutely ridiculous. I talked about this in the Federation Chamber the other day and referred to a book I purchased. The book was published in 1888. It's about Australian exploration, written by Ernest Favenc. I promise you it's the only part of the speech I will read. It hasn't been produced by the coalition's talking-point department, if there is such a department—I don't know; I give most of my speeches from my heart and from my head. But it states: In many districts of the inland slope, the rivers have sandy beds, incapable of retaining the water for more than a few months; whilst running parallel with them on either side, are chains of lagoons that often run dry through the floods not being excessive enough to overflow the banks. These lagoons are, as a rule, well calculated to hold water, and could be brought under the influence of ordinary floods, instead of being, as now, dependent upon extraordinary ones; thus atoning for the insufficient retaining power of the river bed. The present great need of Australia is the conservation of water, and the irrigation works which have been already commenced on the banks of the Murray River, coupled with the recent discoveries of an apparently unlimited artesian supply on the arid plains of Western Queensland, testify alike to the recognition of the want, and to the ease with which it may be met. One inevitable rule of settlement is that population follows water; present prospects therefore amply justify the hope that at no very distant date the one-time "central desert" of the first explorers will be the centre of attraction for the fast-growing population of the coast line; and that in the merging together of the peoples of the colonies, now separated by merely imaginary boundary lines, will be found the one great help to the fulfilment of the desire of every true Australian, a Federated Australia—a grand result of the indomitable courage, heroic self-sacrifice, and dogged perseverance of the men of all nationalities, who have established a claim to the proud title of "Australian Explorer." They knew in 1888 what we should know now. They were doing in 1888 what we should be doing now—that is, putting infrastructure in place, building dams, helping line the channels and making sure that the insufficiencies, perhaps, of the geography are aided by human endeavour, to meet human want and human need, to make sure that our irrigation communities can be the best that they can be. That's what we did as a coalition, and it irks me no end—it angers me—when those opposite say that we did nothing in nine years. Ms Rishworth HWA You did! Mr McCORMACK 219646 No, we did not, Minister Rishworth. We worked so hard, with states, to make sure that water recovery was there. We made sure that we put the infrastructure in place. As the infrastructure minister and Deputy Prime Minister, I gained an extra $3½ billion for the National Water Infrastructure Development Fund. Tasmania—the Liberal state of Tasmania—came to the table and built Scottsdale dam. And I have to say that Minister Bailey was interested in what we were doing in Queensland. I'm only sorry that we weren't able to progress that. Certainly the Nationals in New South Wales had ideas too: to lift the wall at Wyangala Dam and Dungowan Dam—and I know how much that means to the member for New England. Victoria? Well, they just said, 'Climate change will be such that we don't want to build any more water infrastructure, because we're not going to need it anyway'—a ridiculous notion. Then, of course, we've got the newly minted New South Wales Labor Minister for Water, Rose Jackson, saying, 'We're not going to increase Wyangala Dam wall,' and, despite the floods which have beset the township of Forbes half a dozen times in the last dozen years, 'We're not going to build any flood mitigation for them; we'll just build better roads so they can escape more quickly.' I mean, have you ever? Anybody who's driving their truck along the Newell Highway at the moment, remember that when you vote next. Remember that when you're driving along the Newell Highway, one of the busiest freight corridors in this country, which has been shut for weeks and months on end because of the flooded Lachlan. Remember that Rose Jackson, the water minister in New South Wales, said that. Quite frankly, she wouldn't know what she's talking about when it comes to protecting regional communities. Then we have Minister Burke, who last week in question time maligned the National Farmers Federation, when he said: 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. That's what he said about the NFF. Then we had the member for McEwen, who yelled out across the chamber on 5 September when the member for Dawson was on his feet, declaring that the backpackers were 'scab labourers'. I'm, quite frankly, sick of how the government, its members and its ministers treat people in regional Australia who grow food, who grow fibre, who boost exports and who make sure that we are fed three times a day, every day. This stuff's important. Water is vital. I have to admit that I did cross the floor and move the disallowance motion on the Murray Darling Basin Plan. Ms Rishworth HWA We remember. Mr McCORMACK 219646 Yes, we remember. I'm glad that you remember. There are two other members in the chamber still who crossed the floor with me. One's the member for Kennedy, Bob Katter, and the other's the member for Melbourne, Adam Bandt, the Greens leader. He crossed the floor for different reasons than I did. The others were the member for Murray, Dr Sharman Stone, and the former member for Hume, the late Alby Schultz—God rest his soul. We sat over there, where Minister Rishworth is sitting now, and we voted against the Murray Darling Basin Plan. I realise the plan's important. I do. I get it. Don't raise your eyes, Minister Rishworth; I do. Don't pull faces; I do get it. But I'll tell you what—the plan did not include at that time the 450 gigalitres. Even Minister Rishworth will admit that that is extra. That's over and above. It was never part of the plan. It was never part of Prime Minister John Howard's plan. It was never part of the now Labor government's plan. It was not. It was a promise made by Julia Gillard at Goolwa prior to the 2013 election. It was. How is the government now going to possibly get 450 gigalitres—a Sydney Harbour's worth of water, almost—flushed down the system? Don't worry about the infrastructure! Don't worry about the roads or the bridges or the caravan parks or the river communities! Let's just flush that water down the system! What's going to happen to it? It's going to flood out the mouth of the Murray. The mouth of the Murray wasn't even put on the original maps, because, when they were drawing the coastline of Australia, it was sandbanked up, because that's what happens. There are pictures of the Murray completely dry. We don't want to go back to that situation, and we're not going to. We hear so often from those opposite about how all the animals will disappear and the fish will go. Let me tell you—they do bounce back quicker. Recent history and ancient history have shown that they return far faster than the farmers will. There will be farmers who will sell their water as part of the buybacks. Buybacks is dumb policy. It's lazy policy. It's Labor policy. Yes, go and offer big prices for water! Distort the water market! That's what will happen. The river communities will suffer because farmers will. Debt-stressed farmers will sell their water, and then there will be less people going to the local hairdresser, less people going to the local club, less kids going to the local school. It all has a ripple effect—pardon the pun—on those irrigation communities. I don't know why 'irrigators' is such a dirty word in this place. It just seems to be. I don't understand why farmers aren't ever applauded for the work that they do. But you'll get members opposite, ministers opposite, who will come here with their sheath of notes, stand there and just read, line for line, never looking up. That's what the Labor dirt unit wants. What we need is to have a real debate where people just get rid of their notes, talk from their heart, talk from the head and talk from their experience about why water is so important and why water is so vital. Let's applaud our regional communities. Let's applaud and let's pay respect to those farmers who get the dirt under their fingernails. They strive so hard to grow the food and the fibre for our nation and many others beside. There's the challenge to the Labor members—and there are plenty of them—when you come in to speak, scrap your notes. Ms Rishworth HWA Run out of content, have you? Mr McCORMACK 219646 I haven't run out of content and I never will, but I won't be like you, Minister Rishworth, and just read from the notes. I will speak from the heart because I know what this means to my community. I know what this means to regional Australia. I know what this means to our nation and our exporters, to those people who went to those desert plains and turned them into gardens of Eden. I know what it means to them. I know how important it is to them, and I know how much this will affect them if this plan goes through unaltered in this place and over there in the Senate because, quite frankly, some of those country communities will just have to close their doors. That will be it for them. Yes, we'll get in all the foreign food, and our grocery prices will go up and the cost-of-living crisis will get even worse. Will those members opposite care about that? I don't think they will. But they will get pats on the head when they go to the Labor dirt unit: 'Well done, you read the notes well. Good on you, excellent, good job.' That is what we face. 19:01 Ms RISHWORTH HWA Kingston I am going to respond to the member for Riverina, but I will do that respectfully by using his appropriate title. I was here when the member for Riverina crossed the floor and moved a disallowance motion. But what I also remember in that debate is that it was not a choice between farmers in South Australia and drinking water for Adelaide and, indeed, the environment because in the millennium drought we all remember dairy farmers being run off their land because the quality of water was so poor along the lower end of the river. There was absolutely no decent quality water, so that is why in that millennium drought we had farmers in South Australia coming together with the people in Adelaide who were looking at their drinking water running out. Of course, people were seeing turtles die, animals die and fish die all along that river. That did not have consequences for only the environment but had consequences for the people who made their living from fishing. People came together in South Australia because there was a lack of consideration and appreciation for what we faced at the end of the Murray Darling Basin. I made the point then and I continue to make the point that a dead river is good for nobody. It is not good for farmers, it is not good for the people in the communities that rely on it and it is of course not good for the environment. The action that we took back then in government and the action that the Minister for the Environment and Water is taking now with the Water Amendment (Restoring our Rivers) Bill 2023 is absolutely about ensuring that we have a sustainable river system for the long term—long-term vision, long-term planning. I heard the shadow minister refer to getting technology advice from 1885, I think it was. That just shows how the opposition has not come to grips with the absolutely dire straits that the Murray Darling is in, and the impact and the effort that we need to put in to make sure that this system survives. Of course, we heard a lot about dams—a lot of money for dams, just not a lot of dams built by those opposite. When we were last in government, we invested in water infrastructure. In fact, it was an absolute pleasure to visit a number of farms that were growing oranges in the Riverland and watch our $400 million investment—and that was just one of the many investments we made—in on-farm irrigation. It was looking at smart technology and it was looking at responsive technology that meant farmers were able to control their water use. They were able to monitor the soil moisture and use the water in the most efficient way possible. That is progress, that is real investment in technology and on-farm infrastructure, and that is exactly what our government did when we were last in government. This government is now having to clean up the mess that was left by nine years of inaction. Those opposite never recanted the 450 gigalitres. They never recanted that. They were just silent on it. They said, 'Maybe we'll try.' They didn't reject it—they did not reject it—but they didn't actually deliver it. 'If we just stay silent, if we don't say anything, people might forget.' But the people of South Australia have not forgotten, and they want a government that will take action to protect, repair and manage this vital natural resource and all the ecosystems that go along with it, but also all the communities. We need this to be sustainable in the long term. Quite frankly, to hear the member opposite make comments that this side of the House doesn't care about farming communities—that is why communities right across South Australia banded together in that millennium drought; they knew something needed to be done for the long term. If we did not manage this resource appropriately, then we wouldn't have something for the long term. Unfortunately, it has taken the election of this government to start repairing the system again and to start actually enabling the national plan, which was left to go to rack and ruin by those opposite. South Australians repeatedly faced water ministers under the former government who were actively working against them and against the underlying Murray-Darling Basin Plan when it was agreed to in 2012. Watching the coalition infighting, we saw the progress of the plan stall. They didn't have the courage to repeal it and stand by their convictions. No, they just sabotaged it. We know that the National Party did try and amend the Water Act without the support of the Liberals in the Senate during the last term of parliament. Once again, that division, that infighting, led to a lack of action in an area that we needed action to occur. We know that there is absolute division embedded in the opposition when it comes to water buybacks. But we need a plan, and that does involve water buybacks. It does involve investment in infrastructure. It does involve bringing state and Commonwealth ministers together to make progress on the Murray-Darling plan as we outlined. I would like to commend the minister for water for the leadership that she has taken from day one of becoming a minister. She has sought to get this plan back on track. The plan was built on the principles of cooperation and to ensure we do not face a situation like we faced in the millennium drought. I hear the member opposite sighing. I think he forgets just how serious that was. There were plans to start trucking water into Adelaide. He might not care about Adelaide. He might not care about South Australia. But our only crime was being at the end of the river system, and the members opposite wanted to punish us for that, and to hell with the consequences for the people of South Australia. Basin governments signed on to the plan with a promise to the Australian people that they would work together in the national interest—not in their own state's interest, not in their own partisan interest, but in the national interest to ensure that future generations will still be able to rely on this natural resource that we enjoy today. This basin is incredibly important for its productivity—its agricultural productivity and its tourism productivity—and for its beauty that many people enjoy as well. It has a natural habitat, of which the member opposite so callously said, 'They all die. They'll just come back. I don't care if they all die—if the birds die, if the fish die. Doesn't matter; they'll regenerate.' Mr McCormack 219646 I didn't say that. Ms RISHWORTH HWA Well, you were having a good verbal yourself. You gave it a good crack. Mr McCormack 219646 You quote me correctly. Ms RISHWORTH HWA You asked others to speak off the cuff. That's exactly what I'm doing. Of course, this is built on a plan. Our 'restoring our rivers' bill will make sensible and practical amendments to the Water Act 2007 and the consequential amendments to the Basin Plan in 2012, so we can get back to the job of fixing this river system. We will implement the plan in full and finish what we started. The minister for the environment has driven new consultations with the basin stakeholders and basin governments where support for the plan has been renewed. There are calls for greater flexibility in achieving water recovery targets and calls for greater investment in measures that deliver tangible environmental outcomes, and this bill delivers on those calls. The bill also delivers what the former government could not or would not; they just ignored it. Essentially the bill removes the overly restrictive rules so that we can recover the 450 gigalitres of water for enhanced environmental outcomes. These changes are necessary to deliver on the agreements struck between the Murray-Darling Basin water ministers to provide the certainty long asked for by so many across the basin. I think this bill is critically important and builds on the work already done. The bill also introduces a suite of water market reforms that will bring integrity, fairness and transparency to the system. The amendment reflects the growth in the value and complexity in the current rules that are not fit for purpose. The bill will deliver staged reforms that will mean buying and selling water can occur equally, and with confidence that the same rules apply to everyone. Whether you are a farmer, an irrigator, a conservationist or one of the 2.3 million residents in the regions on the Murray-Darling, this river system is there for all who rely on it, particularly—I feel like there is a bit of deja vu here—for the residents of South Australia, for people that are at the end of the Murray-Darling system. We should not have to bear the consequences of constant infighting, constant partisanship on this and a lack of cooperation. This is a national resource. It is one that so many different people rely on, and it needs to be treated with the importance and the reverence it deserves. That's why I call on all, whether they are in the Greens party, the National Party or the Liberal Party, to rise above the partisan politics and do what's in the national interest—to return the Murray-Darling Basin to its full potential, to ensure its sustainability and ensure that future generations and communities can enjoy this natural resource. 19:13 Mr BIRRELL 288713 Nicholls I am the member for Nicholls—someone from a critical, food producing basin community. I've been here for just over a year and I've seen some damaging legislation introduced by the Albanese government. I think it won't be too long before Australians start to realise, even more than they are now, how damaging some of this stuff is and that when you attack businesses you attack the fabric of Australian society. But this bill, the Water Amendment (Restoring Our Rivers) Bill 2023, takes the cake as the most damaging piece of legislation this new government has introduced. It is a fundamental misunderstanding of how the basin works and how basin communities work. What the original legislation was designed to do and how it worked is extremely disturbing. What does this new legislation do? It recants a lot of the stuff the then Labor government initially put forward back in 2012. It does one thing that we agree with: to give an extension of time for what we call the SDLAM projects—the sustainable diversion limit adjustment mechanism. The SDLAM projects are about using infrastructure to get water to environmental assets more effectively and efficiently. Unfortunately, the states haven't had time to get the full range of projects up for a variety of reasons, including floods and COVID, and they needed extra time to do it. This legislation does that, and we support that part of it. But there are other elements of this legislation which we fundamentally cannot and will not support, because they are destructive not only to the basin communities and the economies of those basin communities but to the environmental assets in our basin communities. I will explain that shortly. By removing the cap on buybacks, people just don't understand the damage that it will do. I'm going to try and explain this. When the Commonwealth government waltzes into a community and says, 'We're buying the water,' they're taking it out of what we call a consumptive pool. They're taking it away from production. If people get upset that Canadian super funds or Eddie McGuire, or whoever it is, might own water, at least when water is traded amongst entities who are in the water trading business, it's still there for farmers to buy to grow something with. When the Commonwealth enters the market, the water gets bought and is taken out of business. Then it's stored in Eildon or Hume and sits there. A certain amount of that has been done, and my community has borne so much pain. When the water goes, so does the food or fibre that it produces, and not only does the food or fibre that it produces go but also all the economic activity that surrounds that produce. I'll give you an example. A megalitre of water is used to grow pears or apples. Apples are my favourite at the moment. Those apples are grown and picked. They're then taken into a pack house. They're sorted. They're packed. All the people who are employed in that process, up to that point, derive their economic future and their jobs from that process. Then the boxes get on a truck. Many of them go to other parts of Australia. All the people who handle that produce, whether they're the marketers, the people who are stacking it at Coles or Woolworths or wherever else, or the people who are involved in selling the produce—some of it goes onto ships and is exported—all the money that comes to Australia and benefits Australians from that process is gone when the megalitre of water goes away from consumptive agriculture and into the environment. That's what buybacks do. A better way was found through on-farm irrigation efficiency projects. I've been involved in this personally, so I believe I know what I'm talking about when it comes to this. What we tried to do and what the government helped do was to say to the farmer, 'Okay, we'll give you extra money for the water—more than you probably would have got by selling it back—but the deal is that you have to use that money to put in a more efficient irrigation system so you can grow more with less.' I was involved in that with a company I worked for with subsurface drip irrigation, but many farms put in overhead pivots and improved flood irrigation—that was good because you could use less water to grow the same amount of produce. It was a good system. But buybacks are damaging. This government wants to go back into the buyback business. What they're doing by going back into the buyback business is going back into the smash productivity business, back into the grow less food for Australia business, back into the risk of importing Chinese apples and peaches and God knows what else business. I didn't think I'd see a responsible government in Australia wanting to do that. The issue we have right now is that most of the basin plan has been done and is being done with the original 2,100 gigalitres that's already been either bought back or got back through the more responsible way of on-farm irrigation efficiency. That water has come out of communities like mine, so I don't really appreciate people over there saying that the plan has been sabotaged. You want to see a sabotaged plan, come to the Goulburn Valley and see what pain that water leaving has caused. But now we are where we are. The people of the Goulburn Valley appreciate that we needed Commonwealth water for environmental outcomes. So we have been prepared to wear some of this pain. We have been prepared to do it. But the additional 450 gigalitres had a socioeconomic neutrality test. So the deal, we believed, if you can believe what the previous Labor government did—and the coalition government locked it in with some of the Labor states, by the way—was that that 450 gigalitres could not be taken away if it had a negative socioeconomic impact test. I've said this a few times in this place: what does 'socioeconomic' mean? It's society and its economy. So that means if it has a negative effect on the society in a basin community—that is Shepparton, Echuca or Yarrawonga—and the economy in those places then that water can't be taken. If you can find a way to do it without impacting on those basin communities' society and economy then let's do it. I think there are opportunities to that. We don't want to see South Australia miss out, but you've got to be able to do it without impacting on the society and the economy. That's the socioeconomic impact. That was the deal. That was the deal we all thought we had. Now we come into this place and the Minister for the Environment and Water says: 'The socioeconomic impact test is gone holus-bolus. Let's go in and buy that 450 gigalitres back and, if it damages your society, Member for Nicholls, if it damages your society, Member for Riverina, or if it damages your society, Member for Farrer—guess what?—we don't care anymore.' What do you think it feels like in a place like the Goulburn Valley to hear a government say that? It's pretty rough. There is such a better way to do this. I wish people had the compassion and the intelligence to think about how we could get this done in a much better way. I just want to explain for these irrigation systems that have been running for over 100 years and have a legacy of great impact in terms of food production, iconic businesses like SPC and Tatura Milk, a bit about how they work. It basically works because people own licences to pump out of rivers or extract water from channels, but if the dam gets low in the dry times that we inevitably have then you'll get less of your allocation. Yield is at 100 per cent at the moment. The river is very healthy, by the way. I don't know where this alarmism that the river is not healthy is coming from. But I know that there will be dry times and Eildon or Hume will reduce in their capacity. What happens then is there's an system that irrigators automatically get a lower percentage of the water that they own. So they might get 60 per cent of the water that they own. That's critical because what happens then is that orchardists who have trees that needs to be irrigated no matter what can buy water from the dairy farmer, who can say, 'I can make more money selling my water to the orchardist and I'll buy hay instead of growing pasture.' That's the delicate balance in the system, and that's what makes it work. If we remove so much water from the irrigation system that there's not enough to be traded between the perennial planting, which is the apple tree grower, the orange tree grower or the almond grower, and the farmer who has the ability to grow annual crops, such as pasture or rice, the fundamental balance of the irrigation system won't work anymore. The $2 billion in infrastructure that has been put into the Goulburn-Murray Irrigation District will become a waste of money because the whole system collapses. Those are the incredibly damaging economic, societal and business effects of this callous, unthinking legislation. But there are also some environmental impacts. The lack of understanding is just unfathomable. If you try to push all that water down the river system to improve an environmental asset further down, you damage environmental assets such as the Goulburn River or the Murray River that's in my electorate and other people's electorates. The river will run too high at the wrong time of the year and it will damage the bank. The catchment management authority have shown me this. Before I came into this place, I had politicians on tinnies—National Party people, Labor people and Liberal people—looking at what these high flows were doing to the bank. How much worse is that going to get if you try and shove 450 gigalitres down the river system? The Goulburn River, which is the most beautiful river—it's the river I grew up on; it's a place of real importance to me—will turn into a channel. It's not a channel; it's a river. There's so much more thought that needs to go into this. This legislation does not understand what it will do both to the environment and to society. This is a real tragedy. People in my electorate are calling this the Alamo. They're saying that this is it. They're saying this is an existential crisis. This is really serious stuff. I've got a fruit cannery called SPC in my electorate. They got going in 1918. I've had old war diggers telling me what they went through when they were serving in World War II, Korea or Vietnam. The greatest moments of their life were when they got their ration pack and pulled out a tin of SPC peaches, because it was from home, it was from Australia and it was healthy food. They've been doing this for so long. If you go into a supermarket now there's the SPC product. I always try to buy the SPC product. It's so important. But next to it there is the Chinese snack pack. God knows what environmental impact, economic impact or socio-economic impact that has had. Do we want our peaches and our kids' food to come from this country or do we want to bring it in from China? I just ask you that. It's not a scare campaign. That's what will happen if damaging legislation like this goes through, and I oppose it fundamentally. 19:28 Mr GEORGANAS DZY Adelaide I'm very proud to be speaking on the Water Amendment (Restoring Our Rivers) Bill 2023, being a South Australian and having witnessed our last drought not that long ago. I saw the Murray mouth, down by a town called Goolwa, which has lakes that go into the Murray mouth before they actually go out to sea. I was able to walk across those lakes and see dead fish and dead sea life on the bed of the river. That was less than 10 years ago. I recall the campaign that was run in South Australia not by the Labor Party or by environmental green groups but by the entire state population of South Australia. The local paper, the Advertiser, ran a campaign holding each and every MP and senator in South Australia to account on what they were doing to save the River Murray. It wasn't that long ago, and that memory is still clear with all South Australians. So I'm very proud to be standing here today speaking on this particular bill. I know there are strong sentiments on both sides about this particular bill, and we just heard the member for Nicholls speak. The reality is that, if we don't get the 450 gigalitres flowing back into the River Murray so we can have a sustainable river, there will be no industries in years to come. No doubt, as day follows night, there will be more droughts in this country. We've seen droughts over the years, but the droughts that are to come are definitely there, and it will decimate the river and therefore decimate the communities on the riverbanks. Debate interrupted. ADJOURNMENT 72 ADJOURNMENT Eugowra: Floods 72 19:30 Mr GEE 261393 Calare The 14 November 2022 was a day the people of Eugowra and our region will never forget, a day seared into every corner of our collective memory, Eugowra's darkest day. On that day, torrents of water tore through town. The devastation was shocking. Ten months on and residents are still picking up the pieces. Over 90 per cent of homes and businesses were damaged or destroyed, and, sadly, two much loved local residents lost their lives. With such devastation you'd think governments and insurance companies alike would be throwing their support behind this communities and its residents. Sadly, in crucial aspects, our residents have been let down. Governments of both political persuasions have dragged their feet. The Central West of New South Wales has still not been given the same level of disaster support that other storm- and flood-hit communities have received. This is outrageous, and the response from insurance companies has been nothing short of callous and cold-hearted. The stories of tragedy are, sadly, everywhere, but so too are the stories of hope and triumph. While governments and insurance companies have been a great disappointment to me, community is what has sustained Eugowra and carried it through from the first moments of this tragedy. Tonight, I'd like to acknowledge some of the unsung heroes who have made such a difference. I haven't been able to name everyone I want to in this speech, and it is my intention to acknowledge the work of more outstanding community members in future contributions. Two people who I do wish to acknowledge tonight are Andrew and Jono Barnes. These two legends have given up their weekends to paint the homes of Eugowra residents, and even some businesses, free of charge. With widespread insurance knockbacks, their work has been a godsend. They are not professional painters; although, now, no doubt, they could be. They are two brothers who love Eugowra and its residents and who saw a need and acted. With their spray painting kit, Andrew and Jono have generously painted 26 homes in Eugowra so far and have another 12 on their list. They offer any colour on the spectrum, as long as it's white. Andrew and Jono recognise that the road to recovery is difficult, and they'll keep on showing up for the people of Eugowra for as long as they're needed. It's a huge effort, and I sincerely thank and acknowledge them for it in this parliament tonight. I also acknowledge David Conyers. I call him the angel of Eugowra. With the help of approximately 30 volunteer tradespeople, Dave coordinated Fridgy's for Eugowra, where they've successfully supplied and installed air conditioners to more than 130 homes. Dave and the team have committed to air conditioning the entire town, with $400,000 in funds, supplies and equipment. What an extraordinary effort! Thanks to the generosity of so many people across the Central West of New South Wales and beyond, Eugowra and the people who call it home are slowly but surely moving forward. I'd also like to acknowledge the tireless efforts of the Wright family. Ash and Tim Wright live on a farm just outside Eugowra, and, from the moment disaster and danger struck, they also acted—firstly, with the rescue efforts and their local RFS truck and then with catering and helping to source and sort donations, such as food and clothing. They then led clean-up efforts around the district, collecting possessions and valuables that had washed downstream for return to their owners. This included items such as irreplaceable family photos and many other items of sentimental value to local residents. They provided all manner of support to Eugowrans in their times of greatest need. When the clean-up of public areas concluded, they moved on to helping residents rebuild and restore their homes and farms. It has been backbreaking and exhausting work, which was carried out throughout the heat of summer. Every week the call for volunteers was made, and every week the call was answered. Ash and Tim were joined by many different community members, including their daughter, Julia Wright; James Daws; Julia's cousins, Tom and Alex Mitchell; Liz Mitchell; local Rotarian Peter Thompson; Rochelle Smith; Matt and Kathy Lamrock; Matt Reid, Macky Den; Thomas Turner; and the North Bangaroo RFS brigade to name but a few. Unsurprisingly, this list could be much, much longer, and, as I've said, future speeches will honour more of our community heroes. I extend a heartfelt thanks to all of the individuals and organisations from around our region and around our country who've worked so hard to support Eugowra and the Central West. Golson, Professor Jack, AO 73 19:34 Ms CLAYDON 248181 Newcastle I rise this evening to pay tribute to the life and work of a most remarkable man and friend, Emeritus Professor Jack Golson AO, FAHA, one of the leading figures in Pacific archaeology and someone who has been important to me both personally and professionally. I first met Jack as a 17-year-old student at the University of Sydney. His daughter, Kate, and I attended the same residential college, and we've been friends ever since. Jack Golson was the most modest of academics. It wasn't until I studied anthropology and prehistory, which was part of the department of anthropology in those days, that I had any clue as to the depth and breadth of his work and the high regard in which he was held by his peers and indeed all who knew him. Regardless, Jack was a humble, unpretentious, gracious and generous man. He grew up in Rochdale, near Manchester, in England in a poor working-class family. He won a scholarship to study at Cambridge university, but his studies were interrupted by the outbreak of World War II, when he was sent down to work in the underground coal mines. Following the war, he returned to Cambridge university to resume his studies and switched from history to archaeology. He graduated with a BA (Honours) in 1950 and a Master's in 1952. At the age of just 28, in 1954 Jack Golson accepted the foundational position of lecturer in archaeology in the anthropology department at the University of Auckland. Within six months, he persuaded museum colleagues and collectors to come together to form the New Zealand Archaeological Association and, in 1955, was instrumental in the founding of the New Zealand Archaeological Association Site Recording Scheme. This has now developed into a large and invaluable database. It's now digitised and online, consisting of over 60,000 individual records of occupation and places of Maori and European origin. His capacity to bring people together and connect was recognised by the New Zealand archaeologist Louise Furey. She said: Golson's ability to get along with people, including landowners and Maori, enabled him to drive changes in attitude without alienating people. In 1961 he moved to Australia to take up a position at the Australian National University, where he became head of the newly formed Department of Prehistory and was a foundational figure in the development of archaeological research across Australia, New Guinea and the islands of the south-west Pacific. In the late 1960s Jack commenced archaeological research in the highlands of Papua New Guinea which became his life's passion and, in particular, his research at Kuk Agricultural Research Station near Mount Hagen in the Western Highlands Province. Recognition of the significance of Kuk, not just for PNG but for the international community, was realised in 2008 when it was declared a UNESCO World Heritage site. The thing that always stood out for me in my discussions with Jack about his work was his quiet but steadfast inclusion of local people, not just in his field work but in all aspects of his work and life. He was a man truly ahead of his time. I was lucky enough to visit PNG in 2019 and 2022, last year, where Jack's work and legacy is still spoken of today. He's one of the only Australian researchers to be recognised in the PNG national museum. He brought his signature graciousness and generous approach to work in Papua New Guinea at a time when building relationships with our nearest neighbours was probably not front of mind for most Australians. After 30 years at the ANU, Jack officially retired in 199, yet never stopped working until recent years, remaining connected to the university throughout his life as a visiting fellow, while continuing his focus on his work in PNG. Even at home, you'd always find Jack in his study, working on a book, writing a paper or organising a conference. His work ethic was prodigious. Jack was a member of the Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies from 1974 and was indefatigable in his calls to officially protect Aboriginal cultural heritage in the early sixties, at a time when such considerations were far from people's minds. For his service to education he was awarded an Officer of the Order of Australia in 1997. In 2001 he received the Centenary Medal, and in 2009, along with his phenomenal wife, Clare, he was the recipient of the World Archaeological Congress Inaugural Lifetime Achievement Award. Jack's 97th birthday would have been tomorrow. His beloved wife, Clare, died in April last year. I'll be toasting them both. They were a remarkable team. Vale, Jack Golson. You will be missed. My heartfelt condolences go to Jack's family: his daughter, Kate, and her partner, Julie; his son, Toby, and his wife, Jacinta; his grandchildren, Lenna, Aisha and Jack; and his great-granddaughter, Sage. Your collective love for Jack was so evident in the way you cared for him in recent years. Jack Golson led a remarkable life and his legacy is immense, for which we should all be truly grateful. Regional Australia: Population, Regional Australia: Infrastructure 74 19:40 Mr JOYCE e5d New England I rise tonight to talk about two things. The population of Australia, in the budget papers, looked like it would increase by about 525,000 people. That's a lot of people. It's more than live in this city, the capital of Australia. But the national accounts have come out, and we have done better; we're over 100,000 above that. It's about 625,000 people, and that's pretty remarkable for a year. But the problem is: where are these people going to live and what are they going to live in and what's happening to our rental prices? When we look at the housing legislation, it's not even going to touch the sides of what is required. What is pertinent to this is that in Sydney there is a real dislike of the city getting any bigger, as there is in Melbourne, the Gold Coast and, now, Brisbane. They're basically saying that the place is full. They don't want more people. They don't want a big Australia. But there are parts of Australia that will accept a growing population, and they are in regional areas. But they won't accept it if you keep ripping the funding out of these areas, especially for infrastructure. Not out of exclusiveness—it could be Wagga Wagga as well—let's look at New England. For the city of Tamworth to grow—we're now at about 70,000 people—we need more water infrastructure. So we fought for a dam, Dungowan Dam. The first thing that happened when the new government came in was that they got rid of the money for Dungowan Dam. But the people are still pouring in. They're pouring in from Sydney. New suburbs are opening up all the time. As soon as a block goes in it's filled out. Even areas that used to be other towns are now suburbs, such at Kootingal. We had so much work to do on the New England Highway. Now it's all under review. Why? What more needs to be reviewed about the Tenterfield bypass, the straightening of the road at Wingen or the Calala Lane to Greg Norman Drive duplication? What needs to be reviewed? The traffic is there. It's flat out. We've just got to get on and do these things. The big one for regional Australia—the big one which connects Gladstone to Melbourne through all our seats: Riverina, Parkes, New England—is Inland Rail. It has been kicked into the long grass. I know people who are being retrenched. The whole thing is going to be mothballed, and this is so stupid because, if you want to make Australia stronger and you want to have new areas where people can live, you've got to get that vital infrastructure in place. Now, they came up with this fantastic number of $31 billion. No-one has ever actually told us how they came to that number. It's going to cost $31 billion. As an accountant or an auditor, if you can't stand behind your numbers, your numbers are rubbish. You've actually got to prove how you came to that number. But if you want to do a comparative analysis, I can tell you a number they have proved, and that is what Snowy Hydro 2.0 is going to cost at the moment. It's $12 billion. It started at $2 billion. It went across to the expenditure review board at $2 billion. It's now up to $12 billion. And they're continuing that one. That one's going on. But not the Inland Rail. They've now told the people at APVMA to work from home. Apparently, the way you fix the culture of the APVMA is to shut it down, to move it back to Canberra, to show no confidence whatsoever in regional Australia and to say to people, 'We would never even envisage any form of decentralisation to a regional city or a regional town.' How does that encourage people to do anything other than live in Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane and now, to an extent, Canberra? You are feeding your problem. You are growing your problem, and every time you get onto a major road in Sydney, just be prepared for more cars and more people next year. They're just going to pack out that basin until you have a plan for them to live somewhere else. I'll tell you what you have given New England, though. You've given us solar factories, wind factories and transmission lines—thank you very much for that!—which are completely dividing our communities. But there comes a time for pushback, and this is it. This is going to be the battleground. We're going to bring those people to Canberra. I've been speaking to them tonight. They're coming down here, ladies and gentlemen. They're coming to the front lawn and they're very, very, very unhappy. Australian Constitution: Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice 75 19:45 Ms SCRYMGOUR F2S Lingiari By the time this parliament next sits, Australia will have voted for Constitutional recognition through an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander voice to parliament. It is and it will be a defining moment for this country. The question for the Australian people is quite simple: 122 years since our Constitution was created, are we finally ready to recognise Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people? Are we ready to begin a process of healing for this country? Are we ready to finally call ourselves the land of a fair go? I believe we are. I am probably the only politician in this building whose signature is on the Uluru Statement from the Heart. I can tell you, with my hand on my heart, that the process that led to the Uluru Statement from the Heart is a powerful one. I sat out bush with communities, in the dirt, and I spoke with hundreds of Aboriginal people across the Northern Territory. We spent countless hours listening and compiling information to take to the Uluru convention. Over 250 delegates were at the convention: leaders who had been nominated by their communities from across the country, people who have done the hard yards on the ground to make a difference. I can say, because I was there, that this idea came directly from Aboriginal people. It comes from years of hard work to try to find a way to forward. Many people in this place have commented on the process involved in the Uluru statement, and many have sought to undermine the Uluru statement. It is easy to sow doubt, it is easy to divide, it is easy to play a game of fear. What is much harder is to work with Aboriginal people to make systemic change. The Australian people, through their vote in this referendum, have a once-in-a-generation chance to make a change and to reshape how this country treats its Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. This will make a difference. The truth of the matter is that things that we are doing now are simply not working. If we are to make substantive change, our people needed to be at the table. When the crime crisis in Alice Springs was raging, I said publicly: Aboriginal leadership and communities need to be at the table. I said this because when that leadership is at the table there is responsibility and an obligation to act and to be part of the solution. When Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people are involved in decision-making, better decisions for our communities are made, but there is also buy-in from those communities. Things turn out better on the ground. This is not taking away the responsibility of government to do better, but it is saying that when you involve Aboriginal people, when you listen, you make better policy. When I want people's opinion on small business, I go to small business in my electorate. When I want advice on agricultural policy, I to the farmers, the Cattlemen's Association and their respective bodies. When I want to hear about the impacts of health policy, I speak to the health experts. What the Voice will do is create a formal advisory body for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people to have direct input on policy that affects them. That is all. It is a modest but powerful change. Making change never comes easy, but at critical moments in history this country has shown that it is a place of fairness and justice. Thirty thousand people around the country are taking to the streets on market stalls, doorknocks, marches and phone banks. This is not a campaign we are running on Sky News; it is one we are running on the ground. We have five weeks, and my call to action is this: on the day after the referendum, we want to know that we gave everything we had to try to make this country a better one. In the face of a fear campaign, we have stood strong and we did what was right. These opportunities do not come often—I can tell you that. So let's not be left wondering what we could have done. I want to acknowledge and pay tribute to our federal Minister for Indigenous Australians and the courage and conviction she has shown—in the face of the terrible campaigns that are run against her—to stand with the Prime Minister to make a change to make our country a better one. Thank you. Energy Infrastructure, National Soils Advocate 76 19:49 Mr 219646 Riverina McCORMACK () (): I will just sidetrack to the member for Lingiari, and I do thank her for her contribution. I do acknowledge that there have been some terrible things said about the Minister for Indigenous Australians, but I also acknowledge that Senator Jacinta Nampijinpa Price has also been subjected to some very nasty remarks. I would ask Australians, as we count down towards the referendum, that they be respectful. Everybody gets a vote—yes or no—and let's move on as a nation after the vote, whatever the outcome of that vote is. I want to talk tonight about a couple of rural issues. One is in relation to Transgrid's high-voltage power lines for the HumeLink project. I would urge and encourage the member for Eden-Monaro to listen to her farmers and her community members in trying to have these lines placed underground. I know that James Gooden, who has properties at both Cootamundra and Borambola in my electorate, is a passionate advocate on this very. very important issue. We need there to be common sense. We need to make sure that those people who are on prime agricultural land are listened to and are valued. Speaking of valuing farmers and valuing what we all live on, I want to express my surprise and disappointment at Labor's decision to axe the National Soils Advocate. Senator Murray Watt, who is the federal agriculture minister has terminated this role. I do appreciate the fact that he reached out to me to alert me to this before it was made public, but I also want to place on record my admiration for former Queensland governor Penny Wensley AC, who has done a marvellous job in this capacity. I do not believe there is any justification for this shortsighted announcement. Soils hold the key to much of what those opposite talk about when they discuss action on climate. Ms Wensley succeeded Australia's first National Soils Advocate, the late Major-General Michael Jeffery AC. He was announced as the national advocate for soil health on 23 October 2012 by no less a person than Prime Minister Julia Gillard. I do have admiration for Prime Minister Gillard, particularly post her prime ministership. In fact, I reached out to her, when I became the Deputy Prime Minister, to ask her for advice, and she gave me some great wisdom about what to do for regional Australia. I still value that conversation. I like to think that she understood regional Australia and that she cared about the interests of all Australians. When she put Major-General Michael Jeffery in that role, it was a very sensible decision, and I commend her for it. On World Soil Day, 5 December, in 2019, I handed a letter to then Speaker Tony Smith to request the formation of Parliamentary Friends of Soil. I've really appreciated the collaboration and cooperation I've had from my co-chair, Meryl Swanson, the member for Paterson, in this parliament and before that from Minister Linda Burney in the previous parliament. The member for Barton understood how important soils were, and I'm sure the member for Lingiari does too. I know soil is an important cultural aspect for Indigenous Australians, and I do respect that. Soil is vital to life on this planet. It's home to more than a quarter of the earth's biodiversity. Ninety-five per cent of the world's food comes from soil and soil organisms. Given that, I cannot fathom why we would not continue with a national soils advocate. I believe we should have a minister for soils—separate to, but working in close conjunction with, the minister for agriculture. May we work towards that as a parliament in the future, and may we always value the soils on which we walk and from which we derive our food. Foster Care Week 76 19:55 Ms DOYLE 299962 Aston This week is Foster Care Week, which celebrates and raises awareness about foster care across the care services sector and within the wider community. The events and celebrations held during Foster Care Week aim to highlight and appreciate our valuable foster carers and the contribution they make to the lives of vulnerable children and young people in our community. The theme of Foster Care Week 2023 is Heart of Gold, celebrating the generosity and huge hearts of carers and their valuable place in the lives of the children and young people in their care. As we celebrate Foster Care Week, I have been reflecting on a recent visit I made to Anchor Community Care, based in the suburb of Scoresby, which is in my electorate of Aston. Anchor Community Care assist some of the most vulnerable young people in our community, through services such as homelessness support, foster care, kinship care, community education and family reconciliation. I met with the CEO, Heidi Tucker, and key staff to discuss the crucial issues they are facing. Anchor Community Care's vision is to ensure every child, young person and family experiencing disadvantage can obtain the support they need to have a stable home, thrive and achieve their goals in life. In Aston there are more than 32,000 children under 18 years of age, and, in 2015-16, Anchor Community Care facilitated 847 placements of children in their out-of-home care program. In 2021-22, over 31,000 nights of care were provided through Anchor to children in foster and kinship care arrangements. I've heard about the nationwide shortage of carers and the increasing number of children needing care. This shortage of carers is becoming urgent. I think Foster Care Week is the perfect time for Australians to consider helping a child in need by welcoming them into their homes. It's a rewarding and life-changing experience for both the carer and the child. While I was at Anchor, I also heard about the complex set of legal requirements that carers must navigate and about how staff at Anchor provide support to foster and kinship carers. During my visit, I met a foster carer and the beautiful baby she was currently looking after. I heard about some of the challenges she has faced facilitating almost daily access visits by family members. This wonderful foster mum spoke about the impact this has on the baby, on her and on her own family life—but not like it was a burden in any way at all. She struck me as having an amazing capacity for caring that seemingly knows no bounds. I also spoke with a wonderful carer about her experience with kinship care. This is something very close to my heart, as I, too, am a carer, for my great-niece. At the age of 14, Jamilah came to live with me and my two teenage kids, in 2020, when her mum, my wonderful niece Melanie, who was a fantastic mum, died unexpectedly of a brain aneurysm, aged just 42. I have direct experience of all aspects of being a kinship carer to a young person. It is something I spoke about during my first speech to parliament. The kinship carer I spoke with during my visit to Anchor Community Care has developed a strong bond with the child in her care. She has spent a lot of time and energy manoeuvring through the legal system, striving to get the best outcome for the child in her care. This process has had its share of challenges and upheavals for her life, and it can easily take a toll on people in this situation, but the strength of character I saw in this young woman was incredible. These women and many other families in my electorate are performing a wonderful service for the community by caring for children and young people. Carers play an essential role in the lives of children and young people. They give more than just a roof over a head, a warm meal and a cosy bed. They are a safety net, someone to rely on during the time children are away from family. Their unconditional love, kindness and care make an incredible difference to the lives of many. During Foster Care Week and, in fact, every week, I believe they deserve all the support and recognition that we can give them for their incredible and valuable work. House adjourned at 20 : 00 NOTICES 77 NOTICES Presentation 77

Tuesday, 12 September 2023

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Chesters ) took the chair at 15:59.

 

CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS 83 CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS Diffuse Intrinsic Pontine Glioma, Childhood Chronic Illness, Parliamentary Standards 83 16:00 Ms SPENDER 286042 Wentworth I've had two meetings recently with Australians whose lives have been touched by childhood cancer. One meeting was with Professor Matt Dun, who lost his infant daughter, Josie, to diffuse intrinsic pontine glioma. DIPG is the deadliest form of childhood cancer, one for which there is no cure and one where loss follows just months from the diagnosis. Professor Dun himself is a leading medical researcher and has developed a unique treatment that prolongs the lives of children with DIPG. But the obstacle to providing this to more children and their families is simply funding. The diagnosis is devastating to a family, and the families that I've met with absolutely broke my heart. I know that it's not just DIPG but a host of other cancers that can strike in childhood, so I urge everybody to throw everything we can at improving our understanding and at finding effective treatments. The second meeting I had was with a constituent, Ruby. Ruby is a lovely and dignified 16-year-old from Wentworth who has been through incredible hardship. She suffered from leukaemia and has lost her sight. She and other survivors of childhood chronic illnesses came to parliament this week to help us understand the challenges that children and their families face when they have chronic illnesses—the disruption to schooling, the mental health impacts, the social isolation, the challenges of transitioning from paediatric to adult care—and what is needed to ensure that illnesses in childhood don't define the rest of their lives. Despite all the progress we have made in recent years, we have a long way to go to support people like Josie and Ruby. So I urge the government to listen to Child UnLimited and DIPG and support those children and their families through these times. Integrity was the No. 1 issue at the last election. After years of a government that barely paid attention or even lip-service to principles of ethics, integrity and accountability, Australia voted for change. They voted for a new government which promised to do better and to do the right thing. Labor now needs to follow through on those promises. They've made some welcome, long-overdue changes, including to the National Anti-Corruption Commission, and progress towards better parliamentary workplace standards, and I commend them for that. But other necessary changes are languishing, particularly the culture of secrecy that lies at the heart of government. The Qatar affair clearly demonstrates a yawning gap between the transparency we were promised, what the Australian population expects and what the government is delivering. More than a month after this decision we still don't really know why the decision was made. Genuine transparency is absolutely critical, and without it we can't have accountability and we will not have integrity. It's time for the government to do better. Nichols, Harrison 83 16:03 Ms SWANSON 264170 Paterson Right about now one of the youngest up-and-coming sporting champions from Paterson, Harrison Nichols, is probably getting home from school and raiding the pantry and the fridge, like most ravenous 17-year-olds. He'll be readying himself for a bit of homework and an early night after dinner, as every morning he is up well and truly before dawn, before most of us have even thought about waking up, and he is out rowing, training on the magnificent Hunter River. I also want to say a big shout-out to his parents, who take him to rowing, and to all the parents of early sporting children—swimmers, rowers. You do a really great job. Many would be surprised to hear that Harrison, at 17 years of age, has most recently competed in the World Rowing Championships, which were held in Belgrade last weekend. He was the youngest in his PR3 coxed four team. Being the youngest doesn't mean he's at any disadvantage, though. He's had a fantastic year. He's had stand-out performances in the PR3 single sculls at the interstate regatta and at the Australian Rowing Championships in early April. He's performing well beyond his young years. His team were outstanding at the world championships, coming home in fourth position overall, and they have therefore qualified for the Paris Paralympics in 2024. We will all be watching and cheering you on, Harrison. On Sunday evening our time, Harrison was presented with the McVilly-Pearce Pin, a tradition only afforded to those who have represented our great nation on the water. Harrison is the 923rd recipient of this prestigious honour. It is a further testament to his dedication, determination and ability in his chosen sport of rowing at such a tender age. Harrison, you are a fantastic young man. I was so proud to be able to present you with your local sporting hero grant earlier this year. You were an inspiration in that room. I can't wait to see where you go. I was particularly proud, even though you were quite embarrassed, to give you the opportunity to speak in front of a group of young sportspeople to practice what it's going to be like when you win loads of medals over your sporting career. You will handle that media beautifully. Your will do our nation proud. You have got such a bright future. I can't wait to watch you at the Paris Olympics. You are going to not only make Paterson and your parents very proud but all of those kids at Hunter Valley Grammar School and all of our people across Paterson. Row hard and go well, Harrison. Parr, Mr Alan 84 16:06 Ms LANDRY 249764 Capricornia Just a few weeks ago, on 18 August, our nation commemorated and remembered the brave Australians who went to fight in the Vietnam War. Many Australians served our nation in the Vietnam War. However, today, I want to speak about one man in particular. This gentleman, Mr Alan Parr of Rockhampton, was recently awarded one of the highest distinctions, the Medal for Gallantry, by Queensland Governor Jeannette Young. Just a few weeks ago, Alan and his wife, Mary, joined me for afternoon tea so that I could thank Alan and recognise the incredible act of bravery he displayed in Vietnam. It was also an opportunity to celebrate this recognition after decades of our men who served in the Vietnam War not receiving the accolades they so rightly deserve. It was his story, not only of how he came to serve in the Vietnam War but also what he did in the middle of the action, which left me enthralled by his courage. In the seventies Alan was a humble primary school teacher who had just begun his career, educating the next generation of children. It wasn't long before, at the age of 21, Alan was on a ship with hundreds of other young, intrepid Australians heading to Vietnam. Shortly after Alan set foot on Vietnamese soil, he was sent to his first battle, the Battle of Coral-Balmoral, on 12 May 1968. Alan's platoon, 1 RAR, consisting of 18 men, were flown into the wrong location and quickly found themselves surrounded by 200 to 300 Vietcong. Within hours the platoon was surrounded and under intense fire. There was no cover and minimal defences. It was during this attack that Alan managed to dig a small hole, just deep enough to protect himself from the onslaught of fire. With chaos surrounding him, Alan saw his mate was severely wounded. With bravery and courage, Alan managed to rescue his platoon mate and bring him into the hole he had dug. Unfortunately, his mate passed away beside him. Such was the intensity of the attack that night that in his role of radioman Alan was directing American aircraft to fire into their position to hold back the enemy soldiers. Within hours, five men were killed and eight were wounded. Alan was the only one of five men left standing. The battle would rage on for days, 26 days in fact. At the end of the relentless 26-day onslaught, 26 Australian soldiers would be lost and 108 wounded. Finally, after 53 years, Alan received the Medal for Gallantry. Lieutenant Colonel George Hulse described Alan in his citation as having a coolness under fire and a dedication to his duty. Thank you, Alan Parr, for your dedication and service to our nation. Your story of bravery and survival is one that will never be forgotten. May we never forget the sacrifices you and your fellow soldiers who served Australia made. Lalor Electorate: Football 84 16:08 Ms RYAN 249224 Lalor September is footy finals time in Victoria, as we all know. We are very excited in the seat of Lalor as the footy finals come to a close in the WRFL. We have the Wyndham Suns in both the seniors and the reserves grand finals in the WRFL this Saturday. On top of that, Werribee Districts are playing Point Cook in the grand final in division 1 at Avalon oval, Chirnside Park in Werribee, on Sunday. A big shout out to the Werribee Districts Football Club, where they have the under 18s, the reserves and the seniors playing off in a grand final. I'll be there on Sunday to watch Werribee Districts and Point Cook play in the grand final, barracking my heart out for Werribee Districts, running out in the black and yellow—the traditional colours of the area—against Point Cook, who were for some time in my electorate but are now proudly represented by the member for Gellibrand. I know that he, like me, wishes both teams well, but he will be barracking ferociously for Point Cook while I barrack for Werribee Districts. In the VFL—this is the big game—Werribee are playing Brisbane in the preliminary final on Saturday at Avalon Oval—a home game for Werribee. This is an enormous event locally. I know that people will be flocking to Avalon Oval across Saturday and Sunday to see teams in the black and yellow run out and proudly represent our local area. I wish the Werribee Football Club well; I'll be there with them on Sunday. Finally, it wouldn't be me talking about sport unless I found a netball team to support. The Werribee Centrals Football and Netball Club compete in the Geelong district football league. Our girls, the A Grade Werribee Centrals girls, are in the grand final again; everyone at home will understand when I say 'again' because they do so almost boringly by repetition. Having fought back in the preliminary final, the women's A-grade netball team will be playing East Geelong at the St Albans ground in Geelong at 3 pm. Local sport plays a great role in Victoria. People coming together to play sport and the people who come to support them such as the volunteers, all those people who give up their hours, from the runners to the trainers to the coaches to the people selling the hotdogs in the stalls—I'll see you all this weekend because footy finals is coming not just to Victoria but to Werribee. Go, Tiges! Berowra Electorate: Rural Fire Service 85 16:11 Mr LEESER 109556 Berowra There's something awe-inspiring about the Australian bush. It's beautiful yet terrifying, inviting yet inhospitable, a strength in times of reflection and a terror in full fury. As a nation we can't afford a standing army to protect us against those moments when nature is in full fury, so we rely on volunteers. They are our first line of defence. In Berowra it's our State Emergency Service and Rural Fire Service. Berowra is a beautiful bushland electorate. We are fortunate to have the Berowra Valley, Lane Cove, Marramarra and Cattai national parks in our community. But it means we're also a bushfire prone electorate. Today, as we approach the official start of the fire season, I want to acknowledge our remarkable RFS volunteers. They volunteer all year round. In autumn and winter they undertake drills and hazard reductions and prepare, and they stand ready to defend property and life during the fire season. Recently I joined over a thousand Rural Fire Service volunteers for the annual Hornsby Ku-ring-gai mayoral dinner. It's an opportunity to celebrate our local Rural Fire Service volunteers. The volunteers come from all backgrounds and all walks of life. During the dinner several brigades were given awards for their recent areawide training activities. Congratulations to Mount Ku-ring-gai and Hornsby on winning special awards, and a special congratulations to the Muogamarra brigade on winning every category and being named the overall champion. Thanks also to Patsy Marshall for organising a great night. Across Berowra there are over 1,500 local volunteers across 27 brigades who do a remarkable job. Led by superintendents Mark Sugden and Matthew O'Donnell in the Hornsby Ku-ring-gai area and Glen McCartney in The Hills, they're an extraordinary group of men and women. Although there is not enough time to thank each of them individually, I want to thank their brigade captains in each of the brigades: Mike Melis, Mal Desmarchelier, David Kissick, Tim O'Mahony, Gerard Martin, David Ogle, Rochman Reese, Jarryd Barton, Dave Aslin, Theo Klich, Kate McIntosh, Stuart Clark, Gavin Adams, Benjamin de Leon, Scott Jones, Gordon Morgan, Daniel Sokolnikoff, Rod Derriman, Peter Kazzi, Stan Montgomery, John Turnbull, Gary Chatman, Len Best, Brad Hojel, Peter Wright, Matthew Schroder-Shorten and Alan Clark. Over the past year brigades across the two local districts have responded to over 700 incident calls. Floods, storms, multiple-vehicle accidents—no matter what the disaster, they're always there to lend a hand. RFS volunteers are such a valued addition to any community event. The role the RFS volunteers play in our fire safety is their most significant contribution. It's that time of the year, and we should remind ourselves of our bushfire survival plan and do the important preventative work like clearing out our gutters and clearing up the leaves and debris around our properties. If you've got a pool, get a static water supply—SWS—sign at your property entrance. The pool of water might save your own home or a neighbour's home as well. Thanks again to the wonderful Rural Fire Service for all the work they do for our community and for all Australians. Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide, RAAF Base Richmond Family Day 85 16:14 Ms TEMPLEMAN 181810 Macquarie When we encourage people to sign up and serve in the Defence Force, no-one can predict exactly what the consequences for that individual will be. Some have really positive experiences, but obviously not all people do. I had the privilege of hearing this week from the three royal commissioners inquiring into defence and veteran suicide: Nick Kaldas, a former deputy commissioner with the New South Wales Police Force; The Hon James Douglas KC, a retired Queensland Supreme Court judge; and Dr Peggy Brown, a psychiatrist and member of the Military, Veterans' and Emergency Services Personnel Mental Health Network. All of them are eminently qualified to be commissioners on this royal commission. They shared with us some of their insights about the themes they are seeing in the evidence that they continue to take, including things like the slow and complex processing times of the Department of Veterans' Affairs; problems with the transition that personnel expense as they move into the civilian world; the preparation they have had before they leave defence; and the barriers to accessing mental health support in a timely way. I want to thank the commissioners for their work. It must be very challenging hearing the sort of testimonies that they are—from bereaved family members and from veterans and personnel who have themselves contemplated or survived a suicide attempt. And of course there is the challenge of coming up with recommendations that will change the current trajectory so that we don't lose more defence personnel to suicide than we do in active duty. While we as a government look forward to the final report next year from the royal commission, we are taking many steps to change things in the meantime. One of those is to have a veterans and families wellbeing hub in the Hawkesbury. I am pleased to say that the election commitment I made last year is progressing with the decision by the Minister for Veterans' Affairs to provide funding to New South Wales RSL to work on a business case for a hub they propose to operate. This is a key step. I know we all want to see excellent value for taxpayer dollars, and the hubs we are developing go through a rigorous and thorough process to ensure they're delivering what is expected and needed for the veterans and defence personnel and families of today and tomorrow. The Hawkesbury hub is on top of the Scheyville community wellbeing hub being funded with a $5,000,000 grant to the Hunter Anzac Memorial group. So there will be a lot of support for veterans in the Hawkesbury. I also want to commend 37 Squadron at RAAF Richmond for the family day they held at the weekend. I was privileged to see families checking out the aircraft and trying the virtual reality simulator. People might have seen a large number of Hercules aircraft flying around the district. That was a real treat for families. It took the involvement of a wide range of RAAF Richmond personnel, including reserves, and I thank them for making it possible. Riverina Electorate: Light Horse Memorial 86 16:17 Mr McCORMACK 219646 Riverina It is the right statue in the right place, and here is my acrostic accolade: Light horsemen and their mighty steeds will this Saturday morning be given their due recognition in the city of Wagga Wagga, Riverina's capital. It is appropriate the life-sized bronze statue will be officially unveiled and dedicated in the Victory Memorial Gardens. Gardens have a sense of commemoration and remembrance, and this tranquil place will now forevermore be home not just to this mighty monument but, more importantly, to the memory it evokes. Honour, service and sacrifice are hallmarks of what Light Horsemen and their trusty mounts carried into their difficult and often deadly daily duties. The charge of the dismounted 3rd Light Horse Brigade at the Nek at dawn on 7 August 1915 was considered by famous war historian Charles Bean as one of the bravest acts in the history of Australians at war. Heroes all, these Anzacs did not stand a chance against the Turkish bullets that fateful day. Ottoman forces won at Gallipoli, yet our mounted Light Horsemen proved superior in the desert Battles of Ramani (1916) and Beersheba (1917)—decisive cavalry actions in World War I. Respecting the remarkable deeds of our Light Horsemen and their commitment to 'never leave a mate behind' is the apt theme of this significant shrine. Sandy, belonging to Major General Sir William Bridges, was the only Great War horse from the 136,000 sent abroad to make it back to Australia, and, as we pause to pay tribute to the fallen Light Horsemen, let us spare a thought also for those equine wonders we sent to serve our nation and Empire's interests. Every time our city and region gathers around this everlasting memorial in future, it will remind those present of the hard-working volunteers who made it all possible, the Wagga Wagga City Council, Federal Government (via the Saluting Their Service programme) and the generous benefactors who funded it and, most of all, the brave troopers and their gallant horses as we, who will mark this auspicious occasion, collectively say: Lest We Forget. May the statue be a constant spur to all who will pass by in the future, who may stop and pause to admire and wonder: who were these men and their gallant mounts? Everlasting fame has been earned by the Light Horse Regiments, which carried Australia's name and banner in desert campaigns. Now Wagga Wagga has its monument to this greatness, and may all those who helped bring this about, particularly Pat Leary, John Ploenges, Maria Flinn and Dr Anne Flood, be thanked and may this monument serve as a constant reminder to all who look at it and say what great people we had in the past who made our future possible. Medicare 86 16:20 Mr THISTLETHWAITE 182468 Kingsford Smith The healthcare system has been in crisis due to a decade of neglect by the previous government. Under the Liberal-National government, we saw bulk-billing rates fall dramatically, the Medicare rebate frozen for a number of years and emergency department waiting times skyrocket at hospitals across the country. During the last election campaign, Labor announced our plan to take pressure off the healthcare system and to rebuild Medicare. An important part of that plan was to build Medicare urgent care clinics in communities throughout the country. The care clinics will take pressure off hospital emergency departments by providing Australians with urgent medical care when they need it without having to go to an emergency department. In my electorate of Kingsford Smith, we promised an urgent care clinic in the lead-up to the last election. I'm happy to say that we have delivered. Labor has delivered better health care in our community with the opening of a Medicare urgent care clinic on 19 July. I had the honour of joining with medical specialists in our community to open that clinic. The great thing about this clinic is that it's open from 8 am to 8 pm, and you don't need to make an appointment. All you need is your Medicare card, because all of the services are bulk billed. The opening of this vitally important healthcare service will take much-needed pressure off the Prince of Wales Hospital Emergency Department and the Sydney Children's Hospital Emergency Department. We know that a third of all presentations at hospital emergency departments are for non-urgent matters, and people wait six or seven hours to be seen. Well, not at the Maroubra Medicare Urgent Care Clinic—you're in and out in 45 minutes. Some of the hardworking doctors and nurses at the Prince of Wales Hospital can now concentrate on emergencies and lifesaving care rather than non-urgent matters. I want to point out that, when we opened this and promoted it on Facebook, this was the feedback we got from resident Kutana, who said: It's such a wonderful service and the staff are incredible. That's the voice of our community about this Medicare urgent care clinic. We're not just delivering them in my electorate of Kingsford Smith. We've funded 58 clinics throughout the country, and 14 are in New South Wales, and they are progressively being rolled out. It's part of Labor's commitment to rebuild Medicare and to ensure that we have better healthcare services for all in our community. It will also take pressure off the cost of living, because we saw bulk-billing rates falling under the previous government and people being forced to pay to see their doctor—not under this government. We're increasing the Medicare rebate and taking pressure off our hospital system. We're delivering Medicare urgent care clinics. September 11 Attacks: 22nd Anniversary 87 16:23 Mr JOYCE e5d New England Twenty years ago, I was at Cloncurry. That evening, I went back to my motel room after a rather involved discussion with a person about the railway lines out there. I turned on the television and there was what I believed to be a Bruce Willis movie on. I wasn't fond of that, so I turned to the next station. It was remarkable; the same movie was on. So I went to the third station, and I couldn't believe that the same movie was on. As we know, it wasn't a movie; it was the attack of 9/11 on the United States of America. I rang my cousins, who live in Tennessee, just out of Nashville, and they were crying. It was an immense, traumatic thing. It was a criminal attack on our great ally, the United States. That day 2,977 people were killed in American Airlines flight 11, United Airlines flight 175, American Airlines flight 77 and United Airlines flight 93. We have seen the footage of so many of those. But let's reflect on United Airlines flight 93 where the people on the plane knew what was happening. They knew what had gone on. They were going to retaliate; they weren't going to be part of it. They retook the plane and the plane crashed. If it hadn't, they probably would have flown that plane into the White House. As people saw the plane go along, they saw it going up and down and violently left and right. That was the terrorists trying to knock the passengers off their feet as they tried to break into the cockpit, which they ultimately did. After that point in time Australia was also at war. We lost one in Iraq from wounds. We lost three in exercises with the British in Iraq. We lost 41 in Afghanistan, with others who also died of wounds and, tragically, after that date we lost so many from suicide. It might be 20 years on, but the scars and the emotions are still raw in so many people, not just in the United States but also here in Australia. It was the only response we could have given with such an outrageous attack as that. If it had happened to Australia, we would want the same response. I want to convey to the people of the United States that on this occasion, as on all occasions where we have served together, not only we are united in our purpose, in our belief in democracy, in the freedom of the individual, in the liberties and rights that we have but we will fight to the nth degree to make sure those liberties are maintained and we will stand by each other as we did 20 years ago after this horrific event. Housing 88 16:26 Ms THWAITES 282212 Jagajaga Housing is fundamental to all of us. Having a home that you get to call your own and a stable roof over your head is the foundation that we all need to thrive. Without a stable home, how do you get your kids out to school each day? How do you know that they'll go to the same school next year? How do you make sure that you are healthy and comfortable? How do you make sure that you can keep safe? Homes are about all that and about more than that too. They bring the confidence of having your own space and that you have the ability to shape that space and your life in the way that you want to. I know there are too many people in our country at the moment who are stressed about their housing and who do not have that stability. It is something that people in my community raise with me regularly. That is why I'm so pleased that the Housing Australia Future Fund Bill will pass this parliament this week. This is a huge investment in housing, $10 billion, the most significant reform to housing that our country has seen in a generation. This is every home that is built, every person, every couple or family that are supported into a home—helping to set those people up with so much more than bricks and mortar. It will help set them up with that security, that stability, that comes from having a stable home. Housing is life-changing. With this fund our government is going to help change people's lives for the better. The fund will help deliver 30,000 new social and affordable homes in its first five years—homes that are very much needed right across our country and in my local community. This will mean more affordable homes for renters, more homes for essential workers and more homes for those people most in need: for vulnerable people, including older, single women and, for women and children fleeing family violence. It will also mean more homes for veterans at risk of homelessness and for services like Vasey RSL Care, which is doing brilliant work at the V Centre just next to Heidelberg Repat supporting veterans and their families but which could do even more with the right support from this fund. This fund puts us on the path to start to address the severe inaction on housing during the nine years of the coalition government. Our government has been left with a hole on housing. We are filling the hole in. We are getting on with the job. It sits alongside a range of housing measures our government is delivering: our Social Housing Accelerator Fund, a $2 billion boost to deliver thousands of new social homes across the country together with state and territory governments; 10,000 affordable homes over five years through federal funding of the National Housing Accord to be matched by up to another 10,000 homes from states and territories; our increase of 15 per cent to the maximum rate of Commonwealth rent assistance, the largest increase in more than 30 years; and a $1.7 billion extension of the National Housing and Homelessness Agreement. Our government understands housing is fundamental. We're getting on with it. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 249710 In accordance with standing order 193, the time for members' constituency statements has concluded. BILLS 88 BILLS Social Security Amendment (Australian Government Disaster Recovery Payment) Bill 2023 88

Social Security Amendment (Australian Government Disaster Recovery Payment) Bill 2023

Second Reading 88 16:30 Mr NEUMANN HVO Blair I speak in support of the Social Security Amendment (Australian Government Disaster Recovery Payment) Bill 2023. Few bills of this parliament affect my electorate more than this one. During my lifetime, we've had four major floods in my electorate, including a flood in 1974 that was eight feet over my parents' house. While I've been the federal MP for Blair, we've had three major floods—in 2011, 2013 and 2022—not to mention the many bushfires that affect my regional and rural electorate in South-East Queensland, so I'm very pleased to speak on this bill. The bill makes important amendments to the Social Security Act 1991 to introduce additional objective qualification criteria for the Australian government disaster recovery payment, which will support quicker decision-making under payment arrangements. The bill amends that piece of legislation to provide greater certainty in supporting automation processes and to ensure the timely payment of claims for the Australian government disaster recovery payment in the 2023-24 high-risk weather season and beyond. That's absolutely critical. The disaster recovery payment is a one-off payment to eligible people who are adversely affected by a major disaster. The act sets out the circumstances in which a person qualifies for the payment. To qualify for the disaster recovery payment, an applicant must be adversely affected by a major disaster and be at least 16 years of age or receive a social security payment. The act provides alternative qualification criteria for the payment, which include a person who is an Australian resident, is a holder of certain visas as determined by the minister or is receiving a social security payment. Certain Australian citizens who are not Australian residents are covered. I do recall that, in 2011, New Zealanders qualified for this payment in my electorate, and there are many New Zealanders in South-East Queensland, let me tell you! Automatic assessment of claims for the payment based on objective criteria are expected to be processed in a matter of minutes or days instead of the weeks required to assess claims manually. Timely payment, when people are being so affected, is so critical. The amendments proposed by the bill provide objective criteria on which to assess payments and to ensure the timely processing and delivery of those payments. The purpose of the bill is to amend section 1061K to insert new qualification criteria to make the payments available to someone if they've spent a certain amount of time in Australia before a major disaster. The weather in the coming year 2023-24 is likely to be characterised by severe weather events. A delivery of faster payments to those eligible is a critical element in our disaster preparedness response, so this bill requires urgent consideration, and I'm so pleased we're going ahead with it. It's really critical that communities are also very resilient in terms of preparation—everything from flood levees to making sure that there are controlled burns in regional areas, as well as making sure that we have the proper necessary release of water from places like Wivenhoe and Somerset dams. Local councils need to be prepared as well. For example, they need to have appropriate evacuation or community hubs, as has been said on many occasions in many reports. Disasters will happen in our country. With climate change, weather conditions are becoming more extreme, and disasters will happen more frequently. There will be more extreme events, and that's the experience that we'll have in my home state of Queensland, where cyclones in the north impact South-East Queensland as well. This is a reality we can't ignore. We need to take action on climate change, and we need to be prepared as much as we possibly can. That's why this government is doing everything we can in terms of the disaster ready fund. I'm pleased we had projects done and paid for, and projects committed to in my electorate, such as the Dingyarra Street flood mitigation project in Toogoolawah. I thank the Somerset Regional Council for that. There are also other projects supporting private sector managed retreat of at-risk settlements around Ipswich and elsewhere in South-East Queensland. That will be a project which will trial a managed retreat system as well. These things are important. The legislation before this Chamber is absolutely critical. The recovery payment, for the information of people, consists of $1,000 per eligible adult and $400 per eligible child, and it is delivered by Services Australia. It really is about the purchase of essential items like food for a family, replacing damaged household items, clothing, school items or even toys for children who've lost their cherished possessions. It's designed to fund whatever is needed in the immediate aftermath of a major disaster, and to help families to recover. I can't describe how important these payments are to those who have been flooded and who've lost everything. The use of automation will allow someone to enter their information to claim a payment, and a computer will check that information within limitations or business rules. If the information provided doesn't meet a business rule, then the claims can be assessed manually. I can't stress how important that is, because, in many cases, people are not technologically savvy, they are not digitally aware, they've lost their mobile phone, computers or laptops, so it is important things are dealt with manually as well. Not meeting the business rules doesn't mean someone is not eligible or doesn't qualify for the payment. Everyone's circumstances are unique. Every flood is different, and every person who is flood affected has different circumstances. If someone doesn't meet the streamlined automation rules, their situation can be considered in a manual way, against discretionary criteria. This bill is really, really important, and that's why we're committed to improving the way we can deliver this essential assistance. The automation was originally introduced for the disaster recovery payment back in January 2022, and while it has been used to deliver payments after the Queensland and New South Wales floods, an assessment of the business rules identified risks in the application of discretionary decision-making criteria. When these issues were identified, the automation of recovery payments was paused. It's important for this automation to be reactivated before the commencement, as I say, of the high-risk weather season. Services Australia advised that without automation, the processing time of recovery payments after significant events could blow out to five weeks or more. That's totally unacceptable. It will have a terrible impact on people. This is contrasted with the potential for automated processing times to be reduced to 20 minutes or less. Last financial year, Services Australia processed 1.6 million disaster recovery claims in a population of 26½ million. It goes to show how important this particular bill is for Australians. These disasters take an enormous toll on people. It affects them physically, emotionally, psychologically and financially. Communities have been destroyed, homes and lives lost—and I've seen that on so many occasions in my electorate. This government will support people, and it's important that governments do so in the aftermath of disasters, to ensure the recovery of these communities. The disaster recovery payment offers a helping hand to people straight after a disaster. The bill requires urgent attention because the government support is absolutely critical and has to be effective. Six or eight weeks is far too long for most families to wait. These measures will get the disaster recovery payment to people who need it most and do it quickly. I commend the bill to the House. 16:38 Mr GEE 261393 Calare I rise in support of this Social Security Amendment (Australian Government Disaster Recovery Payment) Bill 2023, and I speak on it as a local member who has seen firsthand the absolute destruction and devastation from recent natural disasters. We've had the Black Summer bushfires, which tore through large sections of the Calare electorate and, then, in November last year, we had the storm and flood event that devastated areas across the Cabonne Shire and the Wellington district as well. Tragically, lives were lost in those awful and devastating hours around the storm and flood waters hitting Eugowra. We've also had devastating bushfires in the Hill End region of the Calare electorate which struck earlier this year. So the people of Central West New South Wales are sadly very well acquainted with natural disaster and the tragedy that surrounds those awful events. I support the bill because anything that facilitates the speedier dispensing of disaster assistance is very welcome. This bill relates to the disaster recovery payment, and I think that it is— Sitting suspended from 16 : 40 to 16 : 51 Mr GEE 261393 As I was saying, I support this legislation because it facilitates the faster and more efficient dispensing of the disaster recovery payment, which is very important. But I do have to say, with respect to our disaster-hit communities in Central West of New South Wales, the rollout of disaster support has been disgracefully slow and is still not where it should be. Whilst the disaster recovery payment was issued when those storm and flood events hit Cabonne in the Central West of New South Wales, the back home grants, for example, which are where the larger sums of money came, didn't happen until just before Christmas. Those storm and flood events hit in the middle of November, on 13 and 14 November, and it took until Christmas to actually get meaningful support out to the Central West. We had press conference after press conference, concerned walk-through after concerned walk-through by various politicians, and that crucial support was delayed and delayed. The reality is that the Central West of New South Wales has still not received the same level of disaster support that the Northern Rivers of New South Wales has had. We certainly don't begrudge the Northern Rivers any level of support and assistance which they have received. However, the truth remains that the devastation which occurred in the Central West of New South Wales was equal if not greater to that which the Northern Rivers experienced. I spent a lot of time with emergency services personnel on the ground in the aftermath of the storm and floods in Eugowra. Those emergency services personnel who worked on both the Northern Rivers and Eugowra floods said that, even though the community of Eugowra is smaller, the level of destruction in Eugowra was actually greater; it was in a more concentrated area and there was a higher level of destruction in Eugowra. Yet Eugowra has still not received the same level of support. As I said, we don't begrudge the Northern Rivers a single penny that they have received, but we seek equal treatment in the Central West of New South Wales. We seek equal treatment in the form of the home buyback and retrofit scheme, which also includes home raising. That is a scheme which has had hundreds of millions of dollars committed to it, and we haven't seen a penny of it in the Central West of New South Wales. It could make a real difference to our area, but we have seen none of that funding. It's a disgrace. The Community Assets Program, which would help our councils get back on their feet and get their infrastructure back in shape, has not been made available to local councils in our area. How could that possibly be? How could you possibly have some councils, in one part of the disaster-hit state, being treated better than councils in other parts of the state that have experienced similar disasters? Our communities have still not had access to the Northern Rivers Commercial Property Return to Business Support Grant program, which helps local landlords get their buildings back in shape, and if you walk through places like Molong, you will see shopfronts that are still shelves because there has been no assistance and no support. It's the same with homeowners who have, in many cases, invested in places like Eugowra and have had properties, which they rent out, wiped away. How could it possibly be that in this modern Australia of 2023, instead of actually fixing storm- and flood-hit infrastructure, we just close roads? The Nyrang Creek Bridge between Canowindra and Eugowra is still closed, because the bridge is a wreck. There have been accidents on that road and there was recently a tragic fatality on that road. How can it be that instead of committing the funding needed to fix that road, we just close it? Saxa Road, between Wellington and Dunedoo, is closed because the storm- and flood-hit infrastructure along it is in a wrecked-out state; it's disgraceful. There doesn't seem to be any money to fix it. The Duke of Wellington Bridge in Wellington, one of the key arteries linking both sides of the river, and the key artery between Wellington and Dubbo and the rest of western New South Wales, is still a flood-hit wreck. Again, it's closed; there's no funding in sight for it. It beggars belief that in modern Australia this could be happening. I believe both sides of politics are to be blamed for this neglect, and it is a wilful neglect. There is blame on the part of the previous Liberal and National state government for not activating this disaster assistance when they had the opportunity. This disaster assistance was dangled like a bag of cash on a fishing pole in front of our residents and then cruelly yanked away before the last state election. There is blame to be apportioned to the federal coalition for not putting pressure on their state colleagues, particularly in the National Party. They're all, in this state, members of the New South Wales National Party, and there was not sufficient pressure brought to bear on the state National Party or the coalition to deliver that disaster assistance. There is blame to be apportioned to the federal Nationals for only taking recent interest in our disaster-hit communities. It's a three-hour drive up that road to get to the Cabonne shire, yet it has taken them months, almost a year, to visit our area. That in itself is a disgrace. There is blame to be apportioned to the current New South Wales government for not activating this disaster assistance sooner, and there is blame to be apportioned to the current federal government for, similarly, not putting enough pressure on their state colleagues to activate this disaster assistance. The New South Wales emergency services minister recently came to our electorate—he came to Eugowra—and I give him great credit for that. I understand that New South Wales is in a difficult financial position; we all understand that. I said to the minister, 'Even though funding is hard to find, you need to find funding for this.' I've worked with the Minister for Emergency Services in the New South Wales parliament. I have a lot of faith in his abilities to deliver, and I'm hoping that he will do that, because I know he is a very decent person. I know he will do his best. But we need him to deliver. I spoke to the federal Minister for Emergency Management on the weekend about this issue. I asked him to do everything he could to pressure his New South Wales colleagues and to bring home to them how important delivering this relief actually is. I would urge both the federal government and the New South Wales government to get this assistance moving. It can't possibly be that in New South Wales you have two classes of emergency and disaster relief for different parts of the state, both of which have been devastated by natural disasters. It is a disgrace that this funding and these programs have not been made available to our area. For as long as that injustice stands, I will be bringing it to the attention of the House and calling it out. I will be calling out the wanton neglect that our residents have experienced and the disrespect which they have been the subject of from the major political parties in not delivering this relief. I will be highlighting the fact that the recovery process and the reconstruction of the Central West has been made much more difficult because of this abject failure to properly deliver disaster assistance. This is a gross injustice, and it needs to be made right. All members of the current federal government and the New South Wales government need to be aware that this issue will not go away, and that the residents of our area are very angry about their treatment. As I said, there is plenty of blame to go around, including for the abject failure of the NSW Liberals and Nationals to actually deliver this relief rather than holding press conference after press conference, as we've seen all too much of over the months in recent times. We are now approaching 12 months since the storm and floods hit Eugowra, and there's still no sign of this funding. We're up to the anniversary. The other area which also needs support is Hill End. In March this year the Hill End area was devastated by bushfires, yet we still have not had the $75,000 special disaster grants released for our area. Again, I've spoken to the New South Wales Minister For Emergency Services and asked him to have another look at it. He's undertaken to do that—again, to his credit. But, again, this is something that the previous coalition government in New South Wales could have activated straightaway but did not. Again, it's a case of the residents of our area feeling forgotten. This can't be allowed to stand. This neglect cannot be allowed to stand. This injustice cannot be allowed to stand. I again urge all levels of government, federal and New South Wales, to do everything they can and to find the money and the funds to activate this disaster assistance. The anger in our area is palpable, and we will not be letting this go. 17:03 Mr KATTER HX4 Kennedy I serve notice that we're going to move an amendment to the Social Security Amendment (Australian Government Disaster Recovery Payment) Bill 2023 that will go after Qantas. I speak with authority here. My family were one of the original investors. Qantas received $1.57 billion in compensation for the disaster which was the disease outbreak, which was called COVID. They received $1.57 billion. In that period of time, the CEO of Qantas has personally received $22 million exit packages and bonuses and wages of an estimated $125 million. If we are handing out disaster packages and if we are not monitoring, then someone can get away with one hell of a lot of money. While we've chased people in my electorate around because they had 50 cattle die instead of 100 cattle, we did absolutely nothing about a bloke at a company getting away with $1 billion plus. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 176304 Member for Kennedy, are you speaking to an amendment to the motion for the second reading? Mr KATTER HX4 No, I am putting forward that we will attempt to amend the bill so we can address the problem created that I am outlining here. This is a bill about improving services during disasters. I represent North Queensland, and we are cyclone prone and flood prone. Where I come from—which is an area of a thousand kilometres by a thousand kilometres: North Queensland's midwest—the soil seals over once we get two inches of rain, and we get massive flooding. We have characteristics in North Queensland that make us very, very prone to disasters of various types. Three of the towns in the electorate I represent get over 100 inches of annual rainfall. That is an average. That means that some years we get 300 inches of rain. I want to name the people in this company, Qantas, that got $1.57 billion in handouts from the government because of COVID. In that same period of time, they paid out huge amounts of money to senior executives and paid bonuses and wages estimated at over $125 million, to quote but one example. On the board of Qantas is Richard Goyder, Maxine Brenner, Jacqueline Hey and Belinda Hutchinson. We are releasing their names to the media. This company—and God bless the Transport Workers Union who took the pictures—had employees sleeping on concrete with a blanket over them. They were baggage handlers. These people on the board did absolutely nothing about the man in charge, nor did this place do anything to call them to account. This place—the ALP and the LNP—sold Qantas. My forebears, like many other people who live in inland North Queensland, put in a lot of money to get a little airline going to service us and provide much-needed air services. I'll quote two examples of that need. There were three Katter brothers. My father was one of them. He died because he would not jump the queue when we had the airline strike on. By the time he got to Brisbane, it was too late; the cancer had got away, and he died. If he had jumped the queue or been able to get on an aeroplane during that strike, he would have survived. So he died as a result of the tyranny of distance. His brother Norman was hurt. He had a rugby league injury. My family are very proud of their association with rugby league. By the time the Qantas plane got back from Longreach to Cloncurry and got to Brisbane, it was too late. If the plane had been in Cloncurry, he would have survived. So two of the three Katter brothers died on account of the tyranny of distance, which has been one of the greatest tyrants that this nation has ever had to confront. We put our hands in pockets and put up money that we could ill afford to get this company going. The government sold it so they could buy their way through an election. They sold the national passenger carrier. I named the people on the Qantas board because I want it to be on the public record who they are. We don't want everyone running around just blaming the CEO. Who was the board that kept him there through this period of time? It was used to enable us—people subject to the tyranny of distance—to overcome that tyrant. The costs of going from Longreach, Mount Isa or Cloncurry to anywhere is absolutely prohibitive, and yet they're paying the CEO $20 million a year. If a tiny bit of that money came back to the people that founded Qantas, maybe we would be running this country a hell of a lot better than we're running it at the present moment. As for the free marketeers and the ALP and the LNP, the founder of the ALP, 'Red Ted' Theodore, would turn in his grave and spit upon the people that call themselves ALP today because he believed in creating industries to provide work and a rich income for the people. He founded the great trade union movement in this country, as well as the great labour movement in this country. I'm very proud of the Country Party, which I belonged to. We were in the ALP, as was Kevin Rudd's family. The big split happened, and then we became members of the Country Party, but we took all of our principles with us. I'll go back to the issue of disaster relief. That disaster relief passed out $1.57 billion to a company who is paying its CEO $20 million plus every year, when he's had baggage handlers that he has offshored sleeping on concrete, according to the aeronautical engineers union. They've told me that he has offshored thousands of jobs overseas in the vitally important aeronautical engineering industry. He has put fares up in regional Australia to a point where no-one can afford to fly, and this government hands him out $1.57 billion, with not one single codicil upon it, saying: 'Hold on, mate. If you were making big profits during the COVID period, which you did, we want the money back.' I'm not saying you pay it back straight away. I'm saying you pay it back over 10 or 20 years. The people of Australia have to bring to account Richard Goyder, Maxine Brenner, Jacqueline Hey and Belinda Hutchinson, who sat on their backsides and watched this man take $120 million out of this country. I'm not even talking about him utilising his power in this organisation to affirm his own proclivities. I will leave it at that. The intervention in the contract for Israel Folau is one of the recent disgraces of this country, where a man was persecuted for his Christian convictions. Whether you agree with them or whether you don't, when we move into an area where if you disagree with someone's convictions you start destroying them, we are living in a fascist state. I deeply regret that the people of Victoria have to live in a fascist state, but they put people in jail that disagree with them—on a fairly regular basis, actually. I speak with authority because my own Premier Joh Bjelke-Petersen was inclined to some of these proclivities at times, and he had to be reined in. It was very difficult to rein him in at times, so I know what fascism is all about, I can tell you. I would say that, on every occasion, we were able to rein him in, but there is no-one reining in the fascists running Victoria. On the contrary, I stand behind him. I'm moving off the point. The point here is that we are handing out money to corporations with no real control or oversight of that money—that a person can walk out of this country having been paid $120 million. During COVID, they got a $1.6 billion handout, and there's no redress. There's no answering to a government. Is there any government in Australia? A government is there to provide essential services, and, to move from point A to point B, water and electricity are essential services. They've corporatised the water, they've privatised the electricity and they've sold off the transport industry. You can be very proud of yourselves, Mr ALP and Mr LNP. I have published a history book—a moderate bestseller, if I may say so myself. It was launched to over a thousand people by Kevin Rudd, no less, and Barrie Cassidy in Melbourne. As an historian, I know the verdict that will be passed on those who were the ALP and LNP members of parliament during this period of time, when this was done in Australia, when every single one of our essential services was privatised into a corporation whose duty was to maximise profits. It was not to provide an essential service to the people of Australia, but to make profits—huge profits, personally, for those involved! We're coming back to address this issue again, and we'll provide details on how much money Richard Goyder, Maxine Brenner, Jacqueline Hey and Belinda Hutchinson received during this period, and whether they're going to give any of that money that they got, for COVID, back to the people of Australia. Until this place realises that it has a responsibility to provide essential services, then we are associated with a parliament that does not govern Australia, but governs in the interests of the rich and powerful. The sharebrokers playing their little stock market games in Sydney are the ones who run this country, and they slither out of university with two degrees and then they slither into boardrooms and slither into this parliament! In the Labor Party that I belonged to as a little kid, Paddy Behan was local president and he was a shearer. The deputy president worked on the railway. The secretary—that was my father—had a little business in Cloncurry. And that was who the ALP were. There are no ALP people left in these areas because the ALP sold off the railways. They sold off Qantas, but they also sold off the railways and sacked 7½ thousand men and women from the railways in Queensland. I don't know how many were sacked with Qantas, but I know that Qantas received $1.7 billion in COVID payments. We are here today to speak about the Social Security Amendment (Australian Government Disaster Recovery Payment) Bill 2023, and what the government appears to be doing here is a good thing to do. Unfortunately, and sadly for them, it highlights the fact that that money was given. I'm using Qantas as an example, but I will bet that there were a hundred other companies that similarly profited. They didn't need the money—they didn't actually want the money—but they got the money. I've learnt from my 51 or 52 years in parliament that when there is something that I don't understand, something shonky is going down; and a lot of shonky stuff has gone down here. Before I finish—we had a very big flood. It concerned a tiny little town called Burketown and the surrounding areas. It was a terrible flood. One of the Booth family—like me, with various antecedents such as First Australians in the family tree—lost all of his cattle. The compensation he got was ridiculous; it was a laugh. The Tirranna roadhouse—which is Burketown, to some degree, these days—had received nothing at all from the government when I last spoke to them, which, admittedly, was a fair few weeks ago now. When we had floods in Julia Creek, former prime minister Morrison went to Julia Creek, and there was $1.2 billion handed out in compensation to the people that had suffered great losses. That has not happened at Burketown. If the people had been white, it would have happened. If it was a— (Time expired) 17:19 Mrs PHILLIPS 147140 Gilmore I rise today in support of the Social Security Amendment (Australian Government Disaster Recovery Payment) Bill 2023, and I do so on behalf of my communities in the Gilmore electorate that have a lot of experience with natural disasters. The 2019-22 bushfires saw 72 per cent of the Shoalhaven burnt; 919 houses, facilities and outbuildings destroyed; and a further 455 damaged. There were 27,099 applications approved for the Australian government disaster recovery payment and an additional 10,597 applications for the additional payment for children. Together, these payments total $35.48 million. In Eurobodalla, 81 per cent of land was burnt; 1,472 houses, facilities and outbuildings were destroyed; and a further 603 were damaged. In the Eurobodalla, there were 15,820 applications approved for the disaster recovery payment and an additional 5,018 applications approved for the additional payment for children. Together, these payments total $19.78 million. No-one can not be impacted by the Black Summer bushfires. Our local rural fire service firefighters and those firefighters who came from near and far are our true heroes, as are the many emergency services and voluntary organisations, like our police, SES, ambulance, fire and rescue, marine rescue, surf life saving clubs, and many local businesses, organisations and individuals that helped. But people needed urgent financial support. When your power goes off, your food rots. When you've lost all your clothes, school items and food, the need for assistance is real. I advocated quickly for the disaster declaration, which kickstarted the opening of applications for the Australian government disaster recovery payment. The payment, delivered by Service Australia, pays $1,000 per eligible adult and $400 per eligible child. It's meant to be immediate financial assistance to help overcome some of the financial burdens. My staff and I did everything we could to advertise this payment and to support people with the application process. I thank our Services Australia staff who worked around the clock to support people. But there were definitely some system problems, and people contacted my office for help. When a constituent contacted me in disbelief that her application had been rejected because her area supposedly wasn't bushfire affected, she asked for help. It was a simple problem that the town name wasn't recognised as part of the Shoalhaven disaster-declared area, something we were able to fix. There were many examples of where people have lived and worked for years and contributed to our communities but, because of the criteria, were ineligible for the disaster recovery payment. It is upon us all to improve the system for the disaster recovery payment, and this is what this bill will do. This bill seeks to amend the Social Security Act 1991 to introduce additional objective qualification criteria for the Australian government disaster recovery payment to support quicker decision-making. The bill supports faster and more efficient assessment of claims for those who have been adversely impacted by a major disaster. This is achieved by providing objective criteria on which to assess claims for the recovery payment to support increased use of automatic decision-making. The use of automation allows a person to enter their information to claim a payment and a computer will check that information within limitations or business rules. If the information provided does not meet a business rule, it will fall out of the automatic decision-making system and the claim will be assessed manually. We know that everyone's circumstances are unique. So, if someone does not meet the streamlined automation rules as introduced by the bill, a person's circumstances can be considered manually against a number of discretionary criteria. And if the information provided meets all business rules, a person can receive payment quickly—ideally, within days as opposed to weeks or months. This will be a welcome relief to people right across Gilmore. In the Shoalhaven and Eurobodalla, we went on to have a further 10 disaster declarations since the fires, mainly floods and storms. The Kiama local government area has also had four flood or storm disaster declarations, with 8,970 approved applications for the Australian government disaster recovery payment totalling $10 million. Natural disasters like bushfires, floods and storms are here to stay. It is imperative that we are prepared as much as possible. It is important we get these changes in place quickly. Services Australia needs to be able to process claims quickly during disaster responses. These changes from this bill will help achieve that. 17:24 Ms TEMPLEMAN 181810 Macquarie In the last few years, thousands of people in the Hawkesbury and Blue Mountains have, probably for the first time in their lives, had to apply for the Australian government disaster recovery payment. I know I had to do it for the first, and only, time a decade ago. You do the application in a total blur because you're only eligible if you've been through a massive natural disaster—a bushfire, a flood, a major storm, a cyclone. You apply in a traumatised state, and, even though you might sound coherent to the outside world, inside you're thinking you've possibly just lost every possession you ever owned, including your home, or at the very least you have no idea what is salvageable and what isn't. The disaster recovery payment provides a short-term one-off financial assistance to eligible Australians. It simply offers a helping hand in the immediate aftermath of a major disaster. The payment is $1,000 per eligible adult and $400 per eligible child, and is delivered by Services Australia. It helps a little, to go towards the purchase of some of those really essential items you need right from the start. You need clean undies, toiletries, really basic clothing, school items, work gear, towels, sheets and probably a pillow. Whatever is needed in the immediate aftermath of an event, it's there to be used to help Australians and their families recover. The Hawkesbury and Blue Mountains have had multiple disaster declarations in the last few years. In the Hawkesbury in 2019-20, in the bushfires, 10,000 adults and children were eligible for the disaster payment; that was worth $9.5 million. In the Blue Mountains it was 14,000 adults and children, and it was a $12 million payment that went to those individuals $1,000 at a time or $400 at a time. We've also had storms and floods in the Hawkesbury. In 2021 the floods and storms led to 6,400 people being eligible for $7 million of payments. In the March 2022 floods 17,000 people were eligible, and it was a $19.5 million payment that helped people get through the immediate aftermath. In the June 2022 floods 16,000 people were eligible, and it was an $18.8 million payment to support those community members. For the Blue Mountains in the 2021 storms 3,000 applications were approved at a cost of $4 million. The March 2022 storms saw 11,000 applications, resulting in $13 million of payments. The June 2022 storms saw 8,000 applications with payments of $9 million. We saw the huge demand, through all of that, that was put on staff at Services Australia, who were largely manually processing many of those claims. This legislation, the Social Security Amendment (Australian Government Disaster Recovery Payment) Bill 2023, is about providing objective criteria on which to assess claims for disaster recovery payments. We can support increased use of automatic decision-making so the online assessment process is faster and more efficient, meaning people will get payments within days rather than weeks. The use of automation allows a person to enter their information to claim a payment, and a computer will check that information within certain limitations or business rules. If the information provided does not meet a business rule, it will move out of the automatic decision-making system and the claim will be assessed manually. Not meeting those business rules does not necessarily mean a person won't qualify for the payment; everybody's circumstances are unique. No-one will have their claim for a disaster recovery payment rejected through automation. What will happen is the manual assessment against a number of discretionary criteria will come into play. It's really important we have these changes in place before the next high-risk weather season, which is virtually upon us, formally starting on 1 October. Services Australia needs to have tools to process claims quickly. This bill will help achieve that for claims that meet the qualification criteria introduced by the bill. For Australian citizens or a person on a certain visa who has spent a particular amount of time in Australia before a major disaster, or for people who care for a child or children adversely affected by a major disaster, this may well help speed up the claims process. We all hope we won't need to use it, but we all know disasters will continue to happen right across the country. This bill will provide the government with a clearer ability to quickly and efficiently support communities affected by disasters, which is our government's absolute priority, particularly when the scale of disaster is beyond the capacity of a state or territory government. I commend this bill to the House. 17:30 Ms McBAIN 281988 Eden-Monaro I thank my colleague the member for Macquarie, as well as the previous speaker, the member for Gilmore and even the member for Calare who spoke earlier. They have all dealt with significant natural disasters in their electorates, and they know that we can do much, much better when it comes to disaster recovery payments. I am so proud that the Albanese Labor government is taking this issue seriously. When our communities go through natural disasters, we do not need to reinvent the recovery wheel. What we should be doing is listening to the lived experience of communities across this country, and that's exactly what the Social Security Amendment (Australian Government Disaster Recovery Payment) Bill 2023 is about. It's exactly the experience that I know the member for Macquarie has expressed in this place before and directly to the minister, as I have as well. It's incredibly important that we make it faster and easier to get immediate support and access to disaster recovery payments. Natural disasters are devastating enough without people having to jump through a variety of hoops to get a disaster payment which, effectively, buys them tomorrow's clothes. That's how simple this is. I've been on the ground with my community during nine declared natural disasters when I was the mayor of the Bega Valley Shire. You are standing with people who are experiencing one of the worst days of their lives, when all of their possessions are taken from them. So many regional Australians don't have the access to the services that our city counterparts do. It has taken a Labor government to make sure that we rectify this issue for regional Australia . The passage of this bill will support regional and rural people to recover when disasters strike—and they will. The amendments that we are talking about will deliver urgent financial assistance to communities when time is of the essence. In my electorate, the Black Summer bushfires destroyed or damaged nearly 800 homes in the Eurobadalla Shire, nearly 600 homes in the Bega Valley, 240 homes in the Snowy Valleys, 80 homes in Queanbeyan-Palerang and around 160 homes in the Snowy Monaro Shire. The trauma of that experience for our communities and other communities around the country is ongoing. It doesn't go away when the political tourism leaves or when the cameras stop. I hope we never see another summer like the Black Summer, but we hope for the best and our communities prepare for the worst. We want to make sure that applications to Services Australia are processed quickly. We need to put in these changes before the next high-risk weather season, which formally starts in only a few short weeks on 1 October. Faster and more efficient assessment of online claims for disaster recovery payments will be delivered through automation of parts of the assessment process. Our government is committed to improving the way in which we deliver that assistance to people, and this bill takes that process a step further. It provides the government with a clearer ability to quickly and efficiently support communities affected by disasters, when the scale of the disaster is beyond the capacity of any one state or territory government. Last financial year alone, Services Australia processed over 1.6 million disaster recovery claims. I've seen firsthand what people do with that emergency funding, and we need to make sure that red tape gets out of the way so community members can deal with the next thing in front of them. As I said, for so many people, that is new clothes for the next day. The bill will make a practical difference for people who need faster recovery claims. This will allow a person to enter information in regard to a claim on a computer, and that information will be dealt with. Individual circumstances will still be considered with this new process, so that, if someone doesn't meet that streamlined criteria, their application will not be rejected. It will instead be considered manually, against a number of discretionary criteria. That's exactly what things like the bushfire royal commission recommended—a faster, more efficient disaster recovery system to deliver help to people. Critically, no-one will have their claim for a Disaster Recovery Payment rejected through automation. The Australian Government Disaster Recovery Payment is just one of many support mechanisms that the Australian government provides to disaster affected communities. We know disasters happen across this country, and, with climate change, weather conditions will become more extreme and disasters will happen more frequently. It's a reality we can't ignore, and this is a practical step we must take to give credence to the lived experience of so many communities across this country who have asked for this help, and the Albanese government are delivering it. 17:35 Ms O'NEIL 140590 Hotham Could I thank the members of the chamber who have made contributions to this debate. Everyone of them has been a really important one. We just heard there from the member for Eden-Monaro, who has probably one of the best on-the-ground experiences of this problem. She told us that her community has experienced nine declared natural disasters in the period of time that she was the mayor of her local community. We heard, too, from the member for Macquarie. Those in the chamber will know that the member for Macquarie's community has struggled with fire and flood and storm damage, virtually relentless natural disasters, over a period of some years now, just in the time she's been in the parliament. I thank the members who have contributed to the debate. I am enormously respectful of the commitment they show to their local communities and the leadership that we see them provide those communities when they are under these most distressing of circumstances. It's partly through the advocacy of these members that we bring forward to the parliament a bill that will assist families and communities when they are going through those dark periods recovering from natural disasters. The Social Security Amendment (Australian Government Disaster Recovery Payment) Bill 2023 will amend the Social Security Act 1991 to ensure we can continue to support Australians when times are tough. The Australian Government Disaster Recovery Payment will offer a helping hand in the immediate aftermath of a major disaster, and it has already assisted tens of thousands of impacted Australians in recent years. We heard the member for Eden-Monaro talk earlier about the immediacy of needs that people have when their entire livelihood has essentially been destroyed by a natural disaster. We are literally talking about how a family feeds the children and buys new clothes and shoes so that people have something to wear the next day. That is the sense of immediacy that's needed here, and we don't want to set up a payment system where people are waiting for months and months for the money that they very much deserve. So we are very focused on ensuring Australians have what they need when they are in that recovery period immediately after the event. The amendments proposed in the bill will provide the government with great ability to quickly and efficiently support communities when the scale of disaster requires government assistance and beyond government assistance provided by state and territory governments. It's not accidental that the bill is coming before a parliament at this particular period. We have the high-risk weather season formally starting on 1 October 2023. I've spoken to the parliament about the information that we have as a government and as a community about what this high-risk weather season is going to look like, and we need to share this information as far and wide as we can. What we know is that there are weather patterns coming our way that will be facilitating greater vulnerability to fire, greater vulnerability to storms and, in fact, this is the season that we have experienced since the Black Summer bushfires that is most dangerous for the country. Of course, any government worth their salt is going to use the information that we have from the various scientific sources to make sure that we are preparing. The minister responsible for emergency services has been doing an enormous amount of work with state and territory governments and with people around the country to try to make sure we have what we need in place. The members who spoke before me talked about the fact we are going to have natural disasters in our country. No politician should or would ever suggest otherwise. What's important for us is that we build that national resilience in our communities and that government is there to give a helping hand to people in the moment that they need it, and that is the intention of the bill before the parliament. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced. Ordered that this bill be reported to the House without amendment. Statutory Declarations Amendment Bill 2023 96

Statutory Declarations Amendment Bill 2023

Second Reading 96 17:40 Ms STANLEY 265990 Werriwa I rise to speak on the Statutory Declarations Amendment Bill 2023. Electorate offices are busy places—Centrelink, NDIS, immigration and JP inquiries, including stat dec inquiries. Paper has served us very well for a millennia. This is especially the case in vital areas such as the law. But times do change and so must the way that we do business. The last few years of the pandemic have fundamentally changed the world and the way we go about our business. Decades of technological changes were truncated into a few short months as a result of the pandemic. It had to be that way because of necessity. QR codes, home deliveries, online shopping, Zoom meetings, Microsoft teams, banking apps and a raft of other changes sent us into a whirlwind as we dealt with the impact of the pandemic. We learnt to adapt very quickly. In truth, there's no turning back those changes. Change is here, and it will only continue to accelerate and impact our lives. If the pandemic necessitated change, it also necessitated creativity—that is, we had to apply new ways of thinking about old issues. The completion and execution of statutory declarations was one of these. Traditionally, the declarant and the witness would need to be in the same room for a stat dec to be completed. The pandemic, of course, made this impossible. Currently, the Statutory Declarations Act 1959 only allows the traditional paper based stat decs and, as a temporary COVID measure only, electronic execution of the same. Unfortunately, there's a sunset clause for the electronic execution of stat decs of 31 December 2023, hence this bill. The premise of the bill is that the declarants, both individuals and businesses, will be given three options to complete their stat dec. Firstly, there is the traditional paper method—that is, if people and businesses so decide, there will be no change whatsoever. Secondly, there will be options to complete the stat dec electronically, allowing electronic signatures and witnessing by audiovisual communication links. Thirdly, and finally, there will be an option for digital verification through the use of an approved platform that verifies the identity of the declarant through an approved digital identity service provider. It's estimated that businesses and individuals will make more than 3.8 million statutory declarations. Further, it's also estimated that stat decs cost around 850,000 hours in total each and every year, and 2021 research concluded that these measures outlined in this bill could save the economy up to $156 million per annum in time and cost savings. Technological advances should make our lives easier. The bill will achieve that. For some, nothing will change; the status quo remains, but, for others—those in remote and regional areas, for example, or those with mobility problems—this bill will change the way that they are able to fill in stat decs. So I commend the bill to the House as a sensible measure and a further milestone in the digitisation of government services. Maybe, just maybe, our electoral offices will be able to deal with one or two less statutory declaration inquiries. 17:45 Ms SITOU 298121 Reid I rise to talk about the importance of maintaining rigour in our Statutory Declarations Act while also ensuring that we are able to provide efficiency. That is what we are doing here with the Statutory Declarations Amendment Bill 2023. Statutory declarations have their place, and have always had their place, ensuring that the documents put before us are true and that we have someone who is trusted. Our justices of the peace have done a fantastic job in making sure that that system continues to function. However, we've learnt over many, many years that there can sometimes be improvements to the way we have always done things. We can see, as we move into a digital, online world, that statutory declarations ought to move that way as well. It's great to see that we are all moving online in a way that will maintain the rigour of what statutory declarations are designed to do. 17:46 Dr GARLAND 295588 Chisholm As the Attorney-General has already stated, the Statutory Declarations Amendment Bill 2023 may seem unassuming and modest, but, make no mistake, it will have an impact. The purpose of the bill is to establish a framework for the execution of Commonwealth statutory declarations that is fit for purpose. This amendment also better reflects the way that Australian businesses and consumers want to engage and communicate with government and each other: digitally. On a practical level the bill would achieve this purpose by amending the Statutory Declarations Act 1959 to enable a statutory declaration to be validly made in one of three ways, those being: traditional paper based, requiring wet-ink signatures and in-person witnessing; electronically, through the application of an electronic signature and witnessing via an audiovisual communication link; and digitally verified, through the use of a prescribed online platform that verifies the identity of the declarant through a prescribed digital identity service provider. 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, to accompany an application for child support or other government service, or to provide evidence of fact in administrative proceedings, including those before a dispute resolution body or an administrative tribunal. Historically these documents have been strictly paper based, requiring ink signatures and in-person witnessing for valid execution. As the Attorney-General has pointed out, following the successful pivot to digital processes in response to the earlier parts of 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. This bill will go some way to meeting those expectations. The three methods of execution will be equally robust, will result in equal validity and will carry the same legal effectiveness as a Commonwealth statutory declaration. The bill also responds to community feedback on the advantages of modernising the execution requirements for these documents and in providing choices relating to how individuals or organisations can initiate these requirements. It's important to note, too, that this bill means that rural, remote and regional parts of Australia, as well as those Australians experiencing low mobility or sensory challenges, will be more able to access the statutory declaration executions and will be of great benefit to those communities. We know that the traditional barriers faced by people from those groups when seeking to engage with paper based processes can often be really difficult and really frustrating. Quite importantly, members of the community without access to technology or internet connectivity, or those who would prefer not to engage with the electronic or digital options, will not be disadvantaged by this bill. Indeed, there may be many members of the community who'll be pleased to hear that the traditional paper based method of execution will continue to be available. We know that Commonwealth agencies, individuals and businesses have a reliance on statutory declarations for a number of purposes. As a result of restrictions on movement put in place during the earlier parts of the COVID-19 pandemic, it was difficult to comply with the legislated requirements for in-person execution of Commonwealth statutory declarations. As a result, temporary measures were put in place through the coronavirus economic response package to allow statutory declarations to be signed using electronic means and witnessed by a prescribed person via a facility that enabled audio and visual communication between persons in different places. The amendments also allowed an approved person to sign a copy of the electronic declaration in counterpart, provided the prescribed person was satisfied that it was a true copy of the statutory declaration signed by the declarant. These temporary measures are due to cease on 31 December this year. The COVID pandemic has demonstrated to us and the world that technology can be used successfully and reliably to facilitate the making of Commonwealth statutory declarations and other kinds of legal documents and communications. This bill will make permanent those temporary measures that were put in place during the earlier parts of the pandemic, allowing 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 assisted in the continuity of business operations and government services during the worst part of the COVID period without compromising the integrity of the Commonwealth statutory declarations framework. It's really significant to note, too, that stakeholders have provided feedback and have told us, as a government, that the temporary measures saved time and money and provided convenience and flexibility. This bill will ensure Australians continue to enjoy the benefits of those temporary measures, enabling electronic execution after they expire on 31 December this year. Additionally, the experiences over the earlier part of the pandemic and feedback received show there are particular advantages to modernising the execution requirements and to providing the community with choice in relation to their execution. If there is a dispute, the bill deals with that as well. The bill also ensures that people will be able to choose a range of options when executing the over 3.8 million statutory declarations made each year by people in Australia, and all will have equal validity. This bill provides a framework for a standalone digital statutory declaration execution service that will leverage established Australian government digital infrastructure to allow Australians to safety and securely make a statutory declaration end to end online. Consistent with the principle of consent that underpins the Australian government's 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, and it is an important milestone in driving the digitisation of government services. It will deliver a world-class, modern and secure public service for all Australians and I'm pleased to speak on this today. 17:54 Dr LEIGH BU8 Fenner In my early 20s, as a law student, I decided that I wanted to become a justice of the peace. The process then was that you wrote to your local member of parliament, who, in my case, was the Liberal member for Northcott, Bruce Baird. He was quite happy to support me as a justice of the peace. I did so because I wanted to help out in the community, and I was struck by the number of times I'd encountered people who need a statutory declaration witnessed but were unable to find somebody to do so. Every 10 seconds in Australia a statutory declaration is filled in, amounting to some 3.8 million statutory declarations a year and costing some 900,000 hours. Those statutory declarations might involve evidence in a court proceeding; they might involve issues around child custody. This significant modernisation ensures that, rather than requiring statutory declarations to be carried out in the traditional paper based form with an in-person witnesses, they can also be carried out in two alternative ways: electronically, by allowing electronic signatures and witnessing by an audiovisual communication link; or digitally verified through the use of an approved online platform that verifies the additional identity of the declarant through an approved identity service. This will be an important efficiency gain for businesses, but it also has a crucial equity dimension. I know that is why the Attorney-General has championed it so strongly. We frequently find that people who want to get a statutory declaration witnessed have to pay for that service. Or, if they can find a free service, it's limited in the length of the statutory declaration or limited in the approach that it takes to attachments. So it is the most vulnerable who often find themselves unable to complete the in-person statutory declarations. Thanks to these reforms, those who are unable to pay for in-person witnessing service will have an alternative approach. I commend the Attorney-General for this important efficiency and equity measure to modernise statutory declarations in Australia. 17:56 Mr DREYFUS HWG Isaacs First, I would like to thank the honourable members for their contributions to the debate on the Statutory Declarations Amendment Bill 2023. Australians spend an estimated nine million hours executing an estimated 3.8 million statutory declarations each and every year. Historically, these documents have been strictly paper based, requiring ink, signatures and in-person witnessing for valid execution. Not anymore. This bill will provide Australians with options to execute statutory declarations in one of three ways: through traditional paper based execution using ink signatures and in-person witnessing; electronically, by allowing electronic signatures and witnessing via audiovisual communication links; or digitally verified through the use of a prescribed online platform that verifies the identity of the declarant through a prescribed digital identity service provider. The three methods of execution will be equally robust and result in an equally valid and legally effective Commonwealth statutory declaration. The bill also contains a range of safeguard provisions aimed at ensuring the transparency and accountability of the digital services being used to execute statutory declarations online. This bill is a productivity win for individuals, businesses and government service delivery. It is estimated there will be over $156 million per annum in time and cost savings across the economy as a result of these reforms. In addition to the cost savings expected from the reform through providing more accessible ways of making statutory declarations, the bill will benefit those who face barriers engaging with paper based processes, such as those in rural, remote or regional parts of Australia. In conclusion, 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 will provide the framework for standalone digital statutory declaration and execution that will enable the government to leverage established Australian government digital infrastructure. This will allow Australians to safely and securely make a statutory declaration end-to-end online. In doing so, this bill response to the expectations of Australians when engaging with government service delivery. 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. The DEPUTY SPEAKER C2T The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Bradfield has moved as an amendment that all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The immediate question is that the amendment be agreed to. Question unresolved. The DEPUTY SPEAKER C2T As it is necessary to resolve this question to enable further questions to be considered in relation to this bill, in accordance with standing order 195 the bill will be returned to the House for further consideration. Royal Commissions Amendment (Private Sessions) Bill 2023 100

Royal Commissions Amendment (Private Sessions) Bill 2023

Second Reading 100 18:00 Mr NEUMANN HVO Blair I wish to speak briefly in relation to the Royal Commissions Amendment (Private Sessions) Bill 2023. It arises out of the very important royal commission in relation to defence and veteran suicide and mental health. The bill will enable assistant commissioners to be authorised to provide and hold private sessions for a royal commission. It also provides them with appropriate protections from legal liability and enables a sole royal commissioner or a chair of a multimember royal commission to authorise suitably qualified, experienced and senior staff members to hold these private sessions, where justified. This won't derogate from evidence at a royal commission in future, but it does allow the current royal commission, to which I referred, and future royal commissions to allow this where it's justified. The power must be exercised in writing and can't be delegated. It's a very important amendment. The 2019 act provided that only commissioners or the chair of a multimember royal commission could hold these private sessions, so this is an important amendment. It will allow that. Royal commissions are very important. Over the past 120 years, royal commissions have been considered a very important accountability measure, and they have an enduring place in Australia's public landscape. It's very, very important that we get this right. Royal commissions have very strong information-gathering powers at their disposal. The robodebt royal commission provided a stark example of relentless investigation. We have seen royal commissions into aged care and sexual abuse by institutions, so there are a number of important purposes for royal commissions. Private sessions were first established by the child sexual abuse royal commission. You can understand that happening as a way of facilitating the telling of very personal and sensitive matters in a manner that was less formal and threatening. They allow people to share their experiences with a royal commissioner in a confidential setting and enable them to engage and have their experiences heard. There are many occasions where people would prefer this. It's voluntary, of course. Participants are afforded protection similar to witnesses, and information at these private sessions is not given under oath or affirmation. Private sessions are not hearings of the royal commission. The information gathered at a private session is not evidence, and someone giving information is not a formal witness, but they do serve an important role. The CEO of Disability Advocacy Network Australia, Jeff Smith, praised the idea of private sessions, stating as follows: … less stressful—insofar as it is more informal and less alienating for people—and may make people feel and be safer … They really do have a very important role to play. These sessions have been important for the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide. For that, private sessions were confidential, with two commissioners. Individuals voluntarily could provide information relating to the terms of reference. Participants weren't identified. The information that they provided doesn't appear in a public record. Certain people have been eligible to have these private sessions—namely, serving and ex-serving ADF members who have lived experience of suicidal behaviour or risk factors and family members of serving or ex-serving ADF members who have died by suicide or have been supporting serving or ex-serving members with lived experience of suicide behaviour or risk factors. The royal commission has developed a framework for these private sessions and established policies and procedures to guide how they are run. There's a published guide to private sessions and frequently asked questions on the commission's website. The commission's online form to request a private session asks for demographic information and a short reason for the request. People requesting a private session can indicate their preference for face-to-face phone or video. The commission advises each participant about their eligibility and seeks information to clarify the focus of the private session. I note that, as at the middle of last year, there were 178 private sessions, of which 118 were held face to face and 60 by video or phone. All participants were then sent a survey, an opportunity for feedback on their experience. Ninety per cent of participants said they'd felt they'd been heard and felt safe in the circumstances and supported in the private session. The confidentiality of these private sessions is important to participants, with many seeking assurances that what they say in a private session would not be used in any way that identifies them. The main issues raised by participants have been as follows: ADF culture; DVA claims; management and processing; the role of families in suicide prevention and the impact on families; suicide prevention and support following death by suicide; and health care provided in relation to serving ADF members. Private sessions have implications for the resourcing costs and constitution of a royal commission. Enabling suitably qualified and experienced senior staff members to be authorised to conduct private sessions will provide flexibility for royal commissions. It will enable people to share their experience with the commissioner or with a senior experienced member of the royal commission staff that have specialised training in engaging with vulnerable people. The bill assists the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide to complete a substantial private session workload ahead of its final reporting date of 17 June 2024. The Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide has publicly indicated that approximately 600 registered private sessions were outstanding as of June this year. These amendments will assist the royal commission to hold all of these by early 2024. The Australian community expects an effective and expeditious inquiry into the systemic issues relating to defence and veteran death by suicide. If these amendments are not passed by 2023 spring settings, the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide risks being able to hold all remaining registered private sessions before its final reporting day. In the circumstances, it's important. I commend the bill to the House. 18:06 Mr KEOGH 249147 Burt The rate of veteran suicide in Australia is a national tragedy. That is why Labor called for the establishment of the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide when in opposition. As a government, we are taking the royal commission extremely seriously. It's why we responded quickly to the interim report and why we have now taken action on each of the recommendations in it. It's why it's so important that we complete this royal commission in a timely fashion, because we know there is no time to waste. We must take action to save lives, and a vital part of that is the timely conclusion of this royal commission so that we can receive its recommendations and get on with the job. We know that people don't want to see this royal commission drag on. Veterans, veterans' families, Defence personnel and ex-service organisations all want to see timely action. We completely understand that as a government. It's also why we responded so quickly to the royal commission's interim report last year. The Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide has advised that they need to get through around 600 private hearings in the time frame left before the inquiry comes to a close in mid 2024. Considering the need for timely conclusion, and in recognition of the significant workload of the commission, we're providing the royal commission with new powers through this bill—the Royal Commissions Amendment (Private Sessions) Bill 2023. This bill will provide more flexibility to the royal commission as well as to other royal commissions to make sure resources can be best utilised to conduct inquiries in an effective and efficient way. Vitally, for the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide, the mechanism introduced through this bill will continue to see that individuals who wish to participate in private sessions are treated with the greatest of respect and care and that this process is undertaken in a trauma informed way. This bill, in the case of the defence and veteran suicide royal commission, will enable the chair to authorise in writing a suitably qualified and experienced member of staff of the royal commission with an appropriate level of seniority to undertake private sessions in the capacity of an assistant commissioner. This is not an authorisation that would be dished out by a single royal commissioner or royal commission chair in any circumstances but would only be exercised when circumstances existed that justified the need, such as, in this case, the need to get through about 600 private hearings in a limited amount of time. Importantly, this bill includes the appropriate protections for an assistant commissioner holding a private session. Private sessions have been a really important feature of this royal commission. They've enabled individuals to share their often highly sensitive experiences in a more intimate, less formal setting than a traditional hearing. The intention is that these experiences are undertaken in a trauma informed way. They seek to be less confronting than being placed on a witness stand visible to the public. The information shared in such a forum, whilst not considered formal evidence, and with no oath-taking requirement, affords the participants the protections that they would receive as an official witness. This is important in the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide, due to its sensitive nature, whether that is on personal or security grounds. This facilitates a forum for the individual to share their experiences. It promotes their right to privacy. It makes sure they have freedom of expression. It ensures that the royal commission can benefit from their experiences and views. Such testimony is important in understanding the lived experiences of defence personnel, veterans and families, and will itself very much inform the work and the recommendations of the royal commission. The bill will assist the royal commission to complete this substantial workload ahead of its final reporting date of 17 June 2024. We've already made significant inroads when it comes to taking action on the royal commission's interim report, taking action on all 13 recommendations. A year on from the release of that interim report, the Albanese government has released an update on the progress that we have made on those recommendations, and I'm proud that a number of those recommendations have now been actioned and completed. We know that the time it takes for claims to be processed has a negative impact on health and wellbeing for veterans. This is largely due to the complex legislative framework under which they are processed. It's why we are working with haste to ensure that the system is fit for purpose, easy to understand and gets through the backlog, because we agree with the royal commission that this action is needed urgently. The royal commission is accepting submissions until 13 October this year. I encourage anyone who hasn't already, and has experiences to share with the royal commission that can assist, to please do so. The royal commission wants to hear from you. We support the work of this royal commission. The bill before us today will enable that important work to continue effectively and for the royal commission to still report in June next year. I commend the bill. 18:12 Mr DREYFUS HWG Isaacs The government thanks all members who have contributed to this debate. Private sessions enable individuals to share their personal experience about the matters into which a royal commission is enquiring in a trauma informed and less formal setting than a hearing. The amendments proposed by the Royal Commissions Amendment (Private Sessions) Bill 2023, which would apply to all royal commissions, would enable a suitably qualified, experienced and appropriately senior staff member of a royal commission to be authorised as an assistant commissioner to conduct private sessions. The role of an assistant commissioner would be solely to hold private sessions as authorised in writing by the sole commissioner or chair of the royal commission. An assistant commissioner would not be authorised to undertake any other role or to exercise any powers of a commissioner for the royal commission. These amendments were developed following consultation with the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide about options to assist it to complete its inquiry by 17 June 2024. The Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide supports the amendments and advised the government that, if the measures in the bill are enacted, the commission will be looking to appoint an assistant commissioner with the appropriate skills, experience and gravitas to ensure individuals are comfortable speaking with them and feel heard. The royal commission has advised the government that participants in private sessions prefer face-to-face sessions over virtual sessions, and that the appointment of an extra assistant commissioner will make it possible to conduct all of the registered sessions in this way over the next 10 months. In conclusion, this bill will provide more flexibility to royal commissions to conduct their inquiries, enabling more people to tell their story in a private session. It will also ensure that individuals who wish to participate in private sessions can do so with a person with whom they feel most comfortable to share their experience. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. Ordered that this bill be reported to the House without amendment. GRIEVANCE DEBATE 102 GRIEVANCE DEBATE Aboriginal And Torres Strait Islander Voice 102 18:15 Ms DANIEL 008CH Goldstein I want to begin this speech by quoting the foreword to the final co-design report on the Voice. I do so to address the loss of facts in the national conversation about the Voice. I do so because in a month's time we will have an opportunity, and my firm view is that it's a chance that will not come again any time soon. The foreword to the co-design report reads as follows: Over 9,400 people and organisations participated in a consultation process led by co-design members. This marks one of the most significant engagements with the Australian community on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander affairs in recent history. Over 4 months, we had conversations with people and organisations across urban, regional and remote Australia. As a group, we were fortunate to engage with people through 115 community consultation sessions in 67 diverse communities and more than 120 stakeholder meetings around the country. We also gathered feedback online, with more than 4,000 submissions and survey responses put forward by both Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander and non-Indigenous individuals, communities and organisations. The feedback provided tremendous support for an Indigenous Voice at the local and regional, and national levels. In fact, the Voice proposal was the only unanimous outcome from all of that consultation. The foreword continues: We propose a strong, resilient and flexible system in which Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples and our communities will be part of genuine shared decision-making with governments at the local and regional level and have our voices heard by the Australian Parliament and Government in policy and law making. A voice to the Australian Parliament and Government would complement and amplify existing structures, and would not replace the role for these structures to continue to work with Government within their mandates. An Indigenous Voice will provide the right mechanism, working with and strengthening existing arrangements, for the voices of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples to be heard on issues that affect us. The consideration of our vast experiences and diverse perspectives will lead to better policy outcomes, strengthen legislation and programs and, importantly, achieve better outcomes for our people. The foreword concludes: Now, what lies before us could be the most significant reform in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander affairs for generations. …   …   … It is very clear that an Indigenous Voice is a necessary, pragmatic and natural step for our country as we work towards creating a better shared future for all Australians. If only this document, which also outlines how rural and regional Voice representatives could be elected, had been the central reference point in the national conversation about the Voice. Unfortunately, fear via disinformation, misinformation and manipulation is easy to mobilise. But we can choose not to give into it. As Chris Kenny has written—and, with respect, it's not often I quote Chris, but on the Voice he has been an unapologetic advocate and I applaud him for that: The No campaign is designed to generate anxiety. Without fear, they have no persuasive arguments, especially given that the Coalition has long argued a voice is worthwhile (the only proviso that it is not mandated in the Constitution). This referendum should, and still could be, a unifying and uplifting moment. Remember all the discussion about division in the lead-up to the national apology, and John Howard's argument that the current generation should not be held to account for the behaviour of previous generations. But the apology happened, and has anyone's life suffered as a result? Quite the opposite, as the smiles and tears on the faces of the thousands of Indigenous Australians who sat in the galleries of this place and on the lawns to the front of this place testified. This ought, and still can be, a similar moment. A moment to make us proud, not frightened. A moment to be honest and brave. I accept that saying yes is harder than saying no, but no is the status quo. No is more of the same, and the same is not enough for Indigenous Australians or our nation as a whole. Another with whom I don't often agree is Joe Hildebrand. He is right when he says that the Voice is not the most important issue for most Australians who are grappling with their own issues. But he's also right, and importantly so, when he writes: for the three per cent or so Indigenous Australians—especially those in remote and regional communities—this is probably the single most important issue in their lives… These are people often living in third world conditions, with diseases unheard of elsewhere in the western world, with appalling education and employment outcomes and levels of violence and deprivation few of us in the suburbs could survive, let alone tolerate. If there was one stark fact that argues for the Voice, it is this: an Indigenous man is more likely to end up in prison than at university. Why have we failed? The Indigenous leaders who crafted the Uluru Statement from the Heart in 2017, after years of consultation with thousands of members of their communities, concluded that with the best of intentions one government after another had made policy for Indigenous Australians, not with them. What they came up with was a mechanism to ensure the parliament and the government of the day would listen to what Indigenous Australia has to say, not for the parliament or the government to be directed by the Voice but to take advice. The referendum question is as simple as it is respectful. It asks, firstly, for us to recognise Indigenous Australians as the original custodians of this continent, and, secondly, to give them a voice. It provides the framework for an advisory body that will make it easier for the parliament and government to produce results for our Indigenous citizens, results where all efforts in the past have failed. Too often, Indigenous representatives say, bodies have been created and abolished at the stroke of a pen—four of them since 1973! Whitlam's National Aboriginal Consultative Committee, Fraser's National Aboriginal Conference, Hawke's Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission and, finally, the National Congress of Australia's First People—all came; all gone. A key aim of this referendum is to enshrine the Voice in the Constitution so it's not subject to party politics. But I believe that one key factor has not been well aired: the debate about the form that the Voice will take and the desire for detail has not made clear that the structure of the Voice will be legislated, which means it can be changed. It can be improved over time to make sure it's delivering. That's the role of the government of the day. The form of the Voice itself is, therefore, not rigid. My electorate of Goldstein sits on the shores of Nerm, what we now call Port Phillip Bay. The traditional custodians are the Bunurong and Boonwurrung people of the Kulin nation. I acknowledge and pay my respect to them, as I do the Ngunnawal and Ngambri peoples on whose ancestral lands we meet. The Boonwurrung dreaming is told through Bunjil, the eagle, as the creator of the Kulin people. Across Goldstein, especially along the bay, there are signs of the thousands of years of Indigenous history, with shell middens spreading along the coast in all directions, from Dendy Street through Sandringham to Ricketts Point and beyond. Confronting though, this history also reflects the fact that the Boonwurrung were almost wiped out by European settlement. Conflict with sealers and the disease that they brought to our shores devastated these First Nations coastal communities to the extent that there may have been less than 100 Boonwurrung people left by the 1840s. In 1788, we didn't seek their permission to move in. In fact, we denied their millennia of stewardship. The vote on 14 October will allow us to recognise First Nations people in our Constitution and then to give them a say in the formulation of the policies and laws that affect them. It's as simple as that. If not us, who? If not now, when? The DEPUTY SPEAKER C2T I thank the member. I apologise for mispronouncing your federal division name when I gave you the call. The question before the House is that grievances be noted. Heart Health 104 18:24 Ms SWANSON 264170 Paterson I'm standing here this evening bolstered by the knowledge that my recent heart health check, which I took right here in Parliament House yesterday, showed that, thankfully, my heart is in pretty good shape. It checked cholesterol, total lipids, LDL, HDL and triglycerides, as well as blood pressure. It also showed my blood sugar levels, which help indicate if prediabetes is present. It was as easy as me warming up my hands to have a finger prick and some blood taken and then a blood pressure cuff. It was very easy for me to do that here in Parliament House, and I want to encourage people to get their heart checked at the GP. Why should we be monitoring our heart health? It's a topic that affects each and every one of us, regardless of where we live or who we are. The heart isn't just a vital organ pumping blood throughout our bodies; it's a symbol of life, love and vitality. Heart disease, sadly, is the leading cause of death in Australia, but the majority of heart issues can be prevented through adopting healthy behaviours, eating well, exercising regularly, not smoking, reducing our alcohol intake and keeping an eye on our blood pressure. We all know what we should be doing, but sometimes it's harder to put it into practice. Having a heart health check is an important step towards protecting our heart. What does it mean for people in the community of my electorate of Paterson? What was so interesting yesterday was that not only was I fortunate enough to get my health checked but also, which was the really critical thing, I got some incredible statistics about the people who live in my electorate of Paterson. Before I delve into the specifics of heart health in Paterson—and let me just say that we have some very big-hearted people in Paterson, who are incredibly generous—I want to take a moment to understand what heart health means. Heart health encompasses the overall wellbeing of our cardiovascular system, which includes the heart and blood vessels. It's the foundation of a long and active life. Unfortunately heart disease remains the leading cause of death worldwide, including here in Australia. In Paterson, as in many other regions, we have to pay close attention to our heart to ensure a healthier and brighter future for ourselves and our loved ones. Statistics on heart health in Paterson show we have a population of more than 164,000 people, and, of those, our two most at-risk groups of people are the 18 per cent who are aged 65 and over and our Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, who make up six per cent of our population, which is almost double what it is in most electorates around the country. Alarmingly, between 2012 and 2016, Paterson showed heart related hospital admissions were at a rate of 47 per 10,000 people, which is well above the New South Wales average of 39 in 10,000 people and above the national average of 42 in 10,000. Our rate was 47 in 10,000, demonstrating that we're not in a good place when it comes to taking care of our heart health. This means Paterson has a prevalence of heart related issues and a bit of a way to go to be more heart healthy. To gain a better understanding of the state of heart health in Paterson, I want to have a look at some more statistics. The reason I'm sharing these is that I thought they were not only incredibly interesting but also so important. I want my electors in Paterson to live long and healthy lives. Heart disease affects a significant portion of the population in Paterson, just as it does the rest of Australia. It's estimated that one in six Australians has some form of cardiovascular disease. The numbers don't lie. Common risk factors contributing to heart disease in Paterson include poor dietary habits leading to obesity. Paterson sits at 42 per cent compared to the national average of 31. Physical inactivity is at 69 per cent compared to the national average of 66 per cent. Smoking rates are at 19, which is higher than the national average of 13 per cent. Excessive alcohol consumption and high blood pressure sit at 24 per cent, just over the national average of 23 per cent. These risk factors are prevalent not only in Paterson but also in many other regional areas across the country. Alarmingly, Paterson has a heart disease mortality rate of 64 in 100,000 people, which is the same as the national average. Listen, I get it; it's not easy. I'm not standing here as some role model on the BMI index. In fact, I'm over, but I am proud to say I've lost seven kilograms in two months, and I am really focusing on trying to be a better, fitter and healthier version of myself. I'm inviting everyone in Paterson to come on this journey with me. Rather than having a soft drink, have a glass of water. If you want to have a soft drink, have a glass of water before it or after it to try and cut down. You don't have to cut everything out; you just have to swap for some healthier options, and that's what I've been doing. I know it's hard, but together we can actually do this, and maybe we can save some lives as well. What else can we do about this? Accessible and quality healthcare services are crucial for the early detection and management of heart conditions. In Paterson, we're fortunate to have terrific healthcare facilities, but there are still areas where access to these services can be improved. I know how hard it is to get into a doctor; it's incredibly hard. That's why our government has dedicated an estimated $106.5 billion in the 2023-24 budget to health, of which over $28.3 billion will go to the states for public hospitals and associated health care, and more than $13.2 billion is going to be spent on health services, which will include expenses towards the delivery of population health. I just want to talk about GPs. I think this is so important. We've got many GP practices and have attracted $1.325 million in grants to GP practices in Paterson very recently. Those emails have just gone out. To those GPs who've received those grants, I really know that you'll make the most of it. It's become more expensive to run a GP practice. I know the costs continue to go up. That's why we've put these grants in place. At the end of the day, it does help with better primary health care. In 1973, 50 years ago, about 50 per cent of medical graduates decided to become GPs. They went into general practice. Today it's less than 12 per cent. Again, we've got to be encouraging our brilliant young medical students, once they finish medical school. General practice as a speciality. It's incredibly rewarding. It's one of those places where you can put your medical training, your intuition, your love of your community and your love of fellow humans to the best use possible, and it can make such a difference not only giving people better health care but saving lives. That's why I think heart health is so important. I want to give a big shoutout to all the GPs in my electorate of Paterson as well as to all of the people who work in general practice across Australia. You are doing an incredible job. We know that it's very hard. We know that medical conditions have become more complex. We know that the technologies and the testing regimes are there. The other day I went for a little prick in my finger and a few drops of blood, and we were able to talk about my cholesterol and show me that I'm not prediabetic, which I'm so grateful for. There are these things. So, if you're at home wondering how your heart is, wondering if the old ticker is doing okay, it's actually a lot easier these days than you think to get some testing done, and you can get it at your GP. I encourage people to go along and do that. Now that we've got a better understanding of heart health in Paterson and how the government is contributing to solutions, it's imperative that we take proactive steps to promote better cardiovascular health within our community. We need to take our own health back into our own hands. There are strategies we can adopt. We can get out and walk 10,000 steps a day. We can try and eat five serves of veggies and two serves of fruit. We can go for that walk and really try to have a positive mindset. I know this is not the whole thing. Obviously, heart disease can be a genetic thing as well. But go to your doctor and really look after yourself and know that you've got a government that cares about you, that cares about your heart health and that is putting the money behind it. This is concrete. This is what we want to do. I want you to live longer not just because I hope you vote for me but because I do want you to have happy and healthy lives. And I also want your kids to do well. Paterson, we can do this. Let's strive to have better and healthier hearts. I hope, next year, when I see the figures, they'll be better. The DEPUTY SPEAKER C2T Sadly, the member's time has expired. Cost of Living 105 18:34 Mr THOMPSON 281826 Herbert I want to use this opportunity tonight to raise a number of issues that are impacting Townsville. They all come down to the one topic that the Albanese Labor government promised they would do everything to fix but now don't want to talk about, and that's the cost of living, which is the result of the economic mismanagement of this government. Strap yourselves in, because the truth may be harsh but it needs to be heard. We are seeing the detrimental consequences of the Treasurer's economic policies and how they have inflicted unnecessary pain upon families and small businesses across our great nation. First and foremost, this is the Albanese cost-of-living crisis. The Treasurer's economic policies have consistently failed to address the core needs of hardworking Australian families. Rising mortgage defaults and the decline in credit applications are the canary in the economic coalmine. They are the leading indicator that Australians can't pay their bills. Australians are trapped in a nightmare scenario: do they feed their families, pay electricity or pay for housing? Under Labor, they can't do all three. Under this Treasurer, food, electricity and housing have all become luxury items. The burden of excessive tax and government regulation has only exacerbated their struggles, leaving them with less money in their pockets to provide for their loved ones. Under the Treasurer's watch, we have witnessed the stagnation in real wage growth, making it increasingly difficult for families to make ends meet. His promises of prosperity and economic progress have amounted to nothing more than empty rhetoric. While he may claim to champion the working class, his policies have done nothing but hinder their ability to thrive. Small businesses, the backbone of our economy, have been hit particularly hard by the Treasurer's ill-conceived policies. His obsession with burdensome regulations and increased bureaucracy has stifled entrepreneurship and crushed the dreams of countless business owners. The Treasurer's failure to provide meaningful tax relief for small businesses has resulted in reduced investment, limited job creation and a lack of innovation. Instead of fostering an environment that enables small businesses to flourish and contribute to economic growth, he has suffocated them with red tape and taxes. Not only are the Treasurer's economic policies misguided; they are also downright dangerous. They prioritise big government over individual liberty and suffocate the entrepreneurial spirit that has made our nation prosperous. The failure of the Treasurer's economic policies cannot be ignored. Families and small businesses have paid the price for his misguided agenda, suffering from reduced real wages, increased taxation and suffocating regulations. It is time to reject these damaging policies and embrace a new path that promotes economic freedom and empowers individuals to build a better future for themselves and their loved ones. As we delve deeper into the repercussions of the Treasurer 's economic policies, it becomes painfully evident that the burdens placed upon families and small businesses extend far beyond mere rhetoric. Let's take a closer look at the real-life consequences faced by local businesses in Townsville and the devastating impact that they are enduring. Townsville businesses are reeling under the weight of exorbitant costs. Electricity bills alone have skyrocketed, burdening these businesses with an average increase of 34 per cent. Imagine the strain that this places on their already-tight budgets as they struggle to keep the lights on and their doors open. Business insurance costs have surged by a staggering 20 per cent, further squeezing the financial lifeline of these businesses. With every increase in premiums, it becomes increasingly difficult for them to protect their assets and weather the unforeseen challenges. To add insult to injury, commercial rents are on the rise, placing additional pressures on the profitability and sustainability of these small businesses. As their expenses mount, their ability to invest in growth and job creation diminishes, creating a vicious cycle of stagnation and hardship. It doesn't stop there. Business administration has surged by an alarming 60 per cent. This statistic alone highlights the dire state of affairs under the Treasurer's economic policies. These businesses, once vibrant and promising, have been forced to shut their doors, leaving behind a trail of lost livelihoods and shattered dreams. As if that weren't enough, the majority of business owners find themselves unable to pay themselves even the minimum wage as their hard-earned profits are devoured by mounting costs. And yet, in the face of such hardships, they are struck with a 20 per cent increase in council rates, leaving them gasping for air and struggling to keep their heads above water. This are the harsh reality faced by our local businesses in Townsville under the Treasurer's economic policies. The weight of these burdens is not just felt in numbers and statistics; it reverberates in the lives of hardworking individuals who pour their hearts and souls into their businesses only to be suffocated by a system that fails to support their growth and success. It's high time we rejected this path of economic destruction and embraced policies that foster an environment of opportunity and prosperity for all. We must stand up for local businesses and families in our communities demanding a change that will unleash their true potential and secure a brighter future for generations to come. We need a government which sees small business as the heart and soul of our economy, not as the enemy that needs punishing. While businesses are hurting, the everyday Australian is hurting too, particularly when it comes to seeing a doctor. The Albanese Labor government ran their 2022 federal election campaign on making it easier to see a doctor and cutting the cost of medications. Let me explain to you how that's working out in Townsville. I'll start by telling you about Mikayla. She's a Mount Low resident, a young mum to a two-year-old, Jackson, and a five-month-old, Harper. Anyone who has children knows that whilst their immune system is developing they bring home every germ. They get sick quite easily, and you cannot afford to be out of pocket whenever your child catches something. Labor has broken their promise of delivering a Medicare urgent care clinic in Townsville, something Mikayla has so desperately needed. The Albanese Labor government committed to delivering 50 clinics across Australia, to be established by mid-2023. Their clinics were expected to have extended operating hours and charge no out-of-pocket costs. This promise has been broken, which has made it near impossible to find urgent care for her children. Three times Mikayla has been left outside with her sick child for over an hour waiting to see a doctor. Mikayla is still on maternity leave, so her family are living off a single income. With the rising cost of living, which is never spoken about by this Labor government, she finds herself having to make a choice between certain bills. The inaction of the Albanese Labor government is affecting our community's ability to get by with the cost of living and through-the-roof healthcare necessities. I've written to the Labor health minister requesting an update on the clinic. I want dates and time lines for its establishment. Townsville and I will be holding this government to account. Those opposite might interject and talk about bulk-billing rates. They especially don't like it when we talk about this subject. It's an inconvenient truth for them but since Labor came to government bulk-billing rates have been dropping consecutively every single month—the lowest bulk-billing rates on record since 2013. Under the coalition, in the 12 months to June 2021, bulk-billing rates were at an all-time high of 88.8 per cent. I think we need to put communities and people first. Mikayla shouldn't have to wait outside because her child is sick. She shouldn't have to wait in the elements to see a doctor. She was promised an urgent care clinic by this Labor government and it's only fitting that they honour the promise. Instead of running around and promoting things in Labor held seats, they need to come to everywhere. I remember the Prime Minister saying that he'd be the Prime Minister for everyone. Well, Prime Minister, it's about time you were the Prime Minister for the people of Townsville and you honoured your commitments and stood up to all your promises, because mums like Mikayla should, and deserve to, be able to reap the benefits of the commitments that you made, those that you promised the people. As we move further and further along, there hasn't been any allocation of funding or information on where this will be built. The people of Townsville deserve better. They deserve a government that puts them first over party politics. Australian Public Service 107 18:44 Mr DAVID SMITH 276714 Bean I rise in tonight's grievance debate to express my concerns over the conditions for scientists, engineers and technology professionals employed by the Australian government. After nearly a decade of funding cuts, the imposition of staffing caps, efficiency dividends and outsourcing to consultancy firms and labour hire companies, the former government left the Australian Public Service in a parlous state. The Department of Defence, as an example, was left in a position where they had significantly more contractors then ongoing civilian employees. With increasing complexities in government business—including AUKUS, climate change and environment policy—in-house science, technology, engineering and mathematics skills are essential. There has never been a more crucial time to have a serious conversation about rebuilding science and engineering capability within the Australian government, after more than a decade of outsourcing this capability as part of a mantra of 'experts on tap, not on top', and understanding that to do so requires restoring respect and recognition of the value of the expertise of our in-house engineers and scientists to effectively meet our most critical challenges. Our government promised systemic reform of our nation's Public Service, and I am proud that this reform is underway. The big consultancy firms have been exposed as the greedy and manipulative cartels they are, but they've been enabled by governments that have neglected or undervalued public sector expertise. Unsurprisingly, profit-driven motivations are not a good fit with an ethos that should be driven by the public good. Before I entered parliament, I was the Australian government director for Professionals Australia, the union representing scientists, engineers and other professionals. I spent over a decade working closely with Australian government scientists, engineers and technology professionals. My priority was to ensure these workers had conditions they could not just work with but thrive in. I understand the importance of supporting these professionals and the essential work they perform for government. Professionals Australia has brought a draft statement of scientific integrity to recent bargaining negotiations with the Australian Public Service Commission. This will allow scientists to give fearless advice to government. Professionals Australia's members care deeply about evidence based science and proper processes. Yet we know mismanagement and errors in scientific understanding are, on the contrary, quite systematic and have been politicised in recent years. The APS needs a systematic process to ensure scientific and engineering knowledge is considered and respected with independence. Professionals Australia proposes that scientists employed within the Australian Public Service should be able to give free and frank scientific advice to the government that is guided by the most reliable research and data. The APSC must recognise that scientific and data driven evidence are central to the development of good policy. Scientists and engineers in the APS should not be pressured to change or manufacture their evidence based advice or findings for political reasons. Scientists and engineers have proposed the APSC work with Professionals Australia to develop the scientific integrity statement. This would recognise the professional skills of scientists and engineers and prohibit improper political interference with evidence based science. The APSC claims that existing policies adequately address scientific integrity, although Professionals Australia strongly disagrees. Feedback from the Public Service also disagrees with the APSC's assessment. It's been identified that in some cases scientists self-censor information for fear of damaging their careers, losing funding or being misrepresented in the media. In others, senior managers have prevented researchers from speaking truthfully on scientific matters. A code of conduct should allow government scientists to speak freely about their research in both a public and private capacity. Government scientists and other staff should report to new, independent state and federal environment authorities to minimise political and industry interference. Information ensures government policy is backed by the best science. For example, conservation dollars would be more wisely invested, costly mistakes would be avoided and interventions would be more effectively targeted. Importantly, it would ensure the public is properly informed, a fundamental tenant of a flourishing democracy. Scientific integrity is just one of a few issues that STEM professionals are currently dealing with. The Department of Defence is on track to face severe, expensive and protracted internal skilled labour shortages in the areas of science, technology, engineering and mathematics personnel because of a persistent refusal to pay technically skilled staff anywhere near their market value. I was disappointed to hear that Professionals Australia had been shut out of any upgrade and formal pay recognition of its members' skill sets, despite formal evidence to previous parliamentary committees that pay gaps exist as large as $100,000. Jill McCabe, the CEO of Professionals Australia, acknowledged that, although the Defence Strategic Review report indicated that pay and service conditions in the APS should be highly competitive in the labour market, the APSC has since rejected Professionals Australia's claim for a specific STEM structure that would help recruit, develop and retain a skilled technical science and engineering workforce. This is despite the fact that the DSR report highlighted that the Defence APS workforce was understrength and an innovative and bold approach to recruitment and retention was required. As part of the APS enterprise bargaining negotiations, Professionals Australia had proposed a specific STEM classification and pay structure to help the Department of Defence compete with the private sector and attract and retain the critical skills needed to deliver strategic defence projects. Under the current APS pay structure, departments simply cannot compete with the salaries offered by the private sector. We also know that engineering and technical specialists develop their skills and expertise in the first few years working in the Department of Defence but may then move to private sector companies due to the higher pay on offer. In David Thodey's review, Our Public Service Our Future: an independent review of the Australian Public Service, he recognised that the existing APS structures do not nurture STEM staff to meet today's challenges. Culture and structure must both be reformed. The skill shortages are not a future problem. They are with us in the present, which is why action is so urgent. Professionals Australia's members have a clear view that the continuation of forcing technical and specialist skills into the current APS classification structure is not fit for purpose and does not get the best out of our APS. The APS has a long history of accepting the need to set out different classification structures to meet APS requirements. The current enterprise agreement for the department of industry has science and technical trade measurement and legal classification structures. The Bureau of Meteorology agreement offers occupational classification structures. DFAT's agreement offers a medical classification structure. The Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment has legal, public affairs, veterinarian and research scientist classification structures. There are many examples across the APS. All of these classification structures have been drafted to fit approximately with the current single APS approach but are imperfect in the way they operate. Caps to salary and staffing levels have meant that one of the only ways to offer competitive employment conditions to technical subject matter experts has been to promote them into managerial positions. As a result, technical ability has diminished due to the increased administrative and HR responsibilities of APS executive level roles. If we're going to deliver on nuclear submarines, the environment, and deal with the challenges of AI and a sustainable transition to a net zero economy, we need STEM public servants. The Public Service will not attract or retain this talent if they're not remunerated properly. Furthermore, these staff need the classifications that will allow them to operate appropriately, as well as the resources that will support them. We need a culture that respects these public servants and the integrity of their work and advice. Scientists need to know that presenting scientific facts is not going to jeopardise their funding or their position. There is a lot of untapped potential in our Public Service. We need to use the industrial mechanisms available in a smarter and better way that ensures we harness talent and bolster our Public Service STEM capabilities so that they can be well equipped to deliver and meet our national priorities. Forde Electorate: Community Events 109 18:54 Mr VAN MANEN 188315 Forde I'm going to use this opportunity to focus on some of the wonderful positive events in my electorate over the past little while. Last month I had the opportunity to attend the ninth annual Paddock to Plate Luncheon hosted by Beenleigh State High School, led by their principal, Matt Morgan. In 2015, their principal, Matt O'Hanlon organised the Beenleigh State High School's first Paddock to Plate Luncheon, with around 80 guests at the local Beenleigh PCYC. Since then, things have taken off, with the luncheon becoming the highlight of the school year for the hospitality and agriculture students. This year's lunch was a sellout in the school's brand-new sports hall. Just in case you're not sure, when they say 'paddock to plate', that is exactly what they mean. The school supplied its own beef, pork, lamb, honey, strawberries and vegetables for this year's menu. The Paddock to Plate Luncheon is an outstanding group effort led by the head of both agricultural science and business, Peta Lenane, along with the head of hospitality, Stephanie Brocklehurst. Together with their teams, they provide a level of hospitality education and training that is described as unrivalled in Queensland. Internationally renowned celebrity chefs Dayan Hartill-Law and Grant Perry both worked with the students, sharing their vast experience and standards of excellence in planning and preparing dishes for the event. This event has become the school's largest annual fundraiser for the school P&C Committee. The work done by the school in a whole range of areas is a tremendous testament to everybody involved. Congratulations to all for another fantastic Paddock to Plate Luncheon event. Last night I had the privilege of attending the 2023 Commonwealth Bank Teaching Awards presented by Schools Plus, which recognised the wonderful work our teachers do in schools right across our country, all focused on ensuring that the programs they run ensure that our children succeed and achieve their best potential. This year there were 12 outstanding teachers who received a 12-month teaching fellowship, including funds for their school to share their impact. The fellowship is a unique professional learning experience which includes opportunities to engage with, and learn from, leading educational experts and a group study tour to a high- performing education system. My electorate of Forde was extremely lucky in that we had two outstanding teachers who were recipients of these teaching fellowships: Sara Curtis from Marsden State High School and Kiri Griffith from Loganlea State High School. Sara is the Head of Department for Teaching and Learning Programs and been instrumental in creating and leading successful programs to support teachers at all levels, including beginning and early career teachers, mentors, teachers returning from extended leave, and highly accomplished and lead teachers. For the last two years, Marsden and Sara's team have been recognised in the Australian HR Awards for best professional learning and graduate support—the first school to win this award against major corporate finalists. Kiri is the Deputy Principal of Loganlea State High School and has led numerous initiatives to help nurture community pride and enhance student opportunities. One of the programs Kiri led, called 'Uplift Logan', helped build confidence and leadership capabilities for students through unique mentoring partnerships developed with the local community. Kiri's work showcases the power of community partnerships within the school and the ability of great teachers to change children's lives. The second annual Early Career Teaching Awards were also presented last night, which recognised and encouraged great teachers with five years or less in the teaching profession. Ten early career teachers received a scholarship, and, through this, they receive funding for their professional development and participation in mentoring and leadership programs, including a group study tour to a high-performing education system. Abbey Tamsen from Marsden State High School was presented with this esteemed award. In her short career as a teacher, Abbey has helped develop important resources and training programs for teachers that help the students and the school achieve. Abbey has worked on strategies for managing behaviour, implementing technology in the classroom and producing handbooks to support preservice teachers and their supervisors. Abbey has also managed and inducted over 600 pre-service teachers in the past year, as well as organised more than 30 professional development opportunities. Can I once again say to these three amazing teachers: congratulations and thank you for everything that you do in our local schools and I wish you all the very best for the future. As we all know, September marks the end of the football season, whether it be league, union, football or AFL, and many of our local teams in the Forde electorate tasted success over this past season. Congratulations to the Beenleigh Junior Rugby League Club on their tremendous success this year, with their under-18 side being unstoppable in their march to the premiership, taking out the grand final 26 to 12. Congratulations also to Waterford Demons Rugby League Club's open men's team, who were crowned premiers in a nailbiting final over North Stradbroke 26 to 25. Waterford's junior teams also had impressive seasons, with the U18 Girl's side runners-up in their campaign, just being pipped by Burleigh for the premiership. The Mustangs Brothers Rugby League Football Club kept the great results going with their SEQ Reserve Grade women's side being crowned champions for 2023, beating out the Brisbane Natives in their grand final. Down the road at Ormeau, the Ormeau Shearers women's team had a terrific season making the SEQ Holcim Cup grand final, sadly coming up short against Goodna. The result was repeated for their U16 Division 2 boys, who also just missed out on a grand final win with a close loss to Southport. But, for both teams, it was an amazing result. The Eagleby Giants Junior Rugby League Football Club and Yatala Rams Junior Rugby Union Club also must be commended for their efforts through all age groups this past season. In football, the world game, our local teams have overachieved with brilliant seasons from not one but three clubs. The past weekend saw the Football Queensland Premier League 1 men's semifinal, where Logan Lightning FC fought hard but came up just short, 3-2, in their match against Wynnum—an outstanding achievement. We also had the local grudge match in the under-23 Football Queensland Premier League 6 grand final between Bethania Rams and Park Ridge Panthers, and congratulations to Bethania Rams on their win and to the runners-up, Park Ridge, also on a tremendous campaign. Last but not least, an amazing game on Saturday saw Ormeau Football Club's men's team not only take out the FQPL 4 title, 4-0, but also succeeded in earning promotion to the FQPL 3 division for next season. To our Aussie Rules teams: the Ormeau Bulldogs U15 Girls claimed their premiership in a tight grand final, while the Beenleigh Buffaloes and Park Ridge Pirates had their own successes, with the Beenleigh Buffaloes women's side taking out the pride cup in July. To the men's sides for all of three of those clubs in hard-fought seasons that maybe didn't go as well as they would have hoped and to all of our players, coaches, staff, volunteers, referees and all of the other officials: thank you for your tremendous efforts throughout this season to ensure that our sporting clubs can play their fixtures. Thank you to the grounds people for the work you do to present the fields every week so that our players can get out, play and enjoy a game of whatever code, knowing that the grounds are in good condition and it's safe for them to play. Thank you for all of your efforts. I hope you enjoy the off season. We now look forward to the cricket season. The other day we also launched the new A-League football season. But thank you to everybody involved in all of our clubs for the terrific work that you do. Climate Change 110 19:03 Ms THWAITES 282212 Jagajaga Tonight I am rising to talk about climate change and the action our government is taking to urgently address this pressing issue. It feels particularly important that I rise to talk about this tonight, because it does indeed still seem shocking that, despite the fact that we are in 2023 and our government is in fact taking urgent action to address climate change, those opposite seem to still be stuck in denial and in the past. I could in fact say that they seem to be stuck in the Dark Ages, but research seems to suggest and academics have noted that even during the Dark Ages there were steps forward—there was some progress. We do not seem to be seeing that progress when it comes to climate change from those opposite. Perhaps it might be more apt to compare their position with that of the dinosaurs—prehistoric—and I do hope it's an attitude that will soon be dying out, because climate change is real. It is happening right now and we are seeing the effects here in this country and right around the world. We have seen a European summer of floods and fires. We have seen massive fires across Canada. We have seen the warnings about the upcoming season that we are likely to face here in Australia. Our government has started work to make sure that we are addressing the climate crisis, off the back of the very clear and loud voices from communities like mine, who made it very clear that they were tired of the previous government and their inaction on climate change. We do know, as a government now a year into our term and a government a year into trying to address this critical, crucial problem, that we are coming from behind. We are not at the point in the transition in our country, economy and industries that we should be at because of the inaction of the previous coalition government. So it is important that the previous government and the coalition are called out not for what they've done but, in fact, for what they haven't done. There is a responsibility that comes with being in government in this country. It's a responsibility to the future, to those of us here now, to our children and to their children. It's a responsibility to act and, in this case, a responsibility to protect people from the impacts of climate change. In the nine, long years of government by those opposite, we did not see that responsibility being fulfilled. We saw a complete failure by the Liberal Party and the Nationals to treat the challenges of climate change with the seriousness they needed to. As I've said, because of that failure, we are starting from behind where we should be. I think it is important to look back on some of the history that got us to this point because, if we don't understand the values of the past, we can't do better in the future. We did see the likes of former PM Tony Abbott, who, it seemed, was booted out of this place by his electorate in large part because of his refusal to accept the realities of climate change—and yet he did lead those opposite for six years. Following him, Malcolm Turnbull became PM, and I think we saw some indications that, as Prime Minister he did want to do better. He certainly wasn't a denier. Unfortunately, we didn't see any action on climate change as a result of that. He knew, I think, that in order to have the backing of the dinosaurs, he had to take a stance that climate change didn't need action. He did that until he was torn down by the member for Cook. The member for Cook, of course, when he was Treasurer, famously brought a lump of coal into question time, so we know what his stance was. Some of the other people who, I think, led to this climate denial during the nine, long years are still in this place and are quite relevant to what seems to be the current stance of those opposite. The member for New England, who, in the last few days, has sought to tear down the opposition's position on net zero—sought to say that there should not be a target for net zero by 2050. The member for New England put that position on the weekend. I was pleased to see that he wasn't successful, but it was certainly the position he put. Obviously, the member has been the Leader of the Nationals, and still, I would presume, has some influence over the stance of the party, more broadly. Let's consider other members. We have Senator Canavan, who, in the lead-up to the 2022 election said 'the net zero thing is all sort of dead anyway'. There is Senator Rennick, who has called climate change 'junk science' and the member for Flynn, who said, during the election campaign, that the previous government's net zero policy had some 'wiggle room'. None of these are at all statements or stances that give you any consolation that those opposite understand the urgency of what's before us; that they understand and are prepared to step up and support the efforts that this country needs to make to transition to being a renewable energy superpower and transition to the future that we all need. When we look at those opposite we see dinosaurs. We see climate deniers here, there and everywhere. It is disappointing that, even in opposition, they don't seem to have been able to revisit that thinking and to realise the urgency of what has to happen now. We also have the member for Fairfax opposite. In fact, the member for Fairfax is now the shadow minister for climate change and energy. His fixation is nuclear energy. Again, interestingly, as he pushes nuclear energy he seems to be getting some of the facts around it wrong. He has claimed that Canada gets 60 per cent of its electricity from nuclear. In fact, Canada gets 60 per cent of its electricity from renewable hydroelectric power. Canada gets just 15 per cent of its electricity from nuclear power. Again, all the experts tell us that nuclear is not the way forward for Australia. It is the most expensive and least efficient option for us in this country. We can be a renewable energy superpower. That is the track our government is working us towards—not the nuclear path. The approach our government has been taking to addressing climate change could not be more different from the approach of those opposite. We do recognise that this is a crisis that Australia and the rest of the world must act on, and we are acting urgently. We have legislated our emissions reduction targets: 43 per cent by 2030 and net zero by 2050. We put these in law because we know how important it is that this government works towards them for the future of our country and for the future of the planet. In legislating these targets, we demonstrated how seriously we take climate change and the need to provide the certainty that comes with that for that transition. We're committed to a national renewable electricity target of 82 per cent by 2030, and we've committed more than $40 billion to make this happen. We know that communities, businesses and industry want to make the switch to renewables, and so many already have, and the work now is to transition further. With this government, businesses, industries and communities have a partner that shares their drive and wants to see real action on climate change. We will continue to work to boost investment in renewables and clean energy technology. As I've said a number of times, our future is as a renewable energy superpower. There will be good jobs and a good future for Australia, and our government is guiding us towards that. We have put in place our safeguard mechanism, which will see our country's biggest emitters making a proportionate contribution in working to meet our emissions reduction targets. In the mechanism is a credits program for offsets and, with it, an incentive for those businesses that go over and above in their emissions reduction. This will spur onwards new innovations in how we can utilise clean technology as we tackle emissions. Our government is charging ahead with making it easier for people to switch to an electric vehicle. I know in my community that so many people are keen to do this. I have seen, as I'm driving around, more and more electric vehicles on the road. Our electric car discount policy has provided a fringe benefits tax exemption that has encouraged greater take-up of EVs. We're rolling out 117 EV fast chargers along national highways, helping to close those existing gaps in the network. I am pleased to see more and more EVs on the road, and I know the number will continue to grow. Our communities want to be part of the change. They know that the future is renewable. They know that we have to put our country on track for a sustainable future. Climate change is real, and it has to be addressed. They want a sensible, grown-up government that is taking this urgent problem seriously. That is what they've got under the Albanese Labor government, a government that understands that climate change is real; a government that understands climate change needs to be addressed urgently. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 144732 There being no further grievances, the debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. Federation Chamber adjourned at 19 : 13