﻿
<hansard noNamespaceSchemaLocation="../../hansard.xsd" version="2.2">
  <session.header>
    <date>2023-09-13</date>
    <parliament.no>2</parliament.no>
    <session.no>1</session.no>
    <period.no>0</period.no>
    <chamber>House of Reps</chamber>
    <page.no>0</page.no>
    <proof>1</proof>
  </session.header>
  <chamber.xscript>
    <business.start>
      <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:WX="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
        <p class="HPS-SODJobDate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
          <span class="HPS-SODJobDate">
            <span style="font-weight:bold;" />
            <a href="Chamber" type="">Wednesday, 13 September 2023</a>
          </span>
        </p>
        <p class="HPS-Normal" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
          <span class="HPS-Normal">
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">The SPEAKER (</span>
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">Hon.</span>
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">
            </span>
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">Milton Dick</span>
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">) </span>took the chair at 09:00, made an acknowledgement of country and read prayers.</span>
        </p>
        <p class="HPS-Line" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
          <span class="HPS-Line"> </span>
        </p>
      </body>
    </business.start>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS</title>
        <page.no>1</page.no>
        <type>MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Energy</title>
          <page.no>1</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:01</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms MADELEINE KING</name>
    <name.id>102376</name.id>
    <electorate>Brand</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise today to update the House on the future of the offshore oil and gas industry decommissioning in Australia. Throughout our history, Australia's prosperity has been closely tied to the success of our resources sector. The contribution of the sector to our national prosperity is unequalled, and it continues to play an essential role in supporting our economic wellbeing today. Australia's resources sector will only become more important as we pursue our commitment to reach net zero emissions by 2050. The sector will be integral to the development of clean energy supply chains not only in this country but in our region and around the world. As I've said before in this place, the road to net zero runs through the Australian resources sector.</para>
<para>The government will always support a strong and resilient resources sector, but, in supporting this sector, we also have a responsibility to future generations to ensure that industry rehabilitates the natural environment once a project reaches the end of its productive life. For Australia's maturing offshore oil and gas industry, this means spending approximately $16 billion to remove, dismantle, scrap and recycle ageing offshore infrastructure. While this is an extraordinary task for the offshore resources industry, it is also an extraordinary economic opportunity for Australia. With the right policies and regulatory settings, and by harnessing the expertise of our existing offshore resources workforce, we can capture this economic opportunity and build a vibrant maritime decommissioning economy.</para>
<para>Decommissioning, in basic terms, involves removing and dismantling oil and gas infrastructure permanently, securely plugging disused wells and rehabilitating the surrounding seabed. The removal of all offshore oil and gas property once it is no longer in use is the default decommissioning requirement under Australian law. Alternatives to full removal of infrastructure may be considered where that approach delivers equal or better environmental outcomes. Australian law obligates the oil and gas industry to pay all costs associated with decommissioning offshore oil and gas infrastructure, and the Australian community expects nothing less. Decommissioning expenditure will ramp up in the decades ahead, as a number of offshore oil and gas projects in Victoria, Western Australia and the Northern Territory come to the end of their productive life.</para>
<para>The government's objective is clear: as industry starts investing to decommission $60 billion of offshore infrastructure, we want as much of that investment as possible to be spent backing Australian industry and Australian jobs. But, more than that, we want to build an enduring decommissioning industry that is equipped not just to service ageing oil and gas assets in Australia and our region but also to capture a solid pipeline of activity to meet future decommissioning demand for new industries, like offshore wind. We are thinking that far ahead. Australian hands have built a multibillion dollar offshore resources industry from the ground up. We want to harness their expertise and deploy their know-how to build a vibrant domestic maritime decommissioning economy.</para>
<para>As many in this place will recall, in February 2020 the then Australian government stepped in to take responsibility for the <inline font-style="italic">Northern Endeavour</inline>, a 274 metre-long floating production storage and offtake facility. The government was forced to take responsibility for the <inline font-style="italic">Northern Endeavour</inline> because the owners of the vessel entered into administration, defaulting on their decommissioning obligations. The <inline font-style="italic">Northern Endeavour</inline> illustrated that inadequate maintenance, regulatory gaps and poor planning pose a significant risk to the safe management of aging oil and gas infrastructure in this country. Such gross mismanagement also had the potential to cause an environmental disaster. We aren't alone in this. Other countries, like the UK, New Zealand and the US, are facing similar challenges. Today I'm glad to update the House that the <inline font-style="italic">Northern Endeavour</inline> decommissioning program continues to progress. We are taking a deliberate, responsible and diligent approach to a project that is technically complex and extraordinarily difficult. This difficulty was underscored just yesterday when the contractor aboard the <inline font-style="italic">Northern Endeavour</inline> temporarily suspended the sub-sea flushing campaign currently underway, due to unforeseen technical issues.</para>
<para>Safety will always come first. This work cannot be rushed, and it must be done properly. Doing so sends a strong signal that Australia remains a responsible country for safe and sustainable offshore development. Phase 1 of the <inline font-style="italic">Northern Endeavour</inline> decommissioning program commenced last year and is focused on making the vessel safe and disconnecting the vessel from its surrounding oilfields. Work is now underway to prepare for the next stage of the program, which involves the plugging of existing oil wells and the removal of infrastructure on the seabed. The government is also preparing a disposal strategy for the physical <inline font-style="italic">Northern Endeavour</inline> vessel, which will include all necessary measures to protect the environment during disconnection, towing and dismantling. In working to decommission the <inline font-style="italic">Northern Endeavour</inline>, the Australian government's first priority has always been the safety of workers undertaking this difficult task. Nothing is more important than the safety and security of the Australians working offshore, many of whom operate in some of the most dangerous workplace conditions anywhere in this country.</para>
<para>The decommissioning of the <inline font-style="italic">Northern Endeavour</inline> is an expensive undertaking and not something the federal government should have to do. In 2022, the parliament legislated a levy on the offshore oil and gas industry to pay for the decommissioning of the <inline font-style="italic">Northern Endeavour</inline>. The Australian government remains committed to ensuring that taxpayers are not left to pick up the cost of industry's decommissioning obligations. The levy was a bipartisan effort, and I thank the former minister, the member for Hinkler, for his sustained engagement with Labor to progress that important piece of legislation. I also thank Adrian Evans, Penny Howard and others from the Maritime Union of Australia for their constructive engagement with Labor as parliament legislated the levy and for their longstanding advocacy for the establishment of a decommissioning industry in Australia.</para>
<para>While the process of decommissioning the <inline font-style="italic">Northern Endeavour</inline> is complex and difficult, we have learnt some important lessons that have translated into stronger and more resilient regulations. In 2021 parliament passed reforms with bipartisan support that prevented companies from selling off aging oil and gas assets unless the Commonwealth can be assured that the new owners of those assets have the capacity to meet their decommissioning liabilities. These reforms helped to clamp done on a practice that allowed big oil and gas companies to sell off aging assets to junior resources companies who may not have had the financial capacity to fund a decommissioning program. The parliament also expanded the circumstances in which a former title holder could be held responsible for decommissioning costs, even if they had already sold off an asset to a separate company that was unwilling or unable to pay. The Australian government is now considering how we can strengthen the existing financial assurance regime for offshore oil and gas title holders to better insulate taxpayers against future decommissioning liabilities. Over time, we want to improve the government's ability to monitor and assess the financial mechanisms that the offshore resources industry has in place to pay for future decommissioning activity.</para>
<para>It is important to ensure that the offshore resources industry continues to meet its obligations to responsibly and safely decommission offshore projects. The decommissioning of the <inline font-style="italic">Northern Endeavour</inline> has provided valuable insights into what a future offshore decommissioning industry in Australia could look like. We have the expertise, the capacity and the willingness to decommission large offshore oil and gas infrastructure in this country, and that is why I'm working with Australia's offshore industries, the offshore workforce, state and territory governments and my ministerial colleagues to develop a road map for a future Australian offshore decommissioning industry. The road map will examine how we can capture the significant economic opportunity in the years and decades ahead. It will examine infrastructure requirements, explore regulatory best practice and map the services that we will need to help underpin such an industry in this country.</para>
<para>The road map will identify opportunities to create high-paying, high-skilled jobs in the regions, supporting the transition of our existing offshore workforce. The road map will explore how our decommissioning industry can provide services to adjacent industries like offshore wind, and it will identify opportunities to export our expertise across the Asia-Pacific. The road map will also explore how such an industry could facilitate onshore reuse and recycling opportunities. Norway and the United Kingdom see up to 97 per cent of the steel from offshore projects recycled and reused in things like offshore wind turbines. So rather than strip down old steel and export it as scrap, there is an opportunity to reuse and recycle the steel from offshore oil and gas infrastructure onshore.</para>
<para>In addition, the road map will look at different ways to build opportunities for First Nations people and businesses as well as boosting the participation of women in offshore industries. To support the development of the road map, the Australian government is launching an issues paper today and will shortly commence public consultations. With the right settings in place, Australia is well placed to scale up a viable domestic offshore decommissioning industry in this country. We can do it here, we should do it here and we can export our expertise to our region. I thank the House.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:11</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr LITTLEPROUD</name>
    <name.id>265585</name.id>
    <electorate>Maranoa</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to respond to the minister's statement on decommissioning. I'd first like to thank the minister for recognising that the previous coalition government did much of the work in relation to reforming Australia's offshore oil and gas decommissioning industry, and I acknowledge that the government is continuing this work. In 2021, the former coalition government passed strong reforms to ensure stability and responsible management of offshore decommissioning following extensive consultation with industry to ensure that negative impacts were mitigated, and just last year the coalition successfully negotiated a deal that would ensure the long-term management of Northern Endeavour's decommissioning whilst ensuring the Australian taxpayer would not bear the costs of the project. However it is concerning that the government appears to be more focused on the process of shutting projects down rather than getting on the job with new ones.</para>
<para>The minister is right. Australia does have a mature oil and gas industry. It's mature because Australia has been known for its predictable and fair regulatory environment that allowed investors and resource companies to get on with the job of investing in and developing our extensive and high-quality oil and gas reserves, creating jobs and wealth for Australians in the process. However, recently this has become increasingly uncertain thanks to the government's poor and rushed policy decisions. The minister highlights that Australia is a responsible country for sustainable offshore development, but who will continue to invest in our offshore developments when Labor has decided to wage war against the gas industry since coming to office? Market interventions, changing regulatory goalposts, funding green lawfare, damaging industrial relations legislation, and profound indecision and a lack of clarity following important court decisions have made Australia a much riskier place to try to get new oil and gas projects off the ground. Despite calls from industry and foreign partners that these decisions are making Australia an increasingly unreliable investment destination, the government seems completely content to continue undermining this multibillion dollar sector.</para>
<para>On Monday, the Premier of Western Australia, the minister's home state and a resource powerhouse, was forced to come out to bat publicly on behalf of the sector. It's clear that this industry has very few allies in the ranks of federal Labor. In fact the state Labor Premier had to remind this federal Labor government that no-one will thank us if the economy goes backwards. No-one will thank us if you don't have enough gas and love electricity. Yet the Albanese government is doing just that, driving our economy backwards and increasing the risk of gas shortfalls across the country. The WA Premier also said that the resource sector kept New South Wales and Victoria afloat when they were in lockdown. The fact of the matter is that this industry plays and will continue to play a significant role in our economy, but today we are presented with a statement on a significant matter on decommissioning. It is an important topic, no doubt, but, just like the government's future gas strategy, the focus appears to be more on managing a decline in supply rather than boosting supply through new development.</para>
<para>Where is the statement on the importance of commissioning new oil and gas projects? What about a statement that points to a single new project that will go towards solving Labor's energy supply problem, which is of their own making? What about an acknowledgement that union activism at Western Australian gas projects now risks destabilising global LNG markets, activism that will only get worse under Labor's proposed industrial relations changes because, when reports of potential union strikes first emerged, global gas prices soared? Where are the statements on the significance of that from the government? What about the Middle Arm Sustainable Development Precinct, a national infrastructure project that the Northern Territory Labor government deem so critical to the north? Shamefully, Labor decided to make a backroom deal with the Greens to grant them an inquiry in order to attack the future of the precinct and of the gas industry in the Northern Territory—all to try and protect the Prime Minister from the dodgy decisions around Qatar Airways as a favour to Alan Joyce.</para>
<para>It's revealing that—while our shadow minister for resources and for northern Australia, Senator McDonald, is currently at the Northern Territory Resources Week conference, confirming the coalition's commitment to Middle Arm, and supporting infrastructure for carbon capture and storage and blue hydrogen and the north's entire resource sector—the minister is here in the chamber delivering a significant statement on decommissioning. Obviously, the Labor government has formed their own list of priorities for the future of oil and gas in Australia, because this is the stark difference between the Labor government and the coalition. While the coalition is out on the ground, genuinely engaging with industry and the communities that benefit from the resource sector, Labor is playing politics in Canberra, trying to ram through ill-thought legislation to protect their own interests. If left to their own devices, Labor would ensure that, once all the jobs had gone and all the investment had been pulled, the only thing left for the oil and gas industry to do would be to be decommissioned.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>COMMITTEES</title>
        <page.no>3</page.no>
        <type>COMMITTEES</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Selection Committee</title>
          <page.no>3</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Report</title>
            <page.no>3</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:15</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I present report No. 18 of the Selection Committee, relating to the consideration of committee and delegation business and private members' business on Monday 16 October 2023. The report will be printed in the <inline font-style="italic">Hansard</inline> for today and the committee's determinations will appear on tomorrow's <inline font-style="italic">Notice Paper</inline>. Copies of the report have been placed on the table.</para>
<para class="italic"> <inline font-style="italic">The report read as follows—</inline></para>
<quote><para class="block">Report relating to the consideration of committee and delegation business and of private Members' business</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">1. The Committee met in private session on Tuesday, 12 September 2023.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">2. The Committee deliberated on items of committee and delegation business that had been notified, private Members' business items listed on the Notice Paper and notices lodged on Tuesday, 12 September 2023, and determined the order of precedence and times on Monday, 16 October 2023, as follows:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Items for House of Representatives Chamber (10.10 am to 12 noon)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Notices</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">1 MS WATSON-BROWN: To present a Bill for an Act to impose a curfew and related restrictions on aircraft movements at Brisbane Airport, and for related purposes. (<inline font-style="italic">Brisbane Airport Curfew and Demand Management Bill 2023</inline>)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">(Notice given 6 September 2023.)</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Presenter may </inline> <inline font-style="italic">speak to the second reading for a period not exceeding 10 minutes</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">pursuant to standing order 41. Debate must be adjourned pursuant to standing order 142.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">2 DR SCAMPS: To present a Bill for an Act to amend the <inline font-style="italic">Environment Protection and </inline><inline font-style="italic">Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999</inline>, and for related purposes. (<inline font-style="italic">Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Expanding the Water Trigger) Bill 2023</inline>)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">(Notice given 12 September 2023.)</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Presenter may speak to the second reading for a </inline> <inline font-style="italic">period not exceeding 10 minutes</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">pursuant to standing order 41. Debate must be adjourned pursuant to standing order 142.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">3 MS CHANEY: To move:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">That:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) this House establish a joint select committee, to be known as the Joint Standing Committee on Oversight of the Implementation of Recommendations of the Royal Commission into the Robodebt Scheme to inquire into and report upon:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the implementation of recommendations of the Royal Commission, which are directed at strengthening the Australian Public Service (APS), improving the processes of the Department of Social Services and Services Australia, and reinforcing the capability of oversight agencies;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the implementation of recommendations of other reviews relating to the APS which the Royal Commission endorsed or specifically supported;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) the work of the APS Integrity Taskforce to deliver a 'pro-integrity culture' across the APS, including a comprehensive response to the themes emerging from the Royal Commission;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) action taken in response to other observations by the Royal Commission relating to the capability of the APS and budget processes; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(e) any matter in relation to the Royal Commission's recommendations referred to the committee by a resolution of either House of the Parliament;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) the committee present reports every six months until the final sitting day of the 47th Parliament;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) the committee consist of nine members—four senators, and five members of the House of Representatives, as follows:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) two members of the House of the Representatives to be nominated by the Government Whip or Whips;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) two members of the House of Representatives to be nominated by the Opposition Whip or Whips;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) two senators to be nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) one senator to be nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(e) one senator to be nominated by any minority party or independent senator; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(f) one member of the House of Representatives nominated by any minority party or independent member;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) participating members may:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) be appointed to the committee on the nomination of the Government Whip in the House of Representatives, the Opposition Whip in the House of Representatives, the Leader of the Government in the Senate, the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate or any minority party or independent senator or member of the House of Representatives; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) participate in hearings of evidence and deliberations of the committee, and have all the rights of members of the committee, but may not vote on any questions before the committee;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(5) every nomination of a member of the committee be notified in writing to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(6) the members of the committee hold office as a joint select committee until the House of Representatives is dissolved or expires by effluxion of time;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(7) the committee may proceed to the dispatch of business notwithstanding that all members have not been duly nominated and appointed and notwithstanding any vacancy;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(8) the committee elect:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) a Government member as its chair; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) a non-Government member as its deputy chair who shall act as chair of the committee at any time when the chair is not present at a meeting of the committee; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) at any time when the chair and deputy chair are not present at a meeting of the committee, the members present shall elect another member to act as chair at that meeting;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(9) in the event of an equally divided vote, the chair, or the deputy chair when acting as chair, shall have a casting vote;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(10) three members of the committee constitute a quorum of the committee provided that in a deliberative meeting the quorum shall include one Government member of either House and one non-Government member of either House;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(11) the committee have power to:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) appoint subcommittees consisting of three or more of its members, and to refer to any such subcommittee any of the matters which the committee is empowered to examine; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) appoint the chair of each subcommittee who shall have a casting vote only;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(12) two members of a subcommittee constitute the quorum of that subcommittee, provided that in a deliberative meeting the quorum shall include one Government member of either House and one non-Government member of either House;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(13) the committee have power to send for and examine persons and documents, to move from place to place, to sit in public or in private, and have leave to report from time to time its proceedings and the evidence taken and such interim recommendations as it may deem fit;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(14) the provisions of this resolution, so far as they are inconsistent with the standing orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the standing orders; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(15) a message be sent to the Senate seeking its concurrence in this resolution.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">(Notice given 12 September 2023.)</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Time allotted</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">20 minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Dr Scamps</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Other Members</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes each.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 4 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that </inline> <inline font-style="italic">consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">4 MR NEUMANN: To move:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) acknowledges the hard work of the Government to bring the free trade agreement with the United Kingdom into force on 1 June 2023;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) welcomes the successful resumption of tariff-free sugar exports to the United Kingdom for the first time in 50 years, with the first shipment arriving in London from Queensland on 6 September 2023;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) recognises that as a trading nation Australia's prosperity is linked to open international markets, with trade contributing 29 per cent of Australia's gross domestic product and supporting one in four Australian jobs; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) notes jobs in export industries pay five per cent above the national average income.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">(Notice give</inline> <inline font-style="italic">n 12 September 2023.)</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Time allotted</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">30 minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Mr Neumann</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Other Members</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes each.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 6 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should </inline> <inline font-style="italic">continue on a future day.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">5 MR TED O'BRIEN: To move:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) notes:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the $60 billion blackhole in the Government's energy plan, as exposed by independent analysis from a leading Australian energy economist;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) independent analysis has revealed that more than $60 billion of mega-energy projects, which the Government is seeking to build by 2030, are unaccounted for in the Government's logic despite their significant impact on the energy prices paid by households;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) the concerns raised pertain to the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation's GenCost study which evaluates the levelised cost of electricity for different energy generating technologies;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) the GenCost study provides the central justification for the Government's radical energy experiment and the repeated mantra that 'renewables are the cheapest form of energy';</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(e) the GenCost report fails to account for the true cost of various energy generation technologies by excluding the cost of integrating them into the electricity network;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(f) that this includes projects such as Snowy 2.0, the Kurri Kurri gas plant, significant integrated system plan transmission projects, Tasmania Battery of the Nation, and the Illawarra gas peaking plant;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(g) the $60 billion price tag excludes household batteries and the distribution network;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(h) the Government has wilfully misrepresented the study to blind Australians to the true cost of the Government's plan; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) the importance of a total system cost assessment for energy, including integration costs, because this will be paid for in the energy bills of Australian households and businesses; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) calls on the Government to:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) immediately stop misrepresenting the price of various energy generation technologies so that a complete assessment can be done to determine the true optimum investment pathway for Australia's energy market; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) adopt an 'all of the above' approach to energy as the Opposition has done, which allows for a mix of different technologies to be considered, including renewables.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">(Notice given 14 September 2023.)</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Time allotted</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">remaining private Members' business time prior to 12 noon.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Mr Ted O'Brien</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Other Members</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes each.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 8 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Items for Federation Chamber (11 am to 1.30 pm)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Notices</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">1 MS WARE: To move:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) notes:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) Australia's energy grid is under imminent threat of blackouts as soon as this summer, as the Government's energy plan drives the premature closure of baseload energy without any guarantee of like-for-like replacement;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) that the Australian Energy Market Operator has sounded its most dire warning yet, signalling the increased likelihood of significant energy shortfalls as renewable energy investment stalls;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) that the stark warning is a direct result of the Government's energy policies;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) that at least 80 per cent of baseload energy will shut down by 2035 under this Government's watch;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(e) that despite the Minister for Climate Change and Energy repeatedly claiming that he is leading an economic transformation 'bigger than the Industrial Revolution' his Government has not asked his department or Treasury to complete any modelling of the energy plan;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(f) that Australians are already paying some of the most expensive energy bills in the world and now they have been told their lights may not turn on when they need them;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(g) the Government's heavy-handed, big government policies continue to smother investments in gas which is vital to keeping the lights on and the prices down;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(h) that increased demand for gas coupled with decreased investment due to the Government's anti-gas policies will exacerbate the threat to reliability and the risk that the lights will go out;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) the situation will only get worse if the Government continues with its policy suite and ill-informed pathway to decarbonising the grid;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(j) the Government's policies are driving the premature closure of baseload power generation yet is failing to replace the capacity as it has promised it would; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(k) the Government is setting up renewable energy for failure, not success, by demanding a renewables-only grid; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) calls on the Government to:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) immediately stop its ideological crusade against energy technologies it does not like despite many of these technologies having reliably kept the lights on for decades;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) adopt an 'all of the above' approach to energy, as the Opposition has done, to ensure a balanced mix of technologies that can power our grid into the future, including renewables but not only renewables;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) support any state government that seeks to avoid premature closure of coal fired power stations while like-for-like energy generating replacements are built; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) reinstate a technology-agnostic capacity mechanism as an insurance method to provide operators with the incentives they need to ensure a reliable synchronous energy supply in the grid.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">(Notice given 7 September 2023.)</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Time allotted</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">35 minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Ms Ware</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Other Members</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes each.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 7 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">2 MS TEMPLEMAN: To move:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">That this House notes that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) the arts and creativity make a valuable contribution to the quality of life, cultural identity and individual wellbeing in regional communities;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) the arts and creativity can drive economic development by encouraging tourism, supporting small businesses; diversifying employment opportunities and providing skilled jobs;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) to tell the Australian story, regional voices must be heard;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) the new National Cultural Policy, 'Revive', commits new funding to creativity in regional Australia; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(5) Revive will provide new investment and new vision for the cultural sector and begin repairing the damage caused by a decade of neglect of the arts by the previous Government.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">(Notice given 12 September 2</inline> <inline font-style="italic">023.)</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Time allotted</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">30 minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Ms Templeman</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Other Members</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes each.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 6 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a </inline> <inline font-style="italic">future day.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">3 MR CHESTER: To move:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) notes that the:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) Stronger Communities Programme delivered on the former Government's commitment to deliver social benefits in communities across Australia;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) programme provided grants of between $2,500 and $20,000 to community organisations and local governments for small scale projects; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) programme helped fund over 15,000 community-based projects across Australia; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) acknowledges that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the Government has failed to provide funding for future rounds of the programme, with no replacement for small-scale projects; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) community groups, already struggling with the increased cost of living, will have no other option than to fundraise for projects that otherwise could have been funded under the programme.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">(Notice given 12 September 2023.)</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Time allotted</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">45 minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Mr Chester</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Other Members</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes each.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 9 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">4 MS J RYAN: To move:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) acknowledges that the Government is working for Australia by delivering our commitment to strengthen Medicare and making it easier to see a doctor by:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) tripling the bulk billing incentive, the largest increase to the incentive in the 40-year history of Medicare;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) delivering cheaper medicines by cutting the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme co-payment for the first time in 75 years and allowing 60-day prescriptions, saving patients time and money due to less visits to the doctors and the chemist;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) establishing bulk-billing Medicare Urgent Care Clinics across the country where patients receive urgent but not life-threatening care and freeing up overstretched GPs, take pressure off hospitals and improve access to affordable care; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) growing our health workforce and supporting our trusted health workers to do what they are trained to do by investing in the work force and supporting our local GP practices through the Strengthening Medicare General Practice Grants; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) notes the mess the health system was left in after a decade of neglect, including under the stewardship of the now Leader of the Opposition who during his time as Minister:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) tried to tax every single visit Australians made to their GP;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) tried to jack up the price of medicines of $5 for each and every script;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) cut $50 billion from hospitals;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) started six years of a Medicare rebate freeze; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(e) was voted the worst Health Minister in 40 years by the Australian Medical Association.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">(Notice given 12 September 2023.)</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Time allotted</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">remaining private Members' business time prior to 1.30 pm.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Ms J Ryan</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Other Members</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes each.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 8 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Items for Federation Chamber (4.45 pm to 7.30 pm)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">PRIVATE MEMBERS ' BUSINESS</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Notices — continued</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">5 DR SCAMPS: To move:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) notes that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) everyday Australians are experiencing a cost of living crisis; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the Government is investigating ways to respond to the United States of America's (US) Inflation Reduction Act, which is focused on demand-side solutions by the electrification of households, small businesses and transport; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) calls on the Government to urgently bring forward its plan for responding to the US Inflation Reduction Act, to rapidly decarbonise and to reduce cost of living pressures.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">(Notice given 12 September 2023.)</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Time allotted</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">20 minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Dr Scamps</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Other Members</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes each.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 4 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">6 DR ANANDA-RAJAH: To move:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) notes the clear message the Australian people sent in May 2022, demanding real action on climate change by electing the current Government;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) further notes the Government has not wasted a day by:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) increasing Australia's emission reduction targets from 26 per cent to 43 per cent;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) legislating to bring back the Climate Change Authority;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) putting net zero in the objects of the Clean Energy Finance Corporation and Australian Renewable Energy Agency Acts;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) legislating our $20 billion Rewiring the Nation Fund;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(e) taking substantial steps to create an offshore wind industry in Australia;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(f) agreeing to a sensible capacity investment scheme with the states;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(g) working with states and territories to put emissions reduction into the National Energy Objectives, and to develop a new National Energy Transformation Partnership;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(h) signing the Global Methane Pledge and joining the Climate Change Club and Global Offshore Wind Alliance;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) reforming the safeguard mechanism so that our biggest industrial emitters are doing their fair share;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(j) passing the electric vehicle discount, releasing the National Electric Vehicle Strategy and commencing the rollout of the Driving the Nation charging program;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(k) committing $1.7 billion to the Energy Savings program, providing real financial support to households, businesses, and local governments to invest in renewable energy and energy efficiency;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(l) signing funding agreements to deliver more than 50 community batteries around Australia;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(m) establishing the Net Zero Economy Agency to have a laser-like focus on the economic opportunities for the regions at the centre of the energy transformation; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(n) budgeting $2 billion to the vital Hydrogen Headstart Program; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) acknowledges that this is just another way the Government is working for Australia and delivering on the promise of building the better future Australians voted for.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">(Notice given 12 September 2023.)</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Time allotted</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">40 minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Dr Ananda-Rajah</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Other Members</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes each.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 8 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">7 MR L O'BRIEN: To move:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) notes that the supply, distribution and sale of illicit tobacco and vapes:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) is a significant source of revenue for organised crime and criminal gangs connected with the production of illicit drugs, illegal prostitution, supply of illegal firearms and other unlawful activities that cause harm to Australians;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) deprives the Australian people of approximately $400 million each year that would be directed toward the national health system;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) deprives lawful retailers of tobacco products of business; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) endangers lives, properties and communities, including the owners and staff of legitimate grocery stores that sell legal tobacco and vapes; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) calls on the Government to:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) properly empower, resource and fund the Illicit Tobacco Taskforce to disrupt the supply and distribution of illicit tobacco and vapes; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) legislate tough penalties to deter both the demand and supply of illicit tobacco and vapes.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">(Notice given 7 September 2023.)</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Time allotted</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">30 minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Mr L O'Brien</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Other Members</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes each.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 6 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">8 MS LAWRENCE: To move:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) acknowledges that the Government is working to relieve the cost of living pressure for Australians on low and fixed incomes, with around 5.5 million Australians receiving an increase to their income support payments and pensions on 20 September, as a result of:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) indexation; and/or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the boost to income support announced in the May budget as part of the $14.6 billion cost of living package; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) notes the changes include:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) increases to the rates of working-age and student payments, including:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) Jobseeker;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) Youth Allowance;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(iii) Austudy;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(iv) Parenting Payment Partnered;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(v) Youth Disability Support Pension; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(vi) ABSTUDY;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) expanded eligibility for the higher rate of Jobseeker to those aged 55 and over, who are on payment for nine continuous months or more (down from 60);</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) expanded eligibility for Parenting Payment Single, to single principal carers until their youngest child turns 14 (up from 8);</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) increases to the maximum rates of Commonwealth Rent Assistance, the highest in more than 30 years;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(e) indexation increases for recipients of the Age Pension, Disability Support Pension, Carer Payment and veterans on a service pension;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(f) indexation of the income limits for Commonwealth Seniors Health Card recipients; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(g) other supplementary payments including Telephone Allowance and Utilities Allowance are also being indexed.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">(Notice given 12 September 2023.)</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Time allotted</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">30 minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Ms Lawrence</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Other Members</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes each.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 6 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">The </inline> <inline font-style="italic">Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">9 MR PASIN: To move:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) notes that it is now over 130 days since the Government announced a 90-day review into the Infrastructure Investment Pipeline;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) recognises that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) investment in infrastructure is essential to reduce congestion, improve productivity and safety; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) delaying important infrastructure projects while we await the results of the 90-day review is holding back the productivity of our nation and putting much needed safety upgrades on hold;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) acknowledges that costs continue to rise and delays to the commencement of infrastructure projects as a result of the review will result in considerably higher costs than originally estimated; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) calls on the Government to complete the review process and unlock the infrastructure investment that our nation desperately needs.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">(Notice given 12 September 2023.)</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Time allotted</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">remaining private Members' business time prior to </inline> <inline font-style="italic">7.30 pm.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Mr Pasin</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Other Members</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes each.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 9 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">THE HON D. M. DICK MP</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Speaker of the House of Representatives</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">13 September 2023</para></quote>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>BILLS</title>
        <page.no>11</page.no>
        <type>BILLS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Treasury Laws Amendment (Support for Small Business and Charities and Other Measures) Bill 2023</title>
          <page.no>11</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r7081" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Treasury Laws Amendment (Support for Small Business and Charities and Other Measures) Bill 2023</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>First Reading</title>
            <page.no>11</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo></subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>11</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:16</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr JONES</name>
    <name.id>A9B</name.id>
    <electorate>Whitlam</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That this bill be now read a second time.</para></quote>
<para>The Treasury Laws Amendment (Support for Small Business and Charities and Other Measures) Bill 2023 delivers measures announced in the 2023-24 budget to ease pressure and boost resilience for small businesses, also reducing compliance costs, and encouraging philanthropic giving. The bill also extends the existing Global Infrastructure Hub income tax exemption and clarifies certain arrangements relating to superannuation and insurance.</para>
<para>The first two schedules of the bill are other demonstrations of the government's commitment to supporting small business.</para>
<para>Schedule 1 to the bill amends the Income Tax (Transitional Provisions) Act 1997 to increase the instant asset write-off threshold to $20,000 until 30 June 2024, to improve cash flow and reduce compliance costs for small businesses.</para>
<para>Under this measure, small businesses with aggregated annual turnover of less than $10 million will be able to immediately deduct eligible assets costing less than $20,000 from 1 July 2023 and until 30 June 2024.</para>
<para>The $20,000 threshold will apply on a per asset basis, so that small businesses can instantly write off multiple assets.</para>
<para>Assets costing $20,000 or more can be placed into the small business simplified depreciation pool and depreciated at 15 per cent in the first income year and 30 per cent each income year thereafter.</para>
<para>Schedule 2 to the bill amends the Income Tax (Transitional Provisions) Act 1997 to introduce the Small Business Energy Incentive to help small and medium businesses electrify and save on their energy bills.</para>
<para>Up to 3.8 million businesses with aggregated annual turnover of less than $50 million will have access to a bonus 20 per cent tax deduction for eligible assets supporting electrification and more efficient use of energy.</para>
<para>The new tax incentive applies from 1 July this year and until 30 June 2024. Up to $100,000 of total expenditure will be eligible for the incentive, with the maximum bonus tax deduction being $20,000.</para>
<para>The Small Business Energy Incentive will help small and medium businesses make investments like electrifying their heating and cooling systems, upgrading to more efficient fridges and installing batteries and heat pumps.</para>
<para>This incentive helps ensure these businesses share in the benefits and opportunities of the energy transition that's now underway. I thank the Minister for Small Business for bringing these measures forward.</para>
<para>Small businesses have a unique place in our economy and face unique challenges. With these two measures, the government is backing them in once again.</para>
<para>Schedule 3 to the bill provides a pathway for up to 28 community foundations to be endorsed by the Commissioner of Taxation as deductible gift recipients, subject to them complying with ministerial guidelines setting out the purposes for which they may use gifts. This will support foundations to undertake important work in their communities and contribute to the government's goal of doubling philanthropy by 2030. I thank the Assistant Minister for Competition, Charities and Treasury for his tireless work and advocacy in this area.</para>
<para>Schedule 4 to the bill amends the income tax law to specifically list the Justice Reform Initiative Limited and Transparency International Australia as deductible gift recipients, and extends the existing listing for the Australian Sports Foundation Charitable Fund and the Victorian Pride Centre Ltd. This encourages philanthropic giving and supports the not-for-profit sector as donors may claim income tax deductions for donations to organisations with DGR status.</para>
<para>Schedule 5 to the bill extends the Global Infrastructure Hub's (GI Hub) income tax exemption for an additional year, from its current expiry date of 30 June 2023 until 30 June 2024. The extension will ensure that all contributions and other income of the GI Hub received during the period from 1 July 2023 until 30 June 2024 will be exempt from income tax.</para>
<para>As the GI Hub is funded by contributions from G20 members, tax exempt status is granted to avoid subjecting these payments to income tax. This one-year extension will cover the GI Hub while it utilises current funding from G20 members.</para>
<para>Schedule 6 to the bill amends the income tax law with respect to general insurance to maintain broad alignment between accounting and tax. This avoids the income tax compliance burden on the general insurance industry that would be caused by the misalignment between the new accounting standard and existing tax requirements.</para>
<para>Schedule 7 to the bill replaces the current non-arm's length expense rules for superannuation entities. The measure introduces new arrangements for general expenses and better targets the application of these provisions. This will address the potential for very disproportionate outcomes while at the same time maintaining the broader integrity of the superannuation tax system.</para>
<para>Finally, schedule 8 to the bill clarifies that the Australian Financial Complaints Authority has jurisdiction to consider complaints that 'relate to superannuation'. This measure is important and necessary in reversing the effect of the Federal Court's decision in <inline font-style="italic">MetLife v AFCA </inline>[2022] FCAFC 173 and will provide consumers with greater access to external dispute resolution.</para>
<para>Full details of all of the measures are contained in the explanatory memorandum.</para>
<para>Debate adjourned.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>NOTICES</title>
        <page.no>12</page.no>
        <type>NOTICES</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Postponement</title>
          <page.no>12</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:24</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms ROWLAND</name>
    <name.id>159771</name.id>
    <electorate>Greenway</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That notices Nos 2 and 3 be postponed until a later hour.</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>BILLS</title>
        <page.no>12</page.no>
        <type>BILLS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Interactive Gambling Amendment (Credit and Other Measures) Bill 2023</title>
          <page.no>12</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r7080" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Interactive Gambling Amendment (Credit and Other Measures) Bill 2023</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>First Reading</title>
            <page.no>12</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo></subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>12</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:25</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms ROWLAND</name>
    <name.id>159771</name.id>
    <electorate>Greenway</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That this bill be now read a second time.</para></quote>
<para>The Interactive Gambling Amendment (Credit and Other Measures) Bill 2023 (the bill) will amend the Interactive Gambling Act 2001(the act) to ban the use of credit cards and credit related products for online wagering—to create a safer environment for Australians at risk of gambling harm.</para>
<para>In April 2023, the government committed to introduce legislation to ban the use of credit cards for online wagering by the end of this year. This bill delivers on this promise.</para>
<para>Australia has the highest gambling losses per adult, with a total of $25 billion in losses per annum. Online gambling is growing in Australia due to easier and faster access through mobile devices and a proliferation of online gambling applications.</para>
<para>A ban on the use of credit cards and credit related products for online wagering will have the immediate and effective impact of stopping people from gambling with money they do not have.</para>
<para>There is clear support for a ban on the use of credit for online wagering. Research released by the banking peak body, the Australian Banking Association, has found that over 80 per cent of Australians believe gambling with credit cards should be restricted or banned. This bill will mean you can't use credit for online wagering—which is consistent with land based gambling regulations which ban the use of credit in TAB outlets, casinos and poker machine venues.</para>
<para>The bill will prohibit the use of credit cards for Australian licensed interactive wagering services, and the use of credit cards linked to a digital wallet or e-wallet such as Apple Pay and Google Pay.</para>
<para>The bill will also prohibit the use of digital currencies as a payment method for interactive wagering services. This mitigates the risk that individuals could purchase cryptocurrency using a credit card and then use these funds to bet online. As a way of 'future proofing' these protections, the bill will allow the responsible minister by legislative instrument to proscribe new credit payment products that might be used to circumvent the ban as they emerge.</para>
<para>The bill will also expand the Australian Communications and Media Authority's compliance and enforcement powers by providing ACMA with the ability to receive enforceable undertakings and issue remedial directions in respect of the civil penalty provisions under the act. This provides ACMA with the means to enforce undertakings—for example, when an entity commits to appoint an independent auditor to review its systems and procedures—and provide recommendations for improvement.</para>
<para>Penalties of up to $234,750 may apply for any breach of the new provisions.</para>
<para>There will be a six-month transition period from the date of royal assent to give industry time to change business practices and for people to change their betting behaviour.</para>
<para>The bill implements recommendations from the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services from November 2021, which called on the government to ban online gambling service providers from accepting payment by credit cards, including digital wallets.</para>
<para>Consistent with the inquiry's recommendations, which found that lotteries present a lower risk of gambling harm, the bill does not apply to lotteries, including the activities of not-for-profits, charities and newsagents.</para>
<para>The bill requires a review after two years from commencement to assess the effectiveness of the new provisions. A report of the review must be tabled in both houses of the parliament.</para>
<para>Consultation on this bill was undertaken with a wide range of stakeholders, including harm-reduction advocates, wagering and lottery providers, and banking and payment organisations. I would like to take the opportunity to thank these stakeholders for their contributions and support for this bill.</para>
<para>This bill aligns with the government's broader commitment to minimising gambling harms.</para>
<para>The government recently launched BetStop—the National Self-exclusion Register for online wagering, which allows people to self-exclude from all telephone and online gambling for three months up to a lifetime. The register is the final measure of the National Consumer Protection Framework for online wagering. Other measures recently implemented include:</para>
<list>since March 2023—the introduction of seven new evidence-based advertising taglines to replace the old 'gamble responsibly' wording;</list>
<list>a requirement for monthly activity statements to provide consumers with meaningful statements of their online wagering activity; and</list>
<list>introducing nationwide staff training to give staff tools to assist a consumer when they are identified as potentially experiencing harm from gambling.</list>
<para>We are also working with state and territory governments to update the classification rules for online and video games to protect children from exposure to simulated gambling.</para>
<para>The government is currently considering the comprehensive recommendations handed down by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs inquiry into online gambling and its impacts on those experiencing gambling harm.</para>
<para>We look forward to working with stakeholders to inform the government response to these recommendations and implement further actions to reduce gambling harms in Australia. I commend the bill.</para>
<para>Debate adjourned.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Identity Verification Services Bill 2023</title>
          <page.no>13</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r7085" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Identity Verification Services Bill 2023</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>First Reading</title>
            <page.no>13</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo></subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>13</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:32</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr DREYFUS</name>
    <name.id>HWG</name.id>
    <electorate>Isaacs</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That this bill be now read a second time.</para></quote>
<para>Secure and efficient identity verification that protects the privacy of Australians is vital to the digital economy. It ensures Australians can access the services they need without exposing them to identity crime.</para>
<para>Identity verification services, such as the Document Verification Service and Face Verification Service, are the only national capability that can be used by industry and government to securely verify the identity of their customers.</para>
<para>These automated services are provided by the Commonwealth and are used every day by government and industry to verify the personal information on a passport, drivers licence, birth certificate or other government issued credential.</para>
<para>In 2022 alone, the Document Verification Service was used over 140 million times by approximately 2,700 government agencies and industry organisations. In the 2022-23 financial year, there were approximately 2.6 million Face Verification Services transactions.</para>
<para>Today, there are more than 11.3 million myGovID accounts that people can use to authenticate their identity for government websites and services. All of these were created using the Document Verification Service, and one-third were verified using the Face Verification Service, which provides access to Centrelink, the Australian tax office and other critical services.</para>
<para>The significance of identity verification services to our day-to-day lives will continue to grow as technology advances and the uptake of digital IDs increases.</para>
<para>Legislative authority for identity verification services</para>
<para>The government is committed to supporting the effective ongoing operation of identity verification services, and ensuring they provide appropriate privacy protections and security safeguards.</para>
<para>The Identity Verification Services Bill 2023 will provide clear legislative authority to ensure the continued operation of identity verification services. It will limit the purposes for which requests can be made using the services, providing increased certainty and transparency for Australians about how the services can be used.</para>
<para>The bill will authorise 1:1 matching of identity through identity verification services. This means that an individual's identity can be verified through particular biometric information such as a photograph or biographic information being matched with an existing government record.</para>
<para>The bill will only authorise the use of 1:1 matching by public and private sector entities with consent of the relevant individual. This process will be enabled by the Document Verification Services and the Face Verification Services.</para>
<para>The National Driver Licence Facial Recognition Solution will also facilitate 1:1 matching identity services. This will enable the Face Verification Service to conduct 1:1 matching against driver licences and ensure more Australians can create digital IDs.</para>
<para>The bill will only authorise 1:many matching for a very limited purpose. The matching of identity through a 1:many service allows a facial image like a photograph to be matched against other facial images. The bill will authorise 1:many matching through the Face Identification Service for the very confined purpose of protecting the identity of persons with a legally assumed identity, such as undercover officers and protected witnesses. There is substantial public interest in allowing 1:many matching to be undertaken in these circumstances given the risks to such persons if their true identity is not appropriately protected.</para>
<para>All other uses of 1:many matching through identity verification services will be prohibited. Let me be clear—1:many matching will not be able to be conducted through identity verification services for law enforcement, intelligence gathering or community protection.</para>
<para>Privacy safeguards</para>
<para>The government will ensure identity verification services are subject to robust privacy safeguards. This will give the Australian community confidence that the government is protecting their personal information.</para>
<para>The bill requires organisations who make requests through identity verification services to be subject to the Privacy Act 1988 or a state or territory privacy law. Alternatively, they must agree to be bound by the Australian Privacy Principles. Privacy impact assessments must be undertaken.</para>
<para>Where requests are made for the purpose of verifying a person's identity, that person's consent will be required. This must be informed consent, and the requesting agency or organisation will need to provide extensive information about, among other things:</para>
<list>how identity information will be used, retained and disposed of;</list>
<list>what rights the person has in relation to the collection of information;</list>
<list>the consequences of the person declining to consent;</list>
<list>where the person can get information about making complaints, and</list>
<list>where the person can get information about the operation and management of the approved identification verification facilities.</list>
<para>The bill will also require requesting agencies or organisations to have appropriate complaint-handling processes, and data breaches must be reported. The Notifiable Data Breach Scheme under the Privacy Act 1988and similar state and territory schemes will apply.</para>
<para>These protections will be implemented through participation agreements between the department and the requesting agencies or organisations, which can be suspended or terminated if terms are breached. These participation agreements will be made public, to ensure transparency.</para>
<para>Security and protection of information</para>
<para>The bill authorises the department to develop, operate and maintain identity verification facilities, and places a number of important obligations on the department to protect the privacy of individuals.</para>
<para>The department must:</para>
<list>use encryption and do anything else necessary to maintain the security of electronic communications for identity verification services, and information in the National Driver Licence Facial Recognition Service, and</list>
<list>protect information from unauthorised interference or unauthorised access.</list>
<para>The bill further protects the personal information of Australians by:</para>
<list>limiting the purposes for which such information may be collected, used or disclosed, and</list>
<list>including an offence to prevent unauthorised recording, disclosure, or access to information by departmental officers.</list>
<para>Transparency</para>
<para>The bill contains a number of additional transparency, accountability and oversight measures to ensure privacy standards are upheld. These include:</para>
<list>the requirement to publish participation agreements, access policies and other relevant documents;</list>
<list>provision for entrusted persons to disclose protected information to the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security or the Commonwealth Ombudsman, to assist either agency to exercise their oversight functions;</list>
<list>mandatory annual assessments by the Information Commissioner of the operation and management of identity verification services; and</list>
<list>annual reporting requirements, including providing information about data breaches and security incidents, and the accuracy of facial recognition systems.</list>
<para>A statutory review of the bill will be required within two years of the commencement of the bill.</para>
<para>Conclusion</para>
<para>In conclusion, this bill will ensure the continued use of strong and secure identity verification, enhancing the privacy of Australians.</para>
<para>The bill meets public expectations that identity verification services have extensive privacy safeguards and effective oversight and transparency requirements.</para>
<para>The bill enables Australians to conveniently and securely engage with the digital economy and access critical services while minimising the risk of identity fraud and theft.</para>
<para>I commend this bill to the House.</para>
<para>Debate adjourned.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Identity Verification Services (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2023</title>
          <page.no>15</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r7088" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Identity Verification Services (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2023</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>First Reading</title>
            <page.no>15</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo></subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>15</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:41</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr DREYFUS</name>
    <name.id>HWG</name.id>
    <electorate>Isaacs</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That this bill be now read a second time.</para></quote>
<para>Information from Australian travel documents is an essential part of the identity verification services.</para>
<para>The Identity Verification Services (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2023 will amend the Australian Passports Act 2005to allow for automated disclosures of personal information to a specified person via the document verification service or the face verification service.</para>
<para>This authorises the operation of the document verification service and face verification service in relation to Australian travel documents regulated by the Australian Passports Act.</para>
<para>I commend the bill to the House.</para>
<para>Debate adjourned.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Public Health (Tobacco and Other Products) Bill 2023</title>
          <page.no>16</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r7083" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Public Health (Tobacco and Other Products) Bill 2023</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>First Reading</title>
            <page.no>16</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo></subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>16</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:44</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BUTLER</name>
    <name.id>HWK</name.id>
    <electorate>Hindmarsh</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That this bill be now read a second time.</para></quote>
<para>Today I am introducing the Public Health (Tobacco and Other Products) Bill 2023.</para>
<para>This bill builds on the pioneering tobacco control reforms introduced by past Labor governments, including Australia's world-leading tobacco plain-packaging reforms.</para>
<para>It's an honour to stand here today to build on the legacy of my predecessor Nicola Roxon. Tobacco plain packaging was bold policy achieved in the face of some often savage legal and rhetorical assault. It was imaginative policy. And it was world-leading policy. We know that because 26 countries since then have followed Australia's example. It's a policy that has saved lives and will continue to save lives, not just here in Australia but around the world.</para>
<para>When my predecessor the Hon. Nicola Roxon introduced plain packaging, around 16 per cent of Australians smoked on a daily basis. Today that rate is down to just 11 per cent—the equivalent of one million fewer Australians smoking.</para>
<para>The health impacts of that are just enormous. These reforms will mean tens of thousands of families will never have to struggle through the tragedy of seeing a loved one suffer with lung cancer and the vast range of other diseases caused by smoking. Hopefully, countless lives will be saved.</para>
<para>But the gains of those world-leading reforms have been squandered. We were a world leader in 2011. We're a laggard today.</para>
<para>Tobacco use remains the leading cause of preventable death and disability among Australians. It's estimated to kill more than 20,000 Australians each year. It's also the risk factor that is the greatest contributor to the health gap between First Nations Australians and others.</para>
<para>While Australia's plain packaging measures have made it harder for the tobacco industry to promote its products via packaging and brand design features, big tobacco has found new loopholes to promote its products and to increase their appeal, particularly to young people.</para>
<para>It again falls to a Labor government to close the loopholes that undermine our tobacco control measures and to shield Australians against the tricks and tactics of the tobacco industry.</para>
<para>The tobacco regulations that were put in place by the Labor government in 2011 sunset on 1 April 2024. As such, the current suite of regulations for plain packaging and tobacco advertising will lapse unless we take action now.</para>
<para>Australia's Commonwealth tobacco control framework, including the Tobacco Advertising Prohibition Act, the Tobacco Plain Packaging Act and their associated regulations, have been the subject of a long thematic review.</para>
<para>The thematic review involved a comprehensive analysis of options to modernise the existing legislative framework for tobacco control, ensuring it remains fit for purpose, addresses current gaps and limitations, and assists with tackling future challenges in tobacco control.</para>
<para>This includes identifying options to enable Australian laws to keep up with the changing tobacco and technological environment, to address challenges such as novel and emerging products and marketing strategies.</para>
<para>Feedback from two broad consultations undertaken in 2019 under the former government established that there is a need for ongoing regulation to achieve the government's objectives with respect to tobacco control, and that regulatory improvements are essential. To this end, on 30 November 2022, our government announced a suite of reforms (in the form of this bill and proposed regulations) to bring together current legislation and introduce new measures to reduce tobacco prevalence, with a particular focus on youth and young adults.</para>
<para>Public consultation, including the release of an exposure draft of the proposed reforms for six weeks, from 31 May to mid-July this year, has informed the content of this bill. These reforms represent a renewed focus on improving the public health of Australians by discouraging smoking and the use of tobacco products, while also being in lock step with the vaping measures that I announced in May.</para>
<para>This bill consolidates the existing Commonwealth tobacco control framework into one act, with associated regulations, thereby streamlining the operation of the laws. It modernises and simplifies the existing provisions and introduces new measures to discourage smoking and prevent the promotion of vaping and e-cigarettes.</para>
<para>The bill reflects the Australian government's ongoing commitment to improving the health of all Australians by reducing the prevalence of tobacco use and its associated health, social and environmental costs, and the inequalities that it clearly causes.</para>
<para>This commitment is consistent with Australia's obligations as a party to the World Health Organization Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, the FCTC, the international treaty which aims to protect present and future generations from the harms of tobacco use and exposure to tobacco smoke. These reforms also reflect the best available evidence and the experience of other international regulators, such as Canada, New Zealand and Uruguay.</para>
<para>The bill will complement the National Tobacco Strategy 2023-2030, which aims to achieve a national daily smoking prevalence of less than 10 per cent by 2025 and less than five per cent by 2030, and prioritises tackling smoking in First Nations communities to reduce the daily smoking rate to 27 per cent or less by the end of this decade.</para>
<para>Without further action by governments, current settings and tobacco control measures are unlikely to achieve those targets.</para>
<para>Among other things, this bill will provide for:</para>
<list>expanded advertising prohibitions to reduce the public's exposure to the advertising and promotion of e-cigarettes and other novel and emerging products, particularly in youth and young adults;</list>
<list>the continuation of plain packaging requirements with additional prescription in the regulations for measures to enhance the regime such as standardising tobacco product size of packs and pouches and cigarette stick sizes;</list>
<list>restrictions on the use of brand and variant names that falsely imply reduced harm;</list>
<list>the mandatory disclosure of sales volume and pricing data and advertising, promotion and sponsorship expenditure;</list>
<list>improved coverage, enforcement and compliance for tobacco control.</list>
<para>The bill will allow the introduction of regulations to provide for, among other things:</para>
<list>updated and improved health warnings on tobacco product packaging to better inform consumers about the effects of tobacco use;</list>
<list>stronger regulation of product features that are known to make tobacco products more attractive to consumers, including prohibiting devices in tobacco products such as crush balls and flavour beads;</list>
<list>restrictions on the use of ingredients or additives that enhance the attractiveness and palatability of tobacco products;</list>
<list>health promotion inserts that encourage and empower people who smoke to quit smoking; and</list>
<list>dissuasive measures on factory-made cigarettes to help increase knowledge of health harms of smoking and reduce the appeal of smoking.</list>
<para>The powers provided in the bill to make new regulations will allow the government to be responsive to any new approaches introduced by the tobacco industry to promote smoking and to ensure that policies can continue to be informed by best practice and emerging evidence.</para>
<para>The main objective of these reforms is to reduce the daily smoking prevalence by discouraging uptake among people who do not smoke and increasing cessation among people who do smoke.</para>
<para>Additional objectives include ensuring that Australia's tobacco control regulatory framework aligns with international best practice and that Australia meets its international obligations.</para>
<para>Globally, we have seen the momentum on tobacco control continue, with more than 20 countries implementing plain packaging in the years since Australia led the way.</para>
<para>At the same time, we have seen international regulators build on Australia's model for plain packaging through the introduction of standardised cigarette pack sizes and products, and regulation of product design features. We have worked closely with these countries to ensure that we learn from their experience and create strong legislation that is effective and appropriate to the Australian context.</para>
<para>This government is determined to see Australia reclaim its position as a world leader on tobacco control because, quite frankly, lives are at stake. Disadvantaged Australians are paying the price for big tobacco's profits.</para>
<para>The bill also allows Australia to be agile and adaptable, via the regulations, to the ever-changing landscape that is tobacco control.</para>
<para>This ensures that Australia is well placed to apply new policies and adjust controls to further reduce smoking prevalence and address new and novel challenges in the tobacco market.</para>
<para>Although these reforms seek to regulate advertising and promotion of e-cigarettes, they do not address the broader regulation of e-cigarette availability and supply. This will be regulated separately.</para>
<para>The government has committed to introducing new controls on e-cigarette importation, contents and packaging and is working with states and territories to address the black market for e-cigarettes through the therapeutic goods framework and stronger border measures.</para>
<para>This bill signals the dedication of government to reignite the fight against tobacco and eliminate the health, social and environmental inequalities caused by smoking and nicotine addiction.</para>
<para>It provides the foundations for the successful implementation of a number of policies and activities, as outlined in the National Tobacco Strategy, to improve the health of all Australians.</para>
<para>I conclude by saying again that the government are determined to do all that we can to tackle the harms caused by smoking.</para>
<para>I would like to thank those organisations who continue to drive further tobacco control reform in Australia. We want to ensure that, in the future, people don't take up smoking in the first place.</para>
<para>Make no mistake, just as with Labor's world leading plain-packaging reforms, these reforms may be hard fought. We wouldn't be doing our job if they weren't.</para>
<para>The tobacco industry continues to have deep pockets and powerful friends.</para>
<para>This government is up for the fight because we fight on behalf of the most vulnerable and disadvantaged in our society, who bear the brunt of these tobacco company profits.</para>
<para>We're going to bring the same spirit of courage, spirit of action, the same clarity of thought, and I hope the same conviction that Nicola Roxon brought to plain packaging reforms 12 years ago, and we're going to reaffirm Australia's reputation as a world leader in tobacco control.</para>
<para>I commend the bill to the House.</para>
<para>Debate adjourned.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Public Health (Tobacco and Other Products) (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2023</title>
          <page.no>18</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r7084" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Public Health (Tobacco and Other Products) (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2023</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>First Reading</title>
            <page.no>18</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo></subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>18</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:56</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BUTLER</name>
    <name.id>HWK</name.id>
    <electorate>Hindmarsh</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That this bill be now read a second time.</para></quote>
<para>The Public Health (Tobacco and Other Products) (Consequential and Transitional) Bill 2023 contains consequential amendments and transitional provisions which are required to give effect to the consolidation of the tobacco control legislation in the Public Health (Tobacco and Other Products) Bill 2023.</para>
<para>This bill contains a number of amendments to existing acts that are required as a consequence of changes to current references to legislation.</para>
<para>The bill also sets out the timing of transition to the new requirements.</para>
<para>While the Public Health (Tobacco and Other Products) Bill 2023 consolidates and improves on the existing tobacco framework into one bill with associated regulation, thereby streamlining the operation of the laws, this bill facilitates the transition to the new regime.</para>
<para>The bill repeals a number of instruments, including the Tobacco Plain Packaging Act 2011 and the Tobacco Advertising and Prohibition Act 1992 as a result of their consolidation in the main bill. It also makes consequential amendments to other acts to update references to the new legislation.</para>
<para>The bill provides application, saving and transitional provisions to allow a smooth transition to the new requirements, including the ability to comply with either the new or old regime during the main transitional period.</para>
<para>It provides for a main transitional period of 12 months along with a retailer transition period of a further three months to allow for sell-through of stock.</para>
<para>In conclusion, this bill supports the main bill in modernising, simplifying and consolidating our efforts in tobacco control.</para>
<para>I commend the bill to the House.</para>
<para>Debate adjourned.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>COMMITTEES</title>
        <page.no>19</page.no>
        <type>COMMITTEES</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Public Accounts and Audit Joint Committee</title>
          <page.no>19</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Report</title>
            <page.no>19</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:58</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr HILL</name>
    <name.id>86256</name.id>
    <electorate>Bruce</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>On behalf of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit I present the committee's report, incorporating a dissenting report, entitled <inline font-style="italic">Report 500: Inquiry into procurement at Services Australia and the NDIA</inline><inline font-style="italic">:</inline><inline font-style="italic"> Interim report</inline>.</para>
<para>Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e).</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr HILL</name>
    <name.id>86256</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—This inquiry is examining procurement issues at Services Australia and the NDIA relating to consulting firm Synergy 360 and the former minister the Hon. Stuart Robert. While the Watt report examined some of these issues, its scope was limited and related solely to the conduct of Australian Public Service staff. Ongoing investigations by Services Australia relate to Synergy 360 and Infosys; they're both similarly limited. The committee's inquiry here complements the Watt review by examining the conduct of all parties involved in the relevant procurements, including ministers, lobbyists, consultants and vendors.</para>
<para>Concerning evidence has been received by the committee regarding serious allegations and questions about financial impropriety, improper relationships and undisclosed conflicts of interest, with parties receiving contracts from the Commonwealth. Some matters raised in the allegations were established in public hearings and corroborated by other evidence, although many remain unresolved.</para>
<para>Previously undisclosed meetings were revealed through the inquiry between former minister Stuart Robert, Synergy 360 and Infosys, including during a tender process when Infosys was being performance-managed by Services Australia. There is no evidence of probity advisers or public servants being present at 11 meetings, no contemporaneous notes or records of what was discussed made available, no apparent declaration of any conflicts of interest being made and no evidence that other bidders in this tender process, unrelated to Synergy 360, were afforded similar treatment or access. These matters are of concern and may be considered further in the committee's final report.</para>
<para>Rebutting these allegations, Mr Robert; his longtime friend, business partner and political fundraiser Mr John Margerison; Synergy 360 principal Mr David Milo and others strongly deny any improper conduct. The committee has not been provided with direct evidence of financial liabilities owed or payments occurring from Synergy 360 to the Australian Property Trust or other entities to the benefit of Mr Robert. Efforts in this direction have been frustrated, though, as, despite multiple requests be made for documents, witnesses have refused to date to respond to questions in full or provide documents, and Mr Margerison claims to have left Australia. His whereabouts remain unknown to the committee, and no evidence has been provided to support his claim.</para>
<para>The evidence before this inquiry in relation to these issues, therefore, is both directly conflicting and mutually incompatible. In these circumstances the committee is not able, given the resources available to it, including the lack of forensic accounting expertise, to make clear findings in relation to the truth or otherwise of the allegations raised. The committee therefore considers that, in light of the serious and systemic nature of the allegations, an agency with compulsory questioning, document-gathering and investigatory powers should take up the matter so that these questions may be properly assessed.</para>
<para>A referral to the National Anti-Corruption Commission, the NACC, by a parliamentary committee should never be made lightly and certainly is not done so here. In these circumstances, however, there appears to be no other appropriate course of action. The report recommends that the NACC examine all of the evidence gathered by the JCPAA to date to inform its decision on whether a fuller investigation of the matter is warranted to establish the substance of these claims.</para>
<para>Through the inquiry, questions have also arisen regarding the nature of the committee's statutory powers under sections 13 to 15 of the Public Accounts and Audit Committee Act 1951. The committee therefore recommends that the Speaker approve the commissioning of legal advice which can guide this and future committees where necessary, including but not limited to situations where a person claims to be resident overseas. There are a range of complexities around the operation of parliamentary privilege, the issuing of summons, the operation of the warrant provisions and so on. It seems best that we seek advice because it's rightly beyond the scope of what the Department of the Senate, who provide procedural advice to the committee, are able to provide. The Speaker has budget approval, hence the need to consider both houses.</para>
<para>The committee acknowledges in this interim report the difficult personal circumstances that sit alongside this inquiry, and the committee has studiously avoided referring to or publishing matters relating to family court proceedings or the private information of witnesses. Given the high public interest in these matters, some have sought to conflate the committee's proper acquittal of its responsibilities with politics; however, accusations of partisanship are unfair and unfounded. Throughout this inquiry, the committee has sought procedural advice on sometimes complex questions and has always sought to act in the public interest.</para>
<para>I acknowledge also that, as is their right, the opposition members have chosen to provide additional comments—technically a dissenting report. That is their right; that's appended to the report, and I've just read it now. I have to say that, while it is their right to provide these comments, it really is quite silly and confused. They say in their additional comments in the dissenting report:</para>
<quote><para class="block">… it is not the role of the Committee to request that the NACC conduct an investigation …</para></quote>
<para>That is absolutely right—I 100 per cent agree. As the report acknowledges, the report is not asking that the NACC conduct an investigation. The report recommends that the NACC simply 'examine material gathered' through an inquiry to 'determine whether or not to conduct an inquiry'. I'll quote, nevertheless, from paragraph 1.9, where the opposition comments say that the committee 'seeks to direct the NACC'. Paragraph 1.22 refers to 'Labor's direction to the NACC'. I say again, very clearly: that is nonsense. The committee's report and recommendations do no such thing. As they say, people are entitled to their own opinion but not to their own facts.</para>
<para>The opposition also refers to 'the independent auditor's report'. I have no idea what they're referring to. They may be referring to the two independent inquiries which are underway by Services Australia into Synergy 360 related matters and another into the Infosys procurement, including forensic accounting, as the CEO of Services Australia confirmed again to the committee on Friday. The dissenting report spends some paragraphs talking about the Watt review. The House has heard before, in question time and other forums, that the Watt review was led and handed down by Dr Ian Watt AC, the former secretary of the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet and the former secretary of the Department of Finance and one of Australia's pre-eminent impartial public servants. But, as I said, the Watt review was limited in scope to the conduct and actions of Australian public servants. As Dr Watt told the committee—and as the CEO of Services Australia and the CEO of NDIA have all confirmed—the Watt review could not and did not consider the actions of ministers, lobbyists, vendors, consultants or their agents. Yet the opposition say 'there were no examples of clear misconduct' found in the Watt review, as if that cures the matter. Yes, but there were misconduct issues being considered further—I'm not going to speak for the agency. The second point is that there were five procurements of ongoing interest and two ongoing inquiries, as I mentioned. The third issue is the scope of the Watt report.</para>
<para>Let's be clear. What's really going on is the coalition, as you can see from the additional comments, is split on what to do about this scandal and former minister Stuart Robert. The committee's report is incredibly careful not to prejudge or express a conclusion or a finding on the veracity or otherwise of the allegations made, but we cannot just ignore the evidence which has been provided. Frankly, the additional comments are a whole lot of tortured words in search of a purpose but strangely silent on many issues. They don't talk about the fact that key witnesses have refused to provide documents or answer questions in full or claim to have left the country. They have absolutely nothing to say on the 11 secret meetings between the former minister and Infosys, including when Infosys was in a competitive tender process and including when Infosys was being performance managed by the department for a contract. As the CEO of Services Australia made clear on Friday in a public hearing, Services Australia knew nothing about those meetings, at which there were no probity advisers and no public servants present. The opposition may wish to comment on those matters. When you raise them, you get one of two responses. They either play statues—remember that primary school game where you stare straight head with no expression?—or play with their phones. They're the two responses we get.</para>
<para>I'll finish with just a couple of quotes. I'll quote the opposition leader, Peter Dutton. On 28 June, Phil Coorey in the <inline font-style="italic">Fin Review</inline> reported that Mr Dutton would not stand in the way of a referral to the NACC. Mr Dutton said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">If there is evidence that people believe they have, it should be referred for independent investigation, so we would support that process.</para></quote>
<para>Here we are. That's exactly what the committee is doing. Yet the opposition members are all over the shop with this tortured set of additional comments that contradict what the opposition leader said. We've considered this through a proper process in the public interest, and I stand by the committee's process. The coalition know perfectly well that it is appropriate in these circumstances that a committee refer evidence it has received to the NACC, including, I might note, public evidence and in camera evidence and testimony, which I can't go into for obvious reasons. That is in no way seeking to direct the NACC.</para>
<para>I thank the committee secretariat for their professionalism throughout this inquiry. As I said, it's raised a range of difficult issues, and they've conducted themselves with impartiality and professionalism at every step. So I thank them for that, and I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That the House take note of the report.</para></quote>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>74046</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>In accordance with standing order 39, the debate is adjourned. The resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>BILLS</title>
        <page.no>21</page.no>
        <type>BILLS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Royal Commissions Amendment (Private Sessions) Bill 2023</title>
          <page.no>21</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r7073" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Royal Commissions Amendment (Private Sessions) Bill 2023</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Report from Federation Chamber</title>
            <page.no>21</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo></subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Third Reading</title>
            <page.no>21</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:12</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr DREYFUS</name>
    <name.id>HWG</name.id>
    <electorate>Isaacs</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That this bill be now read a third time.</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
<para>Bill read a third time.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Statutory Declarations Amendment Bill 2023</title>
          <page.no>21</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r7074" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Statutory Declarations Amendment Bill 2023</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Report from Federation Chamber</title>
            <page.no>21</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:13</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The question is that the amendment moved by the honourable member for Bradfield be agreed to.</para>
<para> </para>
</speech>
<division>
            <division.header>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionPreamble">The House divided. [10:17] <br />(The Speaker—Hon. Milton Dick) </p>
              </body>
            </division.header>
            <division.data>
              <ayes>
                <num.votes>54</num.votes>
                <title>AYES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Andrews, K. L.</name>
                  <name>Archer, B. K.</name>
                  <name>Bell, A. M.</name>
                  <name>Birrell, S. J.</name>
                  <name>Boyce, C. E.</name>
                  <name>Broadbent, R. E.</name>
                  <name>Caldwell, C. M.</name>
                  <name>Chester, D. J.</name>
                  <name>Coleman, D. B.</name>
                  <name>Conaghan, P. J.</name>
                  <name>Coulton, M. M. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Dutton, P. C.</name>
                  <name>Entsch, W. G.</name>
                  <name>Fletcher, P. W.</name>
                  <name>Gillespie, D. A.</name>
                  <name>Goodenough, I. R. </name>
                  <name>Hamilton, G. R.</name>
                  <name>Hastie, A. W.</name>
                  <name>Hawke, A. G.</name>
                  <name>Hogan, K. J.</name>
                  <name>Joyce, B. T. G.</name>
                  <name>Landry, M. L.</name>
                  <name>Leeser, J.</name>
                  <name>Ley, S. P.</name>
                  <name>Littleproud, D.</name>
                  <name>Marino, N. B.</name>
                  <name>McCormack, M. F.</name>
                  <name>McIntosh, M. I.</name>
                  <name>McKenzie, Z. A.</name>
                  <name>Morrison, S. J.</name>
                  <name>O'Brien, E. L.</name>
                  <name>O'Brien, L. S.</name>
                  <name>Pasin, A.</name>
                  <name>Pearce, G. B.</name>
                  <name>Pike, H. J.</name>
                  <name>Pitt, K. J.</name>
                  <name>Price, M. L.</name>
                  <name>Ramsey, R. E. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Scamps, S. A.</name>
                  <name>Stevens, J.</name>
                  <name>Sukkar, M. S.</name>
                  <name>Taylor, A. J.</name>
                  <name>Tehan, D. T.</name>
                  <name>Tink, K. J.</name>
                  <name>van Manen, A. J.</name>
                  <name>Vasta, R. X.</name>
                  <name>Violi, A. A.</name>
                  <name>Ware, J. L.</name>
                  <name>Webster, A. E.</name>
                  <name>Willcox, A. J.</name>
                  <name>Wilson, R. J.</name>
                  <name>Wolahan, K.</name>
                  <name>Wood, J. P.</name>
                  <name>Young, T. J.</name>
                </names>
              </ayes>
              <noes>
                <num.votes>85</num.votes>
                <title>NOES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Albanese, A. N.</name>
                  <name>Aly, A.</name>
                  <name>Ananda-Rajah, M.</name>
                  <name>Bandt, A. P.</name>
                  <name>Bates, S. J.</name>
                  <name>Bowen, C. E.</name>
                  <name>Burke, A. S.</name>
                  <name>Burnell, M. P.</name>
                  <name>Burney, L. J.</name>
                  <name>Burns, J.</name>
                  <name>Butler, M. C.</name>
                  <name>Byrnes, A. J.</name>
                  <name>Chalmers, J. E.</name>
                  <name>Chandler-Mather, M.</name>
                  <name>Chaney, K. E.</name>
                  <name>Charlton, A. H. G.</name>
                  <name>Chesters, L. M.</name>
                  <name>Clare, J. D.</name>
                  <name>Claydon, S. C.</name>
                  <name>Coker, E. A.</name>
                  <name>Collins, J. M.</name>
                  <name>Conroy, P. M.</name>
                  <name>Daniel, Z.</name>
                  <name>Doyle, M. J. J.</name>
                  <name>Dreyfus, M. A.</name>
                  <name>Elliot, M. J.</name>
                  <name>Fernando, C.</name>
                  <name>Freelander, M. R.</name>
                  <name>Garland, C. M. L.</name>
                  <name>Georganas, S.</name>
                  <name>Giles, A. J.</name>
                  <name>Gorman, P.</name>
                  <name>Gosling, L. J.</name>
                  <name>Haines, H. M.</name>
                  <name>Hill, J. C.</name>
                  <name>Husic, E. N.</name>
                  <name>Jones, S. P.</name>
                  <name>Kearney, G. M.</name>
                  <name>Keogh, M. J.</name>
                  <name>Khalil, P.</name>
                  <name>King, C. F.</name>
                  <name>King, M. M. H.</name>
                  <name>Lawrence, T. N.</name>
                  <name>Laxale, J. A. A.</name>
                  <name>Le, D.</name>
                  <name>Leigh, A. K.</name>
                  <name>Lim, S. B. C.</name>
                  <name>Marles, R. D.</name>
                  <name>Mascarenhas, Z. F. A.</name>
                  <name>McBain, K. L.</name>
                  <name>McBride, E. M.</name>
                  <name>Miller-Frost, L. J.</name>
                  <name>Mitchell, R. G.</name>
                  <name>Mulino, D.</name>
                  <name>Neumann, S. K.</name>
                  <name>O'Connor, B. P. J.</name>
                  <name>O'Neil, C. E.</name>
                  <name>Payne, A. E.</name>
                  <name>Perrett, G. D.</name>
                  <name>Phillips, F. E.</name>
                  <name>Plibersek, T. J.</name>
                  <name>Rae, S. T.</name>
                  <name>Reid, G. J.</name>
                  <name>Repacholi, D. P.</name>
                  <name>Roberts, T. G.</name>
                  <name>Rowland, M. A.</name>
                  <name>Ryan, J. C.</name>
                  <name>Ryan, M. M.</name>
                  <name>Scrymgour, M. R.</name>
                  <name>Shorten, W. R.</name>
                  <name>Sitou, S.</name>
                  <name>Smith, D. P. B. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Spender, A. M.</name>
                  <name>Stanley, A. M. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Steggall, Z.</name>
                  <name>Swanson, M. J.</name>
                  <name>Templeman, S. R.</name>
                  <name>Thistlethwaite, M. J.</name>
                  <name>Thwaites, K. L.</name>
                  <name>Vamvakinou, M.</name>
                  <name>Watson-Brown, E.</name>
                  <name>Watts, T. G.</name>
                  <name>Wells, A. S.</name>
                  <name>Wilson, J. H.</name>
                  <name>Zappia, A.</name>
                </names>
              </noes>
              <pairs>
                <num.votes>0</num.votes>
                <title>PAIRS</title>
                <names />
              </pairs>
            </division.data>
            <division.result>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionFooter">Question negatived.<br />Bill agreed to. </p>
              </body>
            </division.result>
          </division></subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Third Reading</title>
            <page.no>22</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:23</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr DREYFUS</name>
    <name.id>HWG</name.id>
    <electorate>Isaacs</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That this bill be now read a third time.</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
<para>Bill read a third time.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Water Amendment (Restoring Our Rivers) Bill 2023</title>
          <page.no>22</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r7076" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Water Amendment (Restoring Our Rivers) Bill 2023</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>22</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:23</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr GEORGANAS</name>
    <name.id>DZY</name.id>
    <electorate>Adelaide</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>It gives me great pleasure to continue this speech, after I started it last night for a couple of minutes. I'll reaffirm and point out again that, as a South Australian, I'm very proud to be speaking on the Water Amendment (Restoring Our Rivers) Bill 2023 because in South Australia we remember what we went through during the last drought. South Australia is one of the driest states in one of the driest continents in the world—and no doubt there will be more droughts to come. I recall, clearly, walking across the lakes at Goolwa, which is next to the Murray mouth, during our last drought period and being able to see the dead fish on the riverbank just lying there because we had gone through one of the most horrendous droughts. There were no water flows. As I said last night, be assured that, as day follows night, there will be more droughts in this country.</para>
<para>So I am very proud that we have announced this bill, that we have presented it and that we doing something to restore our Murray-Darling that we all depend on here in Australia. It is a region with 16 international significant wetlands. It's a refuge for 35 endangered species and a shield for 120 waterbird species. It's a sanctuary for 50 native fish species and a home to 2.3 million people, including 50 different First Nations peoples. It's generating $22 billion in agriculture and contributing $11 billion through tourism. That's our Murray-Darling Basin. All those points I have just made will be nonexistent, not just the species, such as the waterbirds and the native fish, but the generation of $22 billion in agriculture if we don't do something. If we don't do something to sustain the river system, there will be no agriculture in generations to come. That is why this bill is so important. A rich history of cultural heritage that spans generations is intertwined with this land.</para>
<para>During the last federal election, the then opposition, the Labor Party, pledged to uphold the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. It was a promise that we took to the people, and we are now delivering on that promise to restore the 450 gigalitres. That's exactly what we on this side of the House are doing. Let's just take a moment to think about the catastrophe that would continue to unravel had we not won the last federal election and had the coalition continued to be in power and if our government of today had not taken a stand. Imagine all the species and human beings that would be left struggling with a future of uncertainty. That's what that 450 gigalitres does; it gives certainty to the environmental flows, which means our agriculture will be sustained, our communities will be sustained and, of course, the environment will be sustained.</para>
<para>Our Minister for the Environment and Water pushed for this Murray-Darling Basin Plan just a few weeks ago, and I had the honour of standing alongside the minister to proudly announce that our government had successfully negotiated an agreement with basin governments, one of which was the South Australian state government, my home state. This agreement commits us to fully implement the Murray-Darling Basin Plan, including, as I said earlier, the most important part, which is the 450 gigalitres of water for environmental preservation.</para>
<para>Our voters and our constituents shouldn't need to remind us of the devastating impacts of climate change, and we should not need to remind those on the other side how serious this situation really is. The evidence is quite clear. We have already seen reduced flows across the basin, and we cannot afford to see matters get worse. Without the Murray-Darling Basin, we could face towns running out of water in the next droughts, and there's no doubt there will be droughts to come. I know that there is a lot of emotion on the other side from some of the MPs who represent those towns, but what they have to understand is that the businesses, the agriculture and the communities that exist along those towns won't be in existence in years to come unless we do something now. Without the Murray-Darling, we face towns running out of water and businesses not being able to sustain their agriculture. That's why this bill is so important.</para>
<para>These aren't abstract consequences. These are real lives, real communities and real ecosystems that, unfortunately, the previous government turned its back on. We saw that they tried to cut the final recovery targets to keep them below the scientific recommendations. They deliberately slowed the process delivering water to the basin. Because of this, it's now next to impossible to deliver the plan on the original timeline. In nine years they delivered just two gigalitres of the 450, which put them on track to complete the plan sometime around the year 4,000, perhaps, if we were lucky. On the flipside, even while we weren't in government, on this side of the House we didn't give up on the future of our basin. All you have to do is look at some of the speeches of the South Australian MPs on the Labor side to see how we were continuing to take the fight up to the then government. We didn't give up the fight, but unfortunately the government of the day gave up the fight and the Australian public. The plan should have been almost done by now. It should have been done and dusted, but it's not.</para>
<para>In the short time that our Minister for the Environment and Water and our government have been in power, we've delivered or contracted 26 gigalitres in total, much more than they did in nine years. After years of delays, roadblocks, excuses and divided politics on that side—and we saw the Nationals and the Liberal Party being in two mindsets when they were debating this, and they brought some changes to the original plan to this House; we all recall that—this bill is about getting back on track. It's about sustaining our river, sustaining our communities and ensuring that we have sustainable communities and environment in the Murray-Darling Basin.</para>
<para>It's a testament to the dedication on this side to the basin and its people. That's because we hold ourselves accountable, because we know our environment is important. As I said, it wasn't that long ago that we had that devastating drought here in Australia. I recall clearly that the entire South Australian population was demanding that we do something. In fact, our local newspaper in South Australia, the<inline font-style="italic"> Advertiser</inline>, held each and every member representing South Australia in this place to account. We were receiving phone calls from journalists every day, demanding to see what we were doing about the River Murray. In fact, back then this was not a campaign just by environmental groups, green groups or politicised groups; this was a campaign by the entire state of South Australia, including News Corp's <inline font-style="italic">Advertiser</inline>. We are held to account to restore the River Murray, to bring back sustainability to it, to ensure those communities in the Murray-Darling Basin are sustainable well into the future.</para>
<para>If we were to take the advice from the other side, we'd sit back and do nothing and not have those environmental water flows going back into the river, which would devastate communities in years to come, ensuring that there would be no agriculture, and the extinction of species. We've taken a holistic approach that understands the connection between our environment, our communities and our economy. Everyone in this place should be here to support all three aspects. Those who delayed the completion of the plan in the past have a lot to answer for, but those who choose not to support the plan now should consider the harm they'll be causing to those groups that I spoke about—the community, the economy and the environment.</para>
<para>I'm talking especially about those who preach a green earth and accuse our government of inaction. This simply is not true. It is they who are blocking positive action, not us. You should be embarrassed in this place to preach as much as you do but not act on environmental sustainability, and especially on the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. This isn't a matter of politics; it's a matter of responsibility in this place. It's about our world and a sustainable environment, including the sustainable communities and economies in the Murray-Darling Basin. It's about our world. It's about sharing water so that the basin can sustain future generations, and future generations of agriculture, so we can continue to grow food and produce to feed Australia but also feed the world and enhance our exports, value-adding to our food. This bill offers more time, more options, more money and more accountability, not more restrictions, as we saw from the other side. It's a lifeline for the basin.</para>
<para>This bill is because the previous government, those across from us, didn't act. This bill is because they deliberately ignored the Murray-Darling Basin. This bill is because, unlike those across from me, we care about actually getting the job done. We went to the public with our commitment before the election, and now we're delivering. It offers more certainty for farmers, more help for affected communities and more protection for the environment, native plants and animals. Climate change, with its shifting rainfall patterns and rising temperatures, has undoubtedly made water management more challenging in Australia. We are the driest continent on this earth, and South Australia is certainly the driest state in this country. If we don't act to secure our water future, who knows what lies ahead? So, on this side of the chamber, we're working towards a water market that is fair and transparent. We want to increase accountability, and we want water market decisions made public. I know this government welcomes accountability, because we have one clear agenda—to get this job done. If we don't act to secure our water future, who knows what lies ahead?</para>
<para>As we consider the implications of this bill, I ask everyone to rise above politics and focus on our shared responsibility to protect this vital resource for generations to come. Supporting the Murray-Darling plan is not a matter of political ideology; it is a matter of national necessity. The Murray-Darling Basin is not just a physical space on the map; it is a symbol of our shared responsibility, and it's a reminder that our actions today will echo through generations to come. Shaping the legacy we leave for our children and our grandchildren is a call to action, a call to put aside our differences and protect this very important ecosystem. But we need to do it together. So I urge everyone in this House: take a moment and remember the previous droughts, the countless species that call this basin home, the communities that rely on its water and the economic opportunities it provides. You can preach as much as you like, but this is a very important— <inline font-style="italic">(time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:37</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr</name>
    <name.id>HWN</name.id>
    <electorate>Parkes</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>COULTON (—) (): I, too, rise to speak on the Water Amendment (Restoring Our Rivers) Bill 2023. With reference to my friend the member for Adelaide on the other side, who talks about rising above politics, I'm afraid that, for the people that I represent, in the third of the Murray-Darling Basin that's the Parkes electorate, this is about sustainability. It's about survival. It's about jobs. It's about culture, and it's about a fair share. We need to have a little bit of a history lesson here. One of the advantages of being in this place for as long as I have is having a memory of what happened. I supported the Murray-Darling Basin Plan when it came through this House. Not everyone did, but the clear majority did, and I supported the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. The 450 gigalitres of extra water was not in the plan. It wasn't supported in this House by me, and it came with very, very clear conditions: it had to have no social, no environmental and no economic effects to deliver that water. It was a deal that was done at the time under former Prime Minister Gillard with the former water minister, Tony Burke, to gain Senate votes in Adelaide. That's the history of it. What this bill is doing is bringing that into the basin plan for the first time and removing the conditions that were around that water.</para>
<para>I remind the members in here on the other side with their speaking notes that South Australia is going to suffer under this bill. The Riverland is going to experience severe impacts, particularly to their permanent plantings, which will affect not only the economy of the Riverland in South Australia but also the ability of this country to feed itself. We do rely on the horticulture in that part of the world.</para>
<para>The other thing that's being portrayed here is that nothing's being done and quoting the fish deaths at Menindee, which is in my electorate, as a failure of the plan. There are various reasons why those fish died, but I want to point out that at that time it was the deepest waterhole in the Parkes electorate, which is a third of the basin. There are other issues at the Menindee that we need to look at, such as a fish ladder on the main weir so there's an escape route for those fish. But basically a large number of fish—and it's a large number because of a successful breeding program delivered by environmental water to make that breeding program happen very successfully—in the drought that followed got captured between two weirs and ran out of oxygen. That's what happened to the fish at Menindee. Everyone piled in—all the Greens and everyone piled in when they drove up—and said this is a scandal caused by government. But this was a natural event.</para>
<para>During the drought that people speak of, you could play cricket in the bottom of all the rivers in the Parkes electorate. The dams were empty, the rivers were empty, and the communities were suffering. There was no irrigation, but we tend to forget about what happened in the drought when the dryland farmers had to try to keep their stock alive and the fact that there were no crops for years. No-one talks about that. The idea that the Murray-Darling Basin Plan is going to turn an ephemeral system like the northern basin into Europe is a nonsense. We saw that in the drought. When it stops raining for three years, there's no water. That was followed by a flood. How much did the Basin Plan help with the flood? We still had communities being inundated. It's the natural cycle of life. The Basin Plan is clearly designed to moderate and take the edges off these events and to keep the rivers flowing for longer. I might say the rivers are flowing for longer because of dams that were built for irrigation. A lot of the water that's now in those dams in the northern basin were built by previous governments back in the fifties and sixties for irrigation. Those dams are now storing water and keeping the river flowing for longer. That's the nature of it.</para>
<para>The other thing that people need to understand is that allocations of water are done on a percentage of the water that's available. I think irrigation takes about 17 per cent of the water in the system, or something around about that figure, and so the idea that irrigators are taking all the water is also a nonsense. The water is shared via allocation, an allocation that irrigators pay a lot of money for. And what's that water used for? It's used to produce food. It's used to produce oranges, almonds, grapes, apples and stone fruits of all sorts. It's used to produce rice. It's used to produce cotton to clothe us. I'm incredibly frustrated by just the base ignorance of the people coming in with their talking points who are prepared, through their ignorance, to support a policy that's going to decimate the income of fellow Australians, without even having the courtesy to think through for themselves what this means. It's incredibly frustrating.</para>
<para>I do agree with the part of this legislation that extends the time for the delivery of the plan because it is complex. But we mustn't fall into the trap of saying nothing has happened. The Macquarie River in my electorate is actually overrecovered, so more water has gone back into the environment than was predicted as necessary by the plan. We've seen some amazing work done in the Macquarie with the modernisation of the irrigation schemes there. The lining of the channels is taking a lot the farms out of the irrigation industry with poly pipe for stock water, so that what's there now is much more reliable and much more efficient. The wastage from those channels has now been reduced so that 97 per cent or 98 per cent of the water is delivered because it's not soaking away into the earthen banks. In some places, centre pivots have replaced flood irrigation where necessary.</para>
<para>As we're going into another dry period, where do people think that the hay is coming from that is keeping their livestock alive? It's coming from lucerne farmers, who are irrigating at a dry time, like now, to provide fodder to keep our livestock alive and healthy. To get involved in this as some sort of a philosophical debate—and everyone gets their fair share. In deference to the South Australian members here, I'm not someone that wants to attack South Australia. I understand that there is a large population base in South Australia that absolutely relies on the river. We've got to understand that. But the idea that by just shutting down irrigation industries we're going to turn the Murray-Darling Basin into Europe is a nonsense. We are always going to have to battle with the variations of climate.</para>
<para>Since time began, the rivers have run and the rivers have run dry. That is why, in the northern basin, cotton is grown. Cotton is grown when there is available water. When there's not water, they just fallow their land. There have been attempts over the years. Some years before I was in this place, before the millennium drought, Bourke, in my electorate, had a thriving grape and citrus industry. The millennium drought killed those trees, so it became very clear in the northern basin that you cannot have permanent plantings, because when it goes dry the trees die, and that massive investment is lost and you can't replace it in any short time. But cotton and, further south, rice are grown when there is available water.</para>
<para>The idea that somehow cotton is an evil industry is a nonsense. I heard one of the ministers yesterday make some of the most patronising comments about farmers: 'They need to learn about some of the technology that can help measure the water,' and things like that. There are more kilograms of cotton per megalitre of water and per litre of diesel grown in Australia than anywhere else in the world. These are very, very precisely managed farms. There is not an ounce of water wasted. If we don't grow cotton, we're going to be importing something else from overseas.</para>
<para>I was at a cotton farm two weeks ago, interestingly, with the Speaker of the House, where we saw they're now running their cotton gin with solar. They've got a program now with more solar to produce hydrogen, so they can run their pumps and their tractors on hydrogen, and they're developing that further into anhydrous ammonia so that they're actually, through solar, producing their own nitrogenous fertiliser to grow the crops. This is the level of technology that we have now in the basin. Yet we have this base argument of, 'Well, we'll just take more water away from the north because they're wasteful and evil, and we'll let it run down.' How is the 450 going to be delivered without flooding the rivers in the member for Nicholls's electorate? How is it going to get through the choke points in the river? How is it going to get down the river without eroding the banks?</para>
<para>In my time, back when Senator Wong was the water minister, we saw the devastating impacts when water purchases are made willy-nilly. The purchase of the water from the Twynam Pastoral Company in the Macquarie and Gwydir valleys caused enormous economic hardship—not to the Twynam Pastoral Company; they took their $330 million or whatever it was and went off and invested it somewhere else. But the community of Collarenebri was decimated. From the biggest employer, 100 jobs went, out of a town of 500 people. I'd encourage those on the other side to come with me to Collarenebri and talk to the local people about what that means.</para>
<para>It's the same in Warren. Warren is a resilient town, and they're battling on. But the purchase of that water had an effect on them.</para>
<para>When Senator Wong purchased Toorale Station, west of Bourke, and the water that came with it, 100 jobs went out of Bourke. Because it became a national park, 10 per cent of the rate base of the Bourke Shire was lost. And that impact is being felt today.</para>
<para>We do need common sense in this. We also need to look at the modernisation that is continuing to go on. Farmers are deepening their storages. There's over-bank irrigation. There's the trickle or dripper system that the pecan orchardists at Biniguy, near Moree, have completely converted their plantations to—and I believe, in a previous life, the member for Nicholls was involved in that project. They're the sorts of things that we need to be doing to conserve water. It's such a valuable, valuable asset.</para>
<para>But we're hearing nonsense here—that the drought somehow is caused by the greed and avarice of irrigators. That's nonsense.</para>
<para>We've been hearing a lot in this place in the last few weeks about our Aboriginal brothers and sisters. I'd just point out that one of the biggest employers of Aboriginal people in my electorate is water. Okay? If we want to have a tokenistic Voice, do we want to take away the jobs that employ these people in a gainful way? I'll just leave you with that thought. They are the communities that rely on the river, not only for employment but for the social aspect of it. I represent Brewarrina, with the 60,000-year-old fish traps. They are very, very important to those people.</para>
<para>We want to make sure that everyone gets a fair share of the river, in a way that's practical. This is a political move. The minister has no skin in the game. And we need to vote against this terrible legislation.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:52</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms SWANSON</name>
    <name.id>264170</name.id>
    <electorate>Paterson</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I want to acknowledge the member for Parkes, who's just spoken on this topic of restoring our rivers and the Water Amendment (Restoring Our Rivers) Bill 2023. He's a good fellow and he represents a large part of New South Wales. But, on some of these accounts—not on all of them, but on some—I hate to say it, but you're wrong, Member for Parkes.</para>
<para>As to history and getting a fair share: you don't have to have been in this place for over 20 years. I've been here for seven years. I'm not sure what the median term is for people who serve in this place. But I can tell you that the Murray-Darling Basin Plan was brokered by a Labor government and was agreed to by Nick Xenophon, and it was brokered to try and break the stranglehold of disputes, over a century, on water. So, if we really look at this through a historical lens, this plan has been a hundred years in the making. It has taken a while to come to fruition. As with a lot of monumental changes, it does often take a lot of iterations to get correct.</para>
<para>In terms of getting a fair share and being fair dinkum about this plan: yes, there were mistakes made, but this plan was put in place to solve a decades-long problem. And it has taken a lot of work.</para>
<para>The member said that the current minister has no skin in the game and isn't fair dinkum about this. That is really patently untrue, and it's not fair.</para>
<para>We've all got to work together in this place to solve this intractable problem of water. We live on the driest continent on the planet. We have a lot of challenges.</para>
<para>As the chair of the Standing Committee on Agriculture, I do want to pay my dues to Australian farmers. They are some of the most innovative and thoughtful human beings, farming this country in environmental and sustainable ways. They provide food and fibre for all of us here in Australia—not just us here, but to other parts of the world as well. If you got up this morning, had your Weet-Bix and slipped on your shirt to go to work, it's odds-on that it was an Australian farmer that produced that for you, using our very precious water.</para>
<para>There have been incredible innovations. I can remember going down to the Murrumbidgee irrigation scheme, which is part of the Murray-Darling scheme, and looking at some of the government funded programs that had been put in place and helped eliminate water wastage. I've used a siphon, and there's actually a real technique to getting that water flowing with a siphon. We are hearing that, these days, with modern excavation techniques, we're able to use laser levelling to provide the water to travel over the countryside. This stuff is completely different, so we're doing away with a lot of that old irrigation. It will take a while to come in and it does take money to implement on farms, but these things are happening.</para>
<para>There has been a fair bit said about cotton. I want to speak on behalf of cotton. In the past it took a lot of water, and many people believed that it was wasteful. They thought about places like Cubbie Station soaking up millions of litres of water to grow cotton. But, again, science has come to the fore, and I would plead with anyone: science doesn't lie. Here in the House we've got the minister who takes care of science, and I'm pleased to be able to speak about this with him present. Through the science of cotton and the genetically modified cotton, boll 2, we have been able to change the way cotton is grown in Australia. It doesn't require the water. These days we are able to grow a cotton crop in Australia, harvest the cotton, grow a different crop and then put a flock of crossbred ewes over that. There's so much innovation happening that we really have to stop thinking like we did 20 years ago or 50 years ago about this. We have to give credit to our farmers, and I want to do that because they are embracing the technology. But they also know that we need to put a plan in place. Some of the irrigators in this have been absolutely terrific. They know that we need to share the water. The entire basin needs to share the water, and that's why I am particularly passionate about this.</para>
<para>Again, speaking about history, I just want to say that it was such a shame when the then Deputy Prime Minister, Barnaby Joyce, came out and said that, if the people of South Australia had a problem with the way in which the Murray River was operating, they should all move to where the water is. Clearly the Deputy Prime Minister of the time, in 2017, was a proponent of relocation, having done so himself to sit in this very chamber, but I can't attest to all of those people in South Australia having to move to where the water is. He has said in this place that there wasn't 'a hope in Hades' of that 450 gigalitres being delivered. Well, you know what? It is going to be delivered and it needs to be delivered. And it can be done in a fair and equitable way.</para>
<para>I want to point to why it's important, with another example. I've been dealing with, again, farmers who are working with science, and what they've come up with is an incredible idea, where they go to feedlots—40,000-head feedlots—take the manure, the putrescible waste, as it's referred to, and take the methane from that. They use that methane to power the feedlot, and in the future it'll power an abattoir. This is happening at Hay; it's being built now. Then what they do is run the remaining animal refuse from there and put it through industrial-scale vermiculture—worm farming. They then turn that into fertiliser, which is going to provide really fantastic bespoke fertiliser to adjacent crops. They're hoping to sell some of their water as part of the Murry plan, and that is going to provide equity so that they continue this project. They are fully aware of where the water's going to come from. I said to them, 'Can you afford to sell the water to make this successful?' And they said, 'Yes, we've done our planning.' So, when people talk about the Murray-Darling Basin Plan and where the water's going to come from, I'd like to say that not all farmers and irrigators are against this. They can see the benefits. They can see how we couple science with modern manufacturing and how we value-add to our primary product.</para>
<para>This is the key in Australia; we have to make it here. That's where this plan and buying back this water is going to create such a difference for so many people. I am pleased that there are members from South Australia in the chamber, because they know how important water is, they know they deserve their fair share and they know that not all irrigators are against this—and irrigators are people who are innovative, and they know that they can make the most of the water that they have.</para>
<para>I want to continue on this issue. The Murray-Darling Basin is home to unique and ecologically significant wetlands. I was at AgQuip a few weeks ago, out at Gunnedah, another great part of New South Wales, as chair of the agriculture committee. I was wandering around between magnificent headers and all manner of agricultural equipment, and seed sellers. It was just magnificent. And who do I run into but the Office of the Inspector-General of Water Compliance. Inspector-general Troy Grant had stepped away to have a bit of lunch; he'd probably gone off to have one of those fantastic steak sandwiches that everyone loves at AgQuip. So Troy wasn't there, but I was speaking to his deputy. The office of water compliance are doing incredible work in really cracking down on how water is measured, how it is used and making sure it is not wasted in the Murray-Darling Basin. This is their role. They took over the role, and it's a statutory body. Troy Grant was in the Berejiklian government, so we've tried to be very fair about this.</para>
<para>This is so important. The Murray-Darling Basin region contains 70 per cent of Australia's irrigated land, and it also grows 60 per cent of our food. I've been working with the ag committee on a food security inquiry, and, I have to tell you, since COVID, food security has been something that is top of mind for many people in Australia. We need to keep our food secure. That's why taking a step back, looking at how we use this water and making sure it is used effectively is so important.</para>
<para>Usually in the ag committee when we do inquiries—and I've sat on the ag committee on and off for most of the seven years I've been here—we get between 50 and 60 submissions. We are sitting on just shy of 200 submissions for this inquiry. People are exercised about it—and not just the general public, although there have been many of them, but also our top peak bodies. The National Farmers Federation, irrigators, peak bodies that represent dietitians, and food manufacturers have all submitted to this inquiry. They know how important food security is. They know how important it is to have a steady supply of food not only for Australians but also for our South-East Asian customers.</para>
<para>So we get it. We know what we need to do. We know that there is so much forethought that needs to go into this. And the way we do it is by equitably sharing the water, by making sure that we don't waste water in the Murray-Darling Basin and by getting behind innovative programs like water banking rather than siphon watering. These irrigators know how to use water so efficiently. I was up at the Ord River only recently, looking at some of the modifications they're making. In a country like Australia, we understand water. Our irrigators and our farmers understand water. They know that it needs to be fair and equitable. They do deserve a proper price for water. And we have to ensure that water is used equitably to create food security, to create the export dollars and to create the jobs. This is why I am in favour of this bill, and I do commend it to the House.</para>
<para>I thank the minister, Tanya Plibersek, because, unlike what some of the opponents who have stood in this House have said—'She just doesn't get it'—in fact, she does. She's been getting it for years. She understands how this needs to be done. She knows it's got to be done fairly. We are taking into consideration the implications in our irrigation areas. We know that people in South Australia deserve to have water as well. So this is why it is so important.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Pasin</name>
    <name.id>240756</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Does that include irrigators?</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms SWANSON</name>
    <name.id>264170</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Absolutely it does, yes. I'll take the interjection from the member at the table, who is, himself, from South Australia. If he was fair dinkum about this, he'd back this plan. He'd be working with his irrigators to ensure that they have enough water.</para>
</continue>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms SWANSON</name>
    <name.id>264170</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Yelling at me will not solve this issue. I have been talking to rural irrigators right across this country. Irrigators in the Murrumbidgee and across Australia know that we need to work with them, not against them, to put this plan in place.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Pasin</name>
    <name.id>240756</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Unbelievable! You're killing them.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms SWANSON</name>
    <name.id>264170</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>It's not unbelievable. What we're actually doing here is creating good legislation that talks to people and says: 'How can we provide enough water to you? How do we make sure we're food secure in Australia? How do we make sure we've got sustainability of the river? How do we adequately restore this 450 gigalitres? How do we ensure for future generations that there is a Murray-Darling Basin that our young farmers can grow in and that our children can enjoy? How can we actually ensure that we look after it?' How reprehensible would it be for someone in this place as a member representing South Australia to say that they do not—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Pasin</name>
    <name.id>240756</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Representing irrigators?</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms SWANSON</name>
    <name.id>264170</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>You don't just represent irrigators. You represent all of the people in your catchment, who deserve to have water and who deserve to have adequate and fair use of not only an area that is very, very ecological but also an area where we do need to produce food and fibre. We acknowledge that. But what we need is sensible debate and we need good legislation. This Labor government is not into yelling at people. What we are into is working with them. We are into sustainable, science based, future-facing legislation that will not only help sustain those irrigators in the long term but provide all of the requirements that we need to ensure the river system is healthy and that people can continue to irrigate and farm for future generations ahead.</para>
<para>So I would implore the opposition to get serious about water and the Murray-Darling Basin, stop yelling at us across the chamber and come on the journey with us and their people so we can ensure their future.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:07</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr WEBSTER</name>
    <name.id>281688</name.id>
    <electorate>Mallee</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>What I find unbelievably disappointing about the Labor government and particularly Minister Tanya Plibersek on this issue of water is the fact that they are tone deaf and do not understand irrigation communities such as mine. Sunraysia is absolutely reliant on water. We have, in my patch, particularly in the Gannawarra shire, a situation where we now have a patchwork quilt. This is the history of buybacks, that awful time when buybacks occurred and when farmers who were doing it tough, as they do from time to time, decided: 'No, I just can't keep going. I have to sell my water so that I can live in retirement.' That has created a patchwork quilt of dead land right next to farms that are still irrigating.</para>
<para>The risk with the Water Amendment (Restoring Our Rivers) Bill 2023 is that we will see our food and fibre production in Australia depleted and our overall value in horticulture and agriculture depleted. It is our regional communities that will be suffering. This is an awful bill. The key point about this bill is the fact that we do not have a socioeconomic neutrality test still in place. That was the saviour of the legislation before this new legislation that is being brought to the House. To remove that neutrality test of socioeconomic positivity for communities is a huge mistake. This bill tears up the bipartisanship that has been a feature of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan, bipartisanship that has been a feature since John Howard announced the $10 billion water efficiency plan and the passing of the Water Act in 2007 that Labor seeks to amend today.</para>
<para>It's not just the lack of bipartisanship for a partisan Labor bill that the Greens are not supporting; worse still, even Victorian Labor are not supporting it. It is astonishing. It really is a miracle. Not only is the government trashing regional communities, but it is also trashing bipartisanship as well. The bipartisanship that has been a feature of the Basin Plan thus far carried through to when the coalition was in government, with the Nationals striking an agreement with all basin states to guarantee that neutrality test, the primary target of the buyback agenda Minister Plibersek seeks to push through by the end of this parliamentary year. That neutrality test was the safeguard implemented by former Labor water minister Tony Burke. At the time he actually understood what was going on and the risks that were being posed to regional communities. Now the new minister is dumping this central component of the Basin Plan.</para>
<para>Labor's intent to buy back annual water licences must be considered alongside how much irrigated agriculture or horticulture has already been sold in the basin. In a column in the <inline font-style="italic">Daily Telegraph</inline> on 25 August, the acting CEO of the New South Wales Irrigators Council, Christine Freak, stated that the Basin Plan had already removed 2,100 gigalitres from farming, on top of 875 gigalitres she says came out prior to the plan. People have always struggled to get their heads around the gigalitres and megalitres or the 'number of Sydney Harbours' of water I'm talking about here, but Labor has never got its head around the socio and economic costs of water surrendered by farmers.</para>
<para>In 2015, the then CEO of the National Irrigators Council, Tom Chesson, said in a Senate inquiry submission that the 'gross value of irrigated agricultural production across the basin was $1,135 per megalitre'. Eight years on, you can take that as a conservative figure and note that nearly 3,000 gigalitres of that has left production according to the New South Wales Irrigators Council. This equates to annual production losses of $3 billion—again, rounding down to be conservative. In today's money you could save $3.5 billion per annum in direct income. That's how far back the basin communities already are in direct income from irrigated agriculture and horticulture, without even calculating the indirect value-add component of local jobs and spending in local economies.</para>
<para>In my electorate of Mallee, the Mildura-Swan Hill region is expected to have a gross value of production in horticulture of $2.2 billion by 2029-30. We are on a great and positive trajectory after the damage of the millennium drought, but now this water minister wants to seriously compromise the projected growth in my electorate through buybacks.</para>
<para>The National Farmers Federation water chair Malcolm Holm claims the minister is in effect saying the new round of buybacks will exceed one-third of the remaining recovery target, which is close to 1,000 gigalitres. If the NFF are right and, say, 300 gigalitres were to be recovered via buybacks, there goes around $300 million to $350 million more in direct income from irrigated agriculture and horticulture, not to mention the indirect flow-on economic and social impacts to our local communities.</para>
<para>This is a point the National Irrigators Council made in 2018, and we in the National Party listened. Their submission to the Productivity Commission stated:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Assessment of water recovery as being 'cost effective' must take into account a full range of flow-on impacts and strategic value of targeted purchases. It should not be a simplistic assessment that only compares the dollar value per mega litre to the taxpayer.</para></quote>
<para>They went on to add, quite accurately:</para>
<quote><para class="block">… such simplistic assessments ignore the flow-on impacts in communities, the value of future production and employment opportunities.</para></quote>
<para>The Nationals and Liberals on this side of the chamber understand this all too well. Labor simply doesn't care because it holds zero seats in the basin. Sure, there's Adelaide, but remember the desalination plant federal taxpayers contributed $328 million towards thanks to the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd governments? It's been running at a reduced capacity ever since it was completed. In the most recent reporting year, to August, the desal plant produced 5.3 gigalitres, when it has the capacity of 100 gigalitres. Reportedly, it has run at no better than 10 per cent capacity since it was built, but I digress.</para>
<para>I think every sensible person in the basin accepted the need to extend the time frame of the Basin Plan. Some even said the plan was always adaptive. When the minister was first briefed on the Basin Plan, 18 months ago, she was told that the time frames were unrealistic. The minister has had 18 months in government to work with the states, as the former coalition government did, to deliver water savings without compromising the sustainability of communities along the basin. In fact, this government has gone out of its way to exclude their Victorian Labor colleagues. As I said, when news of the new Basin Plan deal first broke—and I say again here: I commend the Andrews Labor government for supporting our farmers. The Victorian Minister for Water, Harriet Shing, had previously said her government was opposed to buybacks, and they have stood their ground. Go them! And I don't say that very often. It is pleasing to see. The New South Wales Labor government, by contrast, has been far quicker to backtrack on the concerns about buybacks they raised in opposition. I fear that the Albanese Labor government's exclusion of Victoria from this agreement—you could argue this government is using standover tactics to get Victoria to the table—could mean that many millions of dollars in water infrastructure improvements are off the table for Victoria.</para>
<para>Nature has delivered us some reprieve from the dire millennium drought, which framed the policy development when the Water Act and the Basin Plan were created. I remember those years. Recent flooding has given the system a good flush, albeit with terrible consequences for the livelihoods of some, including in my electorate. It has to be noted, though, as my Nationals colleagues have been saying, that the flooding could have been mitigated with more water storage capacity in the system. Who would think? Sadly, though, the policymakers were too busy listening to the false prophecies of the likes of Tim Flannery and were scared off by the idea that we'd have more water than we'd know what to do with. Of course, the climate narrative has shifted—from global warming, when the plan was conceived, through to climate change, where extreme weather events were expected to become more frequent, to now what the UN Secretary-General calls global boiling. It's hard to keep up.</para>
<para>It will also be hard to keep up with how much taxpayer money Labor intends to spend to recover the additional water buybacks. It has been estimated that the amount of water to be recovered is equivalent to that of the entire Sunraysia district, in my electorate. Just imagine if every irrigated horticultural property in Sunraysia closed and sold up, if the water were taken away and the land became useless. The economy would wither as fast as the vines and the fruit trees. That would at least be more visible than the reality Labor proposes in this bill—the invisible devastation of growers exiting the industry again all across the basin. In the past, Labor have used the terminology 'willing sellers', in one of the great furphies of the buyback debate. I was thinking during the night: it's like saying that somebody who is going through incredible mortgage difficulty and has to put their house on the market is a willing seller. Who in their right mind thinks that is a reasonable approach? It's nothing but coercive.</para>
<para>Few growers are more distressed than the wine grape industry, which is prevalent in my electorate. I met with some of them recently. The oversupply in that industry and the impact of China's sanctions against Australian wine are still hurting. If this bill passes, Labor will go into that wine market looking for so-called willing sellers—those mortgage holders who are going through a hard time. Let's be clear on one thing: the government will pursue water sellers across the basin, in Victoria, South Australia, New South Wales and maybe even Queensland. The fact that Victoria isn't part of this 'deal' on the Basin Plan doesn't mean the minister is not going to come hunting for willing sellers in Victoria. The minister could perhaps come back to the House to clarify that. It seems to me that, wherever there's a willing seller, Labor will buy their water. Potentially leaving Victoria out of this deal could mean little or no infrastructure spending but full exposure to the buyback program alone—none of the benefit but plenty of the risk.</para>
<para>The NFF estimated late last month that they think the starting price for the buyback program will be $3 billion.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Pasin</name>
    <name.id>240756</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Four.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Dr WEBSTER</name>
    <name.id>281688</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Well, my colleague says maybe $4 billion. Other estimates range from $5 billion to as much as $20 billion. A 2022 statutory review found it could cost $11 billion to meet the targets. Let's put this in perspective: amidst a cost-of-living crisis when Australians can well remember the brief vegetable price bubble during COVID-19, Labor's focus is not on the cost of living. Labor's focus is squarely on making good on the promise it made to voters in the Adelaide suburban seat of Boothby—and my colleague the member for Boothby is across the chamber—in early 2022, so it wouldn't swing back to the Liberals. That's where this 450 gigalitre pledge was made pre-election, not on the side of the Murray or the Darling rivers, not in Mildura, but in Adelaide with then opposition leader Mr Albanese beside the candidate for Boothby, who's in the chamber, former water minister Penny Wong and the newly minted Labor Premier Malinauskas.</para>
<para>Back in our regional communities like mine, in the electorate of Mallee, previous buyback programs left irrigation districts as a patchwork quilt, as I said earlier. The coalition's focus in government was more on water-efficient infrastructure because this meant irrigated agriculture and horticulture could continue. What a great idea! Our irrigators have become increasingly efficient, as I have noted from the previous speaker, and cropping techniques are getting the best value for the water supplied. But Minister Plibersek's patience has run out because South Australian Labor wants 450 gigalitres.</para>
<para>I have to say that it was astonishing to me that the minister made this announcement on the banks of the Torrens River in Adelaide—amazing!—not in my electorate of Mallee, not on the edge of the Murray, not at Barmah Choke, where there are so many issues. She stood in Adelaide, where her votes are, where Labor's votes are. For anyone to think this is not simply a political move, they haven't got a clue. This is absolutely political, and I'm calling the minister out on it.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:22</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms MILLER-FROST</name>
    <name.id>296272</name.id>
    <electorate>Boothby</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise today to speak to a welcome piece of legislation for South Australians, the Water Amendment (Restoring Our Rivers) Bill 2023. We know a healthy Murray-Darling river system is good for the economy, good for agriculture, good for tourism and good for the environment. It's good for Australia. A healthy river system means it's healthy from the top to the bottom, and we in South Australia are, of course, at the bottom, downstream on the Murray-Darling river system. We are dependent on those upstream for water quality and water quantity, but our farmers, our tourism, our economy and our environment in South Australia are no less important than in the upstream states.</para>
<para>The Murray-Darling Basin Plan was conceived to provide fair outcomes for all. We simply cannot have a first come, first served approach to a vital resource such as water in this country. The implications are too serious for the economy, for agriculture, for the environment and for the very survival of downstream towns and communities, and we do need to be prepared for the inevitable next drought. In 2012 the Murray-Darling Basin Plan was enacted by a Labor government to achieve just this outcome—an equitable outcome that works for all states and protects us from the vagaries of drought. The Liberal-Nationals government were then in for a decade, and they did next to nothing. They delivered a measly two gigalitres in a decade—that is, less than two per cent of the 450 gigalitres of environmental water promised. Since being elected in 2022 the Albanese Labor government has added a further 24 gigalitres to that—that is, 24 gigalitres in just over a year compared to the Liberal-Nationals' two gigalitres in 10 years, so 12 times the amount in one-tenth of the time.</para>
<para>While I'm new in this place, there are many of those opposite that are still here from that last lost decade. They did nothing for the river communities, and they've particularly done nothing for those of us downstream, particularly those opposite that are from South Australia and directly representing those communities. The Water Amendment (Restoring Our Rivers) Bill is one of those pieces of legislation we wish we didn't have to propose, but it is a necessary piece of legislation to fix a decade of inaction by those opposite.</para>
<para>My friend Sally Grundy and her family run the last station in the Murray-Darling Basin. Mundoo Island Station is situated on three islands right at the mouth of the Murray, the most downstream of downstreams. Her husband's family have farmed this land since 1876, and Sally has fought a hard battle for the local environment for decades, as well as running the station. Sally told me about the importance of water quality and water quantity to downstream water users and the importance of a good environmental outcome along the Murray-Darling and particularly at the Murray mouth. Downstream users get all the accumulated nutrients and salts from the entire system, and so they need sufficient flow to flush this out to sea. This requires sufficient flow to keep the Murray mouth open, including in times of drought. To not flush it, to leave this accumulation of nutrients and salts at the bottom of the river, leads to disastrous economic, agricultural and social problems, in her words, due to the reduction in water quality. Salinity levels need to be kept below 1,000 EC, electrical conductivity, units to ensure water quality for stock and domestic use.</para>
<para>When we talk about domestic use of Murray water, it's not only those communities on the banks of the river that use the Murray for water; pipelines take Murray River water to Adelaide and as far away as Yorke Peninsula and Eyre Peninsula in South Australia, in the electorate of Grey, to provide water for domestic use. So, when those opposite talk about their concerns for the agricultural sector and rural communities, I would invite them to remember that the lower end of the Murray has agriculture and communities as well and that that agriculture and those rural communities around the Murray mouth—in the electorate of Mayo, the Lower Lakes, the Coorong; and the stretch further up to the rural city of Murray Bridge, in the electorate of Barker—also rely on Murray water.</para>
<para>Having worked for many decades in the local environment, Sally is passionate about ensuring the Murray-Darling Basin Plan is delivered in full. She knows how important it is for her local community and the agriculture sector. I discussed this bill with her. She was pretty across it anyway. She tells me that the slightly extended time line is warranted, considering the lack of achievement to date. The plan must be delivered in full. She supports voluntary buybacks. This should be an option on the table to assist in returning water to the environment. The environmental flows are not just for environmental benefit; they are important for maintaining water quality for agriculture and domestic use.</para>
<para>She points out that the Lower Lakes are often overlooked, and certainly the debate I have heard here in this place to date seems to largely ignore the Lower Lakes region. The river is the lifeblood for communities across the entire system but particularly at the lower end, where we are so dependent on the goodwill of those upstream. Sally is passionate about the local environment on and around the station—the unique Coorong, one of 16 internationally significant Ramsar wetlands on the Murray-Darling Basin, which are important particularly for the migratory shorebirds that arrive annually from as far away as Siberia and Alaska, needing healthy feeding grounds in order to return to their Northern Hemisphere breeding grounds. Regular surveys must be undertaken for endangered species, because, once they're gone, they're gone. She tells me that the yarra pygmy perch that they used to see around her station are no longer seen in the Lower Lakes.</para>
<para>So it is disappointing to me that those opposite, who profess to be so passionate about the Murray-Darling Basin, profess to be committed to helping the agriculture sector and rural communities, draw a line somewhere in the middle of South Australia and don't seem to care about those in the lower Murray communities and industries. However, I will point out some good sense recently from some South Australian Liberals. I'd like to thank the member for Sturt for his recent comments, reported in the<inline font-style="italic"> Australian</inline> newspaper, that the 450 gigalitres of environmental water should be delivered, including through voluntary water purchase. And Senator McLachlan, in the other place, said it was imperative that we prioritise the welfare of our natural world by securing this water. Maybe the other members opposite, some of whom have been here for significantly longer than these two—and particularly those whose electorates cover some of these communities that will be affected by a dying lower Murray River—should look to these newer colleagues on this issue and see some sense.</para>
<para>It is clear that what has happened under the previous government, the Liberal-National government, has not been working. They were not doing the right thing by South Australia and those downstream that are dependent on the Murray-Darling system. Unlike the Liberal and National parties, Labor is united on delivering this plan. The original plan deadline was June 2024, and in the early years we were well on track to meet those deadlines. But the Liberals and Nationals spent a decade sabotaging the plan. They tied up projects with impossible rules so they couldn't deliver water savings. The former Liberal South Australian environment minister, now Leader of the Opposition in South Australia, rolled over and agreed to letting this happen despite the impact it would have on South Australia and particularly the important environments of the lower Murray. The Liberals and Nationals blocked water recovery programs. They tried to cut the final recovery targets to keep them below scientific recommendations, and as a result progress slowed to a dribble under the previous government. Because of this, it is now impossible to deliver the plan on the original timeline.</para>
<para>This legislation will rescue the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. The legislation is important for basin communities and for every Australian who cares about the environment. At last year's federal election, I was there when the Labor Party committed to the Murray-Darling Basin Plan in full—congratulations for all of those people who recognised it was by the Torrens. With this legislation that we are debating, we are fulfilling that promise to the river system and to every Australian who depends on it.</para>
<para>On coming into government, a review made it clear quite how bad things had got under the previous government—that it would now in fact be impossible to reach the original deadlines. The minister has recently struck an historic agreement with the New South Wales, Queensland, South Australia and ACT governments. It's a reasonable agreement, a balanced agreement, an agreement that took more than a year of detailed consultation to piece together. Our government has worked with states and territories, with farmers and irrigators, with scientists and experts and with environmentalists and First Nations groups.</para>
<para>What this legislation will do is give basin governments more time to deliver the remaining water based on expert advice. This includes the recovery of 450 gigalitres for the environment by 31 December 2027 and the delivery of water infrastructure projects by 31 December 2026. It gives us more options to deliver the remaining water, including water infrastructure projects and voluntary water buybacks. It gives us more funding to deliver the remaining water and support communities where voluntary water buybacks have flow-on impacts. Importantly, it gives us more accountability from Murray-Darling Basin governments on delivering the remaining water on time. Federal government funding will be contingent on achieving water recovery targets within deadlines.</para>
<para>This is about a return to common sense. It's about remembering what the point is—to ensure a healthy, sustainable basin for all of the communities for the future. This is a complex plan with a simple objective: to set the river up better for the future. This plan has been off-track for many years. Minister Plibersek recently received official advice that it simply can't be delivered by its original deadline of June 2024. Put simply, we want more options, not more restrictions. If the bill doesn't pass this year, the current legislation requires states to withdraw their unfinished projects, about half of them. This means a major part of the plan will fall over, incurring substantial costs and delays.</para>
<para>Delivering the plan is good for the environment, it's good for local jobs and it's good for communities. Our government made a commitment to delivering the Murray-Darling Basin Plan in full, and that is exactly what we are doing. Remember, these Basin Plan targets were a bipartisan agreement more than a decade ago to support the sustainability of the river system. After a wasted decade, these challenges are now even more acute.</para>
<para>Australia is facing an environmental emergency. If we don't act now and preserve the Murray Darling, our basin towns will be unprepared for drought, our native animals will face the threat of extinction, our river ecosystems will risk environmental collapse, and our food and fibre production will be insecure and unsustainable. A healthy basin also means healthy communities. It means a river that families can enjoy, that promotes recreation and tourism and, most importantly, that provides clean drinking water to three million Australians every day. That's an important moment for basin communities and for any Australian who cares about the health of our environment.</para>
<para>We can never forget why Australian governments designed the Murray-Darling Basin Plan in the first place. We know the next drought is just around the corner, and that is why we have a Murray-Darling Basin Plan in this country: to help us through the dry years, to make sure there's enough water flowing through the river system at its lowest moments to make it to the next rain. South Australia is, obviously, at the bottom of the river, and Labor has strongly advocated for South Australia for many years about this, since well before my time in this place.</para>
<para>All I can do is urge my colleagues in this place and the other to support this bill. Remember why a healthy Murray-Darling Basin is so important, why we need the plan to be delivered in full. If you support agriculture, then I urge you to support agriculture downstream as well. If you support rural communities, then I urge you to support the communities downstream as well, including those that are dependent on drinking water from the Murray, even though they are hundreds of kilometres away on the York and Eyre peninsulas. If you support the environment, then I urge you to support the downstream environment, including the Lower Lakes, the Coorong and the Murray mouth. The Murray-Darling Basin Plan is about a healthy and sustainable system for all, from the top of the catchment all the way down to my friend Sally at the Murray mouth. This plan is needed. I commend the bill.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:36</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr PASIN</name>
    <name.id>240756</name.id>
    <electorate>Barker</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Well, here we are. This is the point at which bipartisanship on the Murray-Darling Basin—pardon the pun—has evaporated. Until this point, we had both sides of the political spectrum in this country committed to a plan on the Murray-Darling Basin. History tells us that the basin has historically been over-extracted, so, as a nation, enlightened with that scientific reality, we developed a plan, which was about recovering water for the environment. The member for Boothby has just delivered what I can only describe as a typical metropolitan view of what the Murray-Darling Basin is about. I'll deal with some of the inaccuracies, because they're important, but the reality is that what the member for Boothby just spoke about was effectively the environment—about this plan being about the protection of the environment. It's a misunderstanding of the plan, with respect. The plan is about balancing the needs of the respective water users in the basin. It's about balancing production with the need to conserve important environmental assets.</para>
<para>Do you know what? What I've learned as the member for Barker, who represents the river in South Australia almost exclusively—with the exception of the member for Mayo, who has an interest around the mouth and Lake Alexandrina—is that you will never find stronger advocates for the environmental assets in the Murray-Darling Basin in South Australia than the irrigators who live on that river. Do you know what frustrates them? It's that they have to be lectured by the likes of the member for Boothby about a river system that they've lived on their whole lives and protected their whole lives.</para>
<para>While I'm talking about the member for Boothby, it's time for some home truths. The member for Boothby came in here and positively asserted that the former coalition government only recovered two gigalitres over its 10 years in government yet the Labor government has been able to recover 24 gigalitres in the 14 or 15 months it's been in government. That's interesting, because the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder—according to that search engine named Google, which presumably the member for Boothby has access to—currently, as of 31 July 2023, holds a total of 2.88 gigalitres. Sorry; I should say that's 2,888,695 megalitres. The reality is here that the recovery is well on track, and we're dealing with the 450 gigs of additional water.</para>
<para>It's important that we talk about additional water.</para>
<para>When this agreement was bipartisan, there was an agreement to recover 2,750 gigalitres with an additional 450 gigalitres, provided that we could do it in a way that met the socioeconomic neutrality test. What we're now seeing is that the Labor Party is going to remove that socioeconomic neutrality test. They're effectively saying: 'We're going to recover the water. Bugger the impacts for regional communities.' Well, I'm here to talk about those impacts and what they look like. Despite the fact that the Australian Labor Party during the last election assured people in my community that we wouldn't be using buybacks as a blunt tool to achieve this objective, here we are. I warned my community. I warned South Australians we would be in this position, and here we are.</para>
<para>So what does it mean? Well, South Australia's contribution to the target of 450 gigalitres will be 38 gigalitres. The Renmark irrigation district, before buybacks the last time, had a total allocation of 45 gigalitres. Today it's at 32 gigalitres. Water was removed the last time we did this, and there has been a series of other programs, which I supported, that were about maintaining production by having government provide capital in exchange for water savings, which were transferred to the Environmental Water Holder. That's the way you do this—you maintain production, you use less water with more efficient delivery systems, and you provide the dividend to the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder. It's a win-win. But I told you that the Renmark irrigation district's contribution is 32 gigalitres and South Australia's contribution to the 450 gigalitres will be 38. That's the whole of the Renmark irrigation district. Imagine sitting down with a farmer and saying: 'This land that you've invested in, this farm, this enterprise that you thought would be in your family for generations, for the grandchild that you christened, who you thought would be a citrus grower just like you—no; we're taking the water away.' An irrigation district without water is just a desert. Take the water away, and the people leave.</para>
<para>When this was done the last time, when buybacks were permitted—of course, we ruled out buybacks, or at least we capped them at 1,500 gigalitres, because we knew that buybacks kill communities—and the Renmark irrigation district went from 42 gigalitres, as an example, to 32 gigalitres, 30 per cent of the Riverland population got up and left—gone. I'm not suggesting that South Australia will make this contribution by simply wiping out Renmark and saying we'll move on. That's not what's going to happen. This recovery will be spread across those irrigation districts in my electorate, and it will impact the viability of all of them. The member for Boothby might well say, 'It doesn't matter; it's not my electorate.' It's really about winning the seat of Boothby for the Labor Party, isn't it? That's what this is about. But spare a thought for those irrigators and those communities. When you come in here and say that irrigators support this as good for horticulture, I'm telling you it's not.</para>
<para>Just as an example, we're talking about 50,000 to 70,000 hectares of prime horticultural endeavour. I did a quick back-of-the-envelope calculation before coming in here. It could be as many as 30 million orange trees. So those opposite want to save the environment by telling farmers they should pull out of 30 million to 35 million orange trees, pile them in the heap—because that's what happens—and set them alight. If you're not connected to the Riverland and you're not particularly passionate about irrigators in this country or, like those opposite, you hate farmers and farming, spare a thought—</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr PASIN</name>
    <name.id>240756</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I withdraw it.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>74046</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order. The member for Lalor.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms Ryan</name>
    <name.id>249224</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I ask the member to withdraw the imputation.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr PASIN</name>
    <name.id>240756</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I already have. Mind my passion on this. I withdraw it. The member can probably understand my passion, given what farmers in my electorate are about to go through. They are about to be shunted off their land.</para>
<para>If you don't care about those farmers then spare a thought for those consumers who are going to walk into supermarkets and be confronted with a wall of produce—fresh fruit, vegetables and nuts—courtesy of jurisdictions overseas. That's the reality here. Those opposite talk a really strong game about Australian made, but what about Australian grown? And by the way, you'll be lucky if you can afford those fruit, vegetables and nuts because, of course, they will be much more expensive. That's the pure reality.</para>
<para>I want to spend the time I've got left asking something of the South Australian minister for the environment. The South Australian minister for the environment, unlike the Victorian minister responsible in this space, hasn't done any modelling of what impact this will have on South Australians. The Victorians have done that. That's why they're opposed to this approach. They say that it will increase the cost of temporary water by $72 a meg; that it will cost the Victorian agriculture industry about $400 million. That's every year, each and every year—$400 million. That work hasn't been done in the South Australian context as the South Australian minister for the environment champions this cause.</para>
<para>I'm going to ask something of the South Australian minister. Through you, Mr Deputy Speaker Goodenough, I want her to make a commitment to South Australians that none of this water will come from South Australia. You see, the Australian Labor Party wants South Australians, particularly in South Australia, to think that this is a zero-sum game for South Australia, that all of this water can be recovered from those horrible nasty irrigators in New South Wales and Victoria, and perhaps Queensland. If that's what the South Australian Labor Party believes, make it thus. Give us a commitment that none of this water will come from South Australia. Protect South Australians who, like the member for Boothby acknowledges, are at the end of the pipeline. Give South Australians that comfort. I would welcome that announcement. So my challenge to Minister Close is to reassure South Australians that they're not about to lose Renmark and, indeed, the whole of the Riverland irrigation districts by removing this water from them. Take it from those upstream states.</para>
<para>My personal position, and this is why I am opposed to the bill, is that we should only do this if we can recover this in a socioeconomically neutral way. There are programs like 3IP, where farmers were offered capital in return for the water savings that capital delivered. If I can deliver water to an orange grove in a more efficient way and save water by using that technology, and that cost can be borne by the Commonwealth, then in return the Commonwealth can have the water saving. That's how you deal with this challenge in a way that doesn't kill communities.</para>
<para>The alternative is the option that those opposite are taking—that is, coming into a community that is suffering desperately because of low commodity prices and getting them to sell you their water. And by the way, once that water has left the consumptive pool, let's call it the irrigation pool, and been placed in the Environmental Water Holder's hands, it can never go back. It will never be used for production ever again in this country. So while those opposite want to talk about food security provenance, you can't do it without water. So instead of working with irrigation communities to make their enterprises even more efficient and offer up the dividends to the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder, we have a circumstance where they're going to come into communities and purchase the water from what they say are willing sellers. I encourage the member for Boothby to go to the Riverland and talk to red-wine producers. They're the kind of willing that comes with utter desperation. It's akin to saying to someone who had to sell their home and is now living rough on the streets, 'Oh well. You were a willing seller.' It's disgraceful.</para>
<para>While I'm here, can people stop using the argument that we're prepared to sell water to foreign investors but not to our own government. The reality is we want this water to remain in the consumptive pool. We want it to sustain river communities just like we want it to sustain the environment. The very people who irrigate from this river are the people who were working on salt interception schemes before the Murray-Darling Basin existed. These people care about their communities. They're connected to the land. When our Indigenous brothers and sisters provide a welcome to country, I listen. They talk about their connection to their country. My irrigators are just as connected to their country. The difference is that this government is going to walk into their kitchen-dining room, offer them a cheque and tell them to pack their bags and leave. It's a sad day for Australia.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:51</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ZAPPIA</name>
    <name.id>HWB</name.id>
    <electorate>Makin</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>State disputes about water in this country date right back to before Federation. Indeed, if one looks at some of the debates that occurred in 1898 before Federation, I understand that, in the last section of those debates, nearly a fifth of the time was spent debating the very water issue that we are debating today, and it was predominantly a debate between South Australia and the eastern states. As a result of that debate, we now have section 100 of the Constitution, which says:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The Commonwealth shall not, by any law or regulation of trade or commerce, abridge the right of a State or of the residents therein to the reasonable use—</para></quote>
<para>and I stress the words 'reasonable use'—</para>
<quote><para class="block">of the waters of rivers for conservation or irrigation.</para></quote>
<para>The words 'reasonable use' were included as a compromise at the time of those debates, and they now appear in the Constitution. The reality is that the disputes over water were never resolved. They continued ever since that time, and they continue today in this chamber.</para>
<para>In 2007, when I was elected to this place, the dominant issue for South Australians, in addition to climate change, was the state of the river Murray. I can well recall the photographs of the dying lakes not just in South Australia but right across the river stream into the eastern states as well. River communities were undoubtedly decimated, as were environmental assets. In fact, in South Australia, the Lower Lakes became mud and nothing else. Food production and livelihoods were also, in many cases, actually put to an end because people had to sell their farms in order to survive. Some went broke and others managed to hold on. In addition to that, businesses in all of those communities were struggling to survive, and many of them closed down.</para>
<para>I know all that not only because I actually have a lot of friends in those country towns but because, more importantly, when Labor was elected in 2007, we started looking at what we could or should be doing as a government to follow up from the 2007 Water Act that the Howard government had introduced to try to rectify these problems. Labor also then said, 'What's the next step from here?' In 2010, there was an inquiry commissioned by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Regional Australia. That inquiry included 12 members of parliament: six government members and six non-government members. All of the non-government members came from regional communities across Australia, particularly those that had an interest in the Murray-Darling Basin system. The inquiry not only went to just about every community along the Murray River but, more importantly, also heard evidence from a whole range of experts with respect to what we should and should not be doing. The situation was dire.</para>
<para>In the end, the inquiry came up with 21 recommendations. There was no dissenting report on that inquiry, and the 21 recommendations are still there for all to see. And, quite frankly, from listening to debates in this place, nothing has changed. You could do the same inquiry and I suspect you would end up with the same recommendations. It was that inquiry that was the precursor to the 2012 legislation that then went through this parliament. Again, whilst there was some disagreement at times, ultimately all the parties that had an interest in the river Murray agreed to the 2012 legislation, including to the 450 gigalitres that South Australia had asked for.</para>
<para>With respect to the 2,750 gigalitres that was originally the amount that was meant to be returned to the Murray, even that figure, on the basis of the expert evidence that we heard throughout the inquiry, was considered to be the bottom-line figure. It wasn't the real figure that most experts suggested we should be returning. It was a bottom-line figure that was reached—again, as a compromise—to try and come to a deal with the eastern states. That is the basis for the legislation that the Basin Plan was built on and that this government is trying to now reinstate.</para>
<para>In 2018 the South Australian government, as a result of abuse of the system in the eastern states, where water was effectively being stolen, established a royal commission to look into the river Murray system. Sadly and disappointingly, the federal government did not participate in that royal commission. But the royal commission, headed by Bret Walker SC, nevertheless did its work. Now, I don't know how many members in this place have read that royal commission report, but I can say to members that I did. It is the best analysis of the problems with the river Murray system that I have ever read. It sums it up perfectly, after a year of inquiry and listening, again, to both growers and experts right along system. Richard Beasley, who was the lead counsel, has since then made several comments about the state of the basin and so on.</para>
<para>Instead of members coming into this place and just expressing a point of view, here we have an inquiry report from this parliament and a royal commission report of 700 pages, with its 44 recommendations—which I suspect very few people have ever even read—that should guide us with respect to how we manage the river Murray. The state Liberal government at the time also tried to brush off the royal commission report and push it to one side. The Murray-Darling Basin Plan had been neglected from the intent that it was meant to serve back in 2012, so much so that, when we had the drought along the Darling system in 2019, when we saw millions of fish dying in the water—this was outside South Australia, so it's got nothing to do with South Australia. But the river system was collapsing before the waters even got to South Australia, because of mismanagement. We had the Academy of Science prepare a report with respect to all of that. I suggest to members that perhaps they read the report from the Academy of Science because again it goes to the very heart of all the issues that we are trying to address right now.</para>
<para>The reality is that the Murray-Darling Basin is far too important to mismanage. Three million Australians rely on its water, and products from it go right throughout Australia. Forty per cent of Australia's agricultural land is within the basin. There are 2.3 million people who actually live within the basin. Then there is something like $11 billion of tourism spending and a billion dollars of recreational fishing that are all attributed to the Murray-Darling Basin area.</para>
<para>On top of that—and this is important—there are 30,000 wetlands, 16 of which are World Heritage or Ramsar listed wetlands.</para>
<para>There has also been for years now the loss of animal and plant species that were threatened because of the droughts and because of the overuse of the River Murray waters. The reality is that overallocations did take place. They took place predominantly in the 1980s and 1990s in the eastern states. Those overallocations have to be brought back—that is, the water has to be brought back—because the reality is you cannot take more water out of a system than what flows into it. It's as simple as that. And if you do not return that water then the whole system ultimately dies.</para>
<para>People talk about the Lower Lakes. All too often, I hear people talking about the Lower Lakes as if that is the only draw on water. The Lower Lakes is one part of the system, and it is only one part of the system. In 2007, both the two major lakes, Albert and Alexandrina, were drying up and the fish were dying. The Coorong was so salty that fish simply couldn't survive within it and we had to have dredges every day trying to open up the Murray mouth in order to get some fresh seawater into the system.</para>
<para>The truth of the matter is that, when Labor lost office in 2013, the Murray-Darling Basin Plan was abandoned. That is the reality of it. Members opposite can deny it all they like. In fact, we had attempts by National Party members in this place only in recent years to actually try and dismantle the Murray-Darling Basin system. Fortunately, those attempts failed. But the reality is that the commitment to the plan by the last coalition government was simply nonexistent.</para>
<para>The reality is also this: if the system dies, it will not just be South Australians that miss out on water; it will be everyone, right throughout the basin. So having a healthy system is for the benefit of everyone in this country. This legislation tries to do that. It tries to do that by listening to the expert advice of the scientists that we have engaged along the way for the last couple of decades, by listening to the expert advice of people who live along the system and by trying to reach a manageable Murray-Darling Basin system that everybody can live within.</para>
<para>With respect to this legislation, yes, it restores the commitment to the plan and, yes, it restores the 450 gigalitres of additional water that was added to the restoration of the river, but it also does a lot more than that. It actually ensures that the water market itself has some integrity. Quite frankly, that has been one of the problems with the system. Not only is the water market something that personally I have had very little confidence in; the truth of the matter is that even the water market was abused. We saw when they were in government the coalition members were pretty choosy about who they allowed sales to take place for. There was some water sold under the buyback system, but have a close look at who sold it and who bought it.</para>
<para>The legislation also extends the time frame under which we hope to restore the waters to the system—again, giving everyone time to get the system under control. I do accept the arguments put by those opposite that communities will be affected. But, for those communities, there has been additional money put aside to try and help them recover from the impacts that the water buybacks might have on them.</para>
<para>I say this with respect to even the water itself. Members talk about irrigators going broke and not being able to provide for the rest of the nation and exports and the like when water is taken away from them. The water that comes into South Australia does not come in at the Lower Lakes end; it comes in at the border with Victoria. It services the whole South Australian Riverland region. The South Australian Riverland region produces 30 per cent of Australia's wine crops in addition to so many other horticultural products. It's a key part of South Australia's agricultural production. If the River Murray system is not restored, it'll be all of those growers who'll also miss out. I say this as someone who has spoken with some of those growers and spoken with a person who not only was a grower there but was given the job of assisting other growers with how to survive during the drought period. It is important for those people in South Australia's Riverland to ensure that this plan is put into effect and that the river is sustainable, because if it's not they also lose out.</para>
<para>The last point I'll make about the water buybacks is simply this: water trading is already allowed to happen. The truth is, once water trading has been introduced, it's not up to the government to decide who sells and who buys water. It is a free market. Anybody can do that. If willing sellers want to sell their water—either because they have invested in irrigation efficiency measures and have a surplus amount of water or because they have changed their crops and have a surplus amount of water—they should be allowed to do so. That will not affect those communities. That is a choice they make because they no longer need the water. If by some chance they simply want to get out of agriculture because they've reached the retirement age, again, it's their water. It's their right, just like it is for anyone else who owns property in this country, to buy and sell whenever they choose. With those comments, can I say this legislation simply restores what this parliament and the nation—because the state premiers agreed to it in 2012—back to what it should be, and that is a Murray-Darling Basin Plan that is sustainable.</para>
<para>Debate adjourned.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS</title>
        <page.no>37</page.no>
        <type>MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Vocational Education and Training</title>
          <page.no>37</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Reference to Federation Chamber</title>
            <page.no>42</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:34</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr O'CONNOR</name>
    <name.id>00AN3</name.id>
    <electorate>Gorton</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That the order of the day be referred to the Federation Chamber for debate.</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>BILLS</title>
        <page.no>42</page.no>
        <type>BILLS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Water Amendment (Restoring Our Rivers) Bill 2023</title>
          <page.no>42</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r7076" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Water Amendment (Restoring Our Rivers) Bill 2023</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>42</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:35</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr RAMSEY</name>
    <name.id>HWS</name.id>
    <electorate>Grey</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to speak on the Water Amendment (Restoring Our Rivers) Bill. There's no doubt that water reform is difficult, and it's very important in this debate that we don't just succumb to emotion and that we focus on reality.</para>
<para>We shouldn't underestimate what has been done in this field since John Howard first put the Water Bill on the table in 2007 and committed $10 billion of funding to the reform of the Murray-Darling Basin Authority, putting the power back with the Commonwealth and investing heavily in infrastructure projects that would return water to the environment without necessarily getting rid of those communities that it supports, on the way down, with irrigation. It's worth reflecting that the adjustable maximum sustainable diversion runs normally at around 10,000 to 11,000 gigalitres per annum. That is, of course, as the name would suggest, adjustable.</para>
<para>The Murray Darling Basin Plan originally put in place, as I said, by John Howard delivered the $13 billion funded. It secured—well, it has all but secured—the 2,750 gigalitres extra for the environment, and there is currently another 605 gigalitres of savings that are associated with supply measures and infrastructure that are supposedly underway at the moment. It's also worth reflecting that that 2,750-gigalitre figure is roughly a 25 per cent decrease in the water extracted for human use along the length of the Murray. So, while the sustainable diversion limit now is around that 10,000 to 11,000 gigalitres, that 2,750 went on top of that. It has been a huge boost for the environment, for the Lower Lakes and the Coorong and all along the river. We have had water to strategically water flood plains and bring new life back to those cracked plains.</para>
<para>The 450 gigalitres that is often the topic of discussion was first agreed to in 2017, and as a South Australian I welcome the 450 gigalitres of extra water. But it is important to recognise that there was a caveat put in place at that time on the 450 gigs—which was of course separate from the 2,750 gigs already agreed on—and it was dependent on neutral or positive socioeconomic outcomes and voluntary participation. That was the basis of the agreement between the states at that time. It was a good idea, and I still firmly endorse that position.</para>
<para>As a South Australian I am fully committed to a healthy Murray. In fact, in my electorate, while we don't use the Murray water in the way that perhaps the electorate of Barker does in terms of broad irrigation, it does provide water to approximately 90 per cent of the population in my electorate. It's enormously important in places like Whyalla, where the steel industry depends on it. It's enormously important in Port Pirie, for the smelter there to work. There is some supplementary irrigation that's taken into the Clare Valley, but in overall terms it's relatively minor. The reason for that of course is that, generally speaking, the water we take into the electorate of Grey is supplied at retail prices which prohibit the idea of irrigation. It is used for stock watering, but it's used largely for human consumption. That is in the high security licence and is not threatened by anything at the moment.</para>
<para>What I am concerned about in this debate comes back to my remarks around emotion and reality, and indeed to your comments, Mr Deputy Speaker Georganas, earlier today and the comments by the member for Makin from what I consider to be an Adelaide-centric view. I don't live in Adelaide, although my electorate gets awfully close to it now with Roseworthy and Two Wells within it, but there is little recognition of the communities that supply South Australian with fresh food and rely on those irrigation systems.</para>
<para>One of the things that I have always—before I got to this place, indeed—thought is that the general South Australia opinion of cotton and rice growers higher up the Murray-Darling Basin was poorly founded. I don't think it is realised how important annual plantings are to maximising the use of the wonderful river system that we have. There are times when there is too much water. We've just been through one of these times with incredible flows just to the east of Renmark. In fact, in January I will took a short tour up to the Riverland to have a look to see what those flood levels were like, for my own interest as much as anything. There were incredible amounts of water, and it's in those times that cotton and rice have a pretty good run.</para>
<para>They are on the lower-security licence, and it makes sense that they should be able to irrigate their crops. As they're on the lower-security licence, they are the first ones that drop off once the waters supply starts to fall away. That meant there was a long period, for instance, in the millennial drought, when there was no rice grown in Australia at all over four years, I think. It makes sense to utilise water when you have it in industries that can be mothballed, if you like, and not when you don't. The alternative is to have enough permanent plantings to use the water, which will die when there is not enough water, or just allow the excess to go out to sea for no good reason. It makes sense, and I think it is very important. There is another annual crop along the river, of course, and it is pasture. I know that that is not the most efficient use of water, but it is instrumental to our ability to run highly productive livestock industries along the length of the basin.</para>
<para>While my electorate is not directly afflicted, as I said, I am concerned about rural and regional South Australia and the effect that further buybacks might have on communities up in the Riverland. Those original buybacks happened around a decade ago now and resulted in a 30 per cent loss of population throughout the Riverland. As a 16-year-old or thereabouts—I might have even been a bit younger—my sister was living and working in the Murraylands, and I used to go fruit picking in Winkie. I was a fairly protected young country lad, and I was really taken with the lively nature of the communities—the hustle and bustle, if you like. The Greek immigrants were there working so hard, and there was a real vibrancy about the communities, which were expanding and going well. I have been back many times since that time, but, certainly, when I was up there inspecting the floods in January and driving down those main streets that have so many empty shops in them now, I reflected on what that population loss has done.</para>
<para>I have seen the same thing happen in my electorate. Whyalla, for instance, had a population at one stage of around 33,000. We are back to around 22,000 now, and in the past we have sunk to 19,000. It leads you to having a big, flabby body with nothing to put in it, and that is what happens when you get fast population losses in certain areas. It means you have no investment in public infrastructure over a long period because the town is overserviced already, and that dynamism is sucked away. That's what I have seen happen in the Riverland. They still look good, the towns are tidy and looked after and the businesses are there. Businesses are under pressure again now and, generally speaking, are good businesses. It is a smaller place than it used to be because the primary source of income has slipped away. That means there are fewer people, fewer acres under irrigation, fewer people working on those blocks, less production, less transport, less everything. I'm given to reflect on what might happen if there is further shrinkage in the hectares they can plant.</para>
<para>Now the kicker in this legislation is not that it's being taken out to a longer time line—that's a good thing in itself because we're seeing that these reforms are difficult—but that the legislation is throwing away the safeguard. I restate that safeguard: dependent on neutral or positive socioeconomic outcomes. The legislation as it stands would allow the minister to buy up water licences wherever she sees fit. In fact, I'm not sure that she would not be able to do compulsory acquisition of water licences. But let's assume that it's a voluntary buyback. You'd say, 'If people are doing well out of irrigation, why would they sell their licence?' The thing is that people aren't necessarily doing well out of irrigation.</para>
<para>In particular, the wine industry has been suffering in Australia. It's not their fault. It's because of the trade embargoes in China. In the wine industry, those trade embargoes have had a larger effect on what we call the 'lower price end' or the 'bulk end' of the wine market, which comes out of the Riverland in South Australia. Consequently we are awash, particularly, in red wine. It's making grapes difficult to sell. They are cheap, and vignerons are not getting a good return. In fact, they're getting a very poor return. They're under pressure. So the government comes along now and says, 'We'll buy your licence back.' There will be people who will sell their licence—many of them, I suspect. It may not be that hard to round up the water. But it's not their fault that the industry's in that state. When those licences are surrendered, they will not come back, and those communities will be forever smaller. That presents a hollowing out of industry from within.</para>
<para>I remember a time when Berri, for instance, had a large cannery and an orange juice factory. I declare a personal interest: my brother-in-law was the general manager at one stage. But they don't come back. My understanding is that the biggest wine producer, I think in the southern hemisphere, is what was the old Berri Estate winery. All those things are under pressure at the moment. If the winegrowers give up their licences now and they pull the vines or they don't water them, when the wine market turns around, that water doesn't come back. It doesn't come back and neither do those people in the community. That's why the safeguard mechanisms sit within.</para>
<para>I remember when this legislation was first passed over a decade ago. In my speeches to parliament, I spoke about stopping the leakage. That's what the money was for. We have to stop the leakage. In South Australia, as you well know, Mr Deputy Speaker Georganas, we have a good record. All of our irrigation is delivered in pipes. In the Riverland, when I used to go up there fruit picking, it was in channels. Those channels were leaky, and they evaporate, but the leakage is probably the worst thing. It's just really inefficient. I know we are all in pipes in South Australia, but there are plenty of cases along the Murray where the water is still delivered in channels. There are reasons for doing so, and I'm not saying those channels leak as bad as the old concrete ones, but there is higher evaporation and higher leakage. I know there's a higher cost if you put the pipes in because you have to pump water. I'm not naive on these issues. It is important to understand that they are multilayered. But there is no doubt water is lost out of the system, and it is not going into the production of food. In that case, there is a place for investment to return water to the river without damaging those communities economically.</para>
<para>I said there are 605 gigalitres currently envisaged to come back to the river through infrastructure works, and I urge the government, and you, Mr Deputy Speaker Georganas, through any influence you have, to push that along. I have to say that, in some of these projects, it seems that government support or interest is pretty lukewarm. For instance—and I've thought this is a good idea for a long time—there is a proposal to open up the southern lagoon of the Coorong lakes to seawater. People should understand that the water in the southern Coorong lakes can be saltier than the sea. In fact, it often is saltier than the sea. The reason for that is the Coorong lakes have spasmodic flooding. Before European settlement and the dams and the weirs being put on the river, they would have dried out periodically, almost completely. So would the Lower Lakes. But we choose to keep water in them all the time now and think that, should they dry up, that is some kind of environmental calamity. We talk about fish kills. Imagine how big the fish kills would have been when you could jump across the Murray—and there are photos up in the Renmark Hotel of how narrow the Murray was. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:50</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms McBAIN</name>
    <name.id>281988</name.id>
    <electorate>Eden-Monaro</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>As everybody knows, Labor has made a commitment to deliver the Murray-Darling Basin Plan in full. We have listened, and we will deliver scientifically proven water outcomes. I'm pleased to be able to speak on the Water Amendment (Restoring Our Rivers) Bill 2023 today, which will amend the Water Act and the Basin Plan. The changes will see 450 gigalitres of water returned to the environment and reinstate transparency, integrity and confidence in water markets. There is absolutely no time to lose in this. After a decade of delay and dysfunction, we have had to act firmly and decisively, delivering more in our first nine months than those opposite did in nine years. Collaboration has been the key—collaboration with the states and territories, with farmers, with irrigators, with scientists and with First Nations groups. We've listened, and now we are acting and getting on with the job. The outcome has seen common sense restored, with implementation mechanisms that will allow basin governments more time to deliver remaining water based on expert advice. The outcome will allow more options to deliver the remaining water, including water infrastructure projects and voluntary water buybacks. It'll deliver more funding for the remaining water and to support communities where those voluntary water buybacks have flow-on effects, and it will deliver more accountability from Murray-Darling Basin governments to deliver the remaining water on time. At the end of the day, a healthy basin will ensure a sustainable future not only for the river system but for our regional communities that rely on its health.</para>
<para>Australia is headed towards a drought. Some parts of my electorate are already technically in drought. If we don't act swiftly to preserve the river's health, we will not be prepared. The communities, the native species, the river ecosystems and the agriculture industries who rely on the river's health will all be at risk. It's why this plan was developed in the first place—to help us through the dry years and ensure that there is enough water flowing even at the lowest points. The original deadline for the plan was set for June of next year, but, thanks to the outright sabotage from some others over the past decade, this was just not going to happen. They blocked water recovery programs. They ignored scientific advice and tied up projects in impossible rules so that they couldn't deliver any water savings. The changes we are making are necessary. They are necessary to preserve the largest and most complex river system in the country. Up to 2.3 million Australians call the basin home, and more than three million people drink its water each and every day. I am proud to be part of an Albanese Labor government helping to secure Australia's water future through the next dry stretch and beyond, and I thank the minister for delivering this Basin Plan for communities right across the country.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:53</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr PITT</name>
    <name.id>148150</name.id>
    <electorate>Hinkler</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Water is always a difficult issue. It's a fraught issue. It's a complicated issue. The Murray-Darling Basin has always been that way. No matter where you stand, whether you are at a farm here in Australia—whether you're in Queensland or South Australia or New South Wales—or in fact anywhere around the world, if you want to really narrow this down, the easiest way to think about it is: when you're talking to a local farmer, they will think that downstream are wasters and upstream are thieves. That is fundamentally how it applies. When it comes to the Murray-Darling Basin, this has been a very difficult turn of events over many years, through droughts and floods and everything else.</para>
<para>But what I want to put on the record here today is more around what's being used by those opposite, particularly the Greens. They are making some outrageous claims about what can and can't be delivered around 450 gigalitres of water. Let me be very clear: taking 450 gigalitres of entitlement away from growers will not keep the mouth of the Murray River open. I've been to the Murray River mouth. In fact, I've been all over the Murray-Darling Basin, from Queensland all the way through. I've spoken to users, environmentalists and Aboriginal communities and groups. There seems to be a concept that this magic number is going to fix everything and make the environment wonderful. This river system will never return to its natural state—it can't. It is a series of weir pools controlled by gates and valves and engineering that has been in place for decades. It is very well managed by the Murray-Darling Basin Authority. They've done an incredible job in difficult circumstances.</para>
<para>We needed to talk about facts and reality. The 450 gig is a number, and that number is about taking away the economic security of people who utilise that water. There is a big difference between entitlement and allocation. Every single year the states work out how much entitlement is provided as an allocation to growers dependent on conditions. They don't get all this water every year, regardless of what it looks like and regardless of weather conditions and everything else. To put anything else forward is complete nonsense, so let's look at what is going on in reality. I have here the <inline font-style="italic">SA River Murray Flow Report</inline> from 30 December 2022. I want to utilise a few numbers out of the report to make my point, but first I want to congratulate in particular the members for Barker and Nichols and the member for Parkes for their contributions. They are people who've lived in the basin for many years, and they actually understand how it works. They know the impacts it has on their communities.</para>
<para>The first point I want to make out of the reporters is this:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The peak flow reached the South Australian border on 23 December and has since passed through Renmark, Lyrup, Berri, Loxton …</para></quote>
<para>This obviously was late last year.</para>
<quote><para class="block">The adjusted peak flow at the border was around 190 GL/day …</para></quote>
<para>Seriously, that is a lot of water passing into South Australia. The report goes on to say this about the Murray mouth:</para>
<quote><para class="block">High flows are achieving good scouring of sand at the Murray Mouth, now that average tide levels are becoming lower (typical for this time of year). In addition to the obvious environmental benefits, the current deepening and widening of the Mouth will also further improve capacity of the barrages to pass flood waters out to sea.</para></quote>
<para>Right up until close to this point you are still dredging the mouth of the Murray. It is a continuous operation. The idea that a 450 gigalitre reduction in entitlement for growers will make differences to the Murray mouth is quite simply ridiculous. From an engineering standpoint, it is absolute nonsense.</para>
<para>If you look at what has been going on in the Murray in recent months—the member for Parkes is here, and I know he's seen this firsthand in any number of floods and droughts—unregulated flows into South Australia have been continuous since July 2021. For those who don't understand what that means, it means there is a stack of water that people can utilise because there is so much of it they don't know what to do with it. Those flows were continuous from July 2021 until the end of last year, when it reached peak flows. This is an enormous system. In fact, the modelling of this system is still separate. It is still managed through different state organisations, and they don't have an overarching model of the entire Murray-Darling Basin flow—it doesn't exist. It's something the coalition committed money to so that we can get this done and upgrade these old clunky systems of software to get something that is far more advanced and utilises technology that's used right around the world.</para>
<para>We know that you need enormous amounts of water running through the Murray to have any impact whatsoever on the mouth—enormous amounts—and yet we continue to see a proposition put forward by those opposite that a 450 gigalitre reduction in entitlement will make enormous changes to the environment. Well, it's just not true. If you want to make changes to the environment, you need to do things that have practical outcomes, not just reduce entitlements for holders in the Murray-Darling Basin. That simply won't work, and the minister is misleading the House. There is no deal here. Victoria are not in; they are out. They are not in for buybacks, and you do not have a Murray-Darling Basin Plan without Victoria. If you don't have all the states, what is the intention from those opposite? Will the Labor Party build a wall through the middle of the river and say we have New South Wales on one side and Victoria on the other? It is a ridiculous proposition. If you do not have Victoria you do not have a deal and you do not have a Murray-Darling Basin Plan. It does not exist.</para>
<para>If we look at the changes proposed to the bill, one that stuck out to me was the postponement of the requirement for the minister to conduct a review of the Water Act from the end of 2024 to the end of 2027—the reconciliation. If I recall correctly, on advice, that'll take a couple of years, so it's actually delayed to 2029. For those in the Greens who are saying, 'This is a wonderful thing, and we're going to get the stuff that we fought for,' 2029 is a very, very long way away. There are changes around the Inspector-General of Water Compliance, and some of these I welcome because we established this group. We established the Inspector-General of Water Compliance. I appointed Troy Grant. He has a very long history in police, enforcement and investigation, and he's doing great job.</para>
<para>But the most important part that the minister continues to ignore—he doesn't speak about it whatsoever—is that the plan is not established until the water resource plans are completed. It is not established until they're completed—and the framework is in place so that you can actually enforce the plan. We hear a lot of noise from the minister about numbers, water, entitlement and the environment, but nothing about the actual pieces inside the plan, the detail, and the things that need to be completed. I took a quick look at the Murray-Darling Basin Authority's outline. Right now, the Barwon-Darling Watercourse Water Resource Plan, the WRP, has been withdrawn by New South Wales, as have the ones for the Gwydir, the Macquarie and Castlereagh, and the Namoi. Many of the others were done under the coalition—put forward and completed. I congratulate Victoria, South Australia and Queensland; their plans are in, completed, signed off and operational. These are the bits that matter. These are the bits that matter in the local areas. Without the water resource plan, everything else doesn't really work. It is quite incredible that the minister continues to ignore the pieces that will make a difference.</para>
<para>The 450 gigalitres is now going to be brought about through different means—one, in particular, being uncapped buybacks. You now have this perverse position where those opposite, the Labor government, are suggesting that they will spend, potentially, hundreds of millions of dollars on water infrastructure with big irrigators, and this is the right way to go about the plan because you get new infrastructure and, as a by-product, you get water recovery through efficiencies. That is the right away. But those organisations can then sell that recovered water to the Commonwealth as part of this entitlement. Double dipping—that just doesn't even describe it. What a ludicrous proposition: the taxpayer will pay for upgraded infrastructure for the company to then be able to sell back water to the Commonwealth. They win both ways—what an incredible outcome. The only people that lose are those that live in these communities because, in perpetuity, they will have lost this water allocation, this water entitlement, that drives their economy. It actually grows food—food for the country, which we desperately need.</para>
<para>When you add on Labor's propositions around safeguards and what they're intending to do for offsets, as well as the 60 million hectares that somehow the minister for environment is going to magically acquire to meet nature reserve commitments to the United Nations, the more you look at all of the proposals the only places they can come from are cleared and partially cleared agricultural land, of which there's about 425 million hectares. If you lose 60 million to nature reserves and you lose 450 gigalitres of water, 450,000 megalitres, that will take out some 50,000 to 70,000 hectares, as has been explained by the member for Barker and others, of productive land in this country. That reduces our food-growing capacity.</para>
<para>No-one on the government side seems to be talking about the impact this will have on the individual. If you look at the flow-through effects—and I know Treasury won't model flow-through effects—they're up to five times into the economy. The individual that works at the bakery, works at the hairdresser or is a teacher at the local school in a town that loses its population—they no longer have a job. They will move somewhere else to find that job, and that population will continue to decline until they can't provide those services, there aren't any schools, there aren't any childcare services or there aren't any aged-care services because the entire regional economy relies on irrigated agriculture in many of these locations. They are small towns, they are the heart of this country and they should be protected from this Labor government. We will fight against the government. We will fight this because it is fundamentally wrong.</para>
<para>I know there will be individuals out there who are very happy to sell their water because to them this has become a bucket of gold. They can dig in. They won't have to have employees. They won't need to run farms. They won't have to do any of those things. They can potentially move. And good luck to them. But the reality of the impact on these Murray-Darling communities should not be understated. We have seen what has happened in other towns already. This is why the Victorian minister is refusing to sign up. Victoria will not do buybacks.</para>
<para>There are much better options to be delivered, and that is around infrastructure and around water efficiency. Australian farmers are some of the most efficient users of water in the world. They are incredibly efficient. They look after every tablespoon of water because they know how important it is not only to their operations but also in the way they operate in the environment. Most farmers out there are very, very good operators.</para>
<para>We continue to see more proposed changes. If we look at the water market briefly, Daryl Quinlivan, who I appointed to do this work, came out with the <inline font-style="italic">Water market reform:</inline><inline font-style="italic">final </inline><inline font-style="italic">roadmap</inline><inline font-style="italic">report</inline>. His concern was around costs. I know that internally there were recommendations around building another ivory tower, whether it's in the ACCC or elsewhere, to look after water market reform. The concern I always have is around who's paying, because that cost will go onto the cost of water. The bigger these departments get, the more people that they employ, the more things they do, that cost has to be recovered, and it will be recovered through the only means necessary, which is on water prices. That drives up the cost of food and it reduces the opportunities for Australian farmers to be profitable, to be cost competitive in the world environment.</para>
<para>There were statements made by Victoria's water minister, Harriet Shing. They do not support the new deal. Victoria has a longstanding opposition to buybacks and nothing we have seen in this deal has changed that position. But it's not just Victoria who are against this. New South Wales does not support water buybacks. It wants to see the Australian government prioritise investment in recovering water through other ways. How do you do this without New South Wales and Victoria, two of the biggest agricultural states on the Murray-Darling Basin? You cannot deliver the plan without them.</para>
<para>The federal minister needs to explain to the House and explain to the Australian people how on earth you have a plan without these two states. How is it that they want to go out and take away what drives the economy in these regional towns and centres? They deserve to be looked after, and the idea that they will be thrown a few shekels to move them on, to do something else—well, they don't want to do that. They like where they live. They like to live in regional Australia. They like being farmers. They like working on farms. They like delivering for our economy. Can you imagine what this will cost in perpetuity for every single year that it doesn't exist, this change to take away water entitlements forever from these people who produce Australia's food supply? The idea that it can be offset by something else is nonsense. It is ludicrous, and yet we have a Minister for the Environment and Water who is deadset on destroying these communities and the people who live there.</para>
<para>The more the minister focuses on taking away from them, the more they'll fight, the more they'll argue and the more they'll stand up. We have seen how much trouble this has caused in the basin in the past, and I say to Minister Plibersek: 'Recant. Change your mind. Go back to the way it was being delivered under the coalition, because infrastructure is the way to do this.' There are multiple benefits to using infrastructure for this type of water recovery. You get infrastructure that lasts for decades, you get outcomes for communities that last forever, and you don't destroy the economies of these regional communities who deserve to be looked after.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:08</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms TEMPLEMAN</name>
    <name.id>181810</name.id>
    <electorate>Macquarie</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>It has been fascinating hearing the arguments of those opposite for refusing to do something that is so fundamental to the long-term viability of their constituents in whatever state they are, whether it's New South Wales, Victoria or South Australia. There seems to be a complete denial of the fact that the impact of climate change means that these river systems have already suffered—the Murray-Darling River systems have already suffered fish kills, algal blooms, reduced flows because of the weather that has been experienced—and that climate change projections warn that future river flows could be reduced by up to 70 per cent, which is nothing short of a catastrophe both for farmers and for the environment. I really ask those opposite to step back and think about what is at stake here. For all their outrage, they had nearly a decade to work on this, and they failed miserably to make progress. The tiny amount of water that was put back into the system thanks to some water efficiency things is minute compared to what really needs to happen. I think it's worth all of us stepping back.</para>
<para>I represent the Blue Mountains and the Hawkesbury. We have the Hawkesbury River; that's got nothing to do with the Murray-Darling. Why does it matter? Well, the Murray-Darling Basin covers about one-seventh of the entire Australian land mass. It's most of New South Wales. It's parts of Queensland, South Australia and Victoria. It's all of the ACT, where we stand today. That obviously includes the Murray River and the Darling River, Baaka, and their tributaries. Vast amounts of water are extracted from the rivers to supply around three million Australians. That includes irrigating farms, but we're talking about drinking water as well. It was described by Ross Gittins in the <inline font-style="italic">Sydney Morning Herald </inline>as 'the nation's biggest food bowl, underpinning the livelihoods of 2.6 million people and producing food and fibres worth more than $24 billion a year'. It is obviously a key economic asset that we should be working hard to sustain, not just to use up as fast as we can and be left with whatever happens next.</para>
<para>The Murray-Darling is also a living ecosystem, and it depends on all those interconnected natural resources. About five per cent of the basin consists of floodplain forests, lakes, rivers and other wetland habitats. Like all the rivers, it is subject to recurring droughts and, of course, flooding. When we came to government, even before we came to government, we made a commitment that we would work hard to get this Murray-Darling Basin Plan back on track. You can't forget why Australian governments designed the Murray-Darling Basin Plan in the very first place a decade ago. We know that we're never far from a drought in Australia. That's one of the predictable things. The plan is to help us through the dry years, to make sure that there is enough water flowing through that water system at its lowest moments to make it through till the next rain. That plan was completely undermined by those opposite while they were in government.</para>
<para>Let's think about how that plan is going. To be clear, the plan became law in 2012, so we're 11 years on. That was, obviously, under the last Labor government. It was due to be fully implemented and audited by the end of June next year, less than a year away. The plan itself limits the amount of water extracted from the basin. The aim is both to improve the condition of freshwater ecosystems and to maintain that social and economic benefit of irrigated agriculture. So how is that plan going? Clearly, not very well under those opposite—nine years of mismanagement, with many exposes on the things that had gone wrong. We don't have time at this moment to talk through those things—the mismanagement that has occurred at different state levels and at federal level—but they are very well documented.</para>
<para>Where are we now? The offset projects were likely to deliver only about 415 billion litres of the 605 billion litres required, and very little water is actually getting to the flood plains. Of the 450 billion litres to be retrieved through water efficiency projects, only 26 billion litres had been recovered. That means that, of the 3,200 billion litres of water to be returned to the environment, only 2,100 billion litres had been achieved. That's as of March this year. Plus, there's a small amount of projected water from offset projects, if that's delivered. Essentially, any assessment of the data at whatever point in time you do it shows that the plan was way behind where it ought to have been when we took office.</para>
<para>As I've said, let's think about the impacts that this failure has already had in the past decade. There have been millions of fish that have perished in mass die-offs. Toxic algae has bloomed. Wildlife and water birds have declined in numbers, and wetlands have literally dried up. You have to ask: what are those things signs of? They're all signs that too much water is still being taken from the system. On coming to office, our commitment is to try and get things back on track. That's where we find ourselves. We announced that we had reached an agreement with the basin governments to deliver the Murray-Darling Basin Plan in full, and that includes the 450 gigalitres of water for the environment.</para>
<para>This is basically a rescue package for the Murray-Darling Basin. I think we've heard from people all around this chamber who have communities affected that it's really important for those communities. Whether they are down at the Adelaide end of those communities or up around Menindee and right through, these are crucial waterways. What this legislation does is give every government involved more time to deliver the remaining water based on expert advice. We like the science, and we will listen to the experts. It also gives more options to deliver the remaining water, including water infrastructure projects and voluntary water buybacks—that is voluntary water buybacks. There's also more funding to deliver the remaining water and to support communities where voluntary water buybacks have flow-on impacts—a consequence for those communities. This legislation also ensures more accountability from Murray-Darling Basin governments on delivering the remaining water on time. Transparency is not something that has been a highlight of this project over the last decade. Our federal funding will be contingent on achieving water recovery targets within deadlines, to hold people to account.</para>
<para>There has been outrage on the other side about what all of this means. Basically, it's a return to common sense. It's about remembering what the point of it is. What was the point of this plan? It is to have a healthy and sustainable basin, not just for today but for the future. It is a complex plan, but the outcome is very simple—to set the river up so that it's there for our kids, our grandkids and their grandkids. I just want to note that, when we talk about the things that have been achieved so far in the plan, more than 80 per cent of the achievements were done under Labor governments. We set a target and we worked towards it. We don't do what those opposite did. For many years, they just said: 'If we don't talk about it, maybe it'll just go away. We're not going to say we're not going to do it, but if we just don't do anything then maybe we'll just get away with that.' Sadly, the river and the communities are paying the consequences for that. We want to see more options around how the outcome that we want to see is achieved, not more restrictions.</para>
<para>If this bill doesn't pass this year, the current legislation requires states to actually withdraw their unfinished projects—to stop them. That means that a major part of the plan will fall over, and that will lead to substantial costs and delays. So this is a really commonsense approach to be able to continue the work that was started under Labor, which didn't go very far under the coalition, and get it back on track under our Albanese government. Delivering this plan is clearly going to be good for the environment, but it's also good for local jobs and for local communities. This is the commitment we made going into the election, and we are doing exactly what we said we would do: working with the states. I note that those opposite point to Victoria. The Victorians have made it clear that they will continue working with us. The minister for the environment has made it clear that the door will always be open to the Victorians. Many of the water savings in Victoria have occurred under the Victorian government, so they have a commitment to achieving the same outcomes. You wouldn't know it in this place, having heard the speeches from those opposite that we've heard, but it's worth remembering that the Basin Plan targets were a bipartisan agreement more than a decade ago.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Coulton</name>
    <name.id>HWN</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>They weren't!</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms TEMPLEMAN</name>
    <name.id>181810</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Those opposite dispute it. I guess, really, when it comes down to it, it may well have been bipartisan a decade ago, but clearly those opposite are just walking away from any commitments. These are the people who claim that they care about the long-term sustainability of the land, yet here they are doing everything they can to exploit a resource now and leave none of it for the future.</para>
<para>Australia is in the midst of an environmental emergency. We are one of the countries on the front line of climate change. We're seeing it every season—whether it's floods, whether it's fires or whether it's drought. You'd have to be a fool not to recognise the part of the cycle that we're moving into now. If we don't act now to preserve the Murray-Darling, our basin towns will be totally unprepared for drought. We'll also have native animals facing the threat of extinction even more rapidly. Our river ecosystems will risk environmental collapse, and our food and fibre production will become insecure and unsustainable. This is what's at stake, and this is why it's a really important moment for basin communities and for any Australian, including those in my electorate, who cares deeply about the health of our environment and the health of our communities. I commend this bill to the House.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:22</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr JOYCE</name>
    <name.id>e5d</name.id>
    <electorate>New England</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>There's something I feel incredibly passionate about: the economic viability of the regional towns that have sustained me through my life, whether that was Moree, where I lived, St George, Dirranbandi or even where I am at the moment. I grew up in Danglemah. It's in the Murray-Darling Basin. There are other towns such as Deniliquin, Griffith, Shepparton and Mildura—in the electorate of Mallee, that of the good member beside me. We can divide this speech and the speeches we hear today up between those who live and rely on the Murray-Darling Basin and those who live outside it and are commentators on it. It is amazing how quickly, back in 2013, whilst in the parliament, the people of the ACT managed to take Cotter Dam from 3.9 gigalitres to 78,000 megalitres—without a blink. The issue is, if you're taking water out for Canberra, that's A-OK, but, if you're taking water out for somewhere else, that's not. The previous speaker stated that we have to do this or we will permanently be in drought. I can tell the good member that, if we take this water out, some towns will be permanently in drought. In fact, they'll have no reason to exist. Sine qua non is the Latin for it—without this, nothing. One of the reasons I'm passionately attached to this is that I negotiated the initial deal with then minister Burke, the member for Watson. For the history of this—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Dr Leigh</name>
    <name.id>BU8</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>A moment ago we heard you didn't support it</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr JOYCE</name>
    <name.id>e5d</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>You should listen.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Dr Leigh</name>
    <name.id>BU8</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm trying to keep up here. Did you support it or not?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>DZY</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! Direct your comments through the chair.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr JOYCE</name>
    <name.id>e5d</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I absolutely did, and do you want to know why? I'll take the interjection. Do you want to know why I supported it? At that point in time, the Greens were going to run off with 6,000-plus gigalitres, completing decimating the Murray-Darling Basin. And the good and learned member for Watson, the then water minister, Mr Anthony Burke, said that what we could do was to go to 2,750. That's where we landed. That 450 was there, but it had an economic and social detriment clause. I believe that, in a way, that's better than neutrality, because that way you can say: 'I win here, I lose there; therefore, it's neutral.' No. 'Social and economic detriment'—any detriment, and you could not go forward. That was the position of the Australia Labor Party under Minister Burke.</para>
<para>Now we have the member for Sydney with a completely alternative policy. This is substantially and diametrically different. So to which person do we owe gratitude for their wisdom? Does wisdom reside with the member for Watson, or does wisdom reside with the member for Sydney?</para>
<para>I'll tell you what, this time—and I don't like to involve myself in Labor politics, but I'm going with the member for Watson. I'm going with your Leader of the House. I say to the member opposite who interjected: 'your Leader of the House'—I back him in. But you guys don't. You people don't. You've given up on it. So I back Minister Burke. They don't. They've given up on their own minister. Where does the wisdom reside—with which minister?</para>
</continue>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr JOYCE</name>
    <name.id>e5d</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I take the interjection. Which minister do you believe is wiser, the member for Watson or the member for Sydney? Which one? You're confounding yourself. You always do.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>DZY</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! All remarks will be made through the chair.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr JOYCE</name>
    <name.id>e5d</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>What we have to understand is this. If we take this out, what is the future for Dirranbandi? What is the future for Mildura? What is the future for Shepparton? What are you putting on the table to give these people? What—a painted roundabout? A new park? What are you actually going to do for the people that you are going to send backwards? I can assure you: there will be farmers who'll take your money and go to reside on the Gold Coast; they'll be gone. But what will you do for the hairdresser? What will you do for the tyre business? What will you do for the schools when the children come out? It will put the schools at risk. What will you do for the hospital when there are not enough patients, so the doctor goes and the hospital is taken down? Do you realise, whilst you are talking about bringing equality to people in remote and regional areas, counterfactually and counterintuitively, you are putting forward a policy to make them poorer.</para>
<para>One of the greatest advantages in where I used to live, in St George, for quite a while, while I built up an accountancy practice from a zero start, and then ended up with about 600 clients, was: a lot of my clients were Indigenous. Do you know what they had? Businesses. It's a great way to get ahead, small business: hotels; cotton chipping operations; farm machinery contractors. These people actually got ahead. And they got ahead on the basis of access to water. But what you're doing is saying: 'No, we'd prefer you go backwards. We're going to send you people backwards.' I know the member for Parkes has got some serious Indigenous businesses in the city of Dubbo—yet another one from an agricultural precinct, and the agricultural precinct of places such as Warren relies on irrigation. So you're taking all these people backwards. And you're doing it on a theme. The theme is: to garner an environmental vote in sections of urban Australia, you're willing to send regional Australia under a bus.</para>
<para>I go back to the member for Watson. He was actually diligent enough to go out and do the research and understand this issue. As hard as it was, I believed at the time it was best to land a deal so we could remove the uncertainty that has surrounded this issue, so people could get on with their lives and accept the pain that was coming their way. And there was pain. There was massive pain from doing this.</para>
<para>But the 450, as stated by the Australian Labor Party, was premised on a socioeconomic detriment test. Now, that is a premise of what you are now removing. So I can only say: you care nothing about socioeconomic detriment in regional areas, because your own actions are deriding that principle.</para>
<para>Obviously water is an issue of importance no matter where you go. By the way, 425 gigalitres is what's in Sydney Harbour. This is a massive amount of water—450 gigalitres—coming out. We don't know where it's coming from. If they have to pull it from Goondiwindi, it won't be 450; it will be 4,500-plus.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>248181</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour. If the member's speech was interrupted, he will be granted leave to continue when the debate is resumed.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS</title>
        <page.no>50</page.no>
        <type>STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Corbley, Mr Martin</title>
          <page.no>50</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:30</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr VAN MANEN</name>
    <name.id>188315</name.id>
    <electorate>Forde</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Our local Beenleigh community has lost a truly wonderful leader, volunteer and mentor, with the passing of Martin Corbley last week. Martin was a significant contributor to the Rotary Club of Beenleigh, providing an extraordinary 21 years of service. He held a number of executive positions within Rotary across multiple tenures, from club president to club secretary and club foundation chair, with his philanthropic efforts earning him the title of Rotary Foundation major donor level 1. His service was recognised earlier this year when Martin was given an honorary membership, the highest distinction that a club can bestow on a Rotarian, which, as stated by Rotary International, 'should be conferred only in exceptional cases'. As current club president Rachelle Mulraney describes his service: 'Martin ignited the club with his leadership and his steadfast support, and, alongside his wife, Marion, enriched countless Rotary projects and strengthened our local community.' In his working career, Martin was also a small-business owner, operating a small business for some 35 years. Martin was the heart of our Beenleigh community and will be sorely missed. My sincere condolences to Marion and his family. Vale, Martin Corbley.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Morocco: Earthquake</title>
          <page.no>51</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:31</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms VAMVAKINOU</name>
    <name.id>00AMT</name.id>
    <electorate>Calwell</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to speak on the devastating tragedy in Morocco as a result of the earthquake which has so far claimed 2,800 lives. I welcome the Australian government's announcement that Australia will provide $1 million in emergency humanitarian assistance to people affected by the devastating earthquake in Morocco. This is Morocco's deadliest earthquake in more than six decades. The funds will be provided through local organisations, including the Red Cross and the Red Crescent, to deliver immediate life-saving assistance, including emergency shelter, first aid, protection and psychological support.</para>
<para>We are seeing the international community step up to support and assist with rescue efforts amidst this unfolding humanitarian crisis. Amidst the devastation, the images coming through are heartbreaking. People are working tirelessly against the clock to find and rescue survivors amongst the rubble. The level of destruction appears to be overwhelming, with damage done to the cultural heritage sites that Morocco is renowned for, including UNESCO World Heritage sites. As chair of the Australia-Morocco parliamentary friendship group, I want to pass on my deep sympathies to Her Excellency the Ambassador of the Kingdom of Morocco to Australia, Ms Wassane Zailachi, and pay tribute to the warmth and resilience of the people of Morocco. I've no doubt the spirit of resilience of the people of Morocco will be what defines this humanitarian crisis as they try to overcome this tragedy.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Australian Constitution: Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice</title>
          <page.no>51</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:33</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr SUKKAR</name>
    <name.id>242515</name.id>
    <electorate>Deakin</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Our nation faces many challenges, including a cost-of-living crisis, housing and infrastructure struggles exacerbated by this government, national security concerns and, of course, always ensuring high-quality health and education systems. However, all this Labor government seems to be focused on is its divisive Canberra Voice. The upcoming referendum on 14 October won't be front of mind for many Australians, but it is important. It's a referendum that is not simply about recognition, as those opposite claim. The Voice proposal goes much further than this. If passed, it would represent the biggest change to our Constitution in our history—and Labor will not provide details before the vote. They want to provide you the details after the vote.</para>
<para>We all want to help Indigenous Australians in disadvantaged communities. However, this Voice is not the answer, and this is certainly understood by many within my electorate. These are some of the emails I have received in recent days. Li Wang from Forest Hill said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">In these difficult economic times, "voice" is not a priority.</para></quote>
<para>Robert from Vermont wrote:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Using the 'Voice' referendum to create a race division in our society is not what I think most Australians will accept.</para></quote>
<para>William from Vermont said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">… in 1967, we voted for equality and reconciliation … Please stand up for equal rights for all Australians, regardless of race.</para></quote>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Human Rights: Iran</title>
          <page.no>51</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:34</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr LAXALE</name>
    <name.id>299174</name.id>
    <electorate>Bennelong</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>One year ago today, Jina Mahsa Amini was arrested by Iran's morality police for what they deemed an improper way of wearing her hijab. What followed was horrifying, leading ultimately to her tragic death in police custody three days later. Her story is testament to the injustices faced by countless individuals in Iran, especially women and girls, whose fundamental rights and freedoms continue to be violated today. In the wake of this incident, the world bore witness to the resilience of the Iranian people, particularly women, as a wave of protest was ignited in Iran and across the world.</para>
<para>Today, the Albanese government imposed targeted financial sanctions and travel bans on four individuals and targeted financial sanctions on three entities responsible for the oppression of people in Iran, particularly women and girls. Not only do these sanctions mark the first time Australia has imposed these types but also it's on top of three packages of sanctions that have been implemented in the last year. The Albanese government, in 12 months, have taken out more actions against this horrible regime than any previous government before it.</para>
<para>I would like to thank the foreign minister and her staff for listening to MPs like me and, of course, for listening to the Iranian Australian community across the country. I will continue to stand in solidarity with my local Iranian Australian community and fight for justice for them: women, life, freedom.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Indigenous Youth Incarceration</title>
          <page.no>51</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:36</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms CHANEY</name>
    <name.id>300006</name.id>
    <electorate>Curtin</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Last month, my Curtin Youth Advisory Group held its last meeting before handing over to next year's group of students. At our meeting, each youth adviser gave a 90-second speech on an issue they care about. Bella spoke about refugees, Ava spoke about the NDIS and Max spoke about affordable housing. Olivia spoke about transitioning to a green economy, and Sarah and Saskia both spoke about youth mental health and how to combat stress from school.</para>
<para>Tom Mengler from Scotch College was voted as making the speech of the day, and I want to share with you some of his thoughts on Indigenous youth incarceration. Tom said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Not only does youth incarceration severely affect the health and wellbeing of generations of Indigenous people, it is also a pathway into reoffending, contributing to overrepresentation of Indigenous youth in the criminal justice system.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Australian Institute of Health and Welfare found that of children in youth detention across Australia, 56% were Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders. However, Indigenous kids only represent 6% of the entire 10-17 age bracket in Australia.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">According to Amnesty International, 94% of children locked up between the age of 10 and 12 were found to reoffend before turning 18.</para></quote>
<para>Tom wants the government to make Indigenous youth incarceration a national priority and to fund programs that would disrupt the cycle of offending and reoffending. I hope the government will hear these calls.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Australian Constitution: Aboriginal And Torres Strait Islander Voice</title>
          <page.no>52</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:37</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr MULINO</name>
    <name.id>132880</name.id>
    <electorate>Fraser</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The rates of volunteering may be in decline generally but in these past few months in my electorate of Fraser I have seen an extraordinary turnout of people who are committed to seeing the 'yes' vote triumph in the referendum to enshrine an Indigenous Voice to Parliament. They are giving up their time to campaign hard and they are making an extraordinary contribution. I am proud to represent them. The Fraser for Yes campaign now has more than 330 registered volunteers. Week in and week out, they are out in the community, ensuring that residents understand the importance of the referendum. Their commitment is particularly vital given the cultural diversity of the seat of Fraser.</para>
<para>Whether it's doorknocking, distributing yard signs, creating social media groups to coordinate events, holding streets stalls at markets or handing out leaflets at train stations, the passion of the Fraser for Yes camp volunteers also illustrates the inherent desire for fairness that Australians are renowned for. I would like to acknowledge in particular Julie, Julianne, Louise and John. Thank you for all you've done. I say thank you to all of the volunteers.</para>
<para>I will be voting 'yes' on 14 October because it is not acceptable that our First Nations people do not have the same opportunities as non-Indigenous people. The Voice is about a genuine desire to improve outcomes, and the evidence shows that outcomes are better when we partner with and listen to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Endangered Species</title>
          <page.no>52</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:39</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms TINK</name>
    <name.id>300124</name.id>
    <electorate>North Sydney</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The Australian Conservation Foundation's Wild At Art competition is on. Over recent weeks, young people from across the North Sydney electorate have been sharing their creations with my office. As much as we love seeing the artwork, it's the stories each work tells that leaves a lasting impression. They tell it loud and clear: children of North Sydney care deeply about the future of Australia's threatened plants and animals and their disappearing homes. For these kids, the link between wildlife and its habitat is crystal clear. But I fear this government is not making the same connection.</para>
<para>Last Thursday was National Threatened Species Day. While we saw a flurry of headline grabs, with the release of various government recovery plans and programs, I question whether real change is coming, as it was also reported that conservation groups and scientists were sidelined when the government's swift parrot recovery plan was released without consultation. What's more, the plan de-emphasised native forest logging as the key threat to swift parrots and highlighted the tiny sugar glider's predatory habits instead.</para>
<para>In the same way children's artwork tells stories, the government's lack of real action and their narrative of distraction when it comes to reconciliation of the impacts of unchecked environmental destruction say it all. North Sydney recently received an E grade on the WWF threatened species report card, while overall our nation received an F—grades that would have seen me grounded as a child had they turned up in my report cards. With over 61 threatened species identified across my electorate, we must all accept that we are out of time and we cannot afford to fail any more tests. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Whitehorse Showtime</title>
          <page.no>52</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:41</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr GARLAND</name>
    <name.id>295588</name.id>
    <electorate>Chisholm</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Recently, I had the privilege of attending Whitehorse Showtime's 2023 event, <inline font-style="italic">Ticket </inline><inline font-style="italic">to </inline><inline font-style="italic">Ride</inline>, at the Box Hill Town Hall in my electorate of Chisholm. This event is a theatrical experience performed every year by over 100 Scouts and Guides. I had a fabulous time and was lucky enough to meet the cast afterwards.</para>
<para>The very first Whitehorse Showtime was performed at Box Hill Town Hall in 1965, and, with over 50 consecutive seasons, Whitehorse Showtime continues to provide quality performing arts training to scouting and guiding youth. They pride themselves on giving everyone a go and encourage every member to do their best, with the motto of, 'When all is said and done, we've had a lot of fun that nobody can ever take away.'</para>
<para>Congratulations to everyone involved, including producer Kieran Van Geyzel, for such a fantastic production. So much hard work, dedication and enthusiasm went into the show, and everyone should be so proud. It was so clear how much joy everyone in the cast had performing the show. I wish everyone well as they work towards the next Whitehorse Showtime in 2024.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Hume Electorate: Child Care</title>
          <page.no>53</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:42</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr TAYLOR</name>
    <name.id>231027</name.id>
    <electorate>Hume</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>It was an absolute honour to officially open Wollondilly's fantastic new Children's Services Building in Picton just last month. The building is already being enjoyed by many local families, with the fantastic service supporting those families there. The $5 million project was co-funded by Wollondilly Shire Council under the Western Parkland City Liveability Program as part of the Western Sydney City Deal. I led the process of putting together the Western Sydney City Deal and setting up the livability fund in one of my former ministerial roles. This is absolutely fantastic news for families in Picton.</para>
<para>I must also acknowledge the challenges faced by many other families in my electorate when it comes to childcare services. I've been speaking to families across the electorate, like Bec from Goulburn, hearing their stories and experiences with growing waitlists for child care. Bec's story of waiting almost two years to secure child care for her daughter and of the financial strain it imposes is unfortunately becoming just too familiar. Dialina, also from Goulburn, is concerned about the scarcity of qualified staff. Kaley, an educator herself for more than 18 years, says challenges for childcare workers mean centres are struggling to keep staff. The issue for so many parents in my electorate is that the vacancies and the supporting staff simply don't exist. To Bec, Dialina, Kaley and all the other parents that have shared their experiences: thank you. We support you.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Invictus Games</title>
          <page.no>53</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:43</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms ROBERTS</name>
    <name.id>157125</name.id>
    <electorate>Pearce</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The Invictus Games Foundation's mission is to inspire international communities through the power of the unconquered human spirit. This is the sixth Invictus Games, and the foundation's goal is to give soldiers who are wounded, injured or ill a recovery pathway by providing opportunities for post-traumatic growth, enabling those involved to reclaim their purpose, identity and future beyond injury. Australia has 31 current and former serving members representing Australia at the Invictus Games in Dusseldorf, Germany this year. The Invictus Games includes 21 nations, 10 sports, 1,500 volunteers and 550 competitors.</para>
<para>Today I wish to mention one of the participants in the games: Adam Slot, a longtime resident of the Pearce electorate. Adam served in both the Australian Army and the Royal Australian Navy over an impressive 29-year career. He has served in multiple overseas deployments, including Afghanistan, Iraq, the Middle East, East Timor, Asia and Africa. He has also participated in numerous domestic counterterrorism duties. Adam will be competing in the indoor rowing, sitting volleyball and wheelchair basketball. I have had the pleasure of supplying Adam with the Australian flag for him to proudly display. I wish him and his fellow competitors the best of luck and hope they enjoy the sense of camaraderie and pride as they once again represent our country with absolute honour.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Victoria State Emergency Service</title>
          <page.no>53</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:45</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr TEHAN</name>
    <name.id>210911</name.id>
    <electorate>Wannon</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Last Friday we saw some of the strongest and wildest winds lash the south-west Victorian coast that we have seen for a very long time. Gusts up to 110 kilometres an hour caused severe damage to buildings and they caused trees to come down and a loss of power to many households. Our SES volunteers right along the coastline reacted and responded as only they can. They were out answering every call that came their way. There were a record number of calls to our SES, and they responded as they always respond—quickly and making sure that they get the job done. Without their great volunteer service, we wouldn't have been able to respond to the wild weather that we saw rip along the south-west Victorian coastline.</para>
<para>On behalf of all the communities in south-west Victoria, I thank all our SES volunteers. They do an extraordinary and outstanding job. They do it out of a sense of service. They don't want to be patted on the back. They just want to make sure that they're doing the right thing by their community, and they did that last Friday. Thank you very much to all our SES volunteers.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Beit Shalom Synagogue</title>
          <page.no>53</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:46</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms MILLER-FROST</name>
    <name.id>296272</name.id>
    <electorate>Boothby</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>A couple of weeks ago I was honoured to be invited to the Beit Shalom Synagogue, a progressive Jewish congregation of Adelaide, for their Shabbat service celebrating their 60th year. Also in attendance on this auspicious occasion were the Governor, Her Excellency Hon. Frances Adamson AC, and Mr Rod Bunton; the Lord Mayor of the City of Adelaide, Hon. Dr Jane Lomax-Smith; and, representing the South Australian Premier, Hon. Blair Boyer, minister for education. My very dear friend Rabbi Shoshana Kaminsky led the service, and I thank her for the invitation. Following the service, we enjoyed a shared lunch prepared by community members. I'd like to particularly thank Paul and Judy Oppenheimer, who hosted me, and it was lovely to see my friend and former health colleague Professor Ruth Marshall.</para>
<para>Friday 15 September at sundown is the start of the Jewish New Year and the High Holy Days. Known as Rosh Hashanah, it is the start of the 10-day period called the Days of Awe or the Ten Days of Repentance. It is the holiest time of the year for the Jewish community, and it ends with the observance of Yom Kippur on 24 and 25 September. To the Jewish constituents of Boothby and the members of the Beit Shalom temple, I would like to wish you shana tova, a good year. May you be inscribed and sealed for a good and sweet year. Shalom.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Cost of Living</title>
          <page.no>54</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:48</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr THOMPSON</name>
    <name.id>281826</name.id>
    <electorate>Herbert</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>We are in the Labor Prime Minister, Anthony Albanese, cost-of-living crisis. The Treasurer and his 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 indicators that Australians can't pay all their bills. They are trapped in a nightmare scenario. Do they feed their families, pay for their 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.</para>
<para>Townsville businesses are reeling under the weight of exorbitant costs. Electricity bills have skyrocketed, burdening these businesses with an average increase of 34 per cent. Business administration costs have surged by an alarming 60 per cent. This statistic alone highlights the dire state of affairs under this Treasurer's failed economic policies. Some businesses, once vibrant and promising, have been forced to shut their doors, leaving a trail of lost livelihoods and shattered dreams. The majority of business owners find themselves unable to pay themselves the minimum wage. We need a government who sees small business as the heart and soul of our economy, not the enemy that needs punishing.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>World Dwarf Games</title>
          <page.no>54</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:49</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr REID</name>
    <name.id>300126</name.id>
    <electorate>Robertson</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Today I rise to acknowledge a brilliant Central Coast local and sportsperson, Jayson Blinco, who recently competed at the World Dwarf Games, held in Cologne, Germany. The World Dwarf Games are held every four years, with over 20 countries participating, including the United States, Canada, England, France and Australia. It is the largest international sporting event held exclusively for athletes with dwarfism. Athletes of all ages and every level of ability are encouraged to participate in team and individual sports and explore their athletic abilities.</para>
<para>This year, over 500 athletes converged at the German Sports University to compete in the eighth World Dwarf Games. Jayson Blinco represented Australia marvellously and competed in a range of sports. He was able to bring home a gold in basketball, beating the USA. In track relay he was awarded a silver, and he won two bronze medals in the 60-metre and 100-metre sprints. Altogether, Jayson took home an astonishing four medals from the games. My congratulations go to Jayson Blinco on his success at the eighth World Dwarf Games, and I wish him all the best for his future endeavours. The next World Dwarf Games will be held on the Gold Coast in 2027. I look forward to another successful games for our Australian athletes.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Rostrevor College: 100th Anniversary</title>
          <page.no>54</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:51</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr STEVENS</name>
    <name.id>176304</name.id>
    <electorate>Sturt</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to acknowledge Rostrevor College, in my electorate of Sturt, which celebrates its centenary this year. Established in 1923, the school has been educating young men in the eastern and north-eastern suburbs of Adelaide for 100 years in the Edmund Rice tradition. Two weeks ago, it was a great pleasure and privilege to join with nearly 800 people at the Adelaide Convention Centre to celebrate the centenary at the gala dinner, bringing together current and former students, current and former staff and so many members of the community to acknowledge the history of the school—the 100 years gone—and perhaps more importantly to talk about and celebrate the 100 years, and many more, to come.</para>
<para>I particularly thank the chair of the College Advisory Council, Steve Olech, and the principal, Shana Bennett, for inviting me to be there along with the state members John Gardner and Vincent Tarzia. In fact, Vincent is an old scholar of the school—and dux of his year, he would want me to point out to the chamber. It was a pleasure to celebrate with the school not just what they have achieved in the last 100 years, which is so impressive, but also what they are doing now and what they will do into the future. I commend and congratulate everyone associated with the school on the last 100 years and the many hundred years into the future.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Australian Constitution: Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice</title>
          <page.no>54</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:52</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr LIM</name>
    <name.id>300130</name.id>
    <electorate>Tangney</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>On Sunday 27 August, my team, along with Yes23 volunteers across the state, hosted more than 600 diverse and energised attendees at the Multicultural Yes23 WA campaign launch at Murdoch University, in my seat of Tangney. Community members from across Perth came together to listen, learn and, most importantly, understand what it means to vote yes in next month's referendum. Those who came out not understanding what the upcoming referendum was about were enlightened, compelled by the important message that stems from the Uluru Statement from the Heart, a collection of voices of Indigenous community leaders across our country who deserve to be heard.</para>
<para>The event was a resounding success. The feedback from those who came was that they felt confident, inspired and informed enough to educate their friends and family about why they are going to vote yes at the upcoming referendum. I'm so proud to say that our multicultural community in Perth is now equipped with a better understanding about the referendum. We vote for the progress and betterment of our country and its people. I look forward to the forthcoming referendum on 14 October and the future path it will shape. I hope that together we vote to shape our country as one that truly acknowledges and values the past, present and future of all citizens. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Mental Health</title>
          <page.no>55</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:54</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr VIOLI</name>
    <name.id>300147</name.id>
    <electorate>Casey</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Mental health reform is critically important to our nation's social and economic success. Reform of the mental health system is desperately needed and seems to have been forgotten by this government. As the chair of Mental Health Australia, Matt Berriman said today:</para>
<quote><para class="block">With one in five of us impacted by a mental health condition each year, why is mental health not a national priority and getting the attention of our prime minister?</para></quote>
<para>My community have felt acutely the government's inaction on mental health, such as the government not funding the Lilydale Youth Hub and causing it to close down. Medicare funded psychology sessions have been cut in half. The Labor government voted for the cuts last year, despite amendments from the coalition seeking to maintain the status quo. On page 328 of the University of Melbourne's main report of the evaluation of the Better Access initiative, it says:</para>
<quote><para class="block">On balance, the evidence from the evaluation suggests that the additional 10 sessions should continue to be made available …</para></quote>
<para>I'm proud to be part of a coalition that will reinstate these 20 sessions to support Australians to be the best that they can be. It's time this Prime Minister started supporting Australians in need.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Workplace Relations: Qantas</title>
          <page.no>55</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:55</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BURNELL</name>
    <name.id>300129</name.id>
    <electorate>Spence</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Damien Pollard, Don Dixon, Anthony Bates, Craig Fielding, Anne Guirguis and Max Carias are six of the 1,700 employees that were left hanging in limbo following the decision by Qantas to outsource their jobs under the cover of the COVID pandemic some three years ago. Baggage handlers, cleaners, ground staff—good, honest, hard-working Aussies left without jobs. Last night I had the opportunity and privilege to sit down and share a meal with these workers and to hear their stories that began three years ago and that would hopefully reach a conclusion in the High Court today. In particular, Max Carias, who I represented in the early stages of their dispute—in all honesty I've never met a more selfless person than Max—filled me in on a few details that needed to be told. Of the workers that he represented, 14 of his colleagues went broke and lost absolutely everything—their house, their car, the lot. Of those, eight lost their marriages, their families as they knew it. This is the human cost of Qantas's decision to outsource.</para>
<para>Earlier this morning, the High Court of Australia sided with workers and dismissed Qantas's appeal in a unanimous judgement. Congratulation to the Transport Workers Union and to the 1,700 workers who have rightfully been vindicated by taking on Goliath, fighting the good fight and winning with their backs against the ropes. Congratulations to those great workers up in the gallery today.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Hughes Electorate: Rapid Relief Team</title>
          <page.no>55</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:57</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms WARE</name>
    <name.id>300123</name.id>
    <electorate>Hughes</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Today I'm delighted to speak about the contributions of the Rapid Relief Team, an organisation largely run by volunteers that provides catering and support to our first responders during emergencies and crisis situations right across Australia. I'll particularly mentioned the Engadine team, in my electorate of Hughes. I recently joined the RRT's COO, Mick Dunn, and many volunteers at Holsworthy Army Barracks to acknowledge and honour both women and men of the NSW Police, NSW Ambulance and Fire and Rescue NSW. While our first responders played netball and touch football, highlighting the importance of physical health to sound mental health, I saw firsthand the work of the RRT's catering expertise.</para>
<para>Their remarkable efforts have been bolstered through a grant from the Hughes electorate's Stronger Communities Program, which enabled the acquisition of a hot box, a mobile food heater. This means that the RRT can now provide more meals for our first responders in emergency and crisis situations, whether this be in bushfire areas, floods or other situations. The volunteers cooked me a delicious hamburger from ingredients kept warm and safe in that hot box. I applaud the RRT for being a pillar of support not just in Hughes but across Australia. Their tireless efforts, whether through distributing warm meals or through fostering resilience and care, elevate our emergency services. Thank you to the Rapid Relief Team and particularly all of those of the Engadine team.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Workplace Relations: Qantas</title>
          <page.no>56</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:58</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr RAE</name>
    <name.id>300122</name.id>
    <electorate>Hawke</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>At the height of the pandemic, Qantas illegally sacked 1,700 workers in an outrageous act of industrial bastardry. Shamelessly attempting to use the pandemic for cover, they sought to dishonestly strip their own workers of their legal rights, using industrial relations loopholes. Showing utter disdain for their employees, Qantas management put these workers and their families through hell, further decoupling their organisation from its workforce and failing their shareholders, customers and employees in the process.</para>
<para>Rather than defend these workers against this shameful action, the former government, in typical Liberal fashion, abandoned them and instead delivered Qantas more than $2 billion in taxpayer funded handouts. As always, it was left to the union movement and the Labor Party to stand by these 1,700 workers and hold Qantas to account. Congratulations to the Transport Workers Union on this historic win. Thank you to Mem Suleyman and Mike McNess from the Vic/Tas branch for their fierce representation and defence of airport workers from my community. Thanks also to Michael Kaine and the TWU national office for their perseverance and their leadership.</para>
<para>To the Qantas board and management: you are personally responsible for the largest illegal sacking in Australian history. You spent three years inflicting enormous pain on 1,700 families, without a shred of remorse. Not only did you take their livelihoods; you tried to strip them of their dignity. But you have failed. You've brought nothing but shame upon yourselves. Consider your positions.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>MINISTRY</title>
        <page.no>56</page.no>
        <type>MINISTRY</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Temporary Arrangements</title>
          <page.no>56</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:00</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ALBANESE</name>
    <name.id>R36</name.id>
    <electorate>Grayndler</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I inform the House that the Minister for Social Services will be absent from question time today. The Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme will answer questions on her behalf.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>DISTINGUISHED VISITORS</title>
        <page.no>56</page.no>
        <type>DISTINGUISHED VISITORS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Damdinsuren, His Excellency Mr Davaasuren, Batmunkh, Her Excellency Ms Battsetseg, Bradley, Constable Deborah, Larson, Constable Aaron</title>
          <page.no>56</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:00</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm pleased to inform the House that present in the special visitors gallery are His Excellency Mr Davaasuren Damdinsuren, the ambassador for Mongolia; and Her Excellency Ms Battsetseg Batmunkh, the foreign minister of Mongolia. On behalf of the House, I extend a warm welcome.</para>
<para>I'm also pleased to inform the House that present in the special visitors gallery are Constable Deborah Bradley and Constable Aaron Larson from Wadeye Police Station, recipients of the 2023 police bravery awards.</para>
<para>Honourable members: Hear, hear!</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE</title>
        <page.no>56</page.no>
        <type>QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Albanese Government</title>
          <page.no>56</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:01</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr DUTTON</name>
    <name.id>00AKI</name.id>
    <electorate>Dickson</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Prime Minister. Australians are watching the slow-moving train wreck that is the Albanese government. Energy, grocery prices and mortgages are up because of incompetent and economy-wrecking decisions made by the Prime Minister, the Treasurer and the energy minister. The Prime Minister's campaign on the Voice is a disaster, dividing families and our nation. When will the Prime Minister start making decisions which will help and not hurt Australians?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:02</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ALBANESE</name>
    <name.id>R36</name.id>
    <electorate>Grayndler</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his sledge. It really was a very wide bow, so it gives me the opportunity to give a very wide answer. The Leader of the Opposition has a record of deception as long as your arm. He speaks about our energy policy. This is the guy who said that business leaders were complaining to him about our safeguard mechanism, when in fact the business community, including the BCA, said their members supported it. He then went on to talk about energy policy, while voting against relief—$3 billion of relief—for Australian families. He claimed that he'd had conversations with Indigenous elders in Leanora to convince him to vote no in the referendum, when those same elders say that he advised them to vote yes. That's what they had to say. He told his own party room their official position would be a legislated national Voice, and then blindsided them by going into a press conference and getting rid of any concept of a national Voice. Last week in this chamber, he stood up at this dispatch box and said it was a good thing that we were attending ASEAN and the G20 and participating in international forums and said, 'When the Prime Minister leaves Australia to represent our nation, we're bipartisan. We want the world to know that.' Then, the next day, he mocked it. The next day he opposed it. He accused the AEC of rigging the referendum.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The Manager of Opposition Business.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Fletcher</name>
    <name.id>L6B</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Mr Speaker, on relevance—it was a wide-ranging question. He can talk about any of his government's decisions. He won't talk about any of them. What's he got to hide?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Resume your seat. We're just going to continue with the answer.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ALBANESE</name>
    <name.id>R36</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>He went on radio and accused the AEC of rigging the referendum, when the rules have been in place since the Howard government—exactly the same. And yesterday, in a tour de force, he actually tried to verbal the Minister for Indigenous Affairs on the very same day that it had occurred, and it is in <inline font-style="italic">Hansard</inline>. He went on, and of course he said that Alan Joyce had had dinner at the Lodge in Kirribilli, when the last time he was there was under Prime Minister Morrison. This is what he had to say about Qantas: 'Qantas is an iconic Australian brand. All of us have pride in seeing the success of the company. Alan Joyce is an exceptional CEO. I know Alan Joyce. He is exceptional both professionally and personally.' It's like this guy just says one thing, whatever is convenient at the time. Whatever is convenient at the time, and he never actually stands up for Australia's interests. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
<para>Honourable members interjecting—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>When the House comes to order, I'll hear from the member for Calwell.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Workplace Relations: Qantas</title>
          <page.no>57</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:05</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms VAMVAKINOU</name>
    <name.id>00AMT</name.id>
    <electorate>Calwell</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations. What is the outcome of the High Court case in relation to Qantas and its workers? What was the government's role, and how is this different from the previous government's approach?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:06</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BURKE</name>
    <name.id>DYW</name.id>
    <electorate>Watson</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the member for Calwell for her question, as she is someone who represents many aviation workers in her area. The government welcomes the decision of the High Court today. We congratulate the workers, and we congratulate the Transport Workers Union, which took this case forward. Some of those 1,700 illegally sacked workers are here today in the public gallery right now. I met with three of them just before question time, Damien Pollard, Gavin Burns and Craig Fielding. Some of you may have seen Damien Pollard in the media conference outside the High Court. He referred to a sense of justification and redemption. I say to the workers who were illegally sacked: you did nothing wrong. Qantas broke the law, and the government of the time left you stranded.</para>
<para>The difference in the approach between that government and this government now could not be more stark. Let's not forget what happened. They claimed JobKeeper, saying that that was for people to keep jobs.</para>
<para>Opposition members interjecting—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The minister will pause for a moment. There is far too much noise on my left. I cannot hear a word that is being said. If this continues, people will leave the chamber. There is far too much noise, and I mean it. The minister has the call.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BURKE</name>
    <name.id>DYW</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>JobKeeper was paid to Qantas, the aviation sector support was provided and then Qantas said the workers, even though they were being paid JobKeeper, would run down their leave, and, once their leave had been run down and they came to be brought back on shift, they were told after being stood down for six months that they were fired. That's what happened. While their leave was being run down, the industrial relations minister of the day said it was 'a good model'. The transport minister of the day said, 'I know the decisions are in the best interest of their company going forward,' and Senator Cash said at the time, 'This is a commercial decisions for Qantas, and Qantas are entitled to make those decisions.' Well, you are not entitled to illegally sack people.</para>
<para>While that was happening, from opposition, the now Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government, the now Prime Minister and I stood shoulder to shoulder with those workers and said we would fight for them. From time to time, governments make decisions as to whether they will intervene in a High Court case. Those opposite will know this because they did intervene in High Court cases. They intervened to cut the conditions in enterprise agreements. They intervened in another case to cut the rights of casuals. They intervened to cut the rights of shift workers. Well, we intervened to protect the rights of those Qantas workers, and we welcome that justice has been given today for those workers after they experienced horrific treatment from a company that those opposite made excuses for, that those opposite made allowances for. They are now in a situation where, after we stood shoulder to shoulder with them, those workers now can see some justice.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Dutton</name>
    <name.id>00AKI</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Are you going to defend your friend, or not?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The Leader of the Opposition will cease injecting.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Taylor</name>
    <name.id>231027</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>You're making your Prime Minister look bad!</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The member for Hume will cease interjecting. I would like to hear from the Deputy Leader of the Opposition.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Australian Constitution: Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice</title>
          <page.no>58</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:09</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms LEY</name>
    <name.id>00AMN</name.id>
    <electorate>Farrer</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister for Indigenous Australians. Yesterday the minister said in this House, 'I call on everyone involved in this referendum to act respectfully.' Yesterday, government appointee Marcia Langton told David Crowe, 'I'm saying the claims being made by the No case are based in racism and stupidity.' Does the minister believe Professor Langton's comments accord with her request for everyone involved to act respectfully?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:10</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms BURNEY</name>
    <name.id>8GH</name.id>
    <electorate>Barton</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Can I thank the member opposite for her question. I want to, again, say this. Everyone in this debate should act respectfully and with care for one another. This referendum is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to recognise Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in our Constitution. If we miss this moment, it's gone forever. Recognition should be an issue that is above politics. There are no second chances here.</para>
<para>The tone of the debate in this parliament matters. There must be a mutual respect here. We must be guided by love and by faith—love for our fellow Australians and faith in a better future.</para>
<para>I do not know how Australians will vote on 14 October; none of us do. What I do know for certain is this: we are the greatest country in the world, and we can be even greater if we embrace recognition—if we pay respect to and celebrate the 65,000 years of culture and tradition of First Nations people; if we listen, through a Voice, to some of the most disadvantaged communities in our country. We must listen.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Housing</title>
          <page.no>58</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:11</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms DOYLE</name>
    <name.id>299962</name.id>
    <electorate>Aston</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Treasurer. How is the Albanese Labor government getting on with the job of delivering more affordable housing for Australians and the economy, after a wasted decade?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:12</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr CHALMERS</name>
    <name.id>37998</name.id>
    <electorate>Rankin</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thanks to the member for Aston for her question but also for caring so deeply about people in her community looking for affordable properties, and particularly the renters in her part of the world.</para>
<para>We'd a really important development today, as the Senate cleared the way for the next stage of the consideration of the Housing Australia Future Fund, and we thank those in the Senate who were prepared to support the HAFF so that we could get this moving. This is the biggest single investment in social housing since the member for Sydney was the housing minister over a decade ago, and it is part of a broad and ambitious agenda that we have for housing. It's an important part of our housing plan, but it's not the only part of our housing plan.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order. The Treasurer will pause. The member for Deakin is continually interjecting again, today. He had a good go yesterday. He's going to remain silent for the remainder of this answer, to assist me hearing the answer. The Treasurer has the call.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Dr CHALMERS</name>
    <name.id>37998</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>On top of the Housing Australia Future Fund, across our first two budgets, this government and this Prime Minister have committed in excess of $8 billion in new funding to deliver more houses, more supply and more relief for renters, because we want more Australians to have the security and the dignity of a decent home and a decent roof over their head. Yesterday, the Minister for Housing launched the National Housing Supply and Affordability Council's report into barriers to institutional investment in housing, and that report sets out a range of ways that we can help get more investment in housing in this country, but we are already taking a number of steps across a number of fronts. We are working with the states and local government—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order. The member for Casey will cease interjecting.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Dr CHALMERS</name>
    <name.id>37998</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>and the institutional investors and the industry to unlock more supply through our National Housing Accord and our national housing target. As the minister said yesterday, the Housing Australia Future Fund will provide a secure income stream that will give institutional investors the certainty that they need to invest.</para>
<para>Now, we know that inflation and cost-of-living pressures, including in housing, are still the biggest challenge in our economy. We understand that people are under the pump—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The Manager of Opposition Business will cease interjecting.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Dr CHALMERS</name>
    <name.id>37998</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>and that applies to people struggling to find a roof over their head as well. This is a longstanding challenge, but we are taking decisive action across a range of areas. We have had a wasted decade when it comes to investment in housing, and we are doing our best to turn that around and to clean up the mess that we inherited. We are working to get more homes, more supply, making it easier to own a home, and also taking some of the sting out of these higher rents, with the biggest increase in Commonwealth rent assistance in three decades. We know, of course, there is more work to be done, but this is a government which is working for Australia, delivering billions of dollars as investment in housing, building more homes and more supply and helping to ease the pressure on renters. That's why, despite all of that effort, it beggars belief that, in the Senate today, those opposite voted for fewer homes and more homelessness and higher rents. We are cleaning up the mess they left behind.</para>
<para>Opposition members interjecting—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! There is far too much noise on my left. The member for Wannon is continually interjecting—yes, you—throughout the answers. When I call you, that means cease interjecting. If it continues on, you'll get warned, and then you will leave the chamber. I hope everyone is clear on the process after this time.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Climate Change</title>
          <page.no>59</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:15</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms CHANEY</name>
    <name.id>300006</name.id>
    <electorate>Curtin</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>This is a question for the Deputy Prime Minister. You've not released the ONI report on the security risk of climate. We're still waiting for an integrated national climate risk assessment. Do you agree with the internationally accepted findings that the impacts of climate change will drive political instability and fuel regional and international conflict? What specific policy responses does the government propose to risks like food security, mass migration and the destabilisation of markets?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:16</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr MARLES</name>
    <name.id>HWQ</name.id>
    <electorate>Corio</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the member for her question. She raises a critically important issue in terms of the geostrategic position that we face and the strategic landscape that we face. The short answer to your question is: I do accept that the pressures of climate change will give rise to a more complex and volatile strategic landscape for the world but a strategic landscape that we must face as well. That, in terms of our landscape, is reflective of the fact that a lot of the pressures in relation to climate change and its impacts on populations around the world happen in respect of populations around us. So we will need to be very mindful of the way in which we posture ourselves in respect of that, hence the fact that ONI has been deeply engaged on this question, as has Defence planning. This is an issue which was given consideration in the Defence Strategic Review in terms of the demands that have been placed on the Australian Defence Force, but it is also, beyond what was described in the Defence Strategic Review, an issue which is being considered in the context of the geostrategic landscape that we face and what issues that might give rise to in the future. This is a really important issue. I very much thank the member for raising it. We are very keen to engage with not only the crossbench but the entirety of the parliament about the way in which our country can plan for that future.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Housing</title>
          <page.no>59</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:18</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms MASCARENHAS</name>
    <name.id>298800</name.id>
    <electorate>Swan</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Prime Minister. How does the Housing Australia Future Fund work together with the Albanese Labor government's other housing actions to help more Australians build, rent or buy a home? Is there any opposition to this comprehensive approach?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:18</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ALBANESE</name>
    <name.id>R36</name.id>
    <electorate>Grayndler</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the member for Swan for her question and for her passionate support of dealing with housing issues, as a new member of our parliament who has had a real impact, representing those inner suburbs of Perth in Western Australia.</para>
<para>The HAFF is one of our key election commitments, and I am pleased that it will pass the parliament. It does mean 30,000 additional social and affordable homes, but importantly as well it means 4,000 of those homes will be provided for women and children escaping domestic violence. There is a great need. Too many women and their kids spend a night in the car, in the park, in someone else's home, swapping from home to home, as they struggle to escape domestic violence, which remains a scourge in this country, tragically. This will make a difference, as will the increased support for veterans as a result of this. Tonight I'll speak at the Veterans Employment Awards, and I'm sure that they would recognise the positive impact that this legislation will have. It will also help to fix up housing in the remote and regional communities of Indigenous Australians.</para>
<para>So this is very, very positive. It's part of the $8 billion dollar commitment of new investment that we have made, the single biggest investment in housing for more than a decade. It is part of our comprehensive plan, the new national target of 1.2 million homes with the $3 billion New Homes Bonus for states and territories, the $2 billion of the Social Housing Accelerator and the better deal for renters, including the increase in rent assistance.</para>
<para>We're already seeing some of those planning changes come through. In the ACT this week there was a very positive announcement to enable dual occupancy to occur on land in the inner suburbs which is developed and which has infrastructure, enabling someone to build another dwelling on their land in order to house a relative or, indeed, to rent it out in order to increase housing supply. I congratulate the ACT government and Andrew Barr on doing that.</para>
<para>This week we committed an additional $1 billion in funding to the National Housing Infrastructure Facility. There will be more homes for more Australians who need them. This is part of our plan, Working for Australia. It is extraordinary that the coalition and their friends in One Nation continue to oppose this legislation in the Senate. But I'm pleased that enough people have seen common sense and there will be majority support for this program. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>DISTINGUISHED VISITORS</title>
        <page.no>60</page.no>
        <type>DISTINGUISHED VISITORS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Klein, Mr Volkmar, Indonesia: G20 Recover Together, Recover Stronger Scholarships Enrichment Program</title>
          <page.no>60</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:21</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm pleased to inform the House that present in that gallery today is Mr Volkmar Klein, a member of the German parliament and deputy chair of the German-Pacific Parliamentary Friendship Group. Also in the House is a delegation of scholars from Indonesia participating in the G20 Recover Together, Recover Stronger scholarships enrichment program. A warm welcome to you all.</para>
<para>Honourable members: Hear, hear!</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE</title>
        <page.no>60</page.no>
        <type>QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Australian Constitution: Aboriginal And Torres Strait Islander Voice</title>
          <page.no>60</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:22</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr COULTON</name>
    <name.id>HWN</name.id>
    <electorate>Parkes</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister for Indigenous Australians. It has been reported that a video has emerged of a member of the minister's First Nations Referendum Working Group, Professor Marcia Langton, stating that social workers are 'by and large white and racist' and that police 'are racist' and 'get brownie points for rounding people up'. Does the minister believe Professor Langton's comments accord with her request for Australian's to act respectfully and will the minister condemn Professor Langton's comments?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:23</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms BURNEY</name>
    <name.id>8GH</name.id>
    <electorate>Barton</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the member for Parkes for his question. On 14 October, Australians will come together to vote on whether we should recognise Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in our Constitution. This is our moment to embrace recognition, our moment to move Australia forward more unitedly, our moment to listen to the voices of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. I say once again: there is no room for racism in Australia. The pain of racism is real for those people who have experienced it. It is something that should not be used for political purposes. It is something that we should all agree is harmful and unacceptable, and it is something that we should all agree must stop.</para>
<para>I have faith in the Australian people to engage in this debate respectfully, to walk in other people's shoes and to approach this referendum with empathy and with compassion towards one another.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Housing</title>
          <page.no>60</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:24</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr RAE</name>
    <name.id>300122</name.id>
    <electorate>Hawke</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister for Housing. How is the Albanese Labor government's broad agenda, including the Housing Australia Future Fund, helping more Australians to find a safe, affordable place to call home?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:24</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms COLLINS</name>
    <name.id>HWM</name.id>
    <electorate>Franklin</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I want to thank the member for Hawke for his support for the Housing Australia Future Fund. I know that he understands just how important it is that this fund pass the parliament this week so we can get on with building the homes that so many Australians need. Indeed, this fund will be life-changing for so many Australians. It will create, as I said yesterday, an ongoing pipeline of funding to help build social and affordable homes right across the country not just during this government, not just in five years, but in perpetuity so that we can have a steady flow and pipeline of social and affordable homes into the future.</para>
<para>It is supported by our ambitious housing agenda, including: our $3 billion new homes bonus for the 1.2 million homes target from 1 July 2024; our $500 million housing support program; our $2 billion social housing accelerator; our National Housing Accord and the additional 10,000 affordable homes that will come from that accord; our boost to Commonwealth rent assistance; our additional $2 billion in financing for more social and affordable homes; our new incentives to boost the supply of rentals, including the build-to-rent changes that we made in the budget; our leadership on progressing renters' rights; our $1.7 billion one-year extension to the National Housing and Homelessness Agreement; and our extension to the Home Guarantee Scheme, with the Regional First Home Buyer Guarantee and the 67,000 people in Australia that are in their first home sooner because of this government.</para>
<para>We have heard from the experts about how these measures will help. But the most important feedback is, of course, from the people whose lives have been changed by safe and secure housing. That's people like Laurie, who I have mentioned in this place before. Laurie had been homeless for more than two years before she had access to social housing. She told me that, without the constant stress of every day having to find somewhere to sleep, she now has the time and energy to go back to school. It is about people like Sean and Lisa. Sean had been needing surgery but the doctors couldn't operate because he had nowhere secure to be discharged from hospital to. Lisa has told me that Sean now has had that operation because he finally has a place to call home and so he could get that surgery.</para>
<para>Access to housing will change lives for so many Australians. The social and affordable housing that the Albanese government is already building will change lives. It will mean essential workers like Elise, a midwife in Western Sydney that I met, can access affordable housing close to where they work. It will mean social housing recipients like Diane and John, who I met in Melbourne, can remain part of a community that they love. This is what our government is doing, working each and every day to make sure that more Australians can have a safe, affordable place to call home.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Aboriginal And Torres Strait Islander Voice</title>
          <page.no>61</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:27</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr WEBSTER</name>
    <name.id>281688</name.id>
    <electorate>Mallee</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister for Indigenous Australians. There are at least 250 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander language groups across our country. With 24 members, how will the Voice reconcile different or competing priorities between the many Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander cultures, customs, languages and laws?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:28</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms BU</name>
    <name.id>8GH</name.id>
    <electorate>Barton</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>RNEY (—) (): I thank the member for her question. I want to read to the House the proposed question and the proposed amendments because they will answer the question:</para>
<quote><para class="block">A Proposed Law: to alter the Constitution to recognise the First Peoples of Australia by establishing an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice. Do you approve this proposed alteration?</para></quote>
<para>The proposed amendments are:</para>
<quote><para class="block">In recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the First Peoples of Australia:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">i. there shall be a body, to be called the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice—</para></quote>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The Leader of the Opposition on a point of order?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Dutton</name>
    <name.id>00AKI</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>On relevance: I don't know whether the minister needs to hear the question again. Could she, instead of reading from this script each and every time, answer the question asked?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Burke</name>
    <name.id>DYW</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>To the point of order: I'm not sure if the Leader of the Opposition was listening to the start of the answer, but in the start of the essay it was explained that this context would provide the answer to what had been put. It was explained exactly at the start—</para>
<para>Opposition members interjecting—</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order, members on my left! The minister was asked about the implications or how the Voice will deal with language and customs, and she's referring directly to the referendum. She's reading from a document and supporting her answer with that. She's being relevant to the question. I don't think anyone denies that. So I'm going to allow her to continue, but I will listen closely to make sure she's within the standing orders.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms BURNEY</name>
    <name.id>8GH</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The proposed amendment continues:</para>
<quote><para class="block">ii. the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice may make representations to the Parliament and the Executive Government of the Commonwealth on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">iii. the Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws with respect to matters relating to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice—</para></quote>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms Ley</name>
    <name.id>00AMN</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Mr Speaker—</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! The minister will pause. One point of order under the standing orders has already been made on relevance. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will need to state the standing order that she's taking a point of order on.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms Ley</name>
    <name.id>00AMN</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Mr Speaker, I seek your ruling on whether the minister simply reciting the words that she has—and this is the third answer this question time—which in no way address the questions that have been asked is actually within the standing orders. I seek—</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Resume your seat. The Leader of the House?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Burke</name>
    <name.id>DYW</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>To seek a ruling, someone has to raise a point of order, which the deputy leader just refused to do when you requested that a point of order be raised. The only one she could possibly be making is the one that has already been done once.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>It's not in order to raise this, and it's not a valid point of order. It's not possible to go back in time to ask, 'What was your ruling?' when I've already given the ruling. I call the minister in continuation.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms BURNEY</name>
    <name.id>8GH</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The proposed amendment continues:</para>
<quote><para class="block">iii. the Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws with respect to matters relating to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice, including its composition, functions, powers and procedures.</para></quote>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Australian Constitution: Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice</title>
          <page.no>62</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:32</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr JOSH WILSON</name>
    <name.id>265970</name.id>
    <electorate>Fremantle</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Attorney-General. Why is it important for the debate on the Voice referendum to be informed by the facts?</para>
<para>Opposition members interjecting—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! The member for Page and the Leader of the Nationals will cease interjecting. The Attorney-General has the call.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:32</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr DREYFUS</name>
    <name.id>HWG</name.id>
    <electorate>Isaacs</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the member for Fremantle for his question. Mr Speaker, 14 October will be a very significant moment in our country's history. It will be an opportunity to finally recognise Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in the Australian Constitution. It is important that Australians make a decision based on the facts.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The member for Bowman is warned.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr DREYFUS</name>
    <name.id>HWG</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>But the 'no' campaign strategy has been to ignore the facts and instead to sow fear and division across our great country. Don't take my word for it. We know that these are the directions the official 'no' campaign is giving to its volunteers: ignore the facts, and say anything to distract from the actual issue on the ballot paper.</para>
<para>An opposition leader with an ounce of decency would distance himself from a strategy based on disinformation and deceit. He would call it out.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The member for Herbert is warned.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr DREYFUS</name>
    <name.id>HWG</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Not this opposition leader. No claim is too outlandish, no claim is too sinister, no claim is too absurd for this opposition leader. He'll say anything, he'll do anything, to spread confusion and divide our country.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! The Attorney-General will pause.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The Minister for Climate Change and Energy is not helping. The Manager of Opposition Business on a point of order?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Fletcher</name>
    <name.id>L6B</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Speaker, as you and all members would be fully aware, standing order 90 says that all imputations of improper motives to a member shall be considered highly disorderly. The Attorney-General has just spent the first part of his answer imputing improper motives to the Leader of the Opposition. He is in breach of the standing orders, and he should be drawn back to that.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I'll hear from the Leader of the House.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Burke</name>
    <name.id>DYW</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Just to the point of order: there is a difference between imputing motives and describing conduct. The Attorney-General's been describing the conduct of the Leader of the Opposition.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The Manager of Opposition Business on the point of order?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Fletcher</name>
    <name.id>L6B</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Even by the standards of the Leader of the House, that is an unusually nonsensical proposition.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm going to remind the Attorney-General to be mindful of standing order 90 about not imputing motives in his answer. He's entitled to give his view, but he should just make sure he is within the standing orders.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr DREYFUS</name>
    <name.id>HWG</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you, Mr Speaker. Let's talk about some facts. The proposed constitutional amendment says that the Voice will have the power to make representations on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. That is a fact. The Leader of the Opposition ignores this fact and asserts that the Voice would influence every area of public administration and grind the whole of government to a halt. This is wrong, and the Leader of the Opposition must know that it is wrong. The proposed constitutional amendment says that the parliament will have power to determine the powers of the Voice. That is a fact. The Leader of the Opposition ignores this fact and asserts that the High Court would determine its powers, not the parliament. This is wrong, and the Leader of the Opposition must know that this is wrong.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The member for Deakin is now warned.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr DREYFUS</name>
    <name.id>HWG</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I am confident that Australians will see through the opposition leader's tactics. Australians want outcomes, not arguments. Australians want the truth and not grubby tactics. The referendum on 14 October is about three things: recognising Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders in our Constitution, listening to them and, by listening, achieving better outcomes.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice</title>
          <page.no>63</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:37</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms WARE</name>
    <name.id>300123</name.id>
    <electorate>Hughes</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Mr Speaker, my question is to the Minister for Indigenous Australians. The minister told Australians through the website of her agency, the National Indigenous Australians Agency, that, 'A makarrata commission will also be co-designed to work on a national process of treaty-making.' Can the minister update the House on this government's plan for treaty-making?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:37</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms BURNEY</name>
    <name.id>8GH</name.id>
    <electorate>Barton</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the member for her question. This side of the House is laser focused on the one thing that we have spoken about, and that is the referendum on 14 October. We are appealing to the Australian people, with thousands and thousands and thousands of other Australians, to recognise Aboriginal people in the Constitution. And as I said yesterday, this is good for all of us. It is also about creating a Voice enshrined by the Constitution to get better advice so that we make sure that what we do in terms of Aboriginal affairs changes the terrible life trajectory that so many people have.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice</title>
          <page.no>63</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:39</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms TEMPLEMAN</name>
    <name.id>181810</name.id>
    <electorate>Macquarie</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Treasurer: What are the benefits of recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples through a Voice for both Australian society and the Australian economy? What are the consequences of alternative proposals?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:39</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr CHALMERS</name>
    <name.id>37998</name.id>
    <electorate>Rankin</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thanks to the member for understanding what the PM has said on a number of occasions. This is First Nations people reaching out their hands to us, and we shouldn't slap their hands away. This is a gracious and generous invitation and it's a generational opportunity. This is our chance to bring together our principles and our pragmatism and do something that we can be genuinely proud of. The Voice is about constitutional recognition, it's about listening and it's about getting better outcomes for the first of us in a way that could lift all of us up.</para>
<para>It's about doing things differently and doing things better in our economy and in our society, and getting better value for money as we try and close the gap. That's what the Voice is about.</para>
<para>It's not about the lies and the misinformation which we have seen peddled by parts of the 'no' campaign. The Leader of the Opposition has not distanced himself from that misinformation; he has embraced it. In this campaign of misinformation and mistruths the opposition leader is the chief propagandist. We saw that yesterday.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The Manager of Opposition Business on a point of order.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Fletcher</name>
    <name.id>L6B</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>It's a very similar point of order to the one that was necessary because of the answer from the Attorney-General. You ruled rightly there. The Treasurer, too, should be reminded of standing order 90 and should be counselled against drawing imputations against other members in this House.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I listened to both questions, and there is a slight difference in this question because it did say to discuss the alternative proposals. I'm just assuming that's where the Treasurer is headed. I remind all members of that standing order and the language that they use to show respect for one another in the chamber. I give him the call.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Dr CHALMERS</name>
    <name.id>37998</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>We saw misinformation in the way that the Leader of the Opposition tried to verbal Minister Burney yesterday in this place. Minister Burney is a person of authority, character and grace who wants nothing more and nothing less than better outcomes for people in this country.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Hamilton</name>
    <name.id>291387</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>You didn't distance yourself from Marcia.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The member for Groom.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Dr</name>
    <name.id>37998</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The Leader of the Opposition has taken the weirdest whispers from the furthest fringes of social media, legitimised them and amplified them here in the people's house of the parliament. He has seen this from the very beginning not as a chance for unity—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The member for Page.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Dr CHALMERS</name>
    <name.id>37998</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>but as an excuse to practise the usual nasty, negative, angry, dishonest and divisive politics. That's why his policy is for two referendums, not one.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The Treasurer will pause. The Manager of Opposition Business on a point of order.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Fletcher</name>
    <name.id>L6B</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Since you reminded the Treasurer of standing order 90, he has spent the next part of his answer continuing to consistently impute improper motives and he should not be doing it. It is unparliamentary. There are a number of things he's said there which, frankly, he should be withdrawing.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The Assistant Treasurer is not helping. Please cease interjecting. The Leader of the House on a point of order.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Burke</name>
    <name.id>DYW</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I have two things. On direct relevance, the question went to the consequences of alternatives, which is exactly what the Treasurer is now doing. Secondly, it would be extraordinary if accusing someone of divisiveness was now considered beyond parliamentary debate. Something like that has never been considered the imputation of a motive.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm going to ask the Treasurer to temper his language, but he's able to answer the question as he sees fit within the standing orders. I can't compel anyone to answer a certain way that everyone would like. Only the Treasurer or the minister can do that. He has the call.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Dr CHALMERS</name>
    <name.id>37998</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>One of the consequences of the Leader of the Opposition's policy for two referendums, not one, is that this will drag out for as long as possible so the Leader of the Opposition can drip more poison into the well. That's how he seeks to divide and diminish this country and reap a political dividend from that.</para>
<para>Opposition members interjecting—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I'll hear from the deputy leader, but I want to deal with this matter.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms Ley</name>
    <name.id>00AMN</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The House needs to absolutely insist that the Treasurer withdraw that disgraceful slur.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>To assist the House to get through this question time, I'm going to ask the Treasurer to withdraw that last part so we can continue.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Dr CHALMERS</name>
    <name.id>37998</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I withdraw. Australia can rise above the anger, the division and the dishonesty which characterise the Leader of the Opposition's approach to this referendum.</para>
<para>Opposition members interjecting—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Dr CHALMERS</name>
    <name.id>37998</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>We can get this done in one referendum and, in the process, not leave it to our kids to sort out in some kind of generational back-pass. That's the opportunity before us, and it's an opportunity that we cannot afford to waste.</para>
<para>Govern ment members: Hear, hear.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Before I call the member for Fowler, the member for Casey doesn't seem to be getting the memo. He is continually interjecting through every answer. He will leave the chamber under 94(a). If people continue the same behaviour, they will leave as well. I give the call to the honourable member for Fowler.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Western Sydney Airport</title>
          <page.no>64</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:45</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms LE</name>
    <name.id>295676</name.id>
    <electorate>Fowler</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government. Western Sydney Airport is on track to be Australia's next international transport hub, handling up to five million passengers a year. This will bolster the Australian economy and Western Sydney's economy with job opportunities, especially for locals. How committed is the government to building the much-needed rail link that will connect the community and those in Fowler to the new airport and to the three major CBDs of Sydney? Can you guarantee we will not be the forgotten people when allocating funding and resources?</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The member for Lindsay, do not interject while a minister is approaching the dispatch box. I give the call to the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:46</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms CATHERINE KING</name>
    <name.id>00AMR</name.id>
    <electorate>Ballarat</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thanks very much to the member for Fowler for her question. I know she is an incredibly passionate advocate, alongside the many members on this side of the House, for Western Sydney, an important part of not only the New South Wales economy but the whole nation's economy. I have been at the Western Sydney International Airport most recently, and it's 50 per cent complete. The terminal is just about to hit top-out. I've stood on the new airstrip. It has been terrific to see that. Most recently, I was at the rail project, where Peggy, the tunnel borer, came through, and we're seeing that project well and truly proceed. As well as the over $5 billion that we're committing out of the infrastructure investment pipeline on the airport itself, we're committing, alongside the New South Wales government, $4.4 billion in infrastructure to make sure that Western Sydney International Airport is connected and for the people of that area. It is an incredibly important project. It's an incredibly important economic development area, not just for New South Wales but for the whole of the country. I look forward to being there at its opening in 2026.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Before I call the member for Makin—the member for Gippsland, it may be your birthday, but you're getting close to a warning as well. I'm generous, but I'm not that generous.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>DISTINGUISHED VISITORS</title>
        <page.no>65</page.no>
        <type>DISTINGUISHED VISITORS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Moore, Councillor Sue, Jarrett, Councillor Tony, Member for Collie</title>
          <page.no>65</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:47</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I would like to acknowledge in the gallery Councillor Sue Moore, the Mayor of Singleton, and the deputy mayor, Tony Jarrett, and Jodie Hanns MP, the member for Collie and parliamentary secretary from the Western Australian parliament.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE</title>
        <page.no>65</page.no>
        <type>QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Murray-Darling Basin</title>
          <page.no>65</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:48</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ZAPPIA</name>
    <name.id>HWB</name.id>
    <electorate>Makin</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister for the Environment and Water. How is the Albanese Labor government protecting the Murray-Darling River system, and how has the parliament responded to those efforts?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:48</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms PLIBERSEK</name>
    <name.id>83M</name.id>
    <electorate>Sydney</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thanks so much to the member for Makin for his question. I know he is a fierce advocate for the whole delivery of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan, as all of us on this side of the parliament are. We introduced our legislation to finalise the delivery of the plan. That legislation will provide more time, more money, more options and more accountability. I particularly welcome all of the contributions that people have made on this legislation. I really enjoyed listening to the Leader of the National Party and his contribution.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Littleproud</name>
    <name.id>265585</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>You voted against the very plan—</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Littleproud</name>
    <name.id>265585</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>What a load of rubbish—</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The Leader of the Nationals—</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms PLIBERSEK</name>
    <name.id>83M</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>He said that the coalition were on track to deliver the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. Well, that's true if you think the year 4000 is a good year to deliver the plan! He also said that they were on track to deliver the 450 gigalitres of environmental water.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms PLIBERSEK</name>
    <name.id>83M</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>In fact, just two of those 450—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The minister will pause. I can't hear what the minister is saying because the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the Nationals are just continually talking while the minister is trying to give an answer. Question time can't work like that. Cease interjecting or you'll leave.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms PLIBERSEK</name>
    <name.id>83M</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The leader of the National Party was claiming that their policies to deliver the 450 gigalitres of environmental water were working when they delivered just two of those 450 in nine years; or that we have reached the end of the plan—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Littleproud</name>
    <name.id>265585</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>You voted for it.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The Leader of the Nationals will leave the chamber under 94(a).</para>
<para class="italic"> <inline font-style="italic">The member for Maranoa then left the chamber.</inline></para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms PLIBERSEK</name>
    <name.id>83M</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>He claims that we've reached the end of the plan, despite the fact that we predict we'll be 750 gigalitres short under the settings of those opposite—or, most incredibly, that it's this bill that is the end of bipartisanship on the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. The end of bipartisanship came when those opposite decided to sabotage the plan instead of delivering it. I would say to the coalition that there is still room for bipartisanship here. Senator Birmingham, Senator Ruston, Senator McLachlan and, of course, the member for Sturt have all said that they support our plans to deliver on the water for the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. So I very much hope that those senators and the member for Sturt will vote according to the comments that they've made.</para>
<para>There's something in our proposal for everyone. There is more time to deliver on the water-saving infrastructure, something those opposite have called for and the National Farmers Federation have called for. There is also a guarantee on the 450 gigalitres of environmental water, something we support, something the Greens should support, something the teals support and something the member for Mayo has made a very strong case for.</para>
<para>We need to deliver on the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. We know that we are going into another hot, dry period. Unless we deliver environmental water, water for communities, water for farmers, water for industry and drinking water for millions of people, we will rue the day. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice</title>
          <page.no>66</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:52</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr TAYLOR</name>
    <name.id>231027</name.id>
    <electorate>Hume</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister for Indigenous Australians. Voice architect Professor Megan Davis wrote in the <inline font-style="italic">Monthly</inline>:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Treaties<inline font-style="italic"> are</inline> about reparation for past injustices. How can these things be excluded?</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">…   …   …</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">… a Voice to Parliament is the first step, and treaty-making follows.</para></quote>
<para>Will the Voice be entitled to provide advice on treaty and reparations?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:52</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms BURNEY</name>
    <name.id>8GH</name.id>
    <electorate>Barton</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the member for Hume for his question. The Voice will be involved in giving advice on things that directly affect Indigenous people. That has been written, that has been spoken about and that is what will happen. I have outlined that the priorities that I have are health, education, jobs and housing. They are the issues that are raised with me repeatedly. The Voice is going to be a representative body that will provide advice on Indigenous Australians—provide advice.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Small Business</title>
          <page.no>66</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:53</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr LIM</name>
    <name.id>300130</name.id>
    <electorate>Tangney</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister for Small Business. How will Australia's hardworking small businesses benefit from the Albanese Labor government's targeted support?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:53</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms COLLINS</name>
    <name.id>HWM</name.id>
    <electorate>Franklin</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I do want to thank the member for Tangney for that important question. I know that he understands just how important and crucial small businesses are not just to the national economy but, importantly, to local communities. And not only do small businesses put pay cheques in pockets; they are now employing more than 5.2 million Australians and contributing more than half a trillion dollars each and every year to the Australian economy.</para>
<para>It was great to be with the member for Tangney in his electorate just over a week ago, hosting a roundtable of small businesses, where the small businesses were telling us about issues that concern them, and they were really interested to hear about the government's measures that will support them, because they understand that we on this side of the parliament are the party that backs small business. We're standing up for fairness and we're delivering to help small businesses. Today in the House—</para>
<para class="italic">Opposition members interjecting —</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! There is far too much noise on my left. I'm now issuing a general warning.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms COLLINS</name>
    <name.id>HWM</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>In the House today, we've introduced new measures to provide support for small businesses. We've introduced the Small Business Energy Incentive, which will help up to 3.8 million small businesses with the clean energy transition and to save on their energy bills. It will help pay for upgrades for more efficient heating and cooling systems, for installing batteries and switching to energy-saving electrical goods such as efficient fridges.</para>
<para>The incentive is estimated to provide $310 million in targeted relief and will assist small businesses in laying the foundations for their future growth. This is on top of the targeted energy bill relief that we have already provided for around one million small businesses—$650 that will be coming directly off their energy bills—in partnership with the states and territories. I needn't remind those opposite that they voted against that support for small businesses. We've also introduced today the $20,000 instant asset write-off, to make it easier for small businesses to invest and to grow. This is estimated to provide around $290 million in targeted support.</para>
<para>They build on the actions that we have already taken to support small businesses: the $15 million for free mental health and financial counselling support, access to the Commonwealth procurement rules and updating those to make sure small businesses can access more of the $80 billion in government contracts that we provide each and every year. We have passed legislation to make unfair contract terms illegal, and I thank the assistant minister for that. We've committed to ensuring small businesses are paid on time, with a recent review of payment times for small businesses, to make sure that they're not carrying the load and the balance sheets of big businesses.</para>
<para>The Albanese government knows that small businesses are vital to the Australian economy. We'll keep working for Australian small businesses and provide them with the targeted support that they need.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Climate Change</title>
          <page.no>67</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:57</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BANDT</name>
    <name.id>M3C</name.id>
    <electorate>Melbourne</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister for the Environment and Water. Will you stop approving new coal and gas projects?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:57</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms</name>
    <name.id>83M</name.id>
    <electorate>Sydney</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>PLIBERSEK (—) (): No, I'll apply Australian law, as it exists. As the Greens political party would well know, because they made an agreement with the Minister for Climate Change and Energy, emissions in Australia are governed predominantly by the safeguard mechanism that you helped design and that you negotiated with the Minister for Climate Change and Energy. You sat on this side of the parliament and voted for it.</para>
<para>The Greens party say they want no more coal and gas, but until recently they were happy to own shares in the banks that funded these projects.</para>
<para>Honourable members interjecting—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The minister will pause.</para>
<para>Honourable members interjecting—</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>You can cease with all the dramatic effects.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr O'Connor</name>
    <name.id>00AN3</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Unbelievable!</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The Minister for Skills and Training is warned! The Leader of the Australian Greens has a point of order?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Bandt</name>
    <name.id>M3C</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Mr Speaker, on relevance, you have encouraged—in seeking direct answers, or answers that are relevant—the shortest possible questions. This is a very short, succinct question that goes directly to the minister's powers. There can be no capacity to stray beyond that.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Under the standing orders, it's not possible for the Speaker to ever indicate how a minister should answer a question. First of all, I remind the member to direct your questions through standing order 65(a) when you're phrasing the question. I didn't want to interrupt you before about making sure that it's directed to the minister, not through me. It has to be through me to the chair. The minister is answering the question. She went straight to the point of the question and now she has two minutes and five seconds remaining to complete her answer. Minister, you have the call.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms PLIBERSEK</name>
    <name.id>83M</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you so much, Mr Speaker. I'll just reiterate: those Greens political party members were happy to own shares in the big banks that fund these projects. They say they want more renewable energy, but I've actually had more communication from Greens asking me to stop renewable energy projects than I've had support for renewable energy projects. They say they care about threatened species habitat. There's a Greens political party senator who wants to bulldoze koala habitat to build luxury holiday accommodation.</para>
<para>Honourable members interjecting—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! Members on my left and my right. The minister will be heard in silence.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms PLIBERSEK</name>
    <name.id>83M</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>This is probably the most ironic. They say they want more housing, but they oppose every housing development in their electorates. Here's the thing: we are making the biggest transition in Australian industrial history to get from 30-something per cent renewable energy to 82 per cent renewable energy in our grid. Of course it doesn't happen overnight. We need solar farms. We need wind farms. We need transmission lines. They're going to oppose all of those, and, at the same time, they're going to cry crocodile tears about the fact that we're not moving to renewables quickly enough. We've got a decade to catch up on. We had a decade of inaction from those opposite. We had a decade of inaction when we could have been moving on renewable energy, except the Liberals teamed up with the Greens to oppose action on climate change when we were last in government. Yes, we've got a big job to catch up on, but we're getting on with the job of getting Australia to net zero.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Early Childhood Education</title>
          <page.no>67</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:02</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BURNELL</name>
    <name.id>300129</name.id>
    <electorate>Spence</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister for Early Childhood Education. How is the Albanese Labor government working for Australian families by delivering practical cost-of-living relief by making early learning more affordable?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:02</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr ALY</name>
    <name.id>13050</name.id>
    <electorate>Cowan</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the member for Spence for his question. I particularly want to make note of his unwavering advocacy for families and children in Spence and the fact that 7,200 families in Spence have benefited from our reforms introduced in the parliament last year to make early childhood education and care more affordable by raising the Child Care Subsidy.</para>
<para>Indeed, when our Prime Minister stood on the other side there and made more affordable early learning a key commitment of a Labor government, he did that because he knew it was the right thing to do, and, from the day that we took office, we have been working for Australia to deliver on that commitment because, as a government, we know that it was the right thing to do. It was the right thing for children, giving them every single opportunity to thrive and giving them those transformational benefits of early learning. It was the right thing to do for the economy, boosting productivity and increasing workforce participation, particularly for women. It was the right thing to do for the country, laying the foundations for a better future. And, of course, it was the right thing to do for families, for whom the cost of early learning and care is a significant factor when they do their household budgets.</para>
<para>Our changes provide those families with real and responsible cost-of-living relief, easing the pressure on their family budgets. It's practical relief that's making a real difference to Australian families.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms Bell</name>
    <name.id>282981</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>It's up eight per cent in nine months, Anne—eight per cent.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The member for Moncrieff will cease interjecting for the remainder of this answer.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Dr ALY</name>
    <name.id>13050</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>As someone who relied on early learning to provide myself and my family the opportunity, in my case, to undertake paid work and to study while I raised my two sons, I know just how important early childhood education and care is. The fact is that, without those early childhood educators and without access to affordable early childhood learning and care, I would not be standing here today. I want more families to benefit from affordable early learning so that they can reach their aspirations, so that their children can thrive, so that they can pursue opportunities. That's what everyone on this side wants for Australian families. That's why our government is working for Australia, taking practical action that takes that pressure off Australian families. It's working for Australia by putting the needs of Australian families first, with a focus on cost-of-living relief that doesn't add to inflation, because we know it's the right thing to do.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice</title>
          <page.no>68</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:05</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr PEARCE</name>
    <name.id>282306</name.id>
    <electorate>Braddon</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister for Indigenous Australians. Minister, what areas of government policy do not affect Indigenous Australians?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:05</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms BURNEY</name>
    <name.id>8GH</name.id>
    <electorate>Barton</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the member for Braddon for your question. I have stated repeatedly where I believe the focus of the Voice should be. I have consulted extensively with Aboriginal communities, including the communities in Tasmania, on what the issues are. People tell me very clearly it is about housing, education, jobs and health.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The minister will pause, and I'll hear from the Leader of the Opposition on a point of order.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Dutton</name>
    <name.id>00AKI</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Mr Speaker, on relevance. The truthful answer is that every area of public policy affects—</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Resume your seat. The Leader of the House?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Burke</name>
    <name.id>DYW</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I'd just suggest, Mr Speaker, on the scale of abuses of points of order, that was pretty high.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I think the Leader of the Opposition knows that was an absolute abuse of the standing orders. He is entitled to take a point of order on relevance. The minister is 40 seconds in. He is not entitled to give a statement and simply state his view. The minister has the call and now will be heard in silence for the remainder of her answer.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms BURNEY</name>
    <name.id>8GH</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I say this to the member for Braddon and remind the House: what we're being asked about on 14 October is the establishment of an advisory body. That body will give advice to the government and to this parliament. It will make sure that there is a change in the life outcomes for First Peoples, but it will also be a good thing for this country.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Aged Care</title>
          <page.no>68</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:08</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr CHARLTON</name>
    <name.id>I8M</name.id>
    <electorate>Parramatta</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister for Aged Care. How is the Albanese Labor government working for older Australians and cleaning up the mess of a wasted decade in aged care?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:08</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms WELLS</name>
    <name.id>264121</name.id>
    <electorate>Lilley</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the member for Parramatta for his question and for his contribution to our aged-care reform project. When we were elected to government, aged care was suffering under a decade of missed opportunities to fix shocking levels of substandard care, of malnutrition and of understaffing. Over the last year, we have been fiercely committed to our mission of cleaning up the mess left by those opposite: 24/7 nurses and care minutes targets legislated; new reporting on how providers spend public funds; a dedicated hotline for food complaints; free training for cooks through the Maggie Beer Foundation; an expanded PALM scheme pilot and industry labour agreements; $11.3 billion to lift the wages of aged-care workers; and over 100 aged-care reform projects in total. This is a government that is working for older people, and this work is having a real impact right now. It's delivering better care for older Australians right now. In the past year, there has been a reduction in the number of pressure injuries, in the number of falls, in the number of unplanned weight losses and in the use of physical restraints. We are also seeing improvements in the star-ratings data that we introduced, with fewer one- and two-star ratings and more four- and five-star ratings, just since December, when we brought it in.</para>
<para>This work is also helping build our aged-care workforce. Yesterday, the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs and I met the amazing staff at UnitingCare Mirinjani. Among those workers was Lorrainie, who completed her cert III at home in Suva, Fiji, before coming to Australia as part of our PALM pilot scheme. Lorrainie cares for people living with dementia, and tears filled her eyes as she described to us what an honour it is to be able look to after a person as they age. She is among 250,000 aged-care workers that received a pay rise because of the decision of Fair Work and the funding provided by the Albanese Labor government.</para>
<para>UnitingCare New South Wales and ACT executive director Tracey Burton said the wage rise had made life-changing differences to workers and to the sector. Not only are UnitingCare seeing an influx of new staff; they are seeing what they call 'boomerangs'—workers who'd left, due to the lack of support provided by those opposite, and who are now returning to aged care because they are finally being paid what they deserve.</para>
<para>Data received from Seek shows there has been a 66 per cent increase in applications for aged-care nursing roles, and a 55 per cent increase for personal-care job ads from January to June this year. This is what it looks like when you have a government that cares—a government that is working for Australia. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Albanese</name>
    <name.id>R36</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>On that very positive note, I ask that further questions be placed on the <inline font-style="italic">Notice Paper</inline>.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>DOCUMENTS</title>
        <page.no>69</page.no>
        <type>DOCUMENTS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Access to Committee Documents</title>
          <page.no>69</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Presentation</title>
            <page.no>69</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:11</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Pursuant to the resolution of the House of Representatives on 11 October 1984, I present a report on access to committee documents.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE</title>
        <page.no>69</page.no>
        <type>MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Environment</title>
          <page.no>69</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:12</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I have received a letter from the honourable member for Clark proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The need to urgently prioritise passage of reforms to strengthen national environmental laws and protections to defend nature and address the extinction crisis.</para></quote>
<para>I call upon those honourable members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.</para>
<para class="italic"> <inline font-style="italic">More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places—</inline></para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:12</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr WILKIE</name>
    <name.id>C2T</name.id>
    <electorate>Clark</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Urgently doing more to protect our natural environment is obviously a matter of critical public importance, and even more so right now, when Australia has one of the highest extinction rates in the world and our weak environmental laws are adding to this problem. No wonder my office has been inundated by constituents concerned about both the escalating extinction crisis in Tasmania and across the country, and about the state of our national environmental laws. No wonder that, over the last month, 41 Hobart schoolchildren have shared with me artworks of their favourite Tasmanian threatened species and reminded me that children look to us parliamentarians to ensure that our unique natural world thrives for generations to come.</para>
<para>Now, yes, the federal government's Nature Positive Plan does set out a goal of improving Australia's environmental laws to stop and reverse biodiversity loss—in other words, to finally address the extinction crisis. And yes, the environment department's website states that public consultation on all the relevant draft legislation will occur in the second half of 2023. Moreover, in June, when the crossbench engaged with the government on the passage of the nature repair market bills in good faith, we were assured that environmental law reforms would soon be introduced which would address our concerns about the accountability and integrity of that market. Indeed, on that same day, the minister said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">In the coming weeks, I will also be releasing the changes that we are proposing to the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act, including the first of the National Environmental Standards, for public consultation.</para></quote>
<para>But, alarmingly, it's now September, and we've seen nothing—except, of course, the lousy sea-dumping legislation which enables carbon geosequestration out of sight, under the seabed, which essentially greenwashes the continued extraction and burning of fossil fuels.</para>
<para>Don't get me wrong; I have great respect for the environment minister and appreciate it when she says that she wants to get this reform done and to get it done right. But at a certain point we must look at what is actually being done, not just at what is being said. The emerging pattern this year is a government which, on the environment at least, prioritises legislative tweaks and side projects but delays the hard and vital work of comprehensive reform. Plus it's mid-September and we face the very real prospect of a sneaky consultation period over Christmas when no-one is looking. All of this ignores the fact that we simply can't afford further delay because the extinctions are happening now. The forests are being cleared now and the community is demanding action now.</para>
<para>Frankly, we are in desperate need of a transparent, strengthened Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act and related national environmental standards. These must adequately recognise and involve First Nations communities in project consideration and they must account for the climate impact of projects because conservation planning is obviously linked directly to climate change. For instance, approved coalmine developments and expansions this year alone are expected to add about 150 million tonnes of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere over their lifetimes which is patently appalling and surely can't be allowed to continue.</para>
<para>Moreover—this is critically important—we also need a strong, securely funded and genuinely independent national environmental protection agency—one that can give expert advice and act as a tough cop on the beat to ensure accountability and compliance with these new laws and regulations. Underpinning this we need greater public funding for conservation and environmental management to ensure we have the people and programs in place to protect, restore and repair our degraded ecosystems and threatened species.</para>
<para>In this parliament right now we have the largest crossbench in history made up of members who, by and large, reflect the widespread concerns about integrity, climate and the environment shared by communities right across the country. This is something to celebrate, but when debating the sea dumping legislation at the consideration-in-detail stage, the minister appeared frustrated at the proposed amendments from my colleagues and asked the crossbench to engage on legislation at an earlier stage. Well, Minister, here we are. We're ready with our sleeves rolled up and raring to go. We want these reforms to succeed. Australians want these reforms to succeed and our environment needs these reforms to succeed. Let's get on with the job and leave a legacy of stronger environmental protection for generations to come. I'll finish there and leave five minutes for an additional crossbench speaker.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:17</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mrs ELLIOT</name>
    <name.id>DZW</name.id>
    <electorate>Richmond</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I too am very pleased to rise on this matter of very public importance. I acknowledge the member for Clark's long-term commitment to strengthening our environmental laws. That is an issue that is definitely shared by those of us on this side of the House and by many other members in this House. It is one that we are incredibly passionate about. Indeed, this is an issue that the Australian people voted for in last year's election because we had a decade of inaction prior to that. In fact, no government has done more on the environment and in terms of tackling climate change than the Albanese Labor government. We continue to take so much action, particularly because of the decade of inaction.</para>
<para>We are very proud of what this government is doing in terms of our targets for net zero and our Nature Positive Plan as well. For the first time in a decade we have a policy designed to reduce emissions, which is so vitally important, and make Australia a renewable energy superpower. We have been running fast and have hit the ground running on all of these measures together, along with our Nature Positive Plan, because of the inaction over the last decade.</para>
<para>I'll go through some of the action that we're taking and then get onto our Nature Positive Plan as well. Some of the actions include emission reduction targets of 43 per cent by 2030 and a clear path to net zero by 2050; $2 billion for green hydrogen; $1.6 billion for home and small business energy efficiency; passing the safeguard mechanism; $20 billion for Rewiring the Nation; establishing massive new offshore wind projects around the country; $3 billion on the National Reconstruction Fund for renewables and low-emission technologies; and, very importantly, setting up the new environment protection agency with much stronger laws, much quicker decisions and much better regulatory frameworks.</para>
<para>We've also doubled funding to national parks like Uluru and Kakadu to create jobs on country. We're delivering the Murray-Darling Basin Plan, spending $1.2 billion to protect and restore the Great Barrier Reef, and proclaiming 10 new Indigenous protected areas and doubling the number of rangers. Under this government, the Albanese Labor government, Australia is leading the world again. We are working incredibly hard to clean up the mess the Liberals and Nationals left us, because we know how vitally important it is to protect and preserve our environment for future generations.</para>
<para>We are very proud to be reforming our very broken environmental laws. Under the previous government, under the Liberals and Nationals, they in fact trashed those environmental laws. We saw it time and time again, how they watered down the EPBC and took no action in this area. Professor Graham Samuel's 2019 review into the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act found:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The EPBC Act is out dated and requires fundamental reform.</para></quote>
<para>It continues:</para>
<quote><para class="block">… Australians do not trust that the … Act is delivering for the environment, for business or for the community.</para></quote>
<para>That is indeed true. Nature was being destroyed. Businesses were waiting too long for decisions. This has to change.</para>
<para>We responded to Professor Samuel's review and announced our nature-positive plan: better for the environment and also better for business. We want an economy that is nature-positive to stop the decline and repair nature. We are building towards this legislation using three basic principles: clear national standards of environmental protection, improving and speeding up decisions, and building trust and integrity in our environmental laws.</para>
<para>Our nature-positive plan will be better for the environment for a number of reasons: by delivering those stronger laws to protect nature; to protect precious plants, animals and places; and for the first time these laws will introduce standards. Decisions must meet the standards that describe the environmental outcomes we want to achieve. This will ensure decisions made will protect our threatened species and ecosystems and, importantly, let that new environmental protection agency make decisions and properly enforce them.</para>
<para>As I said, our nature-positive plan will be better for business as well, with more certainty and less red tape. This plan is indeed a win-win: a win for the environment and a win for business. It is incredibly extensive, and we have very positive responses to this plan from Greenpeace:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The reforms outlined are a very welcome and long-overdue step to better protecting Australia's extraordinary wildlife, forests and natural environment.</para></quote>
<para>The Business Council of Australia said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Business welcomes the government's commitment to implementing recommendations of the Samuel Review—</para></quote>
<para>and many other groups have welcomed the announcement, like the Australian Conservation Foundation and the Environmental Defenders Office.</para>
<para>We are, and we have always been, committed to working with environment and business communities and First Nation groups to make sure we get this right into the future. As has been said before, the legislation will be released as an exposure draft by the end of 2023, and we are working constructively right across the community to make sure that we do in fact get this right.</para>
<para>Of course, another important aspect in protecting our environment is protecting threatened species. Unlike the previous government, the Albanese Labor government does not accept that extinctions are inevitable. What we accept and acknowledge is that we need to act. It's important that we do what we can to understand the threats to certain species and to use the most up-to-date advice in our capacity to protect them. Since we've been in government, we have been taking strong action to protect threatened species. We are investing over $500 million in directly helping threatened species in and tackling feral species too. There's over $224 million for the Saving Native Species Program, including $70 million for koalas; $440 million for the Natural Heritage Trust for programs to conserve threatened species; double the funding for national parks, which is so vitally important; triple the funding to clean up and restore urban rivers and catchments. There are many other policies as well, which include delivering our Murray-Darling Basin Plan and $1.2 billion for the Great Barrier Reef. We have had an extensive array of investment in ensuring we are doing all that we can to protect our threatened species.</para>
<para>As I said at the beginning, we are very proud to be acting on climate change because the Australian people voted for this. They were sick of the inaction of the previous government. That's why we've taken that strong action, particularly that investment in renewable energy, which is the cheapest form of energy, and that's why we've got, and are investing in, nation-building initiatives such as Rewiring the Nation. We know this is vitally important because we actually appreciate the value of renewable energy and the importance of that. I particularly want to add that, in regional areas like mine, not only is there great enthusiasm as we transition to renewables, but it is a massive economic driver for regional areas as well. People in the country absolutely recognise that and are very complimentary of what we're doing.</para>
<para>We have also legislated Australia's target of a 43 per cent reduction in emissions by 2030 and net zero by 2050. As I've said, there's the offshore wind industry and Rewiring the Nation—a whole range of measures in place. That's what is at the heart of taking action on climate change: a whole series of measures, those massive investments supporting households and business, and legislated targets. In the time that we have been in government we have done a huge amount because there was so much inaction over those previous 10 years from the Liberals and Nationals. In fact, we know, those of us that were here, that there were more than 20 failed policies over that time. It seemed every week there was another policy that they just didn't land at all. There was no desire from them to address this pressing issue, unlike from those of us in the Labor Party.</para>
<para>Since that time, in the last year, the only policy we've seen from the Liberals and Nationals is the one they keep rehashing, and that is of course nuclear power. We hear it every couple of weeks. Whenever we talk about energy, what do they say? Nuclear power. As I've said many times in this House, many communities right throughout the nation, and particularly in my electorate, are completely opposed to the use of nuclear power for a whole variety of reasons. It is far too dangerous and far too expensive. We know that a small reactor would cost a massive $5 billion to build, and they need about 80 of them around Australia at least. Of course they won't tell us where they'll go, and we know these reactors would have to be near water. Communities like mine—in fact, communities up, down and around the country—would be little bit worried about what the plans are when it comes rolling out nuclear energy. And that is all we ever seem to hear from the Liberals and Nationals.</para>
<para>Those of us on this side have an absolutely huge, strong commitment to acting on climate change, protecting our environment and protecting our threatened species, and we are doing that by strengthening the EPBC Act, which is at the heart of this and gives us the basis to keep taking this strong action. This act, which was watered down by the Liberals and Nationals, is the one we are focusing on, through massive consultation, to make sure we get it right. We have to get it right. We have to get it right for future generations because this is our chance to protect our environment and our threatened species, and the Albanese Labor government is committed to doing that.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:27</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BANDT</name>
    <name.id>M3C</name.id>
    <electorate>Melbourne</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The problem with our current environment laws is that they don't protect the environment. Under our current environmental laws, the destruction of the environment is lawful. The bleaching of the iconic Great Barrier Reef is legal. The warming oceans caused by mining and burning of coal and gas is above board. The extinction crisis is consistent with the current statutes. The overextraction of water from the Murray-Darling, a lifeblood of the south-east of Australia, is lawful. The ripping up of ancient native forest to be turned into woodchips is government approved. Under our current laws, the destruction of the world is lawful. When the crossbench says, 'Let's get on with fixing our environment laws to tackle the No. 1 threat to our environment: climate change,' the environment minister flees the chamber and doesn't even come and attend to defend Labor's delay in fixing our environment laws. And we found out today in question time why.</para>
<para>We know that the leading cause of the climate crisis, and the biggest threat to our environment, is mining and burning of coal and gas, yet Labor keeps approving more. In this year alone, Labor has given the go-ahead to five coal projects. And today, in question time, when asked if the minister will stop approving new coal and gas projects, the minister said no. Today Labor nailed their colours to the mast and said that they will keep approving new coal and gas projects, even at a time when this country heads towards the worst forecast summer since the Black Summer, even as we hear that thousands—over 10,000 people—are missing in Libya because of climate induced floods and even as we have fires burning across the globe and threatening us again this summer. But, under the current laws, a coal and gas project gets approved even if it makes the climate crisis worse and threatens our environment.</para>
<para>This is the way that Labor wants the laws to be. It's no doubt why the environment minister is not here defending the status quo. It's because Labor and Liberal are more concerned with Woodside and Santos than they are with the Great Barrier Reef and the Lower Lakes of the Coorong. They're more worried about protecting the big gas corporations in the Beetaloo Basin than the people of this country. Like on so many problems plaguing this country, Labor gives too much power to the big corporations and the billionaires.</para>
<para>The Greens don't think it's too much to ask that laws designed to protect the environment simply protect the environment. We need laws that—wait for it—protect the environment. The environment—the reefs, the rivers, the mountains and the forests—needs protection from coal and gas corporations, from overextraction and from corporations seeking to damage them for profit.</para>
<para>These laws are urgent, and we need them now, but under Labor these laws have been delayed. What hasn't been delayed, though, or paused or put on hold is Labor's love for coal and gas. Labor has approved five coal projects this year alone but can't bring new environment laws to this parliament. These mines approved by the environment minister alone will create 150 million tonnes of pollution, contributing to more extinctions, death and destruction.</para>
<para>Real environment laws—laws which protected the environment—would have blocked these coal and gas projects. The minimum needed is no more coal and gas projects. Stop approving new projects. That's what the environment needs.</para>
<para>So, until that's done, we urge the minister to stop posing with koalas; stop bringing a watering can to a forest fire, while at the same time fuelling that fire by approving more coal and gas. We need a climate trigger inserted into our environment laws now. We need a ban on the needless destruction of native forests, these ancient and majestic carbon stores and critical habitats. They must be protected. We want an end to the extinction crisis. The public are fed up with big corporations getting the power to trash the environment, and they won't accept Labor breaking their promise to protect the environment. Koala selfies from a minister won't cut it. We deserve environment laws which protect the environment. We want a Great Barrier Reef which people want to come and see, not one bleached by coal projects. We want a Murray-Darling Basin which doesn't leave South Australia high and dry, and we reckon Tasmania's forests are worth more standing up. The minister needs to decide: is she the minister for the environment or the minister against it? Stop approving coal and gas projects.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:33</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr ANANDA-RAJAH</name>
    <name.id>290544</name.id>
    <electorate>Higgins</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>What a difference a year makes, colleagues. When we came to government, renewable energy was sitting at 33 per cent. It is now at 40 per cent, as we accelerate to 82 per cent in a mere 75 or 76 months from now. That is an absolutely massive task. Yes, while some coal mines may have been approved under the environment minister, let us not forget that this is the same environment minister who is the first one in Commonwealth history to have disallowed a coal mine due to its impacts on the Great Barrier Reef. That is something the crossbench love to forget.</para>
<para>In addition to this, we are also the government that has 104—when I last checked; it might be higher now—renewable projects in the pipeline. This has more than doubled, and it is sitting on the environment minister's desk for her to sign off.</para>
<para>So we are well on the way when it comes to our energy transformation, and it can't happen a day too soon. Why? Because, when we came to government, we inherited a mess. Those opposite were not only economic vandals but also environmental vandals. We inherited an economy that had had its shock absorbers removed. We had a housing crisis. We'd seen a collapse of bulk-billing—Medicare—which I'd devoted my life to supporting.</para>
<para>We'd seen energy chaos, where those opposite had 22 energy policies. And what was their strike rate? Was it 50 per cent? Any takers? Perhaps it was 10 per cent? No. It was zero per cent. Zero. They couldn't land a single energy policy. It led to Australia being overexposed to fossil fuels. Of course, what then happened was the pandemic and the war in Ukraine, a black swan event, one none of us saw coming, which has left Australia a country with an unparalleled endowment of sunshine, wind and waves in an energy crisis. Australia, a fossil fuel giant, is facing an energy crisis. It's absurd. Why? Because those opposite, in their 10 years, failed to transition this country to renewable energy, something that we are now doing.</para>
<para>When it comes to the environment, we need to change our mental models. For too long, we have considered the environment as a resource to be pillaged and plundered. The problem is that, when you worship at the temple of GDP, nature always comes off second-best—always. I actually believe this is a completely false dichotomy. Economics is not privileged above biodiversity. In fact, the two are intertwined. Why? Because our economy depends on biodiversity. Where do you think our food comes from? Seventy per cent of our food production is reliant on nature's pollinators: the bees, the bats and the birds.</para>
<para>In addition to that, our economy is reliant on the stuff we dig up, for sure, including all those critical minerals that we will be needing for our net zero transition. But it's also reliant on tourism, like the Great Barrier Reef brings. What we have seen, however, is not just environmental degradation but environmental secrecy under those opposite. We inherited an environmental situation which was described in the <inline font-style="italic">State of the </inline><inline font-style="italic">environment </inline><inline font-style="italic">report </inline><inline font-style="italic">2021</inline> as a 'poor and deteriorating state'. That was damning. That same report, which was released in 2021, was kept under wraps by those opposite because it was too damning to release. We have won the ignominious title of being the mammal extinction capital of the world.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms Sitou</name>
    <name.id>298121</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>That's their legacy.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Dr ANANDA-RAJAH</name>
    <name.id>290544</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>That's right. Since colonisation, we have lost 100 endemic species. That means that these were species only found in Australia, like the thylacine. They're gone. We've got 19 ecosystems that are on the brink of collapse.</para>
<para>We as a government are well aware of this, and this is why we have adopted all the recommendations of the Samuel review and the work around reforming our EPBC Act is underway. The reason the Minister for the Environment and Water is not in the chamber is because she's actually trying to fix the EPBC Act. She is essentially rewriting that entire act, which has not been reviewed in 30 years. So there is a lot of work to do, and we are getting on with it.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:38</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms CHANEY</name>
    <name.id>300006</name.id>
    <electorate>Curtin</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Biodiversity has been seen as the poor cousin of climate change in recent years. The world's waking up to the impact of climate change and the need to respond. but declining biodiversity is also urgent and dramatic. It's not happening somewhere else; it's happening here, in places we know and love. The government knows that the 20-year-old Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act is in need of a significant overhaul and has committed to doing this and ending extinctions. But it's taking a while. While I acknowledge that getting it right is essential, my community is begging for updates on when the new legislation will be introduced, and I don't want to keep telling them: 'Wait. Be patient. It will be here soon.' After years of inaction, the protection of nature is now urgent.</para>
<para>I come from a really special part of the world. The south-western corner of Western Australia, which includes my electorate of Curtin, was the first global biodiversity hotspot to be recognised in Australia and it's one of only 36 in the world. This means it has a high percentage of plants that are found nowhere else on the planet. More than half the plants in our south-west forests and woodlands exist nowhere else because they developed in isolation, separated from the rest of Australia by the wide Central Desert. They are irreplaceable. Once gone, they're gone forever. We have jarrah and marri forests and tall blackbutt in river valleys. The Tuart woodlands and forests of the Swan Coastal Plain are critically endangered. We have critically endangered fauna, including the numbat, the woylie, the exquisite red-tailed parrot, the squelching froglet, the yellow wart burrowing frog and the western swamp turtle.</para>
<para>So why does it matter if some obscure frog or turtle becomes extinct? Some would say that each species has intrinsic value and a right to exist. Others would talk about the delicate balance of the planet and the fact that everything is interconnected. Our ecosystems are complex and fragile. We know so little about the interconnectedness that we don't know if we can afford to lose a species without adverse impact on its ecosystem.</para>
<para>For these and other reasons, people in my electorate and across Australia are deeply passionate about protecting our environment and biodiversity. Within my Curtin community, we have many of Australia's leading experts in the field of biodiversity, including four members of the threatened species advisory group. At my regular community catch-ups and in speaking with constituents, the protection of our biodiversity comes up again and again.</para>
<para>Australia has become a global deforestation hotspot, with the worst rate of mammal extinction in the world. Over the last 200 years, one in 10 of Australia's endemic terrestrial species have become extinct. In comparison, only one native land mammal from continental North America has become extinct since European settlement. A further one in five Australian endemic land mammal species are now assessed to be threatened. Climate change makes it harder to protect these species, with modelling predicting severe to catastrophic losses in high-altitude tropical rainforests, alpine environments, tropical savannas of northern Australia and coastal areas. When you look at lists like that, it feels pretty dire.</para>
<para>So what's happening? The government's ambitious Nature Positive Plan, released in December last year, was a welcome first response to the comprehensive Samuel review. But that was more than nine months ago. We are all waiting for the department's reform task force to release a comprehensive exposure draft. I urge the government to do this soon and in a manner that provides for adequate and significant consultation. We urgently need to establish a new set of codified national standards with the stated purpose of achieving measurable environmental outcomes—not processes or checklists but outcomes.</para>
<para>Our approach to biodiversity protection must also be part of a holistic response to climate change. We only have one proven technology that removes carbon from the air. It's called the tree. We face some difficult trade-offs ahead between critical minerals development to replace fossil fuels and protecting biodiversity. We need a strong environmental protection framework in place to ensure that we make these decisions wisely and well. The hot summer and bushfire season ahead will provide a backdrop to the urgent work that needs to be done on the EPBC Act. We must do this now. Every day counts.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:43</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BRIAN MITCHELL</name>
    <name.id>129164</name.id>
    <electorate>Lyons</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I see the member for Curtin's froglet and I raise her three handfish from southern Tasmania, three of the most critically endangered fish in the world. When you see these remarkable creatures, you'll know why. They've evolved over the centuries and millennia to travel with their little tiny hands on the bottom of the River Derwent. How they are still there I don't know. We love them and we are committed to keeping them.</para>
<para>After a decade of disaster and neglect under those opposite—and I don't include the crossbench there—the Australian Labor government is taking real action on environment. It's fair to say that no Australian government has ever done more on environment and climate than this one. I take the member for Clark's matter of public importance very seriously—it's a serious issue—but I think it has to be recognised that this government is taking this issue seriously. While we welcome the crossbench's support for what we are doing, we didn't need the crossbench to tell us about the importance of the environment, climate change, housing policy and an integrity commission. These are all Labor programs. They're all part of a Labor agenda. We welcome the crossbench's support. Often they make very constructive contributions to the Labor agenda. But this is a Labor agenda before this parliament. It's this government that is putting forward emissions reduction targets, that is putting forward climate change energy policy, that is rewiring the nation and so on and so forth.</para>
<para>We've set a goal of zero new extinctions to give a clear signal that we want to save our threatened species. We target to protect and conserve at least 30 per cent of Australia's land and 30 per cent of our oceans by 2030 to protect and restore habitat. We are investing more than $500 million to better protect threatened plants and animals and tackle invasive species. In March this government announced its Threatened Species Action Plan, developed with input from experts, the community, natural resource managers, scientists, conservation groups and First Nations peoples, which gives a pathway for conservation and recovery over the next 10 years.</para>
<para>We are investing $200 million to clean up urban rivers and waterways as part of the Urban Rivers and Catchments Program. This government's Urban Rivers and Catchments Plan will make sure that these waterways are home to nearly half our threatened animals and a quarter of threatened plants and make sure that we take action on that. The program will support projects that improve waterways in urban, outer urban and regional centres, and, as a member for a regional community, I take that very seriously indeed.</para>
<para>Projects funded will help conserve native plants and animals such as birds, platypi and native fish. They will also reconnect people with nature, improving access to the valuable spaces that waterways provide for our health and social wellbeing. So far this government has protected an extra 40 million hectares of Australian ocean and bush, an area bigger than Germany, and we are doubling the number of Indigenous rangers and investing in 10 new Indigenous protected areas.</para>
<para>I'll run out of time if I go on, but in my electorate of Lyons we have unique threatened species right on our doorstep. My electorate is home to a number of threatened species—the eastern quoll, the orange-bellied parrot, the red handfish, as I've mentioned, and the Tasmanian giant freshwater crayfish—and they will all be protected from further depletion and extinction thanks to our funding. The minister has outlined a time line for delivery of this legislation; I think it's by the end of the year.</para>
<para>I note the member for Clark is concerned, if that time line is kept, that the consultation will be over the Christmas period, which he's worried about. We've had a pretty full dance card, Member for Clark. This government has had a lot to get through in the first 18 months: wages legislation, housing legislation, aged care, national reconstruction, rewiring the nation, the integrity commission and robodebt. The Nature Positive Plan is important, but it's by no means the only arrow in our environmental quiver. We've already taken emissions reduction legislation and Rewiring the Nation to parliament, as I said, so it's just one element of what we're doing.</para>
<para>We are committed to it. The minister is working very hard, as the member for Higgins said. She is rewriting the EPBC Act to take into account the concerns of the Samuel's report. We are absolutely committed, and no doubt the member for Clark knows this. Just as he is committed to getting real action on this, we are committed too. I'm confident that the minister will meet her time line by the end of the year.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:48</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr KATTER</name>
    <name.id>HX4</name.id>
    <electorate>Kennedy</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I would like to table this document, but I'm told that I can't. I don't know why. That's quite extraordinary. The document is about the great Queensland dividing range scheme, which just revises the Bradfield Scheme. I represent an area where it rains all the time—above 100 inches of rainfall for most of the towns on the coast—and we just want a teeny-weeny little bit of that water to move it out onto the western plains onto an area called the Desert Uplands.</para>
<para>I greatly respect my crossbench colleagues and their concern for the environment, and I share that concern, but we have a treeless desert at the present moment that we're going to convert into a farming and agriculture but mostly industrial undertaking that will prevent 20 million tonnes of Australian carbon dioxide a year from going up into the atmosphere. That's close to five per cent of Australia's emissions. Why wouldn't you do this? Is there a single reason on the planet why you wouldn't do this? Part of the area that would be benefitting has 23,000 square kilometres of prickly acacia tree that absorbs no CO2—I'm not going to go into the reasons why—that has wiped out all native flora and fauna. Surely it would be better to grow something that will take CO2.</para>
<para>I haven't got time to table another document here, the Hells Gates document, but in that you will see a farmer standing on dirt ground. That's at the start of the year. At the end of the year, there's nearly 13 foot of solid sugarcane biomass. You can imagine how much CO2 every hectare of sugarcane takes out of the atmosphere. I would be the first to question any program that jeopardises the environment. We've been fighting against Chalumbin wind farms. Queensland has felled more trees than any other state in Australia by the length of the Flemington straight, and I can tell you that a whole lot of those trees—I fly over them, and I never thought about it until Chalumbin came up.</para>
<para>I was at a meeting. They were all sort of greenies at the meeting. They said, 'This is a really weird meeting,' when I came in. The chairman, the professor, said that, in summary, what is happening in Chalumbin—and the <inline font-style="italic">Spectator</inline> magazine says it's going to be the Franklin Dam of this decade—is that a beautiful nature wonderland is going to be turned into industrial wasteland. Good call. Queensland can be proud that they have felled more trees than any other state in Australia. I might add, as far as coalmining—I'm all for coalmining. I'm the strongest pro-coalmining person in any parliament in Australia. I share my colleagues' view and I congratulate the Queensland government on opening more coalmines than any other government since Bjelke-Petersen. Look at the length of the hypocrisy in this place.</para>
<para>If you introduce ethanol, why are we one of the only two countries on earth—by heavens, if you pull out a 20c coin and have a look at it, it's got an English monarch on it. When is this country going to grow up? I am sorry, but we're not English anymore; we are Australian. We do not believe in aristocracy. We believe that every man is born free and equal. That's what we believe. So what I'm saying here is we've got to grow up and we've got to be intelligent and we have got to reduce. Why are we the only country on earth that hasn't got ethanol? Iemma, the ALP Premier of New South Wales, said, 'I can't go another day with people dying in Sydney who simply should not be dying.' So he introduced ethanol. No-one after him has been worried about 900 people dying every year in Sydney from smog from motor vehicle emissions. No-one else is worried about it. This place doesn't seem worried about it.</para>
<para>The ALP have been there, the LNP have been there and not one of them introduced ethanol. Yet every other country on earth has done it. Look at the map. Go and check it out. The EU agreement says everyone has to use five per cent. China is using five per cent. Half of Indonesia is using five per cent. India is going to five per cent. America is on 15 per cent. But let's use Brazil because this is the country most like Australia— <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:53</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms SCRYMGOUR</name>
    <name.id>F2S</name.id>
    <electorate>Lingiari</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm glad the member for Clark has given me the opportunity to stand up and talk about the environment, the work and the commitment of our Labor government, and everything that we're doing to protect our country. The environment is now finally at the front and centre of the federal government's agenda, and the election of the Albanese Labor government has not come a moment too soon for the environment, particularly in my hometown in the Northern Territory. Right now, bushfires are burning in the Barkly, with over a million hectares of land being touched by fires. Fires have sporadically been burning along the MacDonnell Ranges near Alice Springs. Our climate is changing and our environment needs to be protected, and this federal government is deeply attuned to that fact.</para>
<para>A key measure of protecting and supporting our environment, which is of huge importance in Lingiari, is the work we are doing to support Indigenous rangers. Rangers are a huge part of the Northern Territory's environmental and economic fabric. In a challenging economic environment, across sparse and diverse landscapes, rangers provide important and meaningful employment opportunities for remote communities. Through the Nature Repair Market, introduced by the Albanese government, I already know of many local Aboriginal corporations who are looking to invest in Indigenous ranger programs. Aboriginal people have tens of thousands of years of experience managing our land and sea country. With the environmental reforms, particularly the NRM, communities will be able to create industry and economic development out bush, utilising their ancient knowledge to navigate a modern economy.</para>
<para>One group in the Territory doing great work on this is the Aboriginal Carbon Foundation, which is encouraging innovation and providing support to communities trying to diversify local economies. The Aboriginal Carbon Foundation is working with a number of groups and private industry to transform communities. The Nature Repair Market will provide a federal policy framework in which they can continue to expand this work. Land councils are doing important work in this space of environmental management and Indigenous rangers. I have been privileged to work with hundreds of our Indigenous rangers. The work they do on a daily basis is critical, and it's meaningful.</para>
<para>I was also lucky enough to travel to Groote Island and meet with the Anindilyakwa Land Council and the rangers there. The Anindilyakwa rangers are doing really important work, particularly when it comes to protecting sea country. While I was on Groote, I saw huge amounts of ghost nets and plastic being pulled from our oceans. These nets absolutely wreak havoc on our oceans, trapping and killing wildlife and destroying coral ecosystems. I was able, thanks to our environment minister, to announce grant funding for the Anindilyakwa rangers to expand their work, including for a cutting-edge new vessel. I know that the ALC and the rangers were extremely grateful to the Albanese government for their focus on and commitment to environmental protection and Indigenous rangers.</para>
<para>Another group I visited with the Minister for the Environment and Water was the Mutitjulu Tjakura rangers and the Kaltukatjara rangers in Katiti-Petermann and Mutitjulu. These ranger groups are doing really important work close to and alongside the Uluru-Kata Tjuta National Park. They are removing buffel grass, undertaking cultural burns, monitoring threatened species and caring for country. One of the ranger supervisors told us of the difference these programs were making for men. But I also want to quickly acknowledge the Country Needs People association and the work, development and support they are doing with strong women on country, like the Thamarrurr women's ranger program in Port Keats, to look after country and provide employment for the women.</para>
<para>Labor knows Australia's environmental laws are broken. The coalition did the review in 2019. They sat on the outcomes of that report for five years and did nothing. The Minister for the Environment and Water and our government are committed to cleaning up that mess and making sure that we do everything that we can to bring in strong laws to protect our environment and our country.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:58</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms SHARKIE</name>
    <name.id>265980</name.id>
    <electorate>Mayo</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Greg Mullins, former commissioner of Fire and Rescue NSW, has acknowledged that some of the worst bushfire seasons have followed a triple La Nina. The prolific growth and regeneration that occurs during La Nina allows us to then have high growth when we go into El Nino, and then we have intense heat and dryness. This has put my community on high alert.</para>
<para>I think it's fair to say that there is a real concern that the government is not prioritising environmental protection legislation, which is closely linked to climate change mitigation. My electorate of Mayo has seen firsthand the devastation caused by bushfires that have followed a triple La Nina event. Not only that; my electorate is full of biodiversity and many threatened species. The <inline font-style="italic">State </inline><inline font-style="italic">of the environment report</inline> has exposed a crisis that is facing not only my electorate but Australia. The modelling suggests that we will be exposed to more extremes. We must have a legislative framework in place to properly address these threats.</para>
<para>Some suggest we are about to face our sixth extinction crisis. What is this, you might ask? It's like what we had with the dinosaurs and big bangs, but what we're looking at now is biological annihilation—the increasingly fast degradation of our ecosystems and decline in species. Have we seen extinctions before? Yes, but this is the first that has been driven by humans and human development. Land clearing and habitat loss are the big drivers of extinction. Between 2010 and 2018, more than 3.5 million hectares were cleared across Australia. That is extraordinary. That is so sad. In the 2019-20 bushfires, we wiped out approximately one billion animals. The glossy black-cockatoo, which has an endangered red-tailed subspecies living on Kangaroo Island, in my electorate, was practically wiped out by land clearing during the last half of the 20th century, and the bushfires that Kangaroo Island faced only a few years ago destroyed almost four in 10 of their nesting spots. The government needs to ensure we have legislation that can mitigate such biodiversity loss.</para>
<para>Australia is committed to the '30 by 30' framework, which is a start. The framework includes the pledge to protect and conserve 30 per cent of Australia's landmass and 30 per cent of Australia's marine areas by 2030. This will hopefully slow species loss and reverse habitat loss. Then, hopefully, we won't face the sixth extinction. However, this needs to not just focus on middle Australia. There need to be protections that are proportionate to the needs of regional diversity. Other parts of the world are also pledging to meet the '30 by 30' framework. The European Union's strategy has introduced strict protections for areas with high biodiversity. It has proposed binding natural restoration targets and restoring degraded ecosystems. However, we need to do better than the EU, because we are not on target to reach the goals by 2030.</para>
<para>In 2021 US President Joe Biden issued an executive order to tackle climate crisis, which was then followed by California implementing the goals of the '30 by 30' objectives. California has included input from government agencies, local tribes, experts and other stakeholders in their strategy consultations. Other countries are moving at pace, and we really need to do the same. Where is the EPBC amendment exposure draft? We need to make sure we get this legislation through the parliament. We need a national framework. We need to act because we just can't afford to lose this. We know that people visit Australia because of our unique flora and fauna, but it feels to me like we're not taking it seriously, like we don't truly value what we have. Perhaps we won't value it until we've lost it. What a great shame that would be.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:02</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr PERRETT</name>
    <name.id>HVP</name.id>
    <electorate>Moreton</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm proud to speak on the MPI topic put forward by the member for Clark—the need to urgently prioritise the passage of reforms to strengthen national environmental laws and protections to defend nature and address the extinction crisis. I've been in the parliament with the member for Clark for a long time. Whenever he puts a proposition forward, it's always worth listening to, and I commend his passion on this topic. I say up-front: personally I'm very supportive of the fact that we do have to do more, as recommended by Professor Samuel's report, but obviously we need to do so methodically and correctly.</para>
<para>I commend all of the speakers who have made contributions, even the stream-of-consciousness efforts. I particularly want to call out one speaker, and that's the member for Lingiari—the birthday girl—for her contribution. We have so much to learn about caring for this country, and we saw practical examples of that. I think all of us, even if we're in an urban environment, like the member for Brisbane's electorate, have a connection to country that can be enhanced by listening to our First Nations people, and to the experts, the scientists and the like, and making sure we get the legislation right. Personally, I think we need to have the concept of caring for country in section 51 of the Constitution. That's not a Labor Party position; it's just something I think we should do to ensure that all decisions in this nation are made in the best interests of country. But, whether it comes to the city, the bush, the beach or beyond the breakers, we need to make sure that what we're doing in the context of working towards net zero is actually nature-positive.</para>
<para>I go for a walk in my electorate every morning through some bushland where there are koalas and echidnas, even though I'm in an inner-city electorate. I know how uplifting that is for me and for everyone, whether they're wandering around Mount Isa or Innisfail, like the member for Kennedy can do—incredible parts of this country. We are all better for having that connection to some bit of Australia, be it urban, rural, remote or wherever.</para>
<para>I think every MP in this House and every senator—or nearly every senator—would agree that we should have that connection to the areas that we represent but that we need to do it in the context of science. Sadly, I saw on the weekend that the Nationals are still debating whether climate change is real. The world has moved on. They need to go and talk to their insurance companies or insurance brokers to understand how much the world has moved on and accepted the science. It's sad to see that there are still representatives debating that.</para>
<para>Obviously there are many things that we can do in the context of a government committed to reducing emissions by 43 per cent by 2030, which is just around the corner. It will take a lot of work, but we can also do our bit for the environment, as laid out in this motion by the member for Clark. There are things that we can do that will be a legacy for our grandchildren when they ask, 'What did you do in the Murray-Darling Basin Plan?' I know that we've done more in the last 12 months and provided more environmental water in the last 12 months than occurred in the previous nine years. We've doubled the funding to national parks like Uluru and Kakadu so that we're creating jobs on country, which gives purpose, gives dignity and changes lives. We're setting up this new Environmental Protection Agency to make sure that we've got a good, strong cop on the beat but also one that makes decisions more quickly so that business has certainty and things aren't lingering and being fought out in the courts. They'll make a decision and move on.</para>
<para>One thing I'm particularly concerned about, as someone that deals with their yellow bins and their green bins and the like in the city, is making sure that we're boosting recycling so that people are making decisions early on in the process about design and how things can be recycled appropriately so that we conserve prices but also make sure that we conserve these scarce natural resources. There's more to be done in that area, obviously.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:08</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BATES</name>
    <name.id>300246</name.id>
    <electorate>Brisbane</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Australia's environment laws are broken. The Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act, or EPBC Act, in particular, needs urgent reform. We desperately need a climate trigger and to stop new coal and gas in its tracks. Currently, our environment laws do not require the minister to consider the climate impacts of new projects, resulting in big polluting projects failing to be assessed for the emissions they create. As we know, this year alone, the environment minister has approved five coalmines, including the Isaac River coalmine, the Star coalmine, the Lake Vermont coalmine and the Ensham coalmine. The Ensham coalmine in itself will be responsible for a whopping 106 million tonnes. Then we have the most recent approval, the Gregory coalmine, a mine that the government has approved to operate until 2073 and that will add 31 million tonnes of CO2 to the atmosphere. That's equal to six per cent of Australia's annual emissions from one mine.</para>
<para>Every new coal and gas project risks the future. They risk the future of our reef, the future of the Murray and the safety of current and future generations. The approval of these five coalmines will create almost 150 million tonnes of carbon emissions combined. The minister has promised to fix our environment laws this year, and that must include making sure environment laws account for climate change when assessing projects, at the very least.</para>
<para>In 2023, in the midst of a global extinction and climate crisis, there is no excuse for Australia to keep logging our great forests. Just last week, a critically endangered greater glider was found dead as a result of native forest logging. If we are to halt the extinction crisis in Australia, the government must do everything in its power to stop the destruction of our forests. We cannot protect our threatened wildlife while we continue to log their homes. If the Albanese government is serious about fighting the climate crisis and protecting our environment, it must follow the lead of Victoria and other state governments and stop all native forest logging across the country.</para>
<para>There is no doubt that the climate crisis fuels extinction. Australia was the first country to record a mammal extinction as a result of climate change, and we cannot afford any more. Yet, around the country, Australian wildlife like the koala, greater glider and the southern emu wren continue to face extinction. In fact, just last week, on Threatened Species Day, another 48 species were listed as endangered. This is a national shame. If this government is serious about its zero extinction target, they must prioritise laws that stop destruction of threatened species habitat for forestry and coalmines.</para>
<para>Reform of environmental laws was supposed to be a priority for this government, yet meaningful change continues to be delayed. The EPBC, in particular, needs urgent reform. While we wait for these reforms, the government has, as I said, approved five new coalmines; tried to pass its green Wall Street Nature Repair Market Bill ahead of any EPBC changes or any funding to achieve zero extinction; and introduced a sea dumping bill that provides the means for fossil fuel companies to expand their operations at the expense of our climate and oceans. All the while, the EPBC remains neither effective at ensuring environmental protection and biodiversity conservation nor efficient in its regulation of business.</para>
<para>The public wants stronger action in addressing climate change. The <inline font-style="italic">Climate of the Nation</inline> report released just today shows that close to half of the country does not believe the government is doing enough to address climate change. Two-thirds of people said that the government should plan to phase out coalmines and 53 per cent supported a moratorium on new coalmines. It is abundantly clear that we must prioritise reform in these areas. Australia's environment laws must, at a bare minimum, stop destruction of native forests and assess new projects for their climate impacts. In other words, we urgently need a climate trio.</para>
<para>We've been promised progress on strengthening our environmental laws for well over a year now, and it seems that nothing is on the horizon. Each day we wait is another opportunity for the government to approve more and more fossil fuel projects. Our climate and wildlife cannot afford further delay.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>248181</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The time allotted for discussion has now concluded.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>BILLS</title>
        <page.no>79</page.no>
        <type>BILLS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Housing Australia Future Fund Bill 2023</title>
          <page.no>79</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r6970" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Housing Australia Future Fund Bill 2023</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Consideration of Senate Message</title>
            <page.no>79</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:13</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms COLLINS</name>
    <name.id>HWM</name.id>
    <electorate>Franklin</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That the amendments be agreed to.</para></quote>
<para>The Senate committee inquiry into the Housing Australia Future Fund Bill 2023 heard stakeholders ask the Australian government to consider changes to the annual cap on disbursements from the Housing Australia Future Fund. The government has agreed to amend the Housing Australia Future Fund Bill to provide the $500 million will be dispersed annually from the Housing Australia Future Fund from 2024-25 onwards.</para>
<para>We have listened to feedback also in relation to the recommended amount to be dispersed from the Housing Australia Future Fund be indexed from 2029-30. The government has therefore agreed to amend the Housing Australia Future Fund Bill to protect the real purchasing power of disbursements from the Housing Australia Future Fund by indexing the fixed disbursement amount in line with the consumer price index every year from 2029-30 onwards. From 2024-25, the transfer requests related to the Housing Australia Future Fund will be tallied on 1 June each financial year. The difference between this amount and the fixed disbursement amount of $500 million, or the indexed amount from 2029-30, will be transferred to Housing Australia prior to the end of the financial year. These funds must be spent on social and affordable housing or acute housing needs. Transferring a fixed amount of $500 million per year, or the indexed amount from 2029-30, from the Housing Australia Future Fund provides further legislative certainty that long-term commitments will be met, regardless of the earnings generated from the investments of the fund.</para>
<para>Applying indexation from 2029-30 will help deliver improved housing outcomes over the long term, as it will ensure that the Housing Australia Future Fund payments do keep pace with inflation. This supports the government entering into long-term contracts with housing providers to deliver on the government's commitment of 30,000 new social and affordable homes in the fund's first five years. The government will monitor the fund's balance and trajectory to ensure it remains well placed to provide meaningful and sustainable disbursements over the long term. This will occur as part of the annual budget cycle when considering proposals to access disbursements from the fund and as part of the statutory review process.</para>
<para>The government is also introducing amendments to provide the flexibility for the Minister for Finance and the Treasurer, as the responsible ministers, to increase the fixed $500 million disbursement amount in the future by making a determination via a disallowable legislative instrument. This would allow the government to increase the annual disbursement amount in response to investment, market or policy considerations, including if a decision was taken to make additional credits into the fund into the future, as permitted by the bill. The amendment will also provide the flexibility for the determination to provide for the indexation of the designated annual amount in future years.</para>
<para>Prior to issuing a determination, the responsible ministers will be required to consult the future fund board of guardians on a draft determination that proposes an increase to the disbursement amount. This will allow the board to consider whether any proposed increase will impact the board's ability to continue to comply with its obligations under the Housing Australia Future Fund Act 2023 and the Housing Australia Future Fund investment mandate. The responsible ministers must take this advice into account when making the determination to adjust the disbursement, and the board's advice will be tabled in parliament alongside the disbursement. The ability to update the disbursement limit by legislative instrument is similar to the framework in place for the Disaster Ready Fund. I thank the crossbench members for their engagement on this amendment, particularly those in the Senate.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:17</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr SUKKAR</name>
    <name.id>242515</name.id>
    <electorate>Deakin</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The coalition won't be supporting these amendments. We've seen that the government, as part of these amendments, has finally paid the ransom that the Greens have been demanding for many months. The government talked a big game, and it was quite entertaining to see the two bedfellows, the Labor Party and the Greens, arguing so ferociously for months on end. Then in the end the government buckled.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Tehan</name>
    <name.id>210911</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>They capitulated!</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr SUKKAR</name>
    <name.id>242515</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The government capitulated. But it's very surprising that one of the amendments here, one of the things that the government cannot explain—and they certainly couldn't explain it in the Senate—was how on earth a fund will maintain its corpus if the return it generates in a year is lower than the legislated dividend of $500 million, which was not there originally; it's only there because the government has capitulated to the Greens. They can't explain how on earth that won't diminish the fund.</para>
<para>Here we've got a government that has done nothing on housing for 15 months—nothing, absolutely nothing. Their signature policy, if you call it an agenda, the Housing Australia Future Fund, has now been whittled away by the Greens. We've got no clarity from the minister. I doubt the minister really understands it. But, when you borrow $10 billion, there will be $400 million to pay at a minimum. The government bond rate is 4.07 per cent. So the government's going to be paying more than $400 million on this borrowing. The minister has not explained what the management fee for the future fund will be. It has typically been in the order of one per cent. That's been the management fee, in addition to $400 million of interest. Australian taxpayers are being asked each year to fund $500 million of cost just so the minister can set up a fund that could lose money. Then, if it loses money, the minister has capitulated to the Greens to pay out a minimum of $500 million, and she's somehow arguing that that would not reduce the corpus of the fund.</para>
<para>Finally, we've seen 15 months of this government, and the minister has not been able to deliver an investment mandate. Where on earth is the investment mandate? This has been held up by the Greens for months. You were begging the Greens to pass this for months. You capitulated to the Greens, and we still don't have an investment mandate. We do not have an investment mandate after 15 months. That should be a source of embarrassment to everybody there. What on earth have you been doing? You clearly haven't been delivering the Help to Buy Scheme, which was supposed to start on 1 January. It's now 13 September and we don't have it, so you haven't been distracted by the Help to Buy Scheme. That's why we cannot support these amendments.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>248181</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Excuse me, Member for Deakin; please direct your comments through me as the chair and do not personalise those comments.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr SUKKAR</name>
    <name.id>242515</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I've been seeking to do so, Madam Deputy Speaker. How on earth could the government now come back with amendments that undermine this 'money-go-round' of a Ponzi scheme—the signature policy of this government—that will not deliver one house before the next election? It will not deliver one house before the next election. Unless I'm entirely wrong—I'll be very generous—you will build 30,000 homes over five years at the same time as you're bringing in 1½ million migrants. Explain that to your electorates. Where will those people live? So we've seen nothing—</para>
</continue>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr SUKKAR</name>
    <name.id>242515</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para> The minister's very chirpy. I suggest the minister gets to work on the Help to Buy Scheme—do some work, get to work on the investment mandate that should be here for this parliament to consider today. What have you been doing for months? Clearly not delivering housing policies. No matter how much you try to take credit for our Home Guarantee Scheme, that's a coalition policy, not a Labor government policy. We will not be supporting these amendments to this terrible bill. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:22</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr FLETCHER</name>
    <name.id>L6B</name.id>
    <electorate>Bradfield</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The opposition will not be supporting the amendments that the Senate has requested to this bill, because this bill seeks to put into place what is a cynical ploy directed at the Australian people, which, as the shadow minister for housing has so articulately pointed out on many occasions around the country in a whole range of forums, will not deliver the promised benefits. When you consider the basis on which the Labor Party, when in opposition, dreamt up this policy, it's pretty clear that they started by saying: 'How can we have a really big number that we can roll out anytime we're asked about housing? How about 10 billion? That's a great number. That's a big number.'</para>
<para>The problem is that, despite the way that Labor parliamentarians repeatedly refer to a '$10 billion Housing Australia Future Fund' in media interviews, they're not going to spend $10 million—or anything like it—on housing. It's a cynical exercise in coming up with a big number and being able to quote the big number repeatedly. Once you dig into the details of this policy, it becomes clear that it is nothing like the impression that the Labor Party is seeking to create in the minds of the Australian people. What is being spent is not $10 billion; it's the returns earned—if earned—in certain circumstances.</para>
<para>Let's remind ourselves that this is money which is being borrowed by the Commonwealth under the careful economic management of the present government. In fact, it's very far from careful; it's highly irresponsible. What they've decided to do is to borrow $10 billion and go and punt it on the stock market. That's the plan. They're going to borrow $10 billion and punt it on the Stock Exchange.</para>
<para>As the shadow minister for housing has pointed out on a number of occasions, if that had been done last year, how much money would have been available to spend on housing under this ripper scheme? It would have been zero. What we don't actually know is whether the losses to the scheme first have to be recouped before any earnings can be spent in years to come. If that were a requirement—and, in any business-like arrangement, that would be the requirement—then we'd be waiting even longer before this ill-conceived scheme made any impact at all on the provision of housing for Australians.</para>
<para>What we also know is that under these arrangements you can have no certainty each year about how much money is actually going to be available, how much money is going to be earned, because that will depend upon the vagaries of market returns. So, when it is repeatedly claimed by this minister that this will produce a reliable, dependable stream of earnings out of which the construction of housing can be funded, that is entirely the opposite of the truth. It will not be clear, from year to year, how much money will be available. On the contrary, it will depend entirely on the vagaries of market returns, so the downstream consequences for the provision of housing will be that there will be a lack of certainty when it comes to the amount of money that can be provided to community housing providers, to state governments or to others who are promised funding under these arrangements.</para>
<para>This is a deeply ill-conceived scheme. It is the kind of thing you come up with when you want to have some talking points about housing, when you want to be able to throw around a big number, when you want to be able to pretend that you have a solution to the issue and when you want to be able to say something to people who point out that the number of new housing starts under this government has collapsed. What you're looking for is a distraction, because it's very inconvenient to have to respond to the truth, which is that new housing starts under this government are collapsing. We have rarely seen housing policy more badly administered than under this minister and this government. For this reason, the coalition will be opposing these amendments.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:27</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr STEVENS</name>
    <name.id>176304</name.id>
    <electorate>Sturt</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I join my colleagues in articulating the need for these Senate amendments to the Housing Australia Future Fund Bill 2023 not to be accepted. I start by congratulating the Greens—the member for Brisbane is in here. This is one of the great humiliations of the government that I've seen in this parliamentary term. Well done to the Greens for meting out such a spectacular humiliation upon the government, who now, as media reports indicate, have spent $3 billion to purchase the Greens party's support for this lemon of a policy in the Senate.</para>
<para>The government's whole point of having this policy was to look like they were doing something about housing, off balance sheet. They conjured up and concocted this policy position, which had absolutely no cost, for the purposes of an election campaign policy, so they could say, 'We've got a policy,' without actually putting any money behind it. The position that they now find themselves in is that this policy to cost them no money has now cost them $3 billion, through compromise to the Greens. So, in effect, they're spending $3 billion of actual money, because of the Greens, in exchange for the Greens supporting their policy that probably involves no money whatsoever.</para>
<para>What a spectacular success for the Greens, and I wish them all the very best in making that point in their electorates, and the ones that they're hunting from the government, when they point out that the only people that have put any actual money into housing, through this whole process that we've gone through, are the Greens. The government, who effectively had a policy to spend nothing at all, because of the Greens are now spending $3 billion worth of actual money to get support for this lemon of a policy, which, as previously speakers have pointed out, is likely to spend no money whatsoever on social housing. The $10 billion future fund, thanks to the $3 billion that the Greens have negotiated in exchange for their support, will see $3 billion spent on social housing, maybe. But it is nothing to do with the policy that is being brought before us, which was purchased for $3 billion from the Greens.</para>
<para>As the shadow minister points out, the principle of this policy is borrowing $10 billion at a cost of about half a billion dollars a year, hoping to make more than half a billion dollars by investing it, and whatever that gap is will be the actual amount of money that is spent in that year on social housing and on these housing initiatives. There's no real money whatsoever except the $3 billion the Greens have been able to bludgeon out of the government in exchange for supporting the bill. Potentially, in fact, the fund could lose money. If it doesn't make at least half a billion dollars a year from investing the $10 billion, the fund goes backwards. That means the government might be spending more than $3 billion when they put this whole policy process together, but it will not all be spent on social housing. There will be $3 million for housing thanks to the deal they have done with the Greens, and then whatever the loss that this fund makes. This loss could be who knows how much, hundreds of millions of dollars perhaps, and that will go to the people that successfully bet against the government in whatever investment framework or the return to the people who get the fees from managing the funds.</para>
<para>What a joke of a situation we have here. The government wanted to have a policy to take to the last election without it costing them anything, so we now have a situation where it has been put to this House that we accept this amended bill, which sees a separate deal for its support in the Senate putting extra money into social housing via successful negotiations with the Greens and the successful humiliation of the government by the Greens. They did the deal so that they could salvage a policy that was never going to be passed. If the policy goes through, we'll probably have a situation where the government loses money. When you net all this out, you have this money-go-round of borrowing $10 billion, paying interest, paying fund managers, hoping to make more than that on the market, and when you do not it costs you money, so this policy puts nothing into housing. It will probably lose money when they meet all the costs of borrowing and managing the fund versus how much they do make to cover the investment out there in the investment world where they deploy these funds.</para>
<para>Congratulations to the Greens because you have had a fantastic success. You have humiliated the government to salvage a political outcome, and it has cost the government $3 billion. It's an absolute humiliation, but this House should not be supporting this amended bill because it is the most fraudulent policy. Give the Greens their $3 billion, but don't create the fund that will cost more money still.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:33</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr McCORMACK</name>
    <name.id>219646</name.id>
    <electorate>Riverina</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Here we go! Members opposite will be interested to know I just googled 'lovers getting back together in songs'. They're 'Whatever it Takes' by Lifehouse, 'Reunited' by Peaches and Herb—I like this one—'Let's Stay Together' by Al Green, but the best one of all is Katy Perry's 'Never Really Over' because it never was really over. The relationship between the Greens and Labor was always there and was always strong. They were just pretending they had a little lovers' tiff, and we know that, on housing, the Greens pretended they were going out on a limb. They have rolled over, the government has capitulated and it is embarrassing for all concerned.</para>
<para>We as a coalition are not going to support these amendments to the Housing Australia Future Fund Bill 2023. The former minister for housing in the coalition government, who sits behind me here, the member for Deakin, put in place three very responsible measures, three programs which assisted 300,000 people to get homeownership. They are the Home Guarantee Scheme, HomeBuilder and the First Home Super Saver Scheme. Those policies were effective. They worked. What we have now is the Greens, who have never been in favour of building anything, and Labor, who puts in place reviews of everything that ever was going to be built, coming together to put a scheme in place that is not going to build a single house. It's just not going to. When Labor took government I heard promises of a million houses. Now it's 30,000. What is it going to be? Is it going to be a house? Is it going to be 30,000 houses? Is going to be a million homes?</para>
<para>What I'd really like to know is: what are you going to build those houses with? We've got a Labor Victorian government. They're totally against any timber being extracted or used. They want to turn off all the gas. The Greens are with them. They don't want any fossil fuels used. Are they going to be straw houses, so, when the wolf comes, he's can huff and puff and blow them down? These are questions that need to be answered, because those opposite don't want to build anything. They want to review absolutely everything.</para>
<para>The other thing too—and this is pertinent—is that, as of late June 2023, ASIC data shows 2,023 construction companies have gone into liquidation since mid-2021. This figure dwarfs the next industry sector, the accommodation and food sector, with 1,013 companies, and makes up the lion's share of 7,231 companies in total that have folded over the same period. You've got housing and construction companies throughout Australia shutting up shop. They can't find labour. They cannot find the materials to build houses.</para>
<para>Honourable members interjecting—</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr McCORMACK</name>
    <name.id>219646</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>You can yell at me all you like, but it's the truth, and it's particularly the truth in regional Australia. It comes down to local government planning. It comes down to the sheer ineptitude of state governments that want to close down the timber industry, and then it comes down to the federal Labor government, which doesn't want to build anything, unless it's with the Greens. Then they make this faux policy that they claim is going to build tens of thousands of houses. Good luck with that! It's just not going to work.</para>
<para>If you look at the housing construction companies that have gone to the wall, some are not small companies.</para>
<para>Honourable members interje cting—</para>
</continue>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr McCORMACK</name>
    <name.id>219646</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>You shouldn't laugh at this, because this is very, very serious, because it's people in jobs. It's tradies. It's those people who you claim to be supporting through fee-free TAFE. I said the other day that sparkies and plasterers and all of those people who go to TAFE and earn that certificate should be admired and applauded every bit as much as anybody who holds a tertiary degree from university. They should, and yet they are being put up against the proverbial brick wall by those opposite with their policies, with their embarrassing coercion by the Greens, who pretended for months they were going to pull the trigger for the double dissolution. Now what have we got? We've got these amendments which the coalition will not and cannot support. You all ought to go and take a good long, hard look at yourselves, particularly the minister.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:38</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr HAMILTON</name>
    <name.id>291387</name.id>
    <electorate>Groom</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>What a joy it is to speak on this, following the magnificent member for Riverina. I've got to pick him up though. He missed the best song that would cover this return of the two lovers. It is of course 'Two of Us' by the Beatles, because of that second line, 'Spending someone's hard-earned pay':</para>
<quote><para class="block">Two of us riding nowhere</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Spending someone's hard-earned pay.</para></quote>
<para>Can you think of anything that better describes this wonderful collaboration that we're seeing? It's absolutely magnificent! It is a shame that we don't have the other minister for housing, from the Greens, here with us, but we'll make do. The member for Griffith has done a fantastic job, because, let's be clear, the issues we're having in housing supply are caused by the deployment of Greens policies at a local government level. Then he comes on top and pulls this through! It's the greatest move that the Greens have pulled. But there is nothing in these amendments that will do anything at all to take away from the hairs that are on this terrible, terrible policy in terms of reliability and sustainability. It is simply the wrong model to deliver capital works with. This has been gone over many times. The member for Deakin did a fantastic job of this. It's not $10 billion. It's a borrowed $10 billion, at a cost of some $400 million a year. We need to add to that the magnificent promise of $500 million into housing every year. I want to dig into this a little bit. Grab your calculators out. This is really great because I get the opportunity to talk up Toowoomba. There's $500 million, at, let's say, $700,000 a house. That's fair. How many houses are we building? It's about 700 houses—less than the number of houses built by Toowoomba. With this grand scheme, this $10 billion Housing Australia Future Fund, you almost catch up to Toowoomba. You're almost catching up to a country city. Wow—magnificent! We do that every year, and this grand scheme, this thing that we're all talking about—this huge investment, the biggest investment ever, that's going to do so much for Australian housing—means you're almost catching up to Toowoomba. It's absolutely fantastic, guys. I don't know what to tell you.</para>
<para>Let's go to the commitment of 30,000 houses. It was a million. It's close. It's in the ballpark! There's a margin of error there, but we'll allow it, because accounting is hard. Numbers are tough. Remembering numbers is tough. But we'll allow it. We'll allow the 30,000 to sit, and we're going to add to this 1.5 million people—</para>
<para>An opposition member: How many?</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr HAMILTON</name>
    <name.id>291387</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>We're adding 1.5 million people! But don't worry, guys, it's fine, because we don't already have a housing crisis—oh, sorry; we really, really do. We were sitting with the heads of the big four banks in the economics committee, and the one thing that they repeated over and over again was we have never had a worse issue when it comes to housing supply. This is an important area, so what are we going to do about it? We're going to add 30,000 houses, and 1.5 million Australians are going to come and join us here. How on earth does that address this? In this situation, it is an appalling policy that will not make things better for anybody.</para>
<para>Let's go back through the wrong-headed details that sit with this fund. Why would you deploy a fund like this that requires you, year on year, not just to meet your repayments but to beat them, to stay ahead? And what happens if you don't meet your repayments? Is $500 million magically going to be sprinkled down? Are we going to magically fairy-dust some money on? No. We're going to deplete the pool, surely. This is taxpayers' money, which will be depleted. This is not a sustainable model. Quite frankly, we might as well just spend the $10 billion. Put $10 billion into housing and walk away, and be happy you've done something. This has no reliability, it has absolutely no sustainability and it is completely the wrong model.</para>
<para>Forgive me if I take the opportunity to double-dip and point out just how great Toowoomba is. Toowoomba will be building more houses than this model will. This model will build fewer houses than Toowoomba will. What a great city we are! Without any help, without $10 billion, without all the fanfare, without all the excitement and the newspaper stories, we can just get on and do our job. In spite of that, Labor are sitting there and are going to make the biggest story they possibly can about how great their model is. It's an absolute stinker.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:43</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms WARE</name>
    <name.id>300123</name.id>
    <electorate>Hughes</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>It should come as no surprise that I also want to speak opposing these amendments to the government's Housing Australia Future Fund Bill 2023 and related bills which are coming back from the Senate. This is not $10 billion that is going into housing. It sounded great during the election and it sounded great for their first few months, but these amendments and the minister speaking on these amendments today show yet again that the Labor government has no idea how to address housing affordability and the shortage of housing within this country. This is not $10 billion going into housing. This is $10 billion that you are borrowing, and then you're hoping—relying on the vagaries of market returns—that you obtain a return that is greater than the amount that you will have to pay out. You'll have to pay fund administrators. There is no guarantee this is going to build one single house. This is lazy and irresponsible economics. It's lazy and irresponsible policymaking. It's lazy and irresponsible drafting of legislation. Initially, this was so bad that not even your friends in the Greens could support it, but now, after they've extracted $3 billion more from you, it has come back from the Senate.</para>
<para>But this is not a bill to house Australians. This is a bill to establish a fund and a bill brought about by massive government borrowing. You've caved to the Greens and put forward some amendments, which simply involve more spending. When we looked at where some of that additional money was going to be spent, at last we were hearing that there was going to be some attempt to actually address the shortage of housing in this country, which is the disconnect between many of the state and local governments in changing their planning and bringing about up-zonings and various other reforms. But underlying this is other legislation concerning the government's housing policy that simply says to the states: 'Here's $2 billion. You can spend it however you like. You don't have to tell us where you're going to build the houses. You don't have to tell us what the projects are going to be. Here is $2 billion—no strings attached.'</para>
<para>This is yet again irresponsible spending by a Labor government. This is simply a way that you could ensure that this funding was not shown on the balance sheets. This is just a lazy attempt to try to address what is a massive crisis in this country, and there is absolutely no talk here about what you're going to do for private home ownership and how you are going to get more Australians, particularly young Australians, into their own homes. When Australians own their own homes, the country does better. So there is no attempt here to assist private home owners. There is no attempt to assist those under 40, who are now at their lowest rates of home ownership since the end of World War II, to buy their own homes. Again, this is simply borrowing money, establishing a fund and hoping that it makes some money, but it is not going to deliver a single home.</para>
<para>We heard questions from the member for Riverina about where the labour is going to come from to build these homes. There has been nothing said about that. There has also been nothing said about how you're going to deal with the various state governments, particularly that one down in Victoria, who are now trying to say that you can't even have any gas appliances in a home. So we do not support these amendments, and we do not support this bill in general.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:48</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr WOLAHAN</name>
    <name.id>235654</name.id>
    <electorate>Menzies</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I want to congratulate my friends who have spoken before me. I note that many brought up the Beatles, and the Beatles took me back to 1966, a time before I was born.</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr WOLAHAN</name>
    <name.id>235654</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>It is relevant. I'm glad the minister has interjected, which she did throughout the speeches today. In 1966, there was a very interesting statistic, which the minister should listen to.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00AMT</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I would like to hear the relevance to the amendment.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr WOLAHAN</name>
    <name.id>235654</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Home ownership was at its peak in this country in 1966.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms Collins</name>
    <name.id>HWM</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>It's got nothing to do with the Housing Australia Future Fund.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr WOLAHAN</name>
    <name.id>235654</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>It certainly does. Also, at that time a certain Beatle said they were more popular than Jesus. There's a certain prime minister who likes to think they're more popular than Jesus, but that's certainly not the case. That's the only way you can explain what is happening in this parliament when we have this syllogism that occurs again and again, where the government gets up and says: 'Here is a problem. Here is a crisis.' The word 'crisis' can be overused, but it is not overused in housing. There is a genuine crisis in this country.</para>
<para>Then you say we must all do something about it. And then you present a bill where you've put more work into the title than the actual contents of the bill, and say: 'Well, here's something. Let's do that.' Let's read the title. It's called the Housing Australia Future Fund Bill 2023, 'a bill for an act to establish the Housing Australia Future Fund, and for other purposes'—and for other purposes. That is what the purpose is here. Houses are constructed with materials, with things that cost money—with tiles. But the only tiles that you've turned your mind to are social media tiles, because that's all this is really about.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Burnell</name>
    <name.id>300129</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I see what you did there!</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr WOLAHAN</name>
    <name.id>235654</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>We've heard certain arguments used as a crutch in the answers to questions and in the speeches that are given on this. I note that my friend the member for Spence has interjected. We are both the co-chairs of the Parliamentary Friends of Veterans. Veterans have been used in this argument as a crutch. A crutch is a lazy tool to back up a premise that you don't have and that doesn't make sense. I want to go to veterans and housing, because that's where we got to the highest rate of home ownership under the prime ministership of Robert Menzies. Robert Menzies, during World War II, when Australians were fighting and dying overseas for this country, turned his mind to housing. He turned his mind to housing because he knew it was a fundamental thing to secure the prosperity and future of all Australians. Under his leadership and his government, home ownership in this country went from 46 per cent in 1947 to 72 per cent in 1966. That was not just during a time when veterans came back—and they weren't just offered a talking point; they were actually offered an actual home of their own—he did that during some of the greatest migration booms in this country. Migrants from throughout the world came to this country and had a home of their own and a home for their children and their grandchildren.</para>
<para>There are many quotes that have been given to Robert Menzies during that time, but he talked about homes material, homes human and homes spiritual. When we talk about homes material, it's that sense of owning your own little bit of Australia, your own garden where you tend to your own vegetables. That means so much to Australians. When we talk about homes human, it's the idea of raising your own family in a home. Homes spiritual is the sense of freedom, self-reliance and responsibility that comes with your own home. These are powerful things that both sides of this chamber should agree on. They're not just Liberal values, but sadly it has only been Liberal governments that have instituted the policies that reinforce them.</para>
<para>That is a great shame because what Robert Menzies showed is that you can actually manage population growth and housing. You can manage that problem. That're what we're talking about here. We're talking about managing a problem, and right now you are not managing it. You are creating problems with a bill like this. It's not providing solutions. It's not looking after veterans. It's not looking after families. It's not looking after migrants. That is your responsibility. And there is a housing crisis. We should all agree on democratising prosperity. We should all agree on democratising home ownership. Part of that is democratising the Australian dream of owning your own bit of this country. That is something that we must all agree on, and it starts with doing something about it. I hope that the minister does finally do something about it.</para>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>National Housing Supply and Affordability Council Bill 2023</title>
          <page.no>88</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r6971" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">National Housing Supply and Affordability Council Bill 2023</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Consideration of Senate Message</title>
            <page.no>88</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo></subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Treasury Laws Amendment (Housing Measures No. 1) Bill 2023</title>
          <page.no>88</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r6972" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Treasury Laws Amendment (Housing Measures No. 1) Bill 2023</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Consideration of Senate Message</title>
            <page.no>88</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo></subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>COMMITTEES</title>
        <page.no>88</page.no>
        <type>COMMITTEES</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Intelligence and Security Joint Committee</title>
          <page.no>88</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Report</title>
            <page.no>88</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:55</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr KHALIL</name>
    <name.id>101351</name.id>
    <electorate>Wills</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>On behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, I present the committee's report entitled <inline font-style="italic">Report by statement: Review of the 2023 relisting of three organisations as te</inline><inline font-style="italic">rrorist organisations under the Criminal Code</inline>.</para>
<para>Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e).</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr KHALIL</name>
    <name.id>101351</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—I present the report by statement from the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, for the review of regulations relisting three organisations as terrorist organisations under division 102 of the Criminal Code Act 1995.</para>
<para>Under the Criminal Code, regulations may be made which specify an organisation as a terrorist organisation, for up to a three-year period; provided the minister responsible for the Australian Federal Police—currently the Attorney-General—is satisfied on reasonable grounds that the organisation directly or indirectly engages in terrorism; or advocates the doing of a terrorist act. Organisations previously listed may be relisted for further three-year periods if the Attorney-General remains satisfied that their terrorist activities continue.</para>
<para>The regulations subject to this review relate to Islamic State, Islamic State West Africa Province, and Boko Haram. All three organisations were already listed as terrorist organisations under the Criminal Code. The present regulations relist them for a further three years from 1 July 2023.</para>
<para>The effect of being listed as a terrorist organisation under the Criminal Code is to trigger the application of offences for supporting or associating with the organisation in specified ways; such as being a member of, recruiting for or providing funding to it.</para>
<para>Under section 102.1A of the Criminal Code, the committee may review the regulations that list or relist terrorist organisations, and report its comments and recommendations to each house of the parliament before the end of the 15-sitting-day disallowance period for the regulations.</para>
<para>In determining whether the regulations relisting the three organisations should be supported, the committee reviewed the Attorney-General's explanatory statement and statement of reasons for relisting the organisations, and other publicly available information. The committee also invited submissions on the listings, and received one submission from a member of the public.</para>
<para>The committee noted the following information about the organisations.</para>
<para>Islamic State is a Sunni Islamic extremist group which has historically operated and controlled territory in northern Iraq and Syria. IS was first listed by the Australian government as a terrorist organisation in 2005, under its previous name of 'al Qa'ida in Iraq', and has been relisted consistently since. Known by a range of pseudonyms, Islamic State is a self-declared caliphate with global ambitions, which seeks to subjugate through terror those who do not follow its doctrine.</para>
<para>IS has a brutal history of prosecuting its agenda, and in doing so has commissioned numerous crimes against humanity. While IS no longer controls territory in northern Iraq and Syria, IS remains one of the world's deadliest and most active terrorist organisations, regularly conducting attacks and sanctioning others to do likewise.</para>
<para>Australians have directly suffered at the hands of those influenced by Islamic State, notably in the tragic siege of the Lindt cafe in Sydney in 2014; whose perpetrator had sworn allegiance to IS. IS has openly called for attacks against Australia and Australian interests.</para>
<para>Since IS was last proscribed as a terrorist organisation, in July 2020, the group can be attributed to the commissioning of at least nine terrorist attacks that have resulted in the deaths of 268 people, plus numerous injuries; in Syria, Iran, Israel, Iraq and Austria.</para>
<para>Boko Haram is a Sunni Islamic extremist group which operates in Nigeria and along the Nigeria-Cameroon border. It was first listed in 2014, and has been consistently listed since.</para>
<para>Following a pledge of allegiance to Islamic State in 2015, and a subsequent internal split in 2016, Boko Haram's allegiance to Islamic State is currently unclear. However, Boko Haram continues to recruit members through a combination of coercion, exploitation, kidnapping and fearmongering, with some members joining the group in order to avoid becoming a target of it.</para>
<para>Since it was last listed, Boko Haram has continued to engage in terrorist activities and kidnappings against civilian and military targets across Nigeria and in neighbouring countries, and is responsible for over 180 deaths.</para>
<para>Islamic State West Africa Province is also a Sunni Islamic extremist group which operates primarily in Nigeria. ISWAP was formed from the split within Boko Haram and was first listed on 1 July 2020 as a separate entity.</para>
<para>ISWAP shares the extremist ideology of Islamic State. It promotes sectarian violence, is anti-government, rejects the sovereignty of states and is one of the greatest security threats to Nigeria—and by extension, a threat to stability across Africa.</para>
<para>Since it was listed in 2020, the eight instances of terrorist activity can be reliably attributed to ISWAP. Its targets have included civilians, the Nigerian military, police and worshippers at a Catholic church, and it has occasioned the death of approximately 300 individuals, significant injury, and a mass prison break.</para>
<para>While neither Boko Haram or Islamic State West Africa Province have undertaken direct attacks against Australians or Australian interests, they have issued statements threatening foreigners, and the interests of Australia and its allies more broadly. Accordingly, both organisations have listed as terrorist organisations by likeminded countries including New Zealand, Canada and the United States, as well as the United Nations.</para>
<para>The Australian government's assessment is that Islamic State, Boko Haram and Islamic State West Africa Province continue to be directly or indirectly engaged in preparing, planning, assisting or fostering the undertaking of terrorist attacks, involving threats to human life and serious damage to property.</para>
<para>Based on the evidence provided, the committee is satisfied with the relisting process and considered that it has been appropriately followed for the three organisations. The committee therefore supports the relisting of Islamic State, Boko Haram and Islamic State West Africa Province under division 102 of the Criminal Code in order to protect Australians and Australia's interests; and finds no reasons to disallow these regulations.</para>
<para>Finally, I note that the committee is currently considering the Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment (Prohibited Hate Symbols and Other Measures) Bill 2023, introduced into parliament by the government in June this year. That bill includes proposed provisions to remove the three-yearly sunsetting of terrorist listings under the Criminal Code; meaning that once listed by regulation, an organisation would remain so unless and until the listing was amended or revoked by the minister. The bill proposes to grant the PJCIS an 'own motion' power to review these ongoing listings at any time.</para>
<para>The committee's review of that bill is currently under underway, and the committee looks forward to offering its views on the proposed changes to the terrorist listings process when it presents its report on the bill.</para>
<para>In the meantime, I commend this report to the parliament.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Human Rights Joint Committee</title>
          <page.no>89</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Report</title>
            <page.no>89</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:02</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BURNS</name>
    <name.id>278522</name.id>
    <electorate>Macnamara</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para> () (): On behalf of the parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights I present the committee's report entitled <inline font-style="italic">Human </inline><inline font-style="italic">rights scrutiny</inline><inline font-style="italic">report</inline><inline font-style="italic"> 10</inline><inline font-style="italic">of 2023</inline><inline font-style="italic">.</inline></para>
<para>Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e).</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BURNS</name>
    <name.id>278522</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—At the end of the year, I'll buy the member for Wannon a beer for all of his leave granting. I am pleased to be able to table the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights 10th scrutiny report of 2023.</para>
<para>In this report, the committee has considered 284 new legislative instruments and has commented on one. The committee has also concluded its consideration of one bill. This report is deceptively short, consisting of only two substantive write-ups. But it is worth reminding the parliament that in order to get to this place, the committee has considered nearly 300 legislative instruments registered on the Federal Register of Legislation, over a nine week period.</para>
<para>The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights examines every bill and every legislative instrument for compatibility with Australia's international human rights law obligations, and it is the only committee with such far-reaching oversight of all new federal legislation.</para>
<para>Our secretariat are extremely capable and hardworking people and I personally thank them for all their efforts as part of this, and their ongoing efforts performing an important duty as part of our democratic institutions as well as our country's commitment to human rights.</para>
<para>As part of its review of legislation, the committee has authorised the secretariat to liaise directly with departments and agencies in order to address minor questions about how a measure is intended to operate or to provide feedback on whether a statement of compatibility adequately explains the human rights engaged by the legislation.</para>
<para>This is an important part of the committee's educative role. It also means that, where the committee comments on a bill or legislative instrument in its scrutiny report, it is because there appear to be some not insignificant human rights questions to be addressed.</para>
<para>In this report, the committee is seeking further information about one instrument, the Social Security (Remote Engagement Program Payment) Determination 2023. This legislative instrument determines the arrangements between the Commonwealth and the two Aboriginal corporations as remote engagement programs. This means that social welfare recipients may undertake a remote engagement placement with these organisations and be eligible for a remote engagement program payment of $190 per fortnight.</para>
<para>This is a trial program, as the government has indicated its commitment to replace the Community Development Program, or CDP, in remote areas. To the extent that the measure provides opportunities for jobseekers to develop employment skills and facilities and the payment of a supplementary social security payment, it promotes the right to work, social security and an adequate standard of living, and the right to equality and nondiscrimination. However, these rights may also be limited by the measure, depending on how it will operate in practice. The statement of compatibility does not acknowledge that the measure may limit human rights and so provides no assessment as to the permissibility of such limitations. The committee is therefore seeking further information to be able to assess the compatibility of the measures with these rights.</para>
<para>The report also concludes the committee's consideration of the Intelligence Services Legislation Amendment Bill 2023. The committee has drawn to the attention of the parliament some potential human rights concerns with the bill, providing an immunity from civil and criminal liability provided to Defence officials. I, as always, encourage members to consider the committee's reports closely. With these comments, I thank the Deputy Chair, the committee members and the secretariat, and I commend the committee's <inline font-style="italic">Human rights scrutiny report: Report 10 of 2023</inline>to the House.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>BILLS</title>
        <page.no>90</page.no>
        <type>BILLS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Water Amendment (Restoring Our Rivers) Bill 2023</title>
          <page.no>90</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r7076" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Water Amendment (Restoring Our Rivers) Bill 2023</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>90</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:06</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr JOYCE</name>
    <name.id>e5d</name.id>
    <electorate>New England</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>As we've gone through this, we've seen that it's quite obvious that the people who talk against this bill talk from a position of passion. The people who talk for it, talk from a position of the PMO's talking points.</para>
<para>What is quite clear is that we do actually believe in one position of the Labor Party, and that was the member for Watson's, Anthony Stephen Burke's, position, because it's his legislation that we're actually amending here. So the member for Watson's legislation has been thrown down and out the window by the member for Sydney's, Tanya Joan Plibersek's, version of how she wants to see the Murray-Darling Basin.</para>
<para>Now, it's interesting, isn't it, that we have a view of the basin from people who don't live in the basin. That view about the preciousness of water seems to conflict with what we'd probably see in their houses, where you'd have multiple toilets, multiple showers, multiple water features. We'd even have showers that had two showerheads, so, as you're having a shower, you can share it with someone else who needs to get clean as well. I don't know the logic behind that. But there's no concern at all about saving water, as long as you're not saving water in their house.</para>
<para>Their virtue always has to reside on the western side of the range, where it resides also with their power policy. Virtue is an easy thing with somebody else's chequebook. This whole process, of course, is as obscure—and, in some forms, obscene—as if the people from the western side of the range started making policies on where the roads and tunnels in Sydney or Melbourne would go. We'd have virtue signals about how we believe that it's only proper that we start closing down roads in Sydney to reduce carbon emissions.</para>
<para>What we have seen, all through this, is that the Labor Party, the government—hand in glove with the Greens—has managed to create a complete affliction on the lives of people in rural areas. This Murray-Darling Basin change is going to be massively problematic—not so much for the people who get the money, but for the people who are left behind. If you keep taking irrigators away from an irrigation scheme, then the cost to run the scheme remains with the few who stay. It's like having a high-rise building: if you've only got a few tenants, how do they pay the strata fees? If you've only got a few people in an irrigation scheme, how do they maintain the scheme?</para>
<para>For Australia in general, there's one thing we've got to realise: there are so many things that can go wrong in Australia, but one thing that should never go wrong, and hasn't gone wrong, is that we can always feed ourselves. Other countries don't have that blessing. If we're to respect that blessing, we've got to make sure the people in the country have the water to grow the food. You can't have this bizarre belief that, if you take away the water and restrict their capacity to manage the land, they'll be able to provide you with the food. People on the land will always try and make sure the cities in Australia are fed, no matter what. No matter what the price, they'll always make sure that the food gets to the cities, because it's our job. It's our role as Australians for our fellow Australians.</para>
<para>You don't seem to be looking like you appreciate what we're doing; you really don't. You make our life incredibly difficult. You put our costs through the roof, and now you're taking away the fundamental item we require to do it—the water itself. You started immediately after you got into government. The money that we had on the table for Hells Gate, the Bowen pipeline, Urannah Dam, Dungowan Dam, Emu Swamp Dam, Wyangala Dam—all these water projects were taken off the table. You kept the money for Paradise Dam because that was the Labor Party's debacle in Queensland. We did actually build water projects: Charleston Dam, Scottsdale Irrigation Scheme, Quipolly Dam, Chaffey Dam and the Mallee pipeline. We've always managed because we understand that water is wealth. Without water, you can't grow the food, you can't grow the economy and you can't sustain the area.</para>
<para>We know that 1.5 million people are going to be moving to Australia in the next five years. That's Adelaide. That's four times the size of this city. If you're going to do that, you're going to need to be able to feed them. You're going to have to have the water to feed them. If you're trying to say, 'I have this virtue policy—I'm going to endear myself to the benevolent spirits in the inner suburbs, with their multiple toilets, multiple showerheads and all that water in their houses, by restricting the amount of water that people outside can get,' then you're going to start putting pressure on.</para>
<para>One of the greatest things that this nation can do is to attend to the food task as it arises, as the world walks towards 10 billion people. Tragically, people are starting to starve again. We've got a protein deficit, a carbohydrate deficit, a fats deficit; the food produced by the globe does not match the population. Our job is to do our part in that massive food task. We can't feed them all, but whatever we don't do is going to result in a person you've never met, maybe in the Horn of Africa, maybe in Central America, maybe on a Pacific island, starving to death. Growing food is a very noble thing. We feed and clothe people. We don't work on their weaknesses. We don't work on gambling weaknesses, addictions or things they don't need. We provide the basic essentials of life—food and fibre—to keep them fed and keep them clothed. But you keep on making it so difficult to do this.</para>
<para>I ask you very politely to temper your passion with logic. As Alexander Pope said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">A little learning is a dangerous thing;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">There shallow draughts intoxicate the brain,</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">And drinking largely sobers us again.</para></quote>
<para>If you're going to make policies for regional areas, at least go live there for a while. Remember: Adelaide is not in the basin. Go live in Shepparton, Mildura, Goondiwindi, St George, Dirranbandi or Bourke. Go live in the areas which actually rely on this incredible resource. Understand that the reason we get so passionate about this is that we're so aware of the pain that you're about to deliver to some of the poorer people in Australia. That pain works at 180 degrees to the other narratives you have in such things as the referendum on the Voice—you say you're going to help people, but, within the same day, you're moving policy to actually hurt them.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:14</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr LEIGH</name>
    <name.id>BU8</name.id>
    <electorate>Fenner</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Cast your mind back to the last drought, some three years ago, when the Darling River stopped flowing for more than 400 days, when farming communities were brought to their knees, desperate for water, when millions of native fish died and gruesome environmental images were broadcast across the world. Last month the Minister for the Environment and Water, Tanya Plibersek, struck a deal with basin state and territory governments in order to deliver the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. This historic agreement reflected the policy that Labor took to the last election to deliver the Murray-Darling Basin Plan in full. For me, as an ACT representative, this is important. The ACT is one of the signatory governments. I note that the minister who's responsible, Shane Rattenbury, has talked about the importance of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan to the ACT.</para>
<para>This bill offers more time, more options, more money and more accountability, and it comes after a decade of sabotage and delay from those opposite. Upon coming to office, the coalition waged an insidious war against the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. They tied up projects in impossible rules so they couldn't deliver water savings, they blocked water recovery programs and they tried to cut the final recovery targets. Over nine years, of the 450 gigalitres of environmental water, guess how many they delivered? Two—just two gigalitres. On that trajectory, they would have eventually delivered the 450 gigalitres by about the year 4000. That is how much they undermined the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. There were resources there to help deliver the 450 gigalitre target in the Water for the Environment Special Account. But there is still some $1.3 billion in that account unspent.</para>
<para>Those opposite like to talk about the power of markets. They like to talk about the ingenuity of business. They like to suggest that they're somehow the party of the free market. But, when it comes to voluntary water buybacks, they suddenly throw up their hands and say: 'No, that's impossible. Markets couldn't possibly deliver.' We aren't arguing that water purchase is the only tool in the box. We're not arguing that it's the first tool at hand, but we are arguing that it needs to be part of the solution. Under this bill, we'll be able to purchase water from willing sellers where it's needed to deliver the plan. In doing so, the minister for the environment is putting in place important rules which ensure that water markets operate as intended. Right now there are no laws against market manipulation, the insider trading prohibition is too narrow and the legal requirement to maintain proper records is too weak. So, as the Assistant Minister for Competition, Charities and Treasury, I'm pleased that the Competition and Consumer Commission will be allowed to monitor water prices and investigate misconduct allegations. That'll bring water markets in line with other markets in Australia.</para>
<para>Climate change means that we're going to see more variable rain in the north and less rain in the south-east. It's been forecast that basin flows could fall by as much as 30 per cent by 2050. Hope isn't a plan. We need to recognise that the transition from La Nina to El Nino could well worsen challenges in the basin. We need to put in place a sustainable solution that will operate in the face of climate change. There was a leader in the millennium drought who had words to say about the Murray-Darling Basin. He said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">… the old way of managing the Murray-Darling Basin has reached its use-by date.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">…   …   …</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">… we need to confront head on and in a comprehensive way, the over-allocation of water in the Murray-Darling Basin.</para></quote>
<para>Those words were spoken by former Liberal Prime Minister John Howard. He was right then, and it is right now to ensure that the Murray-Darling Basin Plan is implemented in full. I commend the minister for the environment, as well as the states and territories that are working with her on ensuring that we deliver this important outcome for the health of the system, for the sake of farmers and for the sake of future generations.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:19</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr STEVENS</name>
    <name.id>176304</name.id>
    <electorate>Sturt</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>In a few weeks time in this country, we'll be having a vote on a referendum to change the Constitution. I certainly don't support that change, but I hope at some point in my life I get the chance to support a change to the Constitution that puts responsibility for interstate waterways in the hands of the Commonwealth government. It was certainly something that was attempted by South Australian delegates to the early constitutional conventions to draft our Constitution, but of course the bigger upstream states were not interested in the Commonwealth government having power over something like the Murray-Darling Basin, so we are where we are today, where this challenging circumstance of managing a national resource is still very complex.</para>
<para>It was under the leadership of John Howard that they passed the Water Act in 2007 and committed significant funds, $10 billion, from the Commonwealth towards the development of a plan that could manage some very complex competing interests. All of them are vitally important, including the environmental health of the river, first and foremost, and the agricultural production that relies on irrigation from the Murray. In my home city of Adelaide, 1.7 million people rely on the river Murray for the security of their drinking water. Prior to the passing of the Water Act, I remember well, as a young adult at the time, the water restrictions in Adelaide, just as there were water restrictions throughout the country in that period of the millennium drought. You had to shower with a bucket if you wanted to water your garden. There were extreme water restrictions that created hardships in metropolitan Adelaide and, just as much, in communities that didn't have access to irrigation water for their production. A very significant environmental toll was also taken on the whole of the Murray-Darling Basin.</para>
<para>So we had the passage of the Water Act, and that act, whilst not within the jurisdiction of the Commonwealth, was negotiated and agreed by the governments within the basin: the four states and the ACT. They hold the powers over that water, and it was the Commonwealth, seeking their agreement and bringing significant funding—the $10 billion—that was able to, for the first time, bring together all the relevant governments in the basin in such a powerful and significant way to develop a plan that would see us sustainably managing that water resource. The Gillard government under Minister Burke, the now Leader of the House, developed the plan. That plan initially saw the need to recover 2,750 gigalitres of water, and, when the South Australian government negotiated to sign on to the agreement, an additional 450 gigalitres was negotiated, which is part of the debate we're having right now.</para>
<para>In the intervening time, I think it is very important to acknowledge the hard work that has been done and sacrifices that have been made, particularly by communities in the basin, for the water that's already been recovered. I think we're up to a little over 2,100 gigalitres against the initial 2,750. That is a very significant achievement, and, whilst we can't stop until the job is done, I think it's very important that we acknowledge and respect the fact that a lot of communities have made sacrifices and have done a lot of things to get us as far along this plan as we are.</para>
<para>In the election campaign last year, the now Prime Minister came to Adelaide and said that an Albanese government would deliver the Murray-Darling Basin Plan in full and on time. Let me explain what in full and on time is. In full is the 3,200 gigalitres, and on time is by 30 June 2024. That's what the plan that he was talking about then was and still is, regardless of the passage or not of this bill that we're debating now. There was no caveat around that. There was no suggestion that any measures, such as those that are in the bill before us, were necessary to deliver the plan. There was never a suggestion that failing to achieve it by the date of 30 June 2024 would be a problem. Since the Prime Minister made that commitment to the people of Adelaide in an election campaign, seeking their votes and their support for him to become Prime Minister, no new information of any significance whatsoever has come to light to justify breaking that promise.</para>
<para>Whatever view the now government has about the progress of the implementation of the plan, there is no new revelation regarding that progress. To be fair to the Murray-Darling Basin Authority, they are very good at publishing and keeping up to date a whole range of metrics about the plan, about its implementation, about how it's going and about what the task is ahead. For the now Prime Minister to say to the people of Adelaide, 'I'll implement the plan in full and on time,' and break that promise is absolutely outrageous. What we are now told and what this bill seeks to implement is a whole set of new arrangements that are completely at odds with the commitment the Prime Minister gave to the people of South Australia during the last election campaign.</para>
<para>Since then we've got a new environment minister, and to be fair to this environment minister she did not have this portfolio in opposition. Through media speculation at least we can deduce there was a degree of discomfort from the now environment minister that she was being given this portfolio when she had the education portfolio in opposition, was very dedicated and committed to it and possibly had a reasonable expectation she would have it in government. I remember listening to the Prime Minister's press conference when he announced his new cabinet line-up after the election, and my ears did prick up when he talked about appointing the now environment minister as the Minister for the Environment and Water and singled out the Murray-Darling Basin Plan as one of the great challenger this minister would have in justifying why he was appointing her. For those of us that know the dynamic between the Prime Minister and the now Minister for the Environment and Water, it's very interesting to reflect on what the Prime Minister's view was about whether or not it was going to be possible to keep that promise he gave to the people of South Australia. In the person he chose to appoint as the minister responsible for either keeping that promise or, as has now transpired, breaking that promise, Minister Plibersek—perhaps the Prime Minister knew all along we would be in the situation we're in now. If that's true, then he went to the people of South Australia and made them a promise he knew he couldn't keep, and the people voting for this legislation today are voting to break a promise this government made to the people of South Australia.</para>
<para>There are some extremely concerning things in this bill, and I come back to the 450 gigalitres. There's a lot of talk about the 450 gigalitres and lots of different perspectives and opinions on the 450 gigalitres. Mine is unequivocally that that water was committed and promised to South Australia for environmental outcomes. The minister can correct me when she sums up this bill, because it is difficult legislation to deeply absorb and understand, but certainly it is my understanding, from reading elements of this legislation, that this bill will allow that 450 gigalitres to not exclusively come to South Australia. If anyone from South Australia votes for this bill and votes to allow anything less than 450 gigalitres to cross the South Australian border, then that would be absolutely shameful. I standard to be corrected if that is not the case, but the drafting of the legislation and my interpretation of it is that the 450 gigalitres will now be allowed to be used for expanded environmental purposes outside of South Australia. So a solemn promise made by the Prime Minister to deliver the plan on time will be broken by the passing of this legislation, and a solemn promise to deliver 450 gigalitres of direct environmentally beneficial water across the border into South Australia will be broken.</para>
<para>Now we see that we're removing the socioeconomic test for water that is purchased. I've very publicly said I am supportive of water purchasing where the socioeconomic test is applied and met, and I think about communities within South Australia, in the Riverland, and what this legislation could mean for them. On a pro-rata basis, nearly 40 gigalitres of water could be ripped out of the Riverland in South Australia as part of what this legislation enables and permits. I can go the local corner store in Adelaide and buy a carton of Nippy's orange juice made from oranges that were grown and freshly squeezed 200 kilometres away in Waikerie. I can go to my fruit and vegetable store and, largely speaking, almost every item of produce there is grown within a couple of hundred kilometres of Adelaide. It is one of the great things about living in Adelaide, the amazing fresh produce and local production that we have. Taking 40 gigalitres of water out of the Riverland will have a spectacular impact on that fresh produce with lost production from what we see as being vitally important for those communities and for our state's economy. It will also affect such a fantastic part of living in a city like Adelaide, which is having access to that unbelievable local fresh produce.</para>
<para>This bill essentially removes the socioeconomic test, and if this bill requires the necessary water to be acquired through these buybacks. That will mean the share of the expected burden of that on a community like the Riverland would be nearly 40 gigalitres of water. We have seen the Victorian Labor government's excellent work when it comes to assessing the socioeconomic impact of what some of these decisions would mete out in our communities. The impact would be in the form of lost production, lost jobs and potentially importing the fresh food and produce in the ridiculous circumstance where we could grow it ourselves, but we choose not to.</para>
<para>The plan is absolutely vital, and there are no winners in this plan. It is not about pitting irrigators against water consumers in metropolitan Adelaide or people with environmental views on what needs to be done, because we are dealing with the ultimate economic problem here of satisfying infinite demand with limited supply. The amount of water that is in the basin, which is obviously extremely variable, is the finite part, and we would love to use as much as we want for irrigation. We would love to have unbelievable flows permanently and constantly, ensuring the environmental sustainability of the basin. If you are from somewhere like Adelaide it's important that your drinking water supply is extremely reliable and secure, so we need to think laterally about some of the things that should be considered in achieving the full implementation of this plan.</para>
<para>We have a desalination plant in Adelaide, and a few years ago then Prime Minister Morrison went to then Premier Marshall and a deal was done to turn that desal plant on, to use the water from that desal to offset the Adelaide intake and to provide that same amount of water to grow fodder to feed stock during a drought. There are a lots of other lateral and innovative things that we can consider. There are a lot of projects, a lot of ideas and a lot of technology, and it is a very difficult and challenging task. But what this bill does to my home state and my home city is walk away from an election promise to deliver the plan on time, walk away from the guarantee of giving us 450 gigalitres of environmental water and potentially put irrigation communities like the Riverland in a situation where they lose 40 gigalitres of water and all that lost production from our economy in South Australia. I certainly will not be supporting this bill.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:34</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr DAVID SMITH</name>
    <name.id>276714</name.id>
    <electorate>Bean</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to speak in favour of the Water Amendment (Restoring Our Rivers) Bill 2023. I do wonder if the member for Sturt was as outraged at the failings of the previous government as he is at this government for fixing the size of those failings. As a member of parliament whose electorate falls directly into the Murray-Darling Basin, it's important for me to see a plan that allows the state and territory governments more time, options and funding to deliver water back into the basin to ensure a healthy and sustainable basin for the future.</para>
<para>This government is working to ensure that we pass on Australia's environment, land, sea and rivers to future generations in better health. That's our commitment. We're acting to protect, repair and manage nature so it grows stronger. This includes managing the water resources of our most productive region, the Murray-Darling Basin to withstand longer, deeper droughts, more frequent floods and bushfires and everything else climate change will throw our 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 for its beauty. Tourism is worth $11 billion per year. 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 water birds. The Murrumbidgee River, which runs through my electorate of Bean and effectively drains most of the Australian Capital Territory, is the third-longest river in Australia. Canberra is the largest population catchment that resides in the Murray-Darling Basin.</para>
<para>The Murrumbidgee River starts in the Australian Alps and completes its journey on the semi-arid riverine plains. The river catchment, located in New South Wales and the Australian Capital Territory, is diverse and complex. Not only is a large population supported by water from this system but the Murrumbidgee's largest distributary, the Tumut River, houses part of the Snowy Mountains hydroelectric scheme. The Murrumbidgee River is an important water source for many wetlands, including the Tuckerbil swamp near Leeton and 16 wetlands listed as nationally significant in the Directory of Important Wetlands. The mountains at the eastern end of the Murrumbidgee catchment are the country of the Ngunnawal and Ngarigo nations. The Kambah Pool on the Murrumbidgee is frequented by Canberrans, offering a reprieve from the heat and an opportunity for Canberrans to enjoy the tranquillity of the Murrumbidgee River and surrounding Red Rocks Gorge. I welcome any members of this House who might like to go for a hike along the Murrumbidgee corridor with me on any weekends that they might spend in this state, which would be time well spent. There would be genuine appreciation for the beauty and significance of the Murrumbidgee.</para>
<para>It's therefore important for me and my constituents that the long-term management of the basin is secured and sustainable. The basin plan in 2012 was built on cooperative work to save rivers pushed to the brink in the Millennium Drought. It came from a period of environmental catastrophe, and it's designed to avoid another environmental catastrophe. Basin governments, including the Australian government, signed on to the plan—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 setting sustainable water extraction limits.</para>
<para>It should be fully implemented by June next year, but that's not going to happen. 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 by 30 June 2024. Sir Angus's assessment was:</para>
<quote><para class="block">While much has been achieved in the decade of Basin Plan implementation, the Authority remains deeply concerned about key aspects of the Plans delivery.</para></quote>
<para>I have great respect for the scientists, the engineers and the program officers of the Murray-Darling Basin Authority, having represented them for the best part of a decade before coming to this place. But the implementation of the plan is at a critical juncture. It's important that governments act to overcome challenges inhibiting the full delivery of the plan as quickly as possible.</para>
<para>That's why this government ran a series of consultations in May and June this year to ask people for their ideas about how to best reach the plan's water recovery targets. We received 131 submissions from groups and individuals right across the basin. Overwhelmingly, those submissions supported the plan. In these submissions, we 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 informed the agreement struck between basin jurisdictions last month to get the plan back on track.</para>
<para>Basin water ministers worked hard and in good faith in recent months on the package of measures. We agreed 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's more critical than ever that our rivers are managed in the interests of nature as well as in the interests of communities and industries.</para>
<para>If we are to pass the Murray-Darling on to future generations in better health, we must finish what we started. The Water Amendment (Restoring Our Rivers) Bill 2023 makes sensible and practical amendments to the Water Act 2007 and consequential amendments to the Basin Plan 2012 so we can get on with the job and finish what we started. We're extending Basin Plan time lines to achieve water recovery targets and time lines for the states to deliver water infrastructure projects that keep more water in productive use. We're removing overly restrictive rules so we can recover the 450 gigalitres of water for enhanced environmental outcomes, and we're getting rid of the cap on voluntary water purchases. These changes are necessary to deliver on the agreement struck between Murray-Darling Basin water ministers to provide long asked-for certainty to basin stakeholders.</para>
<para>We are also introducing 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 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.</para>
<para>The third part of this bill involves substantial and overdue reform to Australia's water market. Water markets are an important part of our agricultural system, but as things currently stand they lack integrity and transparency. There are no laws against market manipulation. The insider trading prohibition is too narrow, and the legal requirement to maintain proper records is too weak. As a result, there has been widespread mistrust in the system across regional Australia. Two years ago, the ACCC examined this market in some depth and found that its rules were inadequate and needed to be reformed. There's widespread consensus across government, across the farming sector and across most of this parliament, I believe, that we need to improve this regulation, and that's what this legislation will do.</para>
<para>The bill introduces a framework to create an enforceable mandatory code for water market intermediaries. It introduces civil penalties for market manipulation and doubles the penalty for insider trading. It will allow the ACCC, as the code and conduct regulator, to monitor water prices and investigate misconduct allegations. This will bring water markets in line with the standards in other markets. These changes will penalise bad behaviour, and they will also increase public transparency. There will be new obligations on basin states and territory governments, irrigation infrastructure operators, and water exchanges to generate, record, collect and report water market information. The Bureau of Meteorology would collate this information from across the basin and make it publicly available via a water data hub, with live market updates on a new water markets website. The Inspector-General of Water Compliance will have new powers to monitor and enforce the new data reporting obligations. These changes will help secure Australia's water future through the next dry stretch and beyond.</para>
<para>The original deadlines were set for June 2024, and in the early years we were well on track to meet those deadlines. But the last government spent a decade sabotaging that plan. They tied up projects in impossible rules so they couldn't deliver water savings. They blocked water recovery programs. They tried to cut the final recovery targets to keep them below scientific recommendations. As a result, progress slowed to a dribble under the previous government. Because of this, it is now impossible to deliver on the original time line. In nine years, those opposite delivered an abysmal two gigalitres of that 450, which put them on track, as the minister said earlier in the House today, to complete the plan sometime around the year 4000. We've delivered more in nine months than those opposite did in nine years, and now we've delivered or contracted 26 gigalitres in total already.</para>
<para>Those opposite were told it wasn't working again and again. They were told that in the first Water for the Environment Special Account report. They were told that in the second account report, which they kept secret before the last election. They knew the program had stalled completely, but for nine years they kept the handbrake on water recovery. What this legislation does is remove that handbrake so that we can finally deliver that water. That means giving the account more flexibility, in line with the Water Act's objectives.</para>
<para>With these changes, we are opening up the full suite of water recovery options. We'll be able to invest in on-farm water infrastructure, in land and water purchases and in other innovative water recovery mechanisms where it's sensible to do so. This is critical nation-building work, and when a community is affected by change, we will never leave them behind. We'll provide significant transitional assistance if these voluntary water purchases have secondary impacts on communities.</para>
<para>Our government has worked with states and territories, with farmers and irrigators, with scientists and experts, with environmentalists and with First Nations groups. This bill offers more time, more options, more money and more accountability. It delivers more water for the environment, more certainty for farmers and industry, more financial support for affected communities, more protection for native plants and animals and more hope for Australia's most important river system.</para>
<para>We can never forget why Australian governments designed the Murray-Darling Basin Plan in the first place. With the consequences of climate change becoming more rampant, we on this side of the House know that the next drought is just around the corner. Our country is facing an environmental emergency. If we don't act now to preserve the Murray-Darling, our basin towns will be unprepared for drought, our native animals will face the threat of extinction, our river ecosystems will risk environmental collapse and our food and fibre production will be insecure and unsustainable. A healthy basin means healthy communities. It means a river that families can enjoy, that promotes recreation and tourism and, most importantly, that provides clean drinking water to three million Australians every day. This is an important moment for basin communities and for any Australian who cares about the health of our environment. That's why we have a Murray-Darling Basin Plan in this country—to help us through the dry years, to make sure that there's enough water flowing through the river system at its lowest moments to make it to the next rain.</para>
<para>Our government made a commitment to deliver the Murray-Darling Basin Plan in full, and that's exactly what we are doing. I thank the minister for the work that she has done on this legislation. I thank the Murray-Darling Basin Authority for the extraordinary work that they have done over the last 10 to 20 years, but particularly in the last decade in difficult circumstances. I commend this bill to the House.</para>
<para>Debate adjourned.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes) Bill 2023</title>
          <page.no>96</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r7072" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes) Bill 2023</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>96</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:49</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr JOYCE</name>
    <name.id>e5d</name.id>
    <electorate>New England</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Mr Deputy Speaker Freelander, I know that, amongst other things, you'd be very much enthralled by what's going on in France at the moment.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>265979</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Indeed.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr JOYCE</name>
    <name.id>e5d</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to speak on the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes) Bill 2023. As soon as you even hear that title 'closing the loopholes bill' you know you have to start looking through the keyholes as to exactly what the wider implications of this are. The electorate of New England is home to many agricultural manufacturing businesses. In fact we actually have manufacturing in New England. BOSS Engineering manufactures the biggest farm machinery implements pulled by a tractor in the world. It's growing flat out, and we want it to keep growing. We have other manufacturing businesses in the blue-collar areas of Tamworth, and obviously mining is another big employer in our area—not so much the mines in the electorate but the mines right next to the electorate. The biggest thing we want to do is keep businesses profitable. You can have all the laws you like, but if the business stops employing people, if it doesn't work, then everybody loses out.</para>
<para>One of the issues we've seen where this is especially pronounced is in the motel industry, and without naming them, we have real issues in the motel industry with people saying, 'I just can't do it anymore. It just doesn't work.' They have issues because they can't get access to foreign workers, they have issues because their power bills are through the roof, they have issues because their gas bills are through the roof and they have issues because of the pressure coming onto them, and now they have this IR legislation that comes in over the top.</para>
<para>From a distance what we see, unfortunately, with government is there's no holistic view of how you deal with this. We're seeing this in so many parts, and this is yet another example. In their power policy the ultimate result is power prices going through the roof and reliability going through the floor. They're overseas companies. The money is going overseas. We just finished a water debate—sounds great. But a whole lot of people who've got five showers and three toilets are developing policy for people who live on the other side of the range and will go broke.</para>
<para>Now we have got this legislation, the Fair Work legislation amendment. It's coming from a party who are decent people—there are no problems about that. But they don't know how to run businesses. Running a business is a precarious thing. I've done it myself. I still do it now for the family business. It's a precarious thing. Nothing is certain. One of the great fears you have when you're starting a business is called Friday, because that's when you have to pay the wages, and if it's not quite there, if the people who owe you money have not quite paid up as they should, then you're balancing the issues with the overdraft. Every week is clawing ahead. What you've got to try and do is work with people who employ people, because the overwhelming employment, where the money is generated, is from private enterprise. Governments spend money, and government services rely on the taxpayer who's in private enterprise, the wages from private enterprise and the PAYG to actually support the government.</para>
<para>What's proposed is this bill adds yet another layer of complexity for the person trying to administer the payroll to go home and say, 'Well, I don't know about this family business. I don't know why we do it. It uses all our time. It stresses us out. There's always this belief that we're ripping people off. We're not. We're just trying to get by.' It doesn't enhance competition, and most likely some of these people who have been under the pump now will just say, 'I've had enough. I'm out. I'm over it. I'm going to find myself another way to earn the money.'</para>
<para>The other problem we've got goes back to motel businesses. Once these businesses are so under the pump because of power prices, gas prices, overheads and obviously wages, when they go to sell their business, they've got no-one to sell it to—not if the prospective buyer has a decent accountant, because they'll go through the books and say, 'Why on earth would you buy this? It just doesn't make any money.' If you think that doesn't happen, I can assure you, in my experience as an accountant, it has. I remember a motel—I won't say where—as their accountant, we sold it for $1, because there was no point in owning it. All it was was a bad risk. It made no money, and you just had to find some poor unfortunate person to take over this person's problems. In the end that was an incredibly good move for them, because they went on and made money in another area, to come to that decision to say, 'Just flip it.'</para>
<para>Why I bring that story up is that with this legislation you think of BHP or you think of Coles or you think of Woolies, but that's a small section of business. The largest section are tomato growers in the Bowen—like the member who has just walked in—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Pitt</name>
    <name.id>148150</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Dawson.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr JOYCE</name>
    <name.id>e5d</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The member for Dawson! Tomato growers from Bowen—he's now wandered off. These are the sorts of businesses that I'm sure you'll get a real insight into in very short order.</para>
<para>The member for Flynn was a boilermaker and he's also got cattle, so he's had businesses. Then you have the member for Hinkler. I'm going up to his electorate, up to Bundaberg, in a couple of days time. He was an electrical engineer. I remember when I first met him, he was making the struts for the power poles or something, wasn't it? Something like that.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Pit</name>
    <name.id>148150</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Making sugar!</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr JOYCE</name>
    <name.id>e5d</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Making sugar, yes. I was an accountant and I'm still in the cattle game as we speak.</para>
<para>Our side understands business. The last thing we ever want to do is lose our employees. They're the key people. Your greatest fear is your key employees going. If your key employees go, your business goes. This change that has been brought forward—I know you have to square up with people. Everybody has distinct interest groups, and I completely understand the unions are a distinct interest group of the Labor Party. I've got that. But this is overkill. This is going way over the top, because it is going to have an effect beyond what you perceive.</para>
<para>In so many areas businesses are also multigenerational, and the impost that comes onto them has to be understood. Family businesses—we're also pushed around a lot by big businesses because we have to compete in their marketplace. They can go out and put on their overheads to cover their expenses and force their price onto the market. We're price takers, and the decisions they make are basically offloaded onto us. Ultimately, we always say, 'Oh, yes, it's offloaded to the consumer.' Sometimes, yes, but usually it's just a price cut to the small business. They just take the hit.</para>
<para>The classic one right now, for instance—I don't know what you're paying for meat in the supermarkets, but it's a lot. The other day there were people selling sheep up in Armidale for five bucks a head. Someone's making a bucketload, and it's not the farmers. This goes to show that the people who will be able to deal with this legislation are the people who are just going to force the price onto the consumer. That's where it's going to end up. And there hasn't been a big enough carve out by the government to properly understand the smaller businesses, to properly understand the people who this is going to hurt. For our part, we'll plead to the government to re-engage, especially with the smaller businesses, in such a way as those smaller businesses stay in the marketplace because that gives you market dynamism, it gives your economy dynamism, and it gives the capacity for people to grow.</para>
<para>I was talking to a big business the other day, but a big business that started many, many years ago as a small business—we've got a few of them. What I always find frustrating when I talk to them—they say, 'It'll be very unlikely that this will happen again, like we did it.' These people employ, to be honest, thousands. They said, 'The reason is the government now has so much regulation in place that any approval, anything we need to do would just be confounded by the bureaucracy that a start-up would have to deal with.'</para>
<para>Let's go back to the member for Flynn. If someone found coal and wanted to start a mine, it would be near impossible because all the approvals they would need to have to get that thing started is not possible. So what you're actually doing, when you come up with new regulations like we have here today, is you're saying, 'The only people who will be in the marketplace are the established players, the people who can cover those overheads.' The mums and dads and the boilermaker and the fitter and turner and the diesel mechanic—they're the ones most likely to go out and have a crack at it. It's the tradespeople who actually go on to grow businesses, but you're making it incredibly tough for them to be their own boss because, apart from being a sole trader, as soon as they start employing people, although they understand they have got to be decent, fair and safe, but if the legal requirements become excessive, the motivation to do so is completely lost.</para>
<para>What will happen with this legislation as it filters through is that people who are near the tipping point will be very present in smaller towns, in the pub that is just making it, in the motel that is just making it or in the corner store that is just making it. Even though they might not be directly affected this legislation, they will be indirectly affected because it flows through the economy. They're the ones that will get tipped over. How does it flow through? It flows through because the cost they cannot get out of ends up on their P and L, and often the P and L goes from just being in profit to just being in loss, and the loss is just before you go out of business. The people who can wear this cost, the bigger businesses, will shift it straight down the line to the smaller businesses. You say the small businesses are not covered because they only have a couple of workers. Well, they are affected because they have to pick up that margin, and so they pick up that margin on their P and L, which forces them out the door.</para>
<para>You need to think about what you are doing in a holistic way—just sit back and think about it. Power prices are an abomination. You have power prices going through the roof because you have a massive investment in so-called renewables. They are not renewables because they're going to end up in landfill. That investment demands a return, and the return it demands is seen in the power bill, which is a massive cost for small business. For gas, it's the same thing—more restrictions, you don't open up more areas, restrictions apply, price goes up, cost goes back to the small business. You're going to buy back water licences, which takes the cash out of the economy, and that cost goes back to small business. And now you have this legislation coming through. You might say small business is not covered, but the big businesses are, and they will put it on their bill, which goes back to small business. In the end, the small businesses cop it.</para>
<para>In New England, where small business is incredibly important, especially in a place such as the biggest city in my electorate, Tamworth, the motto is industry, and we're very proud of it. They say about New York, if you can make it there, you can make it anywhere. In Tamworth, we say if you can't make it here, you'll make it nowhere. We love the idea that, if you have a go, you take the trade you have learnt in life and set up in Taminda or in Nemingha, you should have an opportunity to be your own boss. That's what people want, to be their own boss, the master of their own ship. They want to have their own corporate manual and to wear their own uniform or their own type of hi-vis. This is what people want because the ultimate freedom is to be master of your own ship. That is the philosophical attraction to small business. Even though you might make more money in the big corporate world, you love the idea of being your own boss. But to do that, you need a government that understands that to make that available to people who want the fundamental freedom to be master of their own ship, to chart their own course, they need to be as free as possible. The core thing is that the job we have here as members of the Nationals, regardless of your education or the luck of your family or the wealth that they might have attained, you will transcend through the economic and social stratification of life to your highest level, limited only by your innate ability. If you can do that, you'll be free, and freedom is what drives us. All my colleagues have said so much about this fair work legislation. But on a philosophical basis I say the more regulations you place on people trying to get on in business, the more you restrict their freedom.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:04</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms WELLS</name>
    <name.id>264121</name.id>
    <electorate>Lilley</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The election of the Albanese Labor government was a watershed moment for Australian workers. We promised to build a better, fairer future and we are delivering. Just over one year into an Albanese government, wages are growing at their fastest rate in a decade, with the average full-time worker approximately $3,700 better off than they were 12 months ago. We've created half a million jobs, 85 percent of which are full-time, the strongest jobs growth for the first year of any Australian government. We increased the minimum award wage for aged-care workers by 15 per cent, the largest increase in history. We introduced 10 days paid domestic violence leave so that no-one is forced to choose between being safe and being paid. The gender pay gap has fallen to 13 per cent, the lowest ever level in Australia.</para>
<para>This progress is great news for most Australians who need secure work and strong wages to combat the cost-of-living pressures. But too many people are not receiving the full benefit of these changes because of unfair loopholes that allow their pay and conditions to be undercut by their employer. Over one-third of workers are stuck in insecure or non-standard forms of work, directly impacting their ability to provide for their families or to plan for the future. That changes with the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes) Bill 2023. This bill closes the loopholes and provides certainty, fairness and a level playing field for workers and businesses. It delivers on our promise to get wages moving with four key elements: (1) cracking down on the labour hire loophole that's used to undercut pay and conditions; (2) criminalising wage theft; (3) properly defining casual work so that casual workers are not being exploited; and (4) making sure gig workers are not getting ripped off.</para>
<para>In my electorate of Lilley, we saw the life shattering impact of insecure work firsthand during COVID. Northsiders who were casuals, contract workers, gig economy workers and labour hire workers suddenly saw their hours slashed or taken away altogether overnight. They instantly fell through the trap door with no annual leave, no sick leave, no holiday pay and no family leave. As a result, the line outside of Centrelink in Nundah and in Chermside went around the block. Today, the Albanese government is standing up for those workers who are stuck being defined as 'casual' but are working regular hours and want to become permanent employees. This bill introduces a fair and objective definition to determine when an employee can be classified as casual. Casual employees will be able to seek permanent employment through two pathways: through the new employee choice pathway or through the existing casual conversion pathway. This choice could help 850,000 workers, who will have the option to become permanent workers and receive greater access to leave entitlements and more financial security. This choice also empowers workers to remain casual if it suits their needs or lifestyle.</para>
<para>This bill also delivers on our commitment to make sure workers with the same job get the same pay. Labour hire has legitimate uses in providing surge and specialist workforces. In aged care, the Australian government provides temporary surge staffing to assist providers that are unable to fill the critical skills because of staff testing positive to COVID-19. But, unfortunately, some employers are deliberately exploiting labour hire loopholes to undercut their workers, bringing in a labour hire workforce with fewer rights and lower pay. The most egregious example of this in recent memory happened under the Morrison government's watch. In 2020, Qantas outsourced the jobs of 2,000 ground crew, many of whom lived in my electorate of Lilley and worked at the Brisbane Airport. In a bitter blow, the workers who were let go were told that they could reapply for their jobs as contractors but, of course, for less pay. Chris, a father of three living in my electorate, was one of the 2,000 Qantas ground crew who was made redundant by Qantas. He had worked for Qantas for 17 years. His dad worked for Qantas for 10 years. Aviation was in Chris's blood. But, because of these unfair loopholes, Chris was made redundant and ended up stacking supermarket shelves in order to support his family.</para>
<para>Today, the High Court has delivered justice for Chris and the thousands who have been put through hell over the past three years. Now, the High Court has unanimously dismissed Qantas's appeal, clearing the way for workers who had adverse action taken against them to seek compensation. While this is a sweet moment of vindication, and one long awaited for those workers and the unions who fought for them, now is the time to legislate to stop the race to the bottom that has been waved through by the coalition over the past nine years.</para>
<para>This bill amends the Fair Work Act to protect workers like Chris and to take away some of the incentive to outsource jobs. It gives powers to the Fair Work Commission to make orders that labour hire employees be paid at least the wages in a host enterprise agreement, unless it is not fair and reasonable in the circumstances. Sensible exemptions will apply for small-business employers, and a default three-month exemption will apply to avoid impacting labour hire arrangements for surge work, like we have in aged care, or temporary replacements.</para>
<para>Australians have seen countless examples of dodgy bosses ripping off their workers, emboldened by the deliberate policy decisions made by consecutive Liberal-National governments. Under the previous coalition government's watch, the suburb of Nundah, in my electorate of Lilley, had the highest reported number of wage-theft complaints to the Fair Work Ombudsman. Chermside workers were being ripped off and forced to forfeit part of their wages for food and drinks.</para>
<para>In 2019, the now Prime Minister and I met with workers in my electorate of Lilley who had been victims of wage theft, Sulu and Kulwinder. We listened and learned about how wage theft disproportionately affects vulnerable workers—especially migrant workers, young people and women. I came back to this place and called on the government to criminalise wage theft. But, instead of helping these vulnerable workers, the coalition saw a house on fire—and took out the fire alarm, with their Work Choices 2.0 bill.</para>
<para>The underpayment of wages continues in workplaces across Australia, from small businesses to billion-dollar companies, leaving workers out of pocket. In Queensland, we got sick of waiting for the slew of federal coalition governments to act, and our state government criminalised wage theft in 2020. But those who aren't blessed to live in the glorious kingdom of Queensland do deserve protection as well. They need a national wage-theft system to end the rip-offs.</para>
<para>If a worker steals cash from the till or if a worker steals stock, it is a criminal offence, and fair enough. But, in many parts of Australia, if a boss steals from their worker's pay packet, it is not. That stops with this bill. This bill delivers on the promise the now Prime Minister and I made to Sulu and Kulwinder—to criminalise wage-theft across the country.</para>
<para>Now, there's been a lot of public discourse about the consequences of this bill, with the coalition accusing us of 'making a bad situation worse'. They have called the legislation 'radical'. But, as the Minister for Aged Care, I have seen firsthand the profound impact that improving the pay and conditions of your workers can have on an industry that is in a bad situation. Requiring 24/7 nursing in aged care, and supporting pay rises for aged-care workers—policies which sought to lift the standard of care and improve the pay and conditions of aged-care workers—were also ridiculed by the coalition, for 'making a bad situation worse'. But, in the past year, there has been a reduction in the numbers of pressure injuries, a reduction in the numbers of physical restraints, a reduction in the numbers of significant unplanned weight losses, a reduction in the numbers of falls, a reduction in polypharmacy and a reduction in the use of antipsychotics in aged care.</para>
<para>This week I spoke to the service manager, Sharon, at UnitingCare in Weston Creek, who said that her staff-satisfaction surveys are skyrocketing, and she has workers coming back to the aged-care sector. That is what happens when you value and respect a workforce.</para>
<para>At the election, voters elected a government who would work for them—who would stop the race to the bottom on wages and conditions and make sure they got a fair day's pay for a fair day's work. This bill delivers on that commitment and will help create a better, fairer future for workers. I thank the House.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:13</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr WILLCOX</name>
    <name.id>286535</name.id>
    <electorate>Dawson</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise today to speak on the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes) Bill 2023. But first I would like to talk about a Swiss cheese paradox. Swiss cheese, as we all know, has a lot of holes. The more holes you have, the less cheese you have. And the more cheese you have, the more holes you have. Therefore, the more cheese you think you have, the less cheese you actually have. You might think, 'Willcox has gone mad. Why is he talking about cheese in parliament?' Well, this new bill, under Labor, is Swiss cheese, and brings with it its own Swiss cheese paradox. It's not only confusing, it's complex. Labor reckon they are closing the loopholes when in fact they are adding more holes. Frustratingly, I have been asking the House a lot recently: what is Labor actually doing for the Australian public? It seems the answer is: not much, because here I am asking the same question again. So let me explain it to you. Then let me tell you what this is going to mean for the people in my electorate of Dawson.</para>
<para>The Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, Mr Burke, announced a 280-page bill to amend the fair work legislation. Along with it came a 521-page explanatory memorandum. That's 801 pages in total. Unbelievable! We are being told that it's good for the Australian public. However, in reality, the only people that are going to benefit from these amendments are the unions. How typical. Here are the facts. The fair work legislation amendments are impossibly complex. The fair work legislation amendments are going to cost business billions in wages. The fair work legislation amendments are going to cost consumers more, and this is the last thing that Australians need in a time of a Labor created cost-of-living crisis. And Minister Burke has openly admitted to all of these things. What I don't understand is that he doesn't seem to care, when in reality caring about legislation he creates is his job. What has he done instead of caring? He has developed fair work legislation amendments that are anything but fair. All they will result in is job losses at a time of a Labor created cost-of-living crisis.</para>
<para>This is another rushed decision made by the Albanese Labor government without consultation, without speaking to peak representative bodies, without speaking to businesses and without consulting the people that this bill is going to directly impact. The public outrage over these amendments has been staggering. Jennifer Westacott, the chief executive of the Business Council of Australia, said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Australians should have safe jobs, well paid jobs and rewarding jobs, but the government's radical shake-up of the industrial relations system will not deliver that …</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">These changes will create confusion and extra costs for consumers, make it harder to hire casual workers and create uncertainty for employing anybody.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Any government that's serious about cost of living would not do this.</para></quote>
<para>What a statement—any government that's serious about cost of living would not do this. But that's exactly what the Labor government is doing.</para>
<para>The 'same job, same pay' changes in this bill are going to be the bill that all Australians are going to have to pay. With this one policy, the nation's economic security is under assault, and this couldn't have come at a worse time. Speaking to one business owner in my electorate, I heard that his staff costs have already gone up 11.4 per cent since February alone. So why is the Albanese Labor government intent on crippling business further? 'Same job, same pay' will mean a labour hire worker who is brand-new to the business will, by law, have to be paid the same as the employee with decades of experience. But don't worry: Minister Burke says business can just pass these increased costs onto the already struggling consumer! Sounds fair, right? That's as long as the unions still get their cheques.</para>
<para>But that's not all. These amendments will mean that Fair Work will have the power to dictate the hours of work and the pay rates for independent contractors. These hardworking Australians became independent contractors because they wanted to. They want to be able to choose their own hours, choose where they work and choose how they work. These Aussie workers chose their lifestyle because it suits them. Who do the Albanese government think they are to take that choice away from our hardworking Australian public?</para>
<para>What does this industry think of the policy? Well, Tania Constable of the Minerals Council of Australia has said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The Albanese Government's latest industrial relations legislation changes are some of the most extreme, interventionist workplace changes that have ever been proposed in Australia.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The changes will inflict immense harm to the economy, the weight of which will fall on the shoulders of the most vulnerable Australians who will pay more for groceries, housing, and energy.</para></quote>
<para>Andrew McKellar, the chief executive of the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, has said the legislation:</para>
<quote><para class="block">… will be bad for productivity, those wanting to be their own boss, and consumers struggling with the cost-of-living crisis. The only winners in this are union chiefs. The only loophole this bad legislation is looking to close is that of plummeting union membership … This is a continuation of a radical industrial relations agenda, and we are again bracing ourselves for further risky changes to our workplace system.</para></quote>
<para>Speaking of crippling businesses, this next one, in my opinion, is a direct attack on small business. Minister Burke has publicly admitted that this bill will add complexity to an already unduly complex system—801 pages of complexity, to be exact. The small businesses in my electorate do not have the IR teams or the HR teams to go through this bill with a fine-tooth comb just to understand it. Instead small-business owners, who are already struggling to pay the bills, working in their business day in, day out, will now be forced to spend a ridiculous amount of their own time or a ridiculous amount of money with solicitors in order to understand these new obligations. Matthew Addison from the Council of Small Business Organisations Australia agrees, saying:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The issues of confusion and complexity remain, combined with an increased requirement of every business, small or large, to dedicate resources, time and money towards trying to understand and implement these onerous new obligations.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">…   …   …</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">At a time when small businesses are managing increased costs of supply, of rent, of power, of wages; we don't need changes that detract business from their sales and service delivery. Small business seek to employ and properly reward their workers. They seek to innovate and adopt new technology.</para></quote>
<para>What have businesses in my electorate been saying? They're scared. These impassioned and infuriated business owners are certainly disheartened. One business owner said he's questioning why he's even doing this anymore and is considering walking away entirely. The impact of that? The 30 to 35 staff he employees will be out of a job, and that's just one business. Imagine if all the businesses in my electorate close their doors right now. Under the Labor government, his rent has increased, the cost of supplies has skyrocketed and workforce shortages are a constant and a never-ending battle. Now the Labor government has given him 801 pages of homework to do. These are the costs that business must either absorb, which is unsustainable for business, or pass on to consumers, who can't afford to pay any more. Another business owner said: 'It's all well and good for Minister Burke to say, "The business owners will be able to pass the cost on to consumers." In his words, it's only a little bit more, but a little bit more for one consumer, who is already struggling to make ends meet, turns into one less sale for that business. Multiply that by 26 million people in Australia, and that's a lot less sales for businesses.' The consequences of these amendments will be increased inflation, an increase in the cost of living, decreasing profits for businesses, business closures and job losses on a potentially exponential scale, resulting in increased pressure on government funded welfare systems. This is textbook Labor, and we can see it play out over and over again.</para>
<para>For anyone who does not know, if you do a quick Google search on what causes a recession, you will find the following:</para>
<quote><para class="block">As corporations and households get overextended and face difficulties in meeting their debt obligations, they reduce investment and consumption, which in turn leads to a decrease in economic activity.</para></quote>
<para>According to the businesses that I have spoken to on this topic, the writing is already on the wall. The last time Australia entered into a recession was in the early nineties, after Labor had been in government for seven years. In mid-2007 Australia watched the global financial crisis cripple the world. While we did experience some hardships as a nation, thankfully we did not experience the widespread devastation that the rest of the world did. Who was in government at the time of the GFC, and who had been in government ensuring Australia had a strong economic foundation for years before the GFC? You guessed it—the coalition, the Liberal and National parties. Now, in 2023, under another Labor government, we are facing the serious threat of yet another recession. And what is the Labor government doing about it? Nothing, but making it worse.</para>
<para>Labor has spruiked about being the party of the people. But if that is so, why are you subjecting Australia to such devastating consequences? If the Labor government don't start realising the consequences of their actions, they are going to grind this economy to a halt. Just like the Swiss cheese paradox, welcome to the Labor government paradox, where they say and promise one thing, all wrapped up in fancy packaging of hopeful and promising-sounding names, but the reality is they are making an economic situation in this country worse.</para>
<para>It seems to be a theme that I am standing here again calling on the Albanese Labor government and calling on Minister Burke to reverse their decisions. I am calling on the Albanese Labor government to think about what this legislation is doing to the people of Australia and to the good people in my electorate of Dawson. Don't condemn us to more cost-of-living pressures. Don't condemn us to business closures. Don't condemn us to job losses. Don't condemn us to bankruptcy, and don't condemn us to even more homelessness. The time to do the right thing is now. In this Labor created cost-of-living crisis, do not make the situation worse with radical, ill-conceived industrial relations laws.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:28</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms PAYNE</name>
    <name.id>144732</name.id>
    <electorate>Canberra</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>What an honour it is to rise today in support of the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes) Bill 2023. This is a bill which will fundamentally make our economy and our workplaces fairer for Australian workers, and I want to commend the minister, his office and the public servants at the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations for all their work in getting this bill together. I also want to thank the Australian Council of Trade Unions, all the unions who have been campaigning for these reforms, their delegates and organisers and the workers who have shared their stories and really created the momentum for change. It really isn't a surprise that it is a Labor government bringing forward these reforms because Labor governments are the only governments that stand up for workers in this country. It was a Labor government that fought for and achieved the eight-hour work day. It was a Labor government that introduced compulsory superannuation. It was a Labor government that brought in enterprise bargaining. It was a Labor government that legislated for paid parental leave and a Labor government that dismantled the antiworker WorkChoices reforms. It was a Labor government that established the Fair Work Commission, and it was a Labor government that abolished the Australian Building and Construction Commission—twice. It was this Labor government that implemented paid domestic violence leave. It was this Labor government that last year legislated for secure jobs and better pay. It is this Labor government that is now closing the loopholes that undermine the wages and conditions of Australian workers. We are today continuing and building on our party's proud history here in the 47th Parliament.</para>
<para>This bill contains four main elements. It cracks down on the labour hire loophole, it criminalises wage theft, it properly defines casual work and it makes sure that gig economy workers aren't being ripped off. All of these policies were taken to the 2022 federal election, and so our mandate to legislate this bill is very clear.</para>
<para>I want to raise a few examples of why this bill is so vitally important. Earlier this year I met Peter, a member of the Australian Manufacturing Workers Union from Devonport in Tasmania. Peter is a forklift driver who has worked for Simplot for the past 15 years. Peter is a casual worker. Peter has been a casual worker for his entire 15 years at Simplot. In fact, almost all of Peter's coworkers are casual. But there is nothing casual about Peter's work. There is nothing casual about his colleagues' work. Peter and his colleagues are desperate for permanency. In fact, they have been fighting to be converted to permanent positions with no luck. With the support of his union, Peter and his colleagues have tried to dispute the company's violations of their agreements at the Fair Work Commission twice, but have had no success. This bill will help Peter because this bill will properly define casual work.</para>
<para>This government is standing up for casual workers who want to become permanent employees. When an employee works permanent, regular hours but remains casual, they miss out on job security, they miss out on long service leave, and they miss out on sick leave and annual leave. They miss out. The measures contained in this bill will help more than 850,000 casuals who are working as though they are permanent employees. Fundamentally, it is recognition that rent isn't casual, utility bills aren't casual and car registration isn't casual. All these things are certainties, and these workers deserve certainty when it comes to their income. To address the fearmongering we have heard from those opposite, the government understands that casual work does suit some people, so we aren't mandating that casuals get converted to permanency against their will, but if they want to, they should be able to convert.</para>
<para>As a result of this bill, casual employees will be able to seek permanent employment through two pathways. The first is through the new employee choice pathway, recognising the objective status of the employee, and it applies where their working arrangements have changed so they no longer meet the definition. This pathway is entirely employee driven and available after six months of service in a medium or large business, or 12 months in a small business. The second pathway, which is the existing pathway of casual conversion, is where large and medium employers undertake the once-off obligation to proactively assess all their casuals after 12 months service and, if they have a regular pattern of work, offer them conversion.</para>
<para>This bill also introduces minimum standards for employee-like workers in the gig economy. Viralkumar is a constituent of mine here in Canberra and has been a delivery driver since 2018. In that time he has logged more than 25,000 deliveries. Viralkumar works on multiple platforms, including Uber, DoorDash, Menulog, Jimmy Brings and Yello. In all of these cases he's classified as an independent contractor. Some of the platforms are better than others, but what is consistent is low pay, no entitlements and workers being ripped off. Viralkumar says that on average he gets paid around $5 per delivery. He estimates that he would complete around three deliveries per hour, so that's about $15 an hour. There's no extra pay for waiting at the restaurant for an order to be completed. There's no extra pay for finding a car park. There's no extra pay for being stuck in traffic. There's no extra pay for working on public holidays. There's no extra pay for working through the night or for taking long shifts. Five dollars. No superannuation, no leave, no entitlements—$5. No money for fuel, for registration or for any other vehicle expenses—$5.</para>
<para>Viralkumar says app ratings hang over his head like a threat and gave the example of a time when he picked up an order for someone named Sara. Halfway to Sara's house, he got a call from the restaurant saying that they gave him the wrong Sara's order. So he turned around, went back and swapped the order for the correct one. The restaurant then gave him a negative rating, even though the mix-up was their mistake. He called the restaurant, who at first denied that they had done this. Then they admitted that they had but couldn't reverse the rating. Viralkumar called the platform, who advised him that it was an automated system and that there was nothing they could do but not to worry because, after 100 positive reviews, that negative one would disappear! The consequences of these mistakes can be serious for delivery drivers, including removal from the platform.</para>
<para>Viralkumar also spoke of how on one platform he was mysteriously deactivated, seemingly for no reason at all. When he tried to get through to the platform, they gave him no assistance or reason for the deactivation. It wasn't until he spoke his union organiser, Jack, at the Transport Workers Union, that he was able to start delivering again. Viralkumar's is the story of gig workers all around this country. For too long, they have been allowed to be exploited. For too long under the former government, this parliament was frozen in inaction as this new industry took off in a way which left workers as collateral damage.</para>
<para>This bill allows the Fair Work Commission to set minimum standards for workers like Viralkumar. Minimum standards orders can include things like payment terms, deductions, insurance and cost-recovery. The bill also introduces new protections for these workers from unfair deactivation if they've been working for a digital platform for more than six months. It is time those in the gig economy are given the protections they deserve.</para>
<para>This bill closes the labour hire loopholes that have allowed companies to undercut the pay and conditions they have agreed to with their workers. ABS statistics show that growth in labour hire jobs is now outpacing employment growth by a large margin. At least 600,000 people, or around 3½ to 4½ per cent of the workforce, are employed through labour hire. About 84 per cent of labour hire workers don't have access to paid leave entitlements. Labour hire workers earn on average about $4,700 a year less than ordinarily employed workers. Labour hire workers often earn even less than their directly employed colleagues at the same worksite. For example, mining workers earn up to 30 per cent less than their colleagues due to being employed through labour hire. What has become clear over the past few years is that this is a practice of outsourcing as undercutting, avoidance of obligations by design.</para>
<para>One of the worst examples we've seen recently is that of Qantas. Research from the ACTU mapped the extensive use of labour hire companies by Qantas to drive down wages. Qantas has split its cabin crew workforce across 14 labour hire companies. In fact, no cabin crew on Qantas aircraft have been hired directly by the airline since 2008. Some of these labour hire cabin crew are earning half the rate of their colleagues at the same job. In fact, on some domestic Qantas flights you can see five different rates of pay on the same plane. The mind boggles. They miss out on penalty rates and job security and sometimes have only two hours notice before their next shift. This year Qantas posted billions of dollars in profits, so it can only be described as the worst kind of greed that this once-great Australian business is treating the people that keep its planes in the sky the way that it does.</para>
<para>This bill will make sure that these practices cannot continue as they have. It will give the Fair Work Commission the power to make orders that labour hire employees are paid at least the wages in the host employer's already established enterprise agreement. Employees and unions can apply to the Fair Work Commission for an order to that effect. The commission is not required to make an order if it is not fair and reasonable in the circumstances. Businesses will be prohibited from taking action to avoid their obligations or prevent a commission order from being made.</para>
<para>This bill also criminalises wage theft. It is inconceivable to me that this is not yet a crime. If a worker steals from the till they have broken the law. That's fair. That's the law. But it cannot and should not be the case that the opposite is okay. When we see the egregious examples at places like 7-Eleven, where employees were marched across the road to an ATM and forced to hand back their wages, we know there is a problem. Employers who intentionally steal their employees' wages should face criminal penalties, and now employers who engage in these practices will. It will be a crime to steal your employees' wages, punishable by up to 10 years imprisonment and hefty fines.</para>
<para>This bill is transformative. It will make our industrial relations framework fairer. It is important that this bill passes the parliament. Those opposite will moan about unions and whine about processes, but just remember what they're really worried about. They're really concerned about workers getting a fair go. They're really concerned that workers are going to get a pay rise. They're concerned that workers' conditions will improve, because they're a party that deliberately kept wages low. As the minister has said, I would encourage anyone who supports this to actually come into this place and defend these loopholes, explain why they should remain and explain why these things, which lead to the mistreatment of Australian workers, should continue in our system. Those opposite are not on the side of workers, and they never will be. But this government is on your side. I commend this bill to the House.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:41</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms WARE</name>
    <name.id>300123</name.id>
    <electorate>Hughes</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to speak on the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes) Bill 2023, which I oppose in its entirety. At the outset, before I get into the detail of this bill, it's a further demonstration of the Labor government's commitment to unwinding the flexibility that did exist within our industrial relations system. It is also a shout-out to the union movement. I was here in the House when I heard the member for Canberra, who I have a lot of respect for, speak. I just want to point out, before I get to the union involvement in this legislation, the specific thank you that was given to the ACTU and the gratitude that has been expressed by many opposite me to the unions for this legislation.</para>
<para>In 2023, when we have so many challenges to our economy, now is the time for the government to be boosting productivity, encouraging businesses and not making things harder for them—because that is what this is doing. This is making things harder as well for many people in the gig economy and casual workers who choose this as a way of working. They may only do it for a short period of time in their working life, but they do it for reasons of choice and they do it because it suits their particular lifestyle. It also helps employers. It helps our businesses. It helps productivity. I'm referring particularly to the building and construction industry. In the electorate of Hughes, I have many building and construction companies. We have close to 2,000 in my electorate alone. I have nearly 7,000 constituents who work in the building and construction industry within my electorate. At many times in the building and construction industry, a company may suddenly say, 'I've just got an extra job, so now I need some extra plumbers, roofers or painters.' So it may be the case that there are people they can call upon—labour hire, casual workers—that will come in and help that business to get that job done. That is where there is real benefit with keeping casual workers within our economy. There is no reason why casual workers should not be able to retain that choice. They should not be forced to become permanent workers. The Labor Party claim to be the friend of the workers, but in this case they have this wrong.</para>
<para>When the responsible minister, Mr Burke, introduced this bill overall, he said this bill will 'clarify' and 'simplify' aspects of our industrial relation system. This legislation is 161 pages, with an explanatory memorandum of over 300 pages. I do not know how, by any definition, that is simplifying this system. If we look at what we have now and what the government is attempting to do with simplifying how we define 'casual employment', first of all, the permanent casual loophole has already been closed under earlier legislation, but this new definition of 'casual employment' in this bill is three pages long and includes 15 factors to determine if an employee is in fact a casual. Again, I fail to understand how this is simplifying our industrial relations system and making it easier in any way for businesses and employees to work together, which they have been able to do. In that regard, this government, as all federal governments should be doing, should be providing an environment to facilitate our industrial relations system. It should be driving productivity. That is what makes Australians stronger, not micromanaging every tiny detail of the relationship between employers and employees and between businesses and workers.</para>
<para>This bill is well and truly taking Australia down the wrong path. This bill is intended to be a distraction from the real issue that is facing Australians at the moment, which is the cost of living. This bill is doing nothing to address what people in my electorate are telling me are the real issues that are facing them.</para>
<para>This bill has three main problems: it is impossibly complex, it is going to add significant cost to businesses and to consumers and it is impossibly confusing. I have just spoken about how we are now going to define a casual worker, for example. The minister for employment, at his recent National Press Club address, said: 'This bill will, indeed, add complexity to an already unduly complex system and, in addition, consumer costs will go up.' When we are facing a cost-of-living crisis in this country, exactly what we want to hear from the employment relations minister is, 'By the way, I am now introducing legislation which I guarantee will increase the costs of a whole lot of consumer goods'!</para>
<para>So to say that this new workplace relations system is going to improve things for our country is completely disingenuous. This is about eroding the choice and flexibility of individuals who want to work in their own time and on their own terms, and those workers are not members of unions. We have just heard a big thankyou given out to the ACTU for its involvement in this legislation.</para>
<para>This legislation is going to put significant constraints on businesses and employers who want to expand, construct new products and infrastructure or simply manage their operations in their own way. Small businesses, medium businesses and large businesses should be able to do that within a flexible industrial relations system. On this aside, we are not going to support reforms which will weaken our economy and continue to make a bad situation worse for Australian small businesses, Australian farmers and Australian families.</para>
<para>This law and the earlier fair work legislation that has already gone through this House is a radical reordering of Australian workplace law which every business organisation in this country has pleaded with the government to not go ahead with, from very large business down to much smaller businesses. Organisations that have supported it include, of course, unions. The unions will now have unprecedented rights of entry into many businesses, and I will turn to that in a moment.</para>
<para>We all want Australians to have safe, high-wage, sustainable jobs and to be rewarded for their hard work and experience. Driving productivity and ensuring that Australian companies and Australian employers do well is exactly what we need to get this country moving again. But an attack on gig workers, labour hire companies, tradies and other independent contractors, which is what is at the heart of this closing loopholes bill, is what we are seeing instead.</para>
<para>These are simply people who want to work in their own time and on their own terms. They should be allowed to do that. What industrial relations in this country should be focusing on is making us more productive and creating more jobs. This is de-incentivising companies, particularly small businesses, to put on new employees and to employ casual worker. It's quite patronising, I think overall, to say to workers who have chosen to work in these areas or who have chosen casual work, 'Well, we're the government, and we say that what you are doing is actually not the right path.' We should be able to trust an industrial relations system where employers and employees can make their own decisions and where employers, particularly small businesses, can choose when they may need extra resources to power their businesses. I refer particularly to the words of Jennifer Westacott, Chief Executive of the Business Council of Australia. She has said this is a 'radical shakeup of the industrial relations system' in this country. She spoke about it creating confusion and extra cost for consumers, which was backed up by the minister, and it will make it harder to hire casual workers, creating uncertainty for employing anybody. She said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Any government that's serious about cost of living would not do this.</para></quote>
<para>And those words are supported.</para>
<para>Turning to unions, this bill will expand union powers in workplaces. It is going to enable unions to exercise right-of-entry powers without any notice whenever it relates to wage underpayment. All they have to do to gain immediate entry is to assert to the Fair Work Commission that they suspect a case of wage underpayment. No evidence is needed at that point. They will simply then be able to enter the workplace. Labor talks about closing labour-hire loopholes, but the truth is that this policy goes much further than labour hire. It can be seen as hugely disruptive. It stops businesses from being able to access the service they need to address what are often short-term problems within their production lines. This is nothing but an unjustified attack on labour-hire employers as well as the businesses and workers that depend upon this sector. This is a sector that has played an important role in our economy and should continue to play an important role in our economy.</para>
<para>Labor often talk about diversity and how much they like diversity, but they don't like a diverse labour market in this country. They don't like the fact that gig workers in the casual workforce undertake various forms of work and largely do not join unions. The Albanese government in this respect does not respect diversity. They do not respect diversity of the labour market. The opposition, on the other hand, recognises that our labour market is diverse and that those who choose these forms of work represent legitimate and important aspects of Australia's labour market.</para>
<para>I just want to turn briefly to what a couple of other stakeholders said when this legislation was sent out to them for comment. We had the Minerals Council of Australia say:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The Albanese Government's latest industrial relations legislation changes are some of the most extreme, interventionist workplace changes that have ever been proposed in Australia.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The changes will inflict immense harm to the economy, the weight of which will fall on the shoulders of the most vulnerable Australians who will pay more for groceries, housing, and energy.</para></quote>
<para>Tania Constable went on to say:</para>
<quote><para class="block">For Australian mining, this excessive burden and workforce rigidity will put the industry's ability to deliver the full economic and social benefit from the emerging clean energy mining boom, under serious threat.</para></quote>
<para>We hear almost every day in this place about the push to clean energy, and this is not going to help the government achieve those targets.</para>
<para>In closing, this is not good legislation. This is not a good way to reinvent industrial relations within this country. We have long moved away from this sort of centralised wage fixing. We have long moved towards flexibility between employers and employees. The coalition government respected that business owners—small, medium and large businesses—could make the decisions for their own workforce, and it respected the right of casuals and those in the gig economy to have the choice as to when they worked and whether they wanted to remain as casuals. This is not good legislation. For all the reasons outlined, I oppose it.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:55</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr CONROY</name>
    <name.id>249127</name.id>
    <electorate>Shortland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to make a contribution to the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes) Bill 2023. I want to begin by reflecting on a couple of remarks from the previous speaker, the member for Hughes. The member for Hughes talked a lot about choice—about respecting the choice of casuals to be casual and the choice of gig workers to be gig workers. I accept that, for some casuals and some gig workers, it is a choice. They choose when to work. But I would submit that they are the minority.</para>
<para>When you're applying for a job and an employer says, 'You can accept it as a casual or you don't get the job,' and the choice is between accepting that job on the conditions imposed upon you by the employer and starving or not being able to pay your rent, you have no power. You have absolutely zero power. When an employer says to you, 'I expect you to turn up on every shift I roster you on, even though you're a casual, but I won't give you any employment security. I won't give you leave entitlements, but I expect you to turn up on call when I need you and to be sent home when I send you home without pay,' there is no choice in that for a lot of workers.</para>
<para>This is what this legislation is about. It is about addressing fundamental inequalities that mean hundreds of thousands of Australian workers have no security. They have no ability to predict when they'll work, to predict what they'll get paid, or to pay their rent or pay a mortgage or take a holiday with their family. This is fundamentally what this legislation does. It also addresses a huge structural inequality in labour hire that is crippling families in my region of the Hunter and the Central Coast, which I'll turn to in a minute. I wanted to put those remarks on the record initially.</para>
<para>As we've heard, this bill contains four key elements: first, cracking down on certain labour hire firms that undercut pay and conditions; second, criminalising both wage theft and industrial manslaughter; third, legislating a fair and objective definition of casual work so casuals aren't being exploited and introducing a new pathway for eligible employees to change to permanent employment if they wish to do so; and, fourth, making sure gig workers aren't being ripped off.</para>
<para>I'd like to say at the outset of my contribution that the Albanese Labor government was elected to get wages moving, unlike the Liberal Party and the former finance minister, former senator Mathias Cormann, who said the quiet bit out loud when he explained that low wages were 'a deliberate design feature of our economic architecture'. We know that getting wages moving for workers is not only good for the hip pockets of families; it is good for the economy. This is what this set of reforms is all about: closing down the loopholes that are undermining wages and conditions to help get wages moving again.</para>
<para>We've heard a few furphies about this bill, not only from those opposite but also from stories circling in the media, so I'd like to outline what is being proposed in this bill. These are not radical changes. All we're doing is making the current law work more effectively and providing certainty, fairness and a level playing field for both businesses and workers.</para>
<para>The first key element is cracking down on certain labour hire firms that undercut pay and conditions. The government recognises that labour hire does have a legitimate use in providing surge and specialist workforces. Nothing in this set of reforms changes that. What we are concerned about and what these reforms address is when companies are using labour hire loopholes to deliberately undercut the agreements that have already been made with workers. Currently, businesses are allowed to pay labour hire workers less than directly employed permanent workers doing the same tasks on the exact same roster. We need to close this loophole, and this bill will amend the Fair Work Act 2009 to give the Fair Work Commission the power to make orders that labour hire employees be paid at least what they would be paid under the employer's enterprise agreement. This is delivering on our election commitment for 'same job, same pay'.</para>
<para>Many constituents in my electorate would be very familiar with this election commitment. Whilst we know this is happening across the entire economy, it is becoming increasingly widespread in the mining sector, particularly in coalmining. I'm proud to represent an electorate that covers the beautiful Lake Macquarie and Central Coast, which has long been home to mineworkers and their families. In my electorate of Shortland, there are more than 1,000 workers directly employed in the coalmining industry, and I'm incredibly proud of that. This bill will mean these workers in my electorate can have certainty that they will be getting the same pay for the same job with the work they do.</para>
<para>This is a critical feature, because the cancer of misused labour hire has infected my region most grossly. I have coalminers working in coalmines in the Hunter Valley, where, if you're directly employed by the company, you've negotiated an enterprise agreement and you will be on good wages and conditions. You have to work very hard to earn that pay, usually rotating 24/7 shifts, and I've seen many coalminers not have a Christmas with their family for a long time. But they're fairly remunerated for that. But working alongside them, doing the same jobs, are coalminers employed by a labour hire company, being paid as little as one-third as much as that coalminer directly employed. Those workers on labour hire aren't brought in as a surge workforce. They're not brought in for temporary, specialised, technical jobs. They are brought in to be production workers, employed by a labour hire company, with a sole purpose: undermining the enterprise agreement. That is what that does. That is not what labour hire should be for. It is destroying wages and conditions in the mining industry. It is meaning workers in my electorate can't take holidays, can't pay their mortgages, can't give their kids the best start in life. That's what this does. This bill deals with preventing those labour hire loopholes that are there to destroy wages and conditions. I think every fair-minded Australian would agree that, if workers do the same job, they should get the same pay. That is a critical element of the bill, and that's why I'm so proud of this legislation.</para>
<para>Another element of the legislation I'm so proud of is the parts of the bill that criminalise industrial manslaughter. Many people across the Hunter region will know of the tragic death of Charlestown resident Mmalerato 'Mallis' Harrison at Woolworths Jesmond in November last year. Mallis was employed by a contracted cleaning company at the Woolworths store and was crushed against a wall by the floor-cleaning machine. On a Saturday recently, it was revealed by the <inline font-style="italic">Newcastle Herald </inline>that Mallis and other employees had consistently raised safety concerns about the equipment and were even told by the employer at the cleaning company that they 'should practise it more'. SafeWork NSW is quite rightly still investigating this tragic incident, but, as Mallis's husband, Glenn Harrison, told the <inline font-style="italic">Newcastle Herald</inline>:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Every single worker in the country deserves to feel safe at work, and to go home to be with their family at the end of every shift.</para></quote>
<para>Mr Harrison is absolutely right. This is a tragic incident that should never have occurred. To Mr Harrison, I'm so sorry, and, to Mallis's family and friends, I pass on my condolences.</para>
<para>Safety at work is a fundamental right, and we should have penalties for employers who breach work health and safety that are serious and proportionate to act as a deterrent and to keep workers safe. The government stands with Glenn and with every family that has had the tragic news that a loved one won't be coming home from a shift. While this bill cannot bring back those loved ones, it will help to ensure this doesn't happen to more families. On Sunday I was at the miners memorial in Cessnock, which records the almost 2,000 names of coalminers who have died at work, with ages ranging from as young as 11 to ages in the 80s. Every worker has the right to go to work and return home safely.</para>
<para>In addition to promoting workplace safety, the bill will also criminalise wage theft. As we know, if a worker steals from the till, it is a criminal offence. Yet in many parts of Australia, if an employer steals from your pay packet, it's not a crime. This isn't just bad for workers; it's bad for businesses, because good businesses that follow the law and pay their workers are having to compete with dodgy businesses that have an unfair advantage by deliberately underpaying workers. Theft is theft. If an employer intentionally steals from their workers, they should face criminal penalties.</para>
<para>Those opposite spent a decade in government and did nothing to stop the epidemic that is wage theft. The Liberals and Nationals had to be dragged kicking and screaming to even acknowledge that wage theft is a problem. Eventually the Liberals and Nationals introduced some half-hearted legislation, but then they voted against it in the Senate. They voted against their own legislation. It beggars belief that this is the same tired, old Liberal Party tearing up their own draft legislation because they couldn't get enough support to sneak in more cuts to workers' pay and conditions in other ways. Workers cannot trust the Liberal Party to look after their pay and conditions, and nothing demonstrates that more than this incident. They had stagnant wages as a deliberate design feature of their economic policy and failed to crack down on wage theft because they couldn't sneak through measures to cut workers' pay and conditions in other ways. Workers know that only the Labor Party can be trusted to get on with the job of getting wages moving again and cracking down on wage thieves.</para>
<para>The third key element of this bill seeks to close the loophole that leaves people classified as casuals when they are actually working permanent, regular hours. These workers are usually working similar hours to permanent workers but not getting any of the benefits of job security. This bill aims to strengthen the pathway to permanent work for casuals who want it. Importantly, this bill doesn't force anybody to convert to permanent work. With this change, it is expected that around 263,900 casual workers in New South Wales alone will be eligible for greater access to leave entitlements and more financial security should they wish to be. Further, following extensive consultation with the business community and unions, small businesses will continue to be exempt from the obligation and employees will retain the residual right to request conversion that is available to all employees. This is in line with what unions and businesses advocated for. By implementing this change the Albanese government is standing up for casual workers who want to become permanent employees.</para>
<para>The last key element of this suite of reforms is changing the power of the Fair Work Commission to allow it to better protect people in new forms of work, often called the 'gig economy', from exploitation. I want to be clear: this bill is not about turning people into employees when they don't want to be. Many gig workers I speak to across the Shortland electorate prefer the flexibility offered by app technology. But what we need to do is ensure that 21st technologies of the gig economy don't have 19th century working conditions. Currently employee-like workers performing through digital platforms are often engaged as independent contractors, meaning they are not able to receive rights and entitlements under the Fair Work Act. Inquiry after inquiry has demonstrated that some of these workers are receiving less pay than they otherwise would if paid under the award safety net and don't have any protection should they lose their work unfairly. This measure will give the Fair Work Commission a new power to set minimum standards for employee-like workers performing through digital platforms. These new minimum standards are expected to impact an estimated 231,700 digital platform workers in New South Wales alone. Just because you are engaged in the gig economy does not mean you should be paid less than if you are an employee, nor should we become a nation where workers have to rely on a tip just to get by.</para>
<para>In summary, the changes set out in this bill will strengthen the current workplace relations framework. Australians can breathe a sigh of relief that they no longer have a government that keeps wages low deliberately and fails to act to protect their rights at work. The Albanese Labor government was elected to get wages moving again and to ensure that workers aren't being exploited. By closing down the loopholes that are undermining workers' wages and conditions, we are doing just that. I thank the minister for introducing this bill. I am proud to be supporting it in this place.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:09</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BROADBENT</name>
    <name.id>MT4</name.id>
    <electorate>Monash</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>As I begin my remarks on the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes) Bill 2023 I will say to the member for Shortland, Mr Conroy, that he said the employer said, 'I don't want to give you the leave entitlement.' That's actually not true, because, when you're casual, you get paid all of your entitlements as part of your agreement, which you know very well. So please don't make remarks to the parliament that leave people in a place where they believe something that is not true.</para>
<para>Even under a Labor government, our own Commonwealth car drivers moved from being full-time drivers to casual drivers. Why? Because it suits them to be casual drivers. It means they can say at any time, 'I'm not available in the next two weeks. I'm off with my partner'—or 'my wife'—'to do something else.' There are people that choose to be paid as casuals.</para>
<para>When as an employer I had casual employees, they were paid at least a third more than my permanent employees because all the entitlements that are due to them are paid in their hourly rate. For their hourly rate, I had the federal award when I dealt with my staff, but we always paid over the federal award. Why did we pay over the federal award? Because we had good staff and we wanted to keep them. And I never wanted to be in a position where someone said, 'You underpaid me.' So the casual employees always received at least a third, if not more, more than the full-time employees.</para>
<para>Then the minister mentioned wage theft. Most of the wages infringements that have been found—big organisations like banks had underpaid and other organisations had underpaid—weren't by intention; it was by misreading the law of the land at the time in regard to industrial relations. It wasn't at any stage their intention. Now, there are unscrupulous employers and there are unscrupulous employees. This is the world we live in. However, for all of the employers that I remember dealing with, their most precious commodity was their employees. Not only would they pay them correctly but they would also be generous with bonuses around Christmas time.</para>
<para>In my industry, which was a small business, under the federal award when an employee went on holidays they got a 17½ per cent loading—to go on holidays. You get paid 17½ per cent more for your four weeks of holiday a year. I don't think that happens to you, Mr Deputy Speaker Vasta, because I know you don't get a holiday.</para>
<para>I'd say closing loopholes and digging potholes would be my framework for this bill. The Fair Work legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes) Bill 2023 is a perplexing, complex and unwieldy document that will not improve the common good. I repeat that: it will not improve the common good. On the contrary, it will reduce productivity and thereby cause hardship to many small-business owners and workers in the community; and it will shift power to unions who seek to control those who are part of the gig economy, which they have no claim on today. The bill might more accurately be called the 'Fair work legislation amendment (digging potholes) bill'.</para>
<para>Writing in the <inline font-style="italic">Australian</inline> this week, Robert Gottliebsen, who I've got a lot of time for, talks about the practical effects of the bill. He writes:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The operations of every enterprise in Australia ranging from the local gardener or plumber to BHP and the Commonwealth Bank will be caught in the incredible ramifications of the 784-page industrial relations legislation including the 500 pages of explanatory memorandum.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Given the complexity and the total powers being awarded to the minister and Fair Work Australia, no enterprise whether they be big or small will have any certainty as to whether they are obeying or breaking the law.</para></quote>
<para>He also said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">And if they find that, unintentionally, they have broken these incredibly complex laws, they may suffer enormous penalties.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">An accurate analogy can be applied to the roads. Imagine if, the road regulators quadruple penalties for speeding and then erect multiple speed restriction signs along those roads and cover each one with a hessian bag.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">You drive along the road completely unaware as to whether you have broken the law, but still facing huge penalties.</para></quote>
<para>They were his words.</para>
<para>The bill is anti productivity at a time when we need a productivity boost in this nation. In an address to the parliament yesterday, the member for Mitchell said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">When we look through the schedules of this bill and the explanatory memorandum of 500 pages, we learn even more about what the minister and the government are proposing, and it is perhaps the single greatest anti-productivity industrial relations bill in our nation's history. It is the word that cannot be mentioned by the Labor Party, productivity, and while they talk about pushing up wages, wages have to come with productivity or they are simply cost increases for consumers. That's what we're seeing in our economy, and that's what we see with this legislation …</para></quote>
<para>I wholeheartedly agree with the member for Mitchell in his conclusion that, if this bill becomes law, there will be an increase in the cost of labour without even a thought about the anti-productivity measures that are contained within the bill.</para>
<para>Let's turn to the gig economy and the $9 billion cost. This bill is against those who work in the gig economy. I'll quote the member for Mitchell again—it was quite an impressive speech, I thought. He said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">… gig platforms mean people can create their own businesses faster, can do their own types of work faster and can provide their own benefits and set their own terms and conditions—</para></quote>
<para>Not a bad job—</para>
<quote><para class="block">They're doing it without the need for the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations to be involved. They don't need the government to be involved in this part. We have a huge industrial relations framework in this country that provides all the minimum protections—</para></quote>
<para>That's true—</para>
<quote><para class="block">We are one of the most regulated industrial markets in the world. We are the highest wage jurisdiction in the world, and yet the government says they want to artificially put up the prices. That's the reason in this legislation when we see the attached costs at $9 billion in the government's own costings. I don't believe that's correct—</para></quote>
<para>That's the $9 billion—</para>
<quote><para class="block">and industry is telling us that these costs are conservative because they don't model the changes to independent contractors and other forms of work that the government is proposing in the bill.</para></quote>
<para>The minister should be acutely aware that we are in the midst of a cost-of-living crisis. I think there is consensus that our common good depends on productivity improving, and yet we have zero productivity growth.</para>
<para>What does the additional $9 billion in cost due to the bill mean for the community? What does it mean for those struggling with mortgages and high rents? It means an additional, unnecessary cost that will be passed on to consumers. Goods and services will become more expensive. Productivity will not increase; rather, it will decline. You could not think of a worse thing to do at a worse time for the Australian economy for our future productivity and employment. Not one in the electorate of Monash will thank you for this legislation. The minister has said that the bill will result in only $9 billion in costs—his own words—but the truth is that this could be twice or three times that amount. Astonishingly, the government did not even model the cost of changes in many parts of the bill. Why not do this? Perhaps the government just doesn't care about independent contractors, who are so important to our economy.</para>
<para>Casuals are a good thing for people who like to take them on. People want to be casual because it's a means of increasing their income. On that subject, the member for Mitchell said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That's the truth, and the minister has to acknowledge that. He says, 'I know most people won't take up these things, so there is no problem.' But why change it if it isn't a big problem? Why at six months should you factor in 11 factors—four sections and seven subsections in this legislation—for something that isn't a big problem for most of the workforce? People are going to benefit. They want to be casuals because they want higher rates of pay—</para></quote>
<para>Correct—</para>
<quote><para class="block">The minister knows this, but he acts as if it is a major loophole. He knows it isn't a major loophole. He knows that a fraction of the problem here doesn't warrant the solution he has provided. Again, the agenda is very different.</para></quote>
<para>Big business organisations and small business organisations are sounding a warning to the minister and the government, who claim that small business is exempt from the bill, but this is not accurate. Many of the provisions in this bill are against increasing productivity. The bill won't close loopholes. It will dig potholes on the road. It won't improve the common good.</para>
<para>Yesterday the member for Mitchell said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The truth of this bill is that unions are under threat by modern workplaces, and they're unable to gain the cachet they need in the workplaces, and therefore the government, in a whole range of sectors, are going to smash through what they describe as loopholes …</para></quote>
<para>He also said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">There is a real sense here that the Labor Party is actually being the conservative party. They want to take our industrial relations framework back to the 19th and 18th centuries. They want to have the contest between capital and labour that Karl Marx spoke about.</para></quote>
<para>Of course, it was another famous Marx—Groucho Marx—who said, 'Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.' This is perhaps a good analysis of what is happening with the proponents of the closing loopholes bill. The member for Mitchell continues:</para>
<quote><para class="block">We have new emerging forms of employment, labour and industrial relations that need new frameworks—frameworks that recognise productivity, frameworks that take the opportunity of these new innovations and don't try to shut them down or feel threatened by them because of power based erosion in the union movement but actually recognise that new generations want new and different ways of working and that they should be available for people in new and different contracts.</para></quote>
<para>In the <inline font-style="italic">Australian</inline> article yesterday, Robert Gottliebsen observed:</para>
<quote><para class="block">To their great credit, the independents have refused to rush the legislation through the upper house and have delegated it to a parliamentary committee which means there will be more time to expose the damage it will create.</para></quote>
<para>The Senate Education and Employment Legislation Committee will conduct a public inquiry and will report on February 1 2024. I note that Paul Karp in the <inline font-style="italic">Guardian</inline> says Senator Pocock has already suggested some views about breaking up the bill so some parts could be passed this year.</para>
<quote><para class="block">Pocock wants to deal with several parts this year, including: banning discrimination against employees experiencing family and domestic violence; the workers' compensation change; and provisions criminalising wage theft.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">While employers may not agree with every item on the list, the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry (Acci), AiGroup, Minerals Council and Master Builders agree in principle with splitting the bill, allowing the discrimination and workers compensation law changes to be dealt with immediately.</para></quote>
<para>I end with a paraphrase of Robert Gottliebsen's article in the Australian yesterday. He says the Treasurer keeps expressing optimism about productivity and the future of the nation and continues:</para>
<quote><para class="block">But he has been completely gazumped by the Employment Minister who masks his massive legislative agenda with irrelevancies like paying a little more for pizzas.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">I invite the Treasurer to take a day off and sit down with those 784 pages and try and understand what on earth it all means for someone trying to conduct an enterprise.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Maybe all ALP politicians should circulate the 784 pages among the small enterprises in their electorate so they "understand" the new rules that are to govern them.</para></quote>
<para>This is 784 pages of new rules that will only offend the running of your business. We oppose this legislation for very good reason.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:24</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms ROBERTS</name>
    <name.id>157125</name.id>
    <electorate>Pearce</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>It gives me a great deal of pleasure to rise and speak on this important legislation, the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes) Bill 2023. The bill would amend the Fair Work Act 2009 and related legislation to close loopholes to protect Australian workers and strengthen the work health and safety framework. It is also important to know that the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes) Bill is compatible with the human rights and freedoms recognised or declared in the international instruments listed in section 3 of the Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Act 2011.</para>
<para>This bill delivers on key commitments made in the lead-up to the last federal election to deliver fairer, safer workplaces while also providing employers with clarity when it comes to the treatment of workers and contractors. This bill represents a significant step towards creating a fair and equitable working environment for all Australians. It addresses several critical issues in our labour laws and closes the loopholes that have long undermined the rights and wellbeing of too many workers.</para>
<para>Firstly, let us acknowledge that the Australian workforce is the backbone of our nation. It is imperative that our labour laws reflect the values of fairness, safety and honesty. However, unfortunately, various loopholes have emerged over time, creating opportunities for exploitation and injustice. The Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes) Bill 2023 aims to rectify these issues and strengthen the rights and protections for workers, improving job security by replacing the existing definition of 'casual employee' with a fair and objective definition and by introducing a new employee pathway of choice for eligible employees to change to permanent employment if they wish to do so, which is a step in the right direction.</para>
<para>One of the primary concerns addressed by this bill is the exploitation of workers employed in the gig economy and the misclassification of workers as independent contractors rather than employees. This misclassification has allowed many employers to avoid providing benefits such as minimum wage, superannuation and paid leave. This bill clarifies and tightens the definition of an employee, ensuring that those entitled to these benefits receive them regardless of their job arrangement. Closing this particular loophole will provide many families in my electorate of Pearce with the employment certainty that they deserve and that they need.</para>
<para>As of August 2022, almost 19 per cent of workers within Pearce were working in insecure, casual work with no sick leave and no minimum wage. Those workers are some of the most vulnerable in our economy, often working in the care sector or the gig economy, feeding their families from the money they earn from platforms like Mable and Uber Eats. To reiterate: part 1 of schedule 1 of the bill would amend existing section 15A of the Fair Work Act to implement an objective definition of 'casual employee' to determine when an employee can be classified as a casual employee. The new definition would be considered by the presence or absence of a firm advanced commitment to continuing and indefinite work to be assessed against several factors, and the practical reality and true nature of the employment relationship.</para>
<para>The bill would also amend the National Employment Standards at part 2-2 of the Fair Work Act to provide casual employees with two pathways to change their employment status: by exercising a choice via a new notification procedure or through the existing casual conversion procedure. The amendments would also establish a new framework for dealing with disputes about employment status.</para>
<para>The bill also responds to the findings of the review of the Fair Work Amendment (Supporting Australia's Jobs and Economic Recovery) Act 2021 statutory review by: strengthening the existing dispute resolution framework in the Fair Work Act, including by allowing the Fair Work Commission to determine, by mandatory arbitration, whether an employer had reasonable grounds to refuse to make an offer or decline a request for casual conversion; introducing new civil remedy provisions prohibiting employers from misrepresenting employment as casual employment; making misrepresentations to engage an employee as a casual employee and dismissing an employee to re-engage them as a casual employee in certain circumstances; and requiring employers to provide the casual employment information statement to casual employees at the start of their employment under 12 months.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>ADJOURNMENT</title>
        <page.no>112</page.no>
        <type>ADJOURNMENT</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Rural and Regional Health Services</title>
          <page.no>112</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:30</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms LANDRY</name>
    <name.id>249764</name.id>
    <electorate>Capricornia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Australians who live in regional, rural and remote areas have poorer access to health care yet have higher reported rates of chronic diseases, diabetes, obesity, high blood pressure and mental health problems. There is also a higher incidence of low birth weight babies and poor antenatal and postnatal health. Whilst Australia has plenty of doctors, most work in metropolitan areas, at a ratio of 4.3 doctors per 1,000 people. Yet those who live in regional and remote areas only have access to 2.7 doctors per 1,000 people. My electorate of Capricornia is no exception to this trend. This region, like so many others, is under extreme pressure from lack of doctors, with waiting lists for general practitioners and specialist doctors growing increasingly worse month after month.</para>
<para>Three hundred and eighty kilometres to the west of Rockhampton is the rural town of Clermont. The community of Clermont has a population of 3,000 and the highest-aged population per capita in Australia. This community is experiencing one of the most acute doctor shortages seen anywhere in the country. Up until recently Clermont had one GP to look after quite a few thousand locals. Dr Sarah McLay worked tirelessly, seven days a week, to take care of the community she loved. Her struggle to find a second doctor to ease her burden came to dead ends at every turn. The former coalition government funded a $500,000 recruitment package to encourage a doctor to practice rurally and ease the pressure on the remote health system.</para>
<para>The health outcomes for those living in remote Capricornia have never been more dire. Rockhampton and Capricorn Coast locals are also feeling the pressure of the regional doctor shortage, with many waiting weeks to see their GP. This region has a population over 104,000. It is shameful that the level of doctors is so low. The local Rockhampton Hospital emergency department has now become the last choice for people who are not able to get into a GP, further compounding the ramping issues currently being experienced.</para>
<para>It is not just general practice doctor shortages our region is experiencing but also access to specialist doctors. Rockhampton Hospital provides medical services through the public system for over 230,000 people in Central Queensland and is the main referral hospital for this area. The sheer number of people requiring access to health services is drowning the hospital doctors in work. One constituent reported to me she waited over 300 days to see a rheumatology specialist and suffered with pain while waiting for treatment. Another had her hip replacement surgery cancelled three times; once on the day of the surgery due to the anaesthetist being unavailable that day and having no replacement. The number of anaesthetists in the Rockhampton region is at dangerously low levels, and people are waiting up to a year for surgery.</para>
<para>On 21 July Labor inflicted further pressure on the struggling regional health system by expanding the automatic distribution priority area classification with immediate effect. As a result of Labor's distribution priority area changes, outer metropolitan suburbs have the same workforce priority status as rural and remote parts of Australia. The changes this government has made to the distribution priority areas have allowed international medical graduates to work in the peri-urban areas with the same incentives as if they were working in regional or remote locations. This bad policy change has directed doctors away from the areas in critical need. As a result of Labor's decision to expand the areas of MM2 and some MM1 classification, it is pulling doctors away from rural communities who desperately need medical services. These changes have made it harder for those living in regional, regional and remote areas to find a doctor, and it is making it less attractive to encourage a tree change in regional Australia.</para>
<para>Labor's city-centric policies are pushing the divide between city and country even wider. By giving everyone access to the distribution priority area tool, it has completely undermined its effectiveness as a workforce distribution measure and has made it harder for areas with lower access to GP services to recruit and retain the doctors that they need. The distribution priority area classification was created in 2019 to give areas in genuine need of assistance another tool to help recruit more GPs from a finite pool of overseas trained doctors. In one flick of the pen, this government is bleeding the regions dry of much needed doctors. A policy focus on training new doctors in the regions and incentivising working in these communities is what regional Australia needs. The longer this government drags its feet on regional health policies, the worse the health outcomes are for the 28 per cent of the population who live in regional, rural or remote Australia.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Aboriginal And Torres Strait Islander Voice</title>
          <page.no>113</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:34</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms COKER</name>
    <name.id>263547</name.id>
    <electorate>Corangamite</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Support for an Indigenous voice to parliament has grown into a powerful movement of over 30,000 volunteers. It is one of the fastest-growing grassroots movements our nation has ever seen. This weekend 'yes' supporters will be turning out in droves across the country to walk in support of the Voice. This Sunday, in my own electorate of Corangamite, I will join First Nations people, business owners and community members from across Geelong and Victoria to walk the Barwon Heads bridge. This will be an opportunity for our community to come together and show we recognise 65,000 years of continuous Indigenous culture, to unite with others from across the state to express support for a voice to parliament and to join a nationwide movement and show our commitment for a 'yes' vote in the referendum.</para>
<para>On 14 October every Australian will have a once-in-a-generation chance to bring our country together and change it for the better. Many Australians want to vote yes so that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians are recognised in the Constitution and can give advice to government on the significant issues affecting their lives because we know that at the moment a young Indigenous man is more likely to go to jail than to university, and we know that a young Indigenous woman is more likely to lose a child in childbirth compared to a young non-Indigenous woman. These statistics are horrendous. Closing the gap is not working when it comes to education, housing and health outcomes for our First Nations Australians, and that's why our First Nations leaders from across the country have invited all of us, through the Uluru Statement from the Heart, to walk united to enable practical and lasting change that will improve the lives of First Nations people.</para>
<para>This is an offer supported by more than 80 per cent of First Nations Australians. Despite this, many of those opposite and those from the 'no' campaign have set out to undermine the offer made and supported by First Nations people. Yesterday, the front page of the <inline font-style="italic">Sy</inline><inline font-style="italic">dney Morning Herald</inline> and the <inline font-style="italic">Age</inline> spelt out the dishonest strategy of the 'no' campaign. It reported that 'no' campaigners were being directed to pretend to care and to impersonate a concerned Australian while doing everything possible to sow fear and doubt. Volunteers were told to avoid the facts and, unbelievably, that they shouldn't identify themselves as 'no' vote campaigners. This is fearmongering, this is dishonest and this is disgraceful, even for Advance Australia, which is not surprisingly driven by former Liberal Prime Minister Anthony Abbott.</para>
<para>Yesterday our Prime Minister stood in this chamber and called out 'no' campaign misinformation. He read the following:</para>
<quote><para class="block">'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 …'</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">…   …   …</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">'… the United Nations will own all Australian land.'</para></quote>
<para>This is sheer absurdity. It is untrue and it is deceitful. Nowhere in the Solicitor-General's advice, nor in the design principles for the Voice, has there been any reference to a UN takeover of Australia. It is laughable.</para>
<para>As the Prime Minister, the Attorney-General and the Minister for Indigenous Australians have all said, the Voice will simply be an advisory body, one that will exist in perpetuity, one that no government can take away with the stroke of a pen. Through this referendum, First Nations people are offering a hand outstretched. It is an act of faith in the Australian sense of decency and fairness from people who have been given every reason to forsake their hope in both. I truly believe that as a nation we will grasp that hand of healing. We will repay that faith, and we will rise to the moment because we are a generous people. We believe in justice and we believe in opportunity for all. By voting yes as a nation, we have absolutely everything to gain and absolutely nothing to lose.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Aboriginal And Torres Strait Islander Voice</title>
          <page.no>114</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:39</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr LEESER</name>
    <name.id>109556</name.id>
    <electorate>Berowra</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>This is a serious time for our country. Australians are facing greater pressure on their lives than ever. Australians are feeling a growing disconnect between their aspirations and the opportunities that they can grasp. Last week, I met with some young people in Adelaide. They were smart, undertaking study and had the world at their feet, but they reminded me that, while there is no shortage of jobs, well-paying jobs are getting harder to find. The economic pressure is felt by young and old alike.</para>
<para>I received an email yesterday from a constituent named Les. He's a retiree. He wrote:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Today I filled up at the pump and paid $2.28 a litre for unleaded. Premium was over $2.50.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">I got a script at the chemist on Saturday and it had gone up by 18% compared with what I paid a month ago.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">I was told I was not entitled to this new 2 for 1 script pricing arrangement because I wasn't a cardholder and in any event you had to spend a minimum of $30. When I said to the chemist that's the first time I have heard that he said it had been miscommunicated by the government.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Our power bill has gone up 30% this year. Where is our $275 rebate that Albo promised.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">And if you do the shopping like me every week, grocery items are increasing. So the staple loaf of bread has gone from $2.50 to $2.70 in the last 3 months.</para></quote>
<para>Les, like so many people in my community, is struggling. I have made several speeches on the cost-of-living challenges being faced by the Australian community.</para>
<para>Les then questioned why I was advocating for the Voice when so many Australians are hurting—surely I have better priorities? It's a legitimate question to ask. I think many Australians are asking why we should vote 'yes' in this referendum while the economy is so tight. For me, my response starts with my values. As a Liberal, I believe in opportunity, in creating settings where people have opportunity. I want to give people more choices and more opportunities to take risks and succeed. As a conservative, I believe that the strength of countries is found in the bonds between us all. It's found in citizens feeling connected to their country, their neighbours and their culture.</para>
<para>My concern as a Liberal is that Indigenous Australians are not sharing in this country's opportunities. It's the opportunities that come from growing up in a peaceful and secure home where taps work, where there is food in the kitchen and that is free of alcohol abuse and violence. It's being able to concentrate in school because you have good hearing and eyesight and because you are not hungry and sleepy because you were out on the street because home felt unsafe. It's having good health and being free of diseases, such as rheumatic heart disease, a childhood disease prevalent in northern Australia which means you will most likely die by middle age. It's having the economic and social opportunities that come from having an income and a job. Paul Kelly, the songwriter, wrote, 'How long can we keep walking with this stone in our shoe?'</para>
<para>I believe the disconnect between Indigenous communities and Canberra is the root cause of the economic disconnection in Indigenous communities and the lives of Indigenous people. In our country, the Indigenous employment rate is around 49 per cent. This compares to 75 per cent for non-Indigenous Australians. In terms of household income, the latest data from the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare has found 43 per cent of Indigenous adults receive a total weekly pre-tax income of $500 a week or less. The poverty line is $489 a week for a single person. Almost one in two Indigenous Australians live on the poverty line.</para>
<para>Closing the gap means creating economic opportunity. It is about jobs, not welfare. It is about universities, not prisons. This referendum is about the Voice. It is also about empowerment, respect and the strengthening of Indigenous civic infrastructure all within our democratic system. These are deeply Liberal and conservative ideas.</para>
<para>Les's email reminded me about where I started this year. It was at the Young Liberal National Convention, and I spoke about the Voice and also about empathy. We often think about empathy as identifying with people who are just like us. But, without an understanding of and a reckoning with difference, that's not true empathy. Empathy is bigger. It's not about accepting and embracing people because we can see ourselves in them; it's about standing with people and their right to dignity, freedom and self-expression when we can't see the similarities.</para>
<para>Les is right: Australians in our suburbs are feeling great pressures. These are pressures that the government has to work harder to alleviate. This reform, however, is an opportunity to take pressure off the federal budget. It's an opportunity to ensure we get better value for taxpayer dollars spent on Indigenous affairs, where we have too little to show for our efforts. So I want to invite all Australians to lift up their eyes and, despite their own challenges, see the gap that doesn't close. The Voice isn't about special treatment or privileges. It's simply about trying to get Indigenous Australians to the same starting line that other Australians are at. This is a moment of empathy. It's a moment of shared understanding and a moment of consequence. It's a moment I hope we seize.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Veterans</title>
          <page.no>115</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:45</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms THWAITES</name>
    <name.id>282212</name.id>
    <electorate>Jagajaga</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Tonight I want to talk about the work our government is doing to support veterans. It is very important work. As someone who is privileged to represent a community with many serving personnel, at the Simpson Barracks, as well as many veterans, and as someone who comes from a family with veterans—my grandfather served in World War II; my brother served in Afghanistan—this is something I feel, at both a community and a personal level, is so important. I have a keen interest in ensuring our government do everything we can to support veterans.</para>
<para>I recently welcomed the Minister for Veterans' Affairs to Jagajaga to visit with our local veterans and to see the services that we have in and around the Heidelberg Repat. The minister and I started with a meeting with representatives from all five of our local RSLs. I want to say a huge thankyou to all of our local RSLs for the work they do supporting veterans locally and the work they do more broadly in the community. I know the minister and I both found it very useful to have all these local RSLs together in the one room to hear about their on-the-ground experiences. My thanks to Bill Wyndham and Phil Peirce from Watsonia RSL; Andrew Hall from Montmorency-Eltham RSL; Dal Crocker and Mal Davis from Greensborough RSL; Lyn Gould and Julie Staples from RSL on Bell in Heidelberg West; and Dino De Marchi and Flo Jennings from Ivanhoe RSL. They are all wonderful people doing great things. It was really important to have you all there together for the discussion.</para>
<para>This was also a chance for the minister to tell these people from my local RSLs about some of the work our government is doing to try to better support veterans and their families, starting with the essential work of reducing the backlog of claims that has been sitting with the Department of Veterans' Affairs. Since coming to government, I am pleased to say, we've taken this backlog down from 45,000 to 30,000. We've brought on hundreds of additional staff to address the backlog, and we are on track to get through that next year. Beyond that, we have put a number of initiatives in place, like the skills recognition program that translates military training to civilian qualifications, helping ADF personnel have a smoother transition to civilian life, providing coaching, individualised support and improvements around housing and health that will make it easier for veterans to adapt to life beyond their military service. This is so important.</para>
<para>Only a week before the minister and I visited the Repat, the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide was also there. The royal commission's work is very serious, and the government is taking it seriously. We have taken action on every recommendation from the interim report. We've been very clear that we know there needs to be cultural change, that veterans and their loved ones, now and into the future, cannot afford for the status quo to continue. We're supporting the royal commission as they work through 600 private hearings before the inquiry wraps up mid next year, including through providing greater flexibility with the use of private sessions. If you do want to make a submission to the royal commission and you haven't yet done so, you have until Friday 13 October. The experiences of veterans, your experiences, are so important, and I know that those submissions are really helping to inform the work the commission is doing.</para>
<para>After we met with our local RSLs, I was pleased to take the minister on a tour of Ward 17. Ward 17 is Austin Health's dedicated mental health ward for veterans and for others such as first responders. It's famous nationally for the very important work it does for people who need support there. Speaking to veterans and advocates, I know that Ward 17 is regarded as an essential asset in how we support veterans at their time of greatest need. It was important for the minister and I to get a briefing from Austin staff about the work they do and the model of care they have in place there and how this links to the other services in our local area as well as services around the country.</para>
<para>We also had the opportunity to visit Vasey RSL Care, who have just started construction on their new V Centre project, which will support veterans at risk of homelessness. We have a precinct in my local community with a number of services providing vital support to veterans. I'm really pleased to support all of their work, and I thank them for all the work that they do locally and for veterans from around our state and around our country.</para>
<para>I also want to highlight one very special man, Robert Winther OAM, who is the veteran liaison officer at Austin Health. Rob is, quite simply, a legend. He is universally loved. He is unmatched in his dedication to his work supporting veterans. This is his 57th year with Austin Health—a truly amazing contribution. He was very helpful in pulling together the logistics for this minister visit, but more broadly he is such a special part of our community. Thank you, Rob, for all you do and continue to do.</para>
<para>I will continue to stand up to make sure that we are supporting veterans, and I know our government will continue to do so.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Newton Moore Education Support Centre</title>
          <page.no>116</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:50</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mrs MARINO</name>
    <name.id>HWP</name.id>
    <electorate>Forrest</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I am so proud of the work done by the Newton Moore Education Support Centre. Newton Moore is a school for high school aged students of all abilities in Bunbury; however, the school goes above and beyond to provide students with special needs and learning difficulties the support, resources and strategies they need to achieve their very best in all aspects of their education and in life. The school's success can't be attributed to just one thing alone, but its use of a positive behaviour support framework is a significant factor. It's their whole-of-school framework where the school is proactive in teaching good behaviour through direct instruction; where school staff put a significant focus into making students aware of their feelings and emotions, which in turn helps students to self-regulate their behaviour; and where the school uses restorative practices to support students when they have problems and are in need of extra support.</para>
<para>The education support centre has a cohort of 70 students and shares the campus with Newton Moore Senior High School, a school which has a strong focus on inclusion not only within the school but also within the local businesses and community organisations. It's these relationships that enable the education support centre's upper school aged students to engage in a wide range of work experience programs throughout Bunbury, with placements available in construction, engineering, automotive, retail and administration. The focus on maintaining these strong relationships facilitates the very best outcomes for students and is another reason why the school has been so successful. It's a testament not only to the school but also to the Bunbury business community. I have also had the privilege of hosting several Newton Moore Education Support Centre work experience students in my electorate office over the years. I continue to be impressed by the work ethic, resilience and focus of these great young people. The students are so enthusiastic, happy to be in our office, get in, do their best, get the job done and develop wonderful relationships with my staff. It really is a tribute to the students and their support staff.</para>
<para>The school also offers a range of in-house workplace learning centres. The centres nurture students' skills and confidence to achieve success no matter their level of ability. The work centres include an off-campus workshop where students work to complete a Certificate I in Manufacturing. Throughout the term, students help design and manufacture furniture, toys and artwork which is then sold in the school's standalone shop in Bunbury CBD called Item. Item itself is a workplace learning centre, teaching students about retail and administration. They also manufacture craft items that are for sale in the store as they work towards that Certificate I in Workplace Skills and Retail. The store offers amazing products with a focus on customer engagement, and is a must-visit. Finally, the work crew program offers students hands-on experience in landscaping and gardening, with students working towards a Certificate I in Agrifood Operations. They ensure that all equipment is well maintained and ready to use and that jobs are completed in a safe and timely way to the standard of the quality expected.</para>
<para>Earlier this year, I was lucky enough to visit the centre's positive behaviour support big breakfast day—a fantastic day with so many happy, smiling faces of students, staff and special guests. This shows the positive behaviour support framework that is at this school. More recently, last month the school hold a whole-of-school expo, showcasing the amazing work of the students across all facets of their curriculum. The students are the focus of the day; they help teachers and support staff show off their exhibits to parents, caregivers, family and local businesses. Whilst the upper school focuses on the work experience program, seeing the students' faces light up when talking about their schoolwork, the work crew, retail and work experience, and even seeing students take ownership of the products manufactured, is really inspiring.</para>
<para>Every time I get to visit the campus and meet the students and staff, I see why the school achieves such amazing results. I find that it isn't just a single program or teacher; it's the culture—a culture where students are enabled, emboldened and encouraged to break down barriers and achieve what they set their minds to; a culture under the leadership of principal Jo Van Der and her team, with the support of dedicated staff who put their students first. I just want them to keep up that fantastic work at Newton Moore Education Support Centre, offering these young people a wonderful future.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Well said, Member for Forrest. I give the call to the honourable member for Chisholm.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Workplace Relations</title>
          <page.no>117</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:55</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr GARLAND</name>
    <name.id>295588</name.id>
    <electorate>Chisholm</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Next Monday, 18 September, is United Nations International Equal Pay Day, a day that represents our longstanding efforts globally towards the achievements of equal pay for work of equal value. It further builds on the global commitment to human rights and against all forms of discrimination, including discrimination against women and girls.</para>
<para>We know that across all regions of the world it is an unfortunate reality that women are paid less than men. For every dollar, on average, earned by men, women earned 87c. That's $252.30 less than men each week. In the course of one year, this equates to more than $13,100, which is just staggering.</para>
<para>According to the Australian Workplace Gender Equality Agency, the gender pay gap costs of the Australian economy an astonishing $51.8 billion every year. As the Workplace Gender Equality Agency states, 'The dollars and cents represent the value placed on women's skills, labour and time.' Whilst this reality can at face value appear disheartening, of course, data from the ABS shows that the national gender pay gap has in fact dropped from 13.3 per cent in November 2022 to 13 per cent in May this year, the lowest level on record. So we are making progress. And Australia's world gender equality ranking has jumped up 17 places, from 43rd to 26th, the largest increase since the index began in 2006.</para>
<para>It is no surprise that the Albanese Labor Government is getting more Australian women into full-time work than ever before and is playing a really significant role in closing the gender pay gap. Our government's gender equality agenda in jobs and wages is helping thousands more women into work and to earn their full potential. Some quick facts to point out are that, under our government, there are more women in a jobs than before. Women's total employment is up over 180,000 jobs since May last year, when we were first elected. More women are entering the labour force—160,000 more women have joined the labour force since last year in May—and these women are more likely to be upgrading part-time jobs to full-time jobs.</para>
<para>As the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations has previously stated, 'Australian women can see that this is a government pulling every lever it can to close the gender pay gap and improve workplaces for women.' These changes have included amending the law to put gender pay equity at the heart of the Fair Work Commission's decision-making process. As a government we've twice advocated increases to the minimum wage in the government's annual wage review submission. It's really important to note here that many of those workers who are earning the minimum wage are women and that feminised industries tend to earn less, for really valuable work, than male dominated industries. We have backed and funded a significant pay rise for aged-care workers. We have reformed the bargaining system to allow workers in industries like early childhood education a better chance of negotiating workplace agreements and better wages. We have helped to strengthen people's rights to workplace flexibility. We've introduced paid family and domestic violence leave, and, really significantly, this is a form of leave that all workers, including casual workers, are able to access.</para>
<para>The highest number of women in recorded history are in full-time work in this country right now. Female full-time employment currently stands at more than 3,826,900. Women are leading the surge in full-time jobs. Women have accounted for around two-thirds of the growth in full-time jobs since May last year, and this comes off the back of recent Treasury analysis showing that our Labor government has had the strongest start for jobs growth of any new Australian government in history. The Minister for Women has stated:</para>
<quote><para class="block">This is a Government that puts women at the heart of our decision making, which is why in our first year in office we've delivered the biggest investment in women in the last forty years.</para></quote>
<para>And we are the first government in Australia's history whose numbers consist of more than 50 per cent women.</para>
<para>Supporting women to work in decent jobs is the key to women's economic equality, and women's equality isn't just nice to have; it's an economic and social imperative. In marking on Monday UN International Equal Pay Day, it's really important to mark the progress our government has made.</para>
<para>House adjourned at 20:00</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>NOTICES</title>
        <page.no>117</page.no>
        <type>NOTICES</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Presentation</title>
          <page.no>117</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1></debate>
  </chamber.xscript>
  <fedchamb.xscript>
    <business.start>
      <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:WX="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
        <p class="HPS-MCJobDate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
          <span class="HPS-MCJobDate">
            <a href="Federation Chamber" type="">Wednesday, 13 September 2023</a>
          </span>
        </p>
        <p class="HPS-Normal" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
          <span class="HPS-Normal">
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">The </span>
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">DEPUTY SPEAKER </span>
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">(</span>
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">Ms Archer</span>
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">)</span>
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">
            </span>took the chair at 09:29.</span>
        </p>
      </body>
    </business.start>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS</title>
        <page.no>119</page.no>
        <type>CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Climate Change</title>
          <page.no>119</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:30</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms WATSON-BROWN</name>
    <name.id>300127</name.id>
    <electorate>Ryan</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>This summer Australians are set to swelter. This summer—and the next and the next—Australia is about to experience unprecedented climate change induced heatwaves, causing immense pain for people across the whole country. Extreme heat is the biggest killer of climate change, but the government has no plan for it. We're sleepwalking into a disaster, and the Labor government is actively making it worse by opening up new coal and gas.</para>
<para>By 2050, heatwave related deaths are predicted to double in Melbourne and quintuple in Brisbane. People are told to simply keep cool or to go somewhere cool, but, for older or other vulnerable Australians, this simply doesn't cut it. Not everybody is physically able to move to a shopping centre or a library. Turning on the aircon—if they have it—is out of the question for people struggling with their electricity bills, and renters, unable to make even minor modifications to their own homes, cannot improve efficiency by installing insulation or replacing windows.</para>
<para>We need a national heatwave plan. This means urgently updating building codes and planning laws so that all buildings and precincts are heatwave resistant with passive cooling and ventilation, shading, insulation, high-performance windows, renewable energy, and banning black roofs. We also need to retrofit existing homes, including rentals, to meet these standards. The Greens won $1 billion in the federal budget for this, but much more is needed.</para>
<para>People also need support with their energy bills so that they're not having to make the choice between cooling their home or being able to afford the rent, the mortgage or, indeed, food. We need to plant millions of street trees and expand public parkland for cooler cities. We need public heatwave refuges within walking distance of people's homes, airconditioned public libraries and community centres, and public pools. We need early warning systems, like those for fires and floods, and resourcing a mass program of outreach during heatwaves, going door to door to check on and support people in high-risk areas. We need to develop, sector by sector, binding heatwave regulations to protect workers in industries potentially affected by heat.</para>
<para>But, ultimately, no amount of money invested in prevention or disaster response comes close to repairing the damage that this government is doing by continuing to open new coal and gas mines. We are rapidly accelerating climate change and the heatwaves, fires and floods that come with it. Labor cannot claim to be serious about addressing unnatural disasters and heatwaves until they stop making the problem worse by opening new coal and gas.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Heart Health</title>
          <page.no>119</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:32</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms VAMVAKINOU</name>
    <name.id>00AMT</name.id>
    <electorate>Calwell</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>On Monday, the Parliamentary Friends of Heart and Stroke Foundations, together with the Heart Foundation, Stroke Foundation, Sanofi, Bayer and Amgen, hosted the sixth annual heart health day here in Parliament House. I want to thank these organisations for their work in this space and to acknowledge the work of my colleague and fellow co-chair of the Parliamentary Friends of Heart and Stroke Foundations, Senator Wendy Askew, for her ongoing commitment.</para>
<para>As part of heart health check day, blood pressure, blood glucose and cholesterol levels were measured by qualified health professionals. I was encouraged by the large number of my colleagues, including myself, and staff who took the opportunity to see the health professionals and get screened at our annual event. This is something that we all want to see reflected within our own communities as well. Cardiovascular disease is a leading cause of death, causing one in four deaths in Australia. Tragically, one Australian loses their life to heart disease every 30 minutes.</para>
<para>The risk factors for my constituents, in particular, are alarming. They're reflected in a snapshot in our local heart health profile, outlining common heart disease risk factors, hospital admissions and death rates compared to state and national averages. In Calwell, the rate of heart related hospital admissions is 52 per 10,000 persons, which is higher than the national average of 42 per 10,000 persons. Calwell has a heart disease mortality relate of 67 per 100,000 persons, which is higher than the national average of 64 per 100,000 persons.</para>
<para>The prevalence of high blood pressure in my electorate is 24 per cent, which is higher than the national average of 23 per cent, and Calwell has a rate of physical inactivity at seven per cent, which is higher than the national average, which is 66 per cent. The prevalence of smoking in my electorate is 19 per cent, which is higher than the national average of 15 per cent. The prevalence of obesity in my electorate is at 37 per cent, which is higher than the national average of 31 per cent. Yet, as the Heart Foundation outlines, many people may not know their risk of heart disease especially since they often can't feel any risk factors, such as high blood pressure or high cholesterol.</para>
<para>I do encourage members of my community, along with all Australians, to have regular heart health checks with their GPs. These checks help people find out their five-year risk of having a heart attack or stroke and help them learn the steps they need to take to lower their risks. It's an important first step to protecting your heart. The work that's done up here to allow the Heart Foundation and the Stroke Foundation to inform us and keep us abreast of all factors that lead to heart disease is very important both for us and for our constituencies.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Page Electorate: Community Events, Trustum, Mrs Helen Margaret</title>
          <page.no>120</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:35</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr HOGAN</name>
    <name.id>218019</name.id>
    <electorate>Page</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Today, I would like to congratulate students in my community who have competed at the national WorldSkills competition in Melbourne recently. This is Australia's largest vocational education and excellence competition. It takes place every two years and includes more than 500 tradespeople across 60 different skills, competing over three days on a national stage. It is focused on one thing: giving young Australians access to vocational education and training that measures up on the international stage.</para>
<para>Gold medallists from my community were Dylan Cleaver from Forbes Smash Repairs in Grafton and Ryan Fahey from Casino Plumbing. From the national competition, around 20 people will be selected to train for, and compete in, the international competition. We wish Dylan and Ryan all the best with that. Congratulations to silver medallists Kurt Orlanno from Woodrabbit Kitchens and Designer Cabinets in Ballina and Lestatt Hammond from Glenreagh Bakery—a great effort from both of them. Bronze medal winners were Ashton Pullen and Harrison Crawter. Other competitors included Tim Hall, Zachery Cracknell, Libby Watt and Regan Howard. To even qualify for this competition was an amazing achievement. They've all trained very hard to get there as thousands of people from across the country applied to compete. I congratulate you all for the great effort that you've made.</para>
<para>I would like to acknowledge and congratulate the Woolgoolga Seahorses rugby league team, who made history on the weekend with their first-ever grand final win. This was a fantastic outcome for the club and was very well celebrated. Sam Sinclair said the streets of Woolgoolga were empty when the match was on as everyone had turned up for the game. I congratulate the players: Dane O'Hehie, Izack Smith, Shayde Perham, Sione Fangupo—who was named player of the match; congratulations!—Coen Van Dugteren, Reeyce Sadler, Tyler Murden, Bailey Connor, Joel Collinson, Jake Elphik, Cameron Woo, Bradley Colinson, Michael Curnow, Ethan Duncombe, Callan Tapine and Emanual Sutton. And I congratulate Mark Hay and Chris Seymour, who were the water boys. This is a wonderful story, As I said, it has been a long time coming. There's going to be a celebration this Saturday for the Seahorses. Well done, Seahorses!</para>
<para>I would like to pay tribute to Helen Trustum of Bentley, who is stepping down as coordinator of the Bentley Art Prize after 38 years. She started the prize back in 1985, along with the late Reg Hartley, to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the Bentley Community Hall. Over the years, art sales have helped support the maintenance of the hall, as well as raising thousands of dollars for charity. There's a great competition amongst our local region and more widely to win the Bentley. Thank you, Helen, not only for the work that you've done for the Bentley Art Prize but for the wider community work that you've done for many, many decades. I wish you well.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Citizenship</title>
          <page.no>120</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:38</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr WATTS</name>
    <name.id>193430</name.id>
    <electorate>Gellibrand</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Aussies and Kiwis are more than just neighbours; we're family. We share values, and we've shared important culture and history. Despite this close relationship, for years, many of our New Zealand born residents have been able to become Australian citizens. These are people who have come to our country, lived in Australia, started businesses, worked in our companies and paid taxes. They are members of our community—coaches, teammates and volunteers—all of whom have been unable to be recognised as citizens of the country that they contribute to building every day. This was fundamentally unfair: it was un-Australian.</para>
<para>The Albanese Labor government promised that we would fix this inequitable situation, and we have. From 1 July this year eligible people born in New Zealand and living in Australia have had a direct pathway to Australian citizenship. It ended the limbo that many of those born in New Zealand but living in Australia were stuck in—including with their kids—where they were unable to become full members of Australian society and were effectively left as permanently temporary migrants. This policy created a two-tier class of people. It was implemented by the Howard government in 2001. It was wrong, and the Albanese Labor government has put an end to it.</para>
<para>People born in New Zealand are the single largest group of permanently temporary migrants in Australia. Over 300,000 are estimated to be eligible for citizenship under our direct pathway. Over 15,000 people have applied for citizenship under the new rules in the first month alone. My electorate, in Melbourne's west, has one of the lowest proportions of people born in New Zealand with Australian citizenship, at only 18.9 per cent. I've spoken to teachers in Melbourne's west who work with kids born in New Zealand, who told me of the challenges of engaging with these kids when their future pathways as equal members of our society are closed off.</para>
<para>The Albanese government is showing people born in New Zealand in our community the respect that they deserve. It shows them the same respect that Australians living in comparable situations in New Zealand have received. Over the weekend some of the first eligible Kiwis were conferred Australian citizenship at ceremonies across the country—ceremonies like the one organised by Wyndham City Council in my electorate which I attended on Saturday. These ceremonies are always emotional, full of love, pride, laughter and family. It is something that is now open to many more people in our community born in New Zealand. It's a credit to all of those who have fought for fairness and equity, including those champions at Oz Kiwi, who have campaigned long and hard for these changes. I am grateful to have engaged with them over many years. We look forward to welcoming thousands of New Zealanders who have been living here, contributing as Australian citizens.</para>
<para>For many of us not much changed on 1 July of this year, but for some everything changed. These Australians, these Kiwis living in Australia, will now get the rights and the privileges that they have long deserved, and they will know that in future, no matter what happens, they will be able to still call Australia home.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Flinders Electorate: Roads</title>
          <page.no>121</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:41</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms McKENZIE</name>
    <name.id>124514</name.id>
    <electorate>Flinders</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Recently I met with a number of constituents who know all too well the dangers along the Nepean Highway near Mount Martha in the northern part of Flinders. I recently joined David, who lives near Forest Drive, and we took a long walk together, actually over a couple of hours, down to Mount Martha Primary School. We discussed a variety of topics, including road safety.</para>
<para>David is a paramedic. He knows better than most, and perhaps more than he would like to, the impact of road trauma. He has a wise and curious mind and an informed passion for road laws, road design, traffic management, and motorist, motorbike, pushbike and pedestrian safety. One of his questions was about Forest Drive and its intersection with the Nepean Highway. We spoke about the risks associated with the intersection and how these risks increase during busier times like school pick-up and school drop-off, or the anxiety inducing chaos during the peak summer period, when many unfamiliar drivers, indeed learner drivers, explore the glorious Mornington Peninsula.</para>
<para>I also met with Andrew, who lives on Uralla Road. He came into the office with a history of dangerous events just down the road from his house. Andrew is often the first on site when there is an accident—a task he never asked for and one that none of us would ever envy. Andrew hears the screeching tyres. He hears the crunching sound of metal, breaking glass and then, eventually, the whirr overhead of the helicopters coming to collect people who've been in an accident. He has a collection of photographs of the regular aftermath at Uralla Road, and it is a shocking and frustrating set of images—shocking because of the severity of the crashes but also the frequency of them, and frustrating because, for more than a decade, residents have been pleading to have both intersections addressed.</para>
<para>The former coalition government acted when the state Labor government, after much pleading from local residents, would not. In 2016 the coalition committed $200,000 for interim safety measures at Forest Drive. In 2019 the coalition committed $10 million for the upgrade of Forest Drive and Uralla Road. This was later doubled to $20 million for both upgrades. In March 2022, after almost three years of federal funding being available, the intersections were given the green light by the state Labor government, with a commencement date of early 2023. It was 18 months behind the previous schedules but at least there was hope something would be done. Now these two projects are delayed again and at risk of losing all their funding through this Labor government's infrastructure review.</para>
<para>In 2015 Bruce Bone, aged 86, was killed in a car crash at the Forest Drive intersection. His daughter Jan told a local news report at the time:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Our family has never really recovered from Dad's death, and to find out that the funding that we and other locals fought so hard for might be pulled is gut-wrenching.</para></quote>
<para>Every single day the Albanese government refuse to confirm funding for these intersections, they put more lives at risk and future accidents will sit at their feet.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Lilley Electorate: Community Events</title>
          <page.no>121</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:45</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms WELLS</name>
    <name.id>264121</name.id>
    <electorate>Lilley</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Northsiders made the most of a perfect Brisbane spring day on Sunday to join in the celebrations of the 21st annual Nundah Festival in my electorate of Lilley. This wonderful community event is always a highlight of the Northside festival calendar, and I was particularly impressed with the live performances by the Nundah State School marching band and the St Patrick's College drum corps. Lilley locals took the opportunity to lend their support for the Voice to Parliament referendum at the festival, with the Yes23 stall running out of T-shirts, corflutes and stickers very quickly. Thank you to all the volunteers and Nundah Now who contributed their time and effort, and congratulations to the Nundah Festival committee and all involved in making this day such a great success. I look forward to seeing them all there again next year.</para>
<para>On 10 September it was my great honour as the member for Lilley to attend the 150th birthday celebrations of Sandgate State School. This wonderful school located in the northern bayside suburbs of Brisbane opened its doors just three years after Queensland became the first state in Australia to introduce free primary school education, back in 1870. Sandgate State School started 28 years before Australia established its parliament and 45 years before my electorate of Lilley was created. I'd like to thank all the teachers, school staff, students and parents both past and present for the invaluable contributions they have made to our community over the decades. I wish them every success into the future, and I look forward to looking as good at 150 as Sandgate State School does!</para>
<para>On 9 September I attended a thank you service ceremony at the Geebung RSL in my electorate of Lilley, honouring veterans who served our country in East Timor, Iraq and Afghanistan. Thank you to the organisers, emcee and service coordinator Michael Hinchey and guest speaker Warrant Officer 2 Paul Scruton from the Royal Australian Army Corps, who spoke of his 30 years of service in the Australian Army. I especially acknowledge our own Geebung RSL president, Harry Boxsell, who was awarded life membership of the Brisbane North District RSL on 6 September. Congratulations, Harry. You are a stalwart of our community. This is a very well-earned recognition of your voluntary service over many years to the Geebung RSL sub-branch, board, club members, staff, local schools and the greater Northside community. We appreciate you.</para>
<para>With my final bit of time, please allow me to wish the Brisbane Broncos and the Brisbane Lions all the very best in their upcoming preliminary finals. We've got a massive weekend in Brisbane, with the Lions kicking off at about four o'clock at the Gabba and the Broncos at 7.45 pm at Suncorp Stadium. Brisbane will be alight. We love to see it. The very best to the Brisbane teams for what is ahead. Finally, go the Wallabies for our upcoming match against Fiji this weekend in France.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Fairfax Electorate: Biggest Survey</title>
          <page.no>122</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:48</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr TED O'BRIEN</name>
    <name.id>138932</name.id>
    <electorate>Fairfax</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Each of us come to this parliament for our own reasons and wanting to make our own contribution to the nation. But every single one of us have something in common—that is, we want to serve those constituents who sent us here. We do that in our own way. For me, in addition to keeping very close to my community, every quarter, once a season, I am out there for a full week under a marquee, meeting and greeting people. But I also, at times, like to pause and take the pulse of the electorate of Fairfax. I did that in the first half of this year through what I referenced as 'the Biggest Survey'. I rise today to talk about some of those key themes, to put them on the record, even though we've been acting on them since those results have come in. Before I mention those themes, I say a very big thank you to the 1,788 people who took the time to fill out the Biggest Survey. These were people from all walks of life, of every possible age, from every corner of the electorate and of every political persuasion.</para>
<para>On some of the key themes that came out: you won't be surprised that the No. 1 issue related to cost of living. Indeed, a staggering 85 per cent of people said that their daily life, their family budget, had gotten so much harder over the 12-month period beforehand—in other words, since this Labor government came to office. In regard to energy prices, we know that, all up, people had probably been paying an extra $1,000 more than they should have been paying over that period of time. A lot of households in my electorate carry mortgages of around $750,000. They are paying an extra $22,000 a year because of mortgages going up. Staple food products, whether that be milk, bread and so forth, have gone up by well over 10 per cent. People are hurting, and they certainly let me know through that survey.</para>
<para>The second big issue that came up was the need for better hospitals and health outcomes. These are typically state issues, and there's no doubt that the Queensland government is failing on those fronts, whether it be on ramping, bed numbers, lack of transparency or hospital data.</para>
<para>The third point was the need to ensure we have a strong economy, not as an end in itself but because a strong economy is the means by which you give opportunities to people and provide vital services. But because we've had an increase in taxes, whether it be the carbon tax, the T-bone tax, the truckie tax or the farmers tax, taxes are making it harder to grow the economy. I'll keep listening, keep fighting and keep acting for the people of the Sunny Coast.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Australian Constitution: Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice</title>
          <page.no>122</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:51</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr LIM</name>
    <name.id>300130</name.id>
    <electorate>Tangney</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>History is paved with many challenges, and the true progress of our nation starts with the acknowledgement of our First Peoples. I know that, by working together for the 'yes' vote, we can make a positive difference in the lives of our First Nations brothers and sisters. On Sunday 27 August, my team, along with Yes23 and volunteers from across the state, hosted more than 600 diverse and energised attendees to the multicultural Yes23 WA launch at Murdoch University in my seat of Tangney. Communities across Perth came together to listen, learn and, most importantly, understand what it means to vote yes in next month's referendum.</para>
<para>I was accompanied at this event by my federal colleagues the Attorney-General the Hon. Mark Dreyfus, Minister Andrew Giles and Minister Anne Aly, along with state minister Buti, the Hon. Ayor Mayur Chuot, Kyra Galante, Amar Singh, Professor Andrew Deeks and Chanelle Van Den Berg. Their presence and their interaction with the community groups who were present highlighted the importance of this referendum and its impact on our beautiful Australia.</para>
<para>Those who came not understanding what the upcoming referendum was about were enlightened, compelled by the important message that stemmed from the Uluru Statement from the Heart. The Uluru statement was created as a result of the Referendum Council, jointly appointed by then prime minister Malcolm Turnbull and leader of the opposition Bill Shorten in 2015. It was created by a collection of voices from Indigenous community leaders across our country who deserve to be heard.</para>
<para>The event was a resounding success, with feedback from those who came that they felt confident, inspired and informed enough to educate their friends and family members about why they will support the 'yes' vote at the upcoming referendum. I'm proud to say that our multicultural community in Perth are now better equipped with the understanding that, by voting yes, we vote for the progress and betterment of our country and its people. I look forward to the forthcoming referendum on 14 October and to the future pathway it shapes, and I hope that together we will vote to shape our country as one that truly acknowledges and values the past, present and future of all our citizens.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Police Week</title>
          <page.no>123</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:54</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr LLEW O'BRIEN</name>
    <name.id>265991</name.id>
    <electorate>Wide Bay</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>National Police Week began with the recognition of outstanding bravery and will continue with the solemn acknowledgement of police who died in the line of duty. This year, National Police Remembrance Day honours them, including Tara police's Constable Rachel McCrow and Constable Matthew Arnold and WA's Constable Anthony Woods. This will also be the final meeting place for the Wall to Wall ride, a charity ride where police and their supporters meet at the National Police Memorial and hold a ceremony.</para>
<para>Last night, the 2023 Police Bravery Awards highlighted the actions of Constable Aaron Larsen and Deborah Bradly of the Wadeye police station, whose selflessness went far beyond anything that can be taught. Wadeye is one of Australia's largest remote Indigenous communities. It's on a dirt road about 400 kilometres south-west of Darwin. It has a history of tension between local gangs and families, culminating in a 2022 riot, where about 400 were heavily armed with axes, steel bars, spears, rocks, crossbows and arrows. On Wednesday afternoon, on 17 May, police attended 200 heavily armed people fighting for about 1.5 hours. They tried to disperse them. By 6.30 pm, a male had been shot through the leg with an arrow. Medical staff could not break through the riot to help him. Sergeant Jamie Cobern and Constable Matthew Grey rescued him and took him to the health clinic.</para>
<para>Upon arrival, about 100 rioters threw rocks and spears at the trio. He needed urgent medical attention, but a large angry crowd had encircled the clinic. Projectiles were hurled towards them. There was no escape or retreat. Rioters also damaged critical health infrastructure. They attempted to break into the medical facilities. Police used a vehicle as a shield and reversed up to the entry point of the clinic. Officers Bradly and Grey carried the injured male inside while Larsen and Cobern attempted to disperse the crowd while being attacked with arrows and sharpened metal bars. They pushed the crowd back from the clinic while multiple chemical munitions were deployed. Eventually, the crowd began to retreat.</para>
<para>Officers Bradly and Larsen displayed exceptional bravery in hostile and very violent circumstances. They displayed amazing courage and remained steadfast in the face of certain injury to protect the lives of others, despite being under potentially lethal attack for more than 20 minutes. I commend these officers for their incredible bravery—and all police officers who keep us safe 24 hours a day, seven days a week.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Vietnam War</title>
          <page.no>123</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:57</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ZAPPIA</name>
    <name.id>HWB</name.id>
    <electorate>Makin</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Australia's involvement in the Vietnam War officially ended over 50 years ago, in January 1973. By that time, more than 60,000 Australians, including around 300 Indigenous Australians and some 15,300 conscripts who had been chosen under a luck of the draw birthday ballot process, had served in Vietnam. Of the 521 Australian lives lost in Vietnam, over 200 were conscripts. Another 3,000 returned home wounded.</para>
<para>All the countries involved in the decade-long war paid a heavy toll. The USA lost around 58,000 personnel, while some estimates of the total lives lost from all sides including civilians exceed 3.5 million. In every country, including Australia, the war divided communities. On their return home, Vietnam soldiers were at times treated disgracefully, adding to the war trauma on their lives. Physical injuries, poor health and psychological issues continue to plague many of Australia's 35,000 Vietnam veterans still with us, with homelessness, alcohol abuse and family breakdowns common characteristics amongst them.</para>
<para>In my own region, the northern branch of the Vietnam Veterans Association has become an invaluable support network for veterans. Since 2005, each year on 18 August, marking the anniversary of the 1966 Battle of Long Tan, the Vietnam Veterans Association hosts a commemoratives service at Henderson Square in Montague Farm Estate. On the initiative of 3rd Battalion RAR Vietnam veteran Fred Pritchard, the Montague Farm Estate is dedicated to those who served in Vietnam, with all 43 streets named after South Australians killed in Vietnam. The memorial in Henderson Square was dedicated in 1993 by the Hon. Tim Fischer. In 2007, a new plaque with the names of all South Australian based soldiers killed in Vietnam was unveiled by Keith Payne VC.</para>
<para>The annual service brings much deserved recognition to the Australians, mostly young men in their early 20s, who served in a horrific controversial war. This year's service, marking the 50th anniversary of the war's end for Australia, was particularly emotional. For most Australians, the Vietnam War took place before they were born. It was a different era. However, the soldiers who served, the trauma they experienced, the effects on themselves and their family should be recognised, appreciated and honoured. They should all be remembered with pride, gratitude and admiration.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>282237</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>In accordance with standing order 193, the time for members' constituency statements has concluded.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS</title>
        <page.no>124</page.no>
        <type>MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>World Suicide Prevention Day</title>
          <page.no>124</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:00</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms TEMPLEMAN</name>
    <name.id>181810</name.id>
    <electorate>Macquarie</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>It's a privilege to speak on such an important issue that unites this parliament. It's one of the few issues where there is genuine bipartisan support, because people on both sides understand that it takes more than one government and more than one party to be able to put in the complex and far-reaching supports that are needed to ensure people live their lives with a sense of purpose and hope. For some people World Suicide Prevention Day is just another day, but for anyone who has lost someone to suicide it is a day of sadness and reflection. I also think it should be a day of hope, and we're working very hard to make that the case.</para>
<para>Every year, around 3,000 Australians die by suicide. Nine people, of whom two-thirds are men, die by suicide each day. We know young people are most at risk, with suicide remaining the leading cause of death for Australians between the ages of 15 and 44. First Nations Australians are twice as likely to die by suicide as non-Indigenous Australians. That reality is absolutely front of mind for me when I think about why we need an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice. Our best chances of changing that statistic, of keeping people alive, of overcoming the distress of intergenerational trauma and disadvantage faced by First Nations peoples, is through listening and real action.</para>
<para>I'm a co-chair of the Parliamentary Friends of Suicide Prevention, and I note that the member for Berowra, my co-chair, will also be speaking on this topic. I thank him for his support and commitment to seeing change. It's a very good example of true bipartisanship. The two of us came into this place in the same year. I think our class of 2016 brought with it a deep understanding of just how important mental wellbeing is. As co-chair of the Parliamentary Friends of Suicide Prevention, it was a privilege to be part of the Suicide Prevention Australia breakfast that we held last week. At that breakfast we heard from Justin, a Queenslander, one of the MATES in Construction advocates, who was able to move the room to tears with his extraordinary communication in rap form—slam poetry is probably the best definition, if I'm being accurate here. What it highlighted is how powerful it can be when you have someone speaking from lived experience and how they can reach out and connect with other people. That has been one of the focuses that we have as a government: looking at people who have lived experience and really valuing that experience and recognising the value that that brings in reaching out to others.</para>
<para>Of course, there are many organisations like Suicide Prevention Australia that work tirelessly to spread the word so that there is conversation happening about this. It has helped lift much of the stigma that I think probably a decade ago we would have been talking about, and even in more recent years. But there are many, many organisations that do that. I'm not even going to try and name them all. I do want to talk about one at a very local level in my community, the Hope4U Foundation. Di established this foundation having lost a son to suicide. Tragically, she then lost a second son to suicide. Her mission is to provide support for people who have walked in those shoes.</para>
<para>At Richmond Oval, last week, we were joined by many local community services to have conversations with people about their mental wellbeing. This isn't just about their mental health; it's about their connection to their community and their engagement. We heard from Simon Griffin, another young man who, bravely—for the first time in a very public forum—spoke about his own experience of suicide ideation and schizophrenia. I have known Simon for many years, and I'd like it to be on the record that it was a really big step in his journey to be able to do that, which I can say after having had many private conversations with him. He's the dad of two beautiful children, and I know he takes a huge amount of responsibility for shaping how he sees the world.</para>
<para>Of course, some people are supported well to do that. We need to work with the people for whom that is difficult to do. The Hope4U Foundation is very focused on doing that, particularly with the families of people who have suicided. They have partnered with Glenbernie Family Farms, one of the beautiful flower-growing farms in my electorate, and so Hope4U now has a home within a sunflower farm. I should say, it's not always sunflowers; there are a huge array of flowers there, whatever the season.</para>
<para>When we talk about how we translate the big policy stuff we do here, the key thing is how it translates on the ground and how people can access supports. Obviously, we're working hard to make sure that GPs are in a position to provide good supports, by increasing the payments that GPs receive and allowing for longer consultations because they are often the front line. We also know that headspace is a really key frontline preventive and early-intervention service. I am so proud that, by the end of the year, we will have a Hawkesbury headspace up and running. It is 10 years since the Penrith headspace opened, and I was very proud to be at that opening, along with the then mental health minister, Mark Butler. A decade ago, I said to him: 'You know what? We really need one of these in the Hawkesbury and one in the Blue Mountains.' The Blue Mountains headspace, a small one, came online a few years ago, but the Hawkesbury one has been a very long time coming.</para>
<para>By the end of the year, we will have a Head To Health service, which is the adult version of headspace. Whereas headspace is for young people up to 25, who can walk in with a 'no wrong door' policy, Head to Health will be the same for adults. Both of them are located in Richmond, and both of them are having works done in the lead-up to their openings. I'll be very proud to be part of those events.</para>
<para>Another group I want to touch on is MATES in Construction. I mentioned Justin from MATES in Construction earlier. As we know, getting to the bottom of all these issues is not something that's going to happen only at this level of federal government; everyone has a role. MATES in Construction saw the role for men and women working in the construction industry. Very early on in my community, they were partnered with Woodford Homes and Blue Eco Homes, who started to spread the word and spark those conversations amongst their workers. They're here in the parliament today, asking MPs to sign their flag. Across the country, 100,000 construction and industry workers will fly the flag over the next couple of days. It's a real partnership between unions and employers, working together to tackle mental health and suicide in a way that allows for conversations.</para>
<para>We talk a lot about mental health, but I do want to note that 40 per cent of people who suicide have not been diagnosed with a mental health condition. It's a complex thing and, often, a whole range of pressures like financial pressures or housing and security come into play. As a government, we recognise that. On 20 September, the base rates of working-age and student payments, such as youth allowance, parenting payments and JobSeeker, will increase. This, we know, will lift some of the mental burden and financial burden that people carry.</para>
<para>This commitment to wanting to see a cross-portfolio approach to tackling suicide and preventing suicide is really key. Whether it's with veterans or victims of domestic violence, these are all the areas where we will continue to work, because, despite increasing expenditure on mental health services and suicide prevention, Australia has not seen a significant decrease in the numbers of lives lost to suicide in more than two decades. So we know we need to do this differently.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:10</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr LEESER</name>
    <name.id>109556</name.id>
    <electorate>Berowra</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm pleased to follow my friend the member for Macquarie, who is the co-chair with me of the Parliamentary Friends of Suicide Prevention. I founded the Parliamentary Friends of Suicide Prevention with Mike Kelly when I was first elected to this place, and it's had a very good effect on the parliament. It has been a bipartisan forum, as my friend the member for Macquarie said. It's been a place where we can talk, share stories and share lived experience.</para>
<para>I want to particularly honour the member for Macquarie, who has been very public about her daughter's experience with suicidal ideation and particularly her daughter's bravery in being involved in a series of videos by SANE Australia that we were able to get some funding for back in, I think, the last parliament or the parliament before, which were called Better off With You, where prominent Australians told their experiences of attempting suicide and how life is better with them. I want to acknowledge those people and particularly acknowledge my friend the member for Macquarie.</para>
<para>The statistics are grim. In many respects, I feel we are failing and we are continuing to fail. When I came to this place, eight Australians every day were dying by suicide. Now the rate is nine. We know that three-quarters of the people who die by suicide are men, but we know that three-quarters of those people who try to harm themselves are women. We know that suicide is the leading cause of death of Australians under 44. We know that for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians the suicide rate is two to 2½ times higher than the rest of the population. We know that people from the LGBTIQ community are reported as having suicide attempts at a rate 10 times higher than the general population.</para>
<para>Beyond the tragic loss of individuals is the effect on families. Every individual lost is said to affect over 135 people. Males aged over 85 and older experience the highest age-specific rate of suicide. An estimate of one in three Australians, despite living in what is the best country on earth and one of the most prosperous and successful countries, say that they have feelings of great loneliness.</para>
<para>I started the Parliamentary Friends of Suicide Prevention and spoke about my father's death by suicide in my maiden speech because I didn't want other Australians to go through what our family went through and I wanted Australians who were contemplating suicide to know that there were people in this place that understood what it was to contemplate suicide and understood what it was to lose somebody to suicide. I think there are many in this parliament who sadly have been touched by suicide in their own lives.</para>
<para>I want to acknowledge the great work of Suicide Prevention Australia, and in particular the annual report that they present, not only talking about the sector but talking about the country more broadly. Again, the statistics are grim. Almost nine in 10 Australians believe that social and economic circumstances will pose a significant threat to the suicide rate in Australia over the next 12 months. In particular, three drivers are the focus of this: the cost of living and personal debt, housing access and affordability, and family and relationship breakdown. These are the things that pose the most significant risk. I think, while we've made—</para>
<para> <inline font-style="italic">A division havi</inline> <inline font-style="italic">ng been called in the House of Representatives—</inline></para>
<para>Sitting suspended from 10 : 13 to 10 : 26</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr LEESER</name>
    <name.id>109556</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>In this speech on suicide prevention I want to record that, during our time in government, I think one of the most important things that we did was the progress on universal aftercare, because the people that we know are most likely to die by suicide are those people who have actually attempted it in the past. Too often, we've seen across the country people who have seen a doctor or have been discharged from hospital and are just discharged into the night. We wouldn't do it with people with physical injuries, and we shouldn't do it with people with mental health challenges, particularly people who have attempted to take their own lives. So I think the universal aftercare plan that was put forward by Minister Coleman, when he was a minister, was such a step in the right direction. I'm sorry that a number of the states just haven't taken it up, because I think there's no silver bullet here but this is one of the things that we can do where we can really be quite directed and focused on dealing with people who have suicide ideation and really try to address the suicide rate more broadly.</para>
<para>The other thing that I think is important is ensuring that people who get mental health support are able to access it. I'm pleased that the Leader of the Opposition, in the budget reply speech earlier in the year, committed to the restoration of the Medicare funded mental health consultations, because that's so important. It wasn't just a COVID measure; I had many people coming up to me in the years before COVID saying that the ten sessions were just simply not adequate for many people. I think to cut people off at ten sessions is just a cruel thing to do. I think it's very important that those things be restored.</para>
<para>One of the things that I think is missing across the economy is actually focused, workplace delivered, tailor-made programs that help people understand the signs and know want to do. I think one of the organisations that has done that so well and so effectively in their sector is MATES in Construction. MATES in Construction is a partnership between both the union and the employer groups to deliver specific trainings in the construction sector. They've trained over 300,000 people. These are useful skills that will last with people for their whole lifetime. Almost 30,000 trainers—I think that that's a really good contribution, and we need to see these sorts of workplace based trainings in other places.</para>
<para>I've been quite grim so far about where we are in the suicide prevention space because I don't think we're succeeding, so what gives me hope? What gives me hope are the amazing organisations in my community and elsewhere that are doing wonderful work. First among those is Lifeline Harbour to Hawkesbury, run by the extraordinary Elizabeth Lovell. Some of their statistics are amazing. In the last 12 months, Lifeline Harbour to Hawkesbury—that's not national Lifeline, but it's the Lifeline in my community—has answered the telephone crisis line for over 36,000 hours with over 90,000 calls. That's 11 per cent of the total Lifeline load nationally. They've provided 15,000 hours of high-quality, affordable clinical and community support; they've reached over 800,000 people with social media posts and their website; 5,000 people have attended Lifeline Harbour to Hawkesbury training, fundraising and community events; 18,000 people, including myself, have attended the book fairs; and 145,000 people purchased something from their shops.</para>
<para>And Lifeline is not resting on its laurels in my community. They are taking up new frontiers, like taking crisis supporters out from behind the phones and putting them in local libraries in places like Hornsby Library. Three weeks ago, Lifeline's national text service was launched at the Lifeline Harbour to Hawkesbury headquarters at Gordon, and they will be taking on an additional 300 paid and volunteer staff to deal with this. Demand for the service is growing at 26 per cent, and they are working with Lifeline Australia to meet that demand. They are partnering with councils and shopping centres to deal with major at-risk locations in car parks and public places, and working with Women's Shelters and Rotary to reduce the impacts of domestic violence on families.</para>
<para>Importantly, particularly for our community, which is a multicultural community, they are launching a bilingual counselling service translating key mental health data and programs into Mandarin, which I think is so important. They are preparing a campaign, which I'm sure they are going to lobby me about, to partner with government for safe havens connected to major hospitals, with councils to increase means restriction at key locations around Sydney. I want to pay tribute to the great work of Lifeline Harbour to Hawkesbury.</para>
<para>Another organisation I want to acknowledge is Parents Beyond Breakup. I have the privilege of being one of their ambassadors. Their wonderful CEO is Gillian Hunt and their extraordinarily talented board is led by Brendan Blomely and includes: Ross Arriola; Campbell Lennox, who led the Parents Beyond Breakup training session I went to; Glen Poole; Alice Campbell-Jones; Kim Goodair; Rob Kennaugh, my friend; Brendan Root; and Gavin Hudson. What Parents Beyond Breakup does is provide a peer supported free counselling service with a series of counselling sessions—a support group—for people who are going through the family law system.</para>
<para>I have been interested in family law policy for a long time, and what I think is particularly good about Parents Beyond Breakup, who provide sessions for mums, dads and grandparents, is that they are not about people getting angry or getting even; they are about helping people go through the system. They have a number of traditions. They have the empty chair at some of their sessions, to remind people of those who did not make it. They have the rock that people hold, so that people are listened to respectfully while they are doing their session. It is a very important organisation, which has been going since 1999 when it was founded by Tony Miller.</para>
<para>Suicide prevention is a great and important national goal for this country. It is unfinished work. We are not heading in the right direction, but the hope is in the great organisations like Parents Beyond Breakup and Lifeline, who are at the front line and making a difference every day in delivering services.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:33</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms FERNANDO</name>
    <name.id>299964</name.id>
    <electorate>Holt</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Last Sunday marked an important day in our calendar, a day that may have passed by unnoticed for some but carried profound significance for others. It was World Suicide Prevention Day, a day for reflection and remembrance, particularly for the families and friends of the 3,000 Australians who tragically lose their lives to suicide each year. Nine people, of whom six are men, take their own lives every day in our nation. It is a sobering statistic that we cannot ignore. Young people are especially vulnerable, with suicide remaining the leading cause of death for Australians between the ages of 15 and 44.</para>
<para>We must also confront the painful truth that First Nations Australians are twice as likely to die by suicide as non-Indigenous Australians. This stark reality underscores the pressing need for an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander voice to parliament. If we are to address the intergenerational trauma faced by First Nations Australians, our best chance is through listening and taking concrete action.</para>
<para>For all of us, this Sunday served as a stark reminder to better understand and address the factors that lead to suicide. It's impact is profound and far-reaching, affecting families, friends, first responders, schools and communities. In this chamber, and in the other place, suicide and suicide prevention are nonpartisan issues. Our actions and words matter deeply.</para>
<para>While the reasons behind an individual's suicide are deeply personal and often complex, the overall trends in suicide rates correlate historically with social and economic events. Thus, we cannot isolate the distress faced by many, both in Australia and around the world. From the experiences of the global pandemic, we all know stories of distress, loneliness and isolation, and these stories touch the lives of family members, friends, colleagues, neighbours and even strangers. We must also acknowledge that, as with many catastrophic events, the trauma resulting from this pandemic will have a lasting impact, disproportionately affecting the most vulnerable among us.</para>
<para>There are strong connections between mental ill-health and suicide. Therefore, I am proud that the Albanese Labor government is determined to provide compassionate, effective support and care for those in need. It is expanding support in communities with the rollout of new Head to Health clinics, providing free mental health information, support and care to adults. Simultaneously, the government is strengthening the network of more than 150 headspace centres across the country for young people. The government is also working closely with states and territories to establish kids hubs for mental health prevention and early intervention. Primary care is becoming more accessible and affordable, in recognition of the fact that a general practitioner is often the first point of contact for mental health care. Starting on 1 November, we are indexing the Medicare rebate and tripling the bulk-billing incentives.</para>
<para>We also understand that the root causes of suicide are multifaceted, encompassing economic, cultural and social determinants which interact with individual risk factors over time. Those who die by suicide typically have three or four risk factors, such as underemployment, financial insecurities, domestic and family violence, and past or compound trauma. To address these drivers of distress, we need a comprehensive approach to suicide prevention that involves the whole of the government and society. This means not only providing mental health support but also alleviating the underlying issues in people's lives.</para>
<para>At the top of that list is reducing financial pressure through cost-of-living relief. From 20 September, the base rates of working-age and student payments, including JobSeeker, will increase. I am proud that the government, in close partnership with state and territory governments, is also investing in addressing housing insecurity and homelessness, particularly through the Housing Australia Future Fund. Additionally, I am proud that the government remains committed to addressing domestic, family and sexual violence. We are implementing the National Plan to End Violence against Women and Children, equipping our healthcare workers to identify and care for those at risk. Furthermore, it is important to ensure that communities are resilient in the face of increased natural disasters. The introduction of the National Disaster Mental Health and Wellbeing Framework will be a great support to our first responders. Beyond the provision of health care, governmentwide collaboration is essential if we are to reduce suicide.</para>
<para>Despite increasing expenditure on mental health services and suicide prevention, Australia has not seen a significant decrease in suicide rates in over two decades. We also know that approximately 40 per cent of people who die by suicide have no diagnosed mental or behavioural disorders. Suicide risk is directly linked to socioeconomic status, with those in the lowest socioeconomic areas having more than double the rate of suicide compared to those in the highest. To truly make a difference, we must improve not only our healthcare system but also our laws, structures and policies that perpetuate cycles of disadvantage.</para>
<para>The Treasurer's recent release of the Measuring What Matters statement is a step in the right direction. It acknowledges that economic indicators alone cannot paint the full picture of our nation's wellbeing. However, it is important to remember that change can occur in every town, suburb and city. While suicide is an individual act, rates of suicide reflect the health of our communities. We all have a role to play.</para>
<para>This year, the theme of World Suicide Prevention Day was creating hope through action. It serves as a reminder that each one of us can take compassionate action to support those experiencing distress. Tomorrow is R U Okay? Day. It is a day to check in on your mates and family and a day to remind us that no-one—again, no-one—should ever have to battle mental health issues alone. It is a day to show compassion towards each other, not only in our community but within the walls of parliament, to remind everyone that, no matter how heated things get here, we always want the best for each other.</para>
<para>Mental health support is something I am passionate about because I know how important it is to our community. I commend the tireless efforts of the Minister for Health and Aged Care, the Hon Mark Butler MP, and the Assistant Minister for Mental Health and Suicide Prevention, the Hon Emma McBride MP. I would also like to convey my gratitude on behalf of my electorate to the assistant minister for taking the time to visit my electorate and engage with mental health stakeholders. Together, we can ensure that no-one has to face their darkest moments alone. Let us all commit to working together to make a difference on this critical issue.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:41</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms PRICE</name>
    <name.id>249308</name.id>
    <electorate>Durack</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>On Sunday, we observed World Suicide Prevention Day. This is a day in which we, as a global community, should reflect on the tragedy that is suicide. Each year, around 3,000 Australians choose to take their own lives. This equals around eight Australians per day. These numbers are more than just statistics; they are a representation that we all need to do more.</para>
<para>We are in particularly hard economic times in our country at the moment. As my friend the member for Lindsay pointed out during this debate, the release of the quarterly tracker by Suicide Prevention Australia highlighted that 56 per cent of Australian families are reporting unprecedented levels of cost-of-living distress. Suicide prevention organisations have noted a 77 per cent increase in demand for services over the past 12 months. For the vast majority of Australians, the prospect of taking our own lives is unthinkable. However, for far too many in our society, sadly, they believe that is their only option. We need to change that, and this day serves as a great reminder of the importance of reaching out, checking in, reducing stigma and encourage help-seeking.</para>
<para>Unfortunately, this issue affects my electorate more than most. People in rural Australia are twice as likely to take their own lives, as are Indigenous Australians. Living and working in the bush can be the most rewarding experience and amazing lifestyle; however, it also has its challenges. Our farmers are amongst the most hardworking people in our country, yet there is no guarantee that their hard work will translate into profits. Being presented with several failing harvests can take people down a dark path. Likewise, working FIFO can provide a better salary, but the additional time away from the family can strain relationships and decrease mental wellbeing. I can testify that my office has been confronted with some very difficult and confronting situations involving suicide during my 10 years as the member for Durack. Given this history and context, I was not surprised to read last month in the <inline font-style="italic">Geraldton Guardian</inline> that, according to a recent report by the Telethon Kids Institute, many of the nation's hotspots for youth suicide are sadly within my electorate. The Kimberley, Pilbara, Gascoyne and Mid West all had areas listed as hotspots.</para>
<para>Earlier this year, I spoke in the House about two new headspace centres in my electorate that are aimed at tackling high rates of youth suicide. I want to take the chance to shout-out to the wonderful staff at headspace Karratha and the wonderful staff at headspace Hedland. Suicide is the leading cause of death for young Australians aged between 15 and 44. I'd like to acknowledge the work of all headspace centres, and others, in assisting vulnerable gay, lesbian and trans people, who, as a collective, have a suicide rate that is 10 times the national average.</para>
<para>The Telethon report also highlighted a correlation between high suicide rates per 100,000 and lower mental health support services. The development of local services in the regions, such as headspace centres, is one way that we can combat this reality. However, much more needs to be done. This finding further illustrates to me the benefit of restoring the 20 Medicare subsidised psychology sessions per year that were available under the coalition government's Better Access program. I am proud that reintroducing this scheme and lifting the number of sessions back up from 20 to 30 was one of the first promises we committed to taking to the next election.</para>
<para>While government, of course, plays its part, I agree with the theme of this year. This year's theme is that 'We all have a role to play' in preventing suicide. All of us in our own communities, families, workplaces and social circles can have a positive impact by looking out for one another and starting important conversations, no matter how hard those conversations might be.</para>
<para>Today I'm wearing a pin to mark Fly the Flag and to celebrate the work that groups like MATES are doing to improve mental health and prevent suicide. Last week I met with MATES national CEO, Chris Lockwood, to discuss the role of their organisation in preventing suicide amongst the construction and the mining workforce. Suicide rates within the construction industry are above the national average. MATES is seeking to combat this through their role of raising awareness, building stronger and more resilient workers, connecting workers to best support services and partnering with researchers to inform industry around best mental health practice.</para>
<para>Men account for 75 per cent of suicides in Australia. A large reason for this is the stigma that exists for blokes discussing how they are feeling. As the construction industry is a male-dominated field, I am pleased to hear that MATES is having a positive impact on blokes starting those important, but difficult, conversations. I also commend the work of the Regional Men's Health Initiative, which also does a lot of work in this space in my electorate through their Talk to a Mate!! campaign. I've been to many agricultural and community shows over the past couple of months, and the Regional Men's Health Initiative is there every single time. I just want to give a shout-out to them. They do amazing work.</para>
<para>These are just some of the many groups across the country that are committed to suicide prevention. The impact organisations such as these have, many of them being faith based, is immeasurable. I have no doubt their actions have saved many people from taking their own lives and saved families from experiencing unimaginable pain. Many of these organisations are charities which rely on funding from state and federal governments. I believe supporting grassroots movements such as these is a great use of public funds. I acknowledge that committing to reaching zero suicides is the goal of everyone in this building, regardless of party stripes.</para>
<para>Back to the message that we all have a role to play. All Australians can recognise that there are many vulnerable people out there who may, as we speak, be contemplating making that most tragic decision to take their own life. As a community and as a culture we need to do more to make sure that everybody feels welcome and supported enough to open up about how they are feeling before it is too late. We must take notice of the lessons learnt on days like World Suicide Prevention Day, the Fly the Flag days, and R U OK? Day, which we will observe tomorrow. It must be more than just marking the day and then moving on until it comes around the next year. All of us need to think about the necessary behaviours we should adopt all year round. As a community we need to wrap our arms around each other and our most vulnerable. Whether it be by starting a conversation or by letting someone know they are loved and they're worthy, we can all try to make a difference.</para>
<para>An important point to make today is that there are 10 million Australians who have been affected by suicide. These are the parents, the siblings, the partners, the children and the wider group of family and friends of someone who has taken their own life. Affected family members and friends go through a period of incredible grief . That, in itself, can last a lifetime. On top of this grief, many affected will possess feelings of guilt. They will wrestle with questions like, 'Did I do enough?' or 'How did I not see this coming?' To those Australians in particular, I would like to send a very clear message today: I understand your pain and want you to know that it's not your fault.</para>
<para>I want to end my contribution today by highlighting another service out there for those in need of help. If you'd like to have a chat with someone about how you're feeling today or tomorrow or the next day, please make use of the Lifeline number, 131114. They are a 24-hour crisis support service who can assist anyone through their darkest of times. Please don't feel ashamed to ask for help, as you are not alone in how you feel. In fact, someone calls Lifeline every 30 seconds.</para>
<para>Thank you to all the other previous speakers and those who are still to speak, and to all those across this great country who are working in volunteering for an even better Australia—an Australia without suicide.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:50</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr REPACHOLI</name>
    <name.id>298840</name.id>
    <electorate>Hunter</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to speak on World Suicide Prevention Day, which was held last Sunday. For most of us, Sunday was just like any other day. Many people in my electorate were either at Hunter Stadium or glued to the TV, watching the Knights get home in a nailbiter against the Raiders. But for the families and friends of the 3,000 Australians who die by suicide each year, it was a day of reflection and remembering. It is a day of global significance that reminds us of the profound importance of addressing one of the most pressing public health challenges of our time—suicide. Today we come together to raise awareness, promote understanding and take concrete steps towards preventing the tragedy of suicide that affects millions of lives worldwide.</para>
<para>Suicide is a deeply complex and often misunderstood issue. It doesn't discriminate based on age, gender, race or socioeconomic status; it affects people from all walks of life and inflicts pain upon families, communities and society as a whole. However, today is not just about acknowledging the grim statistics or dwelling on the sorrow it brings; it's also about hope, resilience and the power of collective action.</para>
<para>The theme of this year's World Suicide Prevention Day is 'creating hope through action'. It serves as a powerful reminder that each one of us in our own way has the capacity to make a positive impact on the lives of those who may be struggling. It's a call to action, urging us to step up, connect and reach out to those who need support. One of the key actions we can take is to break the silence surrounding mental health and suicide. Stigma and discrimination continue to be formidable barriers that prevent individuals from seeking help. We must challenge the societal norms that contribute to this stigma and encourage open conversation about mental health. By doing so, we create a culture where seeking help for mental health issues is seen as a sign of strength, not a sign of weakness.</para>
<para>Education plays a vital role in suicide prevention. We must educate ourselves and others about the warning signs of suicide so we can recognise someone who is in distress. Common signs include social withdrawal, changes in behaviour or mood, talking about feeling hopeless or a burden, and giving away possessions. When we know what to look for, we are better equipped to intervene and offer support. But education should not stop at recognising signs; we must also be aware of the available resources and encourage people to seek professional help when needed. Mental health professionals, crisis hotlines and support groups can be lifelines for those struggling with suicidal thoughts. Let us ensure these resources are accessible and known to all, regardless of their background or location.</para>
<para>Creating hope through action also means fostering a sense of belonging and connectedness. Loneliness and isolation can contribute to the feeling of despair. We must make an effort to reach out to family, friends and acquaintances, especially when we notice that they may be going through a difficult time. Sometimes, a simple conversation or a small act of kindness can make a really big difference in their lives. Often it can save a life. In addition to individual actions, governments and organisations have a critical role to play in suicide prevention. Adequate funding and resources should be allocated to mental health services and programs. These resources can help reduce waiting times for treatment, improve the quality of care, and ensure that mental health services are accessible to all, regardless of their financial situation.</para>
<para>Furthermore, addressing the root cause of suicide is essential. Economic hardship, social inequality, discrimination and access to lethal means are factors that can contribute to suicide rates. As a society, we must work towards creating a more equitable and inclusive world, where everyone has the opportunity to thrive. Preventing suicide is a global endeavour, and it requires collaboration on an international scale. By sharing the best practices, conducting the best research and raising the best awareness, we can learn from each other and develop more effective strategies for suicide prevention. Organisations like the World Health Organization and the International Association for Suicide Prevention are at the forefront of these efforts.</para>
<para>Let's take a moment to remember those we have lost to suicide. Each life that has been cut short is a reminder of the urgency of our mission. We owe it to them to work tirelessly to prevent others from experiencing the same pain and despair. Nobody in this House would not have been affected by suicide. I myself have. My fantastic cousin Anne-Maree committed suicide years ago. I remember the great times Anne-Maree and I had growing up as kids. She was about 10 years older than me, and she was a beautiful, beautiful girl. Her birthday would have been 5 August, so, wherever you are, Anne-Maree, in this world, I hope you had a great day.</para>
<para>World Suicide Prevention Day is a day to remember, reflect and take action. It's a day to create hope through our collective efforts. Together we can break the stigma surrounding mental health, educate ourselves and others, reach out to those in need, and advocate for better mental health services and policies. Let us leave here today with a renewed commitment to making a difference in the lives of those who may be struggling. Let us pledge to be compassionate, to be empathetic and to be there for one another. Together we can create a world where hope triumphs over despair and where every life is valued and protected.</para>
<para>I want to give a big shout-out to Chris Lockwood and his team from MATES. I hate to imagine how many lives have been saved by MATES in Mining and MATES in Construction in the period of time since they've been going. I've been dealing with MATES since around 2012. They are a profoundly experienced group of people who are doing great things. In mining and in construction, suicide rates are extremely high—way higher than the average anywhere else or in any other industry. I'm from a fitting background, and, as an industry, fitters have the highest rate of suicide in construction. If you're out there and you're struggling, please make sure you reach out to your mates next to you, your work colleagues, your family and your friends. No-one wants to see you not be here tomorrow. We all want to make sure that you're here. We all want to make sure that we can all grow old together.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>144732</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank all members for their statements this morning. The chair will be resumed at 4 pm.</para>
<para>Sitting suspended from 10 : 58 to 16 : 00</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Vocational Education and Training</title>
          <page.no>131</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:07</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr GARLAND</name>
    <name.id>295588</name.id>
    <electorate>Chisholm</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm really pleased to rise in support of the Albanese Labor government's strategy to revitalise national planning in vocational education and training. We know that, right across Australia, we are facing one of our biggest economic challenges in decades: a lack of skilled workers across the labour market. Our strategy to revitalise national planning and vocational education and training aims to improve the way in which skills are delivered to the labour market in the future.</para>
<para>Earlier today, the Minister for Skills and Training made a statement that outlined the initiatives of Jobs and Skills Australia and jobs and skills councils to help deliver the workforce that Australia desperately needs for the future. Recently, during National Skills Week, we had the opportunity to celebrate the achievements of TAFE students, teachers, trainers and support staff right across the vocational education and training sector and celebrate the contributions they make to our communities and to our country. We know that the vocational education and training sector—and TAFE, at the heart of that—is one of our greatest national assets. It is vital, if we are to address the worst skills shortages facing this country in decades, to invest properly in TAFE in order to meet the challenges and opportunities that lie ahead.</para>
<para>Our government is putting TAFE back at the heart of Australia's vocational education and training sector after, unfortunately, a decade of neglect by the previous government. I love TAFE. I love visiting the local TAFEs in my electorate, such as the Holmesglen Institute campuses. I like visiting the Box Hill Institute, which services my community, and it is a real thrill to hear stories from students and teachers of their learning journeys and the wonderful careers that they've been able to pursue because of TAFE.</para>
<para>Our fee-free TAFE program is a flagship initiative to help students seeking opportunities to meet cost-of-living challenges and support key industries to address skills shortages. The numbers speak for themselves. In the first six months alone, the target of 180,000 enrolments was well exceeded by our government, with almost 215,000 Australians enrolling in a fee-free course. That is wonderful news for this country. That is 215,000 people who are accessing skills training in areas where skilled workers are needed. Priority sectors under the fee-free TAFE program include agriculture, care, construction, defence, early childhood education, hospitality and tourism, sovereign capability, and technology and digital. Enrolments in fee-free TAFE have been strong across all priority sectors, with over 51,000 care sector course enrolments, over 16,700 technology and digital sector course enrolments and almost 21,000 enrolments in the construction sector.</para>
<para>The data shows fee-free TAFE is supporting Australians that have struggled to break into the labour market, with enrolments including almost 51,000 jobseekers, over 15,000 people with a disability and almost 7,000 First Nations Australians. Significantly, women make up over 60 per cent of the intake, with almost 130,000 women taking on a qualification under the program. More than a third of enrolments—over 34 per cent—are in inner and outer regional locations, and whilst that's all wonderful, we're not stopping there. We're making funding available for a further 300,000 fee-free TAFE places, starting in January next year.</para>
<para>I think it is so important to remind the House now of the important steps we've taken to improve access to training for Australians. This year's National Skills Week theme of 'What are you looking for?' has been particularly apt when we think about matching what people are looking for in a career and in their life with skills training through the vocational education and training sector. I had the absolute honour of helping to launch National Skills Week at Monash College in Victoria, which is a great institution that helps people to get the skills they need for jobs now and jobs in the future.</para>
<para>Unfortunately, when we came into government, the labour market skills shortages right across Australia ran as deep as they did wide. The 2022 Skills Priority List revealed that the number of occupations suffering skill shortages almost doubled, jumping from 153 occupations in 2021 to 286. The trades have been hit hard. The latest vacancy figures for June of this year tell a story. As the Minister for Skills and Training pointed out a few weeks ago, when launching National Skills Week, we need close to 5,000 motor mechanics, more than 3,000 electricians and 4,000 metal fitters and machinists. Additionally, in the vital care sector, there are around 9,000 vacancies. Across the top 20 occupations in demand nationally, almost half have direct VET pathways, including six occupations within the top 10.</para>
<para>In simple terms, these job vacancies mean communities cannot access the services they need. The minister recently also announced that the Albanese government is establishing a VET Qualification Reform Design Group to be chaired by Craig Robertson, CEO of the Victorian Skills Authority—someone I had the great pleasure of speaking with recently, during National Skills Week. The role of the VET Qualification Reform Design Group will be to deliver simpler, more responsive systems. The result will be a simpler system that strikes a balance between industry skill needs while recognising transferable skills.</para>
<para>I'm really proud that our government is taking action to make one of the most significant investments in the delivery of training in recent history. We took immediate action following the 2022 federal election, bringing together Australians from unions, industry groups and civil society at the Jobs and Skills Summit. We've been working with state and territory governments to fund 180,000 fee-free TAFE places, but, of course, we've exceeded that target. We've heard from Treasurer Jim Chalmers, at the National Press Club, when he released his <inline font-style="italic">I</inline><inline font-style="italic">ntergenerational </inline><inline font-style="italic">r</inline><inline font-style="italic">eport</inline>—the sixth iteration of its kind. The report highlighted the fact that we need to be thinking about the skills for the future. It is really something that rests on the shoulders of all of us in this place: to not just think of the immediate term but of the future, and to think of lifelong learning as well, quite significantly, and not just about post-secondary education.</para>
<para>It was really great to be able to talk at Monash College in Victoria, during National Skills Week, about their newly created Future Skills division, which does go some way to addressing the issue of needing to think about future skills when it comes to our industry and skills planning. In my own community, I have been meeting with a range of different stakeholders. I had the pleasure, in August, of attending the Monash Precinct Network industry roundtable, and I got to spend the afternoon with representatives of some outstanding organisations from the education, research, business and industry sectors. This is a precinct network that launched in April, and I'm always delighted to be able to support the work that they do. The Monash Precinct Network in my electorate contributes $9.4 billion to the Victorian economy each year, supporting more than 13,000 businesses and more than 82,000 employees. It's a world-class precinct. It has impact globally, and what was really clear from the attendees—including Monash University, Eastern Innovation, Hudson Institute of Medical Research, Monash Tech School, the CSIRO, the Australian Synchrotron and the Australian National Fabrication Facility—is that we need to invest more in skills. I heard that from the attendees from advanced manufacturing businesses, science technology and research businesses, defence businesses as well as aerial system manufacturers. This really was the common theme—that we need to be able to attract and retain future workforces in STEM to be able to access the talent and skills that are in this country. That will mean that we will be competitive, not just now but into the future. We had a really terrific conversation too about how industry and businesses can position themselves to be employers of choice for women.</para>
<para>We inherited a pretty sorry state of affairs, but we know all about the debt and the massive skills deficit that we inherited. I'm really pleased that we're looking forward and working with stakeholders from industry and research groups right across all parts of the community that need skills to flourish for our future to be strong. I'm really pleased to be able to stand here to support our plan to revitalise national planning in vocational education and training, and I'm really proud to be a part of this government, with the Minister for Skills and Training leading this work.</para>
<para>Federation Chamber adjourned at 16:17</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
  </fedchamb.xscript>
</hansard>