2023-10-19 2 1 0 House of Reps 0 1

Thursday, 19 October 2023

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

 

MOTIONS 1 MOTIONS Closing the Gap 1 09:01 Mr DUTTON 00AKI Dickson I seek leave to move the following motion: That the House calls on the Prime Minister to: support the Opposition's call for a Royal Commission into child sexual abuse in Indigenous communities; audit spending on Indigenous programs; and (3)   support practical policy ideas to improve the lives of Indigenous Australians to help Close the Gap. Leave not granted. Mr DUTTON 00AKI I move: That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the Leader of the Opposition from moving the following motion immediately: That the House calls on the Prime Minister to: (1)   support the Opposition's call for a Royal Commission into child sexual abuse in Indigenous communities; (2)   audit spending on Indigenous programs; and (3)   support practical policy ideas to improve the lives of Indigenous Australians to help Close the Gap. There can be no higher priority for this government or for this nation than taking care of those who are most vulnerable in our society. As a country we've taken decisions to conduct royal commissions in relation to matters around the treatment of people within aged-care facilities and the treatment of people with disabilities. They have all been just and noble causes. They've given rise to recommendations and considerations for our society as to how we might move forward with policy changes to investments of taxpayers' money to make for better outcomes for those people. It is absolutely unbelievable that this government would reject now, yet again—by not even taking this motion to discuss it before the parliament—the prospect of finding a pathway forward to helping young Indigenous kids in communities like Alice Springs, Tennant Creek and elsewhere. These are the most vulnerable children in the country. For every person in this House, the thought of a child being sexually assaulted or exploited by any adult, by any other individual, is a complete abomination. The depth of feeling when you speak to people in Alice Springs, as I've done with Jacinta Price, is palpable. When you speak with people who are involved in community services and in policing, they are heartbroken and exhausted. The capacity of the Northern Territory government to respond is limited. Somehow we don't see it as a priority in this parliament—or at least this Prime Minister doesn't see it as a priority for this parliament—to call for a royal commission to understand what is happening to have such a significant prevalence of child sexual abuse within Indigenous communities. It's not happening within every Indigenous community; of course not. Where it's not taking place—where the elders are stepping up, where the leadership is being provided in those communities—let's replicate that in other communities where that is not the case. The use of pornographic material, the use of devices and the power imbalance that exists in some of the communities are things that need to be delved into. A royal commission has the ability to pull people in to provide evidence, to look at the situation as it exists, particularly within those remote communities, and to provide a way forward. That's what the Australian people voted for last Saturday. The Australian people didn't want a continuation of the window-dressing, they didn't want another committee, they didn't want another ATSIC. They want practical action. The Australian public are demanding action on Indigenous policy from their Prime Minister, but they're not getting it because this Prime Minister is weak, indecisive, and, when he does make a decision, it's the wrong decision. We've seen it time after time, and we are letting down the most vulnerable in our community because of his inability to deal with this issue. It might be against the politics of some within land councils or some within communities who have other vested interests. The task of the Prime Minister, the leader of our nation, is to push that to one side and to advance forward in the interests of those he must serve, the young Indigenous children in these communities. We know that there are billions of dollars from Canberra and from the states and territories going into the Indigenous funding for the rollout of different community programs and the like. We do know, though, that whilst the billions of dollars come in through the funnel from Canberra, in many of these communities it is a trickle when it gets to the people who are most in need. By way of one example, there was a lady interviewed yesterday morning on ABC Breakfast. She lived about 80 kilometres from Alice Springs, and she spoke about the needs of her community. The government wants to talk about the Voice and how that layer of bureaucracy may have been the panacea, but this woman couldn't have been any clearer in her advice: they need water, they need housing and they need a road upgrade between that community and Alice Springs. The member for Lingiari is nodding in furious agreement with us. Why isn't it happening? The money is there. The money has been given, and what's happened? It's been diverted away from the causes most in need, and yet those with vested interests—the elites here, including many within the Labor Party—don't want to shine a light on this problem. If you want to condemn us to the same failure of the past that's happened over decades, pretend that there's nothing wrong here, pretend that all the money is being spent wisely, pretend that that road is being fixed, pretend that the water is being supplied, pretend that the housing is being built—but it's not. It's not, and when the Labor Party came into government and they immediately remove the restrictions in relation to alcohol management, do you know what happens? Violence spikes, domestic violence goes through the roof, the abuse of children spikes. Why would Labor have done that? What was the policy rationale for doing it, Minister? There was none. There was none; it was ideologically driven because it pleases, as we see in a number of these issues, the inner-city seat membership of the Labor Party. That's what the woke brigade want to hear, that everybody can do without alcohol management and everybody should be treated properly. The problem in these communities is that there's a significant problem. The government backtracked on that issue and on that restriction, which was partly reimposed. Do you know what happened? There was a reduction in the violence because the Northern Territory Chief Minister was ultimately pressured into a position where she picked up the phone and said to the Prime Minister, 'You've made a dreadful mistake, Prime Minister.' It was one of his early ones—not the last—but it was certainly a very significant one and an impactful one. There are individuals and families and women, in particular, who suffer because of those policy decisions and, in some cases, because of the indecision. Why wouldn't we support the motion today, which calls on an audit to be conducted on spending within Indigenous programs? That's not a radical suggestion. It's not the first time it's been heard. But this Prime Minister refuses, resolutely, to even listen to it. And the treatment of Jacinta Price, when she has made the same suggestion in the Senate, I think has been quite deplorable and should be denounced by the Prime Minister. But I suspect it won't be. When you look at the response of the Labor Party in the Senate, you get a bit of a sense of the ideological approach within the Labor Party when you listen to the words of Senator Tim Ayres, where he said in relation to Senator Jacinta Price's same motion being moved in the Senate: Like many of the interventions by those opposite, this is all about the politics and not about the solution. It's always about the politics, never about the solution. … What is the content of this motion and the letter really about? Here's what he said: It's really about an angry pursuit of the people who those opposite don't like and who didn't agree with them in the recent referendum. I mean, could you be any less sensitive than that? I see Labor members over there nodding their heads in agreement with Senator Ayres. His comments should be condemned. They should be condemned. This motion is about protecting children. It's about protecting vulnerable children in our country who are being sexual abused, and those children, those girls in particular, are the ones who will suffer for a lifetime. The Labor Party want to show that they've got great big hearts and that they're so much more compassionate than us, but that they wouldn't support this shows what hypocrites they are. It shows what hypocrites they are. These children will suffer a lifetime of mental scarring because of this physical abuse, and the police need to act on it. The agencies in the Northern Territory need to act, but the fact is that they are being hamstrung by the authorities in the Northern Territory, to the shame of the chief minister. That this Prime Minister would be complicit in that ignorance and in the inability to act to save those young children is a damning indictment on this Prime Minister and on this hopeless government. The SPEAKER 53517 Is the motion seconded? 09:11 Mr LITTLEPROUD 265585 Maranoa I second this motion. The Australian people gave us a clear message on Saturday. They didn't want division. They didn't want a Voice. They want practical action and they want this parliament—those that have been given the privilege and the honour to be elected to come here and make real change—to make real change and to listen to the courage and convictions of those that are our most vulnerable. We proudly have elected 11 Indigenous Australians to both this place and the Senate, and they are strong voices for those Indigenous Australians, particularly in rural and remote Australia. But when you have young children, with the courage of their conviction, coming forward with their experiences of the abhorrent acts that have taken place, then it's beholden on us to act. It's beholden on every one of us to come together, to put away our political persuasions and to work together, to understand there is a greater good here. When you have the courage and conviction of Senator Jacinta Nampijinpa Price, who is prepared to come and give voice to that wrong, who comes with the lived experience of living in those communities and hearing those voices, then we here today have to move forward as a nation, and as political leaders in this country, and support Senator Price—and Senator Liddle—in their conviction and their courage for the people they represent and what they see and how they can fix it. This is a practical measure. This is a strong message. We are saying to the Australian people: a line has been drawn in the sand after Saturday. This nation that was divided can now come together, can now walk together to make sure that, where there is disadvantage, we draw on the practical, lived experience that we have and that we actually deliver. Why are we afraid? Why are we afraid to open it up and really understand the absolutely abhorrent acts that those most vulnerable, in our most isolated communities, are facing, away from many of the places where all of us live. These people have this lived experience, and they want to be heard. What have we got to fear? It's the right thing to do. I was elected to represent the people of Australia to do the right thing. I don't think there's a member here that, in all honesty, in the deepest recesses of their hearts, would say that this is not the right thing to do. We've got to do something different, and this will lay the foundation stones to be able to achieve that. As difficult as it may be, as difficult as it may be to hear, Australia needs to hear this, and we need to fix it with the lived experience. But it's also about making sure that that lived experience goes beyond just the abhorrent acts that young children are facing in rural and remote communities and that it goes to the practical lived experience of how we close the gap in those communities. It's not about repeating the mistakes of the past, which what the Prime Minister put to the Australian people with a representative body would be. ATSIC didn't work. It did some good. There isn't disadvantage right across this nation, but where it is most prevalent is in rural and remote communities. And who's best at fixing that? It's their elders. It's not about repeating the mistake of sending someone who represents hundreds of thousands of square kilometres and hundreds of different, diverse communities to Canberra, where their feedback and their lived experience is generalised and then nationalised into a program. You need bespoke solutions that empower local elders. That's where you close the gap where we haven't. Those are the practical solutions about which the Australian people said to us, this parliament—no matter which side you sit on—in an emphatic way: the proposition that was put to the Australian people is not the one that we want to move forward on. They expect us to be able to use the instrument of this building to be able to change the lives of those that are disadvantaged for the better. That is the opportunity that lies before each and every one of us right here, right now. That's the most important thing. When Senator Price and Senator Liddle, who bring that lived experience and were elected to this place only in the last 18 months, have the courage of their convictions and then are treated in the way they have been, that is a reflection on our parliament. It's important that the lived experience that they have is acted upon. That is what a parliament should do. That is something that, with the privilege and honour that we've been given, we should never turn our backs on, particularly when it's for something as important as this: those who are most vulnerable and the way forward for this great nation. 09:16 Mr BUTLER HWK Hindmarsh The government will not be supporting this motion. Honourable members: Shame! Mr BUTLER HWK Let me say a few points about why that is. I'm going to go short, as I've said to the leader, because I know the member for Kennedy, who feels passionately about these issues, wants to contribute to this debate as well. First of all, let me say that it should be recognised that every single person across this parliament is committed to fighting abuse of children—every single person across this parliament. Opposition members interjecting— Mr Dutton 00AKI Why not support the royal commission then? Mr BUTLER HWK We heard you in silence about an important issue. This is an important issue, and coming in without any notice and seeking a political stunt with a suspension motion about something that is as important and as sensitive as this sends a pretty clear signal about what this is about. This is about trying to create a political point against the government. Opposition members interjecting— Mr BUTLER HWK That's the opposition's right—that is how this building works—but let's not be too holier-than-thou about this if you want a genuine debate about child sex abuse. There is no person in this parliament who is not committed to fighting this. The Leader of the Nationals, to his credit, talked about the importance of practical action. I'm not quite sure how you square that with yet another inquiry. I'll tell you a bit about practical action. In the May budget the Minister for Social Services committed more than $500 million to practical action to fight the abuse of women and children, including more than $250 million particularly directed at the abuse of women and children in First Nations communities. That is practical action. Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! Members on my right and members on my left, there's far too much noise in this debate. Members are interjecting who are not in their seats, which is highly disorderly. I will ask the Deputy Leader of the House to continue. Mr BUTLER HWK We recognise that the temperature after the weekend is high. The Leader of the Nationals spent quite a bit of time talking to this. A lot of people were hurt through this campaign. As the minister for health, I can tell you that, as we monitor the rate of calls to hotlines used by First Nations communities, across the debate this has been a cause of very high levels of distress. From people who led the debate to people at a grassroots— Opposition members interjecting— Mr BUTLER HWK I'm not quite sure why people are interjecting about this. There's a serious point that I'm trying to make. It is that people across the political spectrum were hurt and had distress caused to them through this. I don't think it's of any use after a period of such high temperature and such significant distress, particularly across the First Nations community across Australia, to start trying to rank the levels of distress. Mr Pike 300120 No more delays! Get on with it then! The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Bowman. Mr BUTLER HWK This is extraordinary, really quite extraordinary. We're trying to have a debate that takes the temperature out of the result on Saturday, that gives time for the dust to settle, that listens to Indigenous communities about the way forward in reconciliation and Closing the Gap. We've made very clear, as have almost all Indigenous leaders, that the vote on Saturday night—as I think we all accept across this parliament—was not a vote against closing the gap in any of the key indicators, whether they are health or housing or the abuse of women and children. Frankly, I think we are all, across the parliament and across the Australian community, much better educated about the detail of that gap after the debate over the last few months and reaffirmed— Mr Dutton 00AKI You have divided the country! The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The Leader of the Opposition will cease interjecting. Mr BUTLER HWK We've got angry interjections. I can tell you in health—and, as a former health minister, he should know—that the level of detailed understand in metropolitan communities about, for example, rheumatic heart disease, which was largely eradicated in city communities in the sixties and seventies, has increased dramatically over the last few months. Regardless of what you think about the result on Saturday night, that is a good thing. We are all committed to finding a new way forward to deal with those challenges that I think are much better understood after the campaign that we had. I'll go to the question of the audit that is also contained in the motion. The audit office— Mrs Marino HWP Don't worry about the kids! The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Forrest! Mr BUTLER HWK Some of the interjections that we don't worry about the kids—seriously! I don't know who said that. You can have a different approach on motions like this without accusations thrown across the parliament that we don't care about kids. The Leader of the Nationals talked about practical action. We're taking practical action. We're taking practical action in Central Australia through the Central Australia plan. We're taking action across Australia through a much larger commitment to preventing violence against women and children delivered by this minister in the 2023-24 budget. I'm happy to have a debate about the pros and cons of this motion, but what I'm not willing to do is take cheap shots about this chamber, about who does and does not care about child abuse! Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! There will be silence in the chamber. 09:23 Mr KATTER HX4 Kennedy There's no point having a voice because you won't listen to it. If you go to a community area and ask them what they want—and I took a television crew in there and, of course, they went sideways on the Voice—every single mayor will answer that by saying: 'The Voice is good, but we can't afford to buy food here. Affordability is terrible for us.' They'll say, 'We've got 12 or 15 people to a house.' You guys are in power. I'm sorry to tell you, but for most of the last 30 years you didn't go out there and listen to them. You didn't do anything. You blokes in power for the rest of the time, you didn't listen to them. You didn't do anything. You didn't listen to them and ask them what they want. You didn't go out there and shut your month and listen to what they want—affordability and housing. I had ownership of 3½ million or five million acres in Queensland which were the missions. The much maligned Christian missionaries pulled these people in and protected them, and there were terrible things happening. My family went to Cloncurry when the Kalkadoon Wars were still on. My partner in mining and I camped out bush for weeks together with swags. His mother was one of the few piccaninny survivors of the Battle Range. So I've got a memory that stretches back right to when it all happened. Let me quote Rose Collis in fairness to what the opposition was doing here. Rose was a great leader, with Mickey Miller as well, in Cairns when it was very brave to be a leader. It's very fashionable now, but it was very brave. Mickey Miller's best mate at boarding school didn't speak to him for 30 years; it was a black power thing. Rose called me into a meeting, and I'm not going to name the community, obviously, but 25 per cent of the kids under 12 had sexually transmitted diseases. They were being molested. There was the death—I'd better not mention his name—of the mayor, and from the Anglican bishop I have never seen a more outraged speech in my life. 'Everyone knows the evil that is here. If there's any good to come out of the death of this great man—and we know why he drank himself to death: because he just couldn't get anything to happen. If anything good should come out of this, it is that we get rid of this filthy sin that prevails here in this place.' Well, it's still there because no-one has really attacked the real causes. You go in there and you suppress the symptoms. What successive Queensland governments did was ban grog, but that's suppressing the symptoms. Did you ask yourself why they are drinking? You don't have to be Albert Einstein here. Go down to the demonstration when the people of Yarrabah were locked up. (Time expired) The SPEAKER 53517 The question is that the motion be agreed to.  

The House divided. [09:31]
(The Speaker—Hon. Milton Dick)

52 AYES Andrews, K. L. Birrell, S. J. Boyce, C. E. Broadbent, R. E. Buchholz, S. Caldwell, C. M. Chester, D. J. Coleman, D. B. Coulton, M. M. (Teller) Dutton, P. C. Entsch, W. G. Fletcher, P. W. Gillespie, D. A. Goodenough, I. R. Hamilton, G. R. Hastie, A. W. Hawke, A. G. Hogan, K. J. Howarth, L. R. Joyce, B. T. G. Katter, R. C. Landry, M. L. Le, D. Leeser, J. Ley, S. P. Littleproud, D. Marino, N. B. McCormack, M. F. McIntosh, M. I. McKenzie, Z. A. O'Brien, L. S. Pasin, A. Pearce, G. B. Pike, H. J. Pitt, K. J. Price, M. L. Ramsey, R. E. (Teller) Sharkie, R. C. C. Stevens, J. Sukkar, M. S. Taylor, A. J. Tehan, D. T. Thompson, P. van Manen, A. J. Vasta, R. X. Violi, A. A. Webster, A. E. Willcox, A. J. Wilson, R. J. Wolahan, K. Wood, J. P. Young, T. J. 81 NOES Albanese, A. N. Aly, A. Ananda-Rajah, M. Archer, B. K. Bandt, A. P. Bates, S. J. Bowen, C. E. Burnell, M. P. Burney, L. J. Burns, J. Butler, M. C. Byrnes, A. J. Chalmers, J. E. Chandler-Mather, M. Chaney, K. E. Charlton, A. H. G. Chesters, L. M. Clare, J. D. Claydon, S. C. Coker, E. A. Collins, J. M. Conroy, P. M. Daniel, Z. Doyle, M. J. J. Elliot, M. J. Fernando, C. Freelander, M. R. Garland, C. M. L. Georganas, S. Giles, A. J. Gorman, P. Gosling, L. J. Haines, H. M. Hill, J. C. Husic, E. N. Jones, S. P. Kearney, G. M. Keogh, M. J. Khalil, P. Lawrence, T. N. Laxale, J. A. A. Leigh, A. K. Mascarenhas, Z. F. A. McBain, K. L. McBride, E. M. Miller-Frost, L. J. Mitchell, B. K. Mulino, D. Murphy, P. J. Neumann, S. K. O'Connor, B. P. J. O'Neil, C. E. Payne, A. E. Perrett, G. D. Phillips, F. E. Plibersek, T. J. Rae, S. T. Reid, G. J. Repacholi, D. P. Rishworth, A. L. Roberts, T. G. Rowland, M. A. Ryan, J. C. Ryan, M. M. Scrymgour, M. R. Shorten, W. R. Sitou, S. Smith, D. P. B. (Teller) Stanley, A. M. (Teller) Swanson, M. J. Templeman, S. R. Thistlethwaite, M. J. Thwaites, K. L. Tink, K. J. Vamvakinou, M. Watson-Brown, E. Watts, T. G. Wells, A. S. Wilkie, A. D. Wilson, J. H. Zappia, A. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

 STATEMENTS ON SIGNIFICANT MATTERS 6 STATEMENTS ON SIGNIFICANT MATTERS Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability 6 09:38 Ms RISHWORTH HWA Kingston Today I rise to acknowledge the release of the final report of the Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability. Three weeks ago, the Minister for the NDIS and I were handed the final report of the disability royal commission. It contained 12 volumes, 6,788 pages, over three million words and close to 10,000 personal experiences. After 4½ years and 32 substantive hearings, the six commissioners handed their report to the Governor-General on 28 September. The release of the report is a significant milestone that millions of people all over the country had been waiting for. One in six Australians are living with disability. That's 4.4 million people. For many of us, they're our friends, they're our colleagues, they're our family members and they're our children. The royal commission highlighted the horrible experiences many of them have faced through violence, abuse, neglect and exploitation. Many felt their experiences had finally been heard for the first time. It wasn't easy for their stories to be shared, and, at first, many felt too afraid to come forward. But the royal commission undertook a massive task of using this evidence and undertaking extensive research to examine the matters affecting the lives and experience of Australians with disability. The commission's work was particularly focused on the critical areas of violence, abuse, neglect and exploitation of people with disability in Australia. This work was commissioned by all Australian governments—Commonwealth, state and territory—and it's important that all levels of government heed its call. The evidence presented to the royal commission has been deeply confronting, whether it was Quaden, who spoke of his experience of extensive bullying because of his disability, or Rebecca, who experienced abuse in a group home. To everyone who shared their stories with the royal commission: we thank you. Your contributions have already made a difference and have led to change. To the commissioners and their staff: this work is not easy and was not easy, and we thank you for your commitment. You had to hear the harrowing experiences of people with disability, who had been let down by services, systems, institutions, government and the community. The disability royal commission has made 222 recommendations. These recommendations can be divided into those that are directed to the Commonwealth, those that are solely directed to states and territories, and those where there is joint responsibility. The volumes released should be read. They should be reflected on by all of us for years to come. We welcome the disability royal commission's final report and its vision for a more inclusive society, where people with disability are included in all aspects of society and where violence, abuse, neglect and exploitation of people with disability are not acceptable. Its message is clear: as a nation, we must do better. Over the past 4½ years, the outpouring of experiences of violence, abuse, neglect and exploitation has shocked and disturbed Australians. Around 55 per cent of people with disability aged between 18 and 64 have been sexually or physically abused since the age of 15. This is significantly higher than adults without disability in that age group. Of course, these are not just statistics; they are the experiences of real people. That's why the first volume of the final report rightly focuses on the nearly 10,000 stories, shared with the royal commission, of people with disability and their families, carers and advocates. There is the experience of Rebecca, a woman with autism and an intellectual disability, who had a large clump of her hair pulled out as she was dragged across the floor by another resident in a group disability home in Melbourne. There's also the experience of Hashem, who lives with chronic pain, chronic fatigue, anxiety and depression. He was assaulted and abused on a daily basis in his neighbourhood and even in his own home. He had bottles and rocks thrown at his house, his possessions were urinated on, and he even experienced death threats. There are broader stories of exclusion. Zoya, in her early 50s, has a physical disability and vision impairment. She shared how she often experienced barriers to employment when she disclosed to workplaces the adjustments that she needed. Despite being clearly qualified for the role, or the preferred candidate, she was not accepted for the role. There are two overarching themes across the royal commission's report. The first is the importance of ensuring the rights of people with disability are upheld and that there are appropriate safeguards and protections in place so they can live their lives free from abuse and neglect. The second overarching theme is the importance of the inclusion of people with disability across all aspects of society, including employment, education, health and housing. To achieve this, it's important that we always ensure the views and preferences of people with disability are supported, heard and respected, and that these preferences inform decision-making and service delivery. It's also about ensuring supports enable full and active participation in economic and social endeavours, facilitate access to appropriate services and support health, wellbeing and autonomy. The royal commission proposes a vision for an inclusive Australia, in which people with disability live free from harm, where human rights are protected, and where individuals live with dignity, equality and respect. Achieving this vision will take a coordinated effort from all of us, including attitudinal change through greater community understanding about disability, greater visibility of people with disability and more contact between people with and without disability. This is critical to building a more inclusive society, because it will take a whole-of-society approach to achieving the change that goes beyond government to respond to the royal commission's findings, an approach that sees everyone in our community pulling in the same direction to achieve the level of inclusion that is required to drive change. The Albanese government will take the final report of the disability royal commission very seriously. As an immediate action, and in recognition of the significance of the scale of these reforms recommended by the disability royal commission, we've established a Commonwealth Disability Royal Commission Taskforce. The taskforce will coordinate the Commonwealth's response, particularly on the recommendations that are focused on the Commonwealth. The taskforce will be critical in assessing how individual recommendations link together, understanding the broader implications of the recommendations and sequencing of the government's response. As many of the recommendations are directed to the Commonwealth, the taskforce will play an important role in assessing how the response to the recommendations could be implemented. Of course, we are committed to consulting with the disability community and key stakeholders to inform our response. We will have a comprehensive stakeholder engagement plan to inform what actions we will take next. While the disability royal commission has been running, our government hasn't waited to start work to improve the lives of people with disability in Australia and promote better inclusion. I am pleased that, as minister, I've been working very closely with all my state and territory counterparts, who have a shared commitment to improving outcomes for people with disability, particularly through Australia's Disability Strategy. We will continue to work together to address recommendations with this shared responsibility. The disability royal commission will also be given ongoing attention at future meetings between the Commonwealth and state and territory governments. While the government is taking action through Australia's Disability Strategy, our national framework to improve the lives of people with disability, I have been particularly focused on making sure that this strategy is not just words on a piece of paper but actually brought to life. On Tuesday, I announced the public consultation on the design of the Disability Employment Centre of Excellence to improve employment outcomes for people with disability and increase the capacity of employment service providers and employers. This will complement the work I've been leading to drive a focus on quality in disability employment services through the new quality framework, undertaking pilots focused on career pathways in the NDIS and disability employment services interface, ahead of introducing a new specialised disability employment service. For supported employees, we are supporting the evolution of the supported employment sector and are developing an information and advocacy service, as well as structural adjustment funding, to ensure that supported employment services can evolve. We've also introduced the Disability Services and Inclusion Bill into this parliament to enable the delivery of inclusive, accessible and safe services for people with disability outside the NDIS and to strengthen regulation to protect their safety and rights. Our approach to the National Plan to End Violence against Women and Children recognises and elevates that women and children with disability are at a higher risk of violence and can find it harder to access help when they need it. We are looking at solutions to address this. Through the safe and supported action plans, we've made children and young people with disability a priority, as they have a particularly higher risk of suffering from harm and neglect. We have doubled the government's investment in systemic advocacy to the disability representative organisations. This is to name just a few of the actions our government has taken. Given the breadth and scope of the final report, the government will take a considered and staged approach to responding to its recommendations. Responding to the disability royal commission will take a whole-of-government response. This work will be done in close consultation with the disability community and other stakeholders. As the final report indicated, government, service providers, employers, education and health bodies, schools, advocates and representatives and all of the Australian public must work together on this. We all have a role to play. This royal commission has highlighted the harms and exclusions experienced by people with disability. It has enabled us as a nation to better understand what needs to change to prevent violence, abuse, neglect and exploitation of people with disability. The Albanese government is committed to driving change across the country to ensure that the right of people with disability to live free from harm is upheld. We will continue to listen and to act. We recognise the hurt and the trauma that people with disability have experienced, and we are committed to creating a safer, more inclusive Australia for all people with disability. 09:50 Mr SUKKAR 242515 Deakin I acknowledge the statement made by the Minister for Social Services here this morning. As the minister outlined, the establishment by the former coalition government of the Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability marked a significant milestone in addressing what has been a long-standing issue in this nation and one that has been recognised by many people in this chamber—that is, the issue of violence, neglect and exploitation of people with disabilities. It's a matter of record that the royal commission's genesis was a direct response to the growing concerns of Australians about the treatment of some of the most vulnerable people in our community. The royal commission, as we envisaged it as a coalition government, set out to achieve a number of crucial objectives, including preventing and better protecting people with disabilities from experiencing harm; improving the processes for reporting and investigating incidents that fell short of the bar; and promoting a more inclusive society that ultimately supports individuals with disabilities to live independently and to be, overall, be free from violence, abuse, neglect and exploitation. As I said, the royal commission was established by the coalition in April 2019 and began to accept public submissions from 30 June that same year. We put in place a comprehensive suite of measures to support the people affected by the royal commission and committed to providing counselling services and other support to people with disability in connection with their, at that time, impending participation in the royal commission. It was an acknowledgement by the then coalition government of the impact it would have on people when we were asking them to bring forward their stories and experiences and to help us to use those negative experiences to inform the royal commission. During this process the former coalition government also agreed to Commissioner Sackville's request to extend the royal commission, at that time, a further 17 months until September this year. This highlighted the enormity of the task and the sheer number of people who wanted to tell their story and inform the commission of its work. In having commenced the royal commission, I say to the minister that we expect, and I have no reason to doubt, that the government will meaningfully, thoroughly and, importantly, in a timely manner respond to the royal commission's 222 recommendations. I know there's a lot here. I know there's a lot of work. But this has to be addressed as quickly as possible, and we will support the efforts of the government to quickly do that. We will wait to see the government's response to the more than 200 recommendations. We accept that they are complex. We reserve the right to disagree with either the recommendations themselves or the response of the government. But I will be informed by how we can support the government to act in a timely fashion, because I accept that, for those people participating in the royal commission since 2019, it has been an exhaustive process, albeit an important one, to get to where we are now. I have no reason to believe that it could have been done any faster. There's a lot there, but the government, in our view, needs to move as quickly as possible. The commission clearly examined a wide range of behaviours that constitute violence, abuse, neglect and exploitation in a number of settings. That obviously includes physical assault, sexual assault, various forms of constraints, restrictive practices, forced treatments and interventions, harassment, and financial and economic abuse as well as significant violations, which came out in the evidence, of the privacy and overall dignity of people who absolutely deserve dignity, as does every other Australian. The disability royal commission didn't limit its inquiry to a specific range of settings but rather sought to understand it in all its contexts. This included schools, workplaces, jails and detention centres, secure disability and mental health facilities, group homes, boarding homes, family homes, hospitals and day programs. By examining such a wide range of environments, the coalition's view is that the commission was able to provide to the government a comprehensive assessment of various challenges faced by people. Good people can take different interpretations of the evidence that has been presented and can disagree on the way forward, but we're confident everyone will be motivated by the lofty goals that underpinned the royal commission. As the minister outlined—and I will not repeat what the minister said in detail—we want to acknowledge and thank everybody who assisted with the royal commission. It was a long and winding road. There were nearly 8,000 submissions and nearly 18,000 phone inquiries. Issue papers were published, and there were nearly 2,000 private sessions held. So it's a huge, exhaustive set of recommendations. It was a testament to those involved. I just reiterate that there's a huge amount to deal with here. Having had some experience, I can say that, for a minister in government, there are always things that come out of left field. There are always issues of the day that you have to address that can throw you off track, but we have to move as quickly as possible on this. And we will be, to the greatest extent possible, facilitating a swift response because every day we wait, everyday issues that have a meaningful and negative impact on Australians with a disability go unaddressed in the settings that have been looked at. I just reiterate that, in terms of the process that has been laid out by the minister and the government thus far in relation to examining and progressing these issues, many of which interact with state governments and their responsibilities, the opposition will be placing a premium on decisions and processes that can result in outcomes as soon as possible, and we will be very keen to facilitate those. Finally, I reiterate my gratitude and thanks to everybody who told their story and who relived some element of trauma in their life. They should know that, by doing that, they will have prevented somebody in the future from suffering in a similar way. BILLS 9 BILLS Economic Inclusion Advisory Committee Bill 2023 9

Economic Inclusion Advisory Committee Bill 2023

First Reading 9 Second Reading 9 10:00 Ms RISHWORTH HWA Kingston I move: That this bill be now read a second time. The Albanese government is working every day to deliver on our positive agenda to boost economic inclusion and broaden opportunity for all Australians. And as a Labor government, we will always work to support the most vulnerable in our society, tackle disadvantage and provide more opportunities to boost economic participation. This is why, in November last year, the Prime Minister announced the establishment of the Economic Inclusion Advisory Committee. The committee was tasked to provide advice to government ahead of every federal budget, on ways to boost economic inclusion and tackle disadvantage. An interim committee, comprised of a diverse range of experts, has commenced this important work, and it has delivered its first report, including advice on policy settings, systems and structures, and the adequacy, effectiveness and sustainability of income support payments, which helped to inform the government's considerations ahead of the 2023-24 budget. Now, with the introduction of the Economic Inclusion Advisory Committee Bill, we're delivering on the government's commitment to permanently establish the committee as a statutory body. This will ensure there is an ongoing mechanism for the provision of independent, expert advice to government on these important issues. The bill reflects the Albanese government's commitment to hear from experts, stakeholders and the community. We recognise the value in ensuring a broad range of views are considered in the design and development of policy. And disadvantage is a complex and systemic problem. That is why the government, in our 2023-24 budget, announced the overhaul of the way Australia tackles entrenched disadvantage—by investing almost $200 million to deliver a comprehensive agenda to target investment in those communities doing it the toughest. The Targeting Entrenched Disadvantage Package will better enable government to partner with philanthropy, to listen to and empower local leaders, and work with communities to direct services in a way that meets their needs in a shared decision-making framework. We've also taken action to improve the economic inclusion of people across Australia, with more support to help with cost-of-living pressures. The 2023-24 budget announced a range of measures to support those on low incomes, including increasing the rates of working-age and student payments, and, of course, an increase in Commonwealth Rent Assistance, and expanding access to parenting payment (single). And yesterday, I introduced legislation to implement two social security measures announced in our employment white paper, which are designed to smooth the transition between income support and employment, and give people more support to get into work. But boosting economic inclusion and tackling disadvantage can't be resolved in a single budget process or indeed, through a single portfolio. It requires sustained commitment over time and across government. This bill will ensure there is an enduring mechanism for government to benefit from independent, expert advice on ways to support Australians in need, broaden opportunity, and reduce disadvantage in our communities. Similar to the arrangements in place for the interim committee, the bill tasks the committee with reporting to government annually with this advice. Their scope includes advice on income support payments, options to reduce barriers to work and economic inclusion, particularly for long-term unemployed and disadvantaged or disengaged groups. It is also within the remit of the committee to provide advice on the impact of economic inclusion policies on gender equality, as well as cohorts that face barriers to work—such as people with caring responsibilities, Indigenous people, and people with disability. In addition, the committee may provide advice on inequality markers in Australia, as well as international comparisons. To assist the government's consideration of its advice, the bill requires the committee to demonstrate regard in its report, to the government's economic and fiscal outlook and fiscal strategy, workforce participation, relevant existing policies, and the long-term sustainability of the social security system in the overall context of the budget. While this committee is independent, it is also important that the government can leverage the expertise and advice of the committee to deliver on its agenda and priorities. To this end, the bill enables the Treasurer and Minister for Social Services to seek advice from the committee on specific issues, with this direction power designed to ensure that governments can get experts from the committee to leverage their expertise and advice—for instance, with respect to certain groups of people, a specific region, or a particular policy area. The advice to government will be transparent, with the government to publish the findings of the committee. It is important that the membership of the committee reflects the diverse experience and expertise necessary for considering the complex and multifaceted issues of economic inclusion and disadvantage. As is the case for the interim arrangements currently in place, the committee is to include representatives of organisations who work closely with and represent the diverse views of people who can inform the committee of their lived experience of disadvantage. A chair and up to 13 members will be drawn from key advocacy organisations, the community sector, academia, unions, and the business sector, appointed by the Minister for Social Services, in consultation with the Treasurer. Members will hold office on a part-time basis for up to three years; however, they will be eligible for reappointment once their term ends. The positions are not remunerated; however, the government is ensuring ongoing support for the important work of the committee by providing $8.7 million over the forward estimates and $2.2 million per year ongoing. This funding is there to support the committee to commission its own research, undertake consultations, and for secretariat services to be provided by the Department of Social Services. The bill provides a range of further provisions for the operation of the committee, including the role of relevant departmental secretaries, the termination of members, acting appointments and absences of members. It also provides for periodic independent reviews of the operation of the committee and the act every five years. Of course, it is also important to remember that this is an advisory committee, and its advice is non-binding. The government will continue to make the decisions necessary to improve the lives of our citizens. That is what Australians elect governments to do. But these decisions should be informed by consideration of the best possible advice from a range of sources. With this bill, we are establishing an enduring mechanism to receive advice from experts, stakeholders and community views. It is part of the Albanese government's plan to build a better future for all Australians, to broaden opportunity and to make Australia more inclusive. I commend the bill to the House. Debate adjourned. Paid Parental Leave Amendment (More Support for Working Families) Bill 2023 11

Paid Parental Leave Amendment (More Support for Working Families) Bill 2023

First Reading 11 Second Reading 11 10:09 Ms RISHWORTH HWA Kingston I move: That this bill be now read a second time. Labor has a long and proud history of improving the lives of Australian families with critical, nation-building reforms. It was Labor governments who created Medicare, the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme and the National Disability Insurance Scheme. Labor governments introduced no-fault divorce, the single mothers benefit and the child support system. And it was a Labor government—the Gillard government—that introduced paid parental leave in this country. When paid parental leave was introduced in 2011, it was a major milestone for Australian families. As the minister for families, the Hon. Jenny Macklin MP said in parliament at the time: "This historic reform is a major win for working families who have been waiting decades for a national paid parental leave scheme". For many parents, the 18-week payment—fully funded by the government—was the first time they could access any paid parental leave. This was a material advancement in workplace and economic equality for women, whose disproportionate share of unpaid care has long-term consequences for their economic security. Paid parental leave is critical for families; it's critical for women and it is critical for the economy. The Albanese government knows this. We know paid parental leave is vital for the health and wellbeing of parents and their children. We know investing in paid parental leave benefits our economy. And we know that paid parental leave can advance gender equality. We heard these messages loud and clear at our very successful Jobs and Skills Summit, where gender equality and economic reform went hand in hand. Businesses, unions, experts and economists all understand that one of the best ways to boost productivity and participation is to provide more choice and more support for families—and, importantly, more opportunity for women. That is why paid parental leave reform was a centrepiece of our first budget. As the Prime Minister said at the time: "… a parental leave system that empowers the full and equal participation of women will be good for business, good for families and good for our economy." Earlier this year, our government implemented legislation to modernise the system to reflect how Australian families and their needs have evolved over the last decade. Our changes, which commenced on 1 July, give more families access to the payment, give parents more flexibility in how they take leave, and encourage them to share care. These important structural changes laid a strong foundation for our expansion to 26 weeks, which is the focus of this bill. The Paid Parental Leave Amendment (More Support for Working Families) Bill 2023 increases this scheme to six months by 2026. It implements in full our commitment from the 2022-23 budget and represents a total investment of $1.2 billion over five years. It is a privilege to stand in this chamber and introduce a bill that delivers the largest expansion of paid parental leave since the conception of this scheme. It provides families an extra six weeks of government-paid leave, increasing the overall length of the scheme to six months by 2026. As a result of these reforms, from 2026-27 the government's total investment in PPL will be around $4.4 billion a year. This is a significant investment that reflects our government's commitment to deliver better outcomes for families and advance economic equality for women. The roughly 180,000 families who receive the payment each year will benefit from a more generous scheme that supports maternal health and wellbeing, encourages both parents to take leave, and gives families flexibility to choose how they share care. Not only will this help families better balance work and care; it will also support participation and productivity over the longer term, providing a dividend for the Australian economy. I am pleased that our reforms have been widely welcomed by family and gender advocates, and employer and unions groups, including: The Business Council of Australia, who said that the expansion doesn't just help make a fairer society, but is also a major economic reform that will help raise workforce participation and boost productivity; The ACTU, who said that the increase to 26 weeks was a great step forward for Australian parents, particularly working women, and a stark contrast to the policies and attitudes to women that we saw under the previous government; and The Parenthood, a leading parent advocacy group, who said that this is a significant improvement after no meaningful change to the policy over the last decade. Currently, a working family can access up to 20 weeks of government funded paid parental leave. To encourage shared care, two weeks are reserved for each parent on a 'use it or lose it' basis, leaving 16 weeks for parents to share however they choose. Starting on 1 July 2024, this bill expands the scheme by two weeks each year until reaching 26 weeks—a full six months—in 2026. By 1 July 2026, the scheme will be 26 weeks long, with four weeks reserved for each parent on a 'use it or lose it' basis. That leaves 18 weeks that parents can choose to share however they wish. For instance, a couple may decide to share leave equally and take 13 weeks each.     Meanwhile single parents will have access to the full 26-week entitlement. Coupled parents will also be able to take up to four weeks of PPL at the same time. Currently, parents may take up to two weeks together. Enabling parents to take parental leave together has positive effects for maternal recovery. It provides the birth parent with extra support as they recover and is shown to reduce parenting stress. I would like to thank the Women's Economic Equality Taskforce, chaired by Sam Mostyn AO, who provided advice to the government on the optimal model for the 26-week scheme. The setting in this bill reflects the advice from that taskforce. The bill is carefully designed to work together to strike an important balance of increasing support to families, encouraging both parents to take leave, and providing flexibility in how they structure their care arrangements. Supporting maternal health and recovery from childbirth is an important objective of Paid Parental Leave. The bill strengthens this objective by extending the length of the scheme, which has long-term health and wellbeing benefits for children and their parents. Another key objective of the scheme is encouraging fathers and partners to take leave, which in turn helps balance work and family life, and promotes gender equality. International evidence is clear that when fathers take a more active role in looking after their children and participate in home life, mothers feel more supported to return to work. That is great for the family and also great for the economy. Often both parents want to take some time off work to be with their child after birth. Nevertheless, we know not all secondary caregivers feel confident to take parental leave. Research shows that periods of leave set aside for partners, and that are not transferrable to the birth parent, encourage secondary caregivers to take that leave. It helps to normalise fathers' use of parental leave and signals that parenting is a shared and equal partnership. When fathers take a greater caring role from the start, evidence shows that there is more even distribution of household responsibilities, which persists through a child's life. The changes in this bill send a clear message that the government supports shared care, and we want to see that reinforced in workplaces and our communities. Helping both parents balance caring responsibilities has significant benefits for families, businesses, the economy and gender equality. The government provides critical support through the taxpayer funded Paid Parental Leave scheme, but employers also have a key role to play.    The government payment is a minimum entitlement designed to complement employer-provided leave. Data collected by the Workplace Gender Equality Agency shows the proportion of businesses providing their own paid parental leave has increased over the last decade. In 2021-22, 62 per cent of reporting employers offered employer-funded paid parental leave. This is up from 48 per cent in 2013-14. This positive trend demonstrates employers increasingly see themselves as having a role alongside government in providing paid parental leave. We want to see this keep growing. We want paid parental leave to continue to be recognised and celebrated as not only a great social policy but also a valuable workplace investment that returns benefits for parents, employers, and the economy. In summary, it is critical that our Paid Parental Leave scheme supports modern Australian families—a scheme that is flexible, that's fair, that drives positive health, social and economic outcomes for both parents and children. This bill does just this. Crucially, it gives more families access to the government payment, provides parents more flexibility in how they take leave, and encourages them to share care to support gender equality. Paid parental leave is a proud Labor legacy, and our government will always work to strengthen it. This bill is good for parents, good for children, good for employers and good for the economy. I commend the bill to the House. Debate adjourned. Health Insurance Amendment (Professional Services Review Scheme No. 2) Bill 2023 13

Health Insurance Amendment (Professional Services Review Scheme No. 2) Bill 2023

First Reading 13 Second Reading 13 10:20 Ms KEARNEY LTU Cooper I move: That this bill be now read a second time. Australians are rightly proud of Medicare and of the committed group of doctors and other health professionals who deliver Medicare services. Australians know that the overwhelming majority of our doctors and health professionals are honest, hardworking and comply with Medicare rules. But they also understand that, at a time of great pressure on household and government budgets, every dollar in Medicare is precious and must be spent directly on patient care. The former government was given five separate reviews, including from the Australian National Audit Office, that told them billions of dollars in taxpayer money was being lost each year. They failed to act to protect Medicare. Strengthening Medicare means safeguarding the taxpayer funds that underpin it, and this government is committed to improving the compliance framework that ensures the integrity of Medicare. The Health Insurance Amendment (Professional Services Review Scheme No. 2) Bill 2023 builds on the Health Insurance Amendment (Professional Services Review Scheme) Act 2023, which implemented priority amendments in response to the Independent Review of Medicare Integrity and Compliance undertaken by Dr Pradeep Philip, known as the Philip review. The Philip review was commissioned by the government in November 2022 to respond to concerns about the operation of the Medicare system. While the Philip review found that the majority of health professionals are well meaning and protective of the health system, it recommended a comprehensive review of legislation relating to Medicare to ensure it is fit for purpose, including amending legislation that hinders the effectiveness of compliance activities. This bill will strengthen the operation of the Professional Services Review, known as the PSR, by addressing ambiguities and issues in the legislation, which will protect the integrity of Medicare. The PSR is an independent agency established under the Health Insurance Act 1973 and is responsible for protecting the integrity of Medicare by investigating whether a person has engaged in inappropriate practice. In doing so, the PSR protects patients and the community in general from the risks associated with inappropriate practice and protects the Commonwealth from having to meet the cost of services provided as a result of inappropriate practice. The PSR investigates inappropriate practice through review undertaken by the director of the PSR and in some cases by a PSR committee made up of health professional peers of the person under review. A key amendment in this bill relates to the requirements for qualifications of committee members. The legislation was intended to ensure that members of a committee would be peers of the person under review and have the appropriate skills and experience to assess their provision of services. However, current requirements are too strict to account for a practitioner with an unusual combination of specialties where there may be fewer than ten practitioners in Australia with the exact same qualifications. In such cases, it has been very challenging to establish a committee with similarly qualified members who do not have any conflicts of interest. Further, the current requirement for committee members to have the same qualifications as the practitioner has led to incongruous outcomes if the practitioner is providing services in a different field from their formal specialist qualifications. This is also inconsistent with the purpose of the definition of inappropriate practice, which requires consideration of whether a practitioner's conduct in providing services as one kind of practitioner would be considered unacceptable to the general body of that kind of practitioner. To resolve both issues, the bill will amend the requirements for committees to better align with the definition of inappropriate practice, that is, if a practitioner was providing services as one kind of practitioner, the members of the committee must also be that kind of practitioner. The bill will also clarify that the requirements are met for a person providing services as more than one kind of practitioner if each committee member is at least one of the relevant kinds of practitioner and the committee members are, in combination, practitioners of each of the relevant kinds. For example, if a person was providing services as both a cardiologist and a paediatrician, one committee member could be a cardiologist and the other a paediatrician, or both committee members could be dual-qualified as both cardiologists and paediatricians. A related change will also clarify how to apply the definition of inappropriate practice, that is, if a practitioner was providing services as more than one kind of practitioner, the test for inappropriate practice is whether their conduct would be unacceptable to the general bodies of each kind of practitioner. The bill also makes several other amendments to clarify and improve administration of the PSR Scheme, including to: make it clear, where appropriate, that provisions applying to practitioners should include practitioners who are not currently registered to ensure the PSR Scheme can be applied consistently, including to allow a person to be referred for investigation for public safety concerns; allow the director of the PSR to extend the statutory period of 12 months to complete a review of a matter if the person under review has left Australia or there is a court proceeding relating to the matter; and clarify the requirements for a person to notify a PSR committee that they are unable to attend a hearing due to medical reasons, including that they must provide a medical certificate supporting this. Clarifying these matters will ensure that a person under review is clearly aware of how the PSR Scheme should apply to them, and enable the PSR to perform its role more effectively. The PSR must be able to work efficiently to achieve its objective to protect patients, the community and the Commonwealth from the risks and costs of inappropriate practice. This is essential to ensure that Commonwealth resources are directed to necessary health services and to ensure that Medicare remains sustainable. By supporting the integrity of Medicare, this bill will ultimately benefit all Australians. A stronger Medicare means stronger safeguards that protect Medicare and the taxpayer funds that underpin it and the Albanese government is committed to that task. Debate adjourned. COMMITTEES 14 COMMITTEES Intelligence and Security Joint Committee 14 Report 14 10:28 Mr KHALIL 101351 Wills On behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, I present the following reports: A review of regulations relisting Islamic State East Asia as a terrorist organisation under the Criminal Code Act 1995 and the Advisory report on the Counter-Terrorism and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2023—Report, October 2023. Reports made parliamentary papers in accordance with standing order 39(e). Mr KHALIL 101351 by leave—On the first report, A review of regulations relisting Islamic State East Asia as a terrorist organisation under the Criminal Code Act 1995, which I present by statement from the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security: under the Criminal Code, regulations that specify an organisation as a terrorist organisation cease to have effect on the third anniversary of the day on which they took effect. Organisations can be relisted, provided that the minister responsible for the Australian Federal Police, currently the Attorney-General, is satisfied on reasonable grounds that the organisation continues, directly or indirectly, to engage in terrorism or advocate for the doing of a terrorist act. 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 for it. Section 102.1A of the Criminal Code provides that the committee may review a regulation that lists or relists an organisation as a terrorist organisation and report its comments and recommendations to each house of the parliament before the end of the applicable 15-sitting-day disallowance period. This report serves this purpose and is being presented within the required period. The regulation subject to this review relates to Islamic State East Asia. This organisation was first listed as a terrorist organisation in 2017 and was relisted in September 2020. The present regulation relists it for a further three-year period from 4 September 2023. In determining whether the relisting of this organisation should be supported, the committee reviewed the Attorney-General's explanatory statement and statement of reasons for relisting this organisation and other publicly available information. The committee also invited public submissions on the listing and received one submission from a member of the public. In our deliberations the committee noted evidence that this organisation comprised several violent extremist factions merging under the Islamic East Asia banner. Islamic State East Asia first pledged allegiance to the Islamic State in December 2015 and has since reiterated its commitment to Islamic State in 2019 and 2022. The organisation promotes sectarian violence and targets those it labels as 'infidels' and those who do not agree with its interpretations of Islam. Since its relisting in 2020, 10 incidents of terrorist activity can be reliably attributed to Islamic State East Asia, with frequent and violent attacks against civilians, armed forces and the Philippines government—seeking to remove the elected government through violence. IS East Asia remains a deadly terrorist threat to the Philippines and a target destination for foreign terrorist fighters. IS East Asia is also listed as a terrorist organisation by the United Nations and many like-minded countries, including New Zealand, Canada and the United States. The Australian government assessment is that Islamic State East Asia continues to be directly or indirectly engaging in preparing, planning, assisting in or undertaking terrorist activities that involve threats to human life and serious damage to property. Based on the evidence provided, the committee is satisfied with the relisting processes and considers that they have been followed appropriately for this organisation. The committee supports the relisting of IS East Asia as a terrorist organisation under division 102 of the Criminal Code in order to protect Australians and Australia's interests and finds no reason to disallow the regulation. I commend this report to the parliament. On behalf of the PJCIS I have also presented the committee's report on the Advisory report on the Counter-Terrorism and Other Legislation Amendment Bill. This bill would extend the operation of police counterterrorism powers in the Crimes Act and the Criminal Code for a further three years, to December 2026. These powers relate to the following: authority to stop, question and search persons and seize items in Commonwealth places, including in prescribed security zones; the control order regime; and the preventive detention order regime. The bill would impact prescribed security zones, including requiring the minister to consider particular matters before declaring a zone and requiring notification of relevant oversight bodies when a zone is declared; stop and search powers, implementing a requirement on police to inform subjects of their rights to make a complaint; control orders, including amending the issuing authority to being only the Federal Court of Australia and requiring new consideration by the court before issuing an interim control order; preventive detention orders, allowing them to be issued only by superior court judges; and the AFP minister's publicly reporting on continuing detention orders. In addition the bill proposes to extend the operation of the offence of unauthorised disclosure of information by current and former Commonwealth officers by 12 months, to December 2024, to allow for the finalisation of the government's review of Commonwealth secrecy provisions. This bill would implement 10 of the recommendations from the committee's 2021 review of police powers, which is just one of the reviews undertaken by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security in its long history of reviewing the necessity and proportionality of these extraordinary powers designed to keep Australians safe from the enduring threat of terrorism. The committee considered carefully the current terrorism threat environment and noted the number of individuals that have been arrested for terrorism offences this year to date, as well as the moderation of religiously motivated violent extremism and the ongoing rise of ideologically motivated violent extremism. The committee particularly noted advice from security agencies that the type of terrorist activity likely to be undertaken has shifted from a large-scale event to an individual or small group attack that could occur with little or no warning. The committee also noted the views of a number of submitters that some of these extraordinary powers were no longer relevant and should sunset in December this year. However, the committee weighed this against the current threat of terrorism and supported the extension of the sunset powers in the bill for a further three years. In this regard, I also note the committee is presently undertaking a review of post-sentence control orders and extended supervision orders for terrorist offenders, which is relevant to some of the provisions in this bill. The three-year extension of the powers covered by this bill will allow time for the committee to complete that important review and for the government to respond. During its inquiry the committee received evidence from the Attorney-General's Department, providing proposed amendments to the bill to establish a post-entry warrant regime, which would require a police officer to seek authorisation after exercising warrantless entry powers. Those powers currently exist, but this amendment would ensure that the AFP or the police officer seeking authorisation does so after exercising the warrantless powers that they currently have. This was recommended by the committee in its 2021 report. The committee supports the introduction of such a warrant scheme. The committee also supports the other measures in the bill to implement recommendations made by the committee and by others. The committee therefore recommends that the bill be passed by parliament. In conclusion, I extend my thanks to all the members and colleagues on the committee for their hard work on this. On behalf of the committee I thank the secretariat, who worked very hard and very diligently on these reports, and I thank all of those who participated in the inquiry, gave public statements as witnesses and made submissions in such a very short time frame. I thank them for their contributions. I commend this report to the House. BILLS 16 BILLS Migration Amendment (Australia's Engagement in the Pacific and Other Measures) Bill 2023 16

Migration Amendment (Australia's Engagement in the Pacific and Other Measures) Bill 2023

Consideration of Senate Message 16 10:37 Mr GILES 243609 Scullin I'm very pleased that the Senate has agreed to the passage of the bill, with amendments. I move: That the amendments be agreed to. The SPEAKER 53517 The question before the House is the amendments be agreed to.  

The House divided. [10:42]
(The Speaker—Hon. Milton Dick)

84 AYES Aly, A. Ananda-Rajah, M. Bandt, A. P. Bates, S. J. Bowen, C. E. Burnell, M. P. Burney, L. J. Burns, J. Butler, M. C. Byrnes, A. J. Chalmers, J. E. Chandler-Mather, M. Chaney, K. E. Charlton, A. H. G. Chesters, L. M. Clare, J. D. Claydon, S. C. Coker, E. A. Collins, J. M. Conroy, P. M. Daniel, Z. Doyle, M. J. J. Elliot, M. J. Fernando, C. Freelander, M. R. Garland, C. M. L. Gee, A. R. Georganas, S. Giles, A. J. Gorman, P. Gosling, L. J. Haines, H. M. Hill, J. C. Husic, E. N. Jones, S. P. Kearney, G. M. Keogh, M. J. Khalil, P. Lawrence, T. N. Laxale, J. A. A. Le, D. Leigh, A. K. Mascarenhas, Z. F. A. McBain, K. L. McBride, E. M. Miller-Frost, L. J. Mitchell, B. K. Mulino, D. Murphy, P. J. Neumann, S. K. O'Connor, B. P. J. O'Neil, C. E. Payne, A. E. Perrett, G. D. Phillips, F. E. Plibersek, T. J. Rae, S. T. Reid, G. J. Repacholi, D. P. Rishworth, A. L. Roberts, T. G. Rowland, M. A. Ryan, J. C. Ryan, M. M. Scamps, S. A. Scrymgour, M. R. Sharkie, R. C. C. Shorten, W. R. Smith, D. P. B. (Teller) Spender, A. M. Stanley, A. M. (Teller) Steggall, Z. Swanson, M. J. Templeman, S. R. Thistlethwaite, M. J. Thwaites, K. L. Tink, K. J. Vamvakinou, M. Watson-Brown, E. Watts, T. G. Wells, A. S. Wilkie, A. D. Wilson, J. H. Zappia, A. 48 NOES Andrews, K. L. Archer, B. K. Birrell, S. J. Boyce, C. E. Broadbent, R. E. Buchholz, S. Caldwell, C. M. Chester, D. J. Coleman, D. B. Coulton, M. M. (Teller) Entsch, W. G. Fletcher, P. W. Gillespie, D. A. Goodenough, I. R. Hamilton, G. R. Hastie, A. W. Hawke, A. G. Hogan, K. J. Howarth, L. R. Joyce, B. T. G. Landry, M. L. Leeser, J. Littleproud, D. Marino, N. B. McCormack, M. F. McIntosh, M. I. McKenzie, Z. A. O'Brien, L. S. Pasin, A. Pearce, G. B. Pike, H. J. Pitt, K. J. Price, M. L. Ramsey, R. E. (Teller) Stevens, J. Sukkar, M. S. Taylor, A. J. Tehan, D. T. Thompson, P. van Manen, A. J. Vasta, R. X. Violi, A. A. Webster, A. E. Willcox, A. J. Wilson, R. J. Wolahan, K. Wood, J. P. Young, T. J. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.
Bill, as amended, agreed to.

 Migration (Visa Pre-application Process) Charge Bill 2023 17

Migration (Visa Pre-application Process) Charge Bill 2023

Returned from Senate 17 Public Health (Tobacco and Other Products) Bill 2023 17

Public Health (Tobacco and Other Products) Bill 2023

Report from Federation Chamber 17 10:51 The SPEAKER 53517 The question is that the amendments moved by the honourable member for Warringah be agreed to.  

The House divided. [10:51]
(The Speaker—Hon. Milton Dick)

 12 AYES Chaney, K. E. Daniel, Z. Gee, A. R. Haines, H. M. (Teller) Le, D. Ryan, M. M. Scamps, S. A. Sharkie, R. C. C. Spender, A. M. Steggall, Z. (Teller) Tink, K. J. Wilkie, A. D. 94 NOES Aly, A. Ananda-Rajah, M. Andrews, K. L. Archer, B. K. Bowen, C. E. Boyce, C. E. Broadbent, R. E. Burnell, M. P. Burney, L. J. Burns, J. Butler, M. C. Byrnes, A. J. Caldwell, C. M. Charlton, A. H. G. Chesters, L. M. Clare, J. D. Claydon, S. C. Coker, E. A. Coleman, D. B. Collins, J. M. Conroy, P. M. Doyle, M. J. J. Elliot, M. J. Fernando, C. Fletcher, P. W. Garland, C. M. L. Georganas, S. Giles, A. J. Gillespie, D. A. Gorman, P. Gosling, L. J. Hamilton, G. R. Hawke, A. G. Hill, J. C. Howarth, L. R. Husic, E. N. Jones, S. P. Joyce, B. T. G. Kearney, G. M. Khalil, P. Landry, M. L. Lawrence, T. N. Laxale, J. A. A. Leigh, A. K. Marino, N. B. Mascarenhas, Z. F. A. McBain, K. L. McBride, E. M. McCormack, M. F. McIntosh, M. I. McKenzie, Z. A. Miller-Frost, L. J. Mitchell, B. K. Mulino, D. Murphy, P. J. Neumann, S. K. O'Connor, B. P. J. O'Neil, C. E. Pasin, A. Payne, A. E. Pearce, G. B. Perrett, G. D. Phillips, F. E. Pike, H. J. Pitt, K. J. Plibersek, T. J. Price, M. L. Rae, S. T. Reid, G. J. Repacholi, D. P. Rishworth, A. L. Roberts, T. G. Rowland, M. A. Ryan, J. C. Scrymgour, M. R. Shorten, W. R. Sitou, S. Smith, D. P. B. (Teller) Stanley, A. M. (Teller) Swanson, M. J. Taylor, A. J. Tehan, D. T. Templeman, S. R. Thompson, P. Thwaites, K. L. Vamvakinou, M. van Manen, A. J. Violi, A. A. Watts, T. G. Wells, A. S. Wilson, J. H. Wilson, R. J. Wolahan, K. Zappia, A. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.
Bill agreed to.

 Third Reading 18 11:00 Ms KEARNEY LTU Cooper by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Public Health (Tobacco and Other Products) (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2023 19

Public Health (Tobacco and Other Products) (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2023

Report from Federation Chamber 19 Third Reading 19 11:01 Ms KEARNEY LTU Cooper by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. COMMITTEES 19 COMMITTEES Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Joint Committee 19 Report 19 11:01 Mr McCORMACK 219646 Riverina On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade and as deputy chair of the trade subcommittee, I present the committee's report entitled Inquiry into Australia's tourism and international education sectors 'quality and integrity—the quest for sustainable growth': interim report into international education. Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e). Mr McCORMACK 219646 by leave—With 29 recommendations, the report explores the future of Australia's international education sector post COVID-19 as well as options for sustainable growth in this sector. It's important to note, though, that we are not out of COVID-19, even if we hope we are. COVID-19 is still very much with us, but we move on, and we thank everyone in that regard for what they've done to get the economy back up and running to ensure that we do what we can. That certainly comes down to the sectors to which we spoke—tourism and the international education system—during these inquiries, and I thank all members for their participation. This is an interim report, and it focuses on the international education aspect of the overall inquiry. It lays the foundation for the broader consideration and discussion of the significant intersection existing between international education and tourism in modern Australia. In 2019, international students contributed $40.3 billion to the Australian economy, including through education related travel, tuition fees and living expenses. The pandemic saw this number almost halve to $22½ billion in 2021. Since international borders reopened in December 2021, there have been gradual signs of recovery towards pre-pandemic levels of enrolments and commencements, and that's a good thing. It's a fantastic thing, in fact. Beyond its contribution to the Australian economy, international education is an important soft-power initiative. Its link to good and necessary diplomacy cannot be understated, and I'm sure the minister at the table would very much back me up on that. Mr Conroy 249127 Absolutely. Mr McCORMACK 219646 Thank you. Our international alumni who return home are our greatest ambassadors and idea brokers in both official and unofficial capacities. In this way, the international education market provides Australia with an invaluable opportunity to educate the future leaders of many of our neighbouring countries and contribute to the development of an informed and critical mindset. This is so important, particularly in the Pacific, as the Minister for International Development and the Pacific would appreciate. The Pacific is right in our backyard, and they are very good friends, as they have been for a long time, are currently and always will be in the future. The study experience of international students, wherever they may come from, has a substantial impact on Australia's overall reputation, including its position as a high-quality higher education provider. In order to remain competitive with other countries, Australia must deliver a world-class education accompanied by a positive student experience—and we do that. But, of course, there are always improvements that we can look at to enhance the system. The relatively high cost of living and availability of affordable housing were some of the factors raised as negatively affecting the experience of international students studying in Australia. To address the issues raised, the committee has recommended that the government encourage the expansion of domestic investment into purpose-built student accommodation and work with local and state government authorities in developing appropriate local accommodation models, including homestay. Further clarification of the roles and responsibilities across the Commonwealth, state and local governments may—indeed, surely will—further enhance the oversight of areas impacting upon international student experience. The first half of this inquiry has demonstrated that international students make significant contributions to the communities in which they stay. This is particular the case for regional Australia, where the committee heard that international students play an important part in supporting industries, such as tourism, as consumers and can help to fill critical skill shortages in many sectors, especially, I might add, health. Noting that only four per cent of all international students are in regional Australia, the committee believes that the government should consider additional incentives to support the promotion of the non-metropolitan areas as study destinations. As somebody who comes from regional Australia, I heartily agree with that recommendation. In relation to marketing Australia's higher education system abroad, the committee believes that the international education sector will be well served by adopting a 'team Australia' approach to marketing and branding. The committee hopes that this recommended initiative will not only build and maintain a national platform for the promotion of quality education offered in our country but also address the issues of fragmentation, duplication and divisive competition that currently exist in marketing Australian education to the world. Keeping in mind the current issues the sector faces around the high concentration of students from a handful of source markets, the committee believes that 'team Australia', as proposed, should take the lead in prioritising the development of a diversification plan. The committee heard concerning reports of fraud and criminal activity in the international education sector, including the misuse of the visa system. I thank the students, particularly those in Sydney, who gave us some of that harrowing evidence. It was brave of them to do that. It must have been difficult for them to do that, and I admire their courage. It cannot be denied that a minority of providers, particularly in the bottom end of the private VET sector, have systematically exploited Australia's education system and broken migration law to funnel vulnerable and unwilling international students into sophisticated operations that, in almost all cases, lead to labour exploitation and, in the very worst of circumstances, lead to indentured slave labour and sex trafficking. Noting the recent announcement of reforms to curb the exploitation of the international education system, this report has put forward a number of measures to further assist the Australian government in stamping out unscrupulous providers and non-genuine students. Some of these measures include reviewing the settings and frameworks of international education regulatory bodies to ensure they empower proactive risk analysis and on-the-ground quality assurance practices. The committee understands that, in addition to fragmentation of regulatory arrangements, the lack of coherent information sharing and analysis hampers the ability of Commonwealth agencies to detect and respond to fraud and criminal activities. It is the committee's opinion that the government should look to implement a more substantial information and data sharing platform that has the capability of identifying potential trends and supports forward planning and cross-agency risk mitigation. Finally, given that the Department of Education and the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations together have policy oversight of the higher education system, it is the committee's view that both departments should be empowered to take the lead role in advising the Minister for Education and Minister for Skills and Training respectively on whether policy objectives are being achieved in full, including those dependent on actions in other portfolios and agencies. Both departments should ensure that appropriate and holistic measures are included in their annual performance statements. On behalf of the committee, I extend my thanks to the many stakeholders and submitters who contributed their time and their experience to the inquiry. In particular, I thank the international students who, as I said before, engaged with the committee for this inquiry. I also thank the chair, Senator Deb O'Neill from New South Wales, and the committee members for their collegiate approach; the other people—officials, staff—who assisted in our hearings right across the country; and the secretariat for their diligent and ongoing support throughout, and for, this inquiry. I commend the report to the House. The DEPUTY SPEAKER DZY The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. Reference to Federation Chamber 20 11:10 Mr McCORMACK 219646 Riverina I move: That the order of the day be referred to the Federation Chamber for debate. Question agreed to. BILLS 21 BILLS Counter-Terrorism and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2023 21

Counter-Terrorism and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2023

Second Reading 21 11:11 Mr TEHAN 210911 Wannon The Counter-Terrorism and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2023 is incredibly timely. What this bill ultimately does is enable us to continue to keep our communities safe from terrorism while making sure that there are the appropriate safeguards in place in doing this. As a former chair of the Intelligence and Security Joint Committee, it is incredibly important to me that we build on the work that has been done for over a decade to ensure that we can keep the community safe. When the threat of international terrorism really started to hit our shores, from 2013 on, the parliament worked very carefully to put forward and agree to major pieces of counterterrorism legislation. Now, in a perfect world, we wouldn't need this legislation, but the fact is that we don't live in a perfect world and we have to deal with threats that are real and present. And, sadly, given that abhorrent Hamas attack on Israel a little over a week ago on 7 October, that threat could become real and apparent again here in this nation. So, as a parliament, we've got to work together to make sure that we can address that. This bill seeks to implement several of the recommendations of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security's 2020-21 review of police powers in relation to terrorism, the control order regime, the preventative detention order regime and the continuing detention order regime. The PJCIS report, which was tabled in October 2021, unanimously supported the extension of the powers reviewed, subject to certain amendments and the introduction of additional safeguards. The review made 19 recommendations to this end, all of which were accepted by the government in its response in September 2023. The sunset dates for the stop, search and seizure powers and the control order and PDO regimes were extended for 12 months, until 7 December 2023, following passage of the Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment (AFP Powers and Other Matters) Bill 2022 in October 2022. The coalition supported this bill which gave the government additional time to finalise its response to the PJCIS review and to consult the state and territory governments in the drafting of new legislation. The current bill introduces several reforms to ensure law enforcement agencies are equipped to protect the community from terrorism, while improving safeguard mechanisms. It does this by extending the operation of the stop, search and seizure powers for three years and enhancing safeguards on the use of those powers; enhancing oversight over the minister's power to declare a prescribed security zone; extending the operation of the control order regime for three years and enhancing the safeguards and effectiveness of control orders; extending the operation of the preventative detention order regime for three years and bolstering safeguards that apply to the issuing of PDOs; enhancing transparency requirements on continuing detention orders; and extending the operation of criminal liability offences for breaches of non-disclosure duties until 29 December 2024 while the government considers the report of the Commonwealth's review of secrecy provisions. I note that this last provision is unrelated to the PJCIS review. It is always wise and sensible when laws, especially of this nature, are put in place that they continue to be reviewed, that they continue to be enhanced and that we continue to look at the safeguards around them, and it is absolutely appropriate for the parliament to continue to do this and to provide advice to the government on what the best way to continually enhance these laws is. The PJCIS, as a mechanism for doing this, has been able to do this work comprehensively and cooperatively now for over a decade. My hope is that it will be able to continue to do this, because if it were put in a position where it couldn't then the parliament, our democracy and ultimately our nation would be less safe as a result. I hope the government continues to bear this in mind. When this bill was introduced, the Attorney-General noted that the government would not be implementing recommendation 6 of the PJCIS AFP powers review at this time but agreed to it in principle. That recommendation related to amending section 3UEA of the Crimes Act to require any agency that enters premises in accordance with that section to obtain an ex post facto warrant as soon as possible following the use of warrantless entry powers. The government noted that the complexity and significance of this matter warrants further consideration and consultation to develop an appropriate policy response. The coalition stands ready to assist with this process to ensure the intent of the PJCIS recommendation is realised. Our hope is that that is where the government will ultimately end up—making sure that the intent of this recommendation is realised. The bill would provide for the continuation and enhancement of important counterterrorism powers that law enforcement agencies require to protect Australians. As I said earlier, once again we are seeing an absolute need for these powers. My hope is that we're not going to see an uptick in potential terrorism threats in this nation, but as always we have to be guarded and mindful that this might occur, especially given, as I mentioned, the abhorrent Hamas attack that occurred on 7 October. This bill will ensure our law enforcement agencies have the powers they need to manage the threat of terrorism while protecting the rights of individuals through stronger oversight and safeguards. The coalition will always support sensible changes which ensure our legislation is fit for purpose to enable our law enforcement agencies to protect Australians from terrorism. That is why we wanted appropriate due diligence of this bill by the PJCIS and we wanted to ensure that this legislation will deliver that outcome: a safer Australia with the proper safeguards to do that. That is why, subject to the report of the PJCIS that has been tabled today, we will be supporting the passage of this bill. 11:19 Mr THISTLETH 182468 Kingsford Smith WAITE (—) (): The unfortunate and evil events that we've seen in the Middle East of recent times highlight the importance of Australia's counterterrorism, police, and security and intelligence agencies having the appropriate mechanisms and legal backing to ensure that Australians are kept safe into the future. The great thing about our nation is that we've made a success of multiculturalism. That success has been based upon respect for people of diverse backgrounds, diverse religions and minorities, but it's a very, very fragile part of our democracy and it doesn't take much to ensure that that success is undermined. That's why it's important that the parliament is continually updating our security and intelligence legislation to ensure that Australians are kept safe from impending threats into the future and that, into the future, we continue to be a very successful multicultural nation based on respect for diversity. This bill, the Counter-Terrorism and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2023, is about ensuring that we regularly update our counterterrorism laws in this country. It will ensure that our law enforcement agencies are equipped with the tools that they need to respond to terrorism and violent extremism, keeping Australian safe into the future. The bill provides for the continuation and enhancement of key counterterrorism powers. The bill also, importantly, enhances safeguards. It ensures that we get the balance right between protecting Australians and protecting civil liberties. That's not an easy thing to do, but we believe that, because we have a committee like the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Security and intelligence that is able to thoroughly look over proposals such as this and recommend changes to the parliament, we are able to get the balance right in Australia. The powers that are promoted by this are always subject to the rule of law and procedural fairness, and that's what comes through in the report of the PJCIS. The majority of the measures in this bill implement recommendations made by the parliamentary joint committee in its 2021 AFP powers review. That review looked into police powers in relation to terrorism, the control order regime, preventive detentions and the continuing detention order regime. The first group of amendments under this bill relates to amendments to the Crimes Act. The bill extends the operation of the stop, search and seizure powers for a further three years, to 7 December 2026. That will ensure that the police remain equipped to prevent and respond to terrorist acts and, also, that the provisions are reviewed again within an appropriate period to ensure that they continue to be fit for purpose and meet the objective of countering current threats. The bill also introduces new requirements for the minister, before declaring a prescribed security zone, to consider a number of specific matters, including the reasonableness and proportionality of that course of action and whether other less invasive powers are available to prevent or respond to a terrorist act. Given the impacts of such a declaration on the rights and freedoms of individuals in a prescribed security zone, this requirement ensures that the power is only exercised as absolutely necessary. The bill also imposes requirements on the Australian Federal Police commissioner and the minister to retrospectively notify specified oversight bodies within 72 hours of the declaration of a prescribed security zone and the reasons for making that declaration. That will assist oversight bodies in the performance of their important functions of investigating and reviewing the making of these declarations and the exercise of police powers in those prescribed security zones. The bill also requires a police officer who has exercised stop and search powers for a terrorism related item to inform the person who has been stopped and searched of their right to make a complaint to an oversight body. Again, that's another protection that's been built in with this reform. The amendments to the Criminal Code extend the operation of the control order and preventive detention order regimes for a further three years to 7 December 2026 so law enforcement agencies can rely on a control order as a critical disruption measure and a measure of last resort to protect the community from a potential terrorist act. Preventive detention orders are an important measure, albeit an extraordinary one, that enables police to disrupt terrorist activities. This bill will limit the power to issue control orders to the Federal Court of Australia and limit the class of persons within the Federal Court of Australia who may be appointed as an issuing authority for preventive detention orders to a superior court judge only. We're making sure that there are as many safeguards as possible to ensure the very judicious use of these orders in very exceptional circumstances. This acknowledges the seriousness and the extraordinary nature of these orders and the significant volume of evidence that must be considered in making these decisions. The bill also introduces a requirement that the issuing court must consider the combined effect of all the conditions in the control order in addition in to the appropriateness of the individual conditions. That will ensure that the totality of the conditions is appropriate in response to the control order's risk. The bill will allow for the court to impose any condition it considers appropriate as part of that control order in the same way that the court can currently as part of an extended supervision order. This will provide the court with the greatest discretion to tailor control order conditions to mitigate specific risks posed to an individual and their circumstances. The bill will also allow the AFP or the controlee to apply to a court to vary a control order or an interim control order by consent, including adding new conditions to that order. That will allow greater flexibility in ensuring the control order's conditions remain appropriate to the controlee's circumstances, which may change during the life of the order. The bill would require the court to consider the best interests of the controlee in determining whether the variation is appropriate where the controlee is a minor. This bill will also expand the public reporting requirements in relation to the operation of postsentence audit regimes to improve transparency. The bill also extends the sunsetting date on section 1124 of the Criminal Code by 12 months to 29 December 2024. This will maintain criminal liability for approximately 296 nondisclosure duties applying to current and former Commonwealth officers until the review of Commonwealth secrecy offences is finalised and considered by the government, including any proposed reforms. The bill also makes minor consequential amendments to the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act to ensure control order conditions are described consistently across the Commonwealth statute book. The bill amends the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act to provide that the decision of an AFP member to consent to the variation of an interim or confirmed control order will not be subject to judicial review as is currently the case in relation to variations of interim control orders under the provisions of the Criminal Code that the bill would repeal and replace. The final element of this bill comes about as a result of a further recommendation of the PJCIS through that inquiry. That relates to the establishment of a post-entry warrant framework. Currently, the Australian Federal Police have the power to enter a premises without a warrant in exceptional circumstances, and those urgent and exceptional circumstances relate to evidence that a suspect is imminently going to destroy evidence that is relevant in a matter that may be subject to AFP proceedings and arrest and, of course, where there is an imminent risk to the life or safety of a human being. These amendments establish an administrative scheme which would require a police officer who undertakes a search without a warrant to apply for a post-entry warrant as soon as practicable after exercising or purporting to exercise the powers under section 3UEA of the Crimes Act. This implements the 2021 bipartisan recommendation from the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security which called for this ex post facto warrant regime to be established for the extraordinary use of those powers that allow the AFP to enter a premises without a warrant in certain circumstances. So these amendments provide an additional critical safeguard for the use of those emergency powers in extraordinary circumstances. Due to the complexity of developing the scheme, those measures weren't able to be included in the original bill when it came before the House, and therefore they are now included in this bill. In conclusion, the safety and welfare of the Australian people is paramount for the Albanese government. These measures ensure that we have struck the right balance between protecting the Australian people and trying to counter terrorism and acts of violence against Australians in all circumstances while at the same time balancing the civil rights and civil responsibilities of Australians. Thankfully, we have great committees in this place, like the PJCIS, that can advise government, after consultation with the Australian people, about getting that balance right. That's what this bill is all about. 11:32 Mr WOOD E0F La Trobe I also rise to speak about my support for the Counter-Terrorism and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2023, subject to the review by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security. I acknowledge the presence of the member for Deakin, who was also chair of that committee and did a magnificent job. I've also been a member. I do have concerns about the bill. I'm not necessarily blaming the government. When I was first elected in 2004 under the Howard government, I raised these concerns. My background is with the Victorian Police counterterrorism unit, so I'm putting a bit of a policing perspective on it. When it comes to preventative detention, it was initially set up, in the first place, for if law enforcement had a person who could potentially be a suspect. They might have been looking at him, and they definitely did not have enough to arrest that person, but they got some intelligence where they believed they'd need to act. The intention was to go and arrest that person and hold them in preventative detention. That sounds all fine and good, but this is where I have always had my issues. I do acknowledge Christian Porter. When we were backbench members, we actually wrote a paper on this, saying it did need a change. The concern I have is that it doesn't allow law enforcement to ask that person in preventative detention one question. It could be different at the state level, but, when it comes to the Commonwealth level, law enforcement are not allowed to ask a question. Basically, in policing terms, you've got the person on ice in the interview room, and you can't ask them one question. You can't say, 'Hang on; we heard you made a phone call,' or, 'You met with these people,' or, 'We've conducted a search, and we found some goods.' To be honest, once you get into a search warrant stage, you should be having enough to actually interview that person. However, once you realise you have enough evidence, then you can release that person and arrest them under part IC of the Crimes Act. Then you go through the process again of reading them their rights and everything else like that. The concern I have—and I've raised this previously, on numerous occasions, with the AFP and those involved in counterterrorism—is they cannot guarantee me that, if they've got a person in the interview room who may have knowledge, potentially, of a terrorist attack, that person would be allowed to even be asked a question. And, if they wanted to furnish any information, they can't do it. They would need to be released and re-arrested. It's absolutely crazy that that's in place, and that's something I'll continue to speak out about. The danger is: the day I'm proven right, which is going to be an awful day, is when a person is held under preventative detention and they have the knowledge that could have prevented a terrorist attack. When it comes to control orders—I support control orders too—but it's at a very high threshold. In the initial stages it used to be police taking the request for an order to the Supreme Court. You can imagine the amount of paperwork and effort there is to go to the Supreme Court—and now to the Federal Court—with the information for police to prove that a particular person needs to be under a control order. So what does a control order do? It can be the more simple aspects where the person may have a curfew—meaning they're not allowed out after certain hours—or they may have to give up their mobile phone or be prevented from using social media. It could be that they're barred from socialising with certain people. It could mean they need to wear a bracelet so police can tell their whereabouts at any time. I support the control order measure, but something which was raised with me by my former colleagues in Victoria Police counterterrorism is that it has a very high threshold. I'll go to the case of Numan Haider, who was shot outside the Endeavour Hills Police Station when he was meeting two law enforcement officers. They had arranged an interview with Numan Haider, but Numan Haider had previously been going around Dandenong shopping centre with an IS flag. At that time, the only thing that could be asked of him was to leave the shopping centre. Tragically, it ended with him losing his life, but it also caused injuries to police members and long-term anguish. I congratulate former member for Holt Anthony Byrne because he did actually spend a lot of time with the police members. What Victoria Police recommended to me was what they call the community based order. As I said before, with a control order, it needs to now go to the Federal Court. A community based order could be made a lot easier by simply having it align with something like an intervention order when it comes to a family violence matter, where police or a community member makes an application before a court. Most of the time it potentially could be a young people who is completely misguided and going down the wrong path. They actually go before the court, and the magistrate determines to make an order on the evidence given by Victoria Police or someone else. And it could simply be: 'You're not allowed to associate with these people here. You can't display certain flags.' I'm not talking about counterterrorism. I'm not just talking about Islamic extremism. I'm also talking about right-wing extremism, anyone who's potentially a danger to the public, a person on a law enforcement watchlist. And can I say that the watchlist has greatly increased over the years. When it comes to control orders, there are only so many control orders that have been issued since 2004. I think there have been 28 orders in total on 21 individuals since 2005, yet we definitely know there are more people on the police watchlist than that. The magistrate then could make an order, which could be, as I said, who they can associate with and to not use their social media. But, importantly, quite often we find that those involved in terrorism have manipulated the faith they follow to use that as a way of committing awful terrorist attacks. So the order could actually be that the person meets someone of faith, of their religion, so they can get the necessary guidance. They can say, 'In actual fact you're going down completely the wrong path.' Again, my concern about preventative detention is that law enforcement—definitely at the Commonwealth level—needs the ability to interview. That's especially so now, if we look at what's happening in the Middle East. When it comes to control orders, I can say that law enforcement counterterrorism right across this country will be watching a lot of people and trying to keep up with it all—with the social media posts and potential threats. Sadly, we have seen a number of those recently. Bringing in something like a community based order is very important. In the past, the coalition government had a very strong record on the fight against terror, including an extra $1.3 billion for the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation. I thank them and also the Australian Federal Police, whose annual budget is now more than $1.7 billion. I really thank our law enforcement people, and also their families, because I know that at this time it's very time-consuming for members to be out there, trawling through emails, messages and community tips in order to keep Victorians and, obviously, the Australian people, safe. The other project which I was involved in in my former role as assistant minister for home affairs was the Building Safer Communities Program funding, where we had invested $315 million in support for 800 projects since 2016. I was very disappointed with the Albanese government back in 2022 when $50 million for safer communities funding was ripped out of that budget. That was on two fronts: one was for high-risk youth, which can be youth who simply fall out of school and go down the path of getting involved in gangs or crime. This was to keep young people at school and, if they had left, to get them back—either to get some education or training—or, if they were incarcerated, to make sure they had mentors while they were in the youth justice system. Basically, when they left, it was to give them someone to support them and give them a hand to go down the right path. The other front was infrastructure. This was put in place especially for places of worship and faith based organisations. I'll give credit to the former prime minister Scott Morrison for putting this in place after the awful Christchurch terrorist attack in New Zealand. On that occasion it was a right-wing extremist, and this was put in place. It was funding for different communities—whether Jewish, Muslim, Sikh, Hindu or Christian. It didn't matter what your religion was, you put your application in and it was assessed on the threat level. That funding was ripped out of the budget in 2022. It actually took Prime Minister Modi of India to raise it with Prime Minister Albanese when he was in India, who then said, 'We will look at it.' I thank the government for making $40 million available and another $10 million, but the concern I have is that it has now been 12 months since the May 2022 budget and there have been no security applications or upgrades. The safer communities program also included security guards. I have been to many Jewish communities where, sadly, they have to have security guards on foot. I intervened on behalf of a number of Muslim mosques and also the Islamic Museum of Australia in Thornbury because of my concerns. And there was another hate crime about a mosque up in Canberra and also at some Sikh and Hindu temples. To my great disappointment, when I intervened I was actually taken to the Auditor-General by the Labor Party for intervening and trying to make communities safer. That seems quite bizarre; I did the right thing and I think that even the Auditor-General acknowledged that those interventions were in a number of Liberal-held seats. It's a very trying time at the moment, which is a good reminder to have stronger counterterrorism laws. One thing I was also very proud of the former government for was that in 2013-14 it allocated $130 million to countering violent extremism programs. I acknowledge Dr Anne Aly, who, prior to being a member of parliament, ran a program called MyHack. She came to my electorate of La Trobe, and we ran that program together, which, member for Cowan, was really important. The Nationals and the Liberal Party passed legislation to revoke citizenship of dual nationals who engage in terrorism. This includes that those engaged in terrorism-related conduct or fight for declared terrorist organisations outside Australia are sentenced to at least three years for specified terrorist offences. Twenty-two people have lost their Australian citizenship. Of great credit to law enforcement, since September 2014, Australian law enforcement agencies have disrupted 21 major terrorist attacks and plots. There have been 148 people charged, resulting in 75 counterterrorism-related operations around Australia. Fifty-four terrorist offenders are currently behind bars for committing Commonwealth-related terrorism offences. Sadly, that's what's required. When it comes to extending the operation of the stop, search and seizure powers for another three years, that's just a very commonsense requirement for law enforcement. I remember speaking, years ago, to a psychologist and saying that, as a police force, you have a gut reaction if you think you see something which is not right. The psychologist said: 'No, it's not a gut reaction; you can just read people's behaviour from the way they've acted in the past. If you see certain behavioural traits in your law enforcement, and you've ended up realising they've been up to no good, then in the future your brain switches on when you see someone doing the same thing and you pick them up.' So I support the stop, search and seizure provisions. I'll leave it there, but, just finally, I thank all our law enforcement agencies for everything they've done in making Australia safe. 11:47 Mr KHALIL 101351 Wills As Australians, we are fortunate to have a level of peace, security and stability that countless others are not able to experience, so we appreciate that. While no-one here would argue that we don't have problems that need addressing in Australia, it is simply a fact that our vibrant democracy, with its regular elections, peaceful transfers of power and universal participation—almost universal—is the envy of many nations around the world. It can often be easy to take that stability that we enjoy for granted—to understand it as a permanent fixture of Australian life as a 'given'. But the reality is that upholding and protecting that standard of security requires a constant level of vigilance. Our ability to live our lives to the fullest is directly contingent upon our government's ability to keep us safe and secure. This is particularly true when it comes to preventing acts of terrorism. Across governments of different parties for many years, Australia's security and law enforcement agencies have worked diligently and effectively to minimise the threat of terrorism in our country. As it stands, Australia's national terrorism threat level is at the level of 'possible', meaning that, while Australia remains a potential terrorist target, there are few violent extremists with the intention to conduct an onshore attack. Despite this, we cannot afford to assume the threat of terrorism as ever really having been gone or dealt with. As time goes on, that threat persists and evolves. More recently, the AFP have stated that nationalist and racist extremism have been spreading across the country, particularly in our rural and regional areas, and also in many urban areas—in cities. As parliamentarians, it is part of our job, through our lawmaking—through amendments to laws, through the passage of new national security bills—to give our security and law enforcement agencies the tools that they need to succeed at their task of keeping us safe. At the same time, our solemn duty is to ensure the civil liberties of the people of Australia, the people that we represent. The fulfilment of both these obligations is evident in this bill that we are debating here today. The Counter-Terrorism and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2023 would amend key counterterrorism provisions that are designed to protect the country from the threat of terrorism. It enshrines into law part of the government's response to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security's review of AFP powers. These changes come from a set of bipartisan recommendations from the PJCIS some two years ago, ones that were extensively worked through with numerous stakeholders. As part of this bill, the changes enhance the operational effectiveness of the AFP's counterterrorism powers and ensure their continuation. At the same time, they place important guardrails on the exercise of those powers to ensure respect for civil liberties. The result is a bill that will help keep Australians safer. The Counter-Terrorism and Other Legislation Amendment Bill will make a number of amendments to the Crimes Act 1914. First, it will extend the operation of the stop, search and seizure powers of the AFP for a further three years, out to 7 December 2026. This will ensure that police remain equipped to prevent and respond to terrorist acts. It will also guarantee that the provisions are reviewed again in the coming years to ensure they continue to be fit for purpose in light of current threats. The bill also introduces new requirements for the AFP minister to adhere to before declaring a prescribed security zone. They'll be required to consider the reasonableness and proportionality of doing so, and whether other less invasive powers are available to prevent or respond to a terrorist act. The AFP commissioner would also be required to notify the relevant oversight bodies within 72 hours upon declaring a security zone, providing their rationale to those groups in the process. As a result of this proposed change, those oversight bodies will be able to better investigate and review these declarations. This bill will also require any police officer who has exercised stop and search powers for a terrorism related item to inform the person in question of their right to make a complaint to an oversight body. As a whole, these proposed changes will make the use of this practice both more ethical and more efficient. The legislation will also make a number of amendments to the Criminal Code Act 1995. It would extend the operation of the control order and preventive detention order regimes for a further three years, to 7 December 2026. This change is in the bill becomes law enforcement agencies continue to rely upon the control order regime as a critical disruption measure to protect the community from terrorism. Preventive detention orders are also an important measure, albeit an extraordinary one, of last resort that enables police to disrupt terrorist activities. As a safeguard for the usage of these extraordinary measures, the bill limits the power to issue control orders to the Federal Court of Australia and limits those who could be appointed as an issuing authority for preventive detention orders to superior court judges only. This acknowledges the serious and extraordinary nature of these orders, and the significant volume of evidence that must be considered in making these decisions. The bill introduces a requirement that an issuing court must consider the combined effect of all the conditions in a control order, in addition to the appropriateness of the individual conditions. This will ensure that the totality of the conditions are appropriate in response to the controlee's level of risk, and the bill would allow the court to impose any condition it considers appropriate as part of a control order, in the same way that the court can currently do as part of an extended supervision order. This will provide the court with the greatest discretion to tailor control order conditions to mitigate the specific risk posed by an individual and their circumstances. In addition, this bill would allow the AFP or the controlee to apply to a court to vary a control order or interim control order by consent, including to add new conditions to the order. This would allow greater flexibility in ensuring that control order conditions remain appropriate if the controlee's circumstances change during the life of the order. Importantly, the bill would require the court to consider the best interests of the controlee in determining whether the variation is appropriate where the controlee is a minor. This bill would also, in the interests of improving transparency, expand the public reporting requirements in relation to the operation of the post-sentence-order regime, and, in the interests of ensuring the accountability of current and former Commonwealth officers, it extends the sunsetting date of section 122.4 of the Criminal Code by 12 months, to 29 December 2024. As a whole, this bill is part of the Albanese Labor government's broad commitment to ensuring our institutions are always appropriately resourced and given the necessary powers to respond and defend Australia's sovereignty and security. The government will continue to work responsibly and constructively with our security and law enforcement institutions to meet the challenge posed by the threat of terrorism. At the same time, we recognise the importance of striking the right balance between protecting civil liberties and ensuring that Australians live without the threat of terrorism looming over their everyday lives. That is a task that, as Chair of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, I take especially seriously. This bill strikes that balance. It maintains necessary powers for the government to act in the interests of public safety and ensures the promotion of the rule of law and procedural fairness. Lastly, I want to thank all of my colleagues on both sides of this chamber who also serve with me on the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security. Their hard work on the inquiry for this bill is duly noted and acknowledged, as is their continued service on the committee. It has helped and will continue to help the security and safety of all Australians. Debate adjourned. MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS 27 MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS Services Australia Security Risk Management Review 27 11:56 Mr SHORTEN 00ATG Maribyrnong by leave—I rise to update the House on the Security Risk Management Review into staff safety at Services Australia. This review was in response to a serious physical attack on a staff member at Services Australia's Airport West service centre in North Melbourne. I announced the review on 24 May this year, the day immediately after Joeanne Cassar was brutally attacked at the job she had loved going to for 37 years. Joeanne is a senior and much-loved team leader at Airport West. She was stabbed in the back by a customer as she was filling in for a security guard at the lunchbreak so he could have his lunch. Joanne will live with a permanent injury forever. She has made a recovery, but nonetheless has sustained permanent impairment. The toll this terrible event has taken on Joeanne, her family, her colleagues and the customers who witnessed the attack is immeasurable. When I visited the staff at Airport West the day after the assault, I listened to them and I promised I would do whatever I could to help them—and, indeed, all of the people who work in Services Australia and, indeed, all of the people who use their services—to be safe. That day I immediately asked the former chief commissioner of Victoria Police, Mr Graham Ashton, to use an experienced police officer's eye to review the adequacy of the safety of Service Australia's staff and users. To put some perspective into Mr Ashton's task, Services Australia has 318 service centres across Australia, with approximately 6,000 staff providing face-to-face support to Australians. During the financial year 2022-2023, Services Australia had 10 million face-to-face interactions at their service centres. In the same period, there were almost 9,000 face-to-face customer aggression incidents. Mr Ashton visited service centres across New South Wales and Victoria, including Airport West, and engaged directly with hundreds of staff in developing his findings. I asked Mr Ashton to make sure that the voices of the frontline Services Australia workers were heard and that the level of staff engagement undertaken was an integral feature of this review. Services Australia staff do all they can to support Australians in their time of need and they rightly deserve respect in return. Not only in the day-to-day business of overseeing payments through Centrelink but through emergencies like fire, floods or the pandemic, Services Australia staff have been there. What we know is that a very small cohort of people who act aggressively or violently are in no way representative of the millions of Australians who come to Services Australia every year. Services Australia has a range of ways it provides additional support to people in need. The agency has more than 650 highly skilled social workers who provide support and connect people to additional services in their local area. These social workers also play an important role in reducing customer aggression by providing tailored support to the most vulnerable customers. The agency also has a number of community partnership specialist officers who connect people with payments and services in a place they already go for support from frontline homelessness organisations. A CPSO co-located service is preventing the need for vulnerable customers to attend service centres, and I think it also has a benefit in reducing incidences of customer aggression. Mr Ashton has noted that our social workers and CPSOs play a valued and important role in providing a wraparound service for vulnerable customers. I thank Graham Ashton for carrying out his task with professionalism and compassion and at a pace that reflected the urgency of this matter. I thank every Services Australia staff member who contributed their insights into the review. Last Friday, on 13 October, I returned to Services Australia's Airport West service office to announce the Albanese government's response to the Ashton review. I'm pleased to advise that the Albanese government will act on all 44 of Mr Ashton's recommendations. As a result we have committed more than $40 million to strengthening security at the service centres in the agency. Importantly, the government will also prioritise stronger legislation to combat violence and aggression against Public Sector workers who deliver services to Australians. The changes we propose and will introduce into parliament in the autumn session will extend to public servants who deliver services in Commonwealth agencies, not just limited to Services Australia but agencies such as the National Disability Insurance Agency, the ATO, agriculture inspectors and departments like Home Affairs. What happened at Airport West and has been an issue at other service centres around the country in that on this day there was only one security guard on duty. At some point that one guard needed to take a break. Joeanne was attacked under these circumstances when she was triaging customers as they entered the service centre. The reforms will include an extra 278 trained security staff at key offices, taking the total number to 513. Further, we will examine laws that deter and punish violence and aggression against all Commonwealth Public Sector workers who deliver services to Australians, and this will include a Commonwealth workplace protection order scheme. There is currently a loophole whereby in most jurisdictions an individual who works at Services Australia and who is the victim of aggression or violence has to take out an apprehended violence order against the perpetrator in their own name, so the individual worker has to pursue the application. This is obviously a retraumatising experience for the victim, not to mention the unfair administrative burden it places on them. This work would scope reforms that would allow the agency to take out the intervention order in relation to the workplace. It means that individual workers should not need to seek an order and the whole workplace is protected from further violence. It means that if someone has felt threatened personally they do not personally need to take the intervention order against the perpetrator, who might be hanging around in the car park or displaying provocative behaviour. This would mean the agency, the employer, will have the power to represent the worker who is essentially only under threat because of the job they do. Frontline staff will receive additional training and there will be upgrades to customer systems, including kiosks and appointments. We'll enhance the design of service centres to improve staff safety whilst maintaining the welcoming customer environment. I acknowledge the agency has been working hard over the past year to modernise face-to-face services with these contemporary designs. I acknowledge that more than 100 of the service centres have already been transformed, and that program will also continue, enhanced by Mr Ashton's recommendations. The people who work at Services Australia, in my experience, are fundamentally committed to working with everyday Australians to help them access government services. The people who work at the coalface are there when Australians need them. These are the people we need to look after so they can look after us. Just like nurses and firefighters and teachers and retail workers, no-one should go to work and have to experience aggression and violence. The Albanese government is putting our words of support for the Commonwealth Public Service into action, and I appreciate the support of the opposition. 12:04 Mr FLETCHER L6B Bradfield I acknowledge the delivery of the Services Australia Security Risk Management Review and the minister's statement today. I thank the minister for his engagement with me on this issue. Regrettably, the circumstances around this review are distressing. The review arises from a serious incident in May this year in which a Services Australia staff member, Ms Joeanne Cassar, was the victim of a vicious physical attack at Airport West service centre in Melbourne. I note that the individual circumstances of the incident are the subject of a Comcare investigation and criminal proceedings, as well as internal consideration by Services Australia. On behalf of the opposition, I again offer my thoughts and best wishes to Ms Cassar and her family. By all reports, she is a well-respected and dedicated public servant, and I'm sure all of us in this House are grateful for her work, serving Australians who are customers of Services Australia. I also acknowledge that many other staff at the Airport West service centre witnessed, or were otherwise disturbed by, this confronting incident. In my brief remarks I want to express my strong support for the principle that workplace safety must be upheld, and I also want to urge the minister that in addition to his commendable and absolutely correct concern for the welfare of staff, it's important that he shows concern for customers and demonstrates a customer service mindset. Let me be clear: every Australian has the right to be safe in their workplace. This is fundamental and paramount. We know that those who are in customer-facing roles, whether in government or the private sector, can face risks that those who are not in such roles do not face. Of course much of the work undertaken by the Australian Public Service is customer facing, and Services Australia is right at the forefront of that. Thousands of staff at Services Australia have continuing and regular engagement with the Australian public, particularly staff engaged at service centres, access points, agent sites and mobile services centres. We know of course that the cost-of-living crisis means that more Australians are having cause to interact with Services Australia, many of whom are in difficult and constrained circumstances. Sadly, a small percentage of them—and it must be acknowledged that it is a very small percentage—find themselves engaging in antisocial or violent behaviour. There is never an excuse, of course, for such behaviour, but it does underline the importance of a comprehensive response from this government to the cost-of-living crisis, which is challenging many Australians. It is appropriate that Services Australia and the government continuously monitor the security arrangements in place for employees of Services Australia. I note that there are some legislative changes recommended. The opposition will consider those in the normal way. I want to highlight a particular passage in the review which reads as follows: The current design of contemporary service centres, which are being gradually rolled out nationwide are well received from an aesthetic aspect as they create a positive and welcoming atmosphere for customers. Staff concerns though are that the design is too customer focused and presents considerable safety risks to staff. This nationwide upgrade of service centres began under the coalition, and we transformed more than 100 service centres. The current government, according to information received through Senate estimates, is presiding over a backlog of 218 service centres which are still yet to be upgraded. The approach to upgrading service centres to better meet the expectation of customers draws on the considerable success achieved under the former coalition government in New South Wales and the work of Minister for Customer Service Victor Dominello. In Service NSW, there was a focus on encouraging greater self-service, particularly via digital channels, eliminating bottlenecks, and creating and fostering a strong and respectful customer service culture. That 'customer first, citizen first' focus of the former New South Wales Minister Dominello was an inspiration for the decision of the former coalition government to create Services Australia in 2019. So it is somewhat puzzling to see, in the passage I read above, a complaint about the design of a service centre being too customer focused. Services Australia is a customer-facing organisation. It needs to be customer focused, and there needs to be strong leadership continue to foster and develop a customer services culture at Services Australia. Of course staff safety must be maintained and protected. But one of the principles that has been demonstrated with Service NSW is that if you have service centres that respond better to the needs of customers, providing them with a smoother and more efficient process, where they are waiting for a shorter period of time and have a higher likelihood of getting a satisfactory outcome from their interaction, that has many benefits, one of which is that it contributes to them being a safer environment. Unfortunately, the current minister's track record demonstrates that he is, sadly, presiding over the opposite of a customer service culture. We saw recently, on 9 October, a union-led strike at Services Australia, which resulted in the closure of three service centres and caused an uptick in waiting times across the Services Australia network. The minister wasn't bothered by this. He didn't front up to explain how he was dealing with the union led-strike, nor did he apologise to affected Australians. We know that under this minister's watch a major contract with call centre operator Serco has been axed. Now, I've got no particular brief for Serco or any other operator, but what we do know is that the data from Services Australia obtained by the opposition shows that call centre waiting times have rocketed under this minister. The waiting time for Australians calling the employment services line is now on average almost 30 minutes. That is well up from where it stood under the coalition in 2021-22. The opposition has consistently asked the minister and his agency to release data—data, I might say, that the former coalition government freely provided to the public and the then opposition—on how long Australians are having to wait in line at service centres. Each and every time, these uncontroversial requests have been blocked. Don't just take my word for it; take the word of Services Australia's long-time agency spokesman Mr Hank Jongen, who admitted live on radio in August that widespread delays to the processing of paid parental leave was a result of understaffing. He said, 'In reality, we are understaffed in our service delivery postcodes', adding that 'we are currently actively trying to recruit staff to help us address call centre and processing delays.' Sadly, I don't have the time to go at full length into just how much this minister has dropped the ball in relation to digital transformation. But this review indeed hints at the digital paralysis that is gripping Services Australia. The review mentions a customer aggression reporting dashboard that is yet to be finalised. One of the reasons it probably hasn't been finalised is that this minister has fired over 1,000 specialist ICT personnel. Of course safety is of first importance but so too is customer service, where this minister has dropped the ball. BILLS 30 BILLS Counter-Terrorism and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2023 30

Counter-Terrorism and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2023

Second Reading 30 12:12 Mr THISTLETHWAITE 182468 Kingsford Smith I thank all of our parliamentary colleagues for their contributions to the debate on the Counter-Terrorism and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2023. This bill would provide for the continuation of key counterterrorism powers. It would also enhance safeguards and oversight mechanisms for these powers, providing appropriate checks and balances which promote the rule of law and procedural fairness. The bill would extend the sunsetting of the emergency stop, search and seizure powers in the Crimes Act and the control order and preventative detention order regimes in the Criminal Code to 7 December 2026. This will ensure that law enforcement remains equipped to prevent and respond to terrorist acts and that the provisions are reviewed again within an appropriate period to ensure they continue to be fit for purpose in light of current threats. The bill would introduce critical safeguards to prevent the exercise of extraordinary police powers unless it is necessary and appropriate to prevent or respond to a terrorist act and to assist oversight bodies in performing their important functions in investigating and reviewing the use of these powers. The bill would limit the power to issue control orders to the Federal Court of Australia and limit the classes of persons who may be appointed as an issuing authority for preventative detention orders to superior court judges only. This acknowledges the serious and extraordinary nature of these orders and the significant volumes of evidence that must be required to make these decisions. The bill would require that an issuing court must consider the combined effect of the conditions of the control order, in addition to the appropriateness of individual conditions. It will also provide that a court can impose any conditions it considers appropriate. These measures would ensure that control orders can better be tailored to address the risk profiles of the individuals concerned. To allow greater flexibility in ensuring that control order conditions remain appropriate if the controlee's circumstances change during the life of the order, the bill would enable the variation of a control order, including the addition of new conditions by consent. The bill will also improve transparency in relation to the operation of post-sentence order regimes in division 105A of the Criminal Code by expanding public reporting requirements. Finally, the bill would extend the sunsetting date of section 122.4 of the Criminal Code by 12 months to 29 December 2024, maintaining criminal liability for current and former Commonwealth officers for breaches of approximately 296 disclosure duties in Commonwealth laws. This will allow for the finalisation of a comprehensive review of the Commonwealth secrecy offences and its consideration by government. I note that the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security has this morning tabled a bipartisan report recommending passage of the bill and the amendments moved. In conclusion, once again, thanks to all members who have contributed to the debate and the states and territories for their engagement on this bill. I commend the bill to the House. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. Consideration in Detail 30 12:17 Mr THISTLETHWAITE 182468 Kingsford Smith I present the supplementary explanatory memorandum to the bill, and I ask leave of the House to move government amendments (1) and (2), as circulated, together. Leave granted. Mr THISTLETHWAITE 182468 I move government amendments (1) and (2) together: (1) Schedule 1, page 3 (line 4), omit the heading, substitute: Part 1 — Prescribed security zones and other matters Crimes Act 1914 (2) Schedule 1, page 6 (after line 10), at the end of the Schedule, add: Part 2 — Post-entry warrants Crimes Act 1914 11 Section 3UA Insert: assessment officer: see subsection 3UJC(1). nominated AAT member means a person in relation to whom a nomination is in force under section 3UJE. post-entry warrant: see subsection 3UEB(1). 12 After section 3UEA Insert: 3UEB Emergency entry to premises without warrant — post-entry warrants Requirement to apply for post-entry warrant (1) A police officer who has entered premises under, or purportedly under, subsection 3UEA(1) must: (a) apply to an assessment officer for a warrant (a post-entry warrant) under this section in relation to the entry to the premises; and (b) do so as soon as practicable after the exercise, or purported exercise, of powers under section 3UEA in relation to the premises. (2) The application must: (a) be in writing; and (b) set out: (i) the nature of the matters suspected by the police officer for the purposes of paragraphs 3UEA(1)(a) and (b); and (ii) the grounds on which the police officer held the suspicion; and (c) state whether the police officer is: (i) a member of the Australian Federal Police (within the meaning of the Australian Federal Police Act 1979); or (ii) a special member (within the meaning of that Act); or (iii) a member, however described, of a police force of a State or Territory; and (d) if the police officer is a member mentioned in subparagraph (c)(iii) of this subsection—identify the relevant State or Territory; and (e) state the police officer's name, rank, identification number (however described) and police station (if applicable and necessary); and (f) state the police officer's contact details, including details of how the assessment officer may give to the police officer the following: (i) any request in writing under subsection (4) of this section for information or documents; (ii) the post-entry warrant or a notice of refusal to issue the warrant; and (g) if the police officer is a member, or special member, mentioned in subparagraph (c)(i) or (ii) of this subsection—include details of how the assessment officer may give to the Commissioner the post-entry warrant or a notice of refusal to issue the warrant; and (h) if the police officer is a member mentioned in subparagraph (c)(iii) of this subsection—include details of how the assessment officer may give to the Commissioner of Police in the police force of the relevant State or Territory, or the person holding equivalent rank, the post-entry warrant or a notice of refusal to issue the warrant; and (i) set out any information that: (i) is known to the police officer; and (ii) the police officer considers may assist the assessment officer to give, to any current or former owners or occupiers of the premises who have been affected by the exercise, or purported exercise, of the powers under section 3UEA in relation to the premises, the post-entry warrant or a notice of refusal to issue the warrant; and (j) set out the time, date and place of the entry; and (k) set out any other information, and be accompanied by any documents, the police officer considers relevant to the application. (3) The information in the application must be sworn or affirmed by the police officer. Requesting further information or documents (4) The assessment officer may request, in writing, that the police officer provide further information or documents relating to the application, and that the police officer do so in a particular way. (5) If the police officer is unable to provide some or all of the further information or documents requested, the police officer must, within a reasonable period, notify the assessment officer: (a) of the information or documents that cannot be provided; and (b) of the reasons why the information or documents cannot be provided. (6) If the assessment officer is notified in accordance with subsection (5) that some or all of the further information or documents cannot be provided, the assessment officer must (unless there is another reason not to) continue to consider the application despite having not received the further information or documents. Issue of warrant (7) The assessment officer must: (a) issue the post-entry warrant if, and only if, the assessment officer is satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that in entering the premises the police officer suspected, on reasonable grounds, the matters mentioned in paragraphs 3UEA(1)(a) and (b); and (b) otherwise, refuse to issue the post-entry warrant. (8) The issue of, or refusal to issue, the post-entry warrant does not affect whether or not the exercise, or purported exercise, of powers under section 3UEA was valid. Note: Section 138 of the Evidence Act 1995 (discretion to exclude improperly or illegally obtained evidence) may apply to evidence obtained as a result of the exercise, or purported exercise, of powers under section 3UEA of this Act. Content of warrant (9) The post-entry warrant, if issued, must include the following: (a) the information mentioned in paragraphs (2)(c), (d), (e) and (j); (b) a statement of the reasons for issuing the warrant; (c) a statement that the warrant has been issued under this section. Notification requirements (10) If the assessment officer issues the post-entry warrant, the assessment officer must give a copy of the warrant to the persons mentioned in subsection (12) as soon as reasonably practicable after issuing the warrant. (11) If the assessment officer refuses to issue the post-entry warrant: (a) the assessment officer must give written notice of the refusal to the persons mentioned in subsection (12) as soon as reasonably practicable after refusing to issue the warrant; and (b) the notice must include a statement of reasons for refusing to issue the warrant; and (c) in the case of a notice given to a person mentioned in paragraph (12)(d)—the notice must also contain information about any right the person may have to: (i) make a complaint to the Commonwealth Ombudsman under the Ombudsman Act 1976; or (ii) take civil or other action; in relation to the entry to the premises or the exercise, or purported exercise, of powers under section 3UEA in relation to the premises. (12) For the purposes of subsections (10) and (11), the persons are the following: (a) the police officer; (b) if the police officer is a member of the Australian Federal Police (within the meaning of the Australian Federal Police Act 1979) or a special member (within the meaning of that Act)—the Commissioner; (c) if the police officer is a member, however described, of a police force of a State or Territory—the Commissioner of Police in that police force or the person holding equivalent rank; (d) any current or former owners or occupiers of the premises: (i) whom the assessment officer considers have been affected by the exercise, or purported exercise, of the powers under section 3UEA in relation to the premises; and (ii) to whom the assessment officer considers it is practicable to give the post-entry warrant or notice of refusal (as the case requires). Protection of information (13) Despite subsections (9) and (11), a post-entry warrant or notice of refusal must not include information if disclosure of that information is likely to prejudice national security (within the meaning of the National Security Information (Criminal and Civil Proceedings) Act 2004). 13 At the end of subsection 3UJB(2) Add: ; (e) the number of applications made by AFP police officers under section 3UEB for post-entry warrants; (f) the number of post-entry warrants issued under section 3UEB in response to applications made by AFP police officers; (g) the number of refusals to issue a post-entry warrant under section 3UEB in response applications made by AFP police officers. 14 After Subdivision CA of Division 3A of Part IAA Insert: Subdivision CB — Matters relating to post-entry warrants 3UJC Assessment officers (1) An assessment officer is: (a) a person: (i) who is a Judge of the Federal Court of Australia, or a Judge of the Supreme Court of a State or Territory; and (ii) in relation to whom a consent under subsection 3UJD(1), and a declaration under subsection 3UJD(2), are in force; or (b) a nominated AAT member. (2) A function or power conferred on a Judge by this Division is conferred on the Judge in a personal capacity and not as a court or a member of a court. (3) A Judge has, in relation to the performance or exercise of a function or power conferred on an assessment officer by this Division, the same protection and immunity as if the Judge were performing that function, or exercising that power, as, or as a member of, a court (being the court of which the Judge is a member). Note: A member of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal has the same protection and immunity as a Justice of the High Court (see subsection 60(1) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975). 3UJD Consent of Judges (1) A Judge of the Federal Court of Australia, or of the Supreme Court of a State or Territory, may, by writing, consent to be declared an assessment officer by the Minister administering the Judiciary Act 1903 under subsection (2). (2) The Minister administering the Judiciary Act 1903 may, by writing, declare a Judge in relation to whom a consent under subsection (1) is in force to be an assessment officer for the purposes of this Division. (3) A consent or declaration under this section is not a legislative instrument. 3UJE Nominated AAT members (1) The Minister administering the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (the AAT Minister) may, by writing, nominate a person who holds one of the following appointments to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal to issue post-entry warrants and perform related functions under this Act: (a) Deputy President; (b) full-time senior member. (2) Despite subsection (1), the AAT Minister must not nominate a person who holds an appointment as a full-time senior member of the Tribunal unless the person: (a) is enrolled as a legal practitioner of the High Court, of another federal court or of the Supreme Court of a State or of the Australian Capital Territory; and (b) has been so enrolled for not less than 5 years. (3) A nomination ceases to be in force if: (a) the nominated AAT member ceases to hold an appointment described in subsection (1); or (b) the AAT Minister, by writing, withdraws the nomination. 15 Subsection 3UK(1) Before "3UF", insert "3UEB or". 16 Application — post-entry warrants Section 3UEB of the Crimes Act 1914, as inserted by this Schedule, applies in relation to an entry to premises that occurs after the commencement of this item. The government amendments would establish an administrative scheme requiring a police officer to apply for an assessment officer for a post-entry warrant as soon as practicable following the exercise, or purported exercise, of powers under section 3UEA(1) of the Crimes Act. This section establishes an emergency entry to premises without a warrant. By offering a considered and informed review of this section's police powers by an appropriately skilled assessment authority, post-entry warrants are critical safeguards against the inappropriate use, or purported use, of the emergency powers under section 3UEA and, in turn, provide confidence to both police officers and the public that these powers are appropriately used. While the scheme does not affect the validity of the exercise of the powers under that section of the Crimes Act, the scheme would provide affected individuals with notice that the police may have used the powers in accordance with the legislation. It may also better inform law enforcement agencies about the appropriate use of those powers in exceptional circumstances. These amendments implement a recommendation from the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Security and Intelligence in 2021, and the report tabled by the chair of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security earlier today again supported the establishment of a post-entry warrant, recommending that the government introduce amendments to that effect. These amendments are quite important. As I pointed out earlier, they come about as a result of a recommendation from the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Security and Intelligence. That committee looked at this regime and consulted quite widely with the Australian people and with the states before making this recommendation. These amendments thankfully have the support of the opposition, and I commend them to the House. Question agreed to. Bill, as amended, agreed to. Third Reading 34 12:20 Mr THISTLETHWAITE 182468 Kingsford Smith by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. BUSINESS 34 BUSINESS Days and Hours of Meeting 34 12:21 Mr BUTLER HWK Hindmarsh I present a chart showing the proposed parliamentary sittings for 2024. Copies have been placed on the table, and I ask leave of the House to move that the proposed parliamentary sittings be agreed to. Leave granted. Mr BUTLER HWK I move: That the proposed parliamentary sittings for 2024 be agreed to. This sitting pattern has been debated and adopted without dissent in the other place. It provides for 17 weeks of sitting for this House next year and 14 weeks, exclusive of estimates, in the other place. This is consistent with the average number of sitting weeks for each chamber since 2007, excluding in election years. This is very much business as usual. I make the point that we are tabling this in mid-October. We've been able to put together a sitting pattern that's been adopted without dissent in the other place very early in the latter part of 2023 so that members are able to have as much time as possible to plan their 2024. I commend the motion to the House. 12:23 Mr CHESTER IPZ Gippsland I move an amendment to the motion: That the following words be added: "and that the House shall meet on Monday, 14 October 2024, Tuesday, 15 October 2024, Wednesday, 16 October 2024 and Thursday, 17 October 2024." In moving this amendment, the opposition is making it very clear that it has some real concerns about the government's schedule for next year because it's very light on. Mr CHESTER IPZ The Deputy Leader of the House and the member for Kingsford Smith are interjecting in a way which isn't consistent with the view they held only a matter of 18 months to two years ago, when they sat on these benches. I well remember sitting here when the now Leader of the House, the former Manager of Opposition Business, stood with feigned indignation—outrage—ranting and raving about previous schedules put forward by the then coalition government. I'm sorry the Leader of the House isn't here today to participate in the debate. I understand he is unwell, and I wish him well in his recovery; he is a good man. But I cannot forget those moments when he was on this side of the House and he lectured, cajoled and ranted about the previous government's arrangements of up to 18 weeks in the sitting schedule, saying it was not enough for him. Now he has come forward with a plan that appears to have 16 weeks for sitting, which is very light on compared to previous years. What has happened to the legislative agenda of those opposite? Is it so light on that they would put forward this schedule for 2024, notwithstanding that they cancelled next week's sitting? Mr CHESTER IPZ The member for Kingsford Smith is suggesting I'm filibustering. I heard him deliver a speech a moment ago, and I have never heard him pronounce so many syllables so carefully and so spread out, so he was filibustering himself. I take his interjection that I may be filibustering at this moment. But I will say this: we are here to talk about this sitting schedule, and I believe it is unprecedented in my time here that the government of the day would cancel a sitting week—next week—purely because the Prime Minister does not want to be here to answer questions on issues like the Voice. He does not want to be here, but the parliament can sit without the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister does not want to be here because he does not want us to ask any questions of the government. He does not want his ministers to be exposed to more questions on a range of topics because he is simply very, very nervous about leaving his colleagues unattended without him being on watch. He does not want them to be here unattended, meeting and talking about his appalling judgement. His decision to divide Australians on his failed voice proposal showed his appalling judgement. The Prime Ministers simply does not want to have his colleagues to have an opportunity to gather without him there to enforce discipline, shall I say. In moving this amendment to the motion today, I urge those opposite to consider carefully the option being put forward by this side of the House. I urge them to support our amendment. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 230531 Is the amendment seconded? 12:27 Mr FLETCHER L6B Bradfield I am very pleased to second the amendment. Let me start by saying that it is frankly quite disappointing that the Deputy Leader of the House gave no notice of this being brought on at this time. I think it is regrettable and raises a justified suspicion that what the government is trying to do is to sneak through something they know is pretty shameful. This timetable is pretty shameful. This timetable is a disgrace, and you know it's a disgrace. The fact is that to propose a timetable of only 17 weeks shows a contempt for the Australian people and a contempt for the role of this parliament in holding to account executive government. This is a pattern we have seen repeated time after time by the Albanese Labor government. In mid-2022, shortly after coming to government, the Prime Minister proposed a sitting timetable for 2022 which saw the parliament sit for only 40 days—40 days was the sitting timetable that was moved and adopted by the parliament on the instigation of this weak, incompetent Prime Minister who's determined to avoid and minimise parliamentary scrutiny. It was 40 days in 2022, compared to 67 days in 2021 and 58 days in 2020. But, of course, he didn't stop there. He wasted no time in cancelling a week of sittings just a couple of months later, in response to the sad death of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II. And next week is supposed to be a parliamentary sitting week. It was in the parliamentary timetable that was adopted by this parliament at the end of last year on the motion of the Leader of the House. But, just a few weeks ago, this Prime Minister peremptorily cancelled sitting for next week, again citing overseas obligations as his excuse for doing so. We know that the real reason was that the last time he wasn't here and the member for Corio was in the chair—the Deputy Prime Minister put on his big boy pants and was in the chair—it didn't go very well. It didn't go very well at all. It was all very embarrassing and very messy, and it was yet another reminder to this Prime Minister that he's not very keen on parliamentary accountability and scrutiny. He doesn't actually like making himself accountable to this parliament. He doesn't actually like being on the receiving end of questions. He doesn't actually like having to explain to the elected representatives of the people of Australia what his government is doing, and that is why we are seeing a clear pattern from this Prime Minister of trying to reduce, at every opportunity, the number of days that this parliament sits. He produced a timetable for 2022 which was ridiculously light on—only 40 sitting days. He then seized an opportunity to cut a week of sitting time just a couple of months later. Just a month or so ago he seized another opportunity to cut a week of sitting time. The parliament is supposed to be sitting from next Monday to next Thursday, according to the sitting timetable that this House adopted last year for 2023. But then, of course, he trashed that. He said: 'I don't want the parliament to be sitting next week. I'm travelling; I'll use that as an excuse!' Let's have a look at how that pattern has been replicated in this joke of a sitting timetable which has been put before the parliament today and which the Deputy Leader of the House has just tried to sneak through, without giving appropriate notice to this side to the House. Trying to get this through without people realising what was going on is deeply dodgy. This is deeply dodgy. What we see in this sitting timetable is: 4 March, ASEAN; 5 March, ASEAN; and 6 March, ASEAN. What does that mean? Does that mean the parliament is all going to ASEAN? No, it doesn't. What it means is that it's this Prime Minister's excuse. He's leapt on it desperately: 'I'm going to use some international travel obligations as another excuse to minimise the amount of time that this parliament sits!' This is showing contempt for the Australian people. It is showing contempt for the role of this parliament as a chamber which carries out its responsibility to hold this government to account, to subject it to the normal processes of parliamentary scrutiny. And, my goodness, isn't there so much to scrutinise under this hopeless, inept and incompetent government? But let's just remind ourselves of the sharp contrast between what this Prime Minister used to say when he was in opposition and what he's actually doing now. In 2018 he had this to say about a sitting timetable that had been proposed, concluding in a frenzy of indignation: … it is contemptuous of the democratic will of the people. It's contemptuous of this parliament as an institution. It is contemptuous of the rights of members of this House of Representatives and of senators to actually do the jobs that they are elected to do. And would we just go along with a timetable such as this? Now the Prime Minister of this government insults this House, insults the people of Australia and insults parliamentarians who have a job to do, who are elected to come here and to subject this government to scrutiny, to ask questions during question time, to meet in parliamentary committees and to speak up for their constituents. These are the fundamental roles of parliamentarians and the fundamental job of this House. And yet, what we see from this Prime Minister is that he wants us to sign on to a parliamentary timetable which has only 17 sitting weeks. If you go back to Federation, the average number of sitting weeks has been 20. Seventeen weeks is well under the normal process and the normal meeting times for parliament to come together. You have to ask: Why is this Prime Minister so afraid to front up to parliament? Why is he seizing every opportunity and every threadbare excuse to cancel scheduled sitting weeks and to minimise the number of weeks that the parliament sits? Why has he demonstrated a track record in this government of consistently seeking to minimise the amount of time that this parliament comes together? Remember that this was a prime minister who, when he was in opposition, said he was going to do politics differently. He promised a new commitment to transparency and accountability. He is certainly doing it differently. What he's doing is transparently and nakedly taking every opportunity to avoid being subject to the normal processes of parliamentary scrutiny, and he's doing it in the most crude and base way possible, which is by seeking to have as few days as possible for this parliament to meet. It is a disgrace that this sitting timetable has been proposed, it is a disgrace that this government is trying to sneak it through without proper consultation or notification to the opposition, and it is a disgrace that this government is showing contempt for elected parliamentarians and for the people of Australia, who send us here to do a job on their behalf. 12:37 Mr VIOLI 300147 Casey I commend the member for Bradfield for that contribution. We sit here today with another example of this out-of-touch Prime Minister saying many things before the election and then, when he wins government, not delivering on those. His actions always speak louder than his words. The reality is the Australian people are struggling right now. Cost of living is the biggest issue that Australians are facing. We, on this side, know that. Those opposite clearly do not—through their words and their actions. The significant issues are 11 interest rate rises since this Labor government came to power, inflation going through the roof and continuing to stay high, and petrol and power prices being out of control. This Prime Minister's answer to the challenges the Australian people face is to propose 64 days of sitting next year. There are 365 days in a year, and this Prime Minister proposes 64 days, and that's assuming that he doesn't cancel any days next year. As the member for Bradfield rightly pointed out, we were supposed to be sitting next week to address the challenges that the people of Australia are facing, but the Prime Minister decided that without him here—because he doesn't trust the Deputy Prime Minister—the government is not sitting next week. So we've got 64 days next year as a best-case scenario. History says that this Prime Minister will cancel and cut, as the member for Gippsland said. I'm not a big betting man, but, if I were going to bet, I'd be bettering there will be more cuts next year. The reason is that this Prime Minister not only has the wrong priorities for the Australian people; he has no priorities for the Australian people. He has no agenda and he has no plan to solve the challenges that our community is facing. We see that every day in question time, whether it's a question from the opposition or even a dixer from his own side. He's got three to four talking points that he has repeated for 18 months, and then he goes from his three to four talking points to talk about the opposition. He spends more time in question time talking about the opposition than he does about his plans, what he's delivered and, most importantly, what he can do to help the Australian people who are struggling right now. It's not that surprising that the Prime Minister talks a lot about the opposition. When you look at his background and his history, you see it's his most natural habitat. It's what this Prime Minister knows. He's been in this parliament for 27 years, so you would think he knows it well, he likes it and he would want to sit for a long time. But in those 27 years he spent two decades—20 years—in opposition, so he knows opposition well. He knows how to criticise the other side. He's an expert in opposition, and the Australian people have worked that out. They have seen that this Prime Minister is an expert in opposition. I will pay attention today, as I always do, to his answers and even the MPI, when those on the government back benches get their talking points, because we all know it's the same talking points that they all deliver. It's quite fun to listen to them. Of every talking point from the back bench in an MPI, coming from the Prime Minister and the Treasury, 90 per cent talk about the opposition. They're an opposition in waiting. It's what they know. It's what they do well. It's not surprising that this Prime Minister wants to avoid scrutiny; he's not across the detail of any portfolio, of any opposition. We had the farce this week where he was asked by the Shadow Treasurer a question about the economy and he had to get a note passed to him from the Treasurer. He had to get a note passed to him about the economy. It is not that surprising, though, because we all know that he didn't know the cash rate. He didn't know the unemployment rate But you've got to look not just at what he says, because he says a lot, promises a lot, doesn't deliver it and can't answer the basic questions; this is a prime minister that has not received one briefing from the Treasury secretary, the most senior public servant for the economy, in a cost-of-living crisis. There has been not one briefing from Steven Kennedy, and that was admitted in Senate estimates. But in his time as Prime Minister he has spent at least three days at the Australian Open tennis. So let's put this into perspective as Australians are struggling. We are in a cost-of-living crisis. The economy is the major issue that we're hearing about from our communities. This Prime Minister has spent more time at the Australian Open tennis than he has getting a briefing from the most senior economics adviser in the Public Service. He is not across the detail and does not want to be across the detail, He wants to enjoy the trappings of the office without the scrutiny. The frustration of this is that it is the Australian people who are struggling. We are now looking at petrol prices well over $2 in my community and in every community across the country. Now, this Prime Minister, when he was in opposition, was very happy to criticise then Prime Minister Morrison when petrol prices were at $1.79. He was looking for solutions from the Prime Minister at that time. At $1.79, he was happy to criticise the then prime minister. He was happy to criticise the then Prime Minister at $1.79. It's over $2 a litre today and we hear nothing from this Prime Minister—crickets! He has no solutions for the Australian people. Ms Ryan 249224 It's not the MPI! Mr VIOLI 300147 Those on that side will throw barbs, which they're good at, but let's look at what the former government did when petrol hit over $2. They acted, cutting the excise in half and giving cost-of-living relief to the Australian people. That's what we're seeing from this Prime Minister: he has no answers to the challenges we have, which is why he wants to avoid scrutiny. It is why he is suggesting that we only sit in this House for 64 days next year. The Australian people would expect— A government member interjecti ng— Mr VIOLI 300147 I do note that it's standard that we don't sit in January. We aren't sitting for the Australian Open, so the PM will be happy about that! I'm not sure when the NRL grand final is, but I'm sure he'll make sure he has that week off in case his Rabbitohs make the NRL final. I'm sure he'll want to be there! That's the thing about this Prime Minister: he isn't across the detail. He doesn't even have an agenda or any priorities; he is hiding from scrutiny. As the member for Bradfield rightly pointed out, he is very happy to criticise others when he's in opposition but now that he has the opportunity to make a difference and to solve the challenges that the Australian people are facing, he can't. There are no solutions, nothing— An opposition member: No ability! Mr VIOLI 300147 No ability and no detail. The sad part about it is that it's the Australian people who are going to pay the price for this out-of-touch and incompetent Prime Minister. 12:46 Mr BUTLER HWK Hindmarsh We will not be supporting this amendment, and I want to correct the record on a couple of counts. Firstly, let's be clear: this sitting schedule has been out there for some time now. As I said, it was adopted without dissent in the Senate. And, to the Manager of Opposition Business's suggestion that we have come in here without any notice: he knows full well that his office was informed at around 11:30 that we would seek to bring this on after the ministerial statement about the Ashton review. As to the substance of the amendment: the Manager of Opposition Business has taken us back to Federation for an average of sitting times, a time when people used to get on a steamship from Perth and on the train from everywhere else, uprooting their entire lives to sit in this place for six or eight weeks at a time Mr Chester IPZ But he was accurate! Mr BUTLER HWK He may well be accurate; I haven't gone back to 1901. What I have done is go back to 2007—a period of 16 years or so, the majority of which saw those opposite government and not the Labor Party—and the average sitting weeks for a non-election year, which 2024 will be, was 17 weeks for the House of Representatives and 14 weeks for the Senate. That is exactly what is contained in this sitting schedule. And I'll say further that the final non-COVID non-election sitting year for the former coalition government, 2018, had—wait for it—17 weeks of sittings for the House of Representatives! We have important legislation to get on with here—the Disability Services and Inclusion Bill 2023. This has been debated in the Senate and adopted without dissent. The opposition and the crossbench have had notice of the government's intention here, so I move: That the question be now put. The SPEAKER 53517 The question is that the question be now put.  

The House divided. [12:53]
(The Speaker—Hon. Milton Dick)

 73 AYES Albanese, A. N. Aly, A. Ananda-Rajah, M. Bandt, A. P. Bates, S. J. Bowen, C. E. Burnell, M. P. Burney, L. J. Burns, J. Butler, M. C. Byrnes, A. J. Chalmers, J. E. Chandler-Mather, M. Charlton, A. H. G. Chesters, L. M. Clare, J. D. Claydon, S. C. Coker, E. A. Collins, J. M. Conroy, P. M. Doyle, M. J. J. Elliot, M. J. Fernando, C. Freelander, M. R. Garland, C. M. L. Gee, A. R. Georganas, S. Giles, A. J. Gorman, P. Gosling, L. J. Hill, J. C. Husic, E. N. Jones, S. P. Kearney, G. M. Keogh, M. J. Khalil, P. Lawrence, T. N. Laxale, J. A. A. Leigh, A. K. Mascarenhas, Z. F. A. McBain, K. L. McBride, E. M. Miller-Frost, L. J. Mitchell, B. K. Mulino, D. Neumann, S. K. O'Connor, B. P. J. O'Neil, C. E. Payne, A. E. Perrett, G. D. Phillips, F. E. Plibersek, T. J. Rae, S. T. Reid, G. J. Repacholi, D. P. Rishworth, A. L. Roberts, T. G. Rowland, M. A. Ryan, J. C. Shorten, W. R. Sitou, S. Smith, D. P. B. (Teller) Stanley, A. M. (Teller) Swanson, M. J. Templeman, S. R. Thistlethwaite, M. J. Thwaites, K. L. Vamvakinou, M. Watson-Brown, E. Watts, T. G. Wells, A. S. Wilson, J. H. Zappia, A. 56 NOES Andrews, K. L. Archer, B. K. Birrell, S. J. Boyce, C. E. Broadbent, R. E. Buchholz, S. Caldwell, C. M. Chaney, K. E. Chester, D. J. Coleman, D. B. Coulton, M. M. (Teller) Daniel, Z. Entsch, W. G. Fletcher, P. W. Gillespie, D. A. Goodenough, I. R. Haines, H. M. Hamilton, G. R. Hastie, A. W. Hawke, A. G. Hogan, K. J. Howarth, L. R. Joyce, B. T. G. Landry, M. L. Le, D. Leeser, J. Littleproud, D. Marino, N. B. McCormack, M. F. McIntosh, M. I. McKenzie, Z. A. O'Brien, L. S. Pasin, A. Pearce, G. B. Pike, H. J. Pitt, K. J. Price, M. L. Ramsey, R. E. (Teller) Ryan, M. M. Spender, A. M. Steggall, Z. Stevens, J. Sukkar, M. S. Tehan, D. T. Thompson, P. Tink, K. J. van Manen, A. J. Vasta, R. X. Violi, A. A. Webster, A. E. Wilkie, A. D. Willcox, A. J. Wilson, R. J. Wolahan, K. Wood, J. P. Young, T. J. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

 13:02 The SPEAKER 53517 The question before the House is that the amendment be agreed to.  

The House divided. [13:02]
(The Speaker—Hon. Milton Dick)

 57 AYES Andrews, K. L. Archer, B. K. Birrell, S. J. Boyce, C. E. Broadbent, R. E. Buchholz, S. Caldwell, C. M. Chaney, K. E. Chester, D. J. Coleman, D. B. Coulton, M. M. (Teller) Daniel, Z. Entsch, W. G. Fletcher, P. W. Gillespie, D. A. Goodenough, I. R. Haines, H. M. Hamilton, G. R. Hastie, A. W. Hawke, A. G. Hogan, K. J. Howarth, L. R. Joyce, B. T. G. Landry, M. L. Le, D. Leeser, J. Littleproud, D. Marino, N. B. McCormack, M. F. McIntosh, M. I. McKenzie, Z. A. O'Brien, L. S. Pasin, A. Pearce, G. B. Pike, H. J. Pitt, K. J. Price, M. L. Ramsey, R. E. (Teller) Ryan, M. M. Scamps, S. A. Spender, A. M. Steggall, Z. Stevens, J. Sukkar, M. S. Tehan, D. T. Thompson, P. Tink, K. J. van Manen, A. J. Vasta, R. X. Violi, A. A. Webster, A. E. Wilkie, A. D. Willcox, A. J. Wilson, R. J. Wolahan, K. Wood, J. P. Young, T. J. 74 NOES Albanese, A. N. Aly, A. Ananda-Rajah, M. Bandt, A. P. Bates, S. J. Bowen, C. E. Burnell, M. P. Burney, L. J. Burns, J. Butler, M. C. Byrnes, A. J. Chalmers, J. E. Chandler-Mather, M. Charlton, A. H. G. Chesters, L. M. Clare, J. D. Claydon, S. C. Coker, E. A. Collins, J. M. Conroy, P. M. Doyle, M. J. J. Elliot, M. J. Fernando, C. Freelander, M. R. Garland, C. M. L. Gee, A. R. Georganas, S. Giles, A. J. Gorman, P. Gosling, L. J. Hill, J. C. Husic, E. N. Jones, S. P. Kearney, G. M. Keogh, M. J. Khalil, P. Lawrence, T. N. Laxale, J. A. A. Leigh, A. K. Mascarenhas, Z. F. A. McBain, K. L. McBride, E. M. Miller-Frost, L. J. Mitchell, B. K. Mulino, D. Neumann, S. K. O'Connor, B. P. J. O'Neil, C. E. Payne, A. E. Perrett, G. D. Phillips, F. E. Plibersek, T. J. Rae, S. T. Reid, G. J. Repacholi, D. P. Rishworth, A. L. Roberts, T. G. Rowland, M. A. Ryan, J. C. Scrymgour, M. R. Shorten, W. R. Sitou, S. Smith, D. P. B. (Teller) Stanley, A. M. (Teller) Swanson, M. J. Templeman, S. R. Thistlethwaite, M. J. Thwaites, K. L. Vamvakinou, M. Watson-Brown, E. Watts, T. G. Wells, A. S. Wilson, J. H. Zappia, A. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

 13:05 The SPEAKER 53517 The question is the motion be agreed to.  

The House divided. [13:05]
(The Speaker—Hon. Milton Dick)

74 AYES Albanese, A. N. Aly, A. Ananda-Rajah, M. Bandt, A. P. Bates, S. J. Bowen, C. E. Burnell, M. P. Burney, L. J. Burns, J. Butler, M. C. Byrnes, A. J. Chalmers, J. E. Chandler-Mather, M. Charlton, A. H. G. Chesters, L. M. Clare, J. D. Claydon, S. C. Coker, E. A. Collins, J. M. Conroy, P. M. Doyle, M. J. J. Elliot, M. J. Fernando, C. Freelander, M. R. Garland, C. M. L. Gee, A. R. Georganas, S. Giles, A. J. Gorman, P. Gosling, L. J. Hill, J. C. Husic, E. N. Jones, S. P. Kearney, G. M. Keogh, M. J. Khalil, P. Lawrence, T. N. Laxale, J. A. A. Leigh, A. K. Mascarenhas, Z. F. A. McBain, K. L. McBride, E. M. Miller-Frost, L. J. Mitchell, B. K. Mulino, D. Neumann, S. K. O'Connor, B. P. J. O'Neil, C. E. Payne, A. E. Perrett, G. D. Phillips, F. E. Plibersek, T. J. Rae, S. T. Reid, G. J. Repacholi, D. P. Rishworth, A. L. Roberts, T. G. Rowland, M. A. Ryan, J. C. Scrymgour, M. R. Shorten, W. R. Sitou, S. Smith, D. P. B. (Teller) Stanley, A. M. (Teller) Swanson, M. J. Templeman, S. R. Thistlethwaite, M. J. Thwaites, K. L. Vamvakinou, M. Watson-Brown, E. Watts, T. G. Wells, A. S. Wilson, J. H. Zappia, A. 58 NOES Andrews, K. L. Archer, B. K. Birrell, S. J. Boyce, C. E. Broadbent, R. E. Buchholz, S. Caldwell, C. M. Chaney, K. E. Chester, D. J. Coleman, D. B. Coulton, M. M. (Teller) Daniel, Z. Entsch, W. G. Fletcher, P. W. Gillespie, D. A. Goodenough, I. R. Haines, H. M. Hamilton, G. R. Hastie, A. W. Hawke, A. G. Hogan, K. J. Howarth, L. R. Joyce, B. T. G. Landry, M. L. Le, D. Leeser, J. Littleproud, D. Marino, N. B. McCormack, M. F. McIntosh, M. I. McKenzie, Z. A. O'Brien, L. S. Pasin, A. Pearce, G. B. Pike, H. J. Pitt, K. J. Price, M. L. Ramsey, R. E. (Teller) Ryan, M. M. Scamps, S. A. Spender, A. M. Steggall, Z. Stevens, J. Sukkar, M. S. Taylor, A. J. Tehan, D. T. Thompson, P. Tink, K. J. van Manen, A. J. Vasta, R. X. Violi, A. A. Webster, A. E. Wilkie, A. D. Willcox, A. J. Wilson, R. J. Wolahan, K. Wood, J. P. Young, T. J. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

 BILLS 41 BILLS Disability Services and Inclusion Bill 2023, Disability Services and Inclusion (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2023 41

Disability Services and Inclusion Bill 2023

Disability Services and Inclusion (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2023

Second Reading 41 13:10 Mr SUKKAR 242515 Deakin Firstly, may I note upfront that, whilst the opposition has some concerns with aspects of the bill in front of us, which I will briefly outline, we won't stand in the way of this bill progressing in the House and we won't oppose it. As background for members, the Disability Services and Inclusion Bill replaces the current Disability Services Act 1986. The current act has been in place for nearly 40 years, and, in the decades since its introduction, it's obvious to everybody in this chamber that there have been quite massive developments in the disability sector, including in the legislative framework, the regulations, the international agreements, of which Australia is a party, and, of course, the practical provision of disability services. So a huge amount has changed since the existing act was legislated. That's not to mention the establishment of the NDIS and the adoption of the Convention of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Now, as a country, we're onto our second national disability strategy. It's important, given these quite momentous changes, that Australia has the right framework in place to ensure that Australians with a disability, who we know are some of the most vulnerable people in our community, can access the right supports and services. These bills establish an updated framework for the funding and regulation of programs that support the one in six Australians with a disability. It is also to support their families and carers and, of course, to make a number of consequential amendments to other bills and smooth the transition through transitional arrangements. The Disability Services and Inclusion Bill seeks to establish a streamlined framework to facilitate funding for supports and services, and we hope that, ultimately, this framework will assist with supporting all Australians with a disability, regardless of whether or not they participate in the NDIS. Much has been spoken about the NDIS, its great work and, certainly, its limitations, some of which have certainly been exacerbated under this government, notwithstanding a range of promises that were made by the then opposition, now government, in relation to the NDIS. The bill itself, though, doesn't change or impact the NDIS or Disability Support Pension paid under the social security laws. Rather, it will provide legislative authority for new and existing spending on disability related programs outside of the NDIS. In that respect, it will operate in a similar way to the objectives of the existing framework that sit within the 1986 legislation. The bill doesn't directly allocate funding for specific supports or services; rather, it just oversees these supports and services. The bill, importantly—and where we can provide bipartisanship—improves quality and safeguarding arrangements by the introduction of a mandatory code which will mirror the NDIS code of conduct. It is quite an important harmonisation between the largest single program for those with a disability in our nation and a framework that sits well broader than that for those with a disability who aren't necessarily within the NDIS. Under this bill supports and services may be provided to any person with a disability, including those with physical, psychosocial, cognitive, intellectual or sensory impairment. The Disability Services and Inclusion (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2023 also, as I said, makes a range of consequential amendments as a result of the repeal of the 1986 legislation and replacement of the disability services and inclusion bill. Schedule 1 in particular repeals the 1986 the act. Schedule 2 amends Commonwealth legislation reflecting the repeal and current replacement of the Disability Services Act. Schedule 3 sets out application and savings provisions for the Disability Services and Inclusion Bill, with part 1 dealing with some of the preliminary matters, part 2 with the operation of the Disability Services and Inclusion Bill and part 3 dealing with the operation of the Disability Services Act. Now, as I said at the beginning, in our view there are some issues and potential concerns that we have with this bill. Most importantly, the bill does not define target groups that will be eligible for supports and services. This is quite a radical departure from the current legislation. Under section 8 in the current legislation, the 1986 act, a target group consists of persons with a disability that: (a) is attributable to an intellectual , psychiatric, sensory or physical impairment or a combination of such impairments; (b) is permanent or likely to be permanent; and (c) results in: (i) a substantially reduced capacity of the person for communication, learning or mobility; and (ii) the need for ongoing support services. Whilst not having a legislated definition of a target group, we acknowledge, quite obviously may provide greater flexibility and access to services and supports, without the additional infrastructure in place there may be unknown practical, consequential impacts on the provision and delivery of timely supports and services to those in need. We hope the inquiry that's currently underway will provide greater insights into these concerns, and it's certainly my hope that those concerns in relation to the significant departure from the current legislation, in not defining those target groups, can be addressed and can be more understood from our perspective. Should that be the case then it would be far simpler for us to provide wholehearted support for this bill. I encourage those that are conducting that work to make very clear not only the reasons for that quite significant departure from the status quo but also the reasons for it and how it will ultimately enhance the framework, particularly given the context that we operate within at the moment. I think it's important to note that context, which is that, in an environment where we've got a government that went to the election saying, 'There are no sustainability issues with the NDIS,' the then shadow minister would travel around the country saying that it's really only those terrible, nasty Liberals that talk about sustainability in the NDIS. In fact, he's quoted as saying, 'You can't walk the halls of parliament without hearing a coalition minister talking about sustainability, and they are wrong and they should don't so.' And—surprise surprise—since being in government all we hear from the government is a discussion about the sustainability of the NDIS. We see quite clear tension between the Prime Minister, the Treasurer and the finance minister, who insist that they're savings that they've baked into the budget, $59 billion worth—that a reduction in the growth of the NDIS, from a 14 per cent year-on-year growth to an eight per cent growth cap is baked into the budget and is there—and the minister, who said it's aspirational. He was quickly pulled into line, probably once he understood that, once you've banked the saving, it's not an aspiration at that point; as a government you've got to deliver on it. So the definition of 'target groups' in that context, when we've got a government who I think is saying to a large cohort of people within the 610,000 who utilise the National Disability Insurance Scheme that their services and their supports are at risk. That's essentially what they're saying. That's a huge departure from what those people were told by this government before the election. The then shadow minister and now Minister for the NDIS was pretty shameless in creating the impression out there that nobody's plan would go backwards, that the scheme was sustainable as it was and that its current growth rate trajectory was absolutely proper and didn't need to be addressed. I suspect that—quite successfully for the government—a number of people voted for them on the basis of those promises. I think those people are now, firstly, feeling deceived by the government because of the rhetoric from the government now—more than rhetoric. The budgeted savings that have surprised a lot of people I think mean that there are large cohorts who are really concerned about their own plans and their own services. In fact, it's pretty clear that the government and the minister have allowed a whole lot of speculation to run in the media, particularly around children with autism spectrum disorder who are on the scheme. Really vulnerable families—people who want the best for their children, people who know they've got a finite period of time to get support for a child with developmental delay or ASD and a range of other diagnoses—are feeling very nervous that the minister and the government have allowed this to run in the context of the NDIS Review. So, within that broad breach of trust and breaking of faith with the many tens of thousands of people on the NDIS, we want to understand what this framework is seeking to do, and how removing the definition of 'target groups' can possibly be consistent with what I think is a pretty clear approach from the government here, which is to try and find as many savings as possible from families who are currently using the NDIS. How those two can in any way fit together is, I think, unclear at this stage—not to the point that we won't support this bill right now. We won't stand in its way. But, as I said, we want to understand how those two things marry together, because the framework within this bill will have to dovetail with whatever the government decides to do in response to the NDIS Review report, which is a matter of weeks away. I would fully expect that the government have already thought about that and have only brought forward this legislation on the basis that they are broadly aware that those two things can be compatible. I don't think we as an opposition or the 610,000 people on the NDIS will look favourably on it if these two things don't marry together seamlessly. So we'll keep a close eye on it. We're obviously operating in an environment where many have lost faith and trust in this government over everything that it said before the election with respect to disability. There are a few areas of policy where there's been a departure from what was said before the election to win votes versus what is being done now, and it's disappointing, from my perspective, that the greatest breaching of faith or broken promises will be inflicted on Australians with a disability, the people least able to deal with those broken promises. So we'll keep a very close eye on the framework, but at this point in time we'll not be standing in the way of the bill. 13:25 Ms STANLEY 265990 Werriwa I rise to make my contribution to the Disability Services and Inclusion Bill 2023 and Disability Services and Inclusion (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2023. The significance of these bills can't be understated. As a liberal democracy, we value the fundamental right of an individual to live a life of dignity and respect, a life free of neglect, abuse and exploitation. All individuals deserve to benefit from the collective success of our society. That applies to all Australians, including those Australians living with a disability. We hold these to be some of our fundamental principles. Unfortunately, we know that these principles are not always upheld. Recently, the report of the Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability was released. For 4½ years, the royal commission listened to communities all across Australia. It held 32 public hearings and 1,785 private sessions and received almost 8,000 submissions and 18,000 phone inquiries. The final report handed down is 5,000 pages with 222 recommendations. The work done by the royal commission has been the cumulative work and input of thousands of Australians over many years, and the details and the stories that have come out of this extensive process point to a simple fact: we can do better because we must do better. I commend the work of the commissioners and their staff for all they did to bring this to light. At times the evidence provided was harrowing, and the meticulous and thoughtful deliberations and recommendations will help the government address the issues in the system so it truly supports those people with disabilities and their families. The government is committed to ensuring that Australia not just in principle but in practice is a country where all Australians can fully participate and realise their potential and where all Australians can have a decent quality of life, free of abuse and neglect. In 2007 the United Nation's Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities opened for signatures, with Australia becoming the first of the signatories. The convention has the simple yet profound purpose to promote, protect and ensure that persons with disabilities enjoy the full human rights and freedoms and to protect their inherent dignity. In 2008, it came into force here in Australia. Additionally, the National Disability Strategy was introduced in 2010, with the most recent framework being implemented from 2021 to 2031. The NDIS was established in 2013 along with its own code of conduct and legislative framework. While we still have a way to go, Australia has moved forward over the past few decades, since the introduction of the Disability Services Act in 1986 almost 40 years ago. The bills being debated here today will ensure we can do better by repealing and replacing the act, which has become outdated and restrictive. Importantly, these changes have undergone considerable public consultation to ensure that they work for Australians with a disability. We know that listening to those who have been affected by these changes means that we will get better outcomes. Public consultation informed the draft bill, and a second round of consultation informed the final bills before the House today. These bills will ensure that there's appropriate legislation that will give effect to our obligations under the UN CRPD and ensure a single, unifying piece of legislation authorises funding for disability services outside the NDIS. Currently, funding arrangements for many disability programs and services rely on funding being authorised under the Financial Framework (Supplementary Powers) Regulations of 1997. Simply, the current act did not envisage the types of programs we have today and their delivery functions. The alternate arrangements, to use the FFSP regulations, cause significant administrative delays which impact the implementation of programs and services for those with a disability. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate will be resumed at a later hour, and you will be granted leave to continue your speech. STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS 44 STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS Roads 44 13:30 Mr TEHAN 210911 Wannon I rise today to speak about a transparency issue that I'd like to see the government act on. This is a transparency issue which has been put forward by the Australian Automobile Association: that the data that every state and territory holds on the state of their roads be released. All roads in every state and territory are ranked, through an audit, from one to five, and it means that, when governments are taking decisions about whether road funding should be allocated, those decisions should be taken based on the state of roads. This isn't occurring, but the government said before the last election that it would see this happen. It was a commitment given by the Albanese Labor government to make this information available and to require states and territories to release it. The only way, at the moment, you can get this data is through FOI requests, and that's simply not good enough. What we're seeing is the road toll go up and the state of our roads deteriorate. We have to fix this. Shining the light of transparency on the state of our roads is the only way to do this, and I ask the Albanese Labor government to honour this commitment. Energy 44 13:31 Mr JOSH WILSON 265970 Fremantle There's a huge challenge before us when it comes to decommissioning offshore oil and gas infrastructure. Six million tonnes of pipelines, rigs, risers and floating kit will need to be removed and recycled. It's estimated to be $60 billion worth of work, with half occurring in the next 10 to 15 years. It's a statement of the bleeding obvious to say that this work needs to be done with great care and to the highest standard, and, unfortunately, we've not positioned ourselves well for this challenge, considering how plainly it has stared us in the face. Three things are paramount: the safety of workers, the protection of our precious marine environment and the responsibility of oil and gas companies to bear the costs involved. The Woodside Northern Endeavour fiasco demonstrated that we can't take these non-negotiables for granted. It was a wake-up call about the risk of companies seeking to palm off their obligations in the absence of effective regulation. Yesterday, I attended the launch of a fantastic piece of work on the elements that would constitute a best practice Australian decommissioning industry, which was written by Professor Tina Soliman Hunter and supported by the Maritime Union of Australia. I commend the Minister for Resources for her work and commitment in developing the government's decommissioning industry roadmap. Australia can and should develop a state-of-the-art approach to this challenge, with significant benefits for new maritime and circular-economy jobs and innovation, in order to deliver the highest standards of marine stewardship. Lyne Electorate: Infrastructure 44 13:33 Dr GILLESPIE 72184 Lyne The referendum last weekend shows how the Albanese government isn't listening to average Australians. The Prime Minister wouldn't change. He and Minister Bowen aren't listening, too, regarding the electricity system. Rewiring and repowering the nation with 92 per cent renewables is unrealistic and will cost over $1.3 trillion by 2030—not what AEMO estimates, which is far, far less. Also, regarding the industrial wind and solar complexes, more than 2,000 people turned up at the Port Stephens rally against the Myall Coast and Port Stephens wind farm that'll cover 1,875 square kilometres from Catherine Hill Bay up to about Seal Rocks, with wind towers up to 260 metres tall—and 312 of them will cover the area, with exclusion zones of 300 metres around it. It will put at risk, and probably destroy, the commercial fishing fleet and their fishing grounds, worth $1 billion. Whale watching and the whales themselves will suffer, with the acoustic testing to cite it. These commercial wind farms are destroying agriculture and amenities, and their economics rely only on large-scale renewable energy certificates. New base-load power needs to be planned now. We need to maintain our current base load or blackouts will occur. Australian Constitution: Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice 44 13:34 Ms BYRNES 299145 Cunningham I want to say a big thankyou to all the 'yes' volunteers and supporters across the country for believing in a better future for all Australians during the Voice to Parliament referendum. While the result was not what we had hoped for, everyone put their entire heart and soul into the campaign, having hard conversations and changing minds, which, proudly, saw Cunningham vote yes. Thank you to the hundreds of volunteers for the 'yes' campaign in the Wollongong area. Thank you to the organising committee, made up of John Corker, Jeremy Lasek, Jaymee Beveridge and Woolyungah, Sally Stevenson, Sallie Moffatt, Tina Smith, Theresa Huxtable, Sharon Callaghan, Stephen Young, Callum Glasgow and Russell Couch. Thank you also to all the dedicated postcode leaders right across the electorate: Cam Sugden, Francis Brazil, Ciara Bowe, Bronwyn Batten, Russell Hogg, Vicki Sugars, Jess Holz, Benita Andrews, Tiana Myers, Elisabeth Smith and Susan Benham. A special acknowledgement goes to Uncle Richard Davis and Dr Jodi Edwards, who did many of the welcomes to country. Working in tandem with Wollongong for Yes was the outstanding and never-tiring Illawarra Young Labor team, led by Geordie Horan and Callum Bain. This team knocked on over 500 doors and made 5,000 phone calls, all while balancing work and university. Thank you to Callum Glasgow, Lou Fitch, Ethan Powell, Noah Hardie, Miles Watson, Harrison Ledger, Jessica Wallace, Noah McMillan, Frances Kerkham, Ben Hancock, Ryan Jinks, Josh Lane, Ella Rose-Webber— (Time expired) First Nations Australians 45 13:36 Mr BANDT M3C Melbourne The results of the referendum on the weekend were painful for many people, and we hear the hurt and distress, especially from First Nations people who worked so hard for change. We know that now there needs to be healing. What's clear already, though, is that the Liberals sowed fear and division with a Trumpian campaign of misinformation. That campaign will cause lasting hurt and set back reconciliation in this country unless we tackle it head-on. The Leader of the Opposition's Trumpian misinformation campaign shows the urgent need for a truth-telling process in this country. We need a process of truth-telling that lets everyone in this country tell their experience of this country's history so that we can all learn from each other and come together. Colonisation has been brutal on First Nations people. We need to hear the stories of the massacres, dispossession, stolen and detained children, deaths in custody and neglect. The Greens are calling for $250 million to be committed to a truth and justice commission in this term of parliament. Truth will lay the foundation for treaty and for lasting justice in this country, where we recognise First Nations peoples' sovereignty and all move forward together. These kinds of processes are underway across Australia at the state level, and they're working. Truth-telling is part of the Uluru Statement from the Heart. There's no need for delay, and we can't leave the country without a clear pathway forward. I urge the government to now move forward with truth and treaty. Vocational Education and Training 45 13:37 Ms COKER 263547 Corangamite Sarbjeet Kaur is a generous-hearted young woman who simply wants to give back to her community. That's why she grasped fee-free TAFE with both hands, completing an aged-care course at Gordon TAFE, in my electorate. She now works in my electorate of Corangamite. Sarbjeet told me fee-free TAFE helped her to get a job that she truly cares about. She said, 'I really enjoy this job. Sometimes I feel like crying when I see the residents. We are here for them. We care for them. We try to give everything for them.' These words are heartfelt. They exemplify the compassion and care that we want to see in every person who cares for our older Australians. It's not an easy job, and the wages have been too low for too long. The Albanese government recognise this and its impact on the workforce, and that's why our government and the minister for aged care have acted, with a significant 15 per cent wage increase for aged-care workers. We're also boosting fee-free TAFE with 300,000 additional places for 2024. This means 300,000 more opportunities for generous, caring and determined Australians like Sarbjeet. In closing, I urge everyone in my electorate to follow Sarbjeet's lead. It's time to grasp fee-free TAFE with both hands and open the door to more fulfilling, rewarding, better paid jobs. Ashley Youth Detention Centre 45 13:39 Mr WILKIE C2T Clark Tasmanians are horrified by the reports of systemic harm and abuse on young detainees at the Ashley Youth Detention Centre. Moreover, the evidence of physical and sexual abuse, inhumane isolation practices and strip and internal cavity searches of children have been condemned by Tasmania's children's commissioner, the Australian Human Rights Commissioner, Amnesty International and UNICEF. Most recently, the report of Tasmania's commission of inquiry into child sexual abuse saw the commissioners flag that, despite consistent warnings and condemnation over years, there remains a live and current risk of sexual abuse to children in the facility. No wonder they called for the centre to be closed urgently and no wonder many people, including me, have no confidence the abuse isn't continuing, even as I speak. I raise this because, while in 2021 the Tasmanian government committed to closing the facility by 2024, they now appear to be walking this commitment back, even though the government have at hand literally reems of evidence of the appalling misconduct at Ashley. In other words, the Tasmanian state government will be complicit in any harm and abuse continuing at the centre. However, what's needed is clear: the Tasmanian government must act. They must listen to the commissioners and the voices of those who came forward to the commission of inquiry, and they must close Ashley immediately—not next year, not next month, immediately. Hunter River Times 46 13:41 Mr REPACHOLI 298840 Hunter The New South Wales Country Press Australia awards were held in Sydney on Friday night, and our cherished newspaper, the Hunter River Times, was honoured with two awards, a highly commented award for the best news reporting and the prestigious title of best free newspaper. These achievements are a testament to the tireless efforts and unrelenting passion that the team puts into each and every edition of the Hunter River Times. Your commitment and dedication shine through the quality of the newspaper you produce. It's true that a newspaper is a reflection of the people it represents, and it's clear that the Hunter River Times serves as a mirror for the heart and soul of our Hunter region. Your stories, the issues you address and the services you provide to the community truly are the heartbeat of your newspaper. You play a vital role in capturing and sharing the unique stories, events and lives that make our region extraordinary. Today I would like to extend my congratulations on these awards to the publisher, Shane Davey; editor, Di Sneddon; journalist, Jem Anshaw; cadet, Meredith Blair; sales consultants, Melissa Ernst and Rebecca Rockley; distribution, Jason Bates and his team of wonderful distributors; designer, Mel Caroll; and administration support, Rebecca Connoly. Keep up the excellent work and may your newspaper continue to be a valuable source of inspiration for all in the community. Closing the Gap 46 13:42 Mr RAMSEY HWS Grey Last weekend just on 79 per cent of the people of Grey voted 'no' in the referendum. In that message they voted for equality in the eyes of the law in Australia, and encompassed in that is that Australians should also have an equal opportunity. We need to address disadvantage where it occurs, and I think that's the clear message here. I note that 37 per cent of Indigenous people are in the bottom quintile of Australia's incomes, the bottom 20 per cent. Most of those live in remote and very remote Australia, so clearly that is where the disadvantage sits and where we need to address it. That's why I was appalled, I would have to say, this morning when the government, the Greens and the teals knocked back the concept of a royal commission into child sexual abuse in Indigenous communities. They also knocked back an audit on spending of Indigenous programs and support for the idea that we should reach out to the Indigenous Australians to close the gaps. This is an opportunity in the wake of the decision of the Australian people to actually make a real difference. This proposal has been around since April. It was put forward by Senator Jacinta Nampijinpa Price, and to see it knocked back this morning is a disgrace. National Skills Agreement 46 13:44 Ms PAYNE 144732 Canberra In the ACT alone, 2,500 students have already taken up the offer of fee-free TAFE. After a decade of neglect and decay under the previous government, our VET system is again on its way to being world class, as the government firmly believes it should be. On Tuesday I had the great pleasure to join the Prime Minister, the Minister for Skills and Training and the ACT Chief Minister at CIT in Fyshwick at the electric vehicle training hub to announce the national skills agreement. This is the first agreement since 2012—pretty unbelievable—and it will enable thousands of Australians across the country to attain the skills and knowledge they need to transform Australia. It will be absolutely vital to ensuring that the Australian workforce remains competitive, productive and able to keep up with the rapidly evolving nature of the world economy. Australia is moving towards a net zero future, and the next generations of Australians are being trained to deliver it. The skills agreement will also help close the gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians and between men and women in the workplace—and what a contrast to those opposite. A survey of over 1,000 TAFE staff, in 2020, showed that budget cuts and neglect from the previous government had left staff demoralised, with growing workloads and poorer results, and an increasing number of students were missing out on opportunities that should be commonplace. With an additional $12.6 billion of Commonwealth funding, the skills agreement will ensure that the neglect of the last 10 years is finally addressed. O'Connor Electorate: First Nations Australians 46 13:45 Mr RICK WILSON 198084 O'Connor I rise to give a real-life example of escalating Indigenous disadvantage in my electorate under this Labor government. In a three-week period earlier this year, there were four alcohol related deaths in the northern Goldfields towns of Laverton and Leonora, ranging from misadventure to murder. This was largely as a result of the government's removal of the cashless debit card without any consultation with the 3,500 participants or their communities. The Labor government did not listen to the voices of Indigenous elders like Janice Scott, who predicted this would reverse the improvements being seen in child welfare and domestic violence incidents. The PM did not listen when the community leaders of Laverton and Leonora begged him to visit and witness firsthand the escalation in social harm since the removal of the card. That is why close to 80 per cent of the residents of remote communities like Laverton and Leonora voted no to the Voice and why 77 per cent of the voters across O'Connor agreed the Voice was not the best way to address Indigenous disadvantage in their regional communities. So I join the opposition leader, Peter Dutton; Indigenous senator Jacinta Nampijinpa Price; and Senator Kerrynne Liddle in calling for a royal commission into Indigenous child sexual abuse, an audit of the millions of government dollars being poured into Indigenous programs and a policy focused on improving the lives of our most disadvantaged Indigenous Australians. Reid Electorate: Greek Seniors Friendship Group 47 13:47 Ms SITOU 298121 Reid I've had the opportunity to meet with members of the Greek Seniors Friendship Group at Concorde Library. The group meet monthly and have been catching up regularly for decades now. They grab a cup of coffee, eat some Greek sweets and generally chat about world affairs. I had a particularly good chat with Stefanos, who, at the age of 80, is still riding through the electorate. He talked to me about his favourite cycleways, and they were hilly and long. Frankly, I was blown away by his fitness. What I enjoyed most about spending time with this group was hearing about their wisdom and grace. They encapsulate what is so great about this country. This is a diaspora that came here after the Second World War and helped to build our great country into what it is today. They also paved the way for other migrant communities to come here because they showed Australia that having people here from other countries makes this country better. They showed that we are enriched by those cultures and traditions, and they made it easier for successive waves of migrants to come to this country, including my family. In my eyes, they helped to build the great multicultural success story that we are today. So, from my family to your family, may I say thank you to the Greek Seniors Friendship Group. First Nations Australians 47 13:48 Mr ENTSCH 7K6 Leichhardt For too long, a select few have laid claim to funding to support Indigenous communities but have not made good on their commitments. The most egregious example is Noel Pearson. He presides over a growing list of dysfunctional entities who have done little but line the pockets of a select few at the top. Not only has Noel and others like him effectively dictated Indigenous policy in this country; they have been paid handsomely to implement it. Well over half a billion dollars, we've been able to identify so far, has gone to Noel's various entities and policies, just in Cape York alone. There is no question that we need a full audit and inquiry into the rorting, the wastage and the mismanagement within the Indigenous policy industry. It is rife. The bureaucrats, politicians and media who protect Noel are only serving to widen the gap. Noel is a well-spoken charlatan, and I'm glad that Australians saw the Voice for what it was: another job for life for self-appointed metropolitan academics. We must escape Pearson's stranglehold and finally hold him to account for his failures and fervent greed. It is time to listen to the popularly elected leaders in these very remote communities—those who have been screaming out for a long time to get out from within the tentacles of Pearson's entities and have their voices heard—because, at the end of the day, they're the ones who have to actually live with the consequences of the decisions that are made on their recommendations. I firmly believe that Noel's voice has been well and truly heard. Parliamentary Friends of Palestine 47 13:50 Ms VAMVAKINOU 00AMT Calwell The other day, the member for Petrie referred to the Parliamentary Friends of Palestine in a speech he gave in the Federation Chamber. He called for the disbanding of the Parliamentary Friends of Palestine. In fact, today I received a letter from the member for Petrie putting his request to me in writing. Now, I get that colleagues in this place have differing views about a whole range of things. Some views we agree with; others we don't. But in Australia's house of democracy we practice democracy. The Parliamentary Friends of Palestine has a proud history of advocacy for peace and justice and was formed by notable members of this House. I have some history with which to enlighten the member for Petrie. The member for Grayndler, now the Prime Minister of Australia, was a founding member, along with the former member for North Sydney and Australia's former Treasurer Joe Hockey. It has always enjoyed tripartisan leadership and support. In fact, for many years I co-chaired the group with the member for Farrer, now the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. Let me make this very clear to the member for Petrie: the Parliamentary Friends of Palestine will not be disbanded, members of parliament will not be gagged, this parliament will not be prohibited from its work, and Australia and Australians will not be silenced. First Nations Australians 47 13:51 Mr COULTON HWN Parkes As a co-chair of the Parliamentary Friends of Palestine, I'd like to associate myself with the remarks of the member for Caldwell. Last weekend in my electorate, which has a very high Indigenous population, the 'yes' vote was clearly not supported in the referendum. Just under 80 per cent of people voted no. I take great pride in the fact that I've represented such a large Indigenous population and really relish the relationships that I've built over that time. Through community efforts, Clontarf and the individual efforts of school teachers and others, we've seen great work being done for young people coming through, but there is a gap, and I'm afraid we are letting down some of the small children. I've been saying this for some time. I believe the rights of a child to be safe, cared for and nurtured should trump the rights of a parent to treat that child poorly. So I do support the call from Senator Nampijinpa Price for an investigation and for a commission into this situation, because I'm told now by community leaders that these children are at risk and have been for some time. Sharp, Mr Peter James, ACM 48 13:53 Dr REID 300126 Robertson I rise to commend Peter Sharp of Tascott, who has received an Australian Corrections Medal for his 32-year career with Corrective Services NSW. Peter has led a distinguished career with Corrective Services NSW, being responsible for revolutionising its technology and videoconferencing capacity throughout its 300 facilities. This technology has ensured inmates can appear in court, receive legal and professional visits, and participate in rehabilitation programs, all remotely. During the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, Peter and his team were pivotal in getting iPad tablets into facilities to ensure inmates could continue communication with the outside world and their rehabilitation programs. Peter has played an integral part in leading the charge to introduce new technologies into New South Wales prisons to help assist in the rehabilitation of inmates, benefit the wellbeing of offenders and their families, and facilitate positive behavioural change. I recently had the privilege of visiting Peter at his home on the Central Coast, where I congratulated him on this recognition and learned more about his career with Corrective Services NSW. Peter is an exemplary leader in our community on the Central Coast. His work has strengthened the state of New South Wales and it has strengthened Australia. My thanks and appreciation go to Mr Peter Sharp. I look forward to his continued work to improve Corrective Services in New South Wales. Child Sexual Abuse 48 13:54 Mr THOMPSON 281826 Herbert I stand here to add my support for a royal commission into child sexual abuse in Indigenous communities. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people are three times more likely to experience sexual assault than non-Indigenous Australians. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children are 5.3 times more likely to be reported to child protection from the community. A royal commission will shine a bright light into a very dark corner and make recommendations for real change. I used to work at the Cleveland Youth Detention Centre. I worked in the behaviour support unit. We would see, time and time again, young people come from the communities who had been sent there for committing crimes of sexual assault and rape. When speaking to these young men, you'd find out that this happened to them, to their brothers, to their cousins and to people they know. The saddest thing was that, when this particular young man was released, he was given back to the people that failed him—the people that caused his harm. That's why I believe we need to have this royal commission. And for all of you who voted not to have a royal commission to protect our most vulnerable—to protect our children—I ask you to look inwards. It is our responsibility as leaders to move forward and make sure that we are protecting the young people of this country. If you don't think this is the right thing to do, I think that you should revisit your position as parliamentarians. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 I remind the member for Herbert to direct his comments through the chair in the future. Australia-Korea Next-Generation Political Leaders Exchange 48 13:56 Mr LAXALE 299174 Bennelong Recently, I had the pleasure of hosting the Australia-Korea Next-Generation Political Leaders Exchange right here in Parliament House. This program was established by the voices of Korean-Australian business chamber to support and encourage young Korean Australians with an interest in politics to be involved in our political system. We were lucky to be joined by some distinguished members of this place, including the chair of the Korean-Australian friendship group, the Chief Government Whip, along with the members for Bean, Parramatta and Reid. Attendees ranged from 17 to 25 years of age and the purpose of their trip to Canberra was to understand how our political system worked and ask MPs and staff about our journey into this place, to demystify it a little bit. An item of keen discussion was ways in which the parliament could increase its cultural diversity. Cultural diversity has the potential to bring a more wholesome perspective of this place to the communities we represent. Both my parents were born overseas—in Mauritius and Reunion Island—and I'm the first member for Bennelong to have a non-Anglo-Saxon name. As a son of migrants and a first generation Australian, I firmly believe that the future of federal, state and local governments should be as diverse as the communities that we represent. I'd like to thank these young Korean Australians for showing an interest in politics and also for coming to Canberra and engaging with this discussion that we had. I look forward to working with them as their political journey continues. Child Sexual Abuse 49 13:57 Mr HOGAN 218019 Page Childhood sexual abuse does not discriminate on race or income. Childhood sexual abuse occurs in white families, brown families, black families, rich families, middle-income families and poor families. For up to 80 per cent of our Indigenous brothers and sisters, there is not much of a statistical gap on such matters as life expectancy, income, education and many more, and there shouldn't be. There is, however, a big gap when you talk about some of the more rural and remote communities in many areas, and one disturbing statistic concerns childhood abuse in rural and remote communities. This isn't a slur on race. It's a slur on disadvantage, it's a slur on geographic isolation, and it's a slur on drugs and alcohol addiction. This domestic and sexual abuse in these remote communities would be called out if it was white on white or white on black, but the fact that this is black on black doesn't mean we should not call out this abuse. The Australian Institute of Family Studies, the detectives from the child abuse unit in Western Australia and the police operations in the Pilbara on record have said they've identified many people who do not report childhood abuse in these remote communities, and the figures on STD infections and abuse are already well above the norms statistically without this underreporting. In defence of the government, these statistics are not new. We as the previous government introduced the cashless welfare card— (Time expired) Ride to Work Day 49 13:59 Ms MASCARENHAS 298800 Swan Cycling rocks, and yesterday was ride your bike to work day. How many people here rode their bikes to work? Cycling is one of the most exciting ways that you can get to work, and luckily, Swan has some of the most spectacular cycling paths in Australia and in WA. Swan has one of the largest cycling clubs in WA. In fact, it is the biggest. It is called South Perth Rouleurs, and they meet each day down at Coode Street in South Perth. They provide a fun and family atmosphere. I hope to see every single member of this parliament riding their bike, and I want to see you at the cycle gala, which is on 15 November. The SPEAKER 53517 Order! It being 2 pm, under standing order 43 the time for members' statements has concluded. MINISTRY 49 MINISTRY Temporary Arrangements 49 14:00 Mr R36 Grayndler ALBANESE (—) (): I inform the House that the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations and Minister for the Arts will be absent from question time today. The Minister for Skills and Training will answer questions on his behalf. I inform the House also that the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government will be absent from question today. The Treasurer will answer questions on her behalf. Lucky we've got Dr Freelander on this side, Mr Speaker! QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 49 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE First Nations Australians 49 14:00 Mr DUTTON 00AKI Dickson My question is to the Prime Minister. Over the last 12 months Senator Jacinta Price, a proud Indigenous woman, has led calls, Prime Minister, for a royal commission into child sexual abuse in Indigenous communities, and an audit of spending on Indigenous programs. These calls are supported by many other Indigenous Australians, and as Leader of the Opposition I've offered to work with the government to implement these measures. Why is the Prime Minister refusing to take these important, practical actions to address serious issues facing Indigenous communities? 14:01 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler It is a serious question which the Leader of the Opposition raises, and every member of this House, I would hope, and every member of this parliament should certainly find child abuse abhorrent—and that's true wherever it occurs. And it doesn't occur in just one group. It doesn't occur in just one place. Tragically, it occurs on a very widespread basis, and the statistics tell us that the highest prevalence is actually within families and by people that a child will know, tragically. No-one in this place is disputing the seriousness of this issue. But what we won't be doing is agreeing to stunts which are designed to whip up outrage as if this is somehow a partisan issue. One of the issues affecting children, of course, in Indigenous communities was the issue of the stolen generation, for which there was a royal commission. And the royal commission, which we read out into this House, story by story, occurred, and it found that there should be an apology given to the stolen generations, and that's something that almost everyone in this chamber was certainly prepared to do—everyone was prepared to do. The apology that was given to those children stolen from their homes was important because some were also put into institutions where they were abused, and that is a finding of the royal commission into institutional child abuse—something that was supported by the Gillard government, a courageous decision taken by Prime Minister Gillard, and one that was opposed by many. On that, I think of people like my friend Senator Patrick Dodson, who as a boy hid in the long grass near Katherine, watching as the welfare officers and police took away his mates. I think of Aunty Pat Anderson, one of the authors of the Uluru Statement from the Heart, who has told stories about hiding children so they didn't get taken away from their families—in many cases, tragically, something that led to abuse. (Time expired) Pensions and Benefits 50 14:04 Mr JOSH WILSON 265970 Fremantle My question is to the Minister for Social Services. How will the Albanese Labor government's paid parental leave legislation deliver extra support for working families? 14:04 Ms RISHWORTH HWA Kingston I would like to thank the member for Fremantle for his question and for the work that he does in supporting families in his community. Helping families to get ahead has been front and centre of our government's agenda. The Albanese government will always look at how we can provide more support for working families. Earlier this year we implemented legislation to modernise paid parental leave, to reflect how Australian families and their needs have evolved over time and how we can best meet them. Our changes, which commenced on 1 July, give more families access to the payment, give families more flexibility on how they take leave and make it easier to share care. And today we have taken another significant step forward. This morning I introduced legislation to increase the paid parental leave scheme to six months by 2026. From 24 July we will add an extra two weeks a year, delivering the biggest expansion to the scheme since Labor introduced it in 2011. The Albanese government is increasing the amount of support available to families by six weeks, with an investment of $1.2 billion over five years. That's nearly $5,000 extra help to cover time off around the birth of a baby and it will help to juggle care and work. Our 26-week scheme will include four weeks reserved for each parent, which leaves 18 weeks that parents can choose to share however they wish. Our changes will also mean that parents can take up to four weeks of leave at the same time from the current two weeks available. These changes reflect expert advice from the Women's Economic Equality Taskforce. They strike a very important balance in increasing support to families, making it easier for both parents to take leave and providing flexibility in how they structure their care arrangements. Not only will our investment help families but it will also support participation and productivity over the long term, providing a dividend to the Australian economy. I am pleased that our reforms have been widely welcomed by gender advocates, employers, unions and, of course, families alike. Moon from Canberra, a mum of two, has welcomed the changes, saying that they would help families immensely. And there are mothers like Alicia, who has an 11-month-old baby; she said that these changes would have made it easier to go back to work and continue her career. Labor is the party that created paid parental leave and now it is the party implementing the scheme's largest expansion. Our reforms are good for mums, dads, children, business and the economy. (Time expired) Uluru Statement from the Heart 50 14:08 Ms LEY 00AMN Farrer My question is to the Prime Minister. On Monday, the Prime Minister said: I believe that when you make a commitment, including a commitment to Indigenous people, it should be fulfilled. At the Garma Festival last year, the Prime Minister pledged to Indigenous Australians that he would: … work with you in lifting the words off the page … …   …   … Through the work of Makarrata, treaty-making and truth-telling … When will this process occur and how much will it cost? The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The Minister for the Environment and Water will cease interjecting before ministers begin their answers, otherwise action will be taken. The Prime Minister has the call. 14:08 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I thank the Deputy Leader of the Opposition for her question, but I'm somewhat confused about how she had that quote, because the Leader of the Opposition said this on 12 October— Opposition members interjecting— Mr ALBANESE R36 It is about me, funnily enough; it's never about anything positive from them, because they've got nothing to say. They have nothing to say! Mr ALBANESE R36 I'll wait. The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The member for Hume. We will continue to hear the Prime Minister in silence. Mr ALBANESE R36 Mr Speaker, there he was in a hard-hitting interview on 2GB, and he said this: 'The Prime Minister has been obsessed with the Voice from the day he was elected. Never mentioned it before the last election, I might say.' So I'm confused by the question, because the Leader of the Opposition has said that we didn't say anything before the election. Now they stand up and ask a question, saying, 'Well, you said all this. Why haven't you implemented it?' The truth— The SPEAKER 53517 The Prime Minister will pause. Member for Deakin, I'd like to hear from the Deputy Leader of the Opposition in silence. She has the call. Ms Ley 00AMN A point of order on relevance: how can the Prime Minister's reflection on the opposition be relevant to a question about something he said? Surely a conviction politician like the Prime Minister— The SPEAKER 53517 The Deputy Leader of the Opposition was pushing the envelope there. I think she knows that. Points of order can't be abused, and if any more of that happens today people won't be warned; they'll just leave. The Prime Minister has the call and will be heard in silence. Mr ALBANESE R36 My point is the contradiction in the question that's being asked by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, which is very different from her leader, to whom she's very loyal, of course. The Leader of the Opposition has said we didn't mention the Voice before the election campaign. But then they come in here. They say, before the referendum, 'Oh, well, you're just too obsessed by the referendum,' when we're getting on with doing the work that we've done on the economy, on health, on education, on TAFE—and everything else. Then, after the referendum they come in here, and they ask every question on the same thing, on the same thing, on the same thing. Mr Fletcher L6B This is electrifying stuff. Mr ALBANESE R36 I concede to the member for Bradfield, who's as interesting today as he was when he was on the Sydney uni SRC with me—who brings such life to this chamber. The SPEAKER 53517 The Prime Minister will return to the question. Mr ALBANESE R36 We said we would have a referendum. We did. We said we'd respect the outcome of that referendum. We have. We said we'd listen to Indigenous Australians. We will continue to do so. We said that we would make a practical difference to improve the lives of Indigenous Australians, and that's precisely what we will do. Economy 51 14:12 Ms BYRNES 299145 Cunningham My question is to the Treasurer. What are today's job figures, and what do they mean for the challenges, obstacles and uncertainty the Australian economy faces? 14:13 Dr CH 37998 Rankin ALMERS (—) (): I appreciate the question from the member for Cunningham, who is an absolute champion for the workers and employers of that beautiful part of Australia in the Gong. Today we heard that the unemployment rate has dropped to 3.6 per cent and that 6,700 new jobs were created in our economy. These numbers today show that 561,000 jobs have been created under this Albanese Labor government. This means that more jobs have been created under the Albanese government than any other first-term government on record—and we're only halfway through the term. Th 53517 Order! The member for Casey will cease interjecting. Dr CHALMERS 37998 Since these monthly records began in 1978, the unemployment rate has had a three in front of it only 19 times, and 16 times it's been under this Prime Minister and under this government. This is another record. Today's result shows the unemployment rate remained around historic lows—as I said, 3.6—and the participation rate was 66.7, which is a near-record high. We welcome today's results because they come at a time of serious global economic uncertainty and pressure being felt around the kitchen tables of this country. We know that the global economic environment is difficult, with what's happening in China, a war in Europe and now a conflict in the Middle East. We know, in our own domestic economy, that, as a consequence of the interest rate rises which are already in the system, we've seen consumption slow and we've seen retail slow. Most important of all, we know that Australians are under pressure. That is why the primary focus of this government is rolling out $23 billion in cost-of-living relief for Australians who are doing it tough. We know that a really important part of being there for people doing it tough is to make sure that we are creating good jobs and that people are being paid a decent wage. That's why what the skills minister and the Prime Minister announced this week is so important—because better training equals better pay, and that's a central part of our employment white paper. We know that a good job is central, and that's why it's such an important part of our plans to take some of the edge off these cost-of-living pressures. The government is working for Australia, and, as a consequence of that, more Australians are working. We've seen that in the numbers today. Under the Albanese government, despite all of the challenges coming at us in the economy and from around the world, more people are in work than ever before. Workplace participation is near record highs, wages are growing at the fastest rate in around a decade and more jobs have already been created under this government than any other government on— (Time expired) DISTINGUISHED VISITORS 52 DISTINGUISHED VISITORS Tyrer, Her Excellency Ms Jana, Wilkinson, Hon. Mr Jim, Thebault, His Excellency Mr Jean-Pierre, Strohmayer, His Excellency Mr Wolfgang 52 14:16 The SPEAKER 53517 I am pleased to inform the House that present in the gallery today is Her Excellency Ms Jana Tyrer, the ambassador of the Czech Republic; Mr Jim Wilkinson, a former member of the Tasmanian Legislative Council; and two friends of the parliament, His Excellency Mr Jean-Pierre Thebault, the ambassador of France, and His Excellency Mr Wolfgang Strohmayer, the Austrian ambassador, who both will be leaving the service of their countries later this year. We wish them well and thank them for being here today. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 52 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Israel 52 14:16 Mr BANDT M3C Melbourne My question is to the Prime Minister. This morning the Times of Israel reported the foreign minister of Israel as saying: At the end of this war … the territory of Gaza will also decrease. Prime Minister, given that Israel's bombing siege and invasion of Gaza is not only collectively punishing millions and killing thousands of civilians but also reportedly aims to permanently seize Palestinian territory, will the Labor government now oppose the invasion of Gaza? 14:17 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I stand by the motion that was carried in this parliament on Monday. The motion that was carried in this parliament on Monday unequivocally condemned the attack on Israel by Hamas. It then went on to say that Israel does have a right to defend itself, and we stand by that. It condemned antisemitism and recognised that generations of Jewish people have been subjected to hateful prejudice. It went on to say, importantly, that this parliament supports justice and freedom for Israelis and Palestinians alike—alike. It acknowledged as well the devastating loss of Israeli and Palestinian life, and that innocent civilians on all sides were suffering as a result of the attacks by Hamas and the subsequent conflict. It reiterated Australia's consistent position, in all contexts, as to call for the protection of civilian lives and the observance of international law. We saw, tragically, the consequences—we saw some of it, of course, not all. We saw the tragic consequences of Hamas's decision to cross into Israel and to murder young people attending a concert. We know that people were taken hostage and taken back into Gaza. We know, as well, that there have been tragic consequences for Palestinian civilians. And we mourn every single life that is lost, whether it's Israeli or Palestinian—the children who have been killed, the families torn apart. There is widespread suffering; there is no question about that. I have long advocated a two-state solution where both Israelis and Palestinians can live in peace and security. That remains my position today. It has certainly been the position of my party for a long period of time. These issues are complex, we know. As well, part of my government's responsibility we take really seriously is to (extension of time granted)—I thank the Leader of the Opposition. We know and we've received briefings on an ongoing basis about the need to remain calm, to be careful about our language, to ensure that communities here that are feeling hurt, are feeling scared, are feeling under siege, both people who have a position in the Jewish community and those in the Islamic community and Palestinian community as well—it's important we reach out to them, and that is what my government is doing. My government has had ongoing meetings, as appropriate, not just about security advice about the conflict but, in addition, to reach out to the community. I've spoken to both Jewish leaders and leaders of the Palestinian community and the Islamic community about how we can maintain community harmony here. I congratulate all those members on all sides who I know are doing the same thing. We announced, of course, the $50 million I spoke about, but there is more (extension of time granted) that we have determined on as well. We will continue to do that, and I recognise the important role that members here are playing with their respective communities. We need to make sure that Australia remains what I regard as a microcosm for the world—one that shows that people of different faiths, of different backgrounds, can live together enriched by our diversity. There's no place for hate here. There's no place for antisemitism as there's no place for Islamophobia in this country. And my government will continue to work constructively with everyone, not just in this chamber but in those communities as well, to make sure we achieve that outcome. Cost of Living 53 14:23 Ms TEMPLEMAN 181810 Macquarie My question is to the Prime Minister. How is the Albanese Labor government continuing to provide cost-of-living relief to Australians, and what measures are being rolled out in the coming months? 14:23 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I thank the member for her question. Of course our No. 1 priority continues to be easing the cost-of-living pressures which are on families. The news today that we've created some 561,000 jobs since we came to office—a record for any new government—is a part of our objective. The figure of 3.6 per cent unemployment is very welcome. As the Treasurer just said, there have only been 19 times since records began where unemployment has had a '3' in front, and 16 of them have been under this current government. But we're not just about supporting the creation of jobs; we're also about getting wages up. There's nowhere we did that where it's more important than in providing for a pay rise for aged-care workers and the increase in the minimum wage, which we supported. In the first 18 months, we've delivered some $23 billion in measures to take pressure off Australians, through cheaper child care, increased rent assistance, boosting JobSeeker and the single parenting payment, fee-free TAFE, building more affordable homes and our energy bill relief plan. In addition to that, today we've introduced legislation for paid parental leave to be expanded to six months—more generous and more flexible, good for families, good for kids and good for our economy. In less than two weeks, the next step in our plan to strengthen Medicare kicks in. Tripling the bulk-billing incentive, helping 11 million Australians see a doctor for free. This historic strengthening of Medicare comes on top of the cheaper medicines plan that we've put in place. Between January and September, the cheaper plan that we put in place has saved Australians $180 million on 16 million scripts, making an enormous difference, and 1 November will be an important day as well with the tripling of the bulk-billing incentive. While we've been doing all of these positive measures, those opposite have continued to just say no to everything, opposing every action we have taken, with nothing positive to offer the country. But we are not deterred. We continue to engage by ensuring that Australians are looked after in what are very turbulent international economic circumstances. We will continue each and every day to work for Australia to make a positive difference. Cost of Living 53 14:26 Mr TAYLOR 231027 Hume My question is to the Prime Minister. After less than two months in office, the Prime Minister unveiled a referendum question for the Voice. However, in 18 months, the Prime Minister has failed to deliver the promised reduction in energy prices, failed to deliver the promise of cheaper mortgages and failed to deliver the promise of real wages growth. Why did the Prime Minister prioritise a divisive referendum over Australians struggling with the cost of living? The SPEAKER 53517 If the Minister for International Development and the Pacific continues with that, he'll be warned. He won't be here for the remainder of question time. 14:27 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler The shadow Treasurer, once again, stands up on the day that employment figures are out. You might think there would be a question based upon employment or the economy. Well, once again, no. He speaks about priorities, and what we have had. Well, I'll tell you what our priorities have been, which is what the question goes to. The first priority of any Labor government will always be the creation of jobs, secure jobs. We're not halfway through our first term yet. More jobs created within our first half of our first term than any previous government has ever been responsible for the creation is something that we're very proud of—and, if you compare that, it was 3.6 per cent in September 2023. The participation rate is 66.7 per cent, just down from the highest ever rate, which was produced under us as well. The gender pay gap is 13 per cent, a record low. The number of women employed full time is 3.8 million, a record. Manufacturing jobs: 948,300. The long-term unemployment figures have been reduced by 30,000. Industrial disputes: from 128,000 in the last quarter, when they held office, down to 10,200. And, of course, inflation, which was the highest ever in any quarter in decades under them at 2.1 per cent the March quarter of 2022—the last figures were 0.8 per cent. Annual wage growth: 3.6 per cent compared with 2.4 per cent. Wholesale electricity prices were $264 under them and are now $63. The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The member for Farrer will cease interjecting. Mr ALBANESE R36 Gas prices under them were $31; under us they're $8 .97. And the humdinger: a deficit of $78 billion under them, a $22 billion surplus under us. Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! There's far too much noise on my left. I will stop the member for Barker and the member for Hume from interjecting anymore, if that's possible. The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Lingiari is warned. Visa System Exploitation 54 14:30 Mr RAE 300122 Hawke My question is to the minister for Home Affairs. The Nixon report identified numerous examples of exploitation and abuse enabled by a broken migration system. What sorts of abuses have been enabled by the failure of the system? 14:31 Ms O'NEIL 140590 Hotham I thank the member for Hawke for his question and for his brilliant advocacy for his local community. I have talked to the House a number of times this week about the horrific exploitation and abuse that was allowed to occur after the opposition leader ignored report after report into failures of our migration system while he was the responsible minister. The member asked for some examples of this. Our border protection agencies recently identified a criminal syndicate that operated a network of brothels. They were recruiting and employing vulnerable foreign nationals who entered Australia under false information. The syndicate in this case controlled the workers through debt bondage and intimidation. The behaviour was highly abusive—essentially, modern slavery happening right here in our country. Another investigation identified a human trafficking ring that was bringing sex workers to Australia using professionally produced bogus documents. These are just a couple of examples of organised crime targeting vulnerable people, facilitated by failures the opposition leader oversaw in his broken migration system. One of the central aspects of our government's response to these challenges is operation Inglenook. Inglenook is an ABF-led, multiagency taskforce which has stopped both of the criminal enterprises that I talked about today. In the case of the brothel network, for example, when the syndicate head, his partner and a key recruiter travelled offshore, their visas were cancelled, preventing them from ever returning to Australia again. Operation Inglenook has had a fantastic success—83 people have been refused clearance at Australian airports and 45 have had their visas cancelled offshore, which has prevented their arrival into Australia. Managing our borders is a very complex task, and our government is committed to building and maintaining a proper system of border control—a system that was laid waste to by the Leader of the Opposition. We have built up resourcing for this system. We have reorganised our department to focus on these problems, and the results have been outstanding. The approach of the Leader of the Opposition was very different. We know that he likes to talk a big game, he likes to beat his chest and he likes to say that he is tough on crime. Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 The minister will pause and resume her seat for a moment. The Minister for Pacific Island Affairs and the Minister for Climate Change will cease interjecting immediately so I can hear from the point of order. Mr Fletcher L6B Mr Speaker, the standing orders are very clear: the minister is entitled to be asked and to speak about matters that is that she is responsible for as a minister. She is not entitled to engage in a historical trawling through things that happened many years before she assumed ministerial responsibility. The SPEAKER 53517 I will hear from the Leader of the House. Mr Butler HWK To the point of order, the minister is clearly responsible for implementing the findings of the Nixon report, and whether they like it or not those opposite will have to hear more about what our government intends to do to clean up the Leader of the Opposition's mess. The SPEAKER 53517 Order! I ask the minister to return to the question. It was specifically around what kind of abuse the report has revealed, so she's entitled to compare and contrast. But her whole answer can't just be about what the former government did, so I want to bring her back to the question. Ms O'NEIL 140590 I've spoken to some of the instances of abuse and exploitation that the Nixon review very clearly articulated. The Nixon review also very clearly articulated the root cause of that problem, and the root cause of that problem was the Leader of the Opposition, who was minister at the time. What he did was talk a big game and go around the country pretending he was tough on borders. The SPEAKER 53517 The Manager of Opposition Business, on a point of order? Mr Fletcher L6B Mr Speaker, the standing orders are very clear. Standing order 90: All imputations of improper motives to a Member and all personal reflections on other Members shall be considered highly disorderly. This minister has been breaching that standing order repeatedly, and she ought to be brought back to compliance with the standing orders. The SPEAKER 53517 I will hear from the Leader of the House. Mr Butler HWK I think the Manager of Opposition Business confuses incompetence with improper motive. Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order. The Leader of the House needs to stay on the point of order, not give a comment. To assist the House, I ask the minister to return to the question so she can conclude her answer. If she continues down that line again, she will be sat down. Ms O'NEIL 140590 I support what the Leader of the House said. No-one is denying that the Leader of the Opposition may believe what he is saying. He wasn't too hard on borders, he wasn't too soft on borders, he was just plain incompetent. Migration 55 14:36 Mr TEHAN 210911 Wannon My question is to the Minister for Home Affairs. Can the minister inform the House how many visas she has cancelled under section 501 of the Migration Act and then deported since she became the minister last year? 14:37 Ms O'NEIL 140590 Hotham I think the opposition are really leading with their chin when we just had a report that shows totally shambolic management of the system by those opposite. Government members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order, members on my right! The minister will pause. The Treasurer will cease interjecting. The member for Bendigo! The member for Hume! Before I call the member for Wannon—you will definitely get the call, I promise you—we are 12 seconds into the answer to the question, so I am not sure what the point of order will be. But I will listen to the member for Wannon, and he will need to state the point of order, not give a statement or give his comment. Mr Tehan 210911 It is relevance, Speaker. I wanted to give the minister some time to look at her notes— The SPEAKER 53517 Resume your seat. The Minister for Home Affairs is 12 seconds into the answer. She will be heard in silence. There has only been one point of order taken, and there won't be another one. Ms O'NEIL 140590 The number of cancellations performed by ministers in our government in the time we have been in government—that is, personal cancellations by the ministers—is more than those cancelled in the last two years of the former government. Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order, members on my left! The 53517 The Leader of The Nationals is warned. Ms O'NEIL 140590 The number of section 501 cancellations is broadly consistent across the last few years between our government and the last government. Opposition members interjecting— Ms O'NEIL 140590 I know it's tough to hear. It really was incompetence, guys. It really was just sheer incompetence— Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The member for Mitchell is warned. Ms O'NEIL 140590 and I'd just encourage the opposition to consider that there are good and bad ways to manage their borders. One of the things that we're really focused on is making sure that, instead of having to rely consistently on deportations, we are actually stopping people from coming into the country to begin with. What you'll see is that we have had very strong success in using the better networks that I've described to the parliament to prevent criminal syndicates from coming in and to prevent people who have fraudulent documents from coming in, and that is the approach that we're taking. To the more general point, it is a little outrageous for the opposition to come in and make these aspersions about the government. I will just say that we have just received a report—a shocking report, 44 pages—that is an indictment of the Leader of the Opposition's record. Whatever one may think about me and whatever one may say about me, one thing I am not is a hypocrite. What we saw is that for the last few years we had the Leader of the Opposition walking around this country, beating his chest, puffing himself up and telling us all what a tough guy he was. Instead, he was cutting immigration and compliance numbers in half. The SPEAKER 53517 The Manager of Opposition Business on another point of order. Mr Fletcher L6B The point of order, again, is on reflections on a member. We have been seeing the same tactic from this minister all week. She takes a report and then she goes from that to a series of offensive reflections— The SPEAKER 53517 There is no point of order. Mr Fletcher L6B and she should not be permitted to do it. It is a breach of standing orders. The SPEAKER 53517 The member will resume his seat. The SPEAKER 53517 The Minister for Veterans' Affairs will cease interjecting. Mr Butler HWK To the point of order, the Manager of Opposition Business is having difficulty because other members of his front bench are jumping on relevance within 12 or 13 seconds of an answer starting. Instead, he's falling back on this idea that there's some improper motive. The Leader of the Opposition knows, if he wants to make a personal statement and contest the clear facts that the minister is putting to the chamber, he can do that after question time. Th 53517 I'm going to ask the minister to make sure she's not reflecting on members and to keep her answer relevant to the question. Ms O'NEIL 140590 Let's review where we are in this debate. We have just had a 44-page indictment given to our government of the record of the opposition leader running this system. What that report shows us is that, because of the failures of the Leader of the Opposition, we have had widespread instances of sexual abuse, of human trafficking and of the exploitation of workers around our country. This is objectionable on its own, but what makes it twice as bad is the fact that the person sitting opposite me tried to build a public reputation on a complete falsehood. The truth is that this report shows not only that we have a broken migration system but that the opposition leader is 100 per cent a complete fraud. Medicare 56 14:43 Mr GOSLING 245392 Solomon My question is to the Minister for Health and Aged Care. How is the Albanese Labor government working for Australia by strengthening Medicare after a decade of cuts and neglect, and why is this so important? 14:43 Mr BUTLER HWK Hindmarsh I thank the terrific member for Solomon for his question and for trumpeting the benefits of the Palmerston Medicare urgent care clinic, which opened earlier this month. I was delighted to read the front page of that unique Australian daily, the NT News. There was not a crocodile to be seen on that front page. It was filled with the headline 'Clinics ease wait pains', under 'Bulk-billing options for urgent care'. A little bit later I was with the member for Lingiari, celebrating the announcement that congress would operate the urgent care clinic in Alice Springs, at the Northside clinic, which will make a real difference to that community as well. The Palmerston clinic is one of 30 clinics now operating seven days a week right through Australia, with extended hours allowing patients who need urgent care for non-life-threatening emergencies to walk in. Already, those 30 have delivered tens of thousands of services. One in three of those services has been delivered to kids under the age of 15. They are taken there by their parents when they fall off a skateboard, fall off a swing or get a deep cut, instead of having to go to the local hospital emergency department. One in three of the services has been delivered on weekends, when we know it is so hard to get a GP nowadays, and, of the weekday services, one in five has been delivered after 6 pm. Again, we all know how hard it is to get a GP after hours. This is already making it easier to see a doctor when and where you need to in the community. Importantly, right across the country, it is taking pressure off our hospital emergency departments including for the Palmerston Regional Hospital in the member for Solomon's electorate. Most importantly, perhaps, these services—every single one of them—are fully bulk-billed. They are free of charge because, for this side of the parliament, for the Labor Party, bulk-billing is the beating heart of Medicare. We know it has been in decline over the last several years after a six-year Medicare rebate freeze initiated by the Leader of the Opposition. That is why the centrepiece of our budget this year was the biggest ever investment in bulk-billing, tripling the bulk-billing incentive, which comes into effect in less than two weeks time. For a general practice in Palmerston, an MM2 area, that will mean the income to a doctor for a standard level B GP consultation, the bread and butter of general practice, will go up by almost a half, making it so much easier for pensioners, for kids under the age of 16 and for concession card holders to see a doctor when they need to, completely free of charge. We are committed to doing the hard work, working for Australians to strengthen Medicare. Australian Constitution 57 14:46 Mr FLETCHER L6B Bradfield My question is to the Prime Minister. Does the Prime Minister stand by his claim that no member or members of the referendum working group ever suggested to him or his office that the referendum be delayed to a date later than 14 October? The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The member for Bruce is warned. 14:47 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler That hasn't been my claim. I was asked if anyone from the referendum working group ever said that to me, and I answered no. Just a short time ago, the higher education support amendment bill 2023 passed the Senate. That's a good thing. A short time ago, as well, in the other place, the coalition stood next to Pauline Hanson to vote against a measure that will help Indigenous kids go to uni. So not only are they not prepared to support a position that was put to the former government—not to us but to the former government—in 2017 for assistance to be given to the request for Indigenous recognition in our Constitution through a voice to parliament but, in spite of the appointment as the shadow minister for indigenous affairs and the shadow Attorney-General, the two portfolios that relate to this, of the member for Berowra—someone who had been engaged in this issue since as far back as at least 2012, a man of principle and someone who had been to places like Garma and sat down with Indigenous Australians—they decided to walk away from that bipartisanship. That's why Ken Wyatt, another man of integrity, has walked away from their party. I got asked a question the other day about truth in political advertising. I'll tell you what the biggest breach of political advertising in this country is. It's the word Liberal next to their name because they are a reactionary party who never know what they're for. Those opposite just stand for what they are against. There was once a time when people who called themselves moderates, in the case of the member for Bradfield, held two forums—one for the yes and one for the no—telling one group of people he was in favour of yes and another group of people he was in favour of no. That's what went on! That's the sort of conviction politics that we see from those opposite, led by the Leader of the Opposition. We're getting on with delivering practical differences, like in health: delivering dialysis units, increasing the number of Indigenous health workers and practitioners and delivering new and upgraded health clinics. In education, that legislation about opening up opportunities for Indigenous kids is one of the things that we're doing, as well as making early childhood education and care more accessible— (Time expired) NBN Co 57 14:50 Ms CHESTER 249710 Bendigo S () (): My question is to the Minister for Communications. What changes has the Albanese Labor government made to reduce cost-of-living pressures and ensure that broadband services remain affordable? 14:50 Ms ROWLAND 159771 Greenway This is an important week for customers of the National Broadband Network, with the decision by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission to accept NBN Co's special access undertaking. The SAU provides the foundation for regulating pricing on the NBN, and the ACCC's approval will mean broadband access remains affordable and that NBN Co remains a commercially viable business that can meet Australia's evolving conductivity needs. As the ACCC noted, it is satisfied that NBN Co's SAU variation proposal promotes the long-term interests of Australians. This is the most significant reset of the regulatory framework for a decade. The changes we made followed the failed attempt by the former coalition government to push through their SAU before the last election. This would have allowed price increases of inflation plus three per cent a year on some products. This had no prospect of acceptance by the ACCC. Mr Speaker you might ask why that was. That flawed proposal was the first step in the coalition's plan to privatise the NBN, rather than focus on the interests of Australians. In contrast, one of the first steps I took as minister, along with the Minister for Finance, was to support the withdrawal of this cynical coalition proposal and to consult properly with the industry and consumer groups to get a better outcome. The Albanese government is working for Australia to help with cost-of-living pressures. The revised SAU will deliver greater price stability, keeping prices in line with inflation and protecting consumers from unexpected price hikes on their telco bills. This new SAU will also support the provision of a new basic voice and data service at around half the price of NBN Co's existing entry-level broadband offer. The NBN has reshaped our economy, delivering productivity benefits to businesses big and small in the cities and the regions through faster services and access to more markets, and by enabling flexible working. A recent survey found that NBN users save over two hours per week and $2,580 per year in avoided costs by conducting their activities over the internet. With the ACCC's decision, we have established a long-term regulatory framework which will operate until 2040. I thank the ACCC, NBN Co, the industry and consumer groups for their extensive engagement in the long-term interests of all Australians. The NBN is a great Labor initiative and, after nine wasted years under those opposite, we have got it back on track. Environment 58 14:53 Dr SCAMPS 299623 Mackellar My question is to the Minister for the Environment and Water. Organisations like the Surfrider Foundation, Surfers For Climate Action and the World Surf League are working hard to reduce plastic on our beaches and in our oceans. What is your government doing to reduce pollution in our waterways? 14:54 Ms PLIBERSEK 83M Sydney I want to thank the member for Mackellar for that terrific question. If we don't do something much better on ocean plastics by 2050, plastics in our oceans will weigh more than fish in our oceans. This is absolutely something that the government is determined to act on, in a number of different ways. In the first instance, it's by stronger systems, reducing the use of plastic, increasing recycling opportunities and of course by getting existing plastics out of our oceans through terrific programs—for example, using Indigenous rangers to pull ghost nets out of the ocean. Ms PLIBERSEK 83M We know that ghost nets are effectively industrial-sized killing machines, capturing dugongs, sharks, turtles and other machine creatures and drowning them. Just on the reforms to plastic waste, the use of plastic in Australia has nearly doubled between 2010 and 2021. We went from 2.6 million tonnes of plastic—almost doubling the plastic that we're using. That's at a time when those opposite had set very ambitious targets on reducing plastic use but never achieved any of them. By reforming packaging regulation, we'll be able to reduce the use of plastic in the first place, and we'll also be able to make sure that, when we do use plastic, we choose the sorts of plastics that can be recycled more effectively— The SPEAKER 53517 The minister will just pause for a moment. Just hold your horses for a sec. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition has been interjecting constantly throughout this answer, non-stop. No-one else has been—constantly throughout this answer. I'm going to ask her to leave the chamber under 94(a). Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order. The minister will return to the question. Ms PLIBERSEK 83M Thank you, I will. We need to make sure that the use of plastic is reduced in the first place, by re-designing the sort of packaging that we're using. We need to use less problematic types of plastics so that we can more easily recycle any plastic we do use, with fewer problematic additives as well. We know a lot of packaging is covered, for example, in chemicals like PFAS, which means that it can't be effectively recycled. We're investing in recycling facilities together with the states and territories and the private sector, with a billion dollars extra invested in recycling capacity, which means a million extra tonnes can be recycled every year. That's the weight of 19 Harbour Bridges of rubbish that we are keeping out of landfill because of that investment. As well as being great for the environment, that's fantastic for jobs. There are three jobs in recycling for every one job in landfill. Australia has joined the High Ambition Coalition to end plastic pollution. We've been working at the forefront of those treaty negotiations to make sure that our ambition here in Australia is reflected globally, with an ambitious— (Time expired) Vocational Education and Training 58 14:57 Dr REID 300126 Robertson My question is to the Minister for Skills and Training. How is the Albanese Labor government working in partnership with the states and territories, employees and employers to build Australia's vocational education and training sector after a wasted decade? What has been the response to the government's work? 14:58 Mr O'CONNOR 00AN3 Gorton I thank the member for Robertson for his question and strong advocacy for the VET sector in his electorate and beyond. It has been an important week for the VET sector. We've ensured compacts for five years providing strategic funding certainty for the sector that needs to supply skills to our economy. Of course, this also outlines the significant reforms that need to be undertaken so that the VET sector is fit for purpose. I'd like to repeat my appreciation for state and territory governments for their collaborative approach and really for returning to the table after a decade of neglect by those opposite. In doing so, I share with the House the responses to the announcement by the state ministers. The New South Wales minister for skills, Steve Whan, hailed the agreement as a 'united commitment' to 'train key workers in priority industries and build a robust and scalable skills force'. My Victorian counterpart, Gayle Tierney, put it well when she said: It is particularly pleasing to see the Federal Government's strong commitment to TAFE … which includes working with the states on the establishment of nationally networked TAFE Centres of Excellence involving partnerships between TAFEs, Jobs and Skills Councils and industry. The minister for skills in Queensland, Di Farmer, said she was thankful to the Albanese government for recognising the unique training needs of a 'diverse and decentralised state'. The South Australian Premier, Peter Malinauskas, declared this 'the most significant investment in skills in South Australia that has ever been seen,' and he went on to say: We are building our workforce and our economy in a way that has never been done before … The WA minister, Simone McGurk, said: After years of interim agreements—the Cook and Albanese Governments achieved something others could not—securing a long-term NSA giving certainty to the VET sector, which is critical for providing skills to grow the economy. ACT Chief Minister Andrew Barr, who, of course, I'm pleased to say accompanied the Prime Minister, the member for Canberra and I to the announcement in Canberra this week, said: This is a landmark agreement, one that wasn't easy to arrive at, but there was a willingness from the federal government to work with the states and territories, and that is what was absent over the previous decade … The Chief Minister, of course, was right. This is the first national skills agreement in a decade, after a decade of neglect from those opposite. They were a complete failure. It wasn't that they couldn't get a national skills agreement; they couldn't get an agreement with any state or any territory in the last government. That's how bad they were and that's why we've had to work together. I will be meeting with my counterpart ministers in Hobart on 17 November so we implement this agreement, because that's what good governments do. Australian Constitution: Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice 59 15:01 Mr HOGAN 218019 Page My question is to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister confirm the referendum working group suggested to his chief of staff that the referendum be delayed to a date later than 14 October? 15:01 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler No, I can't confirm that. I've met with the referendum working group on a number of occasions. We met for two days around the cabinet table, and every member of the referendum working group was completely committed to going forward. What we've done here is exactly what we said we would do, which was to have a referendum. Last year, I put forward a timetable that we stuck to, a timetable that said there would be a referendum in the last quarter of this year. I spoke on multiple occasions about it being at a time after the grand finals were held and after the parliament would vote for a referendum to be held, which the parliament did in June. Now, I'm not quite sure what way the member for Page voted in that legislation, but the Leader of the Opposition sat over here and voted for the referendum to go ahead. The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The Leader of the Opposition will cease interjecting. Mr ALBANESE R36 Under the legislation of how we hold a referendum, there is a time frame for when you can have it. You can't put it off and kick the can down the road forever. As well, during the period that that occurred, I noted that the Leader of the Opposition at one stage, having voted for what the referendum question would be, said that I could just change what the question is. That's what he said halfway through. And in October he was saying that we didn't ever say before the election that we'd have a referendum on the Voice. I have accepted responsibility for my actions. I have accepted and respected the outcome. The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Hume is now warned. Mr ALBANESE R36 What I am not responsible for is, shall we say, the 'anything if it fits the convenience of a radio interview'. He will say anything at all, regardless of its relationship to the truth, such as the idea that we never mentioned before the election that we would hold a referendum on the Voice. We held a referendum on the Voice. The Australian people had their say. We respect that. We're getting on with the job of making a difference to Indigenous lives. (Time expired) Renewable Energy 60 15:04 Mr PERRETT HVP Moreton My question is to the Minister for Climate Change and Energy. How will the Albanese Labor government's plan to get more renewables into the energy grid set Australia up for the opportunities of the future, and what will it mean for skills and jobs? 15:05 Mr BOWEN DZS McMahon I thank my honourable friend for his question and thank him for his work in his community. He fights for his community at home and here in Canberra as well. The Albanese government believes in a future made in Australia. That means well-paid jobs, highly skilled jobs, right up and down the supply chain. The most important thing to achieving that is getting the transition to renewable energy right. Take hydrogen as one example. Green hydrogen in Australia could produce up to 16,000 jobs, with another 13,000 in construction. Those jobs, almost exclusively, will be created in Australia's great industrial regions like Whyalla, where the Prime Minister was just a weeks ago announcing a hydrogen hub— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The Leader of the Nationals will cease interjecting. Mr BOWEN DZS like the regions I'll be in next week, where I'll be announcing the next round of hydrogen hub funding on behalf of the Albanese government. Green hydrogen we will create not just the opportunity to export renewable energy but drive Australian industry—thousands and thousands of jobs. This, as well as being a great opportunity, will be a challenge: to train for those jobs. We're going to need, for example, 32,000 new electricians over the next seven years. Thirty-two thousand sparkies will need to be trained. That's why I was so delighted that the minister for skills delivered the skills compact this week and increased funding for key priority areas, including jobs related to renewable energy and electrification. The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The member for Gippsland is warned. Mr BOWEN DZS It's a really important step forward for the training system of Australia to make sure we're training for the jobs of the future, and I join with others in congratulating the minister for skills in doing so. Another key element to Australia's manufacturing future is the importance of cheap and reliable energy supply. I welcome the new figures—encouraging figures—from the Australian Energy Regulator today which show that wholesale prices are now half, less than half, what they were this time last year. There's a lot of work still to do, and there's a long way to go, but they're encouraging figures. You would think you'd welcome wholesale energy prices being less than half what they were this time last year. The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The member for Barker is warned. Mr BOWEN DZS Do you know why they're less than half what they were this time last year? Two reasons: solar energy production is way up—31 per cent—and this government capped coal and gas prices. They're the two reasons that wholesale prices are less than half. They were supported by this side of the House and opposed by those opposite. The Leader of the Opposition says he'll roll them back. He doesn't support the caps on energy prices. He doesn't support renewable energy. He just doesn't get it. What he doesn't understand is that the key to a future made in Australia and good well-paid jobs is getting the renewable energy transition right, and that's exactly what this government will continue to do. Donations to Political Parties 60 15:08 Ms CHANEY 300006 Curtin This is a question for the Prime Minister. Voters have a right to know who is funding their political candidates. In the last 20 years, 21 per cent of private funding to the major parties has been disclosed— Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The member for Curtin will resume her seat for a moment. That is unacceptable. I can't hear the question. The member is entitled and deserves to be heard in silence. If anyone interjects during her question, they will be asked to leave the chamber immediately. I'll ask the member for Curtin to begin her question again and for the time to be reset. Ms CHANEY 300006 Voters have a right to know who is funding their political candidates. In the last 20 years, only 21 per cent of private funding to the major parties has been disclosed donations, 47 per cent is listed as undisclosed and 31 per cent is listed as other receipts, so about $4 out of every $5 of private political funding is dark money. In the upcoming electoral reform package, will the government get rid of dark money in politics? 15:09 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I thank the member for Curtin for her question, and I thank her for the work that she does as a member of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters. The Special Minister of State will be looking carefully at all the recommendations that come forward from JSCEM, including additional comments and proposals which are made by individual members. I know that she has raised this issue with me in meetings, and I know that she has very clear views about it. Some of the views of the member for Curtin align with commitments we've made to improve transparency and accountability. For example, we have said that we support real-time reporting of political donations, and we support reducing the disclosure threshold. We believe that electoral reform should be undertaken in a consultative way and in a bipartisan way that moves forward. The Special Minister of State will continue to have discussions across the parliament on these recommendations and reforms ahead of JSCEM's final report, which is expected later this year. I do think that that is important. We have other commitments we made before the election. We're a government that fulfils the commitments that we make. One of those commitments, of course, was for the creation of the National Anti-Corruption Commission. We've not only put that into legislation, we've also passed it and it's now operating. That's what we do. That compares with what had occurred previously, where governments had been elected with commitments to create anticorruption commissions and just didn't get around to actually introducing the legislation in the parliament, let alone setting them up. We think that, overwhelmingly, people who participate in the political process do so from a position of wanting to make a contribution to the nation, and I think people engaging in political parties is a good thing. People engaging in community political action is a good thing as well. An active citizenry is an important component of our political democracy here in Australia. We will bear all of that in mind with any legislation that's brought forward. I look forward to continuing to engage with the member for Curtin on this issue, but I encourage her to engage with our Special Minister of State on this issue as well. Vocational Education and Training 61 15:12 Ms COKER 263547 Corangamite My question is to the Minister for Small Business. How will this week's new skills agreement help address labour shortages for small businesses and build on the government's agenda to support this vital sector? 15:12 Ms COLLINS HWM Franklin I thank the member for Corangamite for that question. I know she, like many people in this House, is excited about the new skills agreement that will unlock billions of dollars for Australian skills. The agreement was announced by the Prime Minister and the Minister for Skills and Training earlier this week. It will see the Albanese Labor government invest up to $12.6 billion to expand and transform access to the vocational education and training sector and to support quality training. This investment is, of course, on top of fee-free TAFE. We've heard from the Minister for Skills and Training just how successful that has been. It has been very well received by small businesses across the country. This skilling package will be transformative for small businesses. As small business minister, I spend a lot of my time talking to people in small businesses right across the country. Consistently, one of the top concerns they raise is workforce. As the National Australia Bank reported earlier this year, one in three small and medium-sized businesses identified labour shortages as a very significant issue. We have listened, and we're acting. Our skills agreement will help ensure that our small businesses, as well as our big businesses, have the workers they need with—importantly—the skills and qualifications that small businesses need. Small businesses are crying out for skilled labour across this country. The agreement has been welcomed by the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, who said it 'has the potential to tackle Australia's crippling shortage of qualified workers'. This is the No. 1 issue that small businesses raise, and we're acting to deliver a more qualified workforce for small businesses right across the country. But it is just one of the ways that our government is supporting small businesses. We're also of course providing targeted support through the $20,000 instant asset write-off; the small business energy incentive, with $310 million; and the additional 20 per cent bonus deductions for energy efficiency improvements for small businesses. Of course, this is on top of our targeted energy bill relief that we know small businesses will be receiving. There'll be $650 for the around one million small businesses that will be receiving this payment. Of course, it's something those opposite voted against—that support for small businesses. We're also investing $23.4 million to help small businesses build their resilience in terms of cybersecurity and attacks, through the new Cyber Wardens Program. This will be delivered by the Council of Small Business Organisations and will help small businesses prepare for attacks and understand what type of threats they have. Of course, we've already delivered the $8.6 million to help small businesses adapt and build resilience through digital technology. We'll continue to listen to small businesses and continue to deliver practical support in a targeted way. (Time expired) Mr Albanese R36 Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper. STATEMENTS ON INDULGENCE 62 STATEMENTS ON INDULGENCE International Relations: Australia and The United States of America 62 15:16 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler The United States is of course our closest ally, our principal strategic partner and our largest two-way investment partner, and our alliance with the United States is a central pillar of our foreign policy. I'm honoured to take up President Biden's invitation of an official visit to Washington DC next week. It will be the ninth time President Biden and I have met since my election as Prime Minister. Our nations are united by our common values, our deep history and our shared vision. But this visit will of course be focused on building an alliance for the future. Progressing our AUKUS pact is critical to that, ensuring Australia plays our part in upholding the stability, security and prosperity of our region. The visit by Prime Minister Rabuka, from Fiji, was very much a part of that engagement, and it's important that this meeting take place before I attend the Pacific Islands Forum later this year. We'll also be discussing our shared interests in climate action and clean energy. In May we announced the groundbreaking Climate, Critical Minerals and Clean Energy Transformation Compact, and there will be some announcements next week about the next steps. We're also working to promote Australian business, industry and innovation, and a range of Australian businesspeople will also travel for the official state dinner and for meetings that will take place in the United States next week. At a time of global uncertainty, working with our global partners is vital. We live in an ever more interconnected world, and we need to engage, know who our friends are and engage with them in our common interests of promoting democratic values and promoting engagement in our region in a positive way. Whether it's about the economy, climate change, energy, resources or the battle against global inflation, being part of these conversations means that Australia gets to shape the solutions. We're a mid-sized power, so we do have influence, but we need to engage. Often the truth is that, for Australia, when we take a constructive and proactive approach we do punch above our weight—located where we are in the world, in the fastest-growing region of the world in human history. The United States sees that and values that. And we value our friends in the United States. I look forward to having a seat at the table next week, and I very much look forward to the positive engagement with President Biden, Vice President Harris, Secretary Blinken, Secretary Austin and other significant people in the United States. I thank all those officials who've worked very hard to make a visit like this happen. It takes a lot of work by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, and I thank our ambassador to Washington, Kevin Rudd, who's also worked very hard on this visit. We will have the opening of the new Australian embassy in the United States while I am there, and we'll also be progressing a range of economic announcements on how we benefit from this important partnership. 15:20 Mr DUTTON 00AKI Dickson on indulgence—We wish the Prime Minister safe travels. Obviously, parliament won't be able to sit next week as a result of this trip. There'll be one day inserted into the calendar in December, so we'll miss out on the opportunity for debate in the chamber, which is regrettable. I think it would also be in our country's best interest, Prime Minister, to go via Tel Aviv and provide support to the Israeli leadership. I know that Prime Minister Netanyahu hasn't had a chance to return your call, but it is important for us to be able to stand with Israel at this time, as other world leaders have done. That should be to priority, frankly, of any international travel at the moment so that we can seek to be part of an alliance to keep the pressure down on those who seek to have a wider conflict in the region. It would be appropriate, Prime Minister, and we would fully support that initiative. DOCUMENTS 62 DOCUMENTS Presentation 62 15:21 Mr BUTLER HWK Hindmarsh These documents are tabled in accordance with the list circulated to honourable members earlier today. Full details of the documents will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings. BUSINESS 63 BUSINESS Leave of Absence 63 15:21 Mr BATES 300246 Brisbane I move: That leave of absence from the determination of this sitting until the end of the spring sittings be given to the honourable member for Griffith for parental leave purposes. The SPEAKER 53517 I congratulate the member for Griffith. Question agreed to. 15:21 Mr BUTLER HWK Hindmarsh I add my congratulations to the member for Griffith. I move: That leave of absence be given to every Member of the House of Representatives from the determination of this sitting of the House to the date of its next sitting. Question agreed to. MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE 63 MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE Closing the Gap 63 15:22 The SPEAKER 53517 I have received a letter from the honourable the Leader of the Opposition proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The Government's refusal to conduct a Royal Commission into child sexual abuse in Indigenous communities. I call upon those honourable members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places. More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places— 15:22 Mr DUTTON 00AKI Dickson The coalition is absolutely determined to do all we can to provide practical assistance to Indigenous Australians. We didn't believe that the Prime Minister was capable of convincing the Australian people that the Voice, another layer of bureaucracy here in Canberra and something potentially akin to ATSIC, was going to be the solution for Indigenous communities in their effort to try and improve services and reduce violence as we go forward. That was the conclusion, of course, drawn by the vast majority of Australians last Saturday. The Australian public couldn't have spoken with a clearer message to this Prime Minister. The Prime Minister had refused point blank to provide the detail to the Australian public that they so craved. The Australian public at the start of the Voice debate instinctively expressed a view that they wanted to help Indigenous Australians. That was their view, and it was demonstrated through the polling. When we saw the polling initially, it was in the order of 65 per cent or 70 per cent. The numbers fell dramatically because the Prime Minister couldn't give the detail, the design or assurances around whether or not this would improve the lives of Indigenous Australians. The Prime Minister has divided our country, and the Prime Minister has wasted $450 million. He lifted up the hopes of young Indigenous people who thought that this was going to be a 1967 unifying moment for our country, and he's dashed the hopes of literally millions of Australians who have watched this government, over the course of the last 17 or 18 months, become completely and utterly consumed and obsessed by this issue to the expense of their own household budget and the cost-of-living pressures that families are facing. That's what this Prime Minister has presided over in the first part of his term. He said this week, of course, that he's now back on to the cost of living, and he's trying to look at decisions that they can try to take and help families. Well, Prime Minister, the Australian public has been desperate for your attention and support since the day you were elected, and you have done nothing to provide support to them. We know that under this government, interest rates have gone up. We know that under this government energy prices continue to go through the roof. We know that people are getting less for every dollar that they spend at the supermarket. Inflation is not under control, and there's every risk that the Reserve Bank could again increase interest rates at a time when families can least afford it. What we have taken from the referendum result on the weekend is that the Australian public doesn't want the Voice, that they roundly reject it, that they roundly reject the other components that would go on, in some estimates, in terms of the treaty, for 20 to 30 years at a cost of literally billions of dollars and no practical outcome. They're not interested in that agenda. The Australian public is interested in providing tangible support to young Indigenous kids—to get them to school, to provide support for them to help them into a job, to give them a roof and a respectful life in a community no different to what we would expect in a capital city here like in Canberra or Brisbane or Sydney or Perth or wherever it might be. The Prime Minister has now rejected on multiple occasions the offer of bipartisanship to establish a royal commission to get to the root of the problem in relation to Indigenous communities where children are being sexually abused. It reflects so poorly on this Prime Minister that Australians are shaking their heads, not recognising the bloke that they see as their Prime Minister today as the person they voted for in May of last year. There can be no higher priority for this government, for this parliament, for our nation, than protecting young, vulnerable children. Yet we know that in Indigenous communities this issue is endemic. We know that sexually transmitted diseases amongst young children in Indigenous communities is much higher than what it is in other parts of the country. If we saw the same level of sexual abuse or domestic violence in a city like Hobart or in Melbourne, in Victoria, the front pages of the paper would be calling on the premier to resign. There would be understandable outrage from residents. If people saw these multiple instances of sexual abuse against children and a government doing nothing about it, they wouldn't stand for it. But because it's not seen on a daily basis because the TV cameras can't easily access some of these communities and because people are prohibited from going into some parts of the country—and there are reasons for that. I acknowledge the connection to country and the important elements of Indigenous culture. But the first issue that is paramount in Indigenous culture, as it is in every other culture that we respect, is to take care of those who are most vulnerable. Because the cameras can't get in there, these images aren't on the front pages of the paper, and somehow there's a normalisation of this sexual abuse. As Minister for Home Affairs, I established the Australian Centre to Counter Child Exploitation. With some tens of millions of dollars, they've been able to save hundreds and hundreds of children from the hands of perpetrators. I'm proud of that, and our country should be proud of the fact that we have law enforcement agencies that work day and night to protect our children and to stop perpetrators here and abroad. They stop offenders here who are, in the modern age, directing sexual acts against children taking place in the Philippines or in other parts of South-East Asia. Yet somehow in our country the Prime Minister can be here today and again vote against our initiative to try and provide practical support to those communities on the highest possible priority. I don't understand the Prime Minister's lack of interest or lack of prioritisation of this issue. We have talked about this issue for some time. We called for a royal commission to examine child sexual abuse in Indigenous communities on 27 October 2022, almost 12 months to the day. We called again on the Prime Minister during 2023 in my budget-in-reply speech where I said: I use this opportunity tonight to again call on the Prime Minister to hold a royal commission into child sexual abuse in Indigenous communities. And I reaffirm our commitment to re-instating the Cashless Debit Card in communities who seek to have it, so that welfare payments can be spent on food for kids—not alcohol and drugs. Its removal by this Government has led to increasing violence, particularly domestic violence. If this Prime Minister has such a tin ear as to not listen to the Australian public in the message that was sent last weekend, I'll tell the chamber this fact: the Australian public will express a second view, if it's required, at the time of the next election. They will express a very clear view if the Prime Minister doesn't pick up the pretty strong hint that he got last Saturday. The hint last Saturday was to roll your sleeves up, start working together and get on with improving the lives of Indigenous people in regional and remote areas. We are committed to that task. We are absolutely committed to that task. I have extended the hand of friendship to the Prime Minister in this most important regard on multiple occasions—he's not budging. He has not listened to anything the Australian public has had to say over the course of this year in terms of the debate on the Voice. How could he not hear the message? How could he show disregard for this, the most important national priority? We are talking about young lives being destroyed. We're talking about young children, boys and girls, who are being sexually abused at rates that have no place in any society, let alone ours. It's unimaginable that one child would lose the innocence of their childhood to some animal, some perpetrator who would seek to act in that way towards a defenceless child—let alone in the numbers we're seeing in communities now. We shouldn't tolerate it. We should do everything that we can with the power in this parliament, with the resources available to the Commonwealth, to provide support to the Northern Territory government. Instead, we hear the same political correctness from the Northern Territory Chief Minister, who has completely demonstrated that she is out of her depth and that the ability of the Northern Territory Labor Party government to deal with this issue is something that is well and truly past them. The Prime Minister, with the resources of the Commonwealth, needs to provide support to these communities. I see the member for Lingiari, who is a fine and decent person, shaking her head in relation to these matters. The member for Lingiari needs to join with us and break away from her leader, who is not providing leadership to the people of the Northern Territory or to the people of our country. This Prime Minister is weak when he needs to be strong. He is indecisive when he needs to make decisions in our national interest. He needs to make sure that the decisions he takes will defend and protect our country and stand up for our values instead of going weak at a time when his country needs him most. He has divided the country. The time is now to heal and to come together. This is the opportunity to do it. 15:32 Ms ROWLAND 159771 Greenway This is a serious issue, and, frankly, it deserves better than what we just heard from the Leader of the Opposition. Because we know it's a serious issue, we're getting on with the job of delivering for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people right across the country. This means listening to communities, not presuming to speak for them. It means working with people, not imposing decisions on them. That's why our priorities are the priorities that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples have spoken about: health, education, jobs and housing. We are listening to First Nations communities. We need practical, effective solutions—not inquiries and commissions. Child sexual abuse is abhorrent. I know how important it is that our children grow up safe and healthy. We don't need another royal commission to tell us that concrete action is needed. Our focus is on the immediate issue of keeping children and women safe. This year we launched a dedicated Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander action plan to end family violence. This is a first for Australia. It is supported by $194 million in investment in front-line family safety services and early intervention activities, and developed in true partnership with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander leaders with lived experience. The government is focused on working in partnership with the Northern Territory government and community organisations on the ground to make a difference. I note the member for Bass has accused the Leader of the Opposition of appearing to weaponise child sexual abuse for some perceived political advantage, and has crossed the floor to vote against her party. The Albanese government is committed to protecting children from sexual abuse in all settings and ensuring criminal justice responses adequately reflect the profound harm caused to victims, survivors and communities. This includes working with all Australian jurisdictions under the National Strategy to Prevent and Respond to Child Sexual Abuse 2021-2030 and to combat all forms of child sexual abuse in all settings. The Albanese government will host the Ministerial Forum on Child Safety on 24 November this year to progress national child safety reforms. All state and territory governments have been invited. The ministerial forum will explore nationally consistent child safety reforms to strengthen existing frameworks. I also want to acknowledge the tireless efforts of law enforcement in Australia to disrupt and bring forward to prosecution shocking cases of long-term child sexual abuse. This includes Operation Tenterfield which led to the arrest of a childcare worker who worked in Queensland, New South Wales and overseas in relation to alleged child sexual abuse offences. These are shocking allegations which have caused significant concern in our community. Operation Tenterfield is a prime example of the dogged determination of the Australian Federal Police, the Australian Centre to Counter Child Exploitation, the Queensland Police Service and NSW Police working over several years to identify the alleged offender. I thank all law enforcement officers involved in this difficult matter for their efforts. Protecting children from child sexual abuse, including online exploitation, is a key priority for the government and the AFP. The Albanese government recognises that protection of our children is not something that we can achieve alone. Raising awareness and educating the community is central to protecting children from harm, and the National Strategy to Prevent and Respond to Child Sexual Abuse recognises this. It is critical that we continue to partner together to educate, prevent, respond and disrupt those who seek to harm our precious children. The safety and wellbeing of First Nations children is a high priority for this government. The Australian government is leading a significant program of work to protect Australian children from child sexual abuse and related harms. This includes work in response to the recommendations of the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse, implementing the National Strategy to Prevent and Respond to Child Sexual Abuse that I mentioned—which is in itself a key royal commission recommendation—and working with First Nations leaders, state and territory governments and the non-government sector to deliver Safe and Supported: the National Framework for Protecting Australia's Children. In addition to work under the national strategy, the Australian government provided $4.7 million over four years to the Northern Territory government to increase specialist therapeutic services for children and young people who have displayed harmful sexual behaviours. These efforts build on the foundation that is the National Agreement on Closing the Gap, which is the key framework supporting strong, healthy First Nations families and communities. The government has been working hard to improve the outcomes for Indigenous Australians. We've been getting on with replacing the failed remote jobs program with one that is about real jobs and real wages. There are 40,000 participants in this program throughout remote Australia, 86 per cent of whom are Indigenous. Last November we commenced the Pathways trials that have already resulted in 1,300 participants transitioning to work directly through trial projects. These trials will inform the transformation of CDP into a program that reflects the goals of remote communities and provides the opportunity for people to find fulfilling work. Every Australian should have access to clean water, yet there are communities in this country where the water supply is too polluted to use. We've been working to address this, and we're making real progress. We're also investing in basic services in homelands for the first time in many years. We're expanding justice reinvestment programs to keep people out of jail and keep communities safe. After a decade of neglect, we're making a record $250 million investment in Central Australia. The Albanese government has been working closely with the Northern Territory government and local communities on delivering the plan for A Better, Safer Future for Central Australia. Since January this year, property offences are down 40 per cent. One of the initiatives we have funded is the Lhere Artepe Traditional Owner Community Patrol in Alice Springs. Not only is it making the streets of Alice safe at night, it has created 40 jobs for traditional owners. We've invested over $18 million in expanding the capacity of the Child and Youth Assessment and Treatment program. The Central Australian Aboriginal Congress has recruited additional staff and they're doubling the number of children being assessed for issues such as FASD, ADHD and autism. We're also investing over $40 million into Central Australian schools to keep young people engaged in education and to set them up for a positive future. The government has made significant investments to help Indigenous Australians live longer and healthier lives. This includes almost a quarter of a billion dollars to improve outcomes for First Nations people with cancer by enhancing comprehensive and culturally safe care. And there's $264 million over three years for a new lung cancer screening program. We are also training up to 500 First Nations health workers to deliver culturally appropriate care to First Nations people. There are no easy solutions and no quick fixes to the challenges facing Indigenous Australians. But, as a government, we're determined to tackle the difficult problems and work with communities to deliver effective and lasting solutions. Our focus is on practical action and partnership with communities on issues, including health, education, jobs and housing—not more inquiries. I note that the coalition is for practical measures, but the last time they conducted an audit in spending they slashed and burned the lot. As we have said, repeatedly, our priorities are the priorities of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders themselves—the ones they have spoken about: health, education, jobs and housing. We need practical, effective solutions, not inquiries and commissions. 15:41 Mr LITTLEPROUD 265585 Maranoa What have we got to lose? What do we have to lose, to shine a light on Australia's most vulnerable? It's those young children in Indigenous and remote communities who are far away from the spotlight on those who live in the towns that we are living in. What have we got to lose to shine a light and to understand the extent of the problem? There have been mistakes on both sides of the House in the past in dealing with this, but there was courage and conviction from Julia Gillard when she was Prime Minister. She had the courage of her convictions in starting the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse. That changed lives. She had the courage and conviction to stand in this parliament and, in a bipartisan way, we brought forward the changes to those people's lives—people who were neglected and who a light wasn't shone on. Why wouldn't we do that for those who are the furthest away? We have looked at this through the lens of the Northern Territory—through the Little children are sacred report in 2007. It said: The classic indicia of children likely to suffer neglect, abuse and/or sexual abuse are, unfortunately, particularly apparent in Aboriginal communities. Family dysfunctionality, as a catch-all phrase, reflects and encompasses problems of alcohol and drug abuse, poverty, housing shortages, unemployment and the like. All of these issues exist in many Aboriginal communities Proudly, we elected 11 Indigenous Australians to this parliament at the last election. One of those has come with the lived experience of living in Central Australia, representing the communities where many of these abhorrent acts take place. But Senator Nampijinpa Price's lived experience is different to that of many others. That's because these abhorrent acts took place among her family members. Senator Price had the courage of her convictions to give those victims—not just her family members—a voice in this place. It's a voice to come forward and look for a better way from something that is so abhorrent. When her own niece was a victim of this type of abuse in the past, then that's the lived experience that this place should listen to. That's the lived experience we should learn from, to understand the uniqueness of the nature of these communities—not just where Senator Nampijinpa Price comes from but from the vast communities across the Northern Territory and Western Australia where this abhorrent abuse takes place. Why wouldn't we give them that voice? Why wouldn't we understand the extent of the symptoms and causes, which we can try—as legislators—to take our responsibility for? It's our responsibility because of the privilege we've been given to sit in this place to change the lives of Australians, no matter their postcode. Why wouldn't we take that opportunity for the seriousness of the nature of what is before us? Why wouldn't we take our duty to our fellow Australians seriously enough that we would reach across the aisle, particularly when on Saturday night we were all given a message. We were all given a message by the Australian people, whether they voted yes or no. It was to get on with the job of making sure that, where there is disadvantage, we fix it. There have been mistakes from both sides for generations. We've made inroads in many parts of this country. But where we haven't is in those isolated parts of this country where the transparency isn't as great. So why wouldn't we do something different—something practical that shines a light on an abhorrent act that none of us, in this chamber or the other, can support? Why wouldn't we do everything we can to ensure this never happens again? Politics aside, this is an opportunity to take the message from the Australian people, cast through their ballots—the most powerful message they can send to this place—and, as legislators, to come together and do what's right. And this is what's right. This is the right thing to do. This is the opportunity that very few are given because they don't have the opportunity to stand in this place where I am and to make a difference. Don't let that opportunity pass us. There's too much at stake. There's too much that's been lost, but there's so much that could be gained. 15:46 Ms CHESTERS 249710 Bendigo Let's just be really honest about what matters of public importance are. They are an opportunity for people to try and make a political point. It's the end of the day. It's the end of the week. It's quite often a tool the opposition will use to try and make a political point. It isn't about serious policy. It isn't about talking with stakeholders. This time hasn't been used to really engage in matters. If those opposite were really serious about this issue, more of them would have attended the Parliamentary Friends Group of Ending Violence Against Women and Children on Monday night. An event was held in this place. The member for Bass attended—the only one of their side that attended. At that event we heard from the people who are the front line. We heard from the workers, the clinicians, the people who are working in rape crisis centres; and the people who are working as cultural practitioners, including here in Canberra. They shared the statistics and their thoughts on how we go forward. It's alarming. Victims are getting younger. Regardless of their background, regardless of postcode, we do have a problem in this country on this issue. But discussing it in this political way, as the last order of business on a Thursday, is not the way to go about it, if those opposite were genuine about tackling this issue. It was also in this forum that Paula, a cultural practitioner, said she didn't want a royal commission into this issue. She thought it could make things worse and make it harder for people to disclose. When they're working so hard to build relationships, cultural understanding and support and encouraging victims to come forward in the most difficult of circumstances, she said that this could have the exact opposite effect. What she and all the other workers we met with on Monday night said was: 'We need funding. We need resourcing. We need the practical decisions and the support that the government is already undertaking.' They thanked us for the steps that we were taking and called for more. They recognised and acknowledged the National Strategy to Prevent and Respond to Child Sexual Abuse 2021-2030—the report that we are enacting. They recognised the extra resources that are going into the NT. They recognised the partnership and the collaborations and the early discussions that are going on between the federal government and state governments, who are the partners with us in delivering this. They recognised the bold strategy and plan and commitment of this government to end violence against women and children in a generation. That's what this side said. That's what our government said. That is what our Minister for Social Services said in a statement delivered to this place not in a politically charged MPI days after a national referendum on the Voice. No, it was at the appropriate time with the arm of government. That is what our side is doing. I do want to take a moment to acknowledge the extraordinary workers that we have in this sector—the frontline workers, the law enforcement officers, the police, the nurses that respond to incidences—for the work that they do and the care that they have. I want to acknowledge the social workers and the support workers, who don't get paid a fortune to do what they do but do it for care and respect for their community and their dedication to what they do. I also want to acknowledge all the people who might be listening or might find this debate triggering. I'm sorry for that. I'm sorry that this may be triggering, particularly for those of you who are in our First Nations communities and are already struggling this week. I see you and I hear you. I'm sorry that this place didn't take a moment to pause and reflect on where you might be this week before bringing on this political debate. This is a serious issue, and everybody in this place takes this issue seriously. I encourage all of those still to participate in this debate to think about the language that you use and the accusations that you throw around, because the people who are engaged in the day-to-day front line, who are helping people pick up the pieces and get the justice they deserve, do not stand with you on this one. 15:51 Ms PRICE 249308 Durack If we can take any positives out of the referendum process, it would be that it has resulted in a greater level of attention and understanding of the gaps that exist between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians. Most Australians, regardless of how they voted on Saturday, want to see those gaps closed and for the next generation of kids not to suffer from disadvantage. I acknowledge the injustices of the past. Indigenous Australians have suffered terrible abuses at the hands of governments throughout our history. However, we must accept that, as a parliament, we cannot change the past or the actions of those in past decades or centuries. I believe it's common sense for us to go forward; we must seek to improve today's conditions and outcomes. To improve outcomes, we must tackle the issues that are responsible for today's disadvantage. I can tell you, as the member who represents the second-largest population of Indigenous Australians, that, sadly, Indigenous children are at risk of child sexual abuse. This is an evil that has a lifelong effect on victims and leads to worse outcomes. This was demonstrated through the hundreds of powerful submissions from the victims to the recent Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse. As a government and a parliament, we apologise for the lack of action that enabled this abuse to take place. Let's not fail our most vulnerable again. Victims will tell you that much better than an apology would have been governments taking action to prevent the abuse in the first place. Child sexual abuse is not inherently about race. It occurs in all types of Australian families. My own experience has demonstrated that it has much to do with alcohol and drug abuse. Unfortunately, these factors are particularly rampant in regional and remote Indigenous communities. I think people in remote and rural Australia know exactly what I'm talking about. We understand that the issues of child sexual abuse in Indigenous communities are not being adequately combated. I'm sad to say that such abuse has taken place and continues to take place across my own electorate of Durack. Just a few short years ago, it was reported that there were dozens of child victims in the small town of Roebourne. Now, Roebourne is not far from Karratha in the very wealthy Pilbara region. The then WA Labor Minister for Child Protection conceded that abuse had become normalised through an intergenerational cycle. It is just unthinkable that such high levels of child abuse could ever have been thought of as just being normal. Those opposite argued passionately for a voice. A royal commission into child sexual abuse in Indigenous communities will give these kids just that. It would allow their stories to be told and enable solutions to be found. I believe it's high time to bring this issue into the light—not hidden like some dark worst-best-kept secret. How can we possibly expect to address disadvantage without confronting this head on? So many of the gaps exist because many Indigenous kids are not growing up in a safe and healthy environment. Again, it's just common sense that action on child sexual abuse would also address issues of suicide, youth justice and substance abuse later in life. I think we'd all agree it's not normal for children to be abused. Neither is it normal for them to take their own lives or to stay out late at night because they are too afraid to go home, believing that it's safer on the streets. Sadly, and I know that I speak for others who have large Indigenous populations, we know that tonight there will be kids on the street because it's a much safer place to be. We need to use this moment right now. I appreciate that people on the other side are arguing that we need this time to reset and pause, but I think there is nothing like the present for us to focus on this issue, and it is my belief that a royal commission could be the catalyst for such change. I remind those opposite that the first duty of any government is the protection of its people. This obligation is especially true in reference to our most vulnerable and innocent. The innocence of children must be protected. I urge the Prime Minister and the Labor Party to reconsider their decision to reject our calls for a royal commission. Please, let's make our kids a priority. 15:56 Ms SWANSON 264170 Paterson The irony of the urgency here this afternoon—all this from a group of people who not only governed for nigh on a decade but have a long track record of railing against royal commissions or being dragged kicking and screaming to support them and who are largely the standard-bearers for action against inquiry. So we find ourselves on the Thursday of the week after a referendum—the first one in 25 years—where the nation said no. The Prime Minister, who is a man of his word, took the question to the people, as he said he would. As he said in question time today, he took it in the frame that had been requested by our First Nations people. They said yes, in large effect, in their seats, and the rest of the country said no. We accept that decision, and we know that there is nothing like getting on with the job. That's what we are doing. Normally they would be the calls from those opposite, but, somewhere between last Saturday and this Thursday, they have found within their hearts the thought of a royal commission. I do not want to cast upon them the word 'hypocrite', but I do find it most telling that, in less than a week, they have suddenly found the urgency to provide a voice through a royal commission and not call for action, as we have been doing since we have been in government. I have sat on the redress committee and watched the process of redress being afforded to people from our last royal commission, which was that of child sexual abuse in institutions. We not only conducted that royal commission as a Labor fraternity but sought redress for those people, and we have been implementing that redress. So I would urge the opposition to not lecture this government nor previous Labor governments on conducting royal commissions or taking action or providing very real redress for people. We are the walking embodiment of doing just that. I come from a region, and I also acknowledge the member for Newcastle, who sits in the chair—it was so interesting that the member for Maranoa, the Leader of the Nationals, used the terminology 'shine the light' because that was the very phrase that was used by the Newcastle Herald, who led the charge with journalist Joanne McCarthy to shine that very light on institutionalised sexual abuse of children. It was rife in our community of the Hunter, and it just goes to show that it is not just First Nations communities that need that investigation. It happens in every community, in every social setting and in every area of disadvantage and advantage. It is a terrible, terrible curse on humanity, and it is something that we all have to actively work on, not politicise at a time of incredible political convenience, when it is not being used as a tool for the betterment of people. Call me cynical, if you will, Deputy Speaker, but I feel that this is the ultimate of insults to our First Nations people. Not only have we said to them, 'No, you're not getting a voice,' when they voted for it in large numbers, 'but now we're going to in some rather bizarre and perverse way accuse your communities of the disproportionate sexual abuse of children when we know that every community has that.' I'm not turning my back on the fact that there is an issue. We are working on actual and practical solutions for our First Nations people. We haven't given them a voice, but we will continue to work with them. We will continue to put real promises in place for these children in their lives, going forward, and that's what we need here. I do acknowledge that we have elected 11 First Nations people, and, let me tell you, the place is better for members like the member for Lingiari, who I count as a friend and a colleague—she is a bright light in this place—and the member for Barton—the courage, the patience and the grace that our First Nations people display. It is worthy of our urgent action. This government, the Albanese government, is doing that. We don't need a royal commission to tell us how to act on this. Our good conscience tells us what to do. 16:01 Mr RAMSEY HWS Grey I will point out a couple of things to the member for Paterson. One is that Senator Nampijinpa Price has been calling for a royal commission since April. It wasn't just this week. It has been well over six months now since this issue was identified, and it should be acted upon. I was very disappointed today that it was not; the opportunity was not taken. The other thing I'd point out is that the member for Paterson said that Aboriginal people voted yes in the referendum. I was astounded by the uniformity of in the results from the voting centres in Grey. In the towns that had higher levels of Indigenous populations, the vote was two per cent—of 80; we sit at 78.6 at the moment—and the towns with almost no Indigenous people voted the same. I've never seen a referendum or an election that had such a uniform result across the 141 voting booths in Grey. I think that puts the lie to that. Many Aboriginal people voted no in this referendum, and we saw many of them come out publicly to back that point of view. It's worth noting that it was identified in the last week, in a very good article in the Australian, that 35 per cent of Aboriginal people sit within the lowest quintile of income in Australia—so 35 per cent of Aboriginals are in the bottom 20 per cent of income earners in Australia—and then it was pinpointed where they are. They are largely in the remote and very remote parts of Australia, and that is where they are in my electorate as well. Probably about 40 per cent of the Indigenous people in the electorate of Grey live in remote and very remote communities. It is in those communities where they are well overrepresented—it's more than 35 per cent. In fact, over 60 per cent sit within the lowest quintile of income. It is there that we need to address that gap. That is where we need to go to work. I'm a regular visitor to all those communities, whether it be the APY Lands, the far west Aboriginal lands or the lands of the Arabana, the Adnyamathanha, the Kokatha or many other groups that sit within the electorate of Grey. I make a point of meeting with them and discussing what can help. I'm always amazed when I go to these communities—I meet with NGO after NGO, and I meet with government worker after government worker, and they all explain to me what program they are delivering. I sit down and talk with them, and I think: 'That sounds alright. That's a good idea. It sounds like they're doing a great job.' And I go along and to talk to the next one, and they're doing a great job—everybody's doing a great job, from one end to the other. Then I say to them, 'If you're all doing such a great job, why is it getting worse?' And you can almost see the blood run from their face as they think, 'Oh, I never thought of that before.' But the fact of the matter is that, for all the money that's going into the top of the funnel, we're not getting much of a result out the bottom. In fact, we are going backwards in many of these communities, and that is why we are calling for an audit. We need to find out why tipping the money in the top isn't actually making a difference down on the ground. I'm not saying that people are out there scooping up the cash, taking it home and building mansions out on the east coast. What I'm saying is this: whatever programs we are delivering, they're not delivering the effect that they should be. We should have the guts to examine why that is. For too long, people of all political persuasions have actually measured their contribution or their effort to close the gap in the number of dollars poured into the top of the funnel—very rarely do we actually examine the programs and look at what they're producing at the bottom end. Clearly we're not getting kids into school. We've had a go at a number of programs. I've seen them work sometimes and not work at other times. But kids are living in houses where they can't get to bed at night because there are poker games going on all night, there are too many people in the house all-out drunk, there's violence or they're getting raped. It's no wonder they're not doing well at school. One of the reasons they're not doing well at school is that their parents don't make them go to school. All these things are fundamental issues. Unless we can get them an education, we can't give them the keys to success in modern Australia. It is those people and those programs that we need to have an audit of to find out what works, what doesn't and where the money's going. 16:06 Dr CHARLTON I8M Parramatta Child sexual abuse is an abhorrent reality faced by millions of people in this country. ABS data tells us that approximately 1.4 million Australians experience sexual abuse as a child. In last year's Personal Safety survey, more than 343,000 men and 1.1 million women across the country reported that they had been sexually abused before the age of 15. The data also tells us that the average age of experiencing sexual abuse is between eight and nine years old. That's the average age for a child experiencing sexual abuse. For Indigenous Australians, the statistics are even worse. Between 2021 and 2022, more than 13,000 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children were under child protection substantiation. That is seven times higher than for non-Indigenous children. I'll say that again: Indigenous children are seven times more likely to be exposed to child abuse. The reason we know this, the reason we're aware of these terrible facts, is that we have had 22 reports into child abuse and neglect in Indigenous communities since the Bringing them home report in 1997. That's 22 reports outlining the nature of abuse, 22 reports explaining the causes of abuse and 22 reports explaining what we can do about it. That's why the Secretariat of National Aboriginal and Islander Child Care had this to say: Another Royal Commission is not a solution. There have been more than 22 reports into allegations of abuse and neglect in our communities … We don't need another one. What we do need is action. Unfortunately for the last nine years we didn't get any action. They did nothing for nine years. What we saw from the Liberals, in government, is that they were asleep at the wheel, and then, in a pattern that has become all too familiar, they go from being asleep at the wheel in government to being backseat drivers in opposition. Well, their record speaks for itself. When they had the opportunity to take action on this issue, when they were in government, what did they do? They cut $13 million from Indigenous legal aid and policy reform programs within months of coming to office in 2013. When Peter Dutton was the Minister for Health, he cancelled the $700 million National Partnership Agreement on Closing the Gap in Indigenous Health Outcomes—ripped it away. In the infamous 2015 budget the coalition slashed funding by $500 million on a swathe of Indigenous programs: education, Indigenous language, child welfare and legal services. There was a cut of $165 million by then health minister Peter Dutton from Indigenous health programs. He refused to provide ongoing funding to 38 Aboriginal children and family centres. This was the record that they had in office when they had a chance to do something about it. This is what they did when they had the opportunity to put action rather than just words into addressing this extremely serious problem. That's why is it extremely hard to take this proposition from this Leader of the Opposition. This opposition leader walked out on the National Apology to the Stolen Generations. This opposition leader was lukewarm at best about the royal commission into institutional child sexual abuse. This opposition leader has campaigned against the Voice to Parliament that Indigenous people themselves put forward as one of the solutions towards closing the gap. It is difficult to take a proposition from an opposition leader who did nothing while in government, who slashed funding from these adjacent programs, who has campaigned against the aspirations of Indigenous people and who is now demanding an inquiry. This government is getting on with the job of directly addressing the problem. The Albanese government has committed $262 million specifically to support and protect First Nations women and children who are experiencing family and domestic violence. That is why the government is also working to respond to the recommendations of the royal commission into institutional responses to child sexual abuse and to implement the National Strategy to Prevent and Respond to Child Sexual Abuse. The Albanese government has committed to improving wellbeing— (Time expired) 16:12 Mr BOYCE 299498 Flynn Australians voted overwhelmingly 'no' at the recent referendum on changing the Constitution to enshrine an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander voice to parliament. My electorate of Flynn delivered the second-highest 'no' vote in the land, with 84 per cent voting 'no'. Our largest Aboriginal community, Woorabinda, voted 'no'. This community of a thousand people has been identified as one of the poorest communities in Australia. Despite funding services for Woorabinda, nobody knows or understands where this money is going. If you analyse the referendum result, it is quite clear that mainstream Australia has sent a clear message to corporate Australia, to the management of our major sporting codes and its players, to the ritzy-glitzy media and entertainment personalities, to the inner-city Metropolitan dwellers who think they have a higher intelligence and to the Labor government. Mainstream Australia will not be dictated to and force-fed virtuous political rhetoric with no explanation and no results. One together, not two divided—that is the message that Australian people have sent to the government after voting down their voice proposal. Australians want real answers to difficult questions and social problems that plague our most vulnerable communities, especially our most vulnerable children. Australians have a right to know where the billions of dollars of taxpayer money is achieving very little with respect to on-the-ground results. That is why there should be an audit of all expenditure to explain where it goes and, possibly, expose the gravy train incompetence of those administering these moneys. If you receive public money, the public expects value in return. This money goes to some of our most marginalised in some of the most remote communities. They depend on the delivery of these services, and they depend on them accurately representing their interests and their needs. Funding needs to be tied to proper and deliverable accountability measures. We need to understand what achievements we get from these outcomes, what needs more funding and what is being wasted. The horrific stories of child sexual abuse, domestic violence, alcohol and substance abuse, hunger and deplorable living conditions that children are exposed to is a disgraceful shame on Australian governance. This is why we need a royal commission into these issues that will deliver real practical solutions and expose those who inflict horror on these vulnerable children. Every night that a child is unsafe, every night that a woman or an older person is subjected to violence, is one night too many. The Prime Minister doesn't want to have any part in addressing these difficult issues or having these difficult conversations. What we're saying is that we cannot step back from having these conversations, particularly as, in the national plan for eliminating domestic violence, the government says it wants to end it in a generation. And you have to start with our children. There's not enough focus on the issues that the children are exposed to. We aren't afraid to call out these issues in these communities. A blanket has been pulled over the eyes of reporting at the mention of Aboriginal children. The government does not want to have these difficult conversations or solve these difficult problems. Earlier this year, at the height of some of our darkest days, Peter Dutton came to Alice Springs and spent time with communities and traditional owners, and he wasn't afraid to call for a royal commission. In contrast, the Prime Minister flew in for a few hours before leaving and then spent three days at the tennis. We can achieve bipartisan support now for a royal commission. The Prime Minister just has to get involved. It will save lives. If we had a royal commission, it would give a voice to the people who are impacted by this and it would enable remote communities to have their say. Every Australian wants better outcomes for Indigenous Australians. We must prioritise the practical action that gets children to school, gets adults to work and keeps communities safe. Exactly what we want in the rest of our community is true for Indigenous Australians too, wherever they live. In looking ahead, we want to achieve better results for our most vulnerable people, regardless of their heritage. Our focus is on practical action, driven by local communities. 16:17 Ms SCRYMGOUR F2S Lingiari It is with a feeling of deep sadness and anger that I have sat, since Monday, listening to the appalling, hypocrisy-ridden speeches by members on the other side, including the one made this morning by the Leader of the Opposition. It was a speech that the Leader of the Opposition could have taken straight from the 2007 Howard intervention in the Northern Territory—and the member for New England would remember that. There is a pattern to the Leader of the Opposition's words. It's interesting. I sit here. I listen to him. He mentions 'the member for Lingiari', so I must be in his head. But he knows that his whole strategy with this is pure politics. It's not about the kids and it's not about the families, because for nine years the member for New England and the Leader of the Opposition were senior members of a government that gutted the bush. They removed— Ms SCRYMGOUR F2S You did. You gutted the bush. There is a pattern to the Leader of the Opposition's words. Whenever he needs a political score, he politicises and weaponises Aboriginal communities. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 I'll not tolerate further interjections, Member for New England. Ms SCRYMGOUR F2S He is not interested in substance or developing policy. He is completely captured by his senators and the populism that we have seen, and Aboriginal people in the Northern Territory are sick of it. If you look at the votes for the referendum, they are sick of it—places like Wadeye, 92 per cent, and Maningrida, 86 per cent. People are sick to death of politicians beating down on them. I draw this chamber's attention to the words of SNAICC, the Secretariat of National Aboriginal and Islander Child Care. One year ago, the SNAICC CEO, Arrernte woman Catherine Liddle, said: Sexual abuse was the reason for substantiated harm in only 7 per cent of cases for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander kids … Seven per cent! In 31 per cent it was neglect. Of those numbers, seven per cent were substantiated cases of sexual abuse, compared to 10 per cent in the non-Aboriginal population. So this isn't only about Aboriginal kids; this is about vulnerable children, regardless of whether they're black or white. It is about all of our families and making sure, in particular, that our government is committed to targeting domestic and family violence, because when women are vulnerable to violence so are their children. This government has its policy on track, and rightly so, because when you assist a woman, you save a child. It is not about playing politics, because every time child protection is politicised, perpetrators go underground, and that is a concern. When Howard and Brough intervened in the Northern Territory because of allegations of child sexual abuse, not one perpetrator was ever caught. Do you know why? It's because it was completely politicised from the side of those opposite. Women and children wanted those perpetrators found, but the minute it was politicised by you blokes on the other side, those perpetrators went underground. So our children and our women were left vulnerable. This is too important an issue to continually play politics. The other side gutted Aboriginal communities, and the Leader of the Opposition—his hypocrisy in terms of standing up and preaching. The man should look in the mirror. He should hold a mirror up to himself. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 The discussion has now concluded. BILLS 72 BILLS Family Law Amendment Bill 2023 72

Family Law Amendment Bill 2023

Consideration of Senate Message 72 16:22 The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 I understand it's the wish of the House that the amendments be considered together. 16:22 Dr LEIGH BU8 Fenner I move: That the amendments be agreed to. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 The question is that these amendments be agreed to. All those of that opinion say aye and to the contrary no; I think the ayes have it. Mr van Manen 188315 No. We want a division because the noes have it on the voices. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 I will call a division. Ring the bells for four minutes. The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The request for the division has been recalled, by leave. I'll put the question again, that the amendments be agreed to. Question agreed to. Family Law Amendment (Information Sharing) Bill 2023 76

Family Law Amendment (Information Sharing) Bill 2023

Consideration of Senate Message 76 16:26 The SPEAKER 53517 I understand that it is the wish of the chamber to consider the amendments together. 16:27 Dr LEIGH BU8 Fenner I move: That the amendments be agreed to. Question agreed to. Higher Education Support Amendment (Response to the Australian Universities Accord Interim Report) Bill 2023 76

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

Consideration of Senate Message 76 16:27 Mr CLARE HWL Blaxland I move: That the amendment be agreed to. The 53517 The question is that the amendment be agreed to.  

The House divided. [16:32]
(The Speaker—Hon. Milton Dick)

 84 AYES Aly, A. Ananda-Rajah, M. Bandt, A. P. Bates, S. J. Bowen, C. E. Burnell, M. P. Burney, L. J. Burns, J. Butler, M. C. Byrnes, A. J. Chalmers, J. E. Chandler-Mather, M. Chaney, K. E. Charlton, A. H. G. Chesters, L. M. Clare, J. D. Claydon, S. C. Coker, E. A. Collins, J. M. Conroy, P. M. Daniel, Z. Doyle, M. J. J. Elliot, M. J. Fernando, C. Freelander, M. R. Garland, C. M. L. Gee, A. R. Georganas, S. Giles, A. J. Gorman, P. Gosling, L. J. Haines, H. M. Hill, J. C. Jones, S. P. Katter, R. C. Kearney, G. M. Keogh, M. J. Khalil, P. Lawrence, T. N. Laxale, J. A. A. Le, D. Leigh, A. K. Mascarenhas, Z. F. A. McBain, K. L. McBride, E. M. Miller-Frost, L. J. Mitchell, B. K. Mulino, D. Neumann, S. K. O'Connor, B. P. J. O'Neil, C. E. Payne, A. E. Perrett, G. D. Phillips, F. E. Plibersek, T. J. Rae, S. T. Reid, G. J. Repacholi, D. P. Rishworth, A. L. Roberts, T. G. Rowland, M. A. Ryan, J. C. Ryan, M. M. Scamps, S. A. Scrymgour, M. R. Sharkie, R. C. C. Shorten, W. R. Sitou, S. Smith, D. P. B. (Teller) Spender, A. M. Stanley, A. M. (Teller) Steggall, Z. Swanson, M. J. Templeman, S. R. Thistlethwaite, M. J. Thwaites, K. L. Tink, K. J. Vamvakinou, M. Watson-Brown, E. Watts, T. G. Wells, A. S. Wilkie, A. D. Wilson, J. H. Zappia, A. 47 NOES Andrews, K. L. Archer, B. K. Boyce, C. E. Broadbent, R. E. Buchholz, S. Caldwell, C. M. Chester, D. J. Coleman, D. B. Coulton, M. M. (Teller) Entsch, W. G. Fletcher, P. W. Gillespie, D. A. Goodenough, I. R. Hamilton, G. R. Hastie, A. W. Hawke, A. G. Hogan, K. J. Howarth, L. R. Joyce, B. T. G. Landry, M. L. Leeser, J. Ley, S. P. Littleproud, D. Marino, N. B. McCormack, M. F. McIntosh, M. I. McKenzie, Z. A. O'Brien, L. S. Pasin, A. Pearce, G. B. Pike, H. J. Pitt, K. J. Price, M. L. Ramsey, R. E. (Teller) Stevens, J. Sukkar, M. S. Taylor, A. J. Tehan, D. T. van Manen, A. J. Vasta, R. X. Violi, A. A. Webster, A. E. Willcox, A. J. Wilson, R. J. Wolahan, K. Wood, J. P. Young, T. J. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

 ADJOURNMENT 78 ADJOURNMENT Australian Constitution: Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice 78 16:35 Mr PERRETT HVP Moreton Thank you for attending this speech, all those that are gathered to hear it. I begin this contribution by acknowledging the traditional owners of where we are and the Yuggera people in my electorate of Moreton, and thank them for their strong and continuing stewardship. A lot has and will be written about the referendum results and the campaign over the weekend. There'll be talk about the role of misinformation, about the role of social media and about the day-to-day issues that diverted the voting public from turning their minds to a very simple proposition—recognition and a parliamentary advisory group. There'll be commentary on what this result means in terms of a way going forward for this nation and how we deal with other issues that require changes to our Constitution but also on the implications for how to deal with and resolve the issues between the settlers and our original custodians who have cherished and cared for this country for over 65,000 years. Obviously, there is much more work to be done. But this isn't what I wanted to talk about today, despite the necessity of mentioning the referendum. I wanted to talk about the people, especially in my electorate of Moreton, who accepted the invitation so graciously outlined in the Uluru Statement from the Heart. Noel Pearson visited my electorate, one of the 129 forums he spoke at since July—what a legend. Noel Pearson said, 'We are only three per cent of the population. We can't do this on our own. We need the 97 per cent of you to come with us.' And you know what? They did. So many people that made up the 49.13 per cent in Moreton, across my electorate and elsewhere, responded to Noel Pearson's words—people who believed our nation could do better. In my electorate, as was replicated across the country, people who came from different political parties or who had no political affiliations, came together because they believed and shared in the values of helping others. Most had never, ever experienced a campaign before. Their positivity and passion for improving the lives of Indigenous Australians should be an inspiration to many. There are people like Uncle Bob Anderson, a proud Ngugi elder from Mulgumpin, in Quandamooka, who, at 93, has spent his whole life advocating for workers and for Aboriginal rights. Uncle Bob, you are a legend, and I'm honoured to call you friend. Uncle Bob came to every single forum that we held—this is a 93-year-old—and performed the acknowledgement of country. He handed out at prepoll and on election day, and even had to endure some horrible insults from those handing out for the 'no' campaign. Then there is Aunty Kathy, who distributed numerous 'yes' flyers throughout her community in Acacia Ridge, and gave a number aunties their 'yes' t-shirts so that they could show their support when they came into the Acacia Ridge polling booth on Saturday. Thank you, Aunty Kathy, and all the other aunties who did so. Thank you, Marg, who, at 85 years of age, had never doorknocked in her life, but in Acacia Ridge she went doorknocking. She went doorknocking with me, as well, in Annerley. In Acacia Ridge, when she was warned about the real big dogs of Acacia Ridge—these are not the kinds of dogs that you fit into a handbag; these are watchdogs—she would open gates fearlessly, give them a bit of a rattle, regardless of if there were real dogs there or not. That as an 85-year-old. After she'd conquered Acacia Ridge, Marg asked for a map and material so she could doorknock her own neighbourhood all by herself. I just wish I was as committed, selfless and fearless as Marg, Uncle Bob and the others. Good people came out of nowhere when you least expected it. Michele coordinated all the early morning train stations and found more volunteers each time she did so. I want to thank our local volunteers standing in solidarity with First Nations people and accepting the very simple request made of them: recognition and an advisory body—an advisory body that would have let communities talk directly to government about issues like child protection and the health of First Nations children. I do note that when the coalition came to government back in 2013, they cut $534 million from Indigenous child safety, Indigenous health and Indigenous legal aid—cuts that permeated First Nations communities for a decade thereafter. How many child protection workers couldn't do their job because of those cuts? Funnily, the member for Dickson apparently cares now, when he doesn't have a cabinet say on budgets. Those cuts hurt children. Talk now is cheap, obviously. Actions speak much louder than words. As the honourable Linda Burney said, 'We can be emancipated by truth-telling as a nation'. I look forward to the process, and, in fact, I wrote about it in the book called The Long Story, recently. I'm very hopeful of reconciliation, where two out of five people said, 'Yes, people can change their minds over time and with better education.' I look forward to that process. Housing, National Leadership Forum 79 16:40 Ms LE 295676 Fowler Lack of housing, affordability of housing and availability of housing is a critical issue for many Australians and more so for my community in Fowler. As many members would have heard when I have risen to speak previously in the House, I constantly ask for measures and call our government to action to help alleviate the pains and struggles my community is experiencing when it comes to affordable rent, affordable housing, cheaper energy bills and other cost-of-living issues. With my Fowler electorate being among the most affected electorates in rental and mortgage affordability in the country and with wait times for social and affordable housing exceeding over 10 years in most cases, I've recently organised a housing forum in my electorate of Fowler. To get to the heart of the housing crisis, we need to bring the various levels of government together as well as the people who play an important role in the sector to help progress towards a solution. I was therefore extremely grateful for the collaborative spirit from Traders in Purple and the Urban Development Institute of Australia, who helped me pull together a group of willing individuals from local state and federal levels along with community housing providers to be part of the Fowler Housing Forum to share expertise in an effort to find concrete solutions for the housing crisis that we are currently experiencing. I'm regularly approached about housing issues, as I'm sure many others in the House are also confronted when they return to their electorates. We know it's a state issue, but many constituents who do not distinguish between state and federal levels visit my office with compassionate and compelling circumstances, most of whom have been left unconsidered for social housing for years. A compassionate case that comes to mind from my area of Fowler involves a single mother of three children living in a house with hazardous mould and a rat infestation. She struggled for 19 years for social housing. This is just one example that showcases the gravity of our nation's housing crisis. While many regions are affected, it's really acutely felt in south-west Sydney. Housing issues shouldn't be considered a state issue. Rather, the federal, state and local governments should collaborate on ideas for a better future, one where affordable housing is a reality rather than a struggle for our next generation. Speaking of the next generation, I was fortunate enough to sponsor four young people from my electorate of Fowler, Kyouko Nagatsuka, Mario Compart, Nikki Chan and Barseen Orshana, to attend a national leadership forum here in Canberra. Over four days, they met young leaders from across Australia and the Asia-Pacific region as well as prominent politicians from our country. The experience enabled them to have valuable conversations with current leaders and broadened their awareness of important matters with notable members of our parliament. The feedback obtained from these four delegates and others I met throughout the first day of the forum was extremely encouraging and full of optimism for the future of our nation and its next generation of leaders. According to Kyouko, 'It profoundly enriched my personal and global awareness.' And Mario shared, 'It was transformative and gave me confidence and agency to pursue my leadership aspirations.' I want to acknowledge the team behind the National Leadership Forum, particularly its managing director, Andy Skidmore, for their commitment to this program. Since it was first established in 1997, over 3½ thousand young people have participated from 20-plus countries, and more than 53,000 volunteer hours were give to see the forum grow and expand. The forum has become one of Australia's preeminent leadership development initiatives, each year gathering a community devoted to serving and encouraging young Australians to step up, contribute and push themselves outside of their comfort zones. I would also like to acknowledge the local businesses who sponsored these young people's attendance—the Cabramatta Golf Club, the Lansvale Motor Group, the Cabramatta Optus retail store and Reni's Bar & Grill. These local businesses, despite the challenges they're facing with their businesses, were generous enough and gracious enough to see the importance of investing funding into the growth of these young people. Kyouko, Mario, Nikki and Barseen wouldn't have been able to experience the forum without the help and support of these businesses, which we are grateful for. Gilmore Electorate: Infrastructure 79 16:44 Mrs 147140 Gilmore PHILLIPS () (): One of the main issues that people talk to me about in Gilmore is the state of our roads. It doesn't matter if they're local roads managed by local council, state roads or roads with federal funding. People don't really distinguish between them. They just want their roads fixed. After being battered by natural disaster after natural disaster, we have over 97 landslips and thousands of kilometres of roads with pothole damage. It's a big job for our local councils: Kiama Municipal Council, Shoalhaven City Council and Eurobodalla Shire Council. So, as the federal member, I am doing everything I can to help. That's why I was delighted to announce last week that the contract to fix the Jervis Bay Road and Princes Highway intersection, or the JB flyover as it is commonly known, was awarded. Yes, the construction phase has started to fix this notorious intersection, which has the worst crash history and near-miss history from Nowra to the Victorian border. I was proud to walk the streets in Vincentia in 2020 with the petition to have a flyover for this intersection, while I note that at the time my Liberal counterparts wanted a roundabout. I secured $100 million in federal funding and I've worked to get this project off the ground since 2019. They would not listen to the community when local people said they needed a flyover. But I spoke with the community, I heard their concerns and we worked together to make sure we got a flyover. I'm proud to be delivering the Jervis Bay flyover. I want to thank, in particular, Vincentia Matters for advocating so strongly for this vital upgrade. Recently I had the honour of announcing close to $11 million in infrastructure betterment funding under federal and state disaster recovery funding arrangements. Betterment funding was something I advocated for on behalf of local councils because councils came to me saying they wanted to build back roads and infrastructure better so that they were more resilient to natural disasters. Importantly, that helps councils and ratepayers. I'm pleased to have been able to help with: $4.497 million for the betterment of Jamberoo Mountain Road, Foxground Road and Wallaby Hill Road in the Kiama local government area; $4.447 million to rehabilitate 4.9 kilometres of Illaroo Road, North Nowra, from West Cambewarra Road to 200 metres past Browns Mountain Road, helping Shoalhaven City Council; $210,000 to help upgrade stormwater drainage, pits and pumps at David Berry Hospital; $763,926 to make better the Basin walking track, which provides a five-plus kilometre regional-level walking track which was completed in February 2022 and was well used by all individuals, including the less abled and the elderly, prior to the February-March storms, and this of course helps Shoalhaven City Council; and $1.058 million for the betterment of North Head Drive, Moruya, which includes design, reconstruction and stabilisation of the embankment adjacent to this regional road, which sees over 4,000 traffic movements per day, so it is much more resilient against future natural disasters, dramatically decreasing the frequency of road closures and, importantly, removing the risk of rockfalls on passing traffic and cyclists. This is helping Eurobodalla council. I have also ensured the bringing forward or advancing of $10.8 million for Shoalhaven City Council to fix disaster impacted roads as well as $40 million delivered to Shoalhaven City Council to help fix local roads. There is certainly a lot to fix, but I'm getting on with it and providing as much federal funding as possible to assist our local councils and state to fix our roads. Adelaide Park Lands 80 16:48 Mr STEVENS 176304 Sturt I didn't know it at the time, but I hold a unique distinction, being one of the few people on the planet that can say they grew up in a UNESCO World Heritage site. I spent a few years as a boy—my father got a job on Norfolk Island—living in the former commandant of the guard's home, which is part of the historic convict sites of the UNESCO World Heritage listing, which covers Norfolk Island as well as some sites in Sydney and, of course, in Tasmania. Despite not being aware of it at the time, I'm so excited about realising this now that I've got another excellent candidacy for World Heritage listing, which is the Adelaide Park Lands. It's been a policy commitment that the Liberal Party has now adopted. We took it to the last state election in South Australia, and support is growing for the need to achieve that listing for two reasons. Firstly, it's justified. The city of Adelaide was a famously planned by Colonel William Light, and the Adelaide Park Lands are one of the most distinctive design features of this planned city. There are hardly any places in the world that benefit from such good planning, although I note that Canberra is probably another good example of long-term and sensible urban design. In 1836 Europeans settled in South Australia, and the way in which Adelaide was planned and the significance of the parklands in that planning should be noted. I believe the Adelaide Park Lands are worthy of being on that register. The other reason is that regrettably there are ongoing risks to the integrity of the parklands. I'm a very pro-development person, and I like to see my city growing in a sensible, managed and planned way. But I don't want the parklands of Adelaide to be part of any development proposals. Regrettably, we have seen just recently another example of the state Labor government looking at ways to put built form on the Adelaide Park Lands. Of course, once that occurs, a slice of those parklands would be lost from this unique and treasured local asset. I've been working closely with state and local governments in my electorate on securing a long-term plan and vision for the River Torrens. The River Torrens runs through my electorate, through the Adelaide Park Lands, through the electorates of Adelaide and Hindmarsh to the ocean. The Torrens corridor and the Linear Park run on either side of the course of the Torrens River. They're great assets, and the parklands are central to Linear Park as well. We announced at the last election that, if we were re-elected, we'd put a significant investment, along with local and state governments, into a master plan and design principles for investing in Linear Park into the future. These projects would include recreational projects as well as environmental projects and ways in which families and our community could really take full advantage of Linear Park along the Torrens. Of course, World Heritage listing of the parklands would be an amazing jewel in the crown of that long-term vision because it would draw appropriate attention to the parklands, to the Torrens River and to Linear Park. I hope that at the next election we can achieve this vision, which, sadly, has not come to fruition because the Labor Party don't support it and therefore haven't made similar commitments to the ones we made in 2022. But it's a huge opportunity for all three levels of government to invest in the sorts of projects that would dramatically transform the neighbourhoods that are contiguous to Linear Park and the Torrens. It would create so many opportunities for people to use the Torrens not just for recreation but also for travel in and around the city. You would be able to take a bike ride, a walk or a run along the River Torrens in Linear Park, particularly if we were to invest in appropriate upgrades all the way into the city. You would be able to go to the football, go to the Adelaide Zoo, and walk or ride to university, to school or to work. You would be able to use it as a real thoroughfare and a way of bringing the community together. That's our vision, and World Heritage listing of the parklands is central to that vision. I'll certainly be doing all I can to fight for our vision and achieve that great outcome for the city of Adelaide. Road Safety 81 16:53 Mr PASIN 240756 Barker I rise to speak on a matter that is close to most Australians' hearts. Indeed, it's regularly front of mind for those living in regional and rural Australia, as every death in a small community hits hard. I'm talking about the tragic direction of our nation's road toll: 1,240 people died on Australian roads in the 12 months to 31 August this year, and more than 100 were hospitalised each and every day. In my home state of South Australia, in the 12 months to September, 104 people lost their lives. That's a 28.4 per cent increase on the corresponding period a year ago. I'm not even going to start with my disappointment in those opposite cutting and delaying live-saving road safety infrastructure projects thanks to their 90-day review, which has now passed 171 days. I'm going to focus on data collection. I've spoken on this matter previously. In fact, I moved a motion in this place 12 months ago calling for a nationally consistent approach to data collection and distribution of road safety data to establish a national road safety data-sharing agreement between the states, the territories and the Commonwealth. What have those opposite done in that time? Nothing. Before the last election—on 17 May 2022, to be exact—the now minister, as opposition spokesman said: We will cooperate with the states and territories to improve the timeliness and quality of road trauma data and look for opportunities to ensure we can extract better quality road safety data from states and territories in return for funding of road projects. Yet, despite negotiating the new National Partnership Agreement on land transport infrastructure projects, no progress at all has been made on this issue. The government didn't even include improving road safety as a specific term of reference in the review of the current agreement, which expires on 30 June next year. Those opposite are required to negotiate with states and territories the terms of their annual $10 billion road budget. Every state and territory government will collect important information and data relating to every road fatality and serious injury. In fact, for every fatality crash, all states and territories record the following: the number of people involved, their behaviour, licence status, the type of crash, possible causes, vehicles involved, and weather and road conditions. States and territories also collect data about the road and traffic law enforcement. It is not acceptable that in 2023 we have no national data on the quality of our road network, the type of road crashes that are taking place, the factors causing them, and the enforcement of our road rules or their relative effectiveness. Road trauma continues to hospitalise 100 Australians daily, at a cost to the economy of $30 billion. I don't think it's too much to ask in return for the $10 billion that the Commonwealth provides the states and territories in road funding each year that they be compelled to share this important data with us. They could share it with each other, with the federal government, with independent experts and, importantly, with the public. After all, it's public funding and should be spent at the right time, in the right way, and at the right place, but only data will ensure this happens. I stood in this place 12 months ago calling for consistent data collection and sharing. I'm standing here, almost 12 months to the day, to reiterate these calls and to put on the record my support for the Australian Automobile Association, who are calling for the very same thing. Data saves lives—that's the Australian Automobile Association's campaign. The Minister can Google it if she wants to learn a bit more. On behalf of the coalition, and as a member of the opposition executive with responsibility for road safety policy, together with my coalition colleague in the other place Senator Bridget McKenzie, we have pledged our support to their campaign. On this side of the chamber we want to see the road toll in decline. We want to see investment in the most dangerous of our roads to save lives. We commend the Australian Automobile Association for their campaign—we're in full support of it, and those opposite should be, too. But while I have got the opportunity, I condemn those opposite, the Albanese government, for their approach to road safety. Hawke Electorate: Volunteers 82 16:58 Mr RAE 300122 Hawke I'd like to thank the very many people who worked on the 'yes' campaign in Hawke. We were guided by the leadership of Kylie Spencer, a proud Wurundjeri woman and someone whom I am fortunate to call a great friend. I also thank some of the stellar volunteer leaders across our electorate who stood up and did the hard work required of them. Thanks to the special team in Moorabool, led by the incredible Daryl Baker, Russell Bell, Chris Wells, Derrick Simpson and Di McAuliffe. Thanks to the great people in Melton, including Ravinder Kaur, Stephen Waddell, Kura and Michael Doyle, Natalie Gonzalez, Jo Fox, Nathan Miles, and Vivek Sharma. Thanks to our legendary crew in Sunbury: Raquel Stewart, Darrin Ray, Jarrod Bell, Brad Stewart, Rhonda Edmonds, Lyn Knorr, Greg Flemming, Glenn Barfoot and too many others to count. While the result isn't what we hoped for, we can be so proud of the positive local campaign that we were all involved in to promote reconciliation in our community. That cause will continue as time goes on. House adjourned at 17 : 00 The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Payne ) took the chair at 09:41.

Thursday, 19 October 2023

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Payne ) took the chair at 09:41.

CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS 83 CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS Energy 83 09:41 Dr WEBSTER 281688 Mallee I rise to register my absolute disappointment at the Australian Energy Regulator rejecting the legal challenge made by concerned farmers and community members against the VNI West energy transmission project. For months, I have advocated for regional communities following a shambolic consultation process by the Australian Energy Market Operator, AEMO, which failed to recognise all credible options and then played the community for fools along the way with tokenistic meetings. The regulator's criteria clearly need to be rewritten if they can rule that AEMO followed the correct process when developing the VNI West route. Ever since February, when the Victorian Labor energy minister, Lily D'Ambrosio, made a ministerial order to alter the VNI West route to what became Option 5 while banning appeals, land holders have been getting little clarity. The minister then made a second order in May creating Option 5A, which has been challenged in the Supreme Court by a community alliance who are still awaiting judgement. I give all farmers and their communities credit for standing up for themselves and challenging the Victorian government to prevent their prime agricultural land from being railroaded by transmission line projects. Professor Bruce Mountain, Director of the Victoria Energy Policy Centre, makes salient points when it comes to the VNI West interconnector. Given transmission lines act like a bridge between two points for the purpose of transporting energy from one side to the other, is there really any need for these lines when energy is already being developed in all three states? While Victoria has been a long-time electricity exporter, renewables will no longer require that. After all, the sun shines and the wind blows across the whole country. The cost imperatives that once justified interconnection with coal and gas are no longer there, Professor Mountain explains, because there is so little difference between states in the cost of generating wind and solar energy. He says there is 'inconsequential value in relation to the enormous cost of interconnection'. It adds insult to the injury of the 10,000 kilometres of high-voltage poles and wires that Australia must build by 2050 to satisfy the Albanese Labor government's push to net zero. Recently, I met with Pete Williamson and many other concerned farmers at Normanville in the north of my electorate who oppose a wind farm development that will also compromise their livelihoods and family homes, not to mention the effect on the environment and native wildlife. (Time expired) Holt Electorate: Schools 83 09:44 Ms FERNANDO 299964 Holt The electorate of Holt is one of the youngest in the nation. Over one in four in my electorate are under the age of 14—the highest rate of young people in the country. It is self-evident that education is crucial to my community. In my first speech in this chamber, I referenced a quote by Sir John Monash, who said: The best hope for Australia is the ballot box and good education. While our community has evolved significantly from the time when he said this, the 1930s, the principle is forever true. While I remember the area I now represent being nothing but paddocks, it has now become a thriving and growing community. Thus, our need to invest in education has become more and more important. I am proud that the Albanese Labor government, particularly the Minister for Education, Jason Clare, recognise this need for investment and have put education front and centre of their priorities. Schools in my electorate are fortunate to have secured $125,000 for upgrades and refurbishments through the federal government's Schools Upgrade Fund. They are excited to utilise this funding in a way that will assure the best possible outcomes for students—our nation's future. In particular, Lyndhurst Primary School and Cranbourne Park Primary School will undergo classroom refurbishments to provide the best possible learning environments for our children. Devon Meadows Primary School will oversee the upgrade of essential IT equipment to ensure our kids will have the skills of the future. Cranbourne Carlisle Primary School will benefit from the construction of new STEM learning spaces, fostering a dynamic and modern learning environment. Cranbourne West Primary School is set to receive the installation of shade structures, which will provide for the safety and comfort of our students. In addition, by partnering with the Victorian government, we have continued to deliver the essential services and infrastructure our community requires. In this light, I had the honour of attending the opening of new facilities at St Peter's College and St Francis de Sales, Lynbrook recently. Investment in education is an investment in our future. As Holt's voice in the House of Representatives, I will keep advocating for the education support that my community needs. Breast Cancer Awareness Month 84 09:47 Ms T 300124 North Sydney INK () (): October is Breast Cancer Awareness Month, an annual event that for years has given both me and thousands of Australian women and their families reason to pause, reflect and, in many instances, complete regular check-ups. One in seven women will be diagnosed with breast cancer during their lifetime. Whilst detection, treatment and support have all come an incredibly long way in the past 20 years, we will not have gone far enough or fast enough until there are zero deaths from breast cancer in our country. As more than just awareness, I want to acknowledge the continued struggle of people experiencing breast cancer to access the absolute best treatments, which I believe is a fundamental right in Australia. Yesterday, along with others from the Parliamentary Friends of Cancer Care and Cure, I had the privilege of hosting Pink Hope, an incredible national charity that is dedicated to empowering people to take charge of their own health by assessing, understanding and reducing their risk of breast cancer, whilst practically supporting them every step of the way. They brought with them an incredible community of those with lived experience, medical professionals and advocates. Renee shared her and her family's personal story of her diagnosis of breast cancer, attributed to a BRCA1 gene fault. Her courage and bravery were truly inspiring. The BRCA journey is truly heinous for women, and her family has been there every step of the way. She spoke passionately about her greatest fear in her diagnosis being not her own experience of the disease but the fact that she recognised that, by being diagnosed with the gene, her children would potentially face the same future. While there are many reasons to have hope, and the innovation in the treatment space is one that provides a particular light, we must face the fact that our current drug approval system is not fit for purpose. Yesterday, we heard of an incredible drug called Keytruda, which is the kind of innovation in immunotherapy that is bringing us close to actually curing cancer. Keytruda has been available in the US for over 40 cancers for the last three years, yet here in Australia we have only just approved it as of 1 September for metastatic breast cancer. We eagerly await the approval of Keytruda to treat early-stage breast cancer, hopefully on 1 November this year, and I call on the government to prioritise that approval and that provision. It has moved through all of the technical processes; it simply needs to be put into the system. Every week that we delay that, four women are dying. This is unacceptable. At the same time, we need to review our screening protocols and practices in Australia. We must move beyond what has been the case for 30 years and bring ourselves into this decade for what people deserve. In many ways, breast cancer has led the way. We must continue to let it lead the way in other cancers. Patel, Ms Arni 84 09:50 Mr HILL 86256 Bruce I've recently hosted a wonderful year 10 work experience student, Arni Patel, from Nossal High School, a great selective public school in Berwick. One of Arni's tasks was to write me a speech outlining what her peers think about politics and the future of our country. Taking this responsibility seriously, Arni said, 'Yes. What's the deadline? I'll get back to you.' She showed outstanding leadership. She didn't presume. She surveyed her year 10 student peers and listened to them. Here are Arni's words—and there's a warning: Arni takes no prisoners. She said: I would like to thank Julian Hill for the opportunity to have my say in Parliament and recognise that it is something that other people my age could merely dream of. It can be frustrating to be young in this country. To not have a say in the policies that will impact us the most, while those who do get to vote may not live to see the effects. As someone who dreams to be in your position, I would hate to have to be the person reversing your mistakes. The biggest issues my peers expressed, concerned the environment and climate change. Yet for many people in this parliament, the issue of climate change doesn't seem to be that big a priority. After all, taking action to save the environment doesn't satisfy the lobby groups or mining companies. And after the damage is done, YOU all won't have to worry the about 45-degree summers and rampant natural disasters that will probably become the norm in a few decades' time. Yet we are expected to ignore this existential anxiety and instead focus on our studies and futures as citizens of Australia. But the cost of living, the challenge of owning a home and the spiralling cost of tertiary education makes this task seem daunting and hopeless. We are also expected to remain optimistic about these challenges whilst being the first generation raised in the unregulated social experiment of the digital world. We are manipulated by social media algorithms, misinformation campaigns, and online bullying, which greatly influences our outlook and our mental health. I am constantly told that my friends and I are the future of this country, yet parliamentarians' decisions seem to be directed at the voters who determine the next election cycle. I implore you to uphold your responsibility to make policy that ensures our success—THE long-term success of Australia. I urge this Parliament to be bold in taking action on carbon emissions, to create equitable pathways for all young people to achieve their dreams and to not simply allow big tech companies to manipulate every aspect of our lives in the pursuit of profit. My generation has so much hope for the future and so much we can offer this country. Please don't allow our potential go to waste. Thank you, Arni. Your words inspire me and I hope all of us to redouble our efforts to leave your generation a better world than we see before us today. I visited all of the year 10s at Nossal High School and they certainly gave us a grilling. They're a great bunch of students. War Graves 85 09:53 Mr WILLCOX 286535 Dawson A question I often ask myself is what type of legacy I'll leave behind when I die and how will my family honour the life I lived? I know, what a sad start to a speech this morning! However, the story I'm about to tell you is one that I find quite inspiring and the efforts of all involved need to be recognised and commended. This is a story about uncovering graves and what lies inside them. But the main character, Home Hill resident and RSL sub-branch secretary, Allan Petersen, is far from a tomb raider. In fact because of his efforts, I had the privilege of attending a service at the Home Hill sub-branch to commemorate over 50 unmarked war grave sites that have been carefully and painstakingly restored. When Allan first stumbled across a cracked headstone in his local cemetery, I'm not quite sure he realised the enormity of the journey he was about to undertake. After teaming up with a local plumber to fix the final resting place of Jack Boyce, a war veteran and the first person to be buried at the Home Hill cemetery 100 years ago, Allan started wondering how many other veterans were hidden underground in unmarked graves? What started as a spark of curiosity turned into a decade-long project to ensure the memory and legacy of our past serving personnel lives on. The project was no small feat and took a considerable amount of effort and dedication from the many members of the Home Hill community. The cement bases for each site were physically moulded by the RSL sub-branch members. Local undertaker Ken Wright supplied the polished headstones and bronze plaques, and two local high-school students dedicated their time to install the grave markers. Allan Peterson worked tirelessly to identify each person laid to rest by scouring the cemetery maps and wading through the births, deaths and marriages website. During the early stages of the project, Allan discovered that 25 graves had no indication of a burial site and instead appeared to be vacant plots covered by lawn and left forgotten, 16 graves had headstones that failed to mention their military contributions, and 15 more were identified as British military veterans who immigrated to Home Hill after the Boer War and World War I. John Harris, a survivor of Gallipoli from the 15th infantry unit; Elizabeth Jane McBow, who served in the Queen Alexandra's Royal Army Nursing Corps; and 85-year-old Ann Rodgers Roy, who served in the Queen Mary's Army Auxiliary Corps in Scotland, are among the few veterans whose legacy will now live on thanks to Alan and his team. Lest we forget. Greening, Professor Chris, Chisholm Electorate: Arts and Culture 85 09:56 Dr GARLAND 295588 Chisholm I want to provide the House with some updates on local events and achievements in Chisholm. This week it was really wonderful to meet Professor Chris Greening at Parliament House and congratulate him on being awarded the Frank Fenner Prize for Life Scientist of the Year in the 2023 Prime Minister's Prizes for Science. Professor Greening has made a world-first discovery that microbes live on air, which has remarkable implications for the environment, climate change and infectious diseases. His research has redefined life as we know it. His discoveries around pathogens are also helping to improve health outcomes for communities in the Asia-Pacific region by providing a better understanding of infectious diseases such as tuberculosis and dysentery. Professor Greening lives and works locally in my electorate of Chisholm and works at Monash University within the Monash Biomedicine Discovery Institute. When we met, we had a thoroughly engaging conversation about his research and his passion for innovation and translating research into tangible outcomes. Congratulations to Professor Greening on this incredible discovery and well-deserved award. I also recently held a local arts round table with Special Envoy for the Arts Susan Templeman at the beautiful Museum of Australian Photography in Wheelers Hill. We hosted attendees from across the electorate, including artist, performers, writers, researchers, creatives, curators and representatives from the two local councils in my electorate, Whitehorse and Monash. We received insightful feedback about our cultural policy and discussed the issues impacting artists in Chisholm. These issues included equity in funding, barriers to completing grant applications, and the challenges of insecure work, which so many in the industry face. I'm really proud of our arts community in Chisholm. We have such a vibrant arts community in Chisholm, and I look forward to continuing to work hard to foster the creative forces in my electorate. I think it is so important that in our cultural policy we're ensuring that communities in all parts of Australia, including eastern and south-eastern suburbs of Melbourne such as the ones that I represent, are able to benefit from the vision that our government has. This is the first cultural policy this country has seen in over a decade now, and it's very exciting to be a part of assisting the community to understand exactly what our vision is all about. I know there's lots of work to do to renew the arts sector in this country, and I'm really pleased that our government is not wasting a day. I will look forward to working with my community on arts policy in the future. Casey Electorate 86 09:59 Mr VIO 300147 Casey LI () (): Spring is a wonderful time. The weather is normally shining, although this weekend just gone we had the Wandin field day, which in the Yarra Valley we know means there must be rain in the Yarra Valley, unfortunately! The farmers love it. The committee, who are also farmers, don't enjoy it so much. I say thank you to the field day committee. It was a wonderful day despite the mud and the rain. There's a lot that we got to do. I was lucky enough to spend the weekend in the community, including going to visit the Healesville Bowling Club to open their new pavilion, which had been reinvigorated from their historic location. Importantly, it was named the 'Beryl Ayres Pavilion'. Beryl is a local sporting champion. She's a community leader. She won numerous championships over 50 years at the club. It was an honour to be able to pay tribute to her and her sporting prowess. Having played cricket for decades against her grandsons, Luke, Brad and Kane Jones, I have no doubt that the sporting genetics moved down their family. They're great cricketers and legends of Yarra Valley cricket. It was great to see Beryl and catch up with Leah as well and reminisce on junior times. The club also had Ted Upton, who is the oldest living male member, cast the first jack, and then Beryl and her son, Robert, rolled the first bowl to open the season. The president of the Healesville Bowling Club is my old cricket coach from Healesville, John Fitzpatrick. I say thank you to John and also Bealesy, the former president, for their work there. I was so inspired after going to see the bowls club I did drop in and see the boys at the Healesville Cricket Club. They're two and oh, so they're pretty happy at the moment. It was good to see a few old faces and some younger faces that were little kids when I started playing. There is a moment when time passes us by. Congratulations to the Healesville Cricket Club on the start to the season. On Sunday I had the opportunity to visit the Rotary Club of Healesville's Dog's Day Out. It was a tough contest. I was judging the 'best rescue dog' and the 'most handsome dog'. There was a lot of great competition. I took the easy option; I brought my daughter, Georgie, to judge for me. She came up with some winners. One did look a lot like Bingo from Bluey, so I think they had the inside running! Congratulations to Vinay, the president, Michael, the treasurer, and all the committee at Healesville rotary for Dog's Day Out. It has been a tradition in our community to have this event. Unfortunately, as we all know, with COVID we weren't able to hold it for many years, but there were so many people there enjoying the weather—it was sunny on Sunday, which was nice—enjoying their dogs and having a bit of banter and a bit of competition. All the money raised goes back to our community. Healesville rotary is such a big part of the Healesville community, giving back not just to the local community but internationally as well. It was wonderful to be there and to join my state colleague, Cindy McLeish, in supporting rotary and spending a wonderful weekend in the Healesville community. Zaidi, Mr Rahim Shah 86 10:02 Mr GEORGANAS DZY Adelaide Today I rise to speak about a remarkable man and his remarkable migrant story in my electorate. That is Rahim Shah Zaidi. I have a message today from Rahim. He said to me the other day that just because someone may not speak English fluently doesn't mean they lack skills. In fact, the skills within our migrant communities can be truly extraordinary. Almost every week, Rahim will meet with someone in his community who is need of assistance, whether it be in finding a job, just plain welfare or assisting them through applying for a visa, citizenship or permanent residency. I'm pleased that the minister for immigration is here. He is doing a wonderful job cleaning up the mess that was left behind by the former government. Rahim took the time to introduce me to some of those people. We have had some great results in the community thanks to Rahim. Rahim also runs the Ghan soccer club, fostering unity among juniors, young men, young women and members from diverse backgrounds. It's not just a football club; it is a welfare club. He looks after the welfare of each and every one of them. Some are very young men who came here as refugees on their own, and he assists them day and night. Between the soccer club, his restaurant and other community groups that Rahim is part of, he works to make sure all migrants feel at home in their new community. It's people like Rahim who make Australia a better place. The current Afghani community and those who are on their way have come and will continue to come to Australia with ambition, ideas and enthusiasm. Time after time, we're reminded that the Afghan community don't only come to Australia for refuge. They come here to build a life full of opportunity and success. It's not only their community; it's all the migrant communities. Rahim owns a fantastic restaurant at 266 Prospect Road, Kilburn, in my electorate, the Ghan Kebab House. I know that the minister has visited, and I highly recommend, if anyone is ever in Adelaide, to be sure to stop by there. There's great-tasting food and great atmosphere. Last Thursday I had the pleasure to attend with the Minister for Trade a roundtable dinner with businessmen from his community. He brought together members of the Afghan, Nepalese, Pakistani and Indian communities who had all established small businesses in the electorate—small trading businesses in the electorate of Adelaide. It was a gathering that showcased the immense talent and diversity of our migrants and what they bring to Australia. Many of them came here by boats as refugees, and it's people like Rahim and that community, and the people who were at that roundtable, who remind us why a solid visa application process is so important so we can ensure we get people out of harm's way quickly and on to starting their lives here in Australia which contribute to our community. Eating Disorders 87 10:05 Mr WOOD E0F La Trobe I rise today to tell a story of resilience, love and the power of advocacy. It is a story about a constituent of mine who's watching as I make this speech, Mr Rob Evans, and who in April this year endured a heartbreaking tragedy. Rob's daughter, Liv, at the tender age of 15, tragically lost her battle with anorexia nervosa, a devastating illness that primarily affects young women and young girls. I extend my sincere condolences to Rob and his family for their unimaginable loss. Liv grappled with anorexia for an agonising two years, which her family also went through. Her struggle is shared by countless other individuals worldwide, and in Australia alone it's estimated that 1 million are living with an eating disorder, but only a fraction receive the treatment they so desperately need. It's a sobering statistic that calls for attention and action. Rob Evans has demonstrated incredible courage by discussing his daughter's battle with anorexia and body image issues, which he believes may have been triggered by bullying she endured at school. Rob's plea to us all is profound: we must consider the impact that our words and comments can have on others, especially during their vulnerable years of adolescence. Liv, as her father fondly remembers, was an animal lover with the world at her feet before the grip of anorexia took hold. Her ultimate passing has prompted Rob to re-evaluate the care Liv received, and on his reflection Rob has emerged as a passionate advocate for better health care for individuals suffering from eating disorders. Rob is urging federal and state governments to get involved and implement in-home intensive eating-disorder early treatment plans. This revolutionary approach would provide intensive home intervention for patients and families affected by eating disorders to prevent and reduce the length of hospital admissions, and offering real-time at-home support and coaching for stressed families. We would love to work with both the Albanese government and the Allan Labor government in Victoria. It would be great to have and implement such a program at Casey Hospital, which is in a very large corridor in the south-east. I thank Rob for his tireless advocacy to improve health outcomes for individuals battling health disorders. You've gone through absolute hell, Rob but, rather than just walk away and try to make the most of your life, you've decided to take on the battle so other families don't have to endure the hell you went through. Scullin Electorate: Emergency Services 87 10:08 Mr GILES 243609 Scullin Today I rise to talk about an event I've had the pleasure to attend many times as members for Scullin—the blessing of the emergency services fleet. It brings together faith leaders and many other community members from across the Whittlesea community to thank and also celebrate emergency services personnel—volunteer and career—who every day risk their lives to save ours and protect our communities. Ahead of what we fear may well be a busy summer season for emergency services personnel, the blessing of the fleet has become a really important tradition in the city of Whittlesea, with personnel from the CFA, Fire Rescue Victoria, Forest Fire Management Victoria, Victoria police, the State Emergency Service, Ambulance Victoria, Parks Victoria and emergency staff from Whittlesea Council all represented. I want to acknowledge the City of Whittlesea for their work in ensuring this event continues the tradition of uniting our community and also educating community members, particularly the many community members new not just to the city of Whittlesea but to Australia, on some of the challenges an Australian summer often represents. This is about recognition, too, of the work that our emergency services and volunteer forces do to help our community more broadly. I know that, for many of these services, there's been no reprieve since well before Black Summer. They've gone on from those fires through the COVID response, floods and now an El Nino on top of the already demanding tasks of their daily duties. These services, as we all know, rely very heavily on volunteers to sustain the response that's required. It's so important that we acknowledge their work in this chamber because it's their contribution that binds communities together. I want to particularly acknowledge my friend Ray Rosales. He's been a CFA volunteer in Mernda since 2005. His continued contribution and service to the community, not simply in the CFA, is an inspiration to me and many others and something which deserves to be recognised here. Events like the Blessing of the Fleet are small but meaningful ways in which we can acknowledge and celebrate the work that all of these people and forces do. I want to recognise the contribution of former councillor John Fry, a stalwart of the community and a dear friend who first established this tradition 27 years ago. I want to thank John, who was there at Blessing of the Fleet this year, for the work he continues to involve himself in and to recognise that he commenced a very proud and important tradition that continues. Not only does this annual event recognise the work of our emergency services; it's also a celebration of the diverse multifaith network that exists in our community, with representatives of the Baha'i, Buddhist, Muslim, Christian and Hindu faiths coming together, united in their support, sharing their faith traditions in recognition of who we are and what binds us together as a community in safety. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 282237 In accordance with standing order 193, the time for members' constituency statements has concluded. BILLS 88 BILLS Interactive Gambling Amendment (Credit and Other Measures) Bill 2023 88

Interactive Gambling Amendment (Credit and Other Measures) Bill 2023

Second Reading 88 10:12 Ms MURPHY 133646 Dunkley People shouldn't bet with money they don't have. It's really as simple as that. But betting with money they don't have is exactly what happens to people who are experiencing gambling harm. At the very least, they bet with money they can't afford. This is an important piece of legislation to continue us down the track of harm minimisation by putting in place a prohibition on using credit cards for gambling—because that is the very definition of gambling with money that you don't have. As the Chair of the House Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs, I had the privilege of chairing an inquiry which wrapped up in the middle of this year into harms from online gambling. We in this country have to acknowledge that gambling is a public health issue and that gambling is an addiction and start talking about it and treating it similarly to the way we treat other mental health issues and addiction problems, such as alcohol and drug abuse. We have to take away the stigma and let people know that they are suffering from an addiction but that they can talk about it and they can get help and they shouldn't feel ashamed that they need help to deal with the harms that they're experiencing from gambling or the harms that they're inflicting on others from their gambling. They shouldn't feel reluctant to speak out. This is Gambling Harm Awareness Week. On Tuesday, I was joined for a Facebook live session by Jesse Murphy—no relation—from my electorate, an incredibly courageous 29-year-old man who talked about his experience of becoming a gambling addict—what it did to him, how it made him feel, how it affected his relationships with his flatmates, his friends and, importantly, his family and his parents and how hard it was for him to overcome it. It was hard for him to overcome it in the face of the bombardment of ads on the television telling him to bet. He's a footy player, an AFL player. It was hard for him to overcome in the face of everything to do with the AFL—the AFL app and the AFL advertising online—talking about sports betting. It was hard for him to deal with it in the face of the fact that he'd been given a personal concierge. After he'd gone almost a year without betting, he was out one night and they rang him and offered him free tickets, matched bets—things that he just couldn't resist—and he went back down that rabbit hole. But he's courageous, because he was speaking to me on a Facebook Live in order to, as he said, maybe help just one person not to experience that themselves, maybe just help one person to understand that if you feel that you might have a problem then you've probably got a problem, that if you feel that it's something you need to get help for, you probably need to get help for it. This piece of legislation would have been very helpful for Jesse when he was in the grips of his addiction. Another reform brought in by the Albanese Labor government—BetStop, which is now live—has been really helpful to Jesse, and he spoke about that as well. BetStop is a way that people can basically exclude themselves from all online gambling bookmakers for periods of time from three to six months to life, which is what Jesse chose. He explained that once he'd banned himself he had this feeling of freedom, this feeling of safety, of letting go, but that it wasn't that easy to do it, even for someone who's been going to Gamblers Anonymous, who's been getting counselling from psychologists and who is being all he can be in building up his wellbeing and resilience. Jesse said the process of filling in that form to exclude himself for the rest of his life from being able to gamble and pressing that button was harder than he ever imagined it would be, because it represented a phase of his life and giving away something in his life. His gambling addiction was related to wanting to feel thrills and adventure. He said he'd spoken to a couple of other people with problems with gambling, and they said the same thing: once they excluded themselves there was this feeling of freedom and accomplishment and a sense of being able to get on with the next phase of their lives, but the steps getting to excluding themselves were harder than they thought they would be. So, BetStop is a game-changing reform, but perhaps we need to think about how we can better help people to get through the psychological barriers of accessing it. The two takeaways from my conversation with Jesse on Tuesday night in terms of reforms were how important BetStop is and how we have to get rid of ads for gambling. We have to get rid of them from our television screens, our radios and online, because they target people who are vulnerable, they target young people, and the harm from gambling is not worth retaining gambling ads in our advertising system. In Australia we are world-champion gamblers. We not only gamble more than any other country in the world; we lose more by gambling online than any other country in the world. And whilst I love the thought of Australians being world champions, that is not a title we want to retain. Per capita we lose more by gambling online than any other country in the world. So I'm really pleased at the positive response of the Minister for Communications and the Minister for Social Services to the report that the committee that I'm the chair of handed down: You win some, you lose more, on the harms from online gambling. I'm really looking forward to the government's formal response to the recommendations in that report, because I know they get it; I know those ministers understand that gambling is a public health issue, that it must be treated from a harm reduction perspective and that harm reduction starts at preventing people from suffering harm in the first place and goes along the spectrum to then helping people who are in the grips of an addiction. I know that as long as we have people like Jesse Murphy, who is courageous and who has taken the worst experiences of his life and decided to speak about them publicly to help others, we will get the reforms and the changes that we need. Those stories are incredibly powerful. My committee, when recommending that the government continue on the path we are now finalising, to ban the use of credit cards, also noted that the government should look at the use of payday loans. There seems to be emerging evidence—and Financial Counselling Australia talked about this in the inquiry—that gamblers are using payday loans to gamble. So we also have to make sure that compliance of payday loan lenders with their responsible gambling obligations is on the agenda. I congratulate the minister for this piece of legislation. It's going to make a lot of difference to a lot of people and their families and their communities. I reiterate that I'm right there beside the minister for reforms to address the other harms that continue to pervade our community from the scourge which is gambling. 10:21 Mr WILKIE C2T Clark Good morning. In essence, I will support the government's Interactive Gambling Amendment (Credit and Other Measures) Bill 2023, and I will go further: I applaud the government for acting on this. It is self-evident that people should not be allowed to gamble with money they don't have. This is a very positive step forward. I am sure it is evidence based, and I am confident that it will diminish the incidence of gambling addiction in this country, so good on the government. It's so important to be introducing reforms such as these. The Australian Institute of Family Studies reports that 46 per cent of Australians who gamble are at low, medium or high risk of gambling addiction. I'll say that figure again, because that is just a breathtaking figure: the Australian Institute of Family Studies finds that 46 per cent of gamblers are at risk of gambling addiction. Very relevant to today's bill, the institute also finds that online problem gambling is three times more prevalent now than what I'll call terrestrial gambling—poker machines, horses, keno, lotteries and so on. This is the big problem and challenge for us for the future: to rein in gambling addiction among those who are going online—and, frankly, among those who have gambling devices. I've got one here. I've got a gambling device—my phone—sitting on the table in front of me. I suspect you, Deputy Speaker, have got a gambling device sitting on your table. Everyone in this chamber probably has a gambling device in their pocket or in their hand or in their bag. So we've got to do something, and I think this bill goes some considerable way to reining in gambling addiction. The scale of what we're dealing with must not be underestimated. Australians lose something like $25 billion a year gambling. That's billions, not millions. That's twenty-five thousand million dollars a year. Sure, a lot of that money is lost by people that can afford it, and that's fine. I'm not anti gambling; I'm actually pro harm minimisation. I'll buy a lottery ticket. I'll join a sweepstake on Melbourne Cup day. There's nothing wrong with people who can afford to lose a little bit of money having a bit of fun and losing money. The problem is, though, when people are losing more than they can afford. The number of people with a gambling addiction in this country is measured in the tens of thousands—in the tens of thousands, in a country as small as ours! Every one of those gambling addicts is a human tragedy. I've already referred to figures like 46 per cent, and I've referred to learned bodies like the Institute of Family Studies, and I've referred to $25 billion, but all of these facts and figures and reports make it a bit abstract, actually. We all need to remember that every gambling addict is a human tragedy. Every gambling addict is a mum, a dad, a brother, a sister, a son, a daughter, a friend, a work colleague or someone we pass walking down the street. There might even be someone in this room, for all we know, who is battling with a gambling addiction. Those people are often losing their jobs. They're often losing their relationships and their families. They're losing their houses, their health, and sometimes, sadly, they're losing their lives. It is very hard to get an accurate figure of the number of people who suicide each year on account of their gambling addiction, but good research points to something north of 400 people a year. In other words, more than one person a day in this country takes their life, suicides, on account of their gambling addiction. This is a human tragedy. This is exactly the sort of thing that this parliament should be dealing with. This is exactly the sort of bill that this parliament should be dealing with. I lament the fact that in the 13 years I've been in parliament, it has taken a long time to get traction with the issue of gambling reform, but we are finally getting traction. That gives me great comfort, and I think it gives the community great comfort, that we are now starting to focus on this. This is good. I suspect every member and senator could come into the House of Representatives or the Senate and recount stories that they have heard from their own constituents. I'm still, to this day, affected by one constituent, a woman, I think in her 30s, she had a couple of young children—they were about this high. Unbeknownst to her partner, she had been taking the housekeeping money and the money for the power bill and had been blowing the lot on gambling. Unbeknownst to her partner, she had been dealing with Aurora Energy in Tasmania, repeatedly, trying to keep the power on. Aurora, to their credit, had put together repayment plan after repayment plan after repayment plan. Ultimately, Aurora said they could do no more. Ultimately, one of the not-for-profit organisations who was trying to help this unfortunate soul said that they couldn't just keep giving that person money, because that person was losing it gambling. The power was cut off. So here we had a young family in a Hobart winter with no power for the stove, no power for the heating, no power for hot water, not even power for the lights. I just hope that family were able to pick themselves up from rock bottom and get on with their lives. This is not an unusual story. I make the point again: I think many people, probably most members and senators, have heard stories like that. It is quite unfathomable to my mind that it has taken so long to get traction in this House, but we are getting traction. This reform actually complements other reforms. The previous speaker, the member for Dunkley, was talking about BetStop. I think that's a fabulous reform. That will allow voluntary online self-exclusion. It's across the whole country for online gamblers, it allows for a minimum of three months of self-exclusion, up to a lifetime, free of charge. That's a really good reform because even a gambling addict, in their lucid moments, will make sensible decisions. People don't get their pension cheque and go down to the local pub or the local pokies venue with the intention of losing their whole pension. They get their pension and they think: 'This fortnight it's different. This fortnight I'm not going to buckle to my gambling addiction.' Or they'll say: 'I'm not going to pull out my gambling device and blow the lot today. Today is different.' In those lucid moments they make sensible decisions. If you have something like BetStop, which we now have rolling out, in those lucid moments they will set sensible limits on BetStop. BetStop will reduce gambling addiction, just like the government's bill to ban the use of credit cards will reduce gambling addiction. That will save lives. That will save families like the one in Hobart that I referred to. I'm also pleased to say that the industry has thought to improve their messaging in their advertising. It's only a small step, a very small step, but all those small steps add up. I think it's a positive thing. In the poker machine sphere, we've had some really significant developments in recent years. Being from Tasmania as well, Deputy Speaker Archer, you would be well aware that Tasmania is the first jurisdiction to roll out a mandatory cashless poker machine pre-commitment card. Everyone in Tasmania will soon need to get hold of a card and load up the card with cash in some way, and when they play on the poker machines they'll put the card in. There'll be no cash at the machine. That card will monitor their use of poker machines and their losses, and it will enforce limits on that poker machine player. So, in Tasmania, poker machine players will be limited to $100 a day, $500 a month and $5,000 a year. Although the players will be able to vary the daily and monthly limits, if they want to vary the annual $5,000 limit, they will have to make the case to a government body that they can afford to lose more than $5,000. That is a tremendous turn of events. It is nation leading, and I applaud the current Tasmanian state government for that. I also note that, in Victoria, there have recently been announcements that they will introduce mandatory carded play, with a maximum $100 load-up at any one time, and trading hour restrictions as well. It's unclear what the time line is in Victoria for these changes. In Tasmania, it's more clear. They've talked about having the cashless card in Tasmania by the end of next year. So we are heading in the right direction, as we should. I know we're talking about online gambling, but I am taking this opportunity to talk about poker machines because of those really positive developments, particularly in Tasmania, in recent times. This move towards cashless and card based play is actually entirely consistent with the New South Wales Crime Commission's report from October last year, where they found that, in New South Wales, literally billions of dollars of what they called 'dirty money' is going through New South Wales poker machines. It has well and truly opened up the possibility of gambling in that jurisdiction and with those devices being used for money laundering. But there's still much to do. I would ask the government to consider improving their bill. I note that the bill is deficient because it doesn't apply to all forms of gambling. It really only applies to online and sports betting. That still leaves unaddressed the use of credit for things like lotteries and keno. I know these other forms of gambling have a much lower rate of gambling addiction, but it is still people gambling with money they don't have. These other forms of gambling are still creating some gambling addicts. So I would hope that the government would consider expanding the scope of the bill to go beyond just online and sports betting. I also note that the bill doesn't apply to all forms of credit. For example, the bill will still allow someone to use their debit card with an online gambling company, but that debit card could be linked, for example, to a line of credit or perhaps a redraw on their home loan. I think there is—I know there is—an opportunity for the government to tighten this bill up further to make sure that all ways in which a gambler might access credit are in fact reined in, not just with the obvious ban on the use of a credit card as such. I'm pleased the member for Dunkley was the speaker just before me. She referred to gambling advertising. That's an area where the government really needs to act. The government really needs to have a very strong and effective response to the member for Dunkley's committee. She's the Chair of the Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs, and they've made some strong recommendations about gambling advertising. I think that's the next big thing for this government to address. Frankly, the community has had—I don't know if this is an unparliamentary word—a gutful of gambling advertising. We're all sick of trying to watch the footy and being bombarded with ads—maybe not during the game but certainly on either side of the game. It's ruining our enjoyment of, particularly, sporting events. It's also very harmful for children. Gambling advertising is banned during G-rated TV times, but there's a carve-out. Bizarrely, there's an exemption that means it's allowed around sporting events. So on a Saturday or Sunday afternoon, when children are watching their heroes, associated with their heroes is gambling advertising. This has got to be influencing children. So we've got to ban gambling advertising. It's as simple as that. I note that the Australian Communications and Media Authority did some research and found in one recent year that there was over one million gambling ads aired on Australian free-to-air TV and radio. That's an unfathomable figure—a million ads on free-to-air TV and radio around Australia in just one year! That's got to be having an influence, particularly on our young people, particularly on that 46 per cent of Australians who gamble, who are judged by the Institute of Family Studies to be at risk for problem gambling. Of course, there's also the other reform that would be easily made—in fact, industry insiders tell me it is technically easy and cheap for Australian online-gambling providers to be linked in real time so that when you hit your daily limit with one company, you don't just swipe to the next company and run up your daily limit a second time. There is no good reason why these apps can't be linked. I am heartened by this progress. I applaud the government for this bill. I will support the bill. I'll take this opportunity to congratulate the countless advocates for reform in this country who for years have battled away. They're starting to see dividends, and I hope that they get comfort from that. 10:36 Dr ANANDA-RAJAH 290544 Higgins To our compendium of public health problems, including smoking, diabetes and social isolation, we can now add gambling. Gambling harm travels with other health issues—30 per cent of those seeking treatment for alcohol and other drug or mental health issues are experiencing gambling. It means that clinicians like doctors and front-line healthcare providers need to pointedly ask about gambling when seeing patients with substance misuse or mental health issues, including suicidality, or patients may not disclose their gambling harm. Australians lose the most money to online gambling per capita in the world. That's a position on a league table that I do not wish to have. Imagine having an additional $25 billion in our national deposit account—the skills, the businesses or the recreational opportunities that have been lost. Like smartphones, online gambling is pervasive, and it has insinuated itself into homes, families and relationships, tearing them apart. In 2022, 44 per cent of adults reported gambling on sports or racing in the past year, and, of those, most have placed a bet using a smartphone or a computer. Of those who gambled on either sports racing or electronic games, two out of three were at risk of harm. The harms to the hip pocket and relationships are well recognised, but less so are the neurological impacts. Repeated gambling can cause fundamental changes to the brain's reward prioritisation and stress systems, which are similar to those observed in addiction to psychoactive substances. In other words, it rewires your brain, and not in a good way. The mental health impacts can progress to the most severe forms, including suicidality. Gambling is associated with an approximately four times higher risk of suicide. Financial Counselling Australia reported that 80 per cent of specialist gambling financial counsellors had clients talking about suicide, and 48 per cent had clients who had attempted to take their lives. A division having been called in the House of Representatives— Sitting suspended from 10 : 38 to 11 : 03 Dr ANANDA-RAJAH 290544 One parent at the recent parliamentary inquiry into online gambling said: The impacts of gambling on the young generation will be ever lasting … My son fell into the trap after having a couple of wins. Those wins turned into losses and those losses are then chased until there is nothing left but tears and worry and depression. Findings from the ACMA reveal that online gambling is the fastest-growing segment of the industry in Australia, with more than one in 10 Australians in 2022 having engaged in some form of online gambling over the past six months. The rate of harm among online gamblers is three times higher than among non-online gamblers. In other words, online gambling is more accessible and more dangerous. The proposed legislation introduces a ban on the use of credit cards for Australian licensed interactive wagering services and the use of credit cards linked to a digital wallet, such as Apple Pay or Google Play. This will bring online wagering into line with land based gambling laws, where credit cards have been banned from TAB outlets, casinos and poker machine venues for more than a decade. Australian consumers deserve the same protections whether they are wagering on land or online. Australians should not be able to gamble with money they don't have, especially in a system that is stacked against them. The bill also creates a new criminal offence and civil penalty provision related to the ban. Companies who do not enforce the ban will face steep fines of over $234,000. The Australian Communications and Media Authority, ACMA, will also be provided with stronger powers to enforce the ban and existing offences under the act. These reforms are evidence based and have been welcomed by the Australian Banking Association and the Alliance for Gambling Reform. Most importantly, there is a groundswell of community support for them. A recent survey by the Banking Association found that over 80 per cent of Australians believed gambling with credit cards should be restricted or banned, and we agree. The impact of online gambling on an individual and their loved ones can be devastating. Evidence also shows that those who gamble with credit cards are at greater risk of gambling harm and it occurs in a short period of time. It's just too easy to use money that you do not have on an interface that sees into your soul, bombarding you with targeted ads, bright lights and pop-ups. Credit card transactions are also associated, obviously, with high interest rates and fees, which snowballs the financial burden. The economic burden is a drag on the individual and their loved ones, who are often swept into this swell. Gambling sends out concentric circles of harm to loved ones, with six people affected by high-risk gambling, three by moderate gambling and one by low-risk gambling. The point is that all levels of gambling are associated with impacts on others. The stigma of gambling reduces people to silence or pushes them to suicide. One witness said: I didn't lose everything, but I always carry the scar of the harm that it caused me. I always have to fight the 'stupid, loser' voice in my head. A joint study by Federation University and the Coroner's Court of Victoria found that 184 of nearly 5,000 suicide deaths in the state between 2016 and 2019 were gambling related. Online gambling has been supercharged by the pandemic, fuelled by a combination of confinement boredom, access to early-release super—that was a disaster—and financial worry, fertilised with a bombardment of marketing. Who are the people who've been affected? A study conducted during the early phase of the pandemic in 2020 found that most gambling was online and that young men 18 to 34 years old were the most likely subgroup to sign up and increase their activity and monthly spending, from $687 to $1,075. This is one pandemic hangover we do not need to have. Clearly, bold and decisive reform is drastically needed and needed quickly, which is why we are acting. This bill complements the suits of reforms by the Albanese government. These include BetStop, a national self-exclusion register for online wagering, which allows people to self-exclude from all telephone and online gambling from three months to a lifetime. Registering with BetStop is free of charge and done through a single transaction and covers every single one of the 150 Australian interactive wagering service providers. This is a significant reform, as it provides vulnerable consumers with the power to self-exclude from online wagering and to exclude themselves from the harms associated as well. The government is considering the recommendations from the parliamentary inquiry into online gambling and its impacts on those experiencing harm. This excellent report includes 31 recommendations that apply a public health lens to online gambling in order to reduce harm from children all the way through to adults. One of these recommendations is for the Australian government, with the cooperation of the states and territories, to implement a ban on all forms of advertising for online gambling, to be introduced in four phases over three years. This bill, in conjunction with the other actions of the Albanese government, will minimise the harm from online gambling. For many Australians, it will be life changing and even life saving. I commend this bill to the House. 11:09 Mr CALDWELL 306489 Fadden It is typical of the Australian character that we all like to have a laugh, have some fun and enjoy the occasional punt to try our luck. There's nothing wrong with that, and we should endeavour to refrain from infringing on it and the Australian way of life wherever possible. But today I rise to speak on the Interactive Gambling Amendment (Credit And Other Measures) Bill 2023, largely in relation to the undue influence which our largest betting companies are increasingly holding over the Australian way of life. Advances in betting, both in terms of technology and the adjacent relationship to financial products, particularly interest-bearing credit products, are cause for concern. I want to reflect briefly on the budget reply speech that the Leader of the Opposition gave, where he rightly proposed: If the internet influences our children, so does content on our television screens. In our country, footy time is family time, but the bombardment of betting ads takes the joy out of televised sports. Worse, they're changing the culture of our country in a bad way and normalising gambling at a young age. Many Australian families have had enough. That's why tonight I announce that a coalition government will move to ban sports betting advertising during the broadcasting of games. Ads would be banned for an hour each side of a sporting game. I encourage the Prime Minister to work with us on this initiative to get it implemented now. I echo the sentiment of the Leader of the Opposition as the incessant promotion of gambling material can only serve to reinforce existing habits and perpetuate those behaviours in vulnerable or at-risk individuals. The reduction of harm for individuals, their families, careers and other relationships should be a bipartisan issue. This is why it's a pity that the Labor Party did not take the opportunity that was extended by the coalition earlier this year to rein in gambling ads during live sport and voted against that proposal. Nonetheless, we remain steadfast in our determination to promote balanced policy, reflective of the times in which we live. I was heartened by the comments from the member for Dunkley earlier in this chamber, where she, quite properly, identified the real issues around this TV advertising. Indeed, according to the Second national study of interactive gambling Australia(2019-2020), prepared by Gambling Research Australia, the prevalence of online gambling more than doubled from 8.1 per cent of gamblers in 2010 to 17.5 per cent of gamblers in 2019. In that same period, the study recorded a statistically significant increase in problem gambling amongst the community, with the estimated prevalence of problem gambling doubling from 0.6 per cent to 1.23 per cent. It is not hard to find a correlation between the two. When you overlay the previous stats with the uptick in credit card usage for the purposes of gambling, the correlation is striking. According to the most comprehensive gambling stats available, resulting from the 2019 national online survey, we understand credit cards only narrowly trail debit cards as the second most used form of payment for betting. In circumstances where almost as many people are defaulting on their credit cards as those who use surplus cash from their debit cards, we know an increasingly large segment of people are playing with fire. At a time when Australians are facing a cost-of-living crisis under this Labor government, now more than ever people can't afford to be losing money to gambling, especially money that is not theirs in the first place. Whilst we cannot, and should not, altogether overregulate or rub out gambling and the gambling industry, how, other than the Leader of the Opposition's proposal to the Prime Minister regarding advertising, might we move to strike a better balance to protect individual liberties whilst ensuring responsible gambling? This bill, the Interactive Gambling Amendment (Credit and Other Measures) Bill 2023, seeks to reduce gambling harm, particularly for those using interest-bearing debt instruments to fund their gambling activities. The proposed ban would also bring online gambling into line with the existing ban on the use credit cards for land based outlets, including TABs, casinos and poker machines. From an economic perspective, it makes sense to level the playing field between the local TAB or racetrack and the online bookmakers. As a standalone issue, there is no rationale for why online bookmakers should have exclusive jurisdiction to garner business from gamblers intending to use a credit card. If we don't favour the prospects of one company over another in the sectors of the economy, there is no reason to permit it in these circumstances. The bill has broad-ranging support from some of the key stakeholders within the gambling community. I understand Responsible Wagering Australia supports the reform, as does Sportsbet and the Alliance for Gambling Reform. The proposal isn't entirely new. The majority of the reform measures stem from the Wallace inquiry, prepared by the former government's chair of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services, Andrew Wallace MP. The thorough undertaking, via a comprehensive review, yielded a few insights which have informed the draft amendment. Firstly, it is quicker and easier to lose large sums of money when gambling online, in comparison to other forms of gambling. Secondly, the scale of the financial hardship can be magnified when credit cards are used. In modern times, when Australia's annual gambling losses are estimated at $25 billion, the addition of credit products to the mix only exacerbates problem gambling and its associated financial and social harms. While the opposition supports the bill in principle, it must be noted that there remains the capacity for more severe unintended consequences to arise. For example, we on this side of the chamber understand that policy considerations and legislative amendments do not happen in a vacuum. Contrary to those who might be idealists, we are realists, and to that end we strongly support the review mechanism two years from commencement of the bill. It's incumbent on the government to ensure the review is as wide-reaching as possible, noting that the effects of problem gambling are multifaceted and not confined to just the one person. It has been suggested by the Gambling Treatment and Research Clinic that the most at-risk individuals may be inclined to seek out even riskier means of finance, including services from payday lenders and pawnbrokers. The government must be prepared to act swiftly on the outcomes and recommendations of the review and will rightly be held accountable for any acts or omissions which are not in the best interests of the community. This bill is really about closing an issue that's arisen through the adjacency of technology. It's all too easy to pick up your telephone and access a gambling app online and to simultaneously use your Apple Wallet, with a credit card, to pay for it. It's the adjacency of technology which means that legislation and change of legislation must continue to evolve in this space. Noting the delicate balance between protecting individual freedoms and the net benefit to the community of minimising problem gambling, I do intend to support this bill. 11:17 Dr GARLAND 295588 Chisholm I rise today in support of the Interactive Gambling Amendment (Credit and Other Measures) Bill 2023. This bill is a really important step to both support and protect Australians when it comes to interactive gambling and the increasing consequences we see from those activities that are very harmful to our communities. In November 2021, the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services delivered their recommendations from the inquiry into the regulation of the use of financial services such as credit cards and digital wallets for online gambling in Australia. These recommendations included the advice for government to implement legislation to ban online providers of wagering, gaming and other gambling services from accepting payment by credit cards, including digital wallets. Subsequently, the bill here amends the Interactive Gambling Act 2001 to prohibit the use of credit cards, credit related products and digital currency as payment methods for interactive wagering services; create a new criminal offence and civil penalty provision related to the ban; provide the Australian Communications and Media Authority with enhanced powers to enforce the ban and existing offences under the act; and make several consequential changes and remove some spent provisions. Importantly, in introducing this legislation, the Albanese Labor government are demonstrating how serious we are when it comes to banning credit cards for gambling purposes, with fines up to $234,750 for companies that do not enforce these new measures. The bill will expand the Australian Communications and Media Authority's powers to create strong and effective enforcement of the new and existing civil provisions under the act, and penalties could apply to the breach of the new provisions, too. Since coming to government, we have prioritised work to reduce the harm caused by online gambling, including through implementing the final measures under the National Consumer Protection Framework. This includes the introduction of monthly activity statements outlining wins and losses, new evidence-based taglines to replace 'gamble responsibly' and nationally consistent training for staff working in online gambling companies. We've also introduced BetStop, the National Self-Exclusion Register, which allows consumers to exclude themselves from all Australian licensed wagering services for a period ranging from three months to a lifetime. In addition, we are introducing mandatory customer preverification, requiring wagering service providers to verify a customer's identity when they register for a new account and before they can place a bet. We know that interactive gambling has grown exponentially in recent years. The confluence of the convenience of online gambling platforms with that of entertainment has raised increasing concerns from community groups and stakeholders. We know all too well how ease of access can lead to addictive behaviour, impacting not only the individual but also their families and their communities. The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services inquiry received submissions from a range of stakeholders, including responsible gambling advocates, financial counsellors and academics. The submissions highlighted how gambling with credit can lead to significant and life-changing consequences, such as extreme financial hardship, loss of employment and bankruptcy. Broader societal harms, including mental illness, homelessness and the breakdown of relationships, can also be casualties of this hardship, as well as impacts felt beyond the individual gambler. Impacts can affect family, friends, colleagues and employers. The parliamentary joint committee concluded that the current exemption under the act that permits independently issued credit cards to be used for online wagering is a 'glaring omission in the current regulatory system'. It is estimated that approximately 15 per cent to 20 per cent of online wagering is currently done with credit cards, with this cohort of customers naturally more susceptible and vulnerable to greater harms arising from gambling. Additionally, access to credit for online wagering, combined with the ease of gambling uses on digital devices, such as a mobile phone, can result in substantial amounts of debt accumulated in really short periods of time. We also know that gambling transactions are typically treated as cash advances, which usually incur a high rate of interest compared to rates for regular purchase transactions, which naturally then increases the burden of gambling losses too. The need for regulation in the field of interactive gambling is undeniable. Without it, we risk allowing this industry to continue unchecked with grave consequences. The societal cost of unregulated gambling in terms of addiction, financial ruin and family breakdown is immense, and I'm so pleased that this bill addresses these issues head on. The Minister for Communications has stated that the Australian government remains committed to protecting Australians from gambling harms. Legislating a ban on the use of credit cards for online gambling will help to protect vulnerable Australians and their loved ones. This bill plays a crucial role in safeguarding our society from the harmful effects of unbridled interactive gambling. It aims to strike a balance between individual freedom and collective responsibility, recognising that gambling can, for some, be a legitimate form of entertainment. Allowing credit card payments for gambling can lead individuals into a spiral of debt, though, and the allure of easy access to borrowing funds to gamble is a dangerous path for many, ultimately leading to financial ruin and personal despair. By prohibiting credit card payments for gambling, this bill takes a significant step towards preventing individuals from sinking into a cycle of debt. It promotes financial responsibility and prevents the abuse of credit facilities for gambling purposes. Additionally, the bill seeks to promote self-exclusion programs and, in doing so, to empower individuals to take control of their gambling habits. These enhanced options offer practical tools for those seeking to limit their involvement in gambling. Requiring gambling operators to provide responsible gambling information ensures that consumers are informed about the potential risks, again empowering individuals to make informed decisions about their participation. This bill also establishes a regulatory authority to oversee and enforce the provisions, ensuring that the industry operates within clear guidelines to minimise the chance for fraudulent and unethical practices. Stringent penalties for noncompliance act as a deterrent, discouraging operators from breaking the law and prioritising their profits over consumer protection. Importantly, the bill also introduces mechanisms for consumers to lodge complaints and resolve disputes. This offers a safety net for individuals who may feel wronged or exploited. This bill will place a strong emphasis on protecting vulnerable individuals who are more susceptible to being enticed by their gambling addiction. This bill recognises that our responsibility goes beyond personal freedoms to effectively regulate the wellbeing of all members of society. Subsequently, this bill acknowledges personal freedom while establishing the boundaries necessary to protect society from the negative consequences that gambling can often bring. This bill is a really important one for Australia, given that we see a lot of other countries have already implemented similar legislation, and there are some valuable lessons there. Effective regulation is not an impossible goal. We've seen other jurisdictions striking a balance between personal freedom and societal wellbeing, and we seek to emulate and build upon those successes here in Australia. This bill takes into account Australia's unique cultural and social factors, ensuring that the regulations are well suited to our nation's particular needs and challenges. This bill is designed to mitigate the harm caused by problem gambling, saving countless individuals and families from the devastating effects of addiction and financial ruin. I call upon all members of the House to support this bill and ensure its passage. By doing so, we can pave the way for a healthier, safer, and more responsible interactive gambling environment in Australia. This is a crucial piece of legislation that supports our government's endeavours to protect and support Australians, and I'm proud to be part of a government that is so committed to the welfare of all Australians. 11:27 Mr WILLCOX 286535 Dawson I rise today to speak on the Interactive Gambling Amendment (Credit and Other Measures) Bill 2023. For many Aussies, taking a punt is part of everyday life. It's almost as if our cultural stereotype is being a laidback lad or lady throwing another shrimp on the barbie, and our life depends on it. We're nonchalant about everything else. Why not with our money? After all, you can't take it with you. Everyone here knows someone who frequently visits the track for a bet on the dogs or the horses, loves their Keno in the afternoon or can't go past backing their favourite footy team in the grand final, even if the odds are not in their favour. How many of your local pubs have rows and rows of pokies calling your name when you've gone for a cold one with your mates? And Santa? Well, according to him, scratchies are the ideal Chrissie present for your favourite friend, family member or even your favourite coworker during the office Christmas shindig. Gambling has always been prominent in Australia, and since COVID and the shutdown of our favourite local watering holes, Australians have embraced online gambling wholeheartedly. A quick Google search will show a list of at least 138 online-gambling websites ready and waiting to take your money. Some are backed by Australian companies, others are backed by overseas-owned companies, making super profits off the back of hardworking Australians. The thrill of a win and chasing that addictive dopamine hit over and over again can have dire consequences, leading to harm for the gambler and their families, careers and relationships. The stark reality is that it can destroy lives, and as policy makers it is our job and our responsibility to adopt sensible policies that reduce harm to our people. Earlier this year, the coalition took positive steps with a bill to ban gambling advertisements during live sporting events. It was a policy that we know had strong support from the community, because they're sensible people, unlike the Labor Party, who—surprise, surprise—oppose the bill, even when they know families and kids will be watching. To that point, more and more frequently we are seeing online video games play ads that are appealing to children and other young people promoting online simulated gambling games. How are they paying for these? It is with mum and dad's credit card that's linked to the Google or Apple Pay account, sometimes without their parents' knowledge. Now Australians are gambling with credit, and they don't even know it. To do our job and to mitigate harm, this bill we're talking about today, the Interactive Gambling Amendment (Credit and Other Measures) Bill 2023, aims to do just that—to reduce harm to everyday Aussies who might not have the ability to self-regulate when it comes to their gambling decisions. This bill is, in large part, a result of an inquiry by former Speaker and member for Fisher, Mr Andrew Wallace, and a report from the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services. The committee investigated the regulation of the use of financial services, such as credit cards and digital wallets, for online gambling in Australia and delivered a report that was published in late 2021. The most important recommendation to come out of this report is to ban the use of credit cards, digital wallets that are linked to credit cards, digital currency and cryptocurrency in online gambling. This recommendation would bring online gambling in line with offline gambling. The average punter is unable to walk into a pub, a TAB or a casino or other gambling venue and use their credit card to place a bet. The use of credit cards in physical venues was banned in the early 2000s. But today, in 2023, anyone can sit on their couch, in their office or even right here in Parliament House and place a bet online—day or night—with their credit card at the touch of a button. It really doesn't make sense. For anyone who is a little bit worried about the adverse effects of this bill, it was also recommended that any changes that are made do not have any negative consequences for lotteries, including not-for-profits, charities and newsagents. We all know that charities and not-for-profits benefit greatly from such activities, and we are not here to negatively impact those organisations. What we want to do, as I said before, is minimise harm for those that are most at risk. We already know that traditional gambling and people who gamble with their own money can fall into trouble. However, the world of online gambling utilises credit, and racking up a debt can send people into a whole new world of hurt and financial and emotional stress. What may or may not shock some people is that Australia is by far the gambling capital of the world when it comes to gambling losses per capita. Total consumer losses in Australia in 2018-19 were approximately $25 billion. Research conducted by the gambling treatment and research clinic at the University of Sydney found that over half of the online gamblers surveyed who used their credit cards met the criteria for problem gambling, and one fifth of Australian consumers were using their credit card with their online gambling accounts. I think it is important to differentiate between credit cards and debit cards. What the bill is recommending is not the ban to use debit cards or Mastercard debit cards. It's to ban the use of credit cards. It's about stopping an addictive gambler's ability to borrow lines of credit, which often come with extremely high transactional costs and even higher personal costs. When credit providers process gambling transactions, they treat them as cash advances. As such, these transactions can attract interest rates as high as 25 per cent, which are applied from the instant the transaction is made. Much like when you're using plastic to pay for anything else, there is the total mental disconnect between the transaction and the thought of ever having to pay it off. Then, all of a sudden, your credit card statement has arrived. Let's say you spent $1,000 that month on gambling, and you've incurred a 25 per cent interest on top of that. Times that by 12 months in the year, and the simple maths says that that's a hell of a lot of dosh. Which demographic spends more of their household disposable income on gambling every year? If you guessed the low-income earners, you would be correct. And I'll give you this little bit of trivia for free: problem gamblers in low-income households spend the equivalent of four times their average yearly utility bills on gambling. Do you think that during an Albanese Labor government created cost-of-living crisis our households, particularly our low-income households, can afford to fall prey to online gambling addictions and extraordinary amounts of credit card debt? No; I don't think so. Even the biggest stakeholders in the gambling game support the amendments to this bill. So really it's a no-brainer. Responsible Wagering Australia, the peak body for the gambling industry, has given this bill their full support. SportsBet have voiced their support and back the introduction of a ban on Australian online gambling services accepting credit cards and digital currencies as payment methods. The Alliance for Gambling Reform says that it advocates for and supports a ban on credit card use for online gambling. Financial Counselling Australia welcomes the ban. And the Australian Banking Association supports the ban and welcomes the establishment of consistency across online and offline gambling. The gambling industry clearly supports clamping down on credit card use for online gambling, and we should as well. And while I understand that there are those who believe such decisions about using credit cards should be left to the individual, this bill is paramount to protecting the people of Australia and their families from the potential harm from problem gambling as well as the social cost, including the cost of crime committed to fund gambling addictions, loss of productivity and work related costs, family and relationship breakdowns, divorce and bankruptcy, potential homelessness as well as emotional and psychological issues, including distress, depression, suicide and violence, which costs Australians billions of dollars a year. It is far too great to ignore, and it's about time online gambling played by the same rules as offline gambling. While I support this bill, there is, however, one inclusion made by the Labor government that I take issue with. I am talking about the Labor government's patterns in the chamber all the time, and of course the pattern of the Albanese Labor government—getting too excited and taking things too far—continues. My issue is that the Labor government wants to give the minister the keys to the bank. They want to give the minister all the power to ban other payment mechanisms for online gambling whenever the minister wants, by way of a legislative instrument. This is giving way too much power to one person. In line with our democratic system, one person should not have all the power to make decisions such as this. I would like to see part of this bill being reworked and a call for any future proposed bans to return to parliament to allow for bipartisan support. While we all probably think we're right a lot of the time, one person does not have the ability to see every point of view or see every option. So, for this policy to be as beneficial for all the Australian people as possible, we need the thoughts and ideas of multiple people to be considered. This bill is a positive step forward in our responsibility and in our jobs to adopt sensible policies that remove and reduce harm to the people of Australia. With the cost of living skyrocketing, interest rates being higher than ever and families struggling to pay their mortgages or put food on their tables, the Australian people don't need the burden of insurmountable gambling debts hanging over their heads, threatening their future with their mortgages. This bill doesn't take away our ability to have a good time. This bill is actually preserving our way of life and our ability to have a good time responsibly and within our means. With this Labor-created cost-of-living crisis that Australians are living in at this particular point in time, we cannot afford to have our most vulnerable spending money outside of our needs. 11:40 Ms RISHWORTH HWA Kingston I am very pleased to rise to support the Interactive Gambling Amendment (Credit and Other Measures) Bill 2023. Through this bill, the Albanese government is banning the use of credit cards and credit-like products on online gambling. We take seriously our responsibility to prevent and reduce harm from online gambling. As the Minister for Social Services, I'm pleased to lead the government's ongoing work in this space alongside the Minister for Communications. Earlier this year, the government committed to legislate this ban, which was recommended by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services. This bill delivers on that commitment. It amends the Interactive Gambling Act 2001 to ban the use of credit cards and credit related products for online gambling, including credit cards linked to a digital wallet or e-wallet, as well as digital currencies. About 15 per cent to 20 per cent of people who wager do so with credit cards, and they are more likely to experience gambling harm. A study by the Gambling Treatment and Research Clinic found that around half of the customers who use their credit card for online gambling met the criteria for problem gambling. It's pretty simple: people should not be betting with money they don't have. This overdue reform aligns with the existing bans on credit card and land based gambling for TAB outlets, casinos and pokies, which have been in place since the early 2000s. You can't use your credit card to place a bet for land based gambling, and the same rules should apply for online gambling as well. The bill also expands the Australian Communications and Media Authority's compliance and enforcement powers to ensure strong and effective enforcement of the new and existing penalty provisions under the act. Consequently, there will be considerable penalties for contravention of the ban, with companies facing fines of up to $234,000. We're serious about protecting vulnerable Australians from the harm we know online gambling can cause. That's why penalties are important for any platform breaching the new rules. The bill is the latest step in the government's ongoing efforts to prevent and reduce gambling harm. While many Australians can enjoy a punt, we know gambling and online gambling can cause harm. Along with the obvious financial impacts, gambling can pose a risk to a person's physical and mental health, wellbeing and relationships. A ban on the use of credit cards and credit related products for online gambling will help reduce the incidence of this harm by immediately and effectively stopping people from gambling with money they don't have. This is common sense and well overdue. Australia has the highest gambling losses per adult in the world, with a total of $25 billion in losses per annum or $1,300 per adult per annum. Online gambling is growing in Australia, partly due to the ease of access through mobile devices. In less than 10 years, participation in online gambling has more than doubled, equating to approximately 3.5 million Australian adults. Around one million online gamblers in Australia are at risk for experiencing some degree of gambling harm. These statistics speak to the need for consistent and ongoing efforts to prevent and reduce harm from all levels of government. It can't be a set-and-forget exercise, and it's something we are working closely with our state and territory counterparts on. Banning credit for online gambling is an important next step for us to take. Many people, including harm reduction advocates and those people representing the gambling industry itself, support this measure. The bill has drawn on consultation with a wide range of stakeholders, including harm reduction advocates, wagering and lottery providers, and banking and payment organisations. Furthermore, research released by the peak banking body, the Australian Banking Association, has found that more than 80 per cent of Australians believe gambling with credit cards should be restricted or banned. It is clear there is widespread support for the introduction of this important protective and preventative measure. Industry and consumers will have a six-month transition period from the date of Royal Assent to change their business and betting behaviours respectively. This bill strongly aligns with government's broader agenda to reduce harm from online gambling. It's part of a suite of initiatives we've been delivering. Since coming to office, we've wasted no time in implementing all the remaining measures of the National Consumer Protection Framework for Online Wagering. The national framework has 10 measures that provide people with easy-to-use tools and information to safely manage their gambling. The framework was launched in 2018, but when we came to government there were still four outstanding measures, which we implemented once coming to office. Since then, we've implemented the monthly activity statements that clearly show customers their wins and losses. We've introduced a requirement for the training of staff of wagering companies about how to minimise the risk of gambling harm. We've implemented the new evidence-based taglines that replace the previous 'gambling responsibly'. Examples of the new taglines include: 'Chances are you're about to lose', 'What's gambling really costing you?' and 'You win some, you lose more.' These messages must appear in all advertising across all platforms such as customer online-gambling accounts, print and broadcast marketing, and sponsorship and advertising activities. In August, the Minister for Communications and I launched BetStop—the self-exclusion register. By signing up to BetStop, people can immediately exclude themselves from all telephone and online gambling services for a minimum of three months up to a maximum of a lifetime. Since commencement, there have been over 9,000 registrations, which is a great uptake. Many of these people are choosing to exclude for a lifetime. Complementing BetStop last month, we've implemented mandatory pre-verification, meaning wagering companies must verify a customer's identity when they register for a new account and before they can place a bet. This strengthens the protections for underage Australians and for those self-excluded through BetStop. These are some of the steps our government has taken in the last 18 months to prevent and reduce harm from online gambling. With BetStop up and running, all 10 measures under the National Consumer Protection Framework for Online Wagering are in place. In addition to the framework, the government has worked with jurisdictions to update the classification rules for online and video games to protect children from being exposed to gambling, and the Minister for Communications recently announced mandatory minimum classifications for computer games containing gambling-like content. Preventing and reducing gambling harm requires a multipronged approach and consistent focus. This bill is only the latest part of the many actions our government has taken. Earlier this year, I convened the first meeting of gambling ministers from across the Commonwealth, states and territories since 2017. At this meeting, all ministers reaffirmed their shared commitment to pursue actions to minimise harm from online gambling. Part of our consideration of what will come next will include considering the findings from the recent parliamentary inquiry into online gambling undertaken by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs. The committee made 31 wide-ranging recommendations, covering issues like public health principles, national strategy, simulated gambling, gambling advertising, research, data, and evidence. The government is carefully considering the report and its recommendations. There is more to do, but I am proud of the steps we've taken so far, and assure those listening that the Albanese government will continue to work to create a safer environment for Australians at risk of gambling harm. I commend the bill to the House. 11:48 Ms McKENZIE 124514 Flinders I rise to speak on the Interactive Gambling Amendment (Credit and Other Measures) Bill 2023, which is supported by the coalition, as indicated in the shadow minister's second reading speech on Tuesday, because it derives from policy work led by the coalition in 2021. Specifically, the recommendations of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services in its inquiry into regulation of the use of financial services such as credit cards and digital wallets for online gambling in Australia, published in November 2021. That report recommended a ban on the use of credit cards and digital wallets as payment methods for online gambling, bringing the online gambling world into line with the offline gambling world, like in casinos or pokie venues, where credit cards have been banned—in a credit sense—for over 20 years. Australia now has a significant problem with gambling, and, increasingly, that problem has become a digital one. For many, gambling has moved beyond a fun flutter with friends or family at the horseraces or on the footy field. There was a particular uptick in online gambling during the COVID years, when it was one of the few social exchanges Australians—in particular, Victorians, with our 262 days of lockdown—could engage in. But today we have a problem, and it's a big problem. Australians lose over $25 billion a year gambling, and we lose the most on online gambling in a per capita sense—in fact, 20 per cent more than any other country in the world, according to the Alliance for Gambling Reform. Increasingly, that loss is occurring via the online platforms, unsurprising given that the uptake in online gambling has more than doubled over the decade to 2020. Roughly 10 per cent of the Australian adult population now gambles online, and the ease of using these platforms also means that more is being spent on them. It is estimated that approximately four per cent of online gamblers meet the criteria for problem gambling but that up to 30 per cent are at risk of experiencing a degree of gambling harm. Earlier this year, the Australian Medical Association referred to this kind of harm in their media release of 7 March: The harms of gambling and addiction are far reaching in our society. As well being linked to comorbid mental health disorders and substance abuse, gambling harm can also cause family breakdowns, exacerbate domestic violence, cause financial distress and loss of employment and isolate people from support networks. Like all addictions—gambling needs to be understood as a health issue, free of stigma, with appropriate treatment and support offered by qualified health professionals. Today, many of us directly know someone with a gambling problem. It might be a husband, a brother, an aged aunt, a father, a much loved son or a co-worker. Watching them tackle this problem is heartwrenching and often involves a full family effort to help the problem gambler get back on his or her stable financial feet. We must all do more to address it and, indeed, the underlying reasons which lead to it. It was part of the reason why, in the last sitting period, I hosted a symposium in this place regarding internet and gaming addiction. I thank the remarkable people from the Australian Gaming and Screens Alliance, especially Brad Marshall, Director of the Screen and Gaming Disorder Clinic in Sydney, and Wayne Warburton, associate professor in psychology at Macquarie University, as well as Professor John Saunders, Jordan Foster, Dr Daniel King and Dr Huu Kim Le. Together with brain experts, child and adult psychologists, and researchers from across the Australian university network, they gathered here in Parliament House in mid-September to discuss the condition of the two per cent to three per cent of young Australians whose internet and gaming use has become problematic, contributing to the likelihood of a problem of addiction and possibly gambling when they become adults. Australia has very little by way of services to address screen and gaming addiction. In fact, the three-month treatment program that was designed for young gamers by Professor Warburton is, tragically, at risk of cessation due to a lack of funds and the demands it places on the volunteers, who work with the kids, primarily teenage boys, to find alternative purpose and play outside screens and gaming. This bill puts some necessary guardrails around online gambling, making it slightly more difficult to fall into debt through the ease of online gambling with a credit card. The bill amends the Interactive Gambling Act to prohibit credit cards, digital currency and digital wallets, making it a little harder for problem gamblers to overspend and send themselves into a debt trap. I'm pleased to observe that one of Australia's major betting companies, Sportsbet, supports this change in recognition that we all have to do more to address gambling harm in this country. The bill provides ample time for our betting companies to set up the administrative changes they need in time for the bill to come into full effect, given the many technical changes that will be required to identify when credit is actually being used. I commend this bill to the House. 11:54 Mr HILL 86256 Bruce I think my contribution will be about one minute long, but I just want to clarify and perhaps correct the record, having listened to the previous speaker and a number of other opposition speakers. There is no disagreement that this bill is necessary and overdue. And the minister who's sitting here is absolutely right to bring it forward to the House, for it to be a government bill, to ban the use of credit cards for online gambling. It's a gold medal that Australia does not want to win but, sadly and tragically, we do: we have the highest per capita loss for online gambling of any people of any country in the world. This bill is right to ban credit cards for online gambling, to bring it into line with the rules in the real world. Some people choose to gamble—it's legal. But gambling addiction destroys lives—untold thousands of lives in my community, one of the poorest in Melbourne. If people choose to gamble they should gamble only with money they actually have, not fake money on a credit card or a loan, and money they can afford to lose. In that sense, this bill is overdue. But I want to correct the record, because there was a bit of misleading sanctimony from some previous speakers. I really commend the member for Flinders on the work you've done and outlined on this issue, but you're a new member, and I just want to clarify one thing. You said that this policy work was driven by the previous government. But let's not be too cute. This was a righteous crusade of the member for Fisher personally, when he chaired the corporations committee, before he was elected Speaker, and the work died at that point. Your party room was split. The previous government never responded to it. We know this, because we were pushing for it, and I was engaging with some of your members of good conscience who wanted to see this happen. But there was no will in the former government in the party room to take on the gambling lobby, and I commend the member for Fisher for his work in bringing this forward. It is to his credit. I'm pleased that the committee adopted it, but it is a pity that the former government chose never to respond to the report and, as I think everyone knows, was never going to actually do this. So, let's not get too cute and claim credit for the former government for this. It was absolutely driven by a number of members of good conscience, and I really applaud you on the work you're doing on this issue. 11:56 Mr McCORMACK 219646 Riverina To take up the remarks of the member for Bruce, albeit brief: yes, he is correct when he says that by their very nature credit cards are looking at credit; it's money that gamblers do not have, money that is not in their bank. To ensure that that is a provision of the Interactive Gambling Amendment (Credit and Other Measures) Bill 2023—very much the centre point of the bill—is a good thing, because people shouldn't bet money that they don't have. When they lose, as ultimately they do, that can often lead to a spiral of debt and despair. As I said, as the member for Bruce said and as the member for Flinders pointed out, they do not have the money. I know that the communications minister, who brings this legislation to the parliament, does, like me, enjoy to have a flutter and to go to the races. Indeed, we've been to the races together with our respective spouses and enjoyed a good afternoon out. And I don't want to be criticised here, but there does come some personal responsibility when it comes to gambling, when it comes to betting. People have to have personal responsibility. We don't want to see nanny-state provisions. We don't want to see wowserism. But I appreciate the points the member for Bruce made, and I appreciate the intent of the minister. I know full well, and I agree completely with, the sentiments expressed by the member for Flinders. We all know that, for some, betting can lead to harm, not only for themselves, but it also has a terrible impact on their families, carers and other relationships. All too sadly, when disaster relief payments have been made in recent times, in regional areas—I know, speaking from experience—the amount of money put through poker machines at various clubs has soared to record levels. Then when those relief payments were exhausted the trend went south. That is an unfortunate aspect whenever additional money is available that should be spent on other things. That is why, dare I say—and I'm not digressing too far—the cashless welfare debit card was so important, because it meant that money wasn't going to be spent on gambling; it was going to be spent on the practical things of life for those vulnerable remote communities. In contrast to what the member for Bruce said about this particular bill and other aspects of gambling and the need to curb it, it is why the coalition took positive steps earlier this year with a bill to try to ban gambling ads during live sport—a policy which those opposite voted against. It's why on budget reply night, 11 May 2023, the opposition leader said: In our country, footy time is family time, but the bombardment of betting ads takes the joy out of televised sports. Worse, they're changing the culture of our country in a bad way and normalising gambling at a young age. Many Australian families have had enough. That's why tonight I announce that a coalition government will move to ban sports betting advertising during the broadcasting of games. Ads would be banned for an hour each side of a sporting game. I encourage the Prime Minister to work with us on this initiative to get it implemented now. Some of the ads that are put up on television almost seduce the viewer to part with their money, to have a bet, to have a flutter on a team—and if that team leads at half time, you don't lose your bet. There are all of these sorts of things—the sheer bombardment, as the opposition leader called it, the repetition of these ads—which, let's face it, are of concern. The Wallace report was tabled in November 2021. The election was called on 10 April, arguably giving the coalition no time to legislate, in answer to the member for Bruce's rebuke about why the previous government didn't act. We all come to this place, to be fair, in an effort to ensure that those people who cannot help themselves, who have a gambling problem, have good and tight and secure legislation that encompasses the elements contained herein. As I said, most of the changes proposed in this bill are not new. They were recommended by an inquiry by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services in late 2021. It was a review into regulation of the use of financial services such as credit cards and digital wallets as payment for online gambling in Australia, chaired by the member for Fisher. It recommended a ban on the use of credit cards and digital wallets as payment methods for online gambling. The Wallace inquiry report cited total customer losses in Australia at—wait for it—$25 billion. That is $25 billion going down the gurgler. That is $25 billion that could be spent on building community capacity, on helping families, on making sure that people don't get into that cycle of debt and despair, as I referenced earlier. Responsible Wagering Australia said 20 per cent of Australian consumers were using credit cards with their online wagering accounts. The inquiry report highlighted the combination of online gambling and credit exacerbated problem gambling and its associated social and financial harms. It said that this combination could lead to: … extreme financial hardship, loss of— job— bankruptcy, and broader harms including relationship breakdown, mental illness and homelessness— and, even worse, suicide. We know that. And the report identified: … two key reasons for the speed and severity of the harm from combining online gambling and credit. I know the bill would provide for a new criminal offence and for civil penalties under the situation with methods determined by the minister to: … prohibit an operator of a regulated interactive gambling service … from accepting or offering to accept payments from a customer … in Australia using: a credit card; payments linked to a credit card (including digital wallets); digital currency (such as cryptocurrency); or other methods determined by the Minister. The bill is good inasmuch as it ensures that credit cards are very much looked at, but it neglects to resolve a major loophole in the form of video game loot boxes and item trading. The bill doesn't extend to credit cards that may be used by children and adults to purchase in-game digital currencies and loot crates that are then used to gamble. I'm not quite sure whether this is an oversight. I'm not quite sure whether this can be looked at. But the industry is being used as a means of money laundering and scams—that is a sad fact—with billions of dollars being easily channelled into the market and becoming very, very difficult to trace in what is a highly unregulated industry. I have young children. Well, they're not so young now. But my two boys certainly enjoyed video games, and I know there are other parents in this place whose children currently do or formerly did. Many popular video games are getting more sophisticated and more enhanced. They now offer a digital marketplace in which items, costumes and weapons in games can be obtained through purchasing in-game items with real money or by spending money to open what are called loot crates, which give items of varying values purely by chance. These items are not only used in games where they may offer a competitive advantage but often resold for real currency in a speculative market. This speculative market is based upon the rarity of the item. I have seen a weapon skin in one popular video game sell for—wait for it!—more than US$400,000. That's an extraordinary figure. It truly is. Many of these games contain loot box features, and their online gambling markets can be worth billions of dollars. Ordinary, everyday kids and mums and dads across Australia are playing these games every day and being introduced to online gambling. They do it in all innocence. They do it because they enjoy it. It has features that make kids want to play it more often, get better at it and get to the next level. But sophisticated game makers are inventing and producing these videos that are introducing otherwise innocent children to a world of online gambling. It can lead to spending way too much time on these games, getting caught up and then using mum and dad's credit card, if mum and dad are off doing other things and the child is left as a latchkey kid. The child might know the PINs et cetera. Then things can get out of hand. It's adults, too. I know many adults enjoy these games to destress from work. They're spending thousands of dollars out of addiction or are in an attempt to make money through gambling. Of course, once you're in the cycle, it's hard to then get out of that cycle. There's absolutely no doubt about it: it's a de facto form of gambling. It's addictive. I would say it has a seductive appeal to children. But it is exempt from the gambling bill. In summary, this is legislation that is good and worthwhile. There are elements of it that could be improved. I know there have been amendments put forward. Often that is the case. The inquiry report's findings were backed up by the results of a recent review into this bill by the Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee. I want to note a couple of things there. The Senate inquiry report, which was tabled recently, identified that 30 per cent or nearly a third of Australian online gamblers—that's around a million people—were at risk of, or experiencing, a degree of gambling harm. That is a tragic figure. The report cited research by the Gambling Treatment and Research Clinic at the University of Sydney, which found that 54 per cent of surveyed participants who reported using their credit card for online gambling met criteria for problem gambling. Gambling using credit cards is already banned at land based sites. This issue now is about the use of credit cards for online gambling. When it comes to gambling, in New South Wales recently the government there has taken action to deliver on the election commitment it made to reduce problem gambling by moving to ban external signage, such as 'VIP lounge', from pubs and clubs across the state by 1 September 2023. I note, interestingly, that a letter to the editor in my local newspaper today indicated that pubs are still putting up signs saying, 'Open until 3 am.' Some might wonder why pubs would be open till 3 am in country centres, but, still, the state government felt the need to ban that gambling-related signage. That happened in September. We need to do more to ensure that people's hard-earned money is not wasted on gambling. We need to do more to help problem gamblers. At the same time, as I've said before, we also can't go down the path of becoming a nanny state, and we certainly can't go down the path that some would, which is banning gambling altogether. At the end of the day, some of these industries contribute vitally to this nation. I would also put forward that the horseracing industry employs 80,000 people, and most of those are in regional Australia. Mr M 219646 Giddy-up! Thank you, Member for Bruce. Without those horseracing clubs, communities would be much the poorer, and certainly our charitable organisations would be much the poorer, because they rely on horseracing, thoroughbred clubs—trots and greyhounds too—to earn the dollars that they otherwise could not raise themselves. 12:11 Ms CHANEY 300006 Curtin In June 2023, the House Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs, of which I'm a member, completed its inquiry into online gambling after 40 hours of hearings and 161 submissions. The committee's report, You win some, you lose more, includes 31 recommendations. These 31 recommendations urge this government to respond with a national strategy for online gambling harm reduction based on public health principles. This reflects the very broad consensus and alarming supporting data that gambling does a great deal of harm—not just significant financial harm but psychological and social harm too. This data is strongly supported by multiple submissions the committee received, many of which are informed by personal lived experiences, close observation and participation in the gambling industry. At its most extreme, gambling amounts to a recognised disorder and is medically identified as a behavioural addiction. It has a material effect on the brain's reward, prioritisation and stress symptoms. Gambling disorders impact individuals but also lead to problems for their families and invariably impact their workplace and broader society. Some groups are more vulnerable: young men, young people generally, culturally and linguistically diverse groups, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, and people with mental health conditions or substance abuse issues. Australians lose approximately $25 billion a year on legal forms of gambling, representing the largest per capita losses in the world. The research is telling us that, compared to land based gambling, the risks of harm associated with online gambling are far higher. Online gambling is particularly insidious because it's private, it's socially invisible and it's accessible 24/7. It is easy for companies to use your personal information against you. Through algorithmic decisions, spending opportunities will be configured to target your vulnerabilities and how you play. This is largely because of the highly accessible and immersive technology used for online gambling apps and interfaces, as well as the especially pervasive advertising associated with online gambling. There's been a threefold increase in gambling advertising over the last decade, estimated at a massive $287 million in 2021, an increase of $16 million from 2020. Wagering operators have developed and targeted advertising platforms and strategies to promote their products on television and radio and in print, but they are becoming increasingly sophisticated with online and more interactive platforms, social media, and direct messaging. The result is that gambling is now completely normalised in every aspect of Australian life through ever-present advertising. We should be very concerned. This amendment, the Interaction Gambling Amendment (Credit and Other Measures) Bill, is a small but significant amendment towards addressing the harms of gambling in Australia. It is a timid, small start. The Interactive Gambling Act already regulates online and over-the-phone gambling services and prohibits wagering service providers from providing credit to customers. This bill will amend that act to prohibit the acceptance of credit cards, credit related products and digital currency as payment methods for interactive wagering services for customers who are physically present in Australia. By banning the use of credit cards and digital currencies for interactive services, this will create the much needed consistency and bring online gambling services and products in line with in-person gambling transactions, where credit cards have been banned in each state and territory for almost 20 years. So I welcome and support this amendment to ban the availability of credit and digital currency payment options and consequential sanctions and penalties. I note from submissions made to both inquiries before the Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs Committee and the Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee that major wagering companies do not oppose this ban. Tabcorp agrees that wagering customers should only be able to conduct their wagering activity with their own clear funds. This is worth noting. The hard work on gambling reform that will affect the profits of gambling companies is yet to come. We must also remain alert to the continued involvement of foreign companies that dominate the newer online gambling market, engaging in predatory behaviours to continue to pursue high profits. Whilst this amendment bans the use of credit and digital currencies in relation to customers physically present in Australia, it's highly likely that foreign wagering companies will explore ways to get around the ban. As welcome as this amendment is, it's nevertheless an isolated measure. The many reforms we need to address should be done in concert with each other as part of a dedicated national gambling strategy. As the social policy and legal affairs committee concluded some months ago, that strategy should be viewed through the lens of gambling harm reduction and based on public health principles. I urge the government to make a commitment to developing a national strategy that will address harm from gambling rather than fragmented reforms initiated by individual portfolios. There should be a single portfolio and minister with responsibility for executing this national strategy for gambling reform. As an example of fragmentation, the government has chosen in this amendment to exempt lotteries and keno products from the credit ban in this bill. Developing technologies and the proliferation of new apps have changed the impact of lottery and keno products and will continue to do so as technology advances and wagering companies continually innovate to maintain their high sales. This highlights the imperative for a broad national gambling strategy that approaches the whole industry from the perspective of public health and financial harms rather than addressing siloed reforms. Reviews into online gambling and illegal offshore gambling are not new. Following a 2015 review, the Liberal government decided to set up a Commonwealth and state government National Consumer Protection Framework for Online Wagering. Eight years on, the final framework reform, the BetStop platform, was introduced in August this year. The purpose of BetStop is to empower individuals to sign up voluntarily to exclude themselves from wagering platforms. The first problem with BetStop is that I'm not convinced it's working. A constituent of mine signed up to exclude himself from 100 platforms, and he still received a barrage of promotional material. The second problem with a measure like BetStop is that it puts the onus on the individual. I applaud anyone who can voluntarily exclude themselves from activities that will cause them and others harm, but, as with many addictions, not everyone can do this successfully. It is not a fair fight between the online gambling companies who have 200 pieces of data about each customer and the individual battling with gambling issues. The point is that gambling in this country has become a public health issue, and we need all these measures and many more across the country to provide consistency as part of a targeted national gambling strategy. One of the most important areas that requires reform is gambling advertising. There's really broad community agreement that we have a problem. In mid-2022 a survey showed 71 per cent of Australians supported a ban on gambling ads. This support isn't partisan; it's well-spread across voting intentions. I've been contacted by more 50 constituents seeking action on this issue. So, where there's clearly strong support for better regulation, why is the government dragging its heels on reform? The committee recommended a phased and comprehensive ban on online gambling advertising. It's sensible and achievable and would provide key sports codes, broadcasters and other stakeholders with a period in which to adjust to an Australia that doesn't normalise and promote gambling. The opposition's recent support for banning ads during free-to-air sports broadcasts is welcome, but we need to go much further, into online ads and other types of promotion. Otherwise, the ads just shift. Partial bans will always deliver, at best, only partial results. We need a bold and brave approach that stands up to vested interests across this industry—to the media, to sporting codes and to money and power. Gambling is a public health issue. I support this bill, but I again call for the government to commit to the development of an effective national gambling strategy with a central purpose of reducing social and other harms, one that addresses not only the pressing issues relating to all forms of gambling advertising but other significant priorities as well, including a consistent regulatory framework across the country, a coordinated public education campaign, a mechanism to monitor and develop consumer protection for interactive gaming and simulated gambling, and the banning of all political donations from gambling companies. 12:21 Ms ROWLAND 159771 Greenway I would like to thank those who have contributed to the debate on the Interactive Gambling Amendment (Credit and Other Measures) Bill 2023, which would amend the Interactive Gambling Act 2001 to ban the use of credit cards for online wagering. I was pleased to be in the chamber for the comments by the member for Riverina, and I acknowledge his concerns but also highlight the reforms announced last month in respect of classification reform for loot boxes and simulated gambling in games. The classifications scheme is one way to address concerns with gambling features in games. I've also asked my department, as I announced, to look at other options, including consideration of secondary gambling markets for objects that can be purchased through loot boxes. This issue of illegal secondary markets is an area of concern that is being examined. As has been noted, Australia has the highest gambling losses per capita worldwide, with a total of $25 billion lost annually. Online gambling is growing in Australia because of the proliferation of online gambling applications. There is a high correlation between credit card wagering and online wagering harm. Betting with money you don't have can lead to devastating consequences. Recommendations from the 2021 Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services inquiry highlighted that reform is needed. You can't use your credit card to place a bet for land based gambling, and the same rules should apply for online wagering. The government is taking action to protect Australians and their loved ones from online gambling harms. This bill will ban the use of credit cards and credit related products, such as digital wallets and digital currency such as cryptocurrency, as payment methods for Australian licensed interactive wagering services. This change will have the immediate impact of stopping people from gambling with money they do not have. Consistent with the recommendations from the 2021 parliamentary joint committee, the bill does not apply to lotteries, including the fundraising activities of not-for-profits and charities, because lotteries are a lower-harm form of gambling. On 14 September 2023 the Senate referred the bill to the Environment and Communications Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 12 October 2023. The committee examined the scope and impact of the amendments, including whether lotteries should be included in the ban. The committee recommended that the bill be passed, stating: The committee recognises that online gambling causes significant harm to many Australians. The measures put forward by this bill will implement important changes to the Interactive Gambling Act 2001 to mitigate some of these harms. The committee also recommended that the Minister for Communications undertake a review over the next 12 months into the regulation of Keno-type lotteries under the act. Since receiving the report, I have asked my department to investigate the impact of the use of credit for Keno-type lotteries. The bill will also allow the communications minister, by legislative instrument, to proscribe new credit payment products that might be used to circumvent the ban as they emerge. The bill will also expand the Australian Communications and Media Authority's powers to ensure strong and effective enforcement of the new and existing civil provisions under the act. These reforms align with the government's broader commitment to harm minimisation. 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. Any reforms taken forward from the inquiry will complement measures by the government that the government already has put in place to reduce gambling harms, including: launching BetStop, the National Self-Exclusion Register, which allows people to voluntarily self-exclude from all telephone and online gambling for three months up to a lifetime; progressing classification reform to protect children from gambling-like features in computer games; and implementing new evidence-based taglines that convey the risks and potential harm from online wagering to replace 'gamble responsibly'. This bill is an important and necessary step towards protecting Australians from online gambling harms. I thank my colleagues for their contributions and commend this bill. Bill read a second time. Consideration in Detail 104 12:26 Mr COLEMAN 241067 Banks by leave—I move amendments (1) and (2) as circulated in my name together: (1) Schedule 1, item 15, page 6 (line 24), omit "currency;", substitute "currency.". (2) Schedule 1, item 15, page 6 (lines 25 and 26), omit paragraph 15C(4A)(d). Earlier this week, in the House, I flagged that the coalition in general supports this bill, which largely acts on recommendations of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services inquiry into the regulation and the use of financial services such as credit cards and digital wallets for online gambling in Australia, chaired by the member for Fisher and the report of which was published in November 2021. We support this bill and the measures it takes in relation to credit cards, digital wallets and digital currency, but we do have a particular concern relating to the power that the bill gives to the minister to ban methods of payment that are not specified in the legislation. I've moved amendments to remove this power from the minister. Specifically, clause 15 states in proposed paragraph 15C(4A)(d): a method of a kind determined by the Minister by legislative instrument for the purposes of this paragraph Basically, that says a minister could, in the future, effectively ban any method of payment that they chose. We don't think that's appropriate because it gives a very wide latitude to the minister. Given that the method of payment would be a legal form of currency, it's a substantial thing to stop Australians from having the right to use that currency, and it's something that should properly come before the parliament rather than being via the minister. The bill doesn't simply says it bans any form of currency determined by the minister; the bill sets out a number of specific methods of payment—appropriately—but then has this catch-all at the end that basically says 'and anything else the minister determines'. We don't think that's appropriate. We think it's overreach and we think it should be deleted. We'd have that concern with any minister, to be frank, but particularly with the minister that we have. It is ultimately a question of judgement of the minister, and this is a minister who has demonstrated a lack of judgement on numerous occasions, whether they be the issues relating to the politicisation of the Mobile Black Spot Program, the appalling misinformation bill which, in the judgement of this minister, was appropriate to put forward to the Australian people, or, indeed, the judgement of the minister to reject the recommendation of the eSafety Commissioner to conduct a trial into online age-verification technology in order to protect children from dangerous material. For those reasons, we do not think this is appropriate power to be given, and that is why I move those amendments. Debate adjourned. ADJOURNMENT 105 ADJOURNMENT Dental Health 105 12:30 Ms WATSON-BROWN 300127 Ryan You shouldn't have to choose between feeding your kids, paying your rent and taking care of your teeth. I want to thank all of the Ryan locals who signed my petition to put dental into Medicare, and I call on the federal government to listen. Each year, Australians spend over $6 billion on dental care, with the average household forking out $647 in out-of-pocket expenses. In this unprecedented cost-of-living crisis, this is simply too much for many people. Four in ten Australians skip seeing the dentist because of the cost. You shouldn't need to be flush with cash to fix a sore tooth or get regular check-ups. The recent Senate inquiry into access to dental care in its interim report confirmed that, indeed, a significant proportion of the community only seek dental treatment in emergency situations and that a quarter of Australia's population would have trouble covering a $200 dental bill. Unfortunately, the lack of treatment has dire consequences. Untreated tooth and gum problems can lead to further health issues, including deadly heart conditions and pregnancy complications. These preventable conditions lead to 83,000 hospitalisations annually, and a staggering 750,000 general practitioner appointments each year are attributed to dental problems. Fully covering dental in Medicare would save lives and relieve pressure on our desperately underfunded GPs and overcrowded public hospital system. Bringing dental into Medicare is possible. The Greens successfully negotiated with the former Gillard Labor government to bring dental into Medicare for kids, helping hundreds of thousands of families since then. Over the next 10 years, the federal government intend to spend $313 billion in tax cuts for the very wealthy. That's tens of billions in tax breaks for fossil fuel corporations and property investors. The money is there to put dental into Medicare. Brisbane City Hall is effectively occupied by big for-profit developers. They've taken over the joint and they're running it. This might sound like a bit of an exaggeration, but let me tell you a story. A few years ago, the LNP council, after years of advocacy from the community and the Greens, committed to building a much-needed green bridge between Toowong and West End, crucial for linking the two sides of the river, getting cars off the road in areas of growing density and providing people with great, active ways to get around the city. Two months ago, they announced they're slashing the taxes they normally levy on big property developers, and those are the taxes that help pay for the vital infrastructure needed to accommodate a growing population. You can see where this is going. This week—lo and behold!—they found a huge hole in their budget. They have to indefinitely delay—read: cancel—a number of important projects like the Toowong-West End green bridge. Where did the hole come from? Could it possibly be the fact that they've effectively just subsidised developer profits to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars? And then there's the fact that the LNP council is happy to continue to go ahead with expensive road widenings that will only bring more cars onto the road and lead to more traffic down the track. And what's the price tag on the absolute shemozzle that is the Indooroo roundabout in my electorate? Over $200 million. Tax cuts for property developers will not deliver more affordable housing; it will make more profit for developers. If our governments were serious about fixing the housing crisis, they would end negative gearing of more than one investment property. They'd embark on a mass build of beautiful public housing and ambitious rent-to-buy schemes, and they'd freeze and cap rents. Under the LNP council, there's no plan to deal with housing affordability and no plan for the growing densification of our city. What we're going to see is more traffic congestion, fewer services, less affordable housing and less public park land. But, in March next year, voters in Brisbane have a choice: let the property developers continue to run the show or vote Green to evict the big developers from city hall, put the community back in control, make the developers pay their fair share and fund the things that make for a good and sustainable life in the city. Singleton Learning Community Education Week Awards 106 12:35 Mr REPACHOLI 298840 Hunter The Hunter has amazing students who are taught by even better teachers, so it's absolutely no surprise to see an astonishing 68 students and teachers from all over the Hunter being recognised by receiving one of the Singleton Learning Community Education Week Awards for 2023. I want to recognise these outstanding students and teachers and thank them for all they do for their school communities and the whole community. Recognised in the category for outstanding contribution by a school community member were: Jennifer Maloney from Broke Public School; Robyn Sorensen from Jerrys Plains Public School; Jodie McCarthy from King Street Public School; Suellyn Connolly from Kirkton Public School; Owen Harper from Milbrodale Public School; Sandra Turner from Mount Pleasant Public School; Kathy O'Brien from Singleton Heights Public School; Ros Hafner and Sharon Young from Singleton High School; Singleton Family Support, who help to support and improve the social and emotional wellbeing of students at Singleton High School; and, finally, Jessica Withers from Singleton Public School. Multiple Hunter schools were also recognised for their outstanding programs and initiatives. Broke Public School's Academy of STEM Excellence partnership received an award for strengthening teacher capacity in implementing high-quality STEM programs for K to 6. King Street Public School's Story Street was recognised for encouraging a love of reading and providing an opportunity to connect with the whole community to view real-world literacy skills and storytelling. Milbrodale Public School's attendance program was a winner for designing, with staff, personal learning pathways and individual education programs for students and improving school organisation and culture by building a team mentality and continually involving school community. Mount Pleasant Public School received an award for their school canteen which, led by Jacob Godschalk, is run by the student representative council every Friday. Singleton Heights Public School's breakfast club received an award, along with Singleton Public School's Primary Mathematics Specialist Teacher Initiative and Singleton High School's tiny house project, which is being driven by Jason Kolatchew. Singleton High School have also received recognition for their program with Takahata, which is run by Ren Barnett, who organises a cultural exchange program between Takahata and Singleton. Singleton really excelled in this category, getting a third award for their K Block Kafe program, which has provided senior school students from the special education unit opportunities to develop food handling, meal prep and customer service skills. Many also received an award for an outstanding contribution by a non-teaching member of staff. Congratulations go to: Jessica Doust from Broke Public School; Shelly Mitchell from Jerrys Plains Public School; Shelby Fishpool and Bridget Wilkes from King Street Public School; Julie Dunn from Milbrodale Public School; Kylie Shearer from Mount Pleasant Public School; Cass Considine from Singleton Heights Public School; Margaret Forbes from Kirkton Public School; Heidi Kolatchew from Singleton Public School; and Jackie Martin, Anne Edwards, Jasmin Bown and Jayne Williams from Singleton High School. Hunter schools also did very well in the category for an outstanding achievement in Aboriginal education. Congratulations go to: Anne McSweeney from Broke Public School; Britney Capper from Jerrys Plains Public School; Lillea McKenzie from King Street Public School; Dominic Teuma from Milbrodale Public School; Kobey MacDonald from Singleton Heights Public School; Maria O'Neill, Telisha Feeney, Harrison Cummings and Penelope Greaves from Singleton High School; and Nakia Steele from Singleton Public School. Some of our amazing students received awards for excellence in student achievement. Well done to Emily Davies from Broke Public School. Lily Herbert from Jerrys Plains Public School, Lucy Cole and Samantha Simmonds from King Street Public School, Isabella Beckingham from Kirkton Public School, Campbell Gray from Mount Pleasant Public School, Bethany Power from Singleton Heights Public School, Hugh Sanderson from Singleton Public School, and Ethan Williams, Matthew Waugh, Georgie Williams and Caroline Mexon from Singleton High School. A student from Milbrodale Public School also received this award. Well done to all of those who received an award for excellence in teaching: Lyndal Matthews from Broke Public School, Rebecca Hopkins, Susan Scott, Katie Camilleri, Jessica Beer-Carter, Jacob Godschalk, Sue Winsor, Anna O'Brien and, finally, Skye Lawrence, Laura Fenwick, Mark Henderson and Tim Merrick from Singleton High School. Congratulations to all those who received an award. Robertson Electorate: Wamberal Beach Seawall 107 12:40 Dr REID 300126 Robertson I rise to discuss an important issue that has been developing in my electorate of Robertson on the New South Wales Central Coast. I'm referring to the proposed seawall for Wamberal Beach. As many people in the community know, Wamberal Beach sustained significant coastal erosion following major storms in recent years. These storms damaged several beachside properties located on Wamberal Beach—some were left dangling over the dune system. The impacts of the storm spurred beachside property owners to consider options to protect their properties from future erosion risks. One such option which has gained the support of these beachside property owners is to construct a 1.3-kilometre concrete vertical seawall stretching from one end of Wamberal Beach to the other. This option will purportedly safeguard Wamberal Beach and Wamberal beachside properties. Understandably, there are many people living in Wamberal and right across the Central Coast who do not want to see a 1.3-kilometre concrete vertical seawall constructed along one of the region's premier beaches. People note that, should a concrete seawall eventuate, it will have a much greater negative impact on our natural environment on the Central Coast. For instance, at a recent community forum, which included experts on the topic of seawalls, several seawall side-effects were unpacked and discussed. For example, experts Professor Andrew Short from the University of Sydney and Angus Gordon OAM stated that, following a major sea storm, should a seawall be constructed, sand would be scoured away from the beach. This would reveal the seawall up to heights of multiple metres and, potentially, leave little sand left along Wamberal Beach. Additionally, it was discussed that a seawall along the beach could redivert storm surges into the adjacent Terrigal and Wamberal lagoon. This outcome would be catastrophic for people living along the lagoon's perimeter and in its vicinity, with potentially thousands of homes flooded and many couples and families facing a precarious future. If we look at examples of the Collaroy seawall, constructed on the Northern Beaches of Sydney, we see these potential outcomes playing out in real time. Now, after major events, sand along Collaroy Beach is scoured away, leaving behind a monolithic concrete seawall and very little beach for the community to access. The example of the Collaroy Beach seawall should be considered and used as a case study when considering the outcome of the proposed Wamberal Beach seawall. As experts Andrew Short and Angus Gordon put it, seawalls protect only the immediate beachside properties from risk of erosion, and create a range of further problems for the wider community. As the federal member for Robertson, I will continue to represent my community on this very important issue. The overwhelming majority of the community in Wamberal and adjacent suburbs do not want this seawall to go ahead. They are concerned for the long-term ramifications. They believe the costs are too high and will protect only a select few property owners to the detriment of the wider community. There are better ways to respond to coastal erosion that do not include constructing a vertical seawall, as explained by the experts like Professor Short and Mr Gordon. They include sand nourishment, dune recontouring and dune revegetation works. It is also important to note the necessity for all levels of government to work together on the future of coastal management policies. There are many issues affecting existing legislation governing coastal management, and if governments were to work together on sustainable solutions for coastal erosion, there would not be responses like a seawall for Wamberal Beach. There have been several, tremendous, outstanding people leading the campaign opposed to the proposed Wamberal Beach seawall over the past few years. I want to place on Hansard my appreciation for their efforts on this issue. To the Wamberal Beach Save our Sand organisation, I say thank you for all that you've done, mobilising and educating our community. To Felicity Philips and Hugh Naven, I say thank you for starting this important campaign and being passionate advocates. To Mark and Corinne Lamont, I say thank you for all of your advocacy and being organisational masters. Paul and Adele Greenberg, thank you for your support. Peter Blackwall and all of the amazing volunteers from Wamberal Beach bushcare group, you are amazing environmentalists and thank you for your consistent work. I say to Sam Boughton: mate, thank you for your ongoing leadership and willingness to keep fighting for our community on the Central Coast. I encourage the people of Robertson all to make submissions to the Hunter and Central Coast Regional Planning Panel once a development application has been lodged for the Wamberal seawall. The higher the number of submissions, the greater the community's chances are of defeating this proposal. I will do everything in my power to ensure that my community is represented on this very important issue. Canning Electorate: Double Reds Resilience Award 108 12:46 Mr HASTIE 260805 Canning One of the great privileges we all share in this vocation is participating in awards and graduation ceremonies for schools in our electorates. As all members would agree, seeing students flourish is something that keeps us going. It's great to be in touch with young Australians who are learning and growing as they finish school. But it's not just that academic success that we celebrate. In 2020, I introduced, for schools in my electorate, an award for outstanding students called the Double Reds Resilience Award. This award is for those who embody the spirit of determination and resilience of the brave soldiers of the 2nd Independent Company, who faced overwhelming odds during the Second World War. The name Double Reds derives its significance from the Double Reds' insignia, proudly worn by the members of the company. To fully appreciate this award, we must briefly examine the remarkable history of these men, who are often hailed as Australia's first commandos. In 1942, these extraordinary soldiers, known as the 2/2, embarked on a significant guerrilla campaign in East Timor after the Japanese invasion in February of that year. The campaign lasted for almost a year, with the 2/2 faced overwhelming Japanese forces as they were cut off from the rest of Australia with no communications back to the mainland. Although East Timor wasn't the main theatre of the Pacific war, the 2/2 actions in 1942 played a pivotal role in securing victory for the allied forces. These brave soldiers, with the support of the Timorese people, held their ground and resisted the Japanese forces under incredibly challenging circumstances. Their efforts diverted thousands of Japanese troops that would otherwise have been deployed to critical battlefields, like Kokoda and Guadalcanal. I think that the 2/2's bravery in tough times altered the path of our national history. It's worth noting—this might be slightly parochial—that more than 80 per cent of the original 2/2 soldiers hailed from Western Australia, making this story especially meaningful for my local community. About the award itself, it's something very special we have created, along with the 2/2 families, to honour the legacy of the 2/2 and share their noble and inspiring story with young Australians. The award's primary objective is to recognise students who have shown exceptional character and resilience in the face of adversity and hardship throughout the school year. The Double Reds Resilience Award is a symbol of inspiration for our youth. It encourages them to face challenges with strength, bravery and determination and to never give up. It celebrates the qualities of character and resilience that are essential not only during one's school years but also throughout one's life. We all know that adversity is an inevitable part of our lives; it's part of the human experience. We are striving to instil in our young people the same kind of resilience and determination that the 2/2 displayed during their service and to honour those young Australians who have faced adversity already in their lives, whether it be through grief and loss, through disability or through illness— A division having been called in the House of Representatives— Sitting suspended from 12:49 to 13:13 Mr HASTIE 260805 As I was saying, this award, the Double Reds Resilience Award, is not about academic excellence. It's about publicly acknowledging and honouring young Australians who have overcome personal obstacles, helped others in times of need or demonstrated exceptional strength of character. Over the last three years, I've met a lot of young Australians in Canning who've suffered grief and loss, who've struggled with a disability or an illness, yet they have persevered. It's been such a privilege to honour them in their local school community. That's why we have the award, and we want those students to learn from the valour of the 2/2 and inspire them to be future leaders who can make a positive impact on their community. I look forward to handing more of these out at the end of the year, and I thank you for extending the time so I could finish my speech. Question agreed to. Federation Chamber adjourned at 13 : 14