2023-11-14 2 1 0 House of Reps 0 1

Tuesday, 14 November 2023

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

 

BILLS 1 BILLS Health Insurance Amendment (Professional Services Review Scheme No. 2) Bill 2023, Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Supporting the Transition to Work) Bill 2023, Treasury Laws Amendment (Support for Small Business and Charities and Other Measures) Bill 2023, Crown References Amendment Bill 2023, Primary Industries (Excise) Levies Bill 2023, Primary Industries (Customs) Charges Bill 2023, Primary Industries (Services) Levies Bill 2023, Primary Industries Levies and Charges Collection Bill 2023, Primary Industries Levies and Charges Disbursement Bill 2023, Primary Industries (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2023 1

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

Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Supporting the Transition to Work) Bill 2023

Treasury Laws Amendment (Support for Small Business and Charities and Other Measures) Bill 2023

Crown References Amendment Bill 2023

Primary Industries (Excise) Levies Bill 2023

Primary Industries (Customs) Charges Bill 2023

Primary Industries (Services) Levies Bill 2023

Primary Industries Levies and Charges Collection Bill 2023

Primary Industries Levies and Charges Disbursement Bill 2023

Primary Industries (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2023

12:01 Mr BURKE DYW Watson I have a riveting speech to deliver here! I declare that, unless otherwise ordered, the following bills stand referred to the Federation Chamber for further consideration: (1) the Health Insurance Amendment (Professional Services Review Scheme No. 2) Bill 2023, the Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Supporting the Transition to Work) Bill 2023, the Treasury Laws Amendment (Support for Small Business and Charities and Other Measures) Bill 2023 and the Crown References Amendment Bill 2023 at the adjournment of the debate on the motion for the second reading of each bill; and (2) the Primary Industries (Excise) Levies Bill 2023 and five related bills at the adjournment of the debate on the motion for the second reading of the Primary Industries (Excise) Levies Bill 2023. Environment Protection (Sea Dumping) Amendment (Using New Technologies to Fight Climate Change) Bill 2023 1

Environment Protection (Sea Dumping) Amendment (Using New Technologies to Fight Climate Change) Bill 2023

Returned from Senate 1 Federal Courts Legislation Amendment (Judicial Immunity) Bill 2023 1

Federal Courts Legislation Amendment (Judicial Immunity) Bill 2023

First Reading 1 COMMITTEES 1 COMMITTEES Public Works Joint Committee 1 Report 1 12:03 Mr PERRETT HVP Moreton On behalf of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works I present the committee 's report No. 8 of 2023: National Capital Authority—Scrivener Dam Dissipator Strengthening Project and other works. Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e). Mr PERRETT HVP by leave—On behalf of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works, I present the committee's eighth report for 2023. This reports considers four proposals referred to the committee in August, with a combined value of just over $650 million. The first proposal, from the National Capital Authority, is for the strengthening of Canberra's Scrivener Dam dissipator. The second proposal, from the Australian Taxation Office, is for a fit-out of new leased premises at 15 Sydney Avenue, Barton, ACT. The third proposal, from the Department of Defence, is for a mid-term refresh of the Edinburgh Defence Precinct in Adelaide. The fourth, which was withdrawn before review by the committee, was from the Department of Defence for stage 2 of the Armoured Fighting Vehicles Facilities Program. The National Capital Authority's Scrivener Dam project is to strengthen the dissipator, the basin-like structure at the bottom of the dam wall that dissipates the energy of the water and protects the dam and the river downstream. The proposed works will rectify known structural deficiencies in the dam and ensure the ongoing, safe operation of the dam for the next 100 years. Several risks associated with the stability of the dissipator structure under flood conditions have been identified which, if not addressed, could lead to the failure of the dam. The total cost of the proposed project is $39.86 million. The committee understands that, if this project does not go ahead, there is an unacceptable risk to the city of Canberra and its inhabitants. The committee also recognises the importance of Lake Burley Griffin, and therefore Scrivener Dam, to the fabric of Canberra, providing public value as a resource for recreation, commercial activities and tourism to the local community, domestic and international markets. The second proposal in this report is the Australian Taxation Office's fit-out of new lease premises at 15 Sydney Avenue, Barton, ACT. The proposed works will replace the ATO's two existing Canberra City sites. The fit-outs of both these sites are at the end of their usable life. The new lease will also consolidate the ATO's Canberra workforce into a single building and reduce net lettable area by 48 per cent. The total cost of the proposed project is $125.8 million. The committee supports this project, noting that the Australian Taxation Office conducted thorough consultation with their staff around fit-out design and have a concrete plan to continue staff involvement throughout the following stages of the project. The committee encouraged the ATO to monitor the impact of the proposed project on staff travel times, as the relocation from Canberra's central commercial district to the Barton site reduces access to public transport such as light rail and express bus routes. The third project in this report is the Department of Defence's proposed Edinburgh Defence Precinct Mid-Term Refresh. The works will replace or upgrade engineering services and associated facilities and infrastructure right across the precinct. This infrastructure is aged and approaching the end of useful life, has capacity and compliance issues, or poses risks to current and future functions. The total cost of the public works is $311.9 million. The committee supports this project, noting the strategic requirement for the Army's ongoing presence at Edinburgh and the importance of maintaining the functionality of the precinct through the proposed refresh. The fourth project in this report is stage 2 of Defence's Armoured Fighting Vehicles Facilities Program, which was referred to the committee with the proposed cost of $176.1 million. After the referral, the Deputy Prime Minister announced key changes to the Australian Defence Force's units and equipment locations, which has had an impact on this project. On the advice of Defence that the project will not be going ahead in its current form, the committee did not hold any hearings and concluded its inquiry without making any recommendation regarding these proposed works. The committee would like to extend its thanks to all those who provided written and oral evidence in support of these inquiries. We'd also like to thank the personnel from the ATO for their presentation, the National Capital Authority, and the Department of Defence for facilitating site inspections in the ACT and South Australia. For each project, the committee recommends that it is expedient that the proposed works be carried out. I commend this report to the House. BILLS 2 BILLS Health Insurance Amendment (Professional Services Review Scheme No. 2) Bill 2023 2

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

Second Reading 2 12:08 Ms LEY 00AMN Farrer I rise to speak on the Health Insurance Amendment (Professional Services Review Scheme No. 2) Bill 2023. The purpose of this bill is to improve the ability of the Professional Services Review, PSR, to investigate potential inappropriate practice by health professionals, by addressing issues and ambiguities in the Health Insurance Act 1973. The Professional Services Review is an independent statutory agency responsible for maintaining the integrity of Australia's Medicare program, through investigating and sanctioning inappropriate practice by health professionals. This bill builds on the Health Insurance Amendment (Professional Services Review Scheme) Bill 2023 passed in September this year. That act continued the reform to the PSR, commenced by the former coalition government, to strengthen the review mechanisms—primarily the claims on MBS items. This bill also continues to implement changes arising from recommendations of the Independent Review of Medicare Integrity and Compliance undertaken by Dr Pradeep Philip. The bill amends the Health Insurance Act 1973 to clarify and improve administration of the PSR scheme, including to: better align requirements for qualifications of committee members to the definition of inappropriate practice and clarify how these requirements should be applied; ensure that committees can be properly established for practitioners who hold a rare combination of specialties, or are practising in a different field to their formal specialist qualifications; make it clear, where appropriate, that a reference to a practitioner includes a practitioner who is not currently registered, such as a deregistered or suspended practitioner, to ensure that the PSR scheme applies consistently; clarify the requirements for a person under review to notify a committee that they are unable to attend a hearing due to a medical reason, including that the person must provide a medical certificate supporting this; and provide the director with the power to extend the statutory time frame of 12 months for deciding a matter if the person under review leaves Australia or if there are ongoing court proceedings in relation to the matter. The coalition support this bill, as it contains sensible changes in line with our strong and long-held commitment to protecting the integrity and financial viability of Medicare. Australia's Medicare system underpins our world-class health system. Importantly, it is there for all Australians. We in Australia are so fortunate to have a health system that is accessible and available to every Australian no matter where they live or how old they are. Protecting the ongoing viability of Medicare is key to this. Medicare, including the Medicare Benefits Schedule and the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, continues to provide Australians access to free hospital care and more affordable health care and medicines. When the coalition were last in government investment in the MBS and PBS grew significantly under our leadership. In fact, the coalition oversaw record investment in this area and we were committed to continuing that record through our commitment to invest $133 billion over four years into Medicare. Our approach to Medicare saw the highest bulk-billing rates on record. That is why it has been extremely disappointing to see since Labor came into government that bulk-billing rates have been dropping consecutively every single month. The latest annual data shows a Medicare bulk-billing rate of 77 per cent and 80.2 per cent for non-referred GP appointments in the 12 months to June this year. These are the lowest bulk-billing rates recorded since 2013. This is in stark comparison to the 12 months to June 2021, which saw rates at an all-time high of 88.8 per cent under the coalition. The Albanese government has overseen plummeting bulk-billing rates at a time when Australians are struggling to pay the bills, let alone cough up for an unexpected GP appointment. We know that the cost of seeing a GP could rise to over $100 per consultation. This government was elected with a promise to strengthen Medicare, yet all the data is suggesting otherwise. In fact, it has only become harder and more expensive to see a doctor under Labor, despite all the headline promises. Bulk-billing rates are falling and the cost of seeing a GP is increasing, creating an unacceptable barrier for Australians in need of critical health care. This proves how important it is to ensure the viability of Medicare is safeguarded into the future. Right now it is clear that Medicare has been weakened from every angle, and Australians cannot afford for this concerning trend to continue. That is why the coalition will always be committed to supporting the integrity and financial viability of Medicare to ensure that all Australians have access to the critical support provided by Australia's healthcare system into the future. We were glad to see the government pass the Health Legislation Amendment (Medicare Compliance and Other Measures) Bill in December last year. This was a coalition bill, which we proudly introduced into the 46th Parliament to strengthen the compliance powers of the PSR and add a degree of flexibility to their ability to address any inappropriate practice. We understand how vital it is that there continues to be rigorous and effective health practitioner compliance to protect the financial integrity of Medicare. We also have a strong track record of supporting our hardworking healthcare practitioners and peak bodies to correctly claim health payments, with a clear focus on education, engagement and consultation. Australians rightly expect that their tax dollars are being used appropriately and effectively, particularly when they are being spent on our health system, which is facing increasing pressures. We need to not only support practitioners who are doing the right thing by the taxpayer and by their patients but also identify the healthcare practitioners who are not acting in good faith. We do have concerns, however, with the amount of consultation undertaken prior to the introduction of this bill, particularly with respect to the review which prompted these reforms. Time and time again we are concerned by this government's refusal to allow for appropriate levels of consultation on their policies and to follow proper processes. Dr Philip stated in his report: Given the timeframes set for this Review, my formal consultation with stakeholders has been necessarily limited, supplemented by informal discussions with participants, and I have based most of my work on desktop analysis. Once again, we record our disappointment in the way that the tight time frames set for this review acted as a significant barrier for Dr Philip to undertake a necessarily thorough consultation. This is now a well-entrenched theme from this Labor government—they do not take the consultation process seriously, and any consultation that is formed by this government seems to be merely a political exercise. Their approach continues to be all headline and no fine print. The coalition will support this bill and its proposed changes in the interest of improving the Professional Services Review scheme. We acknowledge that this bill builds on the coalition's work to strengthen the PSR, and we are committed to supporting sensible reforms that protect the viability of Medicare long into the future. I thank the House. Debate adjourned. Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Supporting the Transition to Work) Bill 2023 4

Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Supporting the Transition to Work) Bill 2023

Second Reading 4 12:16 Mr SUKKAR 242515 Deakin In rising on Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Supporting the Transition to Work) Bill 2023, I want to move the following amendment: That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: "whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House: (1) notes: (a) the severe workforce shortages across the country, high levels of job vacancies and employing businesses having difficulty finding suitable staff; (b) hiring and retaining employees remains a key challenge for small businesses; (c) under the Government, the cost of food is up by 8.2 per cent; the cost of housing is up 10.4 per cent; the cost of insurance is up by 17 per cent; the cost of electricity is up by 18.2 per cent and the cost of gas is up 28 per cent; and (d) the failure of the Government to tackle the escalating cost of living that is impacting older Australians; and (2) calls on the Government to: (a) increase the work bonus from $300 to $600 a fortnight to incentivise eligible pensioners to work more hours without penalty from 1 January 2024; and (b) review this increase every 12 months to ensure these settings remain appropriate". The coalition will support this bill but moves a second reading amendment calling on the government, as I have just done, to increase the work bonus from $300 to $600 a fortnight. Whilst we agree with the basic proposition of this bill, which is, ultimately, to incentivise pensioners to work more hours without penalty, this does not go as far as what the coalition first put forward quite some time ago. In essence, the coalition has always believed that the best way to ensure that Australians get ahead in their lives and can be their best selves is through employment. We know that jobs change lives, they improve families and strong families make our communities better. As my second reading amendment has outlined, the cost-of-living crisis is well and truly being felt by the majority of Australians. Across our economy, we're seeing severe workforce shortages and high levels of job vacancies. Of course, it's difficult for every single business to find suitable staff. So having more people be able to access the workforce without it impacting their social services benefits, as we have advocated for for a long time, is a laudable way of not only improving their lives but also ensuring that our economy, at a time when it needs as many shoulders to the wheel in our workforce, is able to get access to a bigger pool of people. This particular measure implements measures from the government's Working futuredocument, which is their white paper on jobs and opportunities. As I have said before, when this measure was first put in place on a temporary basis, we congratulate the government on finally seeing the merits in what the coalition has already proposed in policy development. This particular measure is undoubtedly a way in which the government is able to, in essence, run with the coalition's idea in a slightly different way so they can claim it as their own thinking. The problem here, though, is that it doesn't go as far as what the coalition first announced. We first said to the government in August last year that a sensible way of addressing some of those workforce shortages was to increase the work bonus from $300 to $600 a fortnight. It was a well calibrated policy and it was done in a way that truly incentivised those people to work a little bit more without it impacting on them. We know that, throughout our social services system, very punitive taper rates apply. For every additional dollar of income earned, a disproportionate amount of benefit is either lost entirely or tapers off at quite a significant rate. One way in which, certainly on a temporary basis, that can be addressed is in this way. Twelve months ago, when debating the government's workforce incentive legislation, which was a temporary measure at that time, we—in a similar way to what I've done today—moved amendments to make the changes that were being proposed by the government to the work bonus scheme ongoing and subject to an annual review. The government didn't support that amendment, and here we are. We find ourselves now, 12 months down the track, or a bit longer, and the government is separately legislating precisely the amendments that I was moving last year. Had the government not, in a stubborn and pigheaded way, wanted to have the charade that this was somehow their idea and had independently sprung forth from their policy process—had they been honest and accepted that they were following good coalition policy—they would have accepted that amendment then, and we would be in a much better position now. We'd be saved this process of passing a separate bill just to do what I was suggesting last year. In that sense, pensioners and small businesses would already have the certainty now. In fact they would have had it for the last 12 months. So I say to the government: last year you opposed our amendments, and we find ourselves here today with you implementing our policies and implementing amendments that were put forward over 12 months ago. Bite the bullet. Have the courage of your convictions. Be honest with the Australian people. Support the amendments that I've put forward today. Let's ensure that the income-free area rises from $300 to $600, which is more generous than the $4,000 increase to the work bonus, which is the subject of this bill and which will be made permanent by virtue of this bill. It's a start. It goes part of the way, but it doesn't go the full way. Perhaps what we'll be doing, by the government accepting my amendments, is avoiding a circumstance where, in 12 or 18 months' time, we're standing back here and the government is yet again backflipping and accepting coalition policy. Let's not worry about who takes credit for it. Let's just get the best outcome for the Australian people. Let's see that increase from $300 to $600, as opposed to the $4,000 increase to the work bonus from $7,800 to $11,800, which doesn't go as far. It's a movement in the right direction but it doesn't go as far, and we are giving the government every opportunity to do that. We also are proud to support the income nil rate. This was a Howard government initiative. It was introduced in 2003, which I know seems like a lifetime ago now, but these sorts of policies, once upon a time, were contested. They were difficult policies to get through. Indeed, when we first announced in August last year that a sensible way to address our workforce shortages and to let people work a little bit more without it impacting their benefits was to increase the work bonus from $300 to $600, there was sniggering and chuckling on the other side, and I think in their heart of hearts even the Labor Party walked away and thought, 'Well, that's a sensible idea. That's a win-win.' It's a win for the individual, who gets to earn more, and it's a win for our small businesses, who get to have a larger pool of people whose talents and skills they can tap into. In many cases they are people who have had a lifetime of skill in the workforce and who have a lot to contribute. To some extent we take for granted now that it's a source of bipartisanship, but our message to the government is that this doesn't go far enough. It's a step in the right direction in that you are adopting coalition policy, but you haven't gone far enough. Let's go further. Accept our amendments and let's see a really fair dinkum increase to the work bonus: a doubling of the work bonus, as opposed to what the government is proposing. We're always happy to work with the government on sensible ways in which we can get the dual benefits of policies such as this, which is, as I said, supporting individuals and supporting small businesses and the communities that are built around them. The truth, and I say this as a former Assistant Treasurer, is that a lot is spoken in this place about the dollars and cents of getting people into the workforce and the efficacy and the size of our social welfare budget, but in the end I think for most of us in this House—certainly for most on my side of politics—the interest we have in facilitating people back into the workforce is less about the dollars and cents. It's less about the budget bottom line, important though that is, and more about the individual. As I began with in my remarks, it's more about their ability to be their best selves and to provide for themselves and their families. We know the strongest communities are those with people who have that mission each and every day to get up and go to work, to contribute to our country, to contribute to our community and, most importantly, to support themselves and their families. It's ultimately about that individual—let's forget the dollars and cents; put the abacus away—and about what's in the best interests of that person, and I think that any changes, even though they don't go as far as we here in the coalition would like and certainly don't go as far as those we proposed more than 12 months ago, are at least recognition from the government that the coalition got it right at that time and that our instincts on this were not only good for our economy but also good for individuals. Even though I might criticise the adequacy of this change and the way in which the government has sought to put in place coalition policy with a slightly different name to it, in good conscience we must support any measure, even if it doesn't go as far as we would like, that achieves the objective that I just outlined, which is to empower, to enable and to remove the barriers for individuals to be their best selves and to get back into the workforce without it being punitive and punishing, which we know can act as a disincentive. Finally, I say again to the government: let's stop the charade—support our amendments. You didn't support the amendments that I moved last year, yet we find ourselves here today, now implementing those amendments. Let's not find ourselves here in 12 or 18 months time, again taking forward coalition policy and accepting amendments I've moved, when we can do it immediately and give people that certainty. The SPEAKER 53517 Is the amendment seconded? Ms Landry 249764 I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak. Debate adjourned. Primary Industries (Excise) Levies Bill 2023 6

Primary Industries (Excise) Levies Bill 2023

Second Reading 6 12:30 Mr LITTLEPROUD 265585 Maranoa On behalf of the federal coalition I rise to speak on the Primary Industries (Excise) Levies Bill 2023 and the related set of primary industry bills—six primary industry bills which all go to the core of Australia's agricultural levy system. This is a package of bills which involve a national levy framework that is both comprehensive and complex in its nature, but which provides a crucial role in securing and strengthening the resilience and sustainability of Australian agriculture. Before we go into the detail of this legislation, it's important to recognise that our nation's agricultural levy system is something we should be immensely proud of. Growers, producers and industry stakeholders all agree that the statutory levy system has been a resounding success over many decades. It has achieved what it was intended to do and done this resoundingly. So any legislation that modifies or changes this framework must be considered carefully. Having done so, I can advise that, while the federal coalition will be supporting the passage of these bills through the House, there are some areas within this legislation package that need to be scrutinised. That's why I'm giving notice that we will be moving detailed amendments—amendments that we believe are necessary to ensure the transparency of Australia's levy framework. Our $80 billion agricultural sector makes an extraordinary contribution to the economic, social and environmental fabric of our nation. More than 300,000 Australians have jobs in agriculture, fisheries or forestry, while a further 229,000 are employed in the food and beverage manufacturing sector. Not only do our farmers produce our food and fibre but they also manage and care for 50 per cent of the entire Australian land mass. It's an incredible record, and an important reason behind this success is the agricultural levies. Australia's agricultural levy system provides for an industry led levy or charge to be imposed on farmers to pay for research; innovation and development; marketing; biosecurity activities; and national residue testing, as well as ensuring an effective response to any incursion of exotic pests or diseases. In short, these levies are used to fund priorities and initiatives a farmer could not pay for individually. Responsibility for collecting the levies on behalf of the sector lies with the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. These funds are then paid to levy recipient bodies, which include the 15 research and development corporations, plus Animal Health Australia, Plant Health Australia and the National Residue Survey. Despite the essential need for these levies, there is widespread acknowledgement that the current legislative framework does come with a fair degree of complexity and red tape. Since commencing more than 30 years ago, this framework has resulted in more than 50 pieces of legislation which govern more than 110 levies across 75 commodities and 18 levy recipients. The federal coalition recognises that this is not ideal and that it does result in some confusion for farmers and the agricultural industry. That's why, when we were in government, the coalition kickstarted a comprehensive review into the levies framework that was aimed at streamlining, modernising and deregulating the system. This review on the levies legislation was conducted in 2018 and included targeted consultation with 70 stakeholders. Overall, it found the legislative framework serves the objectives of the agricultural levy sufficiently. It also concluded that it was necessary for forging a strong relationship between government and industry. Despite this, the review also concluded that the current legislation is ineffective in meeting the industry's needs, both now and into the future. The message was clear: it was complex and inconsistent, and that with sensible changes the system could work better. So we took action. After this review, the former coalition government committed $7.2 million over four years in the 2020 budget to modernise the levy framework into one that was business friendly, fit for purpose and easy to use. So it's absolutely clear that streamlining and modernising the agricultural levy framework is something the coalition strongly supports. Ultimately, this is the government's proclaimed intent of the six bills that are before the House today, and the intent is commendable. The six bills in this package, which were introduced to modernise the framework, have been classified as follows. There are three imposition bills: the Primary Industries (Excise) Levies Bill 2023, the Primary Industries (Customs) Charges Bill 2023 and the Primary Industries (Services) Levies Bill 2023. There is one collection bill: the Primary Industries Levies and Charges Collection Bill 2023. There is one disbursement bill: the Primary Industries Levies and Charges Disbursement Bill 2023. There is one consequential amendment bill: the Primary Industries (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2023. I will start with the three imposition bills, which will enable existing excise levies and custom charges to be re-established in regulations imposing levies on products such as grains, red meat, poultry and forestry. Currently, levies and charges are split between acts and regulations, so this will allow quicker and easier adjustments to be made to the levy system, including to the rates. We also note that there is a consultation process that must happen with farmers before a levy or charge rates are changed. Other notable take-outs from this imposition bill include the ability to impose excise levies on certain agricultural services. As an example this would include bee pollination services that are provided on a commercial basis to pollinate orchards and crops, which is an industry opportunity that was not available before. The regulations will impose levies in relation to goods for use in the production of nursery products. Excise levies and custom charges will now be provided in relation to goods consumed by, or used in, the maintenance or treatment of animals, plants, fungi or algae. This will allow the horse disease response levy to be provided for in regulations, rather than in the standalone bill that we have currently. Importantly, a consistent framework will be established across all three of these imposition bills, capturing definitions and exemptions from levies or charges, as well as the rates of these. The bills also provide an instrument to set out the requirements for the conduct of a poll, which will allow the re-establishment of requirements for polls that are in place for the dairy and wool industries. Also contained in this legislation are some additional changes to Australia's levy system. This includes streamlining the ministerial process for specifying particular industry bodies, making it easier to adapt as names change, bodies merge or new bodies are established. Making other regulations and instruments will also be allowed, which will foster flexibility and deliver arrangements that are tailored to suit the agricultural industry needs. Meanwhile the maximum charge rate will be removed—a move which the government explanatory memorandum says has the support of industry stakeholders. Overall, the federal coalition believes that these measures are practical and will help make the levy system more efficient, more logical and more orderly. However, it's important to recognise that there are further improvements which should be made to these imposition bills so that the transparency of Australia's agricultural levy system is maintained and protected. During consideration in detail, we will pursue this by moving detailed amendments that the coalition hopes will be supported by the House in the spirit of bipartisanship. This will involve clarifying and solidifying the essential roles that Animal Health Australia, the AHA, and Plant Health Australia, the PHA, have within the levy framework. Both the AHA and PHA are integral in securing a national approach to enhancing Australia's plant and animal health status. They do this by facilitating industry-government partnerships for pest and disease preparedness, prevention, emergency response and management. In these bills, reference to the existing AHA levy and PHA levy have been removed. In fact the levies have been renamed as the 'biosecurity activity levy'. This is problematic. The coalition believes that removing reference to the AHA and PHA will, as a direct consequence, reduce the transparency of where the levy funds are going. Unfortunately, this has the capacity to generate confusion for levy payers, especially when we consider the future introduction of the government's biosecurity protection levy. Combined with this proposed biosecurity activity levy, this would establish three biosecurity levies. This is not an ideal outcome, and it actually goes against the aim of these bills, which is to streamline, simplify and modernise. As I've said, the coalition will be pursuing this matter further via amendments. The government 's collection bill—the Primary Industries Levies and Charges Collection Bill 2023—forms the second part of this legislative package, and I'm pleased to confirm it has the support of the coalition. We are comfortable that the provisions in this bill will improve the agricultural levy framework. Basically, it allows all levies and charges enabled by the three imposition bills to be gathered by the government, and it does not change how individual agricultural levies and charges are collected. This bill will also modernise the levy framework's monitoring, investigation and enforcement powers and bring it into line with other government regulatory schemes. In other measures, it will introduce infringement notices and civil penalties which allow for proportionate response to non-compliance. It will support the continued use and disclosure of information to administer the levy system, and it will strengthen research outcomes by allowing ABARES and other Commonwealth entities to access levy-payer and collection-agent information for statistical and agricultural policy development purposes. Finally, we move into the disbursement piece of this package, the Primary Industries Levies and Charges Disbursement Bill 2023, which is supported by the coalition. This disbursement bill simply allows the levies which are collected by the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry to be given out to the 18 recipient bodies, these of course being the 15 research and development corporations, Animal Health Australia, Plant Health Australia and the National Residue Survey. It's worth noting that the amount of funding collected by agricultural levies is significant. In 2021-22, the department collected around $600 million, and over the forward estimates that figure is not expected to change to any great extent. In summing up this package of bills, I want to reaffirm that improving the structure, efficiency and operation of Australia's agricultural levy system is something that the federal coalition is strongly committed to. It was a process that commenced when we were in office, and, on the side of the House, we will always work constructively with government on measures that will benefit our agricultural sector. Therefore, the coalition will be supporting the passage of these bills through the House and moving amendments that will ensure our levy system is completely transparent in how it's run. Another reason why we'll be supporting this legislation is because it is different from Labor's proposed Biosecurity Protection Levy, which is expected to take $153 million from farmers over the next three years. However, the coalition is concerned the imposition of this new levy will interfere with existing industry imposed levies by causing confusion in the sector and potentially putting the whole agricultural levy system at risk. But not only would the new biosecurity protection levy cause confusion, it's just bad, lazy policy and punishes farmers. Announced by the government in their May budget, this new levy was Labor's answer to delivering a sustainable funding model for biosecurity. Under the government's levy, Australian farmers will be hit with a bill equivalent to 10 per cent of their existing industry-led agricultural levies from 1 July next year. This approach is appalling, shocking and absurd. Why would any Australian government tax their own farmers to pay for the biosecurity risks of their international competitors to bring their products into this country. To slug our farmers with this levy hit is fundamentally unfair. In fact, at Senate estimates when the minister for agriculture was questioned on why the levy was set at a rate of 10 per cent, he admitted he felt this rate was a fair contribution to make. Crucially, this amount was not based on any kind of economic modelling or evidence—it was simply plucked from thin air. Having dealt with this legislation today, we know the agricultural sector already contributes significant amounts of funding into biosecurity activities through their existing industry levies. The government should appreciate this reality and immediately scrap such a forward proposal. They should listen to those voices of industry stakeholders who are united in their opposition to what amounts to an undeserved tax grab on the hardworking men and women who produce our food and fibre. When it comes to agricultural levies and maintaining the integrity of our nation's biosecurity system, this policy completely misses the mark. On this side of the House, we know that having a strong and robust biosecurity system is vital for protecting Australia against the threat of exotic pests and disease. That's why the coalition has always supported a sustainable funding model for biosecurity. However, taxing farmers was never considered or part of the mix. In contrast to those opposite, our approach to funding biosecurity into the long-term was targeted at the risk creators, the importers. This was to be done through what is known as a container import levy, which would apply to all containerised cargo imported into Australia by sea. This is what the coalition stands for and it's what the agricultural sector is calling for. This government ought to apply some commonsense, listen to these concerns and take the action that's required. In conclusion, the federal coalition is proud of Australia's world-leading agricultural levy system and the enormous contribution that it makes in the fields of innovation, research and biosecurity. We want to see this success continue in the future. Our primary producers and our national biosecurity system depend on a levy framework that is fair, modern and efficient. When it comes to the measures outlined in these six bills before the House today, they have our support and we hope the coalition's sensible amendments will have the support of the government. Debate adjourned. Treasury Laws Amendment (Support for Small Business and Charities and Other Measures) Bill 2023 8

Treasury Laws Amendment (Support for Small Business and Charities and Other Measures) Bill 2023

Second Reading 8 12:45 Mr TAYLOR 231027 Hume I move: That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: "whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House:    (1) notes:       (a) the former government provided extensive support for 3.6 million small and medium businesses, which employ almost 8 million Australians, including through tax relief to support investment and reduce costs; energy programs and initiatives to reduce their power bills; and providing billions in support to keep small businesses open and Australians in jobs during the pandemic;       (b) small and medium businesses will be hurt the hardest by the Government's first round of workplace reforms, which the e61 institute analysis has shown will harm firm growth and hurt competition; and       (c) that despite promising to only raise taxes on multinationals at the election, the Government has broken promises by raising taxes on superannuation, on unrealised capital gains, on franking credits, and end small business tax incentives; and    (2) calls on the Government to support the Opposition's amendment to restore the Instant Asset Write Off to pre-COVID levels to boost productivity and take pressure off prices". The Treasury Laws Amendment (Support for Small Business and Charities and Other Measures) Bill 2023 is an eight-schedule Treasury omnibus bill that implements a range of changes to small-business tax incentives, charity tax arrangements, superannuation complaints, superannuation transfer pricing rules and tax treatment of insurance. While not opposed in principle, the coalition has significant concerns about the design, effectiveness and utility of the small-business incentive, and will examine this through the Senate Economics Legislation Committee. The coalition is also concerned about Labor's plan to create different rules for large superannuation funds and small and self-managed super funds through its changes to the non-arm's-length expenses provision, and will examine this too through the Senate Economics Legislation Committee. While the coalition will support the bill, we will move amendments to recognise failures from Labor to support small and family businesses and to extend the instant asset write-off back to the levels seen in the 2019-20 budget. Schedule 1 of this bill will mean 26,500 medium-sized businesses will be deprived of access to accelerated depreciation. Sadly, this is just another example of this Labor government turning its back on the small-business community. Small businesses employ almost half of Australia's private sector workforce and represent over 97 per cent of all Australian businesses. Since Labor came to office, small business has been all but abandoned in Labor's draft national platform and is an afterthought, and has been an afterthought, in each budget. Time and time again this government has demonstrated it simply does not understand small business—returning union lawlessness to the construction industry by abolishing the ABCC and the Registered Organisations Commission, removing flexibility from the gig economy, depriving gig economy contractors of the flexibility they rely on and driving up costs for small businesses that use those services. Labor's series of changes to superannuation, award variations and workplace entitlements will make it more expensive for small businesses to employ Australians—and we know what that means; they will employ fewer Australians. Labor's energy policies are increasing power bills for small businesses that then have to be passed on to consumers in higher prices. Sadly, that means we are not seeing anything like the $275 reduction that was promised by Labor on so many occasions. Even Labor's multinational tax crackdown has been designed so poorly that the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry has told the Senate that the law will increase taxes on Australian small businesses. This is an incompetent and distracted government putting in place the wrong policies to support small businesses to prosper and grow. A small business that has to close employs nobody. Labor's plan for more cost, more red tape and more union power will see small businesses shut their doors in the coming months and years. That's why the coalition is moving amendments. Our amendments will mean 26,500 businesses with aggregate turnover of up to $50 million will be eligible to use the instant asset write-off. The asset threshold will increase from $20,000 to $30,000, allowing businesses to claim accelerated depreciation on a wider range of assets. This aligns the eligibility with the small-business company tax rate and Labor's Small Business Energy Incentive measure contained within the bill. Our amendments would also have a modest additional cost over the forward estimates compared to Labor's measure. This is a government that is removing measures that would help drive productivity at a time when we have seen a record collapse in labour productivity. We've seen a record collapse in labour productivity in the last 18 months in this country. This bill is just another example of a government that can't manage the economy and that is distracted. While the government has been focused on its divisive and failed referendum, the Reserve Bank, the International Monetary Fund and the OECD all expect inflation to be higher for longer. Minutes of the latest meeting of the Reserve Bank Board suggests that the RBA was tossing up between leaving rates on hold and increasing them again by another quarter of a per cent. Sadly, they made the call to increase, and that is not surprising given the policy and economic context that has been given to them by this government. Australians need a government that makes reducing the cost of living priorities No. 1, No. 2 and No.3. We aren't seeing that under this government. It is a distracted government. A small business that has to close employs nobody. Labor's plan for more costs, more red tape and more union power will see small businesses shut their doors. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 230531 Is the amendment seconded? Ms Landry 249764 I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak. Debate adjourned. Crown References Amendment Bill 2023 10

Crown References Amendment Bill 2023

Second Reading 10 12:52 Ms LANDRY 249764 Capricornia The Crown References Amendment Bill is a solution to a problem that does not exist. Under section 16 of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901, existing references to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II in Commonwealth acts are already construed as references to the present His Majesty King Charles III. The Crown References Amendment Bill 2023 makes several amendments to a variety of bills to replace outdated references to 'Her Majesty' and 'the Queen' with 'the King' and 'the sovereign'. The bill creates a new term for senior counsel to include 'King's Counsel' and 'Queen's Counsel'. The bill amends oaths and affirmations by removing references to 'Her Majesty' to insert the applicable pronoun, such as 'his' or 'her'. That is, a king would be referred to as 'His Majesty' and a queen would be referred to as 'Her Majesty'. However, it is important for the coalition that we seek assurances that the government has consulted with the crown's representative in Australia, the Governor-General, before we can take a formal position. The coalition does, however, wonder why this is the priority of the government in a cost-of-living crisis. It is clear that this government does not have a plan for the economy while Australians are in a cost-of-living crisis. This government's priority is semantic changes to legislation rather than bringing in real legislation to help Australian families. Debate adjourned. Disability Services and Inclusion Bill 2023, Disability Services and Inclusion (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2023 10

Disability Services and Inclusion Bill 2023

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

Second Reading 10 12:54 Mr WALLACE 265967 Fisher I was talking last night about the fact that there are 4.4 million Australians who are living with a disability. People who live with a disability are 10 times more likely to experience violence. They are three times more likely to be victims of sexual assault than people who don't have a disability. Their life expectancy and their quality of life is significantly less than most Australians without a disability. Theirs—people who live with a disability—is a cause that we must all take up. As the father of a young adult with disabilities, I have seen firsthand how government can help but also hinder efforts to raise kids and empower young adults with disabilities. That's why I've advocated for accessibility, amenity and health and social care since day one in this House. I'm proud of the way that our parliament has worked together over the last 40 years to realise a fairer, more equitable and more accessible Australia. For over a decade, both sides of this chamber have been united in their pursuit to make the National Disability Insurance Scheme a world-class, functional and resilient institution. It's really worthwhile stopping and pausing a moment to recognise just how world-leading the NDIS is in the disability sector. We were the first country in the world to adopt such a scheme. I'm not sure if it's been replicated, even to this day. There are critics of the NDIS about its cost, and it does cost a significant sum of money, but the lives that it changes, from young kids, to young adults, to adults—it is a remarkable scheme. It is a testament to both sides, both parties of government, working together to achieve the intended outcome. The NDIS is as much valued today in our Australian society as is our universal commitment to Medicare. The current Disability Services Act has been in place for 37 years. In the decades since 1986, there have been numerous developments in the disability sector, including changes in legislation, regulations, international agreements and the provision of disability services. The Disability Services and Inclusion Bill 2023 will support all Australians with a disability, regardless of whether or not they are participants in the NDIS. The bill will provide a single-source statutory framework for the Commonwealth to fund disability supports and services that are not funded by the NDIS, the states or territories. This bill will not change, nor will it impact, the NDIS or the disability support pension paid under social security law. The Disability Services and Inclusion Bill 2023 will provide legislative authority for new and existing spending on disability related programs outside the NDIS. The bill does not directly allocate funding for specific supports or services; rather, it oversees these supports and services. The bill also improves quality and safeguarding arrangements by introducing a mandatory code, which will mirror the NDIS Code of Conduct. Under this bill, supports and services may be provided to any person with a disability, including those with a physical, psychosocial, cognitive or intellectual condition or sensory impairments. Whilst there are good parts of the bill, I don't agree with all parts of the bill. One of the concerns I have with the bill is its failure to define target groups. This is where the key issue lies with this piece of legislation. The bill does not define target groups that will be eligible for supports and services. This is a departure from the current legislation. Under section 8 of the current legislation, the Disability Services Act 1986: (1) … 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. While not having a legislated definition of 'target group' 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 who are most in need. The inquiry currently underway in the Senate should provide greater insights into these concerns. I'm also concerned about the changes to funding channels through the new legislation. The current legislation only allows for funding through grants, while, under this legislation, other forms of financial arrangements, such as procurements and contracts, are permitted. The act also enables the minister to make grants of financial assistance to states and territories or to eligible organisations for capital works, research activities, disability services and rehabilitation programs. I think that in many ways this is actually a positive thing. The social care sector is in desperate need for innovation and reinvigoration. The old model of the care economy is changing, and we need to be more responsive to technology, health and medical research and opportunities for more effective but perhaps lesser recognised service providers. Loosening the legislation to allow better public access and engagement only works where procurements and contracts are awarded fairly, transparently and with regard to the private sector and community sector—specifically, localised services and small and family businesses. I am concerned about this for a few reasons. Firstly, this either directly or indirectly means relying on the minister's discretion. Labor have shown that their exercising of ministerial discretion is unreliable. It's the same discretion which saw mobile phone service rorts. It's the same discretion which saw cuts to space, cyber and defence technologies. It's the same discretion which has seen a 90-day review to infrastructure become a 200-day political exercise, at the expense of regional communities across this country. Labor's discretion is guided by union interests and political expediency. You cannot count on Labor to have your best interests at heart. Along the same lines, I'm incredibly concerned about the disproportionate impact of Labor's discretionary decisions on regional and remote communities. Mobile services, road and rail and defence manufacturing projects; taxes and red tape on truckies, fisheries, forestry and agriculture; and Pacific labour mobility, backpacker visas and regional student worker incentives—all of these have unfairly impacted on regional communities, regional economies, regional businesses and regional families. The fact is that, when Labor gets into power, regional Australians miss out. When Labor gets hold of the purse strings, regional Australians pay the price. Labor seriously need to consider how they engage and actually implement the concerns of regional Australians, their service providers and their businesses. When we were in government we understood this. In 2021 we released the landmark Australia's Disability Strategy 2021-2031, which was a transformative new strategy backed by a $250 million investment. It was a decade-long plan guided by an implementation advisory council of experts and lived experience practitioners. The aim of the strategy is to improve the lives of all Australians with a disability. It sets out priorities and plans for governments at all levels to work with the community, business and people with disability to deliver the needed changes. This includes providing good employment opportunities; providing high-quality, inclusive education; and making homes and communities safe, inclusive and accessible. Signatories to the new strategy include the Prime Minister, the first ministers of all state and territory governments and the president of the Australian Local Government Association. In our last full financial year in office the coalition government delivered more than $39 billion in direct support to Australians with a disability, including $17.7 billion in the disability support pension, $1.4 billion for disability employment services, $155.3 million for the disability royal commission, $134 million for the Information Linkages and Capacity Building program to support community based and evidence based support services and $13.8 million for the Disability Gateway. We mainstreamed the vulnerabilities of people with disabilities across all portfolios, including child safety, family violence, education, employment, industrial relations and even foreign policy. That's what a government does when it cares—it listens, it learns, it leads and it legislates where required. We await the findings of the Senate committee inquiry into these bills. I simply ask that the government take into consideration the two concerns that I've raised: firstly, that it reconsiders the broad definition of target groups and, secondly, that it seriously considers its track record in relation to supporting regional communities and looks to rectify this before it legislates to allow funding that is open to ministerial discretion. If the government cannot be trusted to keep the faith with regional Australians then it cannot be trusted with the social care of our most vulnerable. In the short time left for me I want to raise one thing in relation to disability services. I recently travelled with my daughter in a mobility scooter through Sydney Airport. I have to say that the disability services at Sydney Airport were absolutely appalling. Sydney Airport, particularly Qantas, needs to take a very good, long hard look at itself. I cannot imagine how a person who is unassisted would be able to navigate their way around terminals. With transport— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 230531 I thank the member for Fisher for his contribution. 13:07 Ms MASCARENHAS 298800 Swan I start by thanking the member for Fisher for sharing his experience as an MP and also as a father of a daughter with a disability. It sounds like he has firsthand lived experience of the way our world is geared. It sounds like he had a pretty awful process at Sydney Airport. I hope someone is listening and they can action how we can improve accessibility for all Australians, including those with a disability. Inclusion is something that is close to my heart. There are many people here in this place who have a connection to someone—a friend or a loved one—with a disability. The person who comes to my mind is Alice Migdale. She is a woman I have known for over 20 years. She has cerebral palsy   . She is incredibly smart and positive. She was studying psychology when I met her. She is also a really great social justice advocate. She is also in an electric wheelchair. We always love spending time with Alice. One thing I think is important in this place is that we are conscious of the decisions we make and how they impact the lives of others. Fundamentally, I believe in an Australia where everyone belongs and where everyone can be understood, heard and included, so I welcome this opportunity to contribute to the debate on this very important legislation—the Disability Services and Inclusion Bill 2023 and the Disability Services and Inclusion (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2023—and I am proud to be part of a government that puts the interests of people with a disability who live in our community at the centre of its public policy. A sense of belonging is feeling that you belong to a group or a community. The opposite is isolation and exclusion. Fundamentally, belonging is important for everyone's health and wellbeing. Unfortunately, many of our systems, institutions and structures are still catching up with the needs of people living with disabilities. Because of this, people living with disabilities are at risk of being marginalised and are probably being marginalised at times. When individuals are unable to participate fully in economic, social, political and cultural life, it leads to social exclusion. When people are denied full access to rights, opportunities and resources that are normally available to members of a different group, this leads to exclusion. Some may describe exclusion as unintentional, such as when disabled people are excluded from services or excluded from participating in social or civic life or have issues travelling through Sydney airport simply because there is a lack of awareness about their needs. This is why we need to be very intentional and make concerted efforts to ensure that structural exclusions are rectified and stamped out. This means introducing laws that actively include people with a disability and encouraging programs and activities that promote awareness of the needs of people with disabilities. It is something that I have thought about in my role as an MP. In fact, for my last mobile office that we held in my electorate, we had an Auslan interpreter. It's a small step at a local level, but it's an example of how we can include people in our community and make sure they can be included in providing feedback to the government and be consulted with. It's an example of how we can provide access to participation in civic life to make sure that the voices of all people are heard. It's time for the entire community to become more aware of our deaf community and recognise their culture, their language and their achievements. The National Week of Deaf People occurred last month, and the national organisation representing deaf people, Deaf Connect, hosted a parliamentary breakfast in this place to promote those achievements. I was inspired by the representatives from the deaf community speaking out about their experiences. They talked about the importance of the NDIS and the wonderful Auslan language in promoting the inclusion of deaf people in the community. They also threw some great questions to the NDIS minister, Bill Shorten, which I think that some people, including the media in the press gallery, would be a little bit jealous of. Similar events have taken place around the country. Such events will continue to make sure that we're making a difference to ensure that deaf people are known and included in communities and groups and that their needs are known and understood. But more needs to be done at a statutory level. For all of us, a sense of belonging gives us the sense of wellbeing that we need to prosper, so why should people with a disability be excluded from that? That's why I'm proud to be part of a government that, through statutory reform, is delivering a commitment to enabling people with a disability to participate fully in a society. The current legislative framework is outdated. Legislation that is now almost 40 years old does not account for changes to the public policy framework since it was introduced. Firstly, it doesn't account for Australia's international obligations in protecting the rights of people with disability. It was a commitment made by Australia when we ratified the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities in 2007. The purpose of this treaty is to promote, protect and ensure the full, equal enjoyment of all human rights and fundamental freedoms by all persons with disabilities and to promote respect for their inherent dignity. Parties to this convention are required to ensure that people with disabilities are treated equally and fairly. The changes made by this bill will reflect our commitments and obligations. Secondly, the current statutory framework does not account for the introduction of the National Disability Insurance Scheme in 2013, which was rolled out across Australia by 2020. The NDIS now supports more than half a million adults and children with a disability. Many of these people are receiving support for the first time. This includes people in my electorate, who can get support through a wonderful, homegrown organisations which is leading the way as an NDIS service provider. It's in East Victoria Park, and it's called the Healthy Strides Foundation. I am really proud to share with you that Healthy Strides is a world-class and leading facility that puts the latest science, technology and research into practice through intensive therapy programs, and the results are truly transformational. It's providing outcomes for nearly 300 NDIS clients who access their work and facilities. When you step into Healthy Strides, you see enthusiastic staff and high-technology equipment, and it's a fun, bright and child-friendly environment. I can see all the students upstairs here right now, watching the parliamentary proceedings; the truth is that we want all children to achieve their full potential. We want to see these children and students having a sense of belonging so that they can engage in community. We want to see every single person with respect and inherent dignity. This is part of the philosophy at Healthy Strides; it's an approach that's based on the needs of individuals. They have intensive therapy programs where, basically, they look at the individual and measure each child's development by using high-tech equipment and then tailor their program accordingly. It's innovative technology transforming the lives of NDIS clients on a scale that was unimaginable decades ago. This is why this government wants to ensure that the NDIS is sustainable for the future—to make sure that it's here to stay so that organisations like Healthy Strides will prosper and be replicated. This will ensure that we see more fantastic outcomes for children across the nation. The changes introduced by this bill will ensure that our legislative framework supports such initiatives. It will do this by matching the achievements of the NDIS. The bill will reflect on another significant milestone: the implementation of Australia's Disability Strategy 2021 to 2031. The strategy outlines a vision for a more inclusive and accessible society in Australia—a place where all people with disability can fulfil their potential as equal members of the community. For the strategy to achieve its mission, it needs the legislative framework to support it. That's why the legislation we have before us today is critical. It will establish a framework that reflects the current landscape for service provision for people living with a disability and it will adapt to changing needs. How will the bill do this for all? It will introduce a code of conduct that mirrors the NDIS Code of Conduct. This will contribute to an improvement in the safeguarding arrangements for disability services. It will also align quality standards with those that have been put in place by the NDIS, and will provide the ability for disability services to recognise other standards relevant to disability service provision. It's this provision which is relevant to the release of the disability royal commission final report, which made 222 recommendations. This bill will strengthen safeguards and support a timely response to the recommendations of the commission. It will strengthen the legislative framework that supports people with a disability and won't exclude non-NDIS initiatives. One of the recommendations of the royal commission was the development of a disabilities rights act, and this is a development that I welcome. This will be an important step towards a proactive approach in good mechanisms for the treatment of people living with a disability. The Disability Discrimination Act 1992 is reactive; it comes into force when discrimination against people with a disability is already allegedly occurring or has occurred. The proposed disability rights act will enshrine in law the ability to make proactive and positive actions to ensure the inclusion of, and the protection of the rights of, people with a disability. This bill will work towards those actions and will mean the inclusion of some of the most marginalised people in our society, such as Indigenous Australians who live with a disability. For example, it will support Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people by providing them with culturally-sensitive protective rights. It will provide legislative authority for current and future programs, as identified for attention by the royal commission. The bill will not be restricted by a definition of 'disability'. That means that it will provide a broad approach, not limited in its application, and the ability to respond to current needs and adapt to future ones. Including a definition of 'disability' in the bill would function to exclude. This would be contrary to the overarching premise of this bill. Therefore, I support the position of the bill to omit the definition of 'disability', noting that it was a decision made after two rounds of consultation. In conclusion, people with a disability have the same rights as every other member of our Australian community: the same right to receive support or services, the same right to control over the decisions that affect their lives and the same right to pursue a remedy or complain after receiving poor services. The bill before us today is based on the principles that I have outlined and upholds this fundamental premise that people living with a disability have the same rights as everyone else. It honours the commitment of the Albanese Labor government, and I stand here advocating for the passage of this bill as a proud member of the government. It means that we, in this House, can create the legislative framework to safeguard the rights of people living with a disability, to create an environment for people in the community to construct the standard of service that is needed to ensure that people living with a disability are heard, to ensure that people living with a disability are included and to ensure that people living with a disability experience the same sense of belonging as other people in our community. It means including people to ensure they have the best opportunity to reach their full potential and have autonomy and control in terms of how they do this. That's what this bill is about. This single, unified piece of enabling legislation will ensure consistency. It will promote best practice. It will be responsive to the modern public policy framework, and it will develop a more streamlined approach to the administration of disability supports and services. It's fit-for-purpose legislation, and I think that it has the ability to improve the lives of all Australians with a disability. For that reason, I commend this bill to the House. 13:22 Mr BATES 300246 Brisbane I want to start by thanking all those in the disability community who contributed to the feedback on the Disability Services and Inclusion Bill 2023, throughout both the initial government consultations and the inquiry. Their continued involvement has allowed for the voices of those with lived experiences to be heard. The Australian Greens welcome the repeal of the Disability Services Act 1986, which entrenches segregation and fails to set out a vision for an inclusive Australian society. By stating that the objectives of this bill are to 'provide funding, outside of the National Disability Insurance Scheme, to persons that provide supports and services for the benefit of people with disability, their families and carers' and 'advance the inclusion and social and economic participation of people with disability', the government sets itself a benchmark of success in this legislation which it seriously fails to meet. This bill also fails to implement recommendations of the Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with a Disability. The Australian Greens are disappointed and frustrated by these failures because we understand the effort expended by the disability community over decades to share clearly with the federal government the barriers to inclusion experienced by disabled people and the services and policy responses needed to break those barriers down. In my own electorate of Brisbane, I have heard from dozens of constituents calling for change. In their submissions, the disability community are clear that this bill is an opportunity to put into action Australia's commitment to the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. This would include committing to time frames for the end of segregated employment, segregated education and segregated housing. Moreover, it would include proactive steps to ensure the provision of services for disabled people over 65 who are not eligible for the National Disability Insurance Scheme. This is an area that has particularly impacted residents in my electorate, and I'd like to share the story of one constituent who, unfortunately, was not able to access the NDIS because she had just reached 65 years of age. This jeopardised assistance with all her activities of daily living, including cleaning and meal prep, as well as support for her to access social events and connect with her community. Moreover, access to the NDIS would have offered her an array of assistive technology to be determined through consultation, assessment and support by an occupational therapist. This is an opportunity to tangibly and immediately improve the lives of disabled people, including by making reforms to the disability support pension, ensuring the provision of equitable access to preventative and primary health care and making reforms to ensure national standardisation, including a national assistance animal framework. Such reforms are all absent from this bill. The only barrier to the inclusion of these mechanisms is political will. Therefore, while the Greens are supporting this bill in the House, we will seek to make significant amendments to the bill in the Senate, in line with the calls of the disability community. We implore the government and opposition to support these amendments. It is imperative that this opportunity to replace the Disability Services Act does not pass by without our doing everything we can to end the cycle of segregation that too many disabled people find themselves trapped within. 13:26 Mr NEUMANN HVO Blair I rise to support the Disability Services and Inclusion Bill 2023. This is a very important piece of legislation because it will help one in six Australians who are living with disability. This bill, together with the Disability Services and Inclusion (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2023, replaces the Disability Services Act 1986. Anyone listening to this broadcast who thinks of how we understood people living with disabilities back in 1986, compared to our much better understanding of the needs, aspirations and wants of people living with disability now, will appreciate that this bill is a very important piece of legislation that will help so many Australians. The bill will establish a framework for the funding and regulation of programs for the benefit of people living with disability. And it doesn't just affect the one in six Australians who are living with disability. Think about their families and their carers and how important this type of legislation is. Through this bill, the Albanese Labor government is going to strengthen supports for people living with disability outside the National Disability Insurance Scheme. We're reforming that scheme. Under the previous government, that scheme was let go. It wasn't operating anywhere near effectively enough for the hundreds of thousands of people who are enjoying the benefits of that scheme. There are many, many more Australians living with disability who are outside of that scheme because they do not qualify for the NDIS, and this piece of legislation that is before the chamber will support them. The bill seeks to repeal and replace that old piece of legislation from 1986 with a stronger piece of legislation that has better safeguards and a more modern approach to disability. It seeks to ensure that we provide a better way to fund disability services and support them now and into the future. There are quality and safeguard requirements for supports provided outside the NDIS—and as I said, this bill goes beyond the NDIS—through a mandatory code of conduct and certification, when required. The bill also gives effect to Australia's obligations. Under our Constitution, there is a foreign affairs power that gives the federal government power to pass laws and sign treaties and also to bring those treaties into effect in Australian law. The legislation that is before the chamber gives effect to Australia's obligations under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. It introduces a more modern and inclusive framework to provide responses to the Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability. It supports people living with disability to participate in the development and review of services and supports. That consumer choice is absolutely critical. We consider that is really important in the aged-care reforms that we introduced when we were last in government—the living longer, living better package under the current Minister for Health and Ageing. The reforms in this legislation are about giving people greater choice as well. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate will be resumed at a later hour, and the member will be granted leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed. STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS 15 STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS World Diabetes Day 15 13:30 Mr RAMSEY HWS Grey Today is World Diabetes Day, and I'm co-chair of the parliamentary 'enemies of diabetes' group with my friend the member for Moreton, Graham Perrett, who we'll be hearing from in a moment. In 2023 the campaign focuses on the importance of knowing the risk of type 2 diabetes, to help delay or prevent the condition. There are 1.9 million Australians registered on the National Diabetes Services Scheme, with over 300 new people diagnosed every day, and an estimated half a million Australians with type 2 diabetes remain undiagnosed. Type 2 diabetes is endemic and epidemic, and diabetes is the seventh-most common cause of death by disease in Australia. The electorate of Grey, covering more than 92 per cent of South Australia, has the highest diabetes rate in Australia. In fact, state by state, South Australia has the highest incidence of diabetes in the country. I'm not sure why this is so but it needs to be recognised and we need to try to turn that around. As I often say, diabetes is the leading cause of coronary heart disease, blindness and amputation. It is also a major contributor to kidney disease. It's a good thing to avoid if you can, and the good news is: with a healthy diet, good exercise programs and attention to general health, you will generally increase your chances of avoiding diabetes. Diabetes in many cases is a hidden killer, with people officially succumbing to the above aforementioned ailments. But make no mistake: it sets the precondition for life-taking diseases. (Time expired) World Diabetes Day 16 13:31 Mr PERRETT HVP Moreton As just stated by the very hardworking member for Grey, today is World Diabetes Day; that's why I'm wearing this badge. I co-chair the Parliamentary Friends for the Prevention of Diabetes group with the member for Grey. He's set out the horror story. As co-chairs, we're very passionate about raising awareness for a condition that affects over 1.5 million Australians. Type 1 is very complicated. My mother suffered from type 2 diabetes, diagnosed in her late 50s to early 60s. Coming from country Queensland, a good diet of fresh fruit and veggies wasn't always cheap or readily available—especially for a single parent with 10 children. One of my siblings has just been diagnosed as prediabetic. While my sibling walks to and from work every day, you can't run outrun or outwalk a bad diet. However, as the member for Grey said, there is good news: if you change your diet and lifestyle, you can reduce the risk of type 2 diabetes. Not only is diabetes detrimental at a personal level; it has massive economic costs, with the total annual cost coming in at around $17.6 billion, according to Diabetes Australia. Diabetes Australia provides a number of services including education and support programs, including the Diabetes in Schools program to provide support to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students living with type 2 diabetes. On World Diabetes Day, I ask all to think of the impact diabetes has on Australians and to educate— (Time expired) Capricornia Electorate: Infrastructure 16 13:33 Ms LANDRY 249764 Capricornia On 1 November I was honoured to attend the official opening of the new Alliance Airlines heavy maintenance facility in Rockhampton. When I was first elected as the federal member for Capricornia I toured Rockhampton Airport and could see the enormous potential it had as a future international airport. At the start of 2021 Alliance Airlines brought to me their plan to bring the maintenance of their fleet of 70 aircraft back to Australian shores. It was easy to see the great impact a project of this magnitude would have on the Rockhampton region's economy, with $342 million to be injected back into the economy over the next 30 years. By May 2021 I secured $25 million of funding through the community grant fund and a further NAIF loan of up to $30 million for the $60 million project. During the two-year construction of the 10,000 square metre facility, 115 jobs were created, while ongoing operation will deliver over 100 highly skilled aviation jobs. A knock-on effect will also create new business and job opportunities in other aviation related services. This facility is a key piece of infrastructure, which will continue to solidify and diversify Rockhampton's economy. I congratulate Scott McMillan and his team on the momentous occasion and the lasting legacy that the Alliance Airlines Aircraft and Maintenance Facility will have for our region. Youth Voice In Parliament Week 16 13:35 Ms BYRNES 299145 Cunningham This week we are participating in the Youth Voice in Parliament campaign, championed by Ash, Gemma and the team at Raise Our Voice. Today's speech is from Yasmin Matar, a 14-year-old constituent from Cunningham, and these are Yasmin's words. The proportion of Australian university students from lower-socioeconomic backgrounds has barely increased in over a decade. In 2008 it was recorded that 15 per cent of undergraduates were from lower-socioeconomic backgrounds, whereas in 2019 this statistic only increased by two per cent. Since 2010, the Australian government has invested nearly $1.5 billion in higher education equity programs, yet participation and retention rates for the lower-SES remain far below other students. So why hasn't this $1.5 billion changed anything? Let's look at this from the beginning. These students aren't getting into uni because they need to complete high school. A study conducted by the NSW Department of Education showed that by age 19 only 61 per cent of lower-socioeconomic groups have completed year 12, compared to the 89 per cent of high-socioeconomic students. How can we fix this? By incentivising the completion of high school and providing free university education, we can not only increase the percentage of low-SES students attending and graduating university but help lower-SES children exit the cycle of poverty. This will mean, instead of staying on welfare and depending on the government for support, they will have prospects to get jobs and be self-supportive. (Time expired) Youth Voice In Parliament Week 17 13:36 Ms TINK 300124 North Sydney I'm delighted to amplify the following statement from a 20-year-old university student in North Sydney, who wrote this speech as part of the Raise Our Voice initiative, an initiative designed to amplify the voices of young women and gender diverse people in politics, domestic and foreign policy. She writes: I believe parliament should prioritise mental health prevention through mandated compulsory education for primary and high-school students. This education should be stigma free, age appropriate and inclusive. In year 5, I experienced my first period of severe mental ill-health when depression made eating, sleeping and socialising with my peers a daily challenge. But I am not alone in my experience. The 2014 Young Minds Matter national household survey estimated that 14 per cent of four- to 17-year-olds experienced a mental illness in that past 12 months. It is also well-known that suicide is the leading cause of death for young people in our nation—the leading cause of death for young Australians. Mental health is vital to health and wellbeing, and every child that grows up in our nation deserves the right to reach a healthy adulthood. Through improving mental health literacy, we could improve help-seeking rates and reduce the shame around talking about mental health. Mental health education provides hope for the upcoming generations—hope that we may help people feel less alone, help that we may reduce the nine Australians that take their lives every day in our country. I thank this young woman for her powerful statement and I add my voice to hers: young Australians need our protection and support more than ever. Robertson Electorate: Munen Muso Martial Arts Studio 17 13:38 Dr REID 300126 Robertson The 2023 International Sport Karate Association World Cup in Sydney saw 1,400 competitors, covering 201 teams from 11 countries, converge at the Whitlam Leisure Centre in Liverpool for three days of competition. I'm pleased to report that the Munen Muso Martial Arts Studio from Erina, in my electorate of Robertson, saw several of its students take out accolades at this World Cup. This included the Munen Muso Martial Arts Studio's synchronised KATA team, who were Logan Johnson, Nick Wangman and Kanela Dalton. This tremendous team was able to secure the coveted first place and are now world champions in this category. Synchronised KATA requires competitors to demonstrate a high level of teamwork and discipline, and it's a huge accomplishment for Munen Muso Martial Arts Studio and its students Logan, Nick and Kanela to have claimed this world title. I congratulate the team on their commitment, perseverance and outstanding skill set to achieve this feat. I commend the Munen Muso Martial Arts Studio owners, Grand Master 9th Dan Gary Johnson and Master 7th Dan Leanne Johnson, who manage the highly equipped and safe martial arts studio in Erina, imparting their wealth of knowledge on martial arts to the Central Coast community. To all the students of Munen Muso Martial Arts Studio: well done on your sporting endeavours, keep up the phenomenal work and keep making your community proud. Youth Voice in Parliament Week 17 13:39 Mr BATES 300246 Brisbane I would like to share a speech from a young Brisbane resident, Araminta Crocombe: In a country as advanced as Australia it is important that we acknowledge that not all students start from the same starting line. Education is not merely a privilege; it is a fundamental human right. Australia claims to have "free" education, yet families in the state school system face voluntary fees each year. As of 2023, these fees and other school related expenses cost families $2325 each year if your child attends a public primary school, and $4212 if your child attends a public secondary school. There is significant pressure to pay these fees. For example, in many schools, students who have not paid these fees are unable to attend their formal or participate in extracurricular activities such as school sporting teams. As a fifteen-year-old student who attends a public high school, I see first-hand how the burden of school fees can impact a student's education. The burden of school fees can cause significant obstacles and financial hardship for many families. Education should not be limited by a family's ability to pay, so I call upon the government to start fully funding state education and abolish school fees because every child deserves the right to have an equal opportunity to pursue knowledge and fulfil their dreams, regardless of their background or socioeconomic status. Bateman Winthrop Scout Group 17 13:41 Mr LIM 300130 Tangney I recently visited the Bateman Winthrop Scout Group to catch up with the local scouts and see the benefit that came through from the round 8 Stronger Communities Program. Being a scout is a wonderful experience, and scouting is a worldwide youth movement of nearly 40 million members, with 7,600 scouts involved in my home state of Western Australia. The Bateman Winthrop Scout Group is a part of this energetic movement and has been operating since 1976. I was very excited to meet with many young scouts and their scout leaders. This community is made up of an amazing group of volunteers, who are dedicated to sharing the scouting experience and building better community minded members for our society. I take my hat off to these volunteers, who are committed to building the skill, resilience and spirit of the young scouts. The group leader, Ana Coelho, called the group to attention, and I was proudly invested with an honorary membership to the Bateman Winthrop Scout Group and presented with my neck scarf and woggle, something for which I was truly honoured. I look forward to spending more time with my local scout group and learning more lessons from the young scouts. Western Sydney Airport 18 13:42 Mr LEESER 109556 Berowra It's an achievement of the last coalition government that it decided to proceed with a new Western Sydney airport at Badgerys Creek. For 50 years, it had been on the drawing board and political leaders had been too frightened to start work on this vital infrastructure. Labor's last infrastructure minister, Anthony Albanese, was in the portfolio for six years and did nothing. To the credit of Tony Abbott and Warren Truss, the coalition acted and the Western Sydney International Airport will be open within three years, with transport, road and rail, going right to the door. Western Sydney airport has already created thousands of jobs, and it will create many more when it opens in 2026. Currently, an environmental impact study is underway, with the new airport releasing draft flight plans and the Sydney Kingsford Smith Airport releasing its updated plans. However, the government has been sloppy with this process. In my own electorate, there are proposed changes to narrow the flight path to concentrate it to Kenthurst, Dural, Glenhaven and Asquith. However, there are no noise maps. They didn't do them for Kingsford Smith. I've written to the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government. The community needs to see the noise maps so we can rightly assess these flight paths. The minister needs to put a call through to Sydney Airport today to get the noise maps undertaken and published immediately. Western Australia Seniors Week 18 13:43 Ms ROBERTS 157125 Pearce This week marks the celebration of Seniors Week in Western Australia. I extend a shout-out to all the wonderful seniors within my electorate of Pearce. Seniors Week stands as a significant occasion to acknowledge the pivotal role that seniors hold within our community. This week helps to promote positive aging and encourages participation in community life, particularly for isolated people. I consider myself privileged to spend time with the seniors in my community and collaborate with the many wonderful people. From the indominable Marcie Dinnie, who celebrates her 25th year as President of the Wanneroo Senior Citizens Association, and her amazing committee to all of those involved in the various men's sheds and other seniors groups across Pearce, I applaud you all for your contribution in making our community great. In today's landscape, many seniors find themselves assuming diverse roles as support within their families. A noteworthy percentage even take on the role of rearing their own grandchildren. This is not without its challenges yet, despite that, there lies an abundance of joy in embracing this role in a child's life. As a grandparent, one morphs into a teacher, a playmate and a trusted confidant, becoming an embodiment of love. I reserve a special expression of gratitude for those who have willingly embraced responsibilities within the diverse community groups across the breadth of the great Pearce electorate. Your efforts do not go unnoticed. They are deeply appreciated and we absolutely applaud you. We would be lost without you. Thank you. Deakin Electorate: Roads 18 13:45 Mr SUKKAR 242515 Deakin Labor keeps cutting vital road projects in my electorate of Deakin. Since they entered government 18 months ago, Labor has made savage cuts to infrastructure projects throughout Melbourne's east, but particularly in my electorate of Deakin. For anyone across the country who is having to deal with road issues, congestion, a lack of parking and bottlenecks, it's about to get a whole lot worse under this government because, coupled with these road and infrastructure project cancellations, Labor wants to bring in an additional 1.5 million migrants. Minister King's short and sharp '90-day review', is now nearly at 200 days. And now the Treasurer is blaming critical infrastructure for his inflation problem. In my electorate of Deakin we've seen threats to cut the $50 million road-widening of Canterbury Road throughout my electorate. We're also being threatened with the cancellation of the upgrade to the Tortice Drive and Warrandyte Road intersections, something that my community has fought for. It's a small, but important, road project in my electorate which is also being threatened. This is in addition to projects already cancelled: the $50 million upgrade to Dorset Road—a massively congested road—and, of course the Heatherdale Station car park, which was about to start and help commuters get on the train in the morning. Shame on Labor! Watts, Mr Graham, Duggan, Mr Timothy, OAM, Bolton, Mr Daniel 19 13:46 Mr GOSLING 245392 Solomon I want to talk about three incredible Territorians who I've spent time with in the last three days. On Sunday I was privileged to attend a kiap reunion. As honourable members may remember, these were the Commonwealth patrol officers in Papua New Guinea prior to independence. They made a wonderful contribution to Papua New Guinea and to relations there, and they keep those connections to this very day. We're seeking to establish a memorial to the over 80 kiaps who didn't come back from that service. To Graham Watts—a kiap from Darwin—thanks, mate. Timmy Duggan is the first person from the Northern Territory to play in the National Basketball League. He set up a charity called Hoops 4 Health. He now employs eight coaches and 20 volunteer coaches, working with around 10,000 young First Nations people across the NT, including in remote communities. In fact, last night in Parliament House, he won the National Rural and Remote Health Award for Dedication to Health in a Remote Location for the work that he's doing with young people in the Territory through basketball. Finally, the third Territorian is Daniel Bolton. He flies a Mallard, which is a seaplane, up in the Northern Territory. He's recently written a book that's illustrated by his dad, Greg. It's a fantastic book. It was great of the Prime Minister to launch it for Daniel in the parliament today. Western Australia: Energy 19 13:48 Mrs MARINO HWP Forrest Western Australian households, business and industry are facing the harsh reality that federal and state Labor governments are responsible for the energy crisis in our state. WA is dealing with the double-header of increasing costs of energy and a shortage of energy supply. Neither government has any answers to fix the problem. As a stopgap, the government is using business and industry as the state's energy battery by shutting down these businesses and industries during peak demand periods. At one point, Alcoa had to shutdown 25 per cent of its Kwinana plant to keep the lights and air conditioners on in Perth. Simcoa, in my electorate—the only silicon producer in Australia—is on notice to do the same thing. Business and industry are the ones that will keep the lights on and air conditioners running over summer this year. Energy security is a national security issue, but Labor, both state and federal governments, are asleep at the wheel. AEMO has expressed concerns about the South West Interconnected System and that emergency support is needed. The latest report projects a shortfall of up to 345 megawatts. As a result, our critical industries and businesses can have their power supplies reduced or cut and their amount of manufacturing or processing reduced or shut down at short notice. As well, the Albanese government has used taxpayer funds to fund the Environmental Defenders Office to halt a project that would increase Woodside's gas and energy supply for WA households and industry, as well as raising billions of dollars of export income. Spence Electorate: Toy Libraries 19 13:50 Mr BURNELL 300129 Spence A few months ago I reported to the House excellent news from my electorate of Spence: that the opening of Saint Augustine's parish toy library in Salisbury in mid-August was a fantastic event, and one I was glad to have been part of in representing the Minister for Social Services. It doubled the number of toy libraries in Spence to two, joining the Gawler & Districts Elsie Ey Toy Library in Gawler, a place giving joy to generations of kids now for over 46 years. Toy libraries are wonderful organisations that strive to support children, schools, families and local communities. This is why I was pleased to be joined by the Minister for Social Services just a few short weeks ago when we opened a new toy library in Paralowie. It can mean a great deal to a child, especially one coming from such a low socioeconomic background, being able to play with a new toy or puzzle every time those doors are open. I know this to be true, as I myself was a frequent visitor at our local toy library in my formative years. I can still remember some of the experiences I had to this day. It's why my praise and support for toy libraries is not just one in principle but one of lived experience, and one that I hope children across Spence can enjoy and benefit from just as much as I was lucky enough to when I was younger. Murray-Darling Basin 19 13:51 Mr BIRRELL 288713 Nicholls Tomorrow evening at six o'clock in the Senate courtyard, we are welcoming some very special members of the Australian community, and I would implore everyone to join us and to celebrate with them. We're welcoming here the food and fibre producers of the Murray-Darling Basin for an event called 'Taste of the Basin'. Members of both places will be able to come and talk to producers in the Murray-Darling Basin about what they produce, how they produce it and what makes their businesses tick. They'll be able to talk to SPC about their iconic products, including snack packs of peaches. They'll be able to have a juicy steak from a place called Greenham, and talk to them about the farmers that produce that magnificent meat. They'll be able to understand the nut industry, have some citrus and, of course, my favourite, an apple from the Goulburn Valley. If we taste their wonderful produce, talk to them about what makes their businesses go and what makes them tick, then we'll make better policies. I particularly hope that the minister for water can come—and this is a very good-faith invitation—and talk to some of these producers about what makes the Murray-Darling Basin work and policies that could affect them. It will be a great night; come for a steak, some fruit and a glass of wine. I hope to see you all there. Medicare 20 13:52 Ms MILLER-FROST 296272 Boothby Affordable access to health care is critical, so I've been thrilled to see the really positive steps being put in place by the Albanese government and Minister Mark Butler after a decade of cuts and undermining of Medicare. I was recently at the bulk-billing Castle Medical Centre in Edwardstown with Minister Butler for the announcement of the tripling of the bulk-billing incentive. Doctor Stephanie Ng told us that the majority of patients attending the clinic are children, the elderly and those on concession cards. Those opposite froze the Medicare rates for six long years, but the cost of running a practice didn't stop going up! Staffing, medical consumables, insurance and all the rest—those costs kept going up but the Medicare rate didn't. This is why we've seen so many GPs exit bulk-billing. The tripling of the bulk-billing incentive gives GPs a reason to bulk bill again, making health care more affordable for patients. And the introduction of 60-day prescriptions means that people who have stable chronic disease on long-term medication can halve the cost of their medicines—again, making health care more affordable. We've also opened an endometriosis clinic in Glenelg and an urgent care clinic at Marion to take pressure off the emergency department at Flinders Medical Centre. Health care only works if you can afford to access it, and preventative health care even more so. This government is committed to Medicare and committed to the health of our broader community. Flinders Electorate: Infrastructure 20 13:54 Ms McKENZIE 124514 Flinders I rise to speak about the Albanese government's now 198-day infrastructure review and its potentially devastating impact on my electorate of Flinders. Over recent weeks we've heard the infrastructure minister demonise $120 billion worth of infrastructure funded by the coalition government, most of which is just waiting for lazy, incompetent and broke state governments like mine to do their part of the job. Over the weekend I raised the urgent need for safety improvements along the Nepean Highway with the infrastructure minister. It didn't ring any bells at the time, although she was confident that it was in a spreadsheet somewhere, so today I want to jog the minister's memory. Along the Nepean Highway there are two treacherous intersections: Uralla Road and Forest Drive. Over 10 years there have been serious crashes at both intersections every year, sometimes twice a year. Eighty-six-year-old Bruce William Bone was killed in a head-on crash there in 2014, and three people were seriously injured. The safety works were fully funded by the coalition and the works were scheduled to commence in 2021, 2022 and 2023, but planning stopped a few months ago when VicRoads was informed that the federal government's funding might be cut. A local resident who lives on the corner of Uralla Road and Nepean Highway came to tell me about the crashes he hears monthly, sometimes weekly—the crunch of metal, the silence. He's often the first there to attend, to render assistance and to call an ambulance. From here on in, every injury at that corner sits at the government's feet. Youth Voice in Parliament Week 20 13:56 Mr LAXALE 299174 Bennelong Today I'll be reading a speech written by a young member of my community of Bennelong, Krishaang Gowda, who is 16 years old. It is a speech submitted through the Raise Our Voice initiative, and I'd encourage those opposite to listen carefully. Krishaang writes: 'Australia's transition to renewable energy is akin to a beacon of hope for future generations. It represents not just a shift in energy sources but a promise to safeguard the environment, bolster the economy and enhance the lives of its people. 'From a human perspective, embracing renewables like solar, wind and hydroelectric power means cleaner air to breathe and a healthier planet to inhabit. It's about protecting our beautiful landscapes, unique wildlife and precious ecosystems from the devastating impacts of climate change, such as catastrophic bushfires and extreme weather events. 'Economically, this transition translates to more job opportunities for Australians, ensuring that families can put food on the table and children can dream of brighter futures. Australia's innovation and expertise in renewable technology mean that it can lead the world in sustainable energy solutions, exporting knowledge and products to benefit others while achieving energy self-sufficiency at home. 'Australia's dedication to renewable energy not only burnishes its international standing but also reflects a shared commitment to protect our planet for generations to come. It's a journey toward a more prosperous and sustainable Australia where the wellbeing of its people, the environment and society harmoniously coexist.' That's from a 16-year-old, who seems to have a better energy policy than those opposite. Lindsay Electorate: Volunteer Rural Fire Fighters 21 13:57 Mrs McINTOSH 281513 Lindsay Over the weekend, in Lindsay, we celebrated and honoured the service and bravery of our local rural fire service volunteers who protect our community and our country. I thank every volunteer firefighter for your courage in fighting for our homes and also for our lives when we faced devastating bushfires, particularly in 2019 and 2020. I would like to acknowledge the members who, having served our community for many years, received medals. Councillor Kevin Crameri, OAM, has been a volunteer firefighter for an extraordinary 61 years. He is with the Llandilo brigade. Stephen Weyman helped form the Orchard Hills brigade in 1970. Stephen Gregory joined the Regentville brigade in 1971. This is an extraordinary number of years serving our community. I also want to note Ricky Burns of Llandilo, Stephen Brown of Orchard Hills, and Pamela Smith and Joshua Smith of Mulgoa brigade. I want to give a shout-out to the Cumberland zone RFS brigades at Berkshire Park, Castlereagh, Llandilo, Londonderry, Luddenham, Mulgoa, Orchard Hills and Regentville. To all our RFS, I also want to say thank you deeply from my family for saving my sister-in-law and daughter in 2013. Our greatest thanks for everything you do over Christmases, for missing family outings and, in particular, for the hot and dry summer ahead. You have our greatest appreciation. Youth Voice in Parliament Week 21 13:59 Ms FERNANDO 299964 Holt Today I will read a speech written as part of Youth Voice in Parliament Week by Somaya Qasimi, a year 11 student living in the suburb of Hampden Park in my electorate. Somaya writes: 'I raise my voice as a refugee compelled to address a pressing issue that demands our immediate attention: the rampant racism within our schools. 'Every child deserves an education free from discrimination, prejudice and hatred. 'Unfortunately, racism has found its way into our educational institutions, tainting the learning environment and traumatising young minds. 'To combat this, we must implement comprehensive antiracism programs that promote tolerance, inclusivity and empathy. 'It is crucial to educate both students and teachers about the harmful effects of racism, and the curriculum should incorporate diverse perspectives to eradicate the ignorance that perpetuates racism. 'Let us work collectively to ensure that schools become beacons of tolerance, where every child, regardless of their background, can learn and grow without fear of discrimination.' Somaya's speech is a reminder for each of us in parliament to set an example by not engaging in activities that allow racist attitudes to be fostered. The SPEAKER 53517 In accordance with standing order 43, the time for members' statements has concluded. MINISTRY 21 MINISTRY Temporary Arrangements 21 14:00 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I inform the House that the Treasurer will be absent from question time today. I will answer questions on his behalf. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 21 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Immigration Detention 21 14:01 Mr DUTTON 00AKI Dickson My question is to the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs. I refer to the Albanese government's release of hardcore criminals from detention into the community. The government stated in the High Court that 92 individuals were to be impacted by the decision, yet the minister has stated that only 80 offenders have been released into the community. On what basis did the minister release these 80 criminals but continue to hold the remaining 12? 14:01 Mr GILES 243609 Scullin I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his question on this very serious matter. It is the case that, on Wednesday of last week, the High Court handed down a decision which required the release of noncitizens—noncitizens who, as the Leader of the Opposition and others have said, include people who have committed very, very serious crimes—from immigration detention, where I had maintained them. The High Court required their release. We put before the court the details of those potentially affected. The High Court's decision required a consideration of those held in immigration detention against the test the High Court had set out, being people with no real prospect of removal from Australia becoming practicable in the reasonably foreseeable future. On that basis, in accordance with the decision of the court, the relevant officers in the department—and the Leader of the Opposition would be familiar with the process—with powers under the Migration Act made those considerations as soon as possible. I can inform the House: I said yesterday that 80 such people were required to be released; a further person was released yesterday, and I have imposed similarly strict visa conditions on that person. Immigration Detention 22 14:03 Ms BYRNES 299145 Cunningham My question is to the Minister for Home Affairs. How is the Albanese Labor government prioritising community safety in implementing the recent High Court decision? Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order. Order! No, the minister will resume her seat. There were far too many interjections during that question. We'll hear that question again, because I need to hear the question. So no interjections during the question—and hopefully none after, either. 14:03 Ms BYRNES 299145 Cunningham My question is to the Minister for Home Affairs. How is the Albanese Labor government prioritising community safety in implementing the recent High Court decision? 14:04 Ms O'NEIL 140590 Hotham I thank the member for her question. As the minister for immigration has just outlined to the parliament, last Wednesday the High Court handed down a decision which overturned a 20-year precedent which has governed how the Commonwealth deals with detaining certain noncitizens. The implication of this decision is that the Commonwealth must immediately release a set of affected individuals from immigration detention. I just want to be absolutely clear with the parliament. The Commonwealth argued against the release of these people. Some of these people have committed disgusting crimes. Some of them have hurt people who are still here in our country, and it is those victims that we care about. I can tell the parliament that there is one single focus and one single priority that we are using to manage the implications of the High Court's decision, and that is the community safety of the Australian citizens who elect us to this parliament. To ensure that we are able to do this, we have set up a police response across the states and territories. Following the High Court's decision, the AFP commissioner briefed, in person, the police commissioner of every state and territory around the Commonwealth. On 10 November, operation AGIS, which is a joint AFP and ABF led operation, was established, which is managing the overall response, working with state and territory police. This is ensuring that, as people are released from immigration detention, they are able to be incorporated into state and territory postoffender management programs. The parliament should know that the purpose of operation AGIS is to individually case manage every single one of these people as they are released from detention. I want to thank law enforcement and police around the country who are working with the Commonwealth government to protect community safety at this time. The parliament has heard about the stringent visa conditions that we have put on these people—the strictest possible that are available under Australian law. What this means is that these people are restricted to certain types of employment. They must report in person to authorities—in some instances, daily. We will require continuous reporting on a range of different issues. There is more to say about this matter, and hopefully I'll have the opportunity during question time, but I want to finish by saying that we are not going to get a lecture on managing the integrity of the migration system by the Leader of the Opposition. Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! Ms O'NEIL 140590 We have— The SPEAKER 53517 The minister will pause. Order! Government members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Members on my right! I want to hear from the Manager of Opposition Business. Mr Fletcher L6B There is absolutely no basis for this minister to be going to the record of the previous government. The question was very specific: how is the Albanese Labor government prioritising community safety in implementing the High Court's decision? The SPEAKER 53517 I'll hear from the Leader of the House. Mr Burke DYW It's completely relevant to the question, because the way these individuals made it into Australia in the first place was through the now Leader of the Opposition. Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! Members on my left will cease interjecting immediately. The leader of the Nationals and the Leader of the Opposition will cease interjecting. The minister needs to be relevant to the question. It is not an excuse to just go into any attacks on the opposition. I want her to remain relevant to the question. The Leader of the House is correct in terms of the context. I'm giving her some leeway, but this is not a reason just to compare and contrast. That was not in the question. Ms O'NEIL 140590 We have a number of independent reports now that show us that the Leader of the Opposition broke Australia's migration system. What I'd like to hear from the Leader of the Opposition, instead of free and fair advice— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The minister will return to the question. Ms O'NEIL 140590 What we'd like to hear from the Leader of the Opposition is not advice to the government about something that he could have managed but perhaps a little bit of contrition for the role that he played in all of this! Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order, members on my left! Has the minister concluded her answer? We will move to the next question. Migration: Community Safety 23 14:08 Mr TEHAN 210911 Wannon My question is to the Minister for Immigration Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs. The Albanese Labor government has released 80 hardcore criminals from detention into the community. This includes a paedophile who raped a 10-year-old— Government members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Wannon will pause for a moment. Members on my right! The member for Wills is warned. I will say this one more time: when questions are being asked, they will be heard in silence. That means no noise. The member for Wannon will begin his question again. Mr TEHAN 210911 My question is to the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs. The Albanese Labor government has released 80 hardcore criminals from detention into the community. This includes a paedophile who raped a 10-year-old boy. What accommodation and other financial support is the government now providing to this convicted paedophile and the other hardcore criminals to live in the community? The SPEAKER 53517 I will hear from the Leader of the House on a point of order. Mr Burke DYW Mr Speaker, the question is dealing with a decision of the High Court of Australia and it is describing it as though it is something other than that. Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! We will deal with this in an orderly way. I want to hear from the Leader of the House. Mr Burke DYW The question is dealing with a decision that is a decision of the High Court of Australia. It is framing it as though it is not a decision of the High Court of Australia but a decision of the Albanese government when the government in fact argued against that outcome in the High Court. The SPEAKER 53517 The question is in order. I am just going to ask the shadow minister to rephrase the question to make sure it is within the standing orders just so we can get on with this. Mr TEHAN 210911 The minister in his previous answer made reference to his decision to release one of these people. An additional 80 to 81 hardcore criminals now have been released. It is a decision of the minister to release people, and the question as it's framed is perfectly in order. The SPEAKER 53517 Let me just hear the question again to make sure that it is within the standing orders. Perhaps a reframing would assist the House. Mr TEHAN 210911 My question is to the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs. The Albanese Labor government, following a High Court decision, has released 80 hardcore criminals from detention into the community. This includes a paedophile who raped a 10-year-old boy. What accommodation and other financial support is the government now providing to this convicted paedophile and the other hardcore criminals to live in the community? 14:11 Mr GILES 243609 Scullin I say again as my friend the Minister for Home Affairs and I have said repeatedly that on Wednesday the High Court handed down a decision which required the release of one citizen— Opposition members interjecting— Mr 243609 Members opposite say they know that, but clearly they do not. As the respondent to this, I opposed that application. Let me be very clear about that. I opposed that application for reasons which I think unite pretty much everyone in this place. We believe that noncitizens who have committed very serious criminal offences, including sexual offences like the offences that the shadow minister just referred to, should not continue to remain in Australia. The circumstances here are that we have not been able to remove them. When I say 'we', I say again that none of these people have arrived in Australia since the election of the Albanese government. The members opposite should perhaps bear that in mind as well as our shared concern, rejection of and revulsion at the behaviour of— The SPEAKER 53517 The minister will pause. The Leader of the Opposition on a point of order? Mr Dutton 00AKI Mr Speaker, the question read as follows, in part: what accommodation and other financial support is the government now providing to this convicted paedophile and the other hardcore criminals to live in the community? The SPEAKER 53517 The minister is halfway through his answer— The SPEAKER 53517 Order, Leader of the Opposition! I am trying to deal with your point of order. There were a number of parts to the question. He is being relevant at this stage. I am just going to ask him to return to the question to make sure he is addressing all parts of the question. Mr GILES 243609 I'll just say again that our concern is always to retain community safety. We fought to resist the decision that ultimately the High Court handed down. Again I say that this was for reasons that, I think, unite us in this place. In terms of the question directly put at the end of the shadow minister's question, I have to say two things. Firstly, as he and the Leader of the Opposition would well know, I can't comment on individual cases. I can say that the requirements of state and territory orders for a person in the circumstances he described as well as the stringent visa conditions require us to be certain about where such a person is located—I think he would understand that—so that we can ensure community safety. I spoke yesterday about the measures we put in place before the decision was handed down to ensure coordination with state and territory law enforcement authorities prior to the decision being handed down in the event that any releases were required. This requires us to take steps, including the steps that ordinarily apply for someone who is released from a form of detention with the Status Resolution Support Services. It is absolutely critical that we enable us to have certainty as to where someone is, particularly a person who is guilty of the sorts of offences that you described and is subject to state obligations—perhaps somebody on the child sex offenders register, which obviously restricts the places in which they can reside— An honourable member interjecting— Mr GILES 243609 A paedophile, yes. They should be restricted in where they can live. That requires us to work towards that. (Time expired) Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme 24 14:15 Ms VAMVAKINOU 00AMT Calwell My question is to the Minister for Health and Aged Care. How is the Albanese Labor government making it more affordable for Australians to access essential medicines through the PBS? Has the government encountered any obstacles in making medicines cheaper for Australians? 14:15 Mr BUTLER HWK Hindmarsh I thank the member for Calwell for her question. I know what a passionate advocate she is, particularly for the health and dignity of older Australians in her electorate, which is why I know she was so delighted by our government's decision to give five million older Australians access to the latest, cutting-edge shingles vaccine completely free of charge. Before 1 November they were paying $560, but now they have access to the most comprehensive shingles vaccine program on the planet. This is just one part of our commitment to strengthening Medicare through cheaper medicines. Already this year around two million pensioners and concession cardholders have benefited from our decision last year to cut the maximum amount they pay for all their medicines by 25 per cent—the first wave of our cheaper medicines policy. That's two million pensioners and concession cardholders paying up to 25 per cent less for their medicines this year. General patients are getting cheaper medicines too through the biggest cut to the price of medicines in the 75-year history of the PBS from 1 January—the second wave of our cheaper medicines reforms. This year general patients will have saved almost $¼ billion from that measure alone. From 1 September four million Australians were able to go to their doctor and ask for a 60-day prescription for around 100 common medicines for ongoing health conditions—the third wave of our cheaper medicines reforms. Mr Littleproud 265585 How's that going, brother? Mr BUTLER HWK The Leader of the Nationals asks how that's going. Already more than 600,000 60-day prescriptions have been issued for the price of a single script, saving people money, saving people time and freeing up all of those desperately-needed GP consults. That's why so many other countries have been doing this for years. It's why every doctors group and every patient group supported the government's policy. I was asked by the member for Calwell about obstacles. Five years ago the former government made a deliberate decision to reject the expert advice to introduce 60-day scripts, making patients pay hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars since that time that they didn't have to pay. Only a few months ago the coalition showed that they have learnt nothing, by voting time and time again in the other place to block access to cheaper medicines for millions of Australians. This is perhaps not surprising from a party led by a man who when he was the health minister tried to abolish bulk-billing altogether and make people pay every time they go to a doctor, tried to cut $50 billion from hospitals and also tried to jack up the price of medicines by up to $5 a script. DISTINGUISHED VISITORS 25 DISTINGUISHED VISITORS NATO Parliamentary Assembly Joint Committee Delegation, Treadell, Her Excellency Vicki, CMG, MVO, Lord Offord of Garvel 25 14:18 The SPEAKER 53517 I'm pleased to inform the House that present in the gallery today are representatives of a NATO Parliamentary Assembly joint committee delegation on the second floor with interpreters here in the parliament. I'm also delighted to welcome a friend of the parliament Her Excellency Vicki Treadell, the United Kingdom High Commissioner to Australia, and, as a guest of the member for Menzies, Lord Offord of Garvel, the United Kingdom's Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland and the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Exports. On behalf of the House, I extend a very warm welcome to all of you. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 25 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Immigration Detention 25 14:19 Mr KATTER HX4 Kennedy My question is to the Attorney-General. Has no-one explained to the High Court the separation of powers? Calling yourself a refugee, rightly or wrongly, doesn't override national sovereignty, which, by definition, entails the right to accept or deny entry into our homeland. Minister, doesn't responsibility demand the deportation of people supporting, advocating and manifesting racial and religious hatred, violence and murder? The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Bruce will cease interjecting. The member for Kennedy has asked his question. 14:20 Mr DREYFUS HWG Isaacs I thank the member for his question. In relation to the High Court's recent decision in the NZYQ matter, my colleagues the Minister for Home Affairs and the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs have been leading the government's response. As they have made clear in a number of public statements and in answers to questions in this place, the government has acted swiftly to ensure the safety of the Australian community. The member's question does go specifically to the separation of powers. I'm minded to say that, as a former minister in the Bjelke-Petersen government, he might recall an exposition on that subject by the leader of that government. But, in the NZYQ matter, the Solicitor-General argued on the behalf of the Commonwealth government—on behalf of our government—that the detention settings in place were constitutionally valid. That was the Commonwealth's position. The High Court of Australia disagreed. The effect of the High Court's decision is that a number of individuals have to be released from immigration detention. When the High Court finds that individuals are being unlawfully detained, the government cannot ignore it, because the government—I know that those opposite find this difficult to understand—must act in accordance with the law. All governments must act in accordance with the law. Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Members on my left! The member for Hume will cease interjecting. The Attorney-General will be heard in silence. The question was heard in silence. Mr DREYFUS HWG I do know that those opposite are struggling with these concepts, but the government must act in accordance with the law. All governments must act in accordance with the law. As the government have made abundantly clear in a number of public statements, we have acted swiftly to ensure the safety of the Australian community following the High Court's decision. The Albanese government is committed to the safety and wellbeing of all Australians. The member has asked me specifically about racial and religious hatred. The SPEAKER 53517 The Attorney-General will pause. I want to hear from the member for Kennedy on a point of order. Mr Katter HX4 Whether the High Court is legislating—that's the question. Do you run the place or does the High Court run the place? The SPEAKER 53517 Resume your seat. The point of order was about relevance—I hope. I'm just going to make sure that the Attorney-General—when I was listening to him, he was talking about the question specifically—makes sure his answer relates to the question. Mr DREYFUS HWG The member has asked me specifically about racial and religious hatred. There is no place in Australia for hate speech of any kind. On 18 October the government announced $50 million for 177 grants under the Securing Faith-Based Places grant program. These grants will improve security at religious schools and preschools, places of worship and faith based community centres in every state and territory across different faith communities. The government has also announced $25 million to the Executive Council of Australian Jewry, ECAJ; and $25 million to the Australian Palestinian, Muslim and other communities affected by the Israel-Hamas conflict. (Time expired) Cost of Living 26 14:24 Ms COKER 263547 Corangamite My question is to the Prime Minister. How is the government's responsible budget management helping take the pressure off households and enabling the government to invest in cost-of-living relief? The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Barker will cease interjecting. 14:24 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I thank the member for Corangamite for her question about the cost-of-living pressures facing Australian families, because that is, of course, the No. 1 issue that the government is focused on. There are three vital ways we're tackling cost of living— Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order, members on my left! Mr ALBANESE R36 We get no questions on cost of living from those opposite—none. We're focused on getting costs down for families, getting wages up for workers and getting the budget onto a stronger foundation. We're managing the budget responsibly, and the question goes to that. We inherited a $78 billion deficit and turned that into a $22 billion surplus—a $100 billion turnaround and the first surplus in 15 years after the former government promised a surplus in their first year and every year thereafter when they were elected in 2013. The result of that is that the Fitch Ratings agency, last week, reaffirmed our AAA rating. They said: The government has saved the bulk of the recent revenue windfalls, indicating a desire to maintain a fiscal stance supportive of reducing inflation and pursue prudent fiscal policies. That's what we have done. We have three policies to drive down inflation, one of which is responsible fiscal policy. The second is dealing with supply chain issues, including fixing some of our trade relationships that were broken while the former government was in office. Mr Littleproud 265585 How many trade agreements did you sign? Mr ALBANESE R36 You had good trade agreements; you just didn't have any trade! That was the problem! The SPEAKER 53517 The Leaders of the Nationals will cease interjecting. Mr ALBANESE R36 You had ministers who couldn't get a return phone call from their counterparts; that's what you had over there—but really good agreements! The third element is our targeted cost-of-living relief of $23 billion—cheaper medicines, affordable housing, energy bill relief, higher wages, cheaper child care. What do all those have in common? They were all opposed by those opposite. The Leader of the Opposition has nothing positive to offer the nation. Of course, he was out there saying, after the last budget, because already you have a ratings agency—he was out there talking about our AAA rating being negatively impacted. None of that has happened. He says the sky will fall in. We will continue to manage the budget responsibly. (Time expired) Migration: Community Safety 27 14:27 Mr TEHAN 210911 Wannon My question is to the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs. Are any of the 81 hardcore criminals receiving taxpayer funded accommodation, now they have been released into the community? 14:28 Mr GILES 243609 Scullin I might make the point that we fought in the court to retain them in taxpayer funded accommodation, in the immigration detention facilities. I hope the shadow minister isn't suggesting otherwise. The SPEAKER 53517 The member for O'Connor is warned. Mr GILES 243609 As I said only a minute ago, our concern is to maintain community safety. A critical element of that in some cases is having some control over where an individual lives. That will involve the expenditure of Commonwealth funds, which is important to keep communities safe. Defence 27 14:28 Ms LAWRENCE 299150 Hasluck My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister. What action is the Albanese Labor government taking to ensure Defence is appropriately resourced, and why is this required after a wasted decade? The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Barker is warned and is not to interject anymore during question time, particularly during questions. I can't be clearer than that. 14:29 Mr MARLES HWQ Corio I thank the member for her question. Today, Australia is spending two per cent of its GDP on defence. Splashing dollars around is easy, but translating that spend into a potent and a lethal capability for our nation is actually hard. It requires strategic planning, backed up by difficult decisions, which is why the government undertook the Defence Strategic Review and has followed through with real action, like restructuring the Army or funding the guided weapons enterprise such that we will see the beginning of the manufacture of missiles in Australia in two years. These are serious decisions, backed up by real money. But the task of the government has been made all the more difficult by virtue of the mess that we inherited from those opposite—from the Leader of the Opposition. In coming to government, there was no money for a full quarter of what Defence was expected to purchase. That's because we saw announcements like one for a $35 billion guided weapons enterprise with only a billion dollars committed to it. We saw an announcement of an increase in the cybercapacity of the Australian Signals Directorate through REDSPICE, with an $8 billion hole in it. There was announcement after announcement without anything like the real allocation of money for it. It was as if they were trying to do 'defence by press release'. And what that meant was that the defence budget didn't add up and the defence establishment was left wondering what programs would actually make it to reality. That is the legacy of the Leader of the Opposition when it comes to defence. But it wasn't just defence. In home affairs, we see that the minister took his eye off the ball, as has been revealed by the Nixon review. As the health minister, he sought to abolish bulk-billing. His record speaks for itself; he was a ministerial wrecking ball. Now, as the Leader of the Opposition, he has not one single positive plan for the future. And, for all their bluster over there, last week, when Andrew Bolt asked the shadow minister the very simple question as to whether or not the Liberals would increase funding on defence, the shadow minister's answer, if not anything else, was candid and it was clear. He said, 'I can't commit to increase spending.' The shadow minister mightn't be able to commit to it, but we can. We are increasing defence spending not just in accordance with the trajectory that we inherited from those opposite but by much more, taking defence spending to 2.3 per cent of GDP over the next 10 years. (Time expired) Immigration Detention 28 14:32 Ms LEY 00AMN Farrer My question is to the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs. The Albanese Labor government has, following a High Court decision, released 80 hard-core criminals into the community. This includes a paedophile who raped a 10-year-old boy, a hitman who murdered a pregnant woman and blew up her body with military grade explosives, and a violent sex predator who attacks elderly women in their homes. Will the minister confirm how many of these 80 individuals are convicted paedophiles, murderers or rapists? 14:33 Mr GILES 243609 Scullin I thank the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party for her question. I say again that the decision of the High Court, which required their release, affects some very serious offenders, including people who have committed the offences you've described: sex offenders and at least one murderer. I believe there are three murderers and several sex offenders. I will provide her with the precise details of those who fall into those three categories of offending. I do note that the shadow minister here and the shadow minister for home affairs have reached out for a briefing, which, I understand, is in the process of being arranged. I say again that the Commonwealth resisted the application brought by the individual who is the subject of these proceedings. We resisted those applications for exactly the reasons that I think animate the concerns of the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party and the concerns of every member in this place. Our focus throughout—in anticipation of the decision and since—is on ensuring the safety of the Australian community. That includes looking at all options we have to ensure safety. Workplace Relations 28 14:34 Dr ANANDA-RAJAH 290544 Higgins My question is to the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations. How is the Albanese Labor government closing the loophole that allows gig workers to be underpaid and to have no minimum standards? What has been the response to the government's plans? 14:34 Mr BURKE DYW Watson I thank the member for Higgins for the question. We've had a system of minimum wages and awards in this country for more than 100 years, but for the last decade there's been a growing section of the economy where none of that applies. We have a minimum standards and awards system because we decided in the 20th century that we would not have 19th-century working conditions; we decided in the 20th century that we would not be a country where wages were simply a race to the bottom. We made a decision, as a country, that we would not be a nation where you had to rely on tips in order to make ends meet. But in the last decade there has been a growing section of people who are doing the exact sort of work that minimum standards were always there to help but who get no minimum standards at all. We have minimum standards for the people who pick the fresh produce, who transport it to the warehouse, who transport it to the restaurant and who make it in the kitchen at the restaurant; but the person who brings that food and delivers it to your home has no minimum standards at all. And they have no minimum standards because, at the moment, they are classified, somehow, as being small businesses. I know what it is to be a small business; I grew up in a small-business family and I've run a small business myself. Someone delivering a pizza on the back of a bicycle for less than the minimum wage is not running a small business; they're the exact sort of person that minimum standards were always established for. And so what we need to do is accept that those individuals do not want to be transferred into employees— The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Petrie is warned! Mr BURKE DYW The people who use the platforms want the flexibility of the platform—customers want the flexibility of the platform. So, in accepting that, we have to have a system which allows there to be some minimum standards. And those opposite, who have already decided to say no to minimum standards for the people who bring the food all the way to the front door—that they should somehow have no minimum standard—should listen to what Utsav Bhatarrai said when he addressed the Senate inquiry last week: … it's paying me $20 an hour, and even less than that, without super, without any personal leave, without any sick leave—nothing. …   …   … … I want you all, please, to look into this very deeply, look at our problems, and pass this legislation, which will help protect our basic standard payments. … We just want our basic minimum wage … Faced with that, the Leader of the Opposition and the team opposite say, no. Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! When the House comes to order, we will hear from the member from Wannon. Immigration Detention 29 14:37 Mr TEHAN 210911 Wannon My question is to the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs. When did the minister seek advice about a legislative fix to the High Court decision? 14:38 Mr GILES 243609 Scullin Thank you, shadow minister, for your question. Immediately after the decision, we sought advice on its implications. In the days— Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The minister will pause. The question has been asked in silence; I want to hear the answer in silence as well. I give the call to the minister. Mr GILES 243609 We sought advice on its implications, and that advice contemplated the work that was done in advance of the decision in contemplation of it. I've spoken on at least three occasions, as has the Minister for Home Affairs, about some of the practical steps we sought to have in place in the event of an adverse judgement. We also sought advice prior to the hearing on the options that would be available, depending on the various outcomes of the decision. I remind the shadow minister—and, indeed, all members—that we're yet to receive the reasons for the High Court decision. However, as I said yesterday morning, and as my statement together with the Minister for Home Affairs said earlier today, we have always been looking at all regulatory and legislative options which are available. The SPEAKER 53517 The minister will pause. Member for Wannon, this had better be on relevance or another point of order. Mr Tehan 210911 Mr Speaker, the question was, 'When'— The SPEAKER 53517 No, no. Mr Tehan 210911 No, relevance. Relevance. The question was— The SPEAKER 53517 You're supposed to say, 'I'm rising on a point of order. It's on—'. Had the minister concluded his answer? He's concluded his answer. I just remind the member for Wannon: if you get the call, always state what the point of order is. Don't just start saying what you feel. Infrastructure 29 14:40 Mr BRIAN MITCHELL 129164 Lyons My question is for the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development. How is the Albanese Labor government ensuring the Commonwealth's investment in infrastructure will deliver projects that genuinely deliver for our communities and end the rorts and waste of the Liberals and the Nationals? The SPEAKER 53517 Order! I haven't called the minister, but the member for Mitchell is seeking a point of order before the minister begins her answer. Mr Hawke HWO Speaker, the question is out of order. It asks about the Liberal Party and the National Party, which are not the responsibility of the Commonwealth minister. The SPEAKER 53517 I'll hear from the Leader of the House. Mr Burke DYW The question asked about ending their rorts, and it is our responsibility to end the rorts of the Liberal and National parties. The SPEAKER 53517 The minister hasn't begun her answer. The question is within the standing orders, but I'll make sure she's being relevant, and if she strays too far she won't get too far. I give her the call and she'll be heard in silence. 14:41 Ms CATHERINE KING 00AMR Ballarat Can I particularly thank the member for Lyons for the question and commend him for his ongoing advocacy for infrastructure, particularly his continuous advocacy for the Bridgewater Bridge, which is now finally under construction. Unfortunately, what we saw in the last 10 years was the Liberal and National parties using the infrastructure investment pipeline to invest in media statements and in signs rather than in actually delivering projects that improve our communities. The infrastructure review, which I will be responding to in coming days, found an estimated $33 billion of known cost blowouts in projects in the Infrastructure Investment Program, and they have said that there is a high chance that this will blow out even further. Of projects not yet in construction, where not a— Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The minister will pause. There is far too much noise coming from the frontbench here—the member for Riverina, the member for Gippsland, the Leader of the Nationals and the member for Page. There's a pattern. I'm just going to say: I want to hear what the minister has to say, and I can't hear what she's saying. The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Page will leave the chamber under 94(a). The member for Page then left the chamber. The 53517 When I mention you by name and I'm trying to bring House to order, that is not the time to interject, trust me. I'm just going to take the temperature down so I can hear what the minister has to say. Ms CATHERINE KING 00AMR Of the projects not yet in construction, where not a single sod has been turned, the review found that there are $14.2 billion of known cost blowouts. They found that it would simply not be possible to deliver the current 10-year pipeline of projects within the $120 billion Commonwealth allocation. The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Barker will leave the chamber under 94(a). The member for Barker then left the chamber. Ms CATHERINE KING 00AMR Significantly, they found that, without making significant immediate changes to program settings, the Australian government cannot afford to meet cost pressures or, I add, add any new projects to the pipeline for the next 10 years. That is the legacy left by those opposite: under them, no new Commonwealth investment in infrastructure projects until 2033. That is the legacy and the mismanagement of those opposite. That is because, in the words of the reviewers: There are projects in the IIP that do not demonstrate merit, lack any national strategic rationale and do not meet the Australian Government's national investment priorities. That is why today I have announced our new infrastructure policy statement that will guide Commonwealth infrastructure investment into the future. It recommits the Commonwealth to delivering nationally significant infrastructure, ensuring that we've got productivity, sustainability, livability and investment in infrastructure that is nationally significant—projects including an involvement of Commonwealth contribution of at least $250 million, freight investment in our key freight routes, and projects that align with our broader national priorities in increasing housing and unlocking critical minerals. We will be investing in projects that enhance that productivity. Those opposite have left a complete and utter mess when it comes to the infrastructure investment pipeline, and it's no wonder, frankly, that it was the members of the National Party who were protesting so much. We're getting on with cleaning up your mess and delivering the infrastructure the nation needs. (Time expired) Climate Change 30 14:45 Ms TINK 300124 North Sydney My question is to the Prime Minister. Today I met with the youth climate delegation in parliament, who are calling on the government to adopt a duty of care act, such as that proposed by Senator David Pocock through the Climate Change Amendment (Duty of Care and Intergenerational Climate Equity) Bill 2023. Prime Minister, do you accept there is a need for such a bill, to ensure governments have a legislated duty to consider the impacts of any decisions they make that could harm the climate, health and wellbeing of future generations? 14:45 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I thank the member for North Sydney for her question and for her genuine care about the issue of climate change and her understanding that it not only represents a challenge; it also represents an opportunity. Of course, governments do legislation. That's why I'm a member of a political party that seeks to form government. What we have done, as a government, is to legislate for a 43 per cent reduction by 2030 and for net zero by 2050—something which we had a mandate to do. Something we have also done is to legislate for our safeguard mechanism, in order to drive that change through the economy. We do that not just because of what needs to be done today, but because we understand that there is an intergenerational equity issue behind the issue of climate change, just as there's an issue across developing countries, who feel as though they haven't been the ones that have created it, through the industrial revolution and since, in the first world—in the north, if you like. It is the south that has to pay, in many cases, for the costs of rising sea levels in places like Tuvalu. That is why we entered into the agreement that we did, after we were approached by Prime Minister Natano from Tuvalu to enter into the first-ever comprehensive agreement to provide security for people who are worried about the very existence of their island nations. That was a growing theme at the climate conference. I understand, as well, that young people, in particular, want—not just themselves, but their kids and grandkids—to be able to see the Great Barrier Reef, to be able to see Kakadu— The SPEAKER 53517 Order. The Prime Minister will pause. The member for North Sydney, on a point of order? Ms Tink 300124 Mr Speaker, the point of order is on relevance. I really appreciate the Prime Minister taking us through the legislative changes that they've made to date, but the question is: do you accept that there is a need for a bill to hold governments to a duty of care for the decisions they make and the impact those decisions have on future generations? The SPEAKER 53517 I will get the Prime Minister to conclude his answer. Mr ALBANESE R36 I tend not to focus on senators' private members' bills, because what we're focused on is government legislation to drive that change through the economy. I certainly understand, as I've been saying very clearly, that, in everything this government does in relation to climate change, we're focused not just on today; we're focused on tomorrow. We're focused on what sort of economy we have. We're focused on the opportunity for young people. I want my grandkids—I hope they don't come along for a long period of time; I must make that point in case Nathan is listening!—to be able to see the Great Barrier Reef and Kakadu National Park and all the wonderful pristine things which are there. I also want to ensure that there are good jobs, and good jobs will come with a clean energy economy. DISTINGUISHED VISITORS 31 DISTINGUISHED VISITORS Sullivan, Mayor Trent, Pugh, Mr Clive, Johnston, Mr Michael, Marti, Mayor Rod, Local Government Association of Queensland 31 14:49 The SPEAKER 53517 I'm pleased to inform the House that present in the gallery today are Mayor Trent Sullivan, the mayor of the City of Greater Geelong; Clive Pugh, the chair of the Committee for Geelong; and Michael Johnston, the CEO of the Committee for Geelong. Also in the gallery are a guest of the member for Kennedy, Mayor Rod Marti of the Tablelands Regional Council, and representatives from the Local Government Association of Queensland. Honourable members: Hear, hear! QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 31 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Housing and Homelessness 31 14:49 Dr FREELANDER 265979 Macarthur My question is to the Minister for Housing and Homelessness. How is the Albanese Labor government working to deliver more homes for more Australians as part of its plans to help with cost-of-living pressures? 14:50 Ms COLLINS HWM Franklin I thank the member for Macarthur for this important question. He knows, like all of us on this side of the House and some of the others on the crossbench, that too many Australians are having a tough time, particularly those, of course, who are renting or have a mortgage. That's why we're working hard to make sure we do deliver more homes for Australians that need them most right across the country. Indeed, we were elected with an ambitious housing agenda and the past few weeks have seen some more significant progress and steps forward. This month, we delivered an historic investment through Housing Australia of more than $500 million in federal government support for 1,370 new rental homes across Melbourne. That's 1,370 new homes through Housing Australia. This groundbreaking commitment came just one day after the start of the $10 billion Housing Australia Future Fund. Of course, our fund is the single biggest investment in social and affordable housing in more than a decade, and, importantly, it's there in perpetuity, with funding each and every year ongoing for more social and affordable rental homes right across the country in our cities and in our regions. It means 30,000 rental homes in the first five years of that fund. We've also been supporting regional Australians who have been benefiting from our Regional First Home Buyer Guarantee, which turned one last month. More than 10,000 people in regional Australia have taken advantage of the support since we introduced it early. They're amongst the more than 73,000 Australians right across Australia that we've helped into their first home under the Albanese Labor government. In fact, one in three of all first home buyers took advantage of the government's Home Guarantee Scheme in the past financial year. We are working hard, but there is more to do. Of course, we do have housing challenges, but these started pre pandemic. We have fewer homes per thousand people than the OECD average, and we know it will take time to turn this around. But we're committed to doing that. We do have, as I said, a broad, ambitious policy, and it has been assessed by independent analysis, which says our policy will save renters billions through the National Cabinet decision, with a new target to build 1.2 million well-located homes over five years from 1 July 2024. We have immediate action with our $2 billion Social Housing Accelerator. We've already had very significant announcements from the Prime Minister and the Premier of New South Wales about the number of homes that this will build in New South Wales. We've also had announcements about 600 new homes that were built in Queensland because of that Social Housing Accelerator. This comes on top of our boost to Commonwealth Rent Assistance, our changes to build-to-rent and billions in more financing for more social and affordable homes right around the country. We're working hard, but there's more to do. (Time expired) Immigration Detention 32 14:53 Mr TEHAN 210911 Wannon My question is to the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs. Can the minister confirm the Albanese Labor government is now paying welfare payments to the 81 hardcore criminals? 14:53 Mr GILES 243609 Scullin I can confirm that any individual from immigration detention is being released under the policies that are longstanding under both sides of politics, which ensure the supports that are available under SRSS, for all the reasons around community safety that I've already articulated. Royal Commission into the Robodebt Scheme 32 14:53 Ms SCRYMGOUR F2S Lingiari My question is to the Minister for Government Services. In light of yesterday's release of the government's response to the Royal Commission into the Robodebt Scheme, what is the Albanese government already doing to ensure a cruel, illegal scheme like robodebt can never happen again? How does this differ from other approaches? 14:54 Mr SHORTEN 00ATG Maribyrnong I thank the member for her question. The royal commission's verdict into the coalition robodebt scandal is in. There were words used such as 'crude and cruel', 'illegal and unfair' and 'guilty until proven innocent'. The royal commission has made 56 recommendations about the coalition's robodebt scandal. We've agreed on 49 fully and on seven in principle. Two words summarise Labor's approach to the coalition's robodebt scandal: 'never again'. Never again should this be allowed to happen. Yesterday I said how the Albanese government is putting an extra 3,000 frontline support staff on to help tackle waiting issues at Centrelink and Services Australia. Today I can update the House that we're also learning another lesson from robodebt: we've established an advisory board to Services Australia for the MyGov and Services Australia rollout. This advisory board will be the place where ideas are tested before they head out into the world. It will be composed of ethicists, human rights experts, advocates and digital thinkers, and chaired by a very constructive, positive Liberal—I'll say that again: a constructive, positive Liberal—Victor Dominello. I thank Victor for stepping up to deliver better government services with this government. The advisory board shows that Labor understands—we get the lessons of robodebt. One catastrophic failure of robodebt was that the previous coalition government couldn't be bothered to listen to anyone outside the bubble of self-serving managing-upwards senior public servants over highly-paid PwC consultants. Another was putting in disinterested, forgetful and negligent ministers. The coalition never liked to hear from those they couldn't control or bully. But I've been asked about alternative approaches. I regret to say that the member for Dickson shows no insight or interest in learning the lessons of robodebt. Yesterday afternoon after question time he channelled his best sense of Stuart Robert outrage. Actually, I take that back—that's too harsh. It was more the member for Cook's outrage that he was the victim! The member for Dickson said that he was the victim of the political attacks on robodebt. But he went further. I'd overlooked a press conference on 8 July where he said: … when the problems were brought to the attention of the government at the time, the program was stopped. He said, on 8 July, that when the coalition learned there were problems they stopped it. But today's editorial—in the Australian, no less—says that the coalition government was informed at the end of 2016 of the problems. They were saturated in coverage. But this forgetful, evasive Leader of the Opposition has nothing positive to say. He wants credit for closing it when, in fact, he was there every time they expanded the scheme. Forensic Science 32 14:57 Mr WILKIE C2T Clark My question is to the Attorney-General. Given the catastrophic failings with DNA testing in Queensland and other alarming forensic failures, like with Mr Keogh in South Australia, Mr Eastman in the ACT and Ms Neill-Fraser in Tasmania, will you take the lead and work with the states and territories to improve and harmonise Australia's forensic services to restore trust in our criminal justice system? This would include reviewing the National Institute of Forensic Science and the National Association of Testing Authorities. 14:58 Mr DREYFUS HWG Isaacs I thank the member for Clark for his question. It does concern an important matter. I'm sure the member is aware that on 6 June 2022, the Premier of Queensland announced a commission of inquiry into forensic DNA testing in Queensland. That review was conducted by the former president of the Queensland Court of Appeal, Walter Sofronoff KC. Mr Sofronoff delivered his final report on 13 December 2022. His report made 123 recommendations for systemic reform of forensic testing of DNA in Queensland. All of those recommendations have been accepted by the Queensland government. The Commonwealth has noted the commission's recommendations on forensic DNA testing in Queensland, including the commission's view that assessment against the existing international standard for testing and calibration laboratories is not a sufficient benchmark to use as an external review mechanism for forensic laboratories. Going directly to the focus of the member's question, I can say that forensic agencies across Australia are engaging with the important issues that were raised by that Queensland commission. The Australia New Zealand Forensic Executive Committee, which is a forensic science leadership group comprising heads of government and police forensic providers, is seeking national consistency in responding to the commission's report. This work is intended to address all of that Queensland commission's recommendations at a national level and facilitate national consistency in forensic services. I again thank the member for his question and his continued interest in these important matters. Broadband 33 15:00 Mr LIM 300130 Tangney My question is to the Minister for Communications. How is the Albanese Labor government working for Australia to help families meet cost-of-living pressures and access broadband services? 15:00 Ms ROWLAND 159771 Greenway I thank the member for his question. I know he appreciates that, in 2023, it's essential for school students in his community to have access to reliable broadband services in order to fully participate in learning and to connect with their teachers and peers. That's why I'm pleased to inform the House that the Albanese government is extending the School Student Broadband Initiative for another two years. The initiative is providing up to 30,000 eligible families who have school-age children free broadband over the NBN across fibre, fixed wireless and the NBN satellite footprint—the first of its kind to be rolled out nationally. The initiative is already helping to change the lives of more than 5,000 families who are now connected to free internet. More than 40 per cent of these families live in rural and regional Australia. Now, with funding certainty and the extension to the end of 2025, it's a game changer for children who are being left behind in their learning and has flow-on benefits for the whole family, with the ability to access essential services like telehealth from home for the first time. Feedback from participants has shown what a difference it can make. One parent said, 'We haven't been able to afford home internet for some time now, due to the cost of living and being unable to work due to my children requiring regular medical appointments.' I've asked NBN Co to make the program as widely available as possible to support the take-up in rural and remote communities and for First Nations students and their families. We understand that some families have complex needs and unique circumstances that can make getting a connection organised more difficult. That's why we established the National Referral Centre to make it easier for families to access the initiative. Any family can contact the Referral Centre on 1800954610 to check their eligibility and help get their connection set up. I've also tasked the NBN Low-Income and Digital Inclusion Forum to examine discounted products that could assist participating families at the conclusion of the free-connection period. This is not the only way that we're responding to cost-of-living pressures with the NBN. The recently approved Special Access Undertaking is also supporting 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 School Student Broadband Initiative is making a real difference to families today, and we continue to focus on helping unconnected Australians to get online. We are now reviewing the universal service framework to consider what safety-net services a modern USO should have in order to improve digital access and inclusion for all. Infrastructure 33 15:03 Mr CHESTER IPZ Gippsland My question is to the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government. What has the Albanese government funded and actually built in the last 18 months? The SPEAKER 53517 Order, the Leader of the Nationals! I haven't even called the minister yet. 15:04 Ms CATHERINE KING 00AMR Ballarat There are currently over 300 projects under construction that are all funded by the Albanese Labor government. Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! When the House comes to order, I'll hear from the member for Macquarie. Energy 34 15:04 Ms TEMPLEMAN 181810 Macquarie My question is to the Minister for Climate Change and Energy. How is the Albanese Labor government helping to ease pressure on families by working to deliver cleaner, cheaper energy? What approaches has the government rejected? 15:04 Mr BOWEN DZS McMahon I thank the honourable member for her question and for her very strong and clear climate leadership in her electorate and here in Canberra. The Albanese government's approach really has two parts. Firstly, we are providing direct relief to Australian families and to Australian businesses. Around five million households and around a million businesses are receiving direct support from the Albanese government as part of our energy relief package which passed through the parliament last year against the wishes of those opposite, who voted against it at every opportunity. They voted against it at each and every stage in this House and in the other place. The other thing we're doing is proceeding to prudently manage the rollout of cheap, reliable renewable energy. The fact that wholesale prices are now under half what they were this time last year is in no small part due to the fact that renewable energy is fulfilling an increasing role in our energy mix. We know that renewable energy is cheap energy, even though those opposite simply don't understand it. The honourable member asked me what approaches we have rejected. What we have rejected is a gamble by the opposition—it's not a plan; it's a gamble—on the unproven technology of small modular nuclear reactors, which the opposition— Mr BOWEN DZS We know the member for Fairfax is a big fan of small modular nuclear reactors. He does his little videos. They are the world's worst TED Talks, those videos! But they come out regularly. The SPEAKER 53517 The minister will just pause and take a breath so I— The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Fairfax will not interject so I can hear from the Manager of Opposition Business. Mr Fletcher L6B I rise on a point of order on relevance, Mr Speaker. The principles are very clear. Ministers are to be asked questions and to answer about matters within their portfolio responsibility, not the policies of other parties. The SPEAKER 53517 I will deal with this. The question did say, 'What approaches have the government rejected?' The minister's been going through policy detail. That is part of the question. I am going to listen to him carefully for the one minute and 25 seconds remaining to make sure that he is being relevant. That is not the main part of the question, but he is entitled to answer that part of the question. Mr BOWEN DZS The member for Fairfax is a particular poster child as he proselytises about how good small nuclear reactors are. There is a nuclear reactor called NuScale in Idaho. It doesn't actually exist, but the member for Fairfax has been talking about how great it is. He wrote in a newspaper: Evidence of a burgeoning nuclear industry for next-generation technology can also be seen in SMRs developed by new players. NuScale's integrated reactors offer exceptional flexibility … He also had pictures of the NuScale reactor. He is its poster child. It was cancelled last week after a 53 per cent cost blowout. The member for Fairfax has outrageously criticised the CSIRO. In fact, the CSIRO was properly conservative. He said last week about nuclear: It's sort of like Lego. You take it to site where it is assembled. He said a nuclear reactor is like Lego. That's the degree of policy substance we have. I have to say that this is the most detailed policy we have had from the opposition in the last 18 months. The only other thing we have had is the member for New England saying, 'If you can see a nuclear reactor from your house, you are going to get your power for free.' Migration: Community Safety 35 15:08 Mr TEHAN 210911 Wannon My question is to the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs. With 175,000 Australians on a housing waiting list, can the minister confirm how many hardcore criminals have jumped the queue and are being provided taxpayer funded housing or hotel accommodation? 15:09 Mr GILES 243609 Scullin It's clear that the members opposite will play politics with absolutely everything. This is a time when members of this place should come together to respond to the decision and to do our job as lawmakers. I'll just say a few things very quickly about that. We took steps in anticipation of this decision, thinking about all the possible consequences—thinking about all of them: the arrangements that we would make to keep the community safe, which includes taking measures to house people appropriately, particularly the offenders the shadow minister was talking about earlier. He knows better, or he should do. The SPEAKER 53517 Order! Early Childhood Education 35 15:10 Ms MILLER-FROST 296272 Boothby My question is to the Minister for Early Childhood Education. How is the Albanese Labor government's cheaper childcare policy delivering cost-of-living relief for families? 15:10 Dr ALY 13050 Cowan I do thank the member for Boothby for her question and for her continued advocacy on behalf of the children in her electorate. We know that one of the biggest cost-of-living pressures on families is the cost of early learning, and that's why our government delivered on our commitment to make early learning more affordable. We've lifted the maximum childcare subsidy rate to 90 per cent for families earning less than $80,000 and increased rates for families earning under $530,000. And that meant that we cut the cost of early learning for 1.2 million families right across Australia, including 265,000 families in regional Australia, from 1 July this year when those changes came into effect. This is real and responsible cost-of-living relief, and we know those changes are working. The latest CPI report from the ABS shows that early learning affordability has improved on average more than 13.2 per cent because we delivered on our commitment. All major cities across Australia have seen costs for families dropped by at least 10 per cent, with some seeing a reduction of more than 17 per cent. The ABS also estimates this: that without our changes the costs for families would have increased by 6.7 per cent. They would have increased! Now, in Adelaide, families have seen an average price drop of 18 per cent in the cost of early childhood education and care. That means 7,300 families are benefiting from more affordable early learning in the member's electorate of Boothby thanks to the changes of the Albanese Labor government. Let's just contrast that to the track record of those opposite, just for a minute, here, because, in the last four years of government when they were in office, we saw prices for early childhood education increase by double the OECD average. So the Albanese Labor government has made affordable, accessible and quality early learning a priority of this government. This is our goal, and we will continue to work towards that goal, and we will continue to deliver for Australian families, because we know that investment in the early years pays a triple dividend: it's good for families, it's good for children and it's good for the economy. Mr Albanese R36 Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper. CONDOLENCES 35 CONDOLENCES Carr, Mrs Helena 35 15:13 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler by leave—I rise to pay tribute to Helena Carr, who passed away suddenly while travelling in Europe with her beloved husband and life partner, Bob. Helena did not hold public office, but she was held in great respect and esteem by all who knew her, right across the political spectrum. Among those who gathered at St Mary’s Cathedral in Sydney in her memory today were Premier Chris Minns, former prime ministers Paul Keating and Malcolm Turnbull and, fittingly, a host of former premiers, not least Mike Rann, who flew from Europe to be present. Given Helena’s modesty, we can only wonder how she might have reacted. It was a modesty matched by equally innate talents. At one point in her impressive career, she was managing director of security printing firm Leigh-Mardon, which at the time had 1,100 employees and an annual turnover of $160 million—and that’s in 1990 dollars. Likewise, her shyness was coupled with a great inner strength. Once, when an overwhelmed Bob was tempted to pack it in as opposition leader, it was Helena who put him back on track. That didn't mean she had an appetite for every aspect of political life. In 1991, amid speculation that Premier Nick Greiner was about to call an election, Helena was told to get ready to stand by Bob's side. As Helena recalled to me, she walked up Martina Place praying Nick wouldn't do it. That particular prayer was destined to go unanswered. Election campaigns were not something Helena was naturally inclined towards, but she threw herself into them anyway, a happy warrior standing by Bob's side through all the slings and arrows. It was a path she kept following, including for the seven years Bob served as opposition leader, his decade as Premier, then his period as senator and Minister for Foreign Affairs. As a product of Catholic schooling myself, I can only imagine that some of Helena's strength came from the nuns who taught her, first at the convent school in Taiping, Malaysia, then at Our Lady of Mercy College in Parramatta, where she was welcomed by the girls and nuns alike. Helena would've been deeply touched that some of the nuns from OLMC attended today's funeral. Even after all these decades, it remains remarkable to think that Helena was among the first generation of Asian migrants to win permanent residency as the old White Australia policy disintegrated, a process that began under Harold Holt and was finalised under Gough Whitlam. Indeed, four of her five siblings and their families have settled here in Australia. Helena made friends easily at school and at university and excelled at every undertaking. We are lucky that Helena chose this great country. Malaysia's loss was Australia's gain, and Australia's gain was Bob's greatest fortune. Bob and Helena Carr made a whole world together. Amid the tragedy of Helena's sudden passing, Bob channelled his grief into a public tribute, a powerful declaration of unconditional love at a time when there is too much hate in the world. In it Bob wrote: She was the light of my life, the little friend always there. No one ever smiled more, or with more spirit. It is inconceivable I could have won office for my party and held the premiership for over 10 years without the steadiness of her companionship, her sense of fun and her lambent eyes. He concluded: The light has gone out of my life. I know many have faced this challenge, the loss of a life partner, the journey no one wishes. One reason to trying is my sense she is there telling me to go on for her. Perhaps it's fitting the last opera that she saw on that final perfect day with Bob in Vienna was Donizetti's The Elixir of Love. Wrapped up in the beauty of the music, the great theme at its height is the triumph of sincerity, and it leaves everyone, cast and audience alike, uplifted into happiness. So perfectly Helena, it's a reminder that not everyone who contributes to our political life is someone who's elected to public office. Often it's the people who back us up day after day, week after week, month after month and, in Helena's case, not just a year after year—decade after decade. I pay tribute to her and I give my condolences to Bob, the extended Carr family and Helena's extended family. May we all hold onto her glow and may Helena Carr rest in peace. 15:18 Mr DUTTON 00AKI Dickson I spoke to the Prime Minister earlier today in relation to his desire to seek leave on this matter, and, of course, we granted it, for many reasons. Firstly, out of respect for the Prime Minister and his relationship with Helena and Bob Carr. Listening to the Prime Minister, his pain that he wasn't able to be there today was obvious. He worked with the Carr family very closely as part of the staff, and as part of the broader family, effectively. So we send our condolences to you, Prime Minister, and, more importantly, to Bob Carr, who has been a servant of the Labor Party for many decades, a servant of this parliament and a great representative for our country, not just as Premier of New South Wales but in his time as a senator and as the Minister for Foreign Affairs. The sudden passing of Helena came as a shock to all because she was such a vibrant character. But, as the Prime Minister rightly points out, she was a conscript in this business. All of us have stuck our hands up and we're here as elected members of parliament. She wasn't in that category. She was a conscript, but a very loyal one—a loyal one to Bob, always being by his side and supporting him in the decisions that he made during the course of his public life, but also in his private life. And, as we know, if we're being honest, none of us can truly contribute to full effect in this place if we don't have that support of the people who love us most. Bob Carr deserves our recognition today for the pain and grief that he and his family are going through. We extend our condolences to him and to the broader Labor Party on the loss of Helena—a life well lived; a lady of great grace; and a great contributor, in her own right, to the Labor Party, to the state of New South Wales and to our great country. The SPEAKER 53517 I thank the Leader of the Opposition. QUESTIONS TO THE SPEAKER 37 QUESTIONS TO THE SPEAKER Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Small Business Redundancy Exemption) Bill 2023, Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Strengthening Protections Against Discrimination) Bill 2023, Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Asbestos Safety and Eradication Agency) Bill 2023, Fair Work Legislation Amendment (First Responders) Bill 2023 37

Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Small Business Redundancy Exemption) Bill 2023

Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Strengthening Protections Against Discrimination) Bill 2023

Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Asbestos Safety and Eradication Agency) Bill 2023

Fair Work Legislation Amendment (First Responders) Bill 2023

15:20 Mr FLETCHER L6B Bradfield Mr Speaker, I have in fact two questions for you. The first concerns the handling of the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Small Business Redundancy Exemption) Bill 2023. The House received this bill via a message from the Senate yesterday. The bill was read a first time, at which time the bill was entered into the custody of the House. After this, the Leader of the House moved that the second reading be made an order of the day. A debate ensued. That debate was interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. It's the standard practice of this House that, when debate on a question is automatically interrupted under standing order 43, the matter is listed on the Notice Paper. But this bill is now not listed on the Notice Paper. My question to you is: why is this bill not listed on the Notice Paper? That's the first question. I have a second question—which I can go to immediately? The SPEAKER 53517 We'll do it together. Mr FLETCHER L6B My second question concerns the handling of three other bills: the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Strengthening Protections Against Discrimination) Bill 2023, the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Asbestos Safety and Eradication Agency) Bill 2023, and the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (First Responders) Bill 2023. These bills were transmitted from the Senate to the House yesterday. Each of them were read for a first time. They entered the custody of the House. Standing order 166 requires that a Senate bill coming to the House be treated to the necessary extent as a House bill. However, these bills are not listed on the Notice Paper, which makes them unavailable to be proceeded with, which raises the question of whether standing order 166 has been complied with. Accordingly, my question to you in respect of these three bills is: why are they not on the Notice Paper? 15:22 The SPEAKER 53517 I just want to deal with this matter. If the Manager of Opposition Business would like to have a look at Practice on page 616, I want to quote that to the House: Orders of the day are items of business which have already— and I repeat, 'already'— been before the House and which the House has ordered to be taken into consideration at a future time … So there are two limbs to this test. What was clear from yesterday's proceedings was: the House made no such decision on any of the Senate bills and therefore did not satisfy this test. I repeat: the House made no order on any of the bills to consider them at a later hour or another day. So the second part of the test was not satisfied, and therefore the bills do not become orders of the day. DOCUMENTS 37 DOCUMENTS Presentation 37 15:23 Mr BURKE DYW Watson Documents are tabled in accordance with the list circulated to honourable members earlier today. Full details of the documents will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings. MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE 37 MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE Living Standards 37 15:23 The SPEAKER 53517 I have received a letter from the honourable member for Hume proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: Under this Government, Australia has experienced the largest decline in living standards of any advanced economy in the OECD. 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— 15:23 Mr TAYLOR 231027 Hume Right now, things are increasingly tough for hardworking Australians who are trying to get ahead. As they approach Christmas, they're making tough decisions as they try to work out how they're going to make ends meet, how they're going to pay for gifts for their loved ones, pay for the Christmas meals and pay for the Christmas holidays. But we know: things are only getting worse right now. We've learned, just in the last week, that Australians have seen the largest fall in living standards of any advanced country in the world—the largest fall in living standards. Of course, economists measure that from disposable income per person, and Australia has seen over the 12 months to June this year a five per cent reduction in those living standards—a five per cent reduction in living standards! If we compare that to other countries around the world, Spain, the United States, the United Kingdom, Denmark, France, Belgium, Finland and Hungary have all gone forward. We hear from those opposite, on a regular basis, that this is all someone else's fault, that this is all from international factors—that it's all stuff that's happening right around the globe! But the truth of the matter is that we're worse off than all our peers. We're worse than Germany, the Netherlands, Canada, Italy, Austria, Ireland, Sweden and Norway—all of them! This is a report card that the economics team opposite must be really pleased with. They must be really happy about this! But let me tell everyone who isn't happy—those hardworking Australians who are trying to get ahead and who are trying to work out how to get through not next year, but Christmas—that sitting beneath those numbers is a truly awful set of underlying numbers. As we've seen, there have been 12 interest rate increases under this Labor government. They keep telling us that they're going to stop, but they keep going up, time and time again. In fact, Australians are paying for this in their housing costs, in their mortgage payments or their rental costs—it all flows through. And it's going to keep flowing through, according to the markets. If we look at the long-term interest rate, which is a measure of what we expect over the coming years, then, again, we're the worst of the major countries in the advanced world. Australia's long-term interest rate term is sitting on 4.7 per cent. Of course, Australians, whether they're small-business owners or households, pay significantly more than that; that's the underlying rate. The US is below that, as is Italy and South Korea. Spain is down at 3.8, Portugal is 3.4, France is 3.3, the Netherlands is on three, Germany is 2.7 and Japan is down at one per cent. Before COVID and throughout the period of COVID, we saw long-term interest rates of around one per cent—now we're sitting on 4.7 per cent. This is the handiwork of a Treasurer who simply doesn't have a clue. It's a Treasurer who's a doctor of spin, not a doctor of economics. The doctor of economics has just left the premises—and this one here at the table, the member for Whitlam, isn't a doctor of economics either, I can tell you! But the doctor of spin has delivered these truly awful outcomes. If we look at inflation then, again, we're amongst the very worst in the world when you look at the advanced countries. Our core inflation is at 5.2 per cent, but Germany is at 4.6, France at 4.6, Italy at 4.6, the USA at 4.1, Japan at 2.8 and Canada at 2.8. Again, we're at the wrong end of the table, and that is a pain that every Australian is paying for, with real wages going backwards. We know that for hardworking Australians on wages, real wages have gone back by six per cent. Again, we see this as amongst the very worst in the world. Labour productivity is in absolute freefall, with a 6.7 per cent reduction in labour productivity since Labor came to government. And we have an economy that is only growing because of rapid population growth—almost half a million people came into the country in the last 12 months. That's the only reason that the economy is growing: we've had two quarters in a row with GDP per person going backwards. Those opposite try to tell Australians that they're okay, that they're better off. Well, Australians are no better off, because this is a government that's distracted. This is a government that has had its eye off the ball. This is a government that has been obsessed with other issues, when the only issue that has mattered for hardworking Australians is how to make ends meet. That's what they're talking about around their kitchen tables, but it sure isn't what this lot is talking about around their cabinet table. All of this amounts to a monstrous broken promise. Before the election, the Prime Minister said: Australians are being hit with a triple whammy of skyrocketing costs of essentials, falling real wages and now an interest rate hike. They need a government with a plan to ease the cost of living. It turns out that this was an extraordinary broken promise. He promised cheaper mortgages on many occasions. Instead of that, what we've seen is the average household with a $750,000 mortgage paying an additional $24,000 a year in mortgage repayments. This is the worst mortgage affordability in Sydney since 1990. I'm old enough to remember the pain that that caused so many people at that time when we saw skyrocketing interest rates. This is a government that promised a $275 reduction in electricity prices. There's no sign of that. In fact, under this government, we have seen electricity prices increase by 18 per cent and gas prices go up by 28 per cent. More generally, of course, they said there was going to be reduction in the stress on the cost of living, but we've seen food go up by 8.2 per cent. In terms of housing costs, rentals have gone up by 10.4 per cent. The cost of insurance has increased by 17.3 per cent. The price of everything has been going up for hardworking Australians. Charities like Foodbank and Vinnies tell us they're seeing record numbers of families reaching out for help. I've seen this in my own electorate. I've seen it wherever I've gone across Australia. I made a point of going to food banks across this great nation. What we're seeing now is a different set of people going into those food banks. They are often double-income families—the kids will be there—as they simply try to put food on the table. I can be absolutely sure that, in the lead-up to Christmas this year, we're going to see many, many Australians relying on those wonderful services that are provided by so many wonderful Australians across this great nation. We know that the government's policies have made a bad situation worse. Whilst the Reserve Bank has been trying to put its foot on the brakes, the government has been putting its foot on the accelerator. Former Reserve Bank member Warwick McKibbin has said that the RBA was left to fight inflation with higher interest rates because the government didn't do the work. At the last RBA meeting, Michele Bullock noted that the risk of inflation remaining higher for longer has increased because there is no meaningful plan from this government. At the heart of this is a government that is distracted and is not focused on the job at hand. It has a Treasurer who is a doctor of spin, not a doctor of economics, who writes 6,000-word essays on remaking capitalism. If this is remaking capitalism, I tell you what: leave us with the real thing! We need a government that is focused on those hardworking Australians who are trying to get ahead, getting inflation down across the board and making it possible for them to have a Christmas with their loved ones that they can enjoy without worrying about how to pay the bills. 15:33 Mr JONES A9B Whitlam It is true that Australians are doing it tough, and it is true that cost-of-living pressures are bearing down upon families and small businesses across the country. What is also true is that the answers to these questions do not lie in the drongo economics that were practised for nine years by those opposite and then espoused for another 9½ minutes by the shadow Treasurer. It is true that the causes of inflation are coming at us from around the world. Energy prices kicked off again because the energy cartels in the Middle East and in Russia have restricted supply, putting pressure on the bowser price of petrol and diesel in this country and in every other country around the world. It is true that the inflationary pressures, which are still bearing down upon us, are because of the war in Ukraine and the uncertainty created in the Middle East. They didn't start in Australia, but they are being felt by households and small businesses in this country. It is absolutely true that those international pressures are bearing down upon households in Australia. It is also true that there are domestic causes of this inflation. The No. 1 cause of domestic inflation is the abysmal state in which the coalition parties left the country and left the budget when they departed from government in May last year. We were incredibly poorly prepared to deal with supply chain shortages that are now bearing upon industries across the economy, particularly the building industry. The former government chased offshore what remained of manufacturing businesses in this country, and they were not ashamed about it. In the words of the former Treasurer: 'They can leave.' It wasn't just the trade and goods sector. It was everywhere across the economy. It took a lot of chutzpah for the member for Hume to talk about energy prices, because there is not another person in this parliament who is more responsible for the high price of energy that Australian households and businesses are experiencing today. And I'm not talking about the fact that he authorised a significant increase in the wholesale price of energy immediately before the election but hid it from the Australian people. I'm talking about the fact that there's not another person in parliament who is more responsible for destroying every single energy policy that they attempted to put together from that side of the parliament when they were in government. Is there any wonder why we saw a capital strike in this country? Is there any wonder why we saw a massive decrease in the amount of scaled electricity production in this country? Is there any reason why we have a transmission and distribution system in this country which is a decade behind where we need to be? It is because of the policies of the member for Hume and the coalition parties in particular. A skills crisis and a skills shortage. You can't fix them overnight, but the Minister for Skills and Training is doing a valiant job at putting in place the policies to train the next generation of apprentices and trainees to ensure that we are not reliant on the lazy response that they left us with, where the answer to any skills shortage was to bring people in from overseas. Yes, it is important. We've always been a nation that has relied on immigration, but we should be training our own and using our own first. The entry price to credibility on the cost of living is to have done something about it when you had the opportunity. They talk about the problems that we have with housing affordability and rental affordability. You would have thought that a party that was concerned about these things would have voted in favour of a policy that was going to deliver 30,000 additional affordable homes in this country. Did they vote for it? No, they voted against it. You'd think that a party that was concerned about cost-of-living issues would have voted for cheaper medicines. Did they vote for them? No, they voted against them. You would have thought that a party concerned about energy bill relief would have voted in favour of the government's policies to provide energy bill relief for small businesses and for households. They voted against it. The credibility of this mob over here is zero when it comes to the price of living and the cost pressures bearing upon households across this country. You don't just have to deal with household relief. There are two parts to affordability and cost-of-living issues. There's the expense part but there's also the income part. That mob have opposed every single wage increase—and I'm not just talking about the last 18 months; I'm talking about the last 120 years of wage determinations in this country. There is not a pay rise that has flowed to workers, particularly low-paid workers, in this country for the last 123 years that that mob have not opposed. The same was the case when it came to the last two pay rises awarded by the Fair Work Commission—supported by the Labor Party and opposed by the coalition. The entry price to a discussion on the cost of living is to have done something about it when you had the opportunity. They had an opportunity for nine years in government and they made the situation worse. They had the opportunity to do something about it by supporting our policies, but they opposed them. In question time earlier today the Minister for Early Childhood Education gave an example of how our childcare policies are actually significantly decreasing the price that households are paying for child care. On their watch they went up 40 per cent and on our watch they went down 18 per cent. That's what a government does when it is focused on cost-of-living relief. In fact, let's look through the raft of policies. There's fee-free TAFE. You had an opportunity to do it for 10 years while in government, but you didn't do it. Then there is building more affordable homes, expanding paid parental leave and more Medicare. The biggest single investment in bulk-billing in our nation's history was led by the minister for health. These very same policies were opposed by the current Leader of the Opposition when he was the health minister. These are the sorts of things you do when you're concerned about providing household relief. I want to say something about fiscal management, because this is the big one. They had nine years to balance the budget—under the Abbott government, under the Turnbull government and under the Morrison government. Year after year after lonely year they promised to do it, issued press releases and even minted coffee mugs, but did they produce a surplus? In fact, the member for Riverina has the surplus coffee mugs but he didn't get the budget surplus. There was a surplus of coffee mugs but no budget surplus. In our very first budget we turned the budget around from a $78 billion deficit to a $20 billion surplus. They promised it for nine years and we delivered it in our first budget. That is what a government that is more focused on policy outcomes than press releases does to assist on cost-of-living issues. You don't have to take our word for it. The member for Hume had to go back not one or two governors of the Reserve Bank but actually three Reserve Bank governors—the Reserve Bank board from three terms ago—to find somebody who agreed with his policy. You don't have to go that far back. Just listen to what the current Reserve Bank governor has had to say about the Labor government's policies. She has acknowledged the fact that the government's fiscal restraint—the fact that we are returning over 78 per cent of new government revenue to paying down the debt we inherited from the mob over there—is actually taking pressure off inflation and making the Reserve Bank's job easier than it would otherwise be. It's not about press releases and it's not about coffee mugs. It's actually getting on with doing the job. 15:44 Mr McCORMACK 219646 Riverina The Assistant Treasurer needs to be a little bit careful when he disparages Drongo. I know it's a popular term in the Australian vernacular, but it was a very good racehorse in the 1920s. Indeed it was. It was by the Melbourne Cup runner Lanius. It came midfield. It also ran in the Melbourne Cup. It ran second in the Victoria Derby, if my memory is correct. Speaking of horses and the Melbourne Cup, last Tuesday we had the rates that stopped the nation. Another rate rise on Labor's watch. That makes it a dirty dozen. That makes it 12 rate rises under those opposite. Those opposite, who came into power promising that life would be better. Those opposite, who came into power promising that life would be cheaper. Those opposite, who came into power promising a $275 household power bill cut. How did that go? We know how that went. Under the coalition, in our last term, power prices went down eight per cent. Under those opposite, they've gone up a thousand dollars per household. It's just not good enough. Mr McCORMACK 219646 The Assistant Treasurer can disparage us all he likes and disparage former racehorses—he can do whatever he likes—but the facts are clear: those now in government have done a pretty dodgy job when it comes to the cost of living, and a pretty dodgy job when it comes to making sure that the economy runs efficiently. But don't take my word for it, because all politics is local. A constituent, Kylie Downes, a Parkes mum, phoned my office the other day. She contacted my office and told my staff that she upgraded her electrical appliances to more energy efficient versions. She swapped from electric hot water to gas. She's having to do all of these things to try and make ends meet, and yet her quarterly power bill from the end of April to the end of July almost doubled. It almost doubled, from $717 in 2022 to more than $1,200 in 2023. Kylie's wondering where her $275 power bill cut is. She's wondering where that is. But it's not just Kylie. It's people right across Australia. It's people those opposite are not listening to, and they'd be in each and every one of your electorates. You should get out a little bit more often and not just talk at your constituents but listen to them. Listen to them and what they are saying about their power bills. Listen to them about what they're saying every time they go to the bowser and fill up with fuel. Listen to them every time they go to the supermarket and get a trolley full of groceries, because it's costing more. Yet you're putting in policies that are just going to cost everyday, ordinary Australians, like Kylie and so many others besides, more and more every time they reach into their purse and every time they reach into their wallet. They're having to shell out more and more. This Christmas it's going to be so tough for so many people. Again, don't just take my word for it. Listen to the advice from the Chief Executive Officer of the New South Wales Council of Social Services, Joanna Quilty. She said, 'We knew things were bad, but this is the worst we have seen in many years.' The member for Hume, the shadow Treasurer, was right when he said more and more people are looking to the services provided by St Vinnies, looking to the services provided by the Salvos and looking to the services provided for each and all of our communities. Ms Quilty said people are hanging on by a knife's edge. This isn't necessary. It's because of the policies of those opposite. Our farmers are doing it tough. Just the other day sheep, which were once worth more than $200 a head, sold in Wagga Wagga for a dollar a head. How can farmers sustain that? How can they live on that? Yet those opposite are going to put a ban on live exports. They want to take the water away from our farmers and make it so much tougher to grow food and fibre. Have a rethink. Stop, pause and reflect about what you're doing to the Australian economy and what you're doing to the Australian people—mums like Kylie in Parkes and people in your electorates. Start listening. 15:49 Dr REID 300126 Robertson I am never disappointed by the performances of the member for Riverina, but what I want to tell this chamber here today is that the federal Labor government is helping to ease the cost of living and improve the living standards of Australians right across the country but, in particular, in my home electorate of Robertson. This is in stark comparison to that group of people on the other side of this chamber that claim to represent Australians. They continue to fail the Australian people. They continue to fail them because they continue to fail to isolate what causes and issues people are talking about on the ground. What I would say to the member for Hume if he were still in the chamber, because this is his matter of public importance, is that maybe he should get out and doorknock and talk to his constituents. I'm glad the member for Riverina talks to his constituents. I know everyone on this side of the chamber does. But it would appear that the member for Hume is simply incapable of talking to his constituents and finding out what is happening on the ground. If those opposite were talking to real people rather than just watching the 24-hour news cycle over and over again, they would understand our cost-of-living measures are actually making a real difference to Australians in communities from the east coast to the west coast, to the Territory in the north and down south to Tasmania. I am proud to be part of a federal Labor government that has delivered on a broad range of cost-of-living measures that are bringing relief to Australians right now. Let's talk about the tripling of the bulk-billing incentive. That is going to help over 73,000 people in my electorate alone. People in Robertson can see a bulk-billed doctor on the Central Coast. That's over 200,000 people that can get access to primary care instead of going into the emergency department and seeing me in the middle of the night. There are so many other areas where our cost-of-living measure are making a real difference for Australians. This month we will be opening the Robertson Medicare urgent care clinic, which will see patients with non-life-threatening but urgent conditions, taking pressure off our emergency departments, taking pressure off our GPs and making sure people can get the health care they need and the health care they deserve. The Peninsula Medicare Urgent Care Clinic will ease that pressure. People will be able to see a doctor when they are sick. All that you are going to need when you walk through the door with that problem is your Medicare card—not your credit card, your Medicare card. Making it easier to see a doctor is bringing real relief. That is raising the standard of living for Australian families in my community. The Albanese Labor government has delivered and committed to improving general practice in other ways through our Strengthening Medicare grants as well, which will have follow-on effects for families in Robertson but also right across the country. Those general practice grants have assisted our doctors and nurses in primary care on the Central Coast to the tune of over $1 million. I am ecstatic that 38 practices in my electorate are going to benefit from this investment. We are looking at upgrades to IT. We are looking at upgrades to their practices and making sure that patients can get the care that they need. Just the other week I was fortunate to have the Hon. Chris Bowen, the Minister for Climate Change and Energy, visit my electorate. He helped me officially switch on the Narara community battery, the second community battery to be switched on in Australia. This important achievement marked a significant turning point for people living on the Central Coast and for our renewable energy policies. It means eligible people living in Narara with solar panels can now store excess solar electricity in that community battery. This electricity can now be used during the night-time and by others in the community who may not have the ability to have solar panels on their rooftops. This community battery does many things. It helps the local electricity grid, it helps reduce our carbon emissions and it helps reduce the cost of electricity for eligible households. The federal government is also delivering energy bill relief in the form of energy rebates quarterly to eligible low-income households, including pensioners, families and carers. That's something that the opposition voted against. With every single form of cost-of-living relief we have put forward to this parliament, they continue to vote against it. It is absolutely shameful that they continue with this behaviour. On this side of the chamber, we are looking after Australians right across this country. 15:54 Mr WOLAHAN 235654 Menzies I want to thank the member Robertson for his contribution and references to doorknocking. I think we can never do enough doorknocking, whether we are humble backbenchers in opposition or on the other side or the Treasurer. I suggest that the Treasurer do some doorknocking this summer not just of houses and households in his electorate and other electorates but in particular of small businesses. I think he might learn a lot. I think he might, if he does that, spend this summer doing different tasks than he did last summer. I remember, in February, reading the Treasurer's essay; it was dated 1 February 2023, so I take it he wrote it over the summer. It was an interesting essay that referred to Greek philosophers and Guernica in Spain; I can only presume he was wishing he was in Greece or travelling through Spain. It also made him become quite a radical. He said things like this: 'It's not just our economic institutions that need renewing or restructuring, but the way our markets allocate and arrange capital as well.' He then criticised the neoliberal model and had all sorts of radical ideas. That was quite an interesting insight into the Treasurer. Let's judge the Treasurer on his record. At the end of the year, how has that essay played out? There were three records broken this month. The first is, as revealed by the shadow Treasurer, that the OECD revealed Australian households suffered the largest decline in real per capita household disposable income of any advanced economy—down 5.1 per cent. Compare that with Chile—up 5.6 per cent; Spain—up 6 per cent; and the US—up 3.5 per cent. But there were two other records we broke. We saw the lowest rental availability among our peers—0.9 per cent. That number is a percentage of the stock available for rent. Of course there's a rental crisis; it's the one thing the Greens actually get right. There is a crisis in rental and housing accommodation. Compare that to 6.3 per cent in Singapore and Hong Kong. No-one who's been to Singapore and Hong Kong would say they're struggling for supply. They've got a lot less land than we do in this country, but for some reason we can't build the stock and have housing available for people who need it. And No. 3 is that the Economist—not exactly a right-of-centre magazine anymore—ranked Australia No. 1 for entrenched inflation. Those three records don't bode well for this essay. Can I suggest that a different essay be produced over summer by the Treasurer, that he turns his mind to small business and asks: 'What is it like to start a small business? If I have some capital of my own or some from a bank, how do I start a small business?' Let's turn to some of the obstacles. We've seen in this parliament the 'closing loopholes' bill, which runs to 278 pages and has an explanatory memorandum of 305 pages. How's that helping small business start a business! It's got a definition of 'casual' that runs to three pages. It's got a definition of 'employment' that runs to seven pages. We talk about productivity and competition, but these are productivity and competition killers. That's 278 pages and 305 pages on top of the 1,098 pages of the Fair Work Act. Tell that to a small-business person or an aspiring small-business owner, on how they're supposed to start a business. Then I take the Treasurer to the Corporations Act; it runs to 3,661 pages. The Income Tax Assessment Act runs at 11 volumes to 4,842 pages. We've got the GST Act at 655 pages—and on and on it goes. You have to ask yourself, and the Treasurer should ask himself: how can aspiring small-business and medium-business owners think this is a good place to start a business? You know what's going to happen? They're going to go to their financial adviser and they're going to say: 'It's too hard. Put your money in property and put your money in an exchange traded fund.' What will that mean for this country, where, right now, 42 per cent of people employed in the private sector are employed in a small business, compared with 34 per cent in a large business? When you add together small and medium businesses who employ people in this country, the economy doesn't work without them. I implore the Treasurer to do some reading and some doorknocking over the summer, and to write another essay where he puts himself in the shoes of aspirational Australians, aspirational families and aspirational future small-business owners. The generation of this economy relies on him doing a new essay and doing his homework over the summer. 15:59 Ms THWAITES 282212 Jagajaga I was interested to hear the member for Menzies's vision of a lawless country, apparently, with businesses out there growing on their own, with no laws around that, doing what they need to do and presumably not paying their workers. There is no doubt Australians are facing very real cost-of-living pressures, and our government is absolutely aware of that. And Australians are aware of that, in my community and in others. The other thing that Australians are aware of is that our government is investing in the things that make our community stronger. We're investing in health care, in child care and in education—in the things that we all value in this country and which were, for too long, under nearly a decade of those opposite, neglected. It's not untrue to say that when this government came into office Medicare was on its knees. It's not untrue to say that we were facing a crisis, with GPs around the country saying they couldn't go on because of the policies of those opposite. It was because of the now Leader of the Opposition, who, when he was the health minister, ranked as the worst health minister in living memory. He tried to introduce a Medicare copayment. Those opposite did nothing to save Medicare. Australians know that we, on this side, built Medicare and that we will always invest in Medicare. Since coming into office, we've made record investments in bulk-billing. Those record investments needed to be made; without those investments, which had been neglected for nearly a decade by those opposite, we were facing a health crisis. So we've tripled the bulk-billing incentive for key groups: children under 16, pensioners and Commonwealth concession cardholders. That was a crucial investment so that people in our communities could see a doctor. It was the biggest increase to Medicare rebates in more than 30 years. And we're making medicines cheaper. Again, I have received much correspondence from people in my community about the very real difference that is making for them. We're putting Medicare Urgent Care Clinics in right across the country, including one in Heidelberg in my community. Again, I've had direct feedback from people in my community about how helpful this is been; the reviews are in about our Medicare Urgent Care Clinic in Heidelberg. Kelly said: 'We had a late Sunday morning visit for a knee injury, post holiday. We were greeted by friendly reception staff and seen to by an obviously experienced RN before seeing the doctor. The care was efficient, friendly and of an excellent standard.' Svetlana said: 'Our youngest son had an injured toe, and your team made the whole process a breeze. When we arrived, the doctor was prompt and efficient, guiding us to get an x-ray. What's even more amazing is that we had the results and a plan in less than an hour.' Terence said: 'From start to finish I was treated with absolute respect and dignity. The nurse I saw prior to the doctor left no stone unturned, and was kind and compassionate. The doctor was equally as kind and thorough, and it all felt very genuine. This is what health care should feel like.' That is what this government is doing: investing in health care in our communities, making sure that people in my community and around the country can see a doctor when they need to and that they get health care that is affordable. Another area that I want to concentrate on where our government has put a lot of effort into relieving the cost-of-living pressures is when it comes to one of the particular pressures that families, and particularly working women, face in this country: child care. We know that Australians have one of the most expensive childcare systems in the OECD. Our government knew that when we came into office, so we came in with a plan to do something about it. We came in with a commitment to make child care cheaper for Australian families, and we have delivered on that commitment. On 1 July this year, we introduced changes to the childcare subsidy, helping 1.2 million families right across the country, including 6,600 in my community. This is good for families, it's good for kids and it's good for our entire country. Again, we get it on this side of the chamber. We understand that child care is one of the biggest expenses that Australian families, and particularly Australian women, face. And, just like we said we would, we've invested in it. This government takes a serious approach to supporting Australians with cost-of-living pressures. We're investing in the things that matter: in health care, child care and education right around our country. We have a plan; those opposite only have negativity. They do not have a plan for our future. 16:04 Ms WARE 300123 Hughes I rise to speak in favour of this matter of public importance, and I thank the shadow Treasurer for bringing it forward: that under this government Australia has experienced the largest decline in living standards of any advanced economy in the OECD. I've just been present in this place to hear from the member for Jagajaga, who said that she was rising to speak against this MPI. The member for Jagajaga went through a whole range of areas in which she says that the government is improving the lives of Australians. What she failed to address though was the whole topic of this matter of public importance, which is: if the government is doing such a fantastic job, why is it that we are now facing the largest decline in living standards of any of our peers across the OECD? I'll just remind the member for Jagajaga of what the then opposition leader now Prime Minister said on 17 March 2022: 'a Labor government will lower the cost of living.' We are now halfway through this government's first time, and what do we have? We have some of the worst economic indicators, not just in recent Australian history but when compared to the rest of the world, to other OECD nations, to our peers. I'll mention just some of them: Spain, Chile, the United States, Slovenia, Poland, the United Kingdom, Portugal, Denmark, France, Belgium, Finland, Hungary. Despite promising to ease cost-of-living pressures, under this Prime Minister Australians are going backwards and will continue to go backwards. In the 12 months to June of this year, Australian household income slumped by 5.1 per cent. It was the biggest fall amongst OECD nations. And there are three indicators for this: high inflation, declining real wages and falling productivity. Australians' inflation is also higher than almost any other advanced economy. This includes the US, Canada, France and Germany. So, when the Prime Minister turns around and says: 'Oh, the inflation rate? A lot of these factors are from matters going on overseas, from conflicts overseas', why is it that our OECD peers are not so affected? We are affected more because it is not anything to do now with overseas conflict; it is instead due to the government's financial mismanagement and inability to rein in inflation. It's its spending in the wrong areas. It is spending that is not improving the lives of Australians, and it is not doing anything to increase productivity in this country. Another pre-election promise of the Prime Minister was that Labor has 'real, lasting plans for cheaper mortgages.' Well, mortgages have now increased and housing prices have increased by more than 9.6 per cent. And I know in my electorate of Hughes average mortgages of $750,000 are, now, after 12 interest rate rises under this government's watch, $24,000 a year more than they were in April of last year. While we're talking about inflation, I am reminded of a certain episode in The West Wing. There are probably many in this place on my side and on the other side who enjoyed The West Wing. I'm reminded of Josh Lyman getting himself caught in a bit of trouble. He ended up having to admit that there was a president's secret plan to fight inflation. Because of the silence on the other side about inflation, I'm wondering if there is, in fact, a prime minister's secret plan to fight inflation and, if there is that secret plan, when the Prime Minister will share it with the country and with those of us here. It's not just us saying this—independent economist Chris Richardson told the Australian newspaper, and this is to do with conflicts overseas: 'inflation has locked up, and it's not just petrol, it's not just the Middle East; it is popping up in new areas of the Australian economy and that makes it a bigger juggle.' Under this government, Australia has experienced the largest decline in living standards of any advanced economy in the OECD. This is a national disgrace. 16:09 Mr RAE 300122 Hawke Look, we all know that the shadow Treasurer is not a real-economics details guy. He never has been. He's a big picture kind of guy. He made his name that way. Who could forget when he walked in here and he'd been on the phone to his stockbroker or something. I think he'd been trying to check the price of spread. He meant interest spread, but, of course, they gave him the vegemite price! He didn't quite get it right. He misheard, he misremembered and he misreported it. He brought in the annual price and tried to claim to the Australian people that it was the monthly price. Of course, it was entirely incorrect and entirely misleading. Again, I think that sums up the quality of advice and contribution that the shadow Treasurer regularly makes in this place. I doubt he's a vegemite guy. He wouldn't have bought a jar of vegemite recently. I'm not sure exactly what the shadow Treasurer puts on his toast before he goes out for his game of polo or whatever it is he does on the weekends. It's probably a rich cod roe or something like that— Mr RAE 300122 I think, Member for Groom. It would be something along those lines, I suspect. There's absolutely no doubt—and those of us on this side of the House aren't in any doubt—that Australians are doing it very, very tough out there. The challenges in terms of cost of living are very real. Indeed, it's many of the electorates represented by those on this side of the House that feel that most acutely, including mine. My electorate has one of the highest rates of mortgage home ownership in the country, the fastest growing community with the greatest of infrastructure pressures and the biggest challenges in terms of jobs and job security. So we, on this side of the House, are acutely aware of those challenges. Every day we have a laser-like focus on facing and addressing those challenges and on supporting our communities and the Australian people to deal with those household economic challenges. The data that was released by the OECD has been well and truly fudged by those opposite. I'm not accusing them of dishonesty but more of incompetency on this particular front. The information that was released by the OECD is about inflation-adjusted disposable income. The most important factor—the shadow Treasurer didn't mention this once—in calculating inflation-adjusted disposable income is wages. Wages are the most important factor when calculating any kind of household income. Australians suffered a decade of the Liberals opposite pursuing an irresponsible and ideologically flawed approach to suppressing the wages of Australian workers. They haven't been dishonest about that either. They've been upfront. They were very clear that it was part of their economic plan to suppress the wages of Australian workers. During the pandemic, we did see a rapid rise in this particular inflation-adjusted disposable income category. To answer the former speaker on why Australia is now seeing the greatest correction in that, it's because we did have a very large inflation-adjusted disposable income growth through COVID because of JobKeeper. But at the same time that we were seeing JobKeeper rolled out—and, indeed, a whole bunch of large corporations and large businesses in Australia enjoyed government support at taxpayer cost—we saw those same businesses retrenching and sacking workers. Qantas sacked 1,700 workers illegally. They then fought those workers all the way through the courts. The Supreme Court found it was illegal. Qantas then took it to appeal in the Supreme Court. The decision was upheld on appeal. They then took it to the High Court. The High Court found that Qantas had acted illegally. What we have now is an economy that has been left booby trapped by those opposite. We have a trillion dollars of Liberal debt. We had a decade of deliberate wage suppression. They smashed our supply chains and they've left our manufacturing sector in ruins. Our government is getting on with the task of addressing these issues. We have wages moving and we will rebuild our manufacturing sectors and supply chains accordingly. 16:14 Mr HAMILTON 291387 Groom What a joy it is to be here speaking on this MPI, following my good friend the member for Hawke, although I can't help but take up some of his issues. I think there's a certain joy to this. Let's start with him criticising the shadow Treasurer for being across details. I'm old enough to remember when Mr Albanese stumbled on the cash rate. What was that—day one or day two of the campaign? I can remember when he had to ask the Treasurer what the fuel excise rate was. That was a slightly embarrassing one on details. I also think the point on wages is a tough one. I'll come back to this, but when real wages are falling, and falling very hard, I find that a very difficult position to take. I also want to raise this, because I think this is important: watch just how quickly Labor are running away from Qantas. They were very happy to stand close to Qantas when they wanted their support during the Voice campaign, and very happy to support them during the issue on the slot allocations in Sydney. Now they want to run away from Qantas. I'm sorry; I'm going to call those things out as they're raised. Australians are in to for a very tough Christmas because, as this MPI very clearly points out, the kinds of living standards that we are experiencing in Australia are being felt right across the board. People are having to make some very tough choices. For some, it's: do they take a holiday this year? For some, it's: do they get that extra gift? For some, it's: what food are they able to put on the table? Sadly, this situation doesn't get better on the other side of Christmas. Things are not looking good, whether it be fuel, groceries, mortgages, rent, electricity or gas. All of these things, unfortunately, look like they're going to continue to go up. We had the RBA governor taking the extraordinary position, just last week, that inflation looks more likely now to remain 'higher for longer'. Things are getting worse. For those backbenchers here today, I think I can offer you a little vision into the future, because there's going to be a question asked at the next election: are you better off today than you were when Labor came to government? And I think that's going to hurt. Ms Doyle 299962 Cheaper child care! Mr HAMILTON 291387 You want to talk about cheaper child care? Absolutely! Let's go through a few of the other promises that have been made that haven't come about, for all of those things that I've talked about: fuel, groceries, mortgages, rent, electricity and gas. When Labor were coming into government, they promised that all of these things would go down and they haven't. All of those promises have been broken. Are you better off today than you were when Labor came into government? That question will come back to haunt each and every one of them, and the silence across there indicates that. There were, of course, challenges. There were challenges across the world, and we were part of that— Mr Perrett HVP You certainly were! Mr HAMILTON 291387 Absolutely; every country was! But here's the question: why have other countries been able to face up to those challenges and manage them better than Australia? That's the important question. Inflation in Australia is higher than in almost every other advanced economy. Those opposite have had two budgets and Australia has suffered the largest fall in living standards of any advanced economy. This is an important point, because other countries have focused on the challenge. Other countries have committed to the promises that they made of addressing inflation and making it their No. 1 focus. What's the difference between Australia and these other countries? A lot of them didn't waste 18 months focusing on a Voice referendum that no-one wanted. A lot of those countries didn't try to take their countries down a path of division when they were warned against that, when the issue confronting every household was the cost of living. Are you better off today than you were when Labor came into government? This will come back time and time again, because—this is the message to Australians—inflation is an issue for you because it wasn't an issue for this government. They've been focused on other things; they've been focused on the Voice for 18 months, when there were many things that could have been done. I can remember—it was the first meeting with the RBA governor during this term of government—the pleading that monetary and fiscal policy continue to work together as they had under the previous government. We've got to remember that every dollar the government adds to the economy is another dollar that the RBA has to take out with interest rate rises. This is why we're seeing interest rate rises continue and why inflation will continue: because the government continues on its path of spending $185 billion extra. We are now spending more than we were pre pandemic. This is an incredible response from a government at a time of cost-of-living pressures. I've said it many times, and I think everyone here is going to hear this again and again and again: are you better off today than you were when Labor came to government? The answer is a resounding no. Australia knows it, and I'm sure every backbencher here knows it too. 16:19 Ms MASCARENHAS 298800 Swan I have to say that I fundamentally disagree with the member for Groom. What we are looking at right now is a federal Labor government that is in touch with people and is looking at targeted cost-of-living relief. I recognise that households are doing it tough right now. This is something that we on this side fundamentally understand. We are a party that is in touch with people. We speak to our constituents. We go doorknocking. We understand this. The other thing I describe is the concept that I call business as usual. Business as usual is the trajectory of an organisation or a government. If we look at the last nine years of mismanagement under the coalition government, their business as usual was, frankly, not good enough. It was a wasted decade. They were asleep at the wheel. They weren't looking at what households actually need. The truth is that billions of dollars were wasted on rorts and there was nothing to show for it except for a bank balance that was heaving with $1 trillion of debt. It wasn't just incompetence; it was a train wreck. In March 2022 we saw the greatest jump in inflation in a century, and that was under the coalition government. It came after that wasted decade. Here we are again wasting time instead of looking at practical ways that we can help households. The truth is that Labor has been looking at practical measures—fee-free TAFE, cheaper child care, paid parental leave, cheaper medicines and real wage growth. What has the coalition actually been prepared to support? I feel like it's all mug and no coffee; all noes and no real, tangible ideas that will help households on the ground. We know that this coalition is used to basically not putting practical ideas on the table. They didn't have a plan for the future. The truth is the Albanese Labor government has. We know that previously they were intentionally favouring a policy of low wage growth, so basically screwing over workers' wages was an intentional design principle of their economic policies. How is that fair? That is fundamentally not fair. Additionally they were focused on targeting their energies on the most vulnerable. That was through robodebt. They scapegoated people through their miserable and cruel robodebt scheme. It will never happen again. Never will people be treated by a government as second-class citizens. Labor is committed to putting people back at the centre of what we do as a government—a government that fundamentally improves the lives of working people and doesn't punish them. Since coming into office the Albanese Labor government has been working hard to fix what went wrong under the coalition government. Instead of going backwards we are moving forward. Labor have promised and we have delivered. I'm an engineer and I love numbers. The facts and the figures do not lie. It is evidence of what we have been working on. We have implemented a raft of measures, such as fee-free TAFE places. We promised 18,000 fee-free TAFE places in WA and we delivered. In fact, there was so much demand that there were almost 36,000 places. This is a success story and it will make a difference. Access to good quality education without needing to pay fees is making sure we are addressing our skills shortage now and in the future and also providing education opportunities for Australian people. It's one of the many success stories of the Albanese Labor government. We have 111,000 WA families that have benefited from cheaper child care. I am a mother. I have one child who is currently in child care. I know that this is something that parents have been waiting for and have welcomed. Western Australians have already saved $18 million on 1.6 million cheaper scripts at pharmacies since 1 July. It was the first decrease we have had in the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. It was at $42.50 and now it's down to $30. This has made a tangible difference. (Time expired) The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 The time for the discussion has now concluded. BILLS 46 BILLS Interactive Gambling Amendment (Credit and Other Measures) Bill 2023 46

Interactive Gambling Amendment (Credit and Other Measures) Bill 2023

Consideration in Detail 46 16:25 The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 In accordance with standing order 133, I shall now proceed to put the question on the amendments moved by the honourable member for Banks to the Interactive Gambling Amendment (Credit and Other Measures) Bill 2023, on which a division was called for and deferred in accordance with the standing order. No further debate is allowed. The SPEAKER 53517 The question before the House is that the amendments moved by the member for Banks to the Interactive Gambling Amendment (Credit and Other Measures) Bill 2023 be agreed to.  

The House divided. [16:30]
(The Speaker—Hon. Milton Dick)

51 AYES Andrews, K. L. Archer, B. K. Bell, A. M. Birrell, S. J. Buchholz, S. Caldwell, C. M. Chester, D. J. Coleman, D. B. Conaghan, P. J. 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. 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, E. L. O'Brien, L. S. Pasin, A. Pearce, G. B. Pike, H. J. Pitt, K. J. Price, M. L. Ramsey, R. E. (Teller) Stevens, J. Sukkar, M. S. Taylor, A. J. Tehan, D. T. Thompson, P. van Manen, A. J. Vasta, R. X. Violi, A. A. Wallace, A. B. Ware, J. L. Willcox, A. J. Wilson, R. J. Wolahan, K. Wood, J. P. Young, T. J. 86 NOES Albanese, A. N. Aly, A. Ananda-Rajah, M. Bandt, A. P. Bates, S. J. Bowen, C. E. Burke, A. S. Burnell, M. P. Burney, L. J. Burns, J. Butler, M. C. Byrnes, A. J. Chaney, K. E. Charlton, A. H. G. Chesters, L. M. Clare, J. D. Claydon, S. C. Coker, E. A. Collins, J. M. Daniel, Z. Doyle, M. J. J. Dreyfus, M. A. Elliot, M. J. Fernando, C. Freelander, M. R. Garland, C. M. L. Georganas, S. Giles, A. J. Gorman, P. Gosling, L. J. Haines, H. M. Hill, J. C. Husic, E. N. Jones, S. P. Kearney, G. M. Keogh, M. J. Khalil, P. King, C. F. King, M. M. H. Lawrence, T. N. Laxale, J. A. A. Leigh, A. K. Lim, S. B. C. Marles, R. D. Mascarenhas, Z. F. A. McBain, K. L. McBride, E. M. Miller-Frost, L. J. Mitchell, B. K. Mitchell, R. G. 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. Smith, D. P. B. (Teller) Spender, A. M. Stanley, A. M. (Teller) Steggall, Z. Swanson, M. J. Templeman, S. R. Thistlethwaite, M. J. Thwaites, K. L. Tink, K. J. Vamvakinou, M. Watson-Brown, E. Watts, T. G. Wells, A. S. Wilkie, A. D. Wilson, J. H. Zappia, A. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

 16:34 The SPEAKER 53517 In accordance with standing order 133, I shall now proceed to put the question on the amendments moved by the honourable member for Wentworth to the Interactive Gambling Amendment (Credit and Other Measures) Bill 2023 on which a division was called for and deferred in accordance with the standing orders. No further debate is allowed. The question is that the amendments moved by the member for Wentworth be agreed to.  

The House divided. [16:35]
(The Speaker—Hon. Milton Dick)

 14 AYES Bandt, A. P. Bates, S. J. Chaney, K. E. Daniel, Z. Haines, H. M. Le, D. (Teller) Ryan, M. M. Scamps, S. A. Sharkie, R. C. C. Spender, A. M. (Teller) Steggall, Z. Tink, K. J. Watson-Brown, E. Wilkie, A. D. 72 NOES Albanese, A. N. Aly, A. Ananda-Rajah, M. Bowen, C. E. Burke, A. S. Burnell, M. P. Burney, L. J. Burns, J. Butler, M. C. Byrnes, A. J. Charlton, A. H. G. Chesters, L. M. Clare, J. D. Claydon, S. C. Coker, E. A. Collins, J. M. Doyle, M. J. J. Dreyfus, M. A. Elliot, M. J. Fernando, C. Freelander, M. R. Garland, C. M. L. Georganas, S. Giles, A. J. Gorman, P. Gosling, L. J. Hill, J. C. Husic, E. N. Jones, S. P. Kearney, G. M. Keogh, M. J. Khalil, P. King, C. F. King, M. M. H. Lawrence, T. N. Laxale, J. A. A. Leigh, A. K. Lim, S. B. C. Marles, R. D. Mascarenhas, Z. F. A. McBain, K. L. McBride, E. M. Miller-Frost, L. J. Mitchell, B. K. Mitchell, R. G. 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. Smith, D. P. B. (Teller) Stanley, A. M. (Teller) Swanson, M. J. Templeman, S. R. Thwaites, K. L. Vamvakinou, M. Watts, T. G. Wells, A. S. Wilson, J. H. Zappia, A. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.
Bill agreed to.

Third Reading 48 16:42 Ms ROWLAND 159771 Greenway by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. BUSINESS 49 BUSINESS Rearrangement 49 16:44 Mr DREYFUS HWG Isaacs I move: That business intervening before notice No. 1, government business, be postponed until a later hour this day. Question agreed to. BILLS 49 BILLS Crimes and Other Legislation Amendment (Omnibus No. 2) Bill 2023 49

Crimes and Other Legislation Amendment (Omnibus No. 2) Bill 2023

First Reading 49 Second Reading 49 16:45 Mr DREYFUS HWG Isaacs I move: That this bill be now read a second time. The Crimes and Other Legislation Amendment (Omnibus No. 2) Bill 2023 will update, improve and clarify the intended operation of key provisions in the Crimes Act 1914, the Criminal Code and the Australian Crime Commission Act 2002. These amendments are required to support the proper administration of justice and combat serious and organised crime. Schedule 1 to the bill amends the Crimes Act to confirm that the Attorney-General has unambiguous authority to make parole order decisions for federal offenders. The amendments put beyond doubt the Attorney-General's duty to make or refuse to make a parole order for a federal offender, even if their non-parole period has expired. This addresses circumstances where it is not possible for a decision to be made prior to the end of a non-parole period, such as where that period is reduced on appeal. The amendments in schedule 2 of the bill will help agencies deal with the threat of serious and organised crime, which poses a grave and enduring threat to Australia's national security and prosperity. In 2020-21, the Australian Institute of Criminology estimated that serious and organised crime cost the Australian community up to $60.1 billion. Existing import controls have proven insufficient in preventing criminal groups from importing chemicals that contribute to Australia's illicit drug market. Transnational, serious and organised crime actors are using increasingly sophisticated methods to import illicit drugs and precursor chemicals into Australia. Schedule 2 to the bill makes amendments to the Criminal Code to enhance import controls on chemicals that are commonly used as illicit drugs and precursors but which are also used legitimately by industry—for example, in the manufacture of plastics, adhesives or ingredients in cosmetic products. Currently, these chemicals can be legally imported into Australia for legitimate industrial use by importers that are registered with the Australian Industrial Chemical Introduction Scheme. However, entities not registered with the Australian Industrial Chemical Introduction Scheme that import the chemicals into Australia only face maximum financial penalties of up to 500 penalty units, and the Australian Border Force is not empowered to seize the chemicals from unregistered importers. These measures will ensure that, where listed substances are imported by unregistered entities, the importation of these substances will be subject to appropriate criminal penalties under the Criminal Code and be subject to seizure by the Australian Border Force. The amendments will also ensure the relevant regulation making powers under the Criminal Code are capable of listing dual use substances in a consistent manner. To fully implement these enhanced import controls, consequential amendments to the Customs Act 1901 and the Defence Force Discipline Act 1982 are included in the bill. Organised crime syndicates are well resourced, highly resilient to traditional investigative and intelligence gathering techniques and readily adapt to advances in technologies in their attempts to evade detection and disruption. As Australia's national criminal intelligence agency, the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission, or ACIC, provides mission critical intelligence to combat the destructive and complex threats Australia faces from transnational, serious and organised crime. The ACIC's unique capabilities are critical to supporting law enforcement's understanding of, and response to, serious and organised crime. The Australian Crime Commission (Special Operations and Special Investigations) Act 2022 streamlined provisions in the ACC Act to provide greater certainty with respect to the ACIC board's powers to authorise special ACIC operations and special ACIC investigations, simplify the determination drafting process and make the determinations easier to understand. The amendments in schedule 3 to the bill put beyond doubt the validity of things done in reliance on authorisations given, and special operation and special investigation determinations made. The amendments are required to ensure that the ACIC can continue to undertake its vital statutory function to combat serious and organised crime in Australia and keep the Australian community safe. The amendments do not expand or otherwise alter the powers available to the ACIC when undertaking special ACIC operations or special ACIC investigations. Conclusion The Crimes and Other Legislation Amendment (Omnibus No. 2) Bill 2023 makes amendments that will support the proper administration of justice and help protect the Australian community from the pervasive and multifaceted threat of transnational, serious and organised crime. I commend the bill to the House. Debate adjourned. Bankruptcy Amendment (Discharge from Bankruptcy) Bill 2023 50

Bankruptcy Amendment (Discharge from Bankruptcy) Bill 2023

First Reading 50 Second Reading 50 16:51 Mr DREYFUS HWG Isaacs I move: That this bill be now read a second time. The Bankruptcy Amendment (Discharge from Bankruptcy) Bill will amend the Bankruptcy Act 1966 to clarify when a person will be automatically discharged from bankruptcy. The bill amends the legislation to accurately reflect the way automatic bankruptcy discharge dates have been calculated by the Australian Financial Security Authority and its predecessors for over thirty years, and will apply both prospectively and retrospectively. This will provide certainty to individuals who apply for bankruptcy or have become bankrupt, creditors and trustees. The bill affirms longstanding practice and common understanding of the way the provisions of the legislation have been historically applied. Upon passage of this legislation, the government will take steps to notify all affected parties so they are aware of these measures. Statement of affairs and automatic discharge from bankruptcy For a person to apply to enter into bankruptcy voluntarily, they must file a statement of affairs. This document outlines a person's financial circumstances and is used to determine eligibility for bankruptcy. Persons who become involuntarily bankrupt through a sequestration order made by the court must also file a statement of affairs. The information provided enables the trustee to effectively administer the bankrupt person's estate during the period of their bankruptcy. Under section 149 of the Bankruptcy Act, a person becomes discharged from bankruptcy three years and one day after their statement of affairs is filed. The filing of a statement of affairs essentially commences a person's period of bankruptcy. This provision was inserted in the act in 1991 and was intended to encourage those subject to a sequestration order following a creditor's petition to file their statement of affairs. Established practices of the official receiver In practice, individuals often need assistance from the Australian Financial Security Authority, in its capacity as the official receiver, in order to provide a statement of affairs that is adequate for the purposes of administering the person's estate under bankruptcy. It has been the longstanding practice of the Australian Financial Security Authority, and its predecessors, to record a bankruptcy applicant's statement of affairs as having been filed on the date it is accepted, rather than the date it was initially 'presented' or provided. This practice is designed to support vulnerable people by minimising the risk of an application for bankruptcy being rejected. The process allows bankruptcy applications to be assessed for completeness and, if required, applicants to be supported to identify and obtain missing information. Where a statement of affairs is adequate, it is accepted on the day it is provided, however where it is not, the acceptance date may be later. The same approach has been taken where someone becomes bankrupt involuntarily. Amendments to align the act with current practice The bill will amend the act to enable the Australian Financial Security Authority to continue its practice of assessing bankruptcy applications for adequacy before the period of a person's bankruptcy commences. New provisions will be inserted into the act to require the official receiver to either accept, or refuse to accept, a statement of affairs within 14 days of receiving it. This will ensure that decisions are made within a reasonable time, and provide greater certainty to individuals who apply for bankruptcy or have become bankrupt involuntarily. Validation of discharge dates and decisions The bill includes amendments to ensure that the bankruptcy period of those who are, or have been, bankrupt is consistent with the dates recorded by the Official Receiver prior to commencement in respect to the bankruptcy. This will validate decisions made before commencement of the bill in reliance on those dates. This will allow bankrupted persons, the trustees of their estates, and other entities who rely on the dates within the National Personal Insolvency Index, to be assured that the discharge dates of existing bankruptcies are not being changed. However, the validation of things done before commencement does not apply to criminal proceedings. This is to ensure that, if a person believes they were wrongfully convicted of a crime due to a mistaken understanding that they were bankrupt at a particular time, the bill will not restrict their ability to challenge their conviction. Conclusion It is essential that there be certainty in the bankruptcy system. The amendments in the bill will provide certainty to individuals and industry by affirming a longstanding practice and common understanding of the application of the legislation. I commend the bill to the House. Debate adjourned. BUSINESS 51 BUSINESS Rearrangement 51 16:56 Mr BURKE DYW Watson I won't speak long on this. I appreciate that any debate management motion is controversial in the House. I had planned at the start of the week that we weren't going to have manage this debate. We lost a large amount of time yesterday for purposes that still mystify me, where the opposition ran a particular strategy to make sure that four private members' bills did not turn up on the notice paper. They were successful in that strategy, but how on earth that was in their interests is beyond me. As a result of losing those hours of debate, it means now, in the ordinary time of the parliament, we're not going to be able to get through this bill this week. While previously those opposite have objected when I've shortened the time from 15 minutes to 10 minutes, on this occasion I haven't done that. This simply keeps it at 15 minutes. We'll have the normal adjournment debate between 7.30 and 8.00, but then we'll continue debating the closing loopholes bill until 10.30, and then tomorrow we will do the same. On Thursday morning we will vote on the second reading. There are a couple of announcements that have to happen at the second reading of the bill that are covered, but after that we won't proceed with the in-detail stage until the bill is brought back on, and I advise the House of that to give people ample time to prepare amendments, which some members of the crossbench in particular have asked for. I won't be bringing the bill back for the in-detail stage until parliament returns for that final week. I move: That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the following from occurring in relation to proceedings on the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes) Bill 2023: (1) on Tuesday, 14 November when the order of the day relating to the second reading debate on the bill is called on following the conclusion of the matter of public importance and any quorum or division deferred under standing orders 55 and 133, the debate continuing without interruption until no further Members rise to speak, or the commencement of the adjournment debate at 7.30 pm; (2) notwithstanding standing order 31, if the second reading debate has not concluded earlier, at 8 pm the adjournment debate being interrupted and the bill being called on for further consideration, with the debate continuing until either: (a) no further Members rise to speak; or (b) 10.30 pm;   .at which point, debate being adjourned and the House immediately adjourning until Wednesday, 15 November at 9 am; (3) on Wednesday, 15 November, when the order of the day relating to the second reading debate on the bill is called on following the conclusion of the matter of public importance, the debate continuing without interruption until no further Members rise to speak, or the commencement of the adjournment debate at 7.30 pm; (4) notwithstanding standing order 31, if the second reading debate has not concluded earlier, at 8 pm the adjournment debate being interrupted and the bill being called on for further consideration, with the debate continuing until either: (a) no further Members rise to speak; or (b) 10.30 pm;   .at which point, debate being adjourned and the House immediately adjourning until Thursday, 16 November at 9 am; and (5) immediately following prayers on Thursday, 16 November, if necessary to complete the second reading stage of the bill, the bill being called on and questions being immediately put on any amendments moved to the motion for the second reading and on the second reading of the bill and any messages from the Governor-General under standing order 147 being announced; (6) debate on the bill to then be automatically adjourned; (7) when the bill is considered in detail, any detail amendments to be moved together as one set for the government, one set for the opposition, and one set per crossbench Member, with: (a) one question to be put on all government amendments; (b) one question to be put on all opposition amendments; and (c) separate questions to be put on any sets of amendments moved by crossbench Members; and   .one question to be put that the bill [as amended] be agreed to. (8) any question on amendments provided for under paragraph (7) being put after no more than 20 minutes of debate, unless a Minister sets further periods of 10 minutes for debate; (9) when the third reading of the bill is moved by a Minister, the question being put immediately without amendment or debate; and (10) any variation to this arrangement being made only on a motion moved by a Minister. 16:58 Mr FLETCHER L6B Bradfield I move, as an amendment to the motion moved by the minister: That paragraph (8) be omitted. I want to explain why the opposition is doing this. The Leader of the House is proposing a number of things in this motion. The first is that we have some late nights to consider the omnibus fair work amendment, and the opposition has no problem with that. We're here to consider and debate legislation. I won't respond to the Leader of the House's attempt to attribute responsibility for this motion to others; the Leader of the House and the government have the numbers, and the Leader of the House is fully responsible for what happens in this House. He's also responsible for paragraph (8) of this motion that has been moved. The effect of paragraph (8) is that there will be only 20 minutes of consideration-in-detail debate on each set of amendments. The government is seeking to crunch down the time for consideration in detail to stymie the meaningful work of this House and its members in considering and debating amendments and, indeed, the detail of the legislation line by line. The Leader of the House has spoken about the second reading debate, which of course continues. That will see a series of government MPs repeating talking points about this government's so-called 'closing loopholes' bill. What he has sought to do at the same time is to crunch down—to minimise—the time allocated to this House to do its actual meaningful work which occurs during the consideration in detail process. Sadly, this is part of a pattern we have seen from this government and from this minister in the way that he and it have sought to deal with this closing the loopholes bill. This government fought tooth and nail against there being a proper Senate inquiry into this bill, which runs for hundreds of pages. Notoriously, the bill was introduced and there was little time to consider it before the second reading debate resumed—a timing that was quite different to the orthodox way in which bills progress in this House. What's being proposed here seeks to gut, effectively, the normal operations of the consideration in detail process. Twenty minutes is a ridiculously short amount of time to allow detailed engagement on specific issues. I'd make the point that it would limit to 20 minutes each the time the crossbench members would have to engage in the consideration in detail stage of the debate. I might make the point also that the substance of what the Leader of the House is doing here is entirely at odds with his fine rhetoric during one of his many flourishes to which we were treated to yesterday. He had this to say: I won't be cutting the speaking time, but I'm going to have to provide extra time for the House … That's exactly what he's doing: he is cutting, in an extremely blatant way, the time available to members to engage in the consideration in detail process. That's the substance of the motion that the Leader of the House has put before the House today. That's why the opposition is moving to omit the objectionable paragraph (8), so that all members of this House—government, crossbench and opposition—have the opportunity to participate in the consideration in detail process and allow that process to work through as the standing orders contemplate, allowing this House to do its proper work. Unfortunately, what the Leader of the House is trying to do, and what the government is trying to do, is to dramatically compress and constrain the operation of the consideration in detail stage of this debate. It's the most important part of the debate; it's the part of the debate in which any member has the opportunity to propose amendments and, of course, any member has the opportunity to ask questions of the minister. And this is on a bill, it must be said, which goes for several hundred pages and is on areas of enormous complexity. In his previous role, this Leader of the House spoke many times about the role of the House as a place of review and of scrutiny. It's the place where, on behalf of the Australian people, parliamentarians can test and scrutinise legislation being put forward by the government, including individual provisions. That's precisely what the consideration in detail process is supposed to do. And of course it's also the place where members can put forward amendments and have those debated on their merits. They can do their work to propose changes or ways in which the legislation might work more effectively. But notwithstanding the many years of fine rhetoric on these topics that we heard from the Leader of the House in his previous role, now that he's got his hand on the levers he's not interested—not interested at all—in members of this House having the opportunity to engage in a meaningful way in what is, arguably, the most important stage of a bill going through this House. And so it's for that reason that the opposition is moving this amendment so that the consideration of detail process can happen in a meaningful fashion rather than being gutted, as the Leader of the House has sought to do. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 249710 Is there a seconder for the amendment? 17:04 Mr HOGAN 218019 Page I second the amendment moved by the Manager of Opposition Business, that amendment being the elimination of paragraph (8): any question on amendments provided for under paragraph (7) being put after no more than 20 minutes of debate, unless a Minister sets further periods of 10 minutes for debate; As the Manager of Opposition Business has just articulated very well, this is basically a gag order on what is an exceptionally important piece of legislation. The minister lamented earlier that it was never his fault. It's never the government's fault. He lamented the terrible things that we, as the opposition, did yesterday. They are the only reason he has to do this. We wasted time. We've cut debating time for this bill. This is the terrible thing we did. I will just remind the chamber that what we were doing yesterday was offering the government the opportunity to fast-track four section of this larger omnibus bill that could've already passed the chamber. They could've got up and supported those four elements of the bill and we could've moved on and done that, but the government chose not to do that. The government chose not to have us help them support four elements of this bill yesterday. The bill literally could've been fast-tracked. As the Manager of Opposition Business just said, this government has a pattern of gag motions and of stopping this parliament from debating. If time is such a critical thing—if we need this time and we're cutting time short—I would remind the chamber that the government saw fit to cancelled a whole sitting week of parliament just recently. We lost four days of parliamentary debate through that process. The government saw fit to completely wipe a whole sitting of this parliament. To lament the terrible things that the opposition are doing—we took two or three hours yesterday to go through a process that we thought could've fast-tracked some elements of the bill—they're saying, 'You're terrible people. Now, because you've done that, we unfortunately have to do this.' We support the extra hours of sitting. We support going through till 10.30 to debate this bill. As the Manager of Opposition Business said, the part that they're trying to gag is the consideration in detail. This is where a lot of amendments will be put. This is where a lot of hose amendments are discussed. The government are showing no interest in and no respect for the processes of this chamber. They can't lament time when, having just cancelled a week's sitting of parliament, they say, 'Oh, we haven't got time now. We've got to cut short the consideration in detail on what is a very important bill.' This is a complex piece of legislation. This is, I think, overreach. These changes to the industrial relations system are very complex, and a lot of amendments will be moved, and they are amendments that will have been well considered. They will be amendments that a lot of people will want to have the right and the respect of going through the proper parliamentary process. I say to the Leader of the House: the time that you say was wasted yesterday was time in which you literally could've supported those elements of the bill so as to have them already passed. You say that we're short of time. Well, you cancelled a week's sitting of parliament, which didn't seem to be a problem, yet you're now saying that you're short of time. This is complex legislation. This is important legislation. There will be many serious amendments moved. Again, this is a pattern of this new government. It's a bit of hubris and arrogance from this new government, I think. It's a gag order, and I support and second the motion of the Manager of Opposition Business. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 249710 The original question was that the motion be agreed to. To this the honourable member for Bradfield has moved as an amendment that certain words be omitted from the motion. The question now is that the amendment be agreed to. 17:09 Ms TINK 300124 North Sydney I rise to speak on the motion that has been moved by the Leader of the House to echo some of the messages that we've just heard from the Manager of Opposition Business and his seconder. The reality of this industrial relations reform is that it is a huge piece of legislation. There are many elements in employment law which will be affected by the passage of this legislation. That was recognised by the referral of this legislation to a Senate committee for it to be reviewed. That Senate committee is not due to report on that until February. In considering what was offered within this bill, colleagues of the crossbench worked in the Senate to send back to this House four pieces in this legislation where there is absolutely no controversy—where we could all stand to support it. Even today, we've seen a joint letter come out from employment groups, including the Business Council of Australia; Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry; Australian Energy Producers; Australian Industry Group; Australian Resources and Energy Employer Association; Australian Retailers Association; Council of Small Business Organisations; Master Builders; Minerals Council; national farmers; Recruitment, Consulting & Staffing Association; and the Restaurant and Catering Industry Association. All of those employers have come out lamenting the fact that we did not move to pass those four bills through the House yesterday, when we had the opportunity to move to support first responders, to enhance protections from discrimination for workers experiencing domestic violence, to protect the small business redundancy exemptions in insolvencies and to extend the role of the Asbestos Safety and Eradication Agency to cover silica and silicosis. Those issues are noncontentious, but there is much in the rest of the bill that still remains contentious. To not enable this House to fully debate any possible amendments, when it comes to consideration in detail; to seek to move them in bulk, en masse; to push it from this House back to the Senate before this calendar year ends, is merely a process of expediency. The reality is that, without the Senate reporting until February next year, we have time, as a parliament, to properly look at this legislation and make sure we prosecute it to its fullest. I stand today to say that North Sydney doesn't, as a general matter, support motions that seek to stymie debate in this House, and again today I stand to say: we'll do the extra hours this week, but it is disappointing that the consideration-in-detail component of this debate looks to be cognated and to be rushed through. I think Australians expect us to do better than that, particularly with a piece of legislation that has such wideranging potential impact. 17:12 Ms DANIEL 008CH Goldstein I rise to oppose the suspension. I would argue that there's no need to change the arrangements for debate of the 'closing loopholes' legislation. We could have sat last week. We didn't. As the member for North Sydney has already said, the Senate committee scrutinising the bill won't report until February. In all likelihood, the bill that then comes back from the Senate will be substantially different from the legislation we're debating today in the House, and some of its measures indeed would not take effect until the end of 2025. So, in short, we have time. It doesn't matter whether the rest of the omnibus legislation passes this House after parliament returns in the New Year. The crossbench offered the government the opportunity to deal with the measures that are universally regarded as urgent. Not only was that offer rejected; the government wasted an afternoon of the House's time using standing orders to reject those proposals one by one, and then to consign them to the bottom of the Notice Paper. The only really substantive point that the Leader of the House made during the hours of debate yesterday was this: why just these four measures, when there are other matters that make a difference to people's lives? And then the Leader of the House evidenced industrial manslaughter. I would support that being brought forward. And I suspect the crossbench in the Senate and the House would do so, too. So to the minister I say: if there are urgent measures, bring them on. The minister might also discover it's the same story with other elements of the bill—the amendments on casuals and permanent shifts, for example—now that he's won the support of some key employer organisations. So talking to the House today about a shortage of time, when there has been an opportunity to deal with these issues in an orderly way, I think is a bit rich. I do welcome the opportunities that the minister has given me and the crossbench, and also staff, to discuss this legislation. But, in saying that, the government has known for months that the crossbench had deep reservations about the consequences of some sections of this enormous bill—a couple of hundred pages long and with a several-hundred-pages-long explanatory memorandum—involving significant changes to our industrial relations system. I've told the minister this directly. I've appealed to him personally to deal with the uncontentious parts of the legislation first. The government's critical of the employer organisations, which have simply thrown up their hands and declared the bill should be rejected holus-bolus. The crossbench is not aiming to do that. The minister can't have it both ways. The crossbench has offered a way to deal with all the measures in the bill in a methodical manner, taking the uncontentious issues first. 17:15 Ms SPENDER 286042 Wentworth I rise briefly in support of this motion and to echo the comments of the member for North Sydney and the member for Goldstein. As a new member in this place, I have sat through a number of sitting weeks relatively recently where I have wondered what the point is, as I've watched people debate across the House, and it honestly feels like everyone is filibustering to fill the time when this bill is up ahead. This is a really, really important bill. It is a bill that my community is very engaged in—but it is incredibly complex. It seems like exactly the wrong bill to be trying to force through the House, particularly given that, as my colleagues have noted, this bill will not be passed by any chance before February next year. We have another sitting week coming and we have just had a sitting week cancelled, which would've been a great opportunity to get through the second reading speeches and really have a proper debate on all the amendments. I know we're going to have to move amendments in bulk, through this motion. Again, when the bill is this complex—and it's hundreds and hundreds of pages—the idea of moving that level of complexity of amendments, in bulk, and then having a very short debate around them, is contrary to what we're trying to do here in the House, which is to have a proper examination of the legislation before us. I'd also like to echo the points made by my other crossbench colleagues. The crossbenchers in the other place and here are willing to work with the government on trying to move forward issues that are urgent and that will make a real difference to people right now—particularly around first responders and the upcoming fire season, which we are all extremely concerned about. It also includes, as businesses start to really buckle under the pressure of the economic times, making sure people are protected adequately in terms of their redundancy. There are good reasons to do this quickly. We could be doing this quickly. There is an opportunity to do that now. I call on the government—and I will be open-minded—to look at whether there are other options or other parts of the bill that we could move forward on quickly, and to then have more extensive debates on the things that we know we're not going to deal with until early next year. 17:17 Mr BURKE DYW Watson I want to respond to some of the issues that have been raised. I want to respond differently to the opposition issues from the crossbench issues. With respect to the opposition, for example, the debate management motion—that both opposition members who just spoke voted for—used to be, 'Take consideration in detail for 30 minutes,' full stop. That's what used to happen, not, 'You can have each amendment for 20 minutes and the minister can extend it if there are still people wanting to speak.' The whole thing was 30 minutes, full stop. I just don't accept for there to be any parallel drawn that somehow we're behaving the way the previous government behaved. Secondly, we now have a situation where the opposition have decided it is clever to filibuster and to keep debates going for no particular purpose. They did it when I was sick—on the calendar—just trying to keep it going for as long as possible. They did it in a moment of madness yesterday, which had the exact opposite impact of what they were trying to achieve. But they'd decided the game of filibustering was fun. For that reason, in consideration in detail—where members can speak more than once, and you can actually have a couple of people just decide they're going to play sport forever—given the way the opposition is currently behaving, I believe we do need to manage that debate. I am mindful, though, of issues that've been raised with me privately by crossbenchers, and have been raised in the debate right now, about some of the challenges in a bill like this where a member feels that they need to move some issues separately. I am interested in finding a way to be able to deal with that. At the moment, this only allows each crossbencher to move one amendment, or a large amendment in block, and an argument has been put to me that that creates challenges for people being able to properly represent their constituency. The final clause of this allows a variation on the arrangement to be moved by a minister. I give an undertaking to the crossbench that I want to negotiate with them and have a conversation. I accept they will vote against us on the amendment now. That has been made clear. Notwithstanding that, I think there is a reasonable point that has been made that doesn't go to the concept of filibustering forever but does go to the concept of being able to properly represent their constituencies by being able to move more than one amendment. Working out how we can do that without things going on forever and having fair rules across the parliament is something I think we can achieve. I want to give that undertaking to the crossbench, notwithstanding that they're about to vote against me. The SPEAKER 53517 The question is that the amendment be agreed to.  

The House divided. [17:25]
(The Speaker—Hon. Milton Dick)

 60 AYES Andrews, K. L. Archer, B. K. Bell, A. M. Birrell, S. J. Buchholz, S. Caldwell, C. M. Chaney, K. E. Chester, D. J. Coleman, D. B. Conaghan, P. J. 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. Landry, M. L. Le, D. Leeser, J. Ley, S. P. Littleproud, D. Marino, N. B. McCormack, M. F. McIntosh, M. I. McKenzie, Z. A. Morrison, S. J. O'Brien, E. L. O'Brien, L. S. Pasin, A. Pearce, G. B. Pike, H. J. Pitt, K. J. Price, M. L. Ramsey, R. E. (Teller) 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. Wallace, A. B. Ware, J. L. Willcox, A. J. Wilson, R. J. Wolahan, K. Wood, J. P. Young, T. J. 77 NOES Aly, A. Ananda-Rajah, M. Bandt, A. P. Bates, S. J. Bowen, C. E. Burke, A. S. Burnell, M. P. Burney, L. J. Burns, J. Butler, M. C. Byrnes, A. J. Charlton, A. H. G. Chesters, L. M. Clare, J. D. Claydon, S. C. Coker, E. A. Collins, J. M. Doyle, M. J. J. Dreyfus, M. A. Elliot, M. J. Fernando, C. Freelander, M. R. Garland, C. M. L. Georganas, S. Giles, A. J. Gorman, P. Gosling, L. J. Hill, J. C. Husic, E. N. Jones, S. P. Katter, R. C. Kearney, G. M. Keogh, M. J. Khalil, P. King, C. F. King, M. M. H. Lawrence, T. N. Laxale, J. A. A. Leigh, A. K. Lim, S. B. C. Marles, R. D. Mascarenhas, Z. F. A. McBain, K. L. McBride, E. M. Miller-Frost, L. J. Mitchell, B. K. Mitchell, R. G. 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. 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. Wilkie, A. D. Wilson, J. H. Zappia, A. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

 BILLS 57 BILLS Disability Services and Inclusion Bill 2023, Disability Services and Inclusion (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2023 57

Disability Services and Inclusion Bill 2023

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

Second Reading 57 17:34 Mr NEUMANN HVO Blair The Disability Services and Inclusion Bill 2023, along with the Disability Services and Inclusion (Consequential Amendments and Transitional) Bill, will help deliver on the Albanese government's commitment to enable people with disability to fully participate in our community life and exercise agency over their lives. It's very important for people with disability to have the same kinds of choices all of us have—in fact, it's absolutely crucial. If we do this in relation to people living long lives so they live better in their senior years, we should do it for people living with disability. This is really a fundamental principle underlining the NDIS, which aims to give people living with disability greater choice and control over their lives. It also reflects the principle of equity—which is a fundamental principle in our democracy and is also in the DNA of Australians—that we should target assistance to those most in need. Some groups in our society may need additional support and resources to build their capacity so they can participate fully in society and reach their potential as equal members. At the same time, the new act will ensure more responsive Commonwealth funded services for the 4.4 million Australians with disability, outside the NDIS, to improve their independence and participation in community and in the workforce more generally. This is because supporting Australians with disability is more than just the NDIS. This act will help enable that by bringing legislation for all people living with disability into the 21st century. Disability supports and services have changed very significantly since the 1980s. The current legislation is now more than three decades old. It is outdated and too restrictive in its understanding to accommodate the changing landscape of disability policy. This includes a shift towards creating a more inclusive society as well as the nature of services that are required to complement the NDIS. What's more, the act predates many of the important milestones in the evolution of arrangements that support people with disability in Australia. These include the introduction of the National Disability Strategy 2010-2020, which was followed by the development and implementation of Australia's Disability Strategy 2021-2031, providing a national framework and commitment from leadership towards greater inclusion of people with disability across all areas of public policy. The establishment of the NDIS occurred under the last Labor government in 2013 through the National Disability Insurance Scheme Act 2013. The NDIS currently supports over 610,000 people living with disability. It's imperative that outdated and restrictive disability legislation is repealed and replaced so it's more aligned with the kind of services that are necessary to enable us to fully participate. The act assists the government's intention by implementing reforms linked to the policy priorities that the disability community set through the Australian Disability Strategy, which will enable us to provide a broad range of tailored services and supports to people with disability into the future. These developments have also seen the Australian government move from solely providing direct block funding services provision to embracing other models, including person-centric market models of service delivery and support, both within and outside the NDIS. Getting rid of block funding, whilst beneficial, has seen some organisations go to the wall in this space. In my community, Community Access and Transition Service, known as CATS, was one of the great organisations in our area which went to the wall with the absence of block funding. That was very sad because I thought they were a great organisation which did a lot of work, working very well with young people in Ipswich and working closely with the special schools, including Ipswich West State Special School and Claremont Special School in Ipswich. But that's the nature of what happened. One of the concerns I have, personally, as a federal MP and a local MP, is the absence of the states and territories in this space, leaving this issue solely to the federal government. I think the states and territories really need to think about getting back into the space in a better way. In response to the changing landscape, and taking into consideration pretty comprehensive feedback from people with disability, the bill and the consequential amendments and transitional bill have been drafted to support the government's programs. Because of this, protection, safeguarding and inclusion should apply outside, and not just within, the NDIS. As I've just indicated, the bill was developed with the input of people living with disability through extensive community and sectoral consultation since November last year. Across multiple rounds of consultation, the government has heard from people, their families and carers—and their carers can't be ignored. That's why I was so pleased to see the carers legislation being examined by the Social Policy and Legal Affairs Committee that deals with these issues. The member for Dunkley is doing a great job in relation to that particular carer recognition act as it's being looked at by that committee. Carers can't be left out, so it's important we get families and their carers of people living with disability to give feedback as well as disability representative organisations, and there are many of them in every electorate across the country. This consultation process highlighted the importance of inclusive, accessible, safe supports and services to people with disability and their families and carers in the broader disability sector. On that front, I want to acknowledge the excellent work done by disability service providers in my electorate, which covers most of Ipswich, the Karana Downs area and the Somerset region in South-East Queensland. One local organisation is Focal Community Services, headquartered in Ipswich. Focal has made great efforts to continually innovate and to ensure people with disability and their carers can feel engaged, supported and needed. Focal was established in 1974 for people with disability leaving the Challinor Centre in Ipswich. Their families and friends wanted to ensure they were well cared for and had opportunities in life. Since then, Focal has provided services and support for people with disability, including accommodation, respite, advocacy and services. Focal's community hubs in North Ipswich and Booval are bright, welcoming spaces—and I've been to them on many occasions—where people with disability can hang out, perform, train, liaise with service providers and receive friendship and support in a nurturing community. They provide safe and comfortable environments. Well done, Focal. I really want to commend Focal for what they do. ALARA Queensland is another excellent not-for-profit, community-based organisation which provides services in Ipswich, the Somerset region and the Lockyer Valley. ALARA provides a broad range of innovative services for people with disabilities and their families. ALARA rose from respite care services, which was established in Ipswich in 1991. Today, ALARA provides services for more than 900 people with disability who live in the Ipswich, Somerset and Lockyer regions. It has a committed a team of over 250 staff and volunteers. ALARA has community hubs in Ipswich, Lockyer, Esk and Kilcoy. I was instrumental in helping them to go into Kilcoy and take over the reins near the community centre up there. I thought that the local community in Kilcoy absolutely did the right thing in engaging ALARA to come into that community. It had the runs on the board at Ipswich and in other parts of the Somerset region. Each of these hubs provides access to a diverse range of opportunities designed around the interests and preferences of the participants. I've seen personally how the local participants, people living with disability, have such great input into what ALARA is doing, tailoring the needs of the individuals and of the community. I've seen the local community in places like Kilcoy actually participate and decide themselves what they want to do. These include general life skill development, computer training, gardening, craft, visual and performing arts, meal planning and cooking, volunteering, physical fitness, and recreational and leisure outings. This bill, which we're dealing with today, provides support for the inclusion of people with disability by broadening those supports. It's an enabling piece of legislation, providing a single-source statutory framework and a clear basis for the Commonwealth government to fund certain disability supports and services that are not covered in the NDIS. It contributes to reducing significant administrative delays in implementing important programs, delays which are a result of disaggregated legislative frameworks for disability services and support. There's a clear authority under the bill to continue funding existing programs and, at the same time, provide a flexible basis on which to fund non-NDIS supports in future. The bill provides quality and safeguard arrangements by introducing a mandatory code which will mirror the NDIS Code of Conduct. This code will set minimum standards for all service providers and workers and show people with disability, their families and carers what they should expect from providers under the legislation: to provide support for the provision of consistent high-quality supports and services and ensure people with disability are safe in accessing them. The bill and other consequential and transitional arrangements will enable the government's timely response to the findings and recommendations from the Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability and non-NDIS initiatives arising from the NDIS review. The disability royal commission has highlighted the importance of inclusive access and accessible, safe supports and services for families over the last four and a half years. The government has followed closely the hearings and the reporting from the royal commission. The broad and flexible nature of this bill is intended to ensure the government has appropriate power to respond effectively and efficiently, and the government has accepted these. Of course there will be further amendments to the bill at a later date if required. Make no mistake: the government's committed to ensuring people with disability are safe from violence, abuse, neglect and exploitation. This is a significant legislative reform and demonstrates our commitment to breaking down the barriers for people with disability and enabling participation by providing a broad and flexible legislative basis for government to fund services and supports. Consistent national standards are critical. A code of conduct is critical. Support services are critical. We will need to make sure that every Australian, regardless of their level of disability, gets those supports. 17:46 Ms WARE 300123 Hughes I rise to speak on the Disability Services and Inclusion Bill 2023. I support this bill. The bill's stated intention is to establish a new legislative framework for the funding and regulation of programs targeted for the benefit of people with disability, their families and carers. It shows how, since one of the first pieces of legislation was introduced in 1974, we in this place have evolved with legislation in terms of how we assist people with disabilities. The bill also aims to update the language of the legislation. It focuses on the human rights of people with disabilities and gives effect to some of our international obligations, particularly the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. The bill essentially repeals the current Disability Services Act 1986, which was regarded as groundbreaking in the care for people with disabilities back in 1986. That act had, in turn, repealed and replaced a 1974 act known as the Handicapped Persons Assistance Act 1974. We can see how just in those periods language has changed around people with disabilities, and that is certainly appropriate. This is enabling legislation. The bill allows the relevant minister to provide funding for eligible persons for regulated activities. Statutory funding conditions will apply to relevant payments. These conditions are tied to the quality and safeguarding arrangements as set out in the bill. The bill provides legislative authority for new and existing spending on disability related programs. This is outside of any funding under the NDIS. This bill does not directly allocate funding for specific supports or services; it is the enabling legislative framework. In that regard, it facilitates funding for supports and services to assist all people with disabilities, regardless of whether or not they are a participant in the NDIS. In our country at the moment, we have about 4.4 million people with disabilities. This is a significant number in our community. There are about 610,000 participants under the NDIS. This framework will cover all 4.4 million people, regardless of whether or not they fall under NDIS. It will neither affect NDIS nor have any impact on the disability support pension, which is, as we know, paid under social security law. The bill also aligns different regulatory schemes and provides for a code of conduct similar to that which is contained within the NDIS Act. Finally, it establishes a criminal offence for the unauthorised use or disclosure of personal information. At present, it is the Disability Services Act of 1986 that provides the framework for the funding and provision of disability services across Australia. In 37 years, there have been significant changes and it is appropriate now that this regime be updated after almost four decades. Essentially, it will enable the relevant minister to make grants of financial assistance to states and territories or to eligible organisations for, amongst other things, capital works, research activities, disability services and rehabilitation programs. The stated objects include furthering the integration of people with disabilities into the community, assisting people with disabilities to achieve positive outcomes, enabling increased independence, supporting better employment opportunities and providing a positive image of people with disabilities. There have, in the 37 years since the Disability Services Act was established, been numerous developments in the disability sector, predominantly around the way that we now consider that the most important thing to assist people with disabilities is empowering them to make their own decisions about their own care. Also, there is now increasing awareness of the abuse, neglect and violence which has been directed towards people with disabilities and the lack of safety, quality and value in some disability services. In terms of international developments, in 2008 Australia ratified the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. The underlying principle of that convention is that people with disabilities have the same fundamental rights as the rest of the community, and that is part of the underlying principles of this new proposed act. That required Australia to establish a framework for promoting, protecting and monitoring the implementation of the convention. This has been done under successive governments through the National Disability Strategy 2010-2020 and also under the former coalition government when they brought it in in 2021. It is worthwhile to note in passing the difference between this and the NDIS and how they interrelate. Another major development since the passage of the Disability Services Act has been the NDIS. The main component of the NDIS is individualised packages of support to eligible people with disability. The NDIS is intended to be tailored to each participant's needs and goals, and the NDIS aims to help participants use their individual plans to choose and purchase services and supports from a consumer driven and competitive marketplace. There are currently 610,000 Australians receiving support from the NDIS. The NDIS has had a significant impact on the provision of disability services; however, there are many Australians with disabilities who are not eligible for the NDIS. There has also been recent discussion about the scale of fraud by some disability services providers in the NDIS—and I say that it's about the providers, not about the recipients—with some commentators suggesting that over a billion dollars could be lost to fraudulent or unethical practices. In addition to undermining the integrity and financial sustainability of the NDIS, fraud and noncompliance harms and exploits people with disabilities. This has led to an increased awareness of the need for disability services to be appropriately regulated. This, again, is one of the underlying principles of this bill. The importance of effective regulation of disability services was also highlighted by the findings of the Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability, which I will simply call 'the royal commission'. This was established in 2019 under the former coalition government. The royal commission, sadly, uncovered numerous examples of abuse and neglect by disability service providers. It took a human rights focused approach in understanding the forces that shape the lives of people with disabilities and made recommendations for lasting change. One of the key recommendations said: Human rights play an important role beyond just imposing legal obligations on government. They reflect a set of values, such as the dignity, autonomy, freedom and equality of all people. The CRPD— the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities— articulates values and standards by which people with disability should be treated and informs community values and standards. That is one of the intentions of this bill. The bill has been drafted to, in fact, reflect those values and standards. Under this bill, supports and services may be provided to any person with a disability. That includes those with physical, psychosocial, cognitive, intellectual or sensory impairments. They may be either long-term or episodic. The current legislation only allows for funding through grants, while, under this bill, other forms of financial arrangements, such as procurements and contracts, are permitted. So this will make the provision of disability services available to a wider community than that which is receiving support under the NDIS. But it will not, at that time, increase access to disability payments that are currently dealt with under social security legislation. In conclusion, I commend this bill to the House. It reflects work that commenced under the former coalition government. It also reflects many of the recommendations that came out of the royal commission. It does also reflect Australia's international obligations under the United Nations convention. For all of those reasons, I commend this bill to the House. 17:56 Ms ROBERTS 157125 Pearce On 14 September, the minister introduced the Disability Services and Inclusion Bill 2023 into the House for the second reading, indicating that she would also be introducing the Disability Services and Inclusion (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2023. Both bills will help to deliver on the Albanese Labor government's commitments to enable people with a disability to fully participate in our community, exercise choice and control over their lives and improve job opportunities, readiness and support in employment. It became clear that the Disability Services Act, more than three decades old, was outdated and too restrictive. Times have changed, and we have moved towards creating a more inclusive society. In the minister's second reading speech on the substantive bill, she advised: In response to this changed landscape and taking into account comprehensive feedback from people with disability and the disability sector, the bill and the consequential amendments and transitional provisions bill establish a contemporary, inclusive framework to fund Commonwealth programs targeted for the benefit of people with disability, their families and carers—because this protection, safeguarding and inclusion should apply outside, not just within the NDIS. I know that the bill supports inclusion of people with disability by broadening the support and services that can be funded under the bill and seeks to avoid placing unnecessary restrictions on who can and can't receive support and services. Both bills enable a response to findings and recommendations arising from the Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability and non-NDIS initiatives arising from the NDIS, National Disability Insurance Scheme, Review. Given the recent release of the final report from the royal commission, there is more to be done to ensure everyone with a disability can take part and feel like they belong. The bill before us makes a start on the journey towards a more inclusive society. The Disability Services and Inclusion (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2023 will make amendments to existing Commonwealth legislation that are consequential to the repeal of the Disability Services Act 1986 and its replacement by the Disability Services and Inclusion Bill 2023. The bill also sets out savings, provisions and transitional arrangements for the transition period between the repeal of the Disability Services Act and the implementation of the new bill. It's important to note that grant agreements made under the Disability Services Act will continue operate under the provisions of that act until they conclude. All new grant agreements and financial arrangements will be made under the new Disability Services and Inclusion Act. Schedule 1 of this bill repeals the Disability Services Act. Schedule 2 of this bill makes amendments to Commonwealth legislation to reflect the repeal and replacement of the Disability Services Act. Schedule 2 also provides some limited savings provisions to ensure a smooth transition between the old act and the new Disability Services and Inclusion Act. Schedule 3 sets out application and saving provisions for the Disability Services and Inclusion Act, both preliminary matters and the operational matters for the DSI Act and operation of the Disability Services Act. We are advised that when the Disability Services Act was introduced it created a legislative framework for the Australian government to provide a range of disability services. The Disability Services Act focuses on assisting people with a disability to achieve independence, employment and opportunities to integrate into the community. The act also regulates the certification of service providers and specifies standards to adhere to in the delivery of services. During the ensuing years Australian governments have moved to solely direct service provision to include person-centred market models of service delivery and support, including through the NDIS, which I understand currently supports over 600,000 people with a disability. One in six people in Australia are estimated to have a disability and it became clear that the Disability Services Act was no longer fit for purpose. A more modern streamlined legislative framework that will effectively facilitate funding to assist people with a disability for support and services is required, regardless of whether they are a NDIS participant. As stated previously, schedule 1 of the bill before us repeals the Disability Services Act 1986. Replacing the act will ensure that government is better able to respond to recommendations of the Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability and the review of the NDIS. The bill will provide a source of legislative authority with consistent statutory requirements for funded providers. Schedule 2 makes important amendments that are consequential to the repeal of the Disability Services Act and the implementation of the Disability Services and Inclusion Act. These amendments are largely instrumental in protecting information under the relevant acts so that protected information can continue to be disclosed to the department administrating the Disability Services Act if there is a reasonable ground that the information will assist in the performance of the functions or the exercise of the powers of that department. In relation to the Age Discrimination Act, section 41 provides that certain actions taken with respect to pensions, allowances, benefits and other things are not unlawful it done in direct compliance with certain Commonwealth legislation. The consequence of the amendment will be that any actions done in direct compliance with the Disability Services and Inclusion Act will not be unlawful under the Age Discrimination Act. The effect of the amendment to subsection 8(3) of the Australian Hearing Services Act is to provide that the authority, Hearing Australia, must as far as practical perform its functions in a manner consistent with the objects of the Disability Services and Inclusion Act and the principles set out in section 4 of that act. Clause 28 of the bill sets out the consequences for the unauthorised use or disclosure of protected information under the bill. It is an offence for a person who has obtained protected information while performing functions or duties or exercising powers under the Disability Services and Inclusion Act to disclose or use that information in an unauthorised manner. Again, other amendments pave the way for transition from any reference to the old Disability Services Act to the new act. One such example is an amendment recognising that currently employment services for people with a disability, such as vocational rehabilitation services, are provided under the Disability Services Act. In the future new or altered programs will be provided under the new act. It's important to note the changes in relation to operation of the old act and how they relate to the new act. The Disability Services and Inclusion Act will provide legislative authority for new spending on disability related programs outside the National Disability Insurance Scheme. Arrangements and grants made under the Disability Services and Inclusion Act will be supported by appropriate quality safeguards, such as a code of conduct and certification standards. All providers funded under the bill will become subject to a single code of conduct which largely mirrors the NDIS code of conduct and the aged-care code of conduct. This ensures that people with disability know what to expect from their providers, consistent with the NDIS. In future, when current funding arrangements end the bill will ensure flexibility to continue or redesign current programs as appropriate, subject to consultation with people with disability. This will allow for a smooth transition for people with disability and those providing support and services. When current service providers enter new or renewed funding arrangements, they will be subject to the full requirements of the bill. Service providers delivering regulated activities defined in the bill will be required to hold a certificate of compliance. I note that the human rights implications of the Disability Services and Inclusion Bill are set out in detail in the explanatory memorandum to the bill. In conclusion, I acknowledge that the Disability Services Act is no longer fit for purpose and does not provide legislative authority for a range of disability programs. This can cause administrative delays in implementing important programs, and means that some programs are not subject to any form of quality standards or regulatory oversight. In my first speech I spoke about my friendship with Robert Sully, a man special to me. Robert gave me a painting that I brought to Canberra with me, and it sits in my window in my room. It serves as a daily reminder of the importance of our decision-making and its effect upon people such as Robert. I continue to be driven by the desire to understand and be inspired by people such as Robert, to support them to live the best life possible with disability. What we do here today is in line with the government's commitment to enable people with disability to participate fully in society and to exercise full choice and full control over their lives. I commend the bill to the House. 18:06 Ms RISHWORTH HWA Kingston I thank all members who have contributed to this important debate on these two bills before us, the Disability Services and Inclusion Bill 2023 and the Disability Services and Inclusion (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2023. The government has listened closely to the contributions of all members, and I'm pleased to address some of those contributions in this summing-up speech. I acknowledge all those who have provided input into the consultation process that has resulted in the bill we see before us today. I particularly acknowledge all those people living with disability that have contributed. I also acknowledge the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee for their consideration of the bill. This bill will help deliver on the Albanese Labor government's commitment to enable people with disability to fully participate in our community and exercise agency over their lives. This bill will establish a contemporary framework to fund programs targeted for the benefit of people with disability and their families and carers, regardless of whether or not they receive support under the National Disability Insurance Scheme. It's been designed to complement other national legislation and, together with those laws and the laws of state and territory governments, give effect to international obligations, including the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. The bill, along with the Disability Services and Inclusion (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2023, will replace the Disability Services Act 1986, which, after almost 40 years, is no longer fit for purpose. The bill broadens funding options and service categories to include an extensive range of disability supports to provide a basis to strengthen the inclusion of people with disability across our community. This will provide flexibility to allow the government to respond to changing circumstances now and into the future, including in the important context of the Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability and the review of the National Disability Insurance Scheme. The bill will improve quality and safeguarding arrangements, aiming to ensure the safety of people with disability and the quality of supports and services they receive. To this end, the bill introduces a mandatory code of conduct allowing people with disability and their families and carers to know what they should expect from service providers and supporting an avenue for complaints. The government acknowledges the matters raised by the Australian Greens on this bill. They were also raised through the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee inquiry into this bill. It's important to recognise that the focus and intent of this bill is to provide for a broad, enduring and effective legislative authority for current and future Commonwealth disability policy and programs outside of the NDIS. This bill includes clear objectives to ensure that programs funded under it are designed to promote and realise the human rights of people with disability in Australia. This bill does not exist in isolation; it sits as part of a broader legislative ecosystem, including the Disability Discrimination Act 1992, which is the primary means of upholding the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disability. The bill is intentionally broad, and of course allows the seeking of funding for all people with disability without specifying specific cohorts and settings. This is essential to maximise inclusion and to avoid unintended limitations. The bill explicitly includes as one of its objectives supporting access to supports or services that meet the needs of people with disability who experience compounding disadvantage, including Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. Our government is committed to working in partnership with the First Nations People with Disability Network and other First Nations people with disability, consistent with our disability related commitments under the Closing the Gap agreement and Australia's Disability Strategy 2021-2031. Throughout the development of this bill the government has demonstrated a clear commitment to consulting with people with disability, their representatives, carers and families, as well as the broader community. This has included two specific rounds of consultation undertaken by my department which supported the drafting of the bill and resulted in improvements to the bill. This consultation will continue in the context of the development of the instruments and implementation. The government is also committed to consulting on the recommendations of the disability royal commission to ensure a well-informed government response. We recognise that there is complexity and diversity in views across the community on central issues, including on segregated settings. In fact, even the commissioners were split on this issue. This clearly demonstrates that it would be pre-emptive to legislate what has been requested by the Australian Greens. I would also note that witnesses at the Senate inquiry highlighted that one of the key flaws in the current Disability Services Act is that it actually embeds exclusion and segregation for particular communities of people with disability, and we have removed that. We have listened to the disability community and have developed an act that specifically speaks about inclusion and which removes enablers of segregation. The government also acknowledges the comments made by the opposition in relation to the removal of target groups. This differs from the approach taken in the Disability Services Act. When the act was designed almost 40 years ago it included the types of services now captured by the NDIS. This means it was appropriate to target supports—for example, to those with permanent disability that resulted in substantially reduced capacity in specified areas. This target cohort would now be largely captured by significant and permanent disability eligibility under the NDIS. Therefore this targeting is no longer necessary nor appropriate in a legislative framework focused on supporting all Australians with disability, and not just those who are eligible for the NDIS. The Disability Services and Inclusion Bill 2023 represents a clear step forward in providing authority for safe and inclusive supports and services to all people with disability. The bill will provide flexibility to the government to continue to adapt and improve the supports and services available to people with disability, and to build a more inclusive Australia. In addition, I thank the members who contributed to the Disability Services and Inclusion (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2023. This of course makes consequential amendments and provides transitional arrangements to support the proposed Disability Services and Inclusion Act 2023. This is in line with the government's commitment to enable people with disability to participate fully in society and to exercise full choice and control over their lives. This bill provides for the repeal of the Disability Services Act 1986 and facilitates the continued provision of disability supports and services funded under that act in accordance with the proposed new enabling legislation. This will ensure the continuity of service and supports, and will prevent disruption of funding to disability service providers. Together with the Disability Services and Inclusion Bill 2023, the consequential transitional amendment bill will deliver much-needed support to Australia's disability service sector. It will ensure a seamless transition in funding arrangements for existing Commonwealth funded disability supports and services outside of the NDIS, demonstrating this government's commitment to the inclusion of all people with disability in Australian society and complementing existing legislation to fulfil Australia's obligations under the UN Convention on the Rights of People with Disability. I commend the two bills to the House. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. Third Reading 63 18:15 Ms RISHWORTH HWA Kingston by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Disability Services and Inclusion (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2023 63

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

Second Reading 63 Consideration in Detail 63 18:16 Ms RISHWORTH HWA Kingston I present a supplementary explanatory memorandum to the bill and move the government amendment as circulated: (1) Schedule 3, page 18 (after line 23), at the end of the Schedule, add: Part 4 — Transitional code of conduct 11 Transitional code of conduct (1) The Minister may, by legislative instrument, make rules that make provision for or in relation to a code of conduct that, on and after the commencement of this item, applies to the following: (a) an eligible organisation (within the meaning of the Disability Services Act 1986 as in force immediately before that commencement), where: (i) before that commencement, the Minister approved the making of a grant of financial assistance to the organisation under Part II of that Act; and (ii) immediately before that commencement, an agreement with the organisation under section 15 of that Act is in effect in connection with that approval; (b) a person or body that is a party to an arrangement that was entered into under Part III of the Disability Services Act 1986 before that commencement and that is in effect immediately before that commencement; (c) a person to whom money is paid before, on or after that commencement under an arrangement made before that commencement under section 32B of the Financial Framework (Supplementary Powers) Act 1997, where the arrangement: (i) is in effect immediately before that commencement; and (ii) is for the purposes of a program, or part of a program, that is specified in the rules; (d) a person to whom a grant of financial assistance is made before, on or after that commencement under section 32B of the Financial Framework (Supplementary Powers) Act 1997, where: (i) immediately before that commencement, an agreement between the person and the Commonwealth is in effect in connection with that grant; and (ii) the grant is for the purposes of a program, or part of a program, that is specified in the rules. (2) For the purposes of subparagraph (1)(c)(ii) or (d)(ii), the program must be a program specified in regulations under the Financial Framework (Supplementary Powers) Act 1997. (3) Without limiting subitem (1), rules made for the purposes of that subitem may make provision for circumstances in which an eligible organisation, person or body breaches the code of conduct because of an act, or an omission to perform an act, by: (a) a member of the key personnel (within the meaning of the Disability Services and Inclusion Act 2023) of the eligible organisation, person or body; or (b) another person who is employed, or otherwise engaged, by the eligible organisation, person or body. (4) To avoid doubt, the rules may not do the following: (a) create an offence or civil penalty; (b) provide powers of: (i) arrest or detention; or (ii) entry, search or seizure; (c) impose a tax; (d) set an amount to be appropriated from the Consolidated Revenue Fund under an appropriation in this Act; (e) directly amend the text of this Act. A key feature of this bill is strengthening the quality and safeguards for the Commonwealth disability services and support being provided outside the National Disability Insurance Scheme. The government is moving this amendment to the Disability Services and Inclusion Bill (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2023 to further strengthen the safeguards for people with disability. This amendment elevates the application of the transitional code of conduct to eligible organisations currently funded under the Disability Services Act 1986 and the relevant items under section 32B of the Financial Framework (Supplementary Powers) Act 1997 into primary legislation, as opposed to doing it with a legislative instrument. Additional consultation on the bill following its introduction to parliament provided clear feedback that the inclusion of the code of conduct within the primary legislation was an important additional safeguard for people with disability and a valuable inclusion to make in amending this bill. It will mean that, once the legislative instruments are in place, all organisations currently receiving funding whose legislative authority would fall under the new Disability Services and Inclusion Bill 2023 for future funding arrangements will also have the code of conduct applied. This ensures that people with disability accessing Commonwealth disability supports outside the NDIS can benefit from the introduction of the legislative code of conduct during the transitional period and beyond. Consistent with the code of conduct under the Disability Services and Inclusion Bill 2023, the entity that is a party to the agreement or arrangement with the Commonwealth will be responsible for ensuring that its key personnel and employees comply with the transitional code. The application of a transitional code of conduct to existing agreements funded under the Disability Services Act 1986 and relevant items under section 32B of the Financial Framework (Supplementary Powers) Act 1997 will increase protections for people with disability. We will consult with the disability representative organisations, service providers and unions on the development of the underpinning legislative instruments. I commend the amendment to the House. 18:19 Mr SUKKAR 242515 Deakin The coalition will support this amendment, which was circulated to us yesterday. Strengthening the quality and safeguards for Commonwealth disability services is obviously a key feature of the Disability Services and Inclusion (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2023, and it's important to get it right. We understand and agree that this amendment will ensure that there's a level playing field, ensuring that existing service providers are held to the same code of conduct as new entrants under the new act. The amendment also ensures that Australians currently accessing Commonwealth disability supports outside the NDIS will benefit from a legislative code of conduct during the relevant transitional period. We are pleased that the government, at this very latest stage, has listened. We will, therefore, be supporting these amendments. Question agreed to. Bill, as amended, agreed to. Third Reading 65 18:20 Ms RISHWORTH HWA Kingston by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes) Bill 2023 65

Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes) Bill 2023

Second Reading 65 18:24 Ms LE 295676 Fowler I rise to speak on the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes) Bill 2023. Before I delve into this bill, I would like to make it clear that I support good industrial relations policy—policy that will see a productive, engaged, diverse and flexible workforce with employees and employers having the ability to agree and negotiate a fair dinkum work environment and remuneration. No bill is perfect, and this is an example of that. The bill takes a radical approach in reforming the Australian workforce which the government did not really take to the election or indicate that it would do so. This radical industrial relations reform has sent shockwaves through the economy and many businesses that are holding up our country. Many of us in this House are not industrial relations experts who can read through the hundreds of pages of the bill. Therefore, for me this bill has been challenging to work through. Many stakeholders, from small-business owners to industry bodies, have reached out to share their perspectives and interpretations of the bill, with a mixture of amendments proposed to make beneficial changes, but some parts of the bill have remained murky on its intended purposes. I do hold concerns as to whether the amendments put forward will positively change industrial relations or whether the complexities of the reform will stagnate the workforce, its viability and its productivity in a period where workforce shortages are a critical issue. This bill will affect a large number of my Fowler constituents, both employers and employees. You see, Fowler is and always will be a working-class electorate, with data reporting that 43.6 per cent of people are active in the labour workforce. Many individuals own their own businesses, whilst many others are working for their local businesses. Within the ever-evolving economy, digital platforms are now also becoming a significant source of employment for my constituents. The bill promises to close loopholes which affect the most vulnerable people within the workforce. By dictionary definition, 'loopholes' are ambiguous practices which can be used to circumvent rules or obligations. Fowler is one of the most disadvantaged electorates in Australia, with many individuals at various stages of vulnerability. People are struggling to pay their bills, put food on the table for their families, have a roof over their heads and have a stable job. So I stand here today in the shoes of those in my community who would be most impacted by this bill. It's important that we close loopholes, but there must be a balance in how the government proposes to do so. My focus remains on the impacts on the livelihoods of Australians and, in particular, small businesses from the pressure of the cost of living if the workplace reforms drive up the price of consumer goods and services and affect the viability of businesses to keep up with changes. These points came up repeatedly when reviewing the provisions relating to employee life reforms, targeting the gig economy, wage theft and casual employment. I travelled to Melbourne recently for the Vietnamese Museum Australia's women and unity celebration event and was told by the taxi driver that Uber has now increased their fees, which would mean that he would have to pass on this increase to consumers by about $30. For Uber Eats delivery, he said, it would be about $60. Again, this will have to be passed on to consumers, the end users. He asked me how the Australian can do this to working Australians at a time of a cost-of-living crisis by killing small business's ability to operate. The gig economy is a relatively new phenomenon, with more and more digital platform entrepreneurs rising into the scene with apps that contract and provide services. Digital platforms create an on-demand workforce at the tips of people's fingers on mobile phones and many other devices. These platforms offer the opportunity for people to choose the hours they work, where they work and when they work. People simply value the convenience of digital platforms, and contractors value the mutual flexibility. Therefore, individuals who sign up to provide their services on these digital platforms and choose to do so with the knowledge of the flexibility the platforms provide ad perceived as independent contractors, not employees. However, the government has coined the term 'employee-like' and embedded this in the bill, and the Fair Work Commission will be given powers to make minimum standard orders affecting the conditions of platform workers, as they would be employee-like. While this sounds like a good idea, the danger starts with the broad definition of 'digital platform work', which captures virtually every single digital platform that offers some form of contracting service. Proposed section 15N reads: (1) Digital platform work means: (a) work performed by an independent contractor, where: (i) the work is performed under a services contract through or by means of a digital labour platform … and (ii) payment is made for that work … You could interpret this definition of 'digital platform' to effectively capture Uber, Uber Eats, DoorDash, Deliveroo, Menulog, Milkrun, Mable, Airtasker and many others. This proposed provision will provide the Fair Work Commission with new jurisdiction to regulate digital platform work, which has been relatively untouched to date. We are talking about orders made by the Fair Work Commission which can dictate penalty rates. As I've provided in an example, Uber drivers and Uber Eats deliveries have already increased their fees to those that they contract with, but, as the taxi driver in Melbourne explained, it will have to be passed on to the end users: you and me. For digital platform work that is designed purely for facilitating gig work, this policy may be perceived as an attack on the commercial arrangements of business owners and the self-employed. The essence of gig work is that people can be their own bosses and can dictate their own schedule without the intervention of others, especially government. Contractors post their services on platforms like Airtasker and Oneflare, free for all to connect with and engage if they so wish. This is their prerogative. We're treading dangerously towards the boundaries of one digital age that is functional and one that is dysfunctional by putting our hands into the gig economy. There may be some deterrent to entrepreneurs dabbling in the digital space in the future from the administrative burdens and legislative obligations that they will need to fulfil. Consumers would likewise be deterred from utilising digital platforms, as there will be a domino effect on price increases, which I've indicated is already happening. This may also trickle down to small businesses relying on digital platforms to sell their products or services. As an example, this is already taking effect in this space in the case of Uber. I'm not convinced that these issues are adequately considered through these provisions, as the ministers have advised that small businesses are not affected but there's a real chance that small businesses are not spared. However, I recognise the regulation of specific areas of digital platform work, such as in the care sector, may prove beneficial. I had the pleasure of meeting Jordan and Laura Riley, the cofounders of Hireup, Australia's largest NDIS registered online platform, and their wonderful team. Hireup prides itself on being an employer with a digital platform space. It provides benefits to support workers who sign up and to host organisations that provide the work. Support workers would join as casual workers who would get paid in accordance with Hireup's level of hourly rates and would be covered by workers compensation insurance. According to Hireup, if a support worker were to get injured, they would only receive approximately $1,000 dollars under insurance on their disability support worker hire platform, as opposed to $2,600 under workers compensation insurance. Hireup's digital platform structure is unique when compared to others in the market, as they are committed to making sure that support workers are not being taken for a ride and are paid commensurate to the level of work provided. This in turn ensures that there are high standards in the care sector. This is something that strongly resonates with me, as many constituents within Fowler are working within the care sector and deserve a safe and elevating working environment. Hireup also pointed out, and I acknowledge, that the care sector does receive a huge amount of government funding through an NDIS support model. It is therefore reasonable that there is regulation in this area of digital platform work, where a large percentage of funds comes from taxpayers. If the government seeks to proceed with regulating digital platform work, I'm of the view that it should be confined to the care sector and that the definition should be similarly revised. Furthermore, I understand that the government is proposing to amend the definition of 'casual employee' to include the consideration of the real substance, the practical reality and the true nature of the relationship in determining if there is an absence of firm advance commitment to continuing and indefinite work. The current section 15A of the Fair Work Act provides for a contract driven definition, and states: (1) A person is a casual employee of an employer if: (a) an offer of employment made by the employer to the person is made on the basis that the employer makes no firm advance commitment to continuing and indefinite work according to an agreed pattern of work for the person; and (b) the person accepts the offer on that basis; … In essence, the totality of the relationship between the worker and the employer would need to be examined. Whilst I can appreciate that the government is trying to reduce the risk of workers being exploited and not afforded their rights as casual workers, there are some concerns with this particular amendment. I ask the government to consider the following: the Fair Work Act is already complex enough, so how does the government expect a layperson to understand the lines in the bill about 'real substance', 'practical reality' and 'true nature of the employment relationship'? What do these actually mean? How do you define 'real substance'? What is 'practical reality'? What is meant by 'true nature of the employment relationship'? These terms are so abstract and I would argue they're difficult ideas for business owners and workers to decipher the intent of the legislation about them. I have a constituent from a Edensor Park, a small-business owner, who voiced his concern about this section of the bill. He noted: 'We're not wealthy. We do not have degrees in law or accounting. We're not HR experts. We're just Aussie battlers.' Therefore, if the government intends this to be included then I urge ministers to spend time explaining and divining what they're talking about—specifically, when they refer to 'real substance', 'practical reality' and the 'true nature of the employment relationship'. That would help people and business owners, like my constituent, to understand their obligations. Has the government considered the uncertainty that small businesses may encounter when engaging independent contractors? The definition will require examination beyond the contract. The same constituent I just mentioned has raised further that this proposed new definition would reverse the certainty that the High Court, in Jamsek, provided to Australians by adding layers of complexity and liability, and the risk that many may well not understand it. This ruling in Jamsek centres on examining the contract terms to determine the employee-employment relationship. As I raised earlier, there is some good in this bill. Those need to be acknowledged: the provisions for industrial manslaughter, family violence, discrimination, amendments to the Asbestos Safety and Eradication Agency Act 2013 and wage theft. The provision on wage theft, in particular, sends a strong message to employers who are not doing the right thing that they will face severe consequences if they continue to take advantage of hardworking employees. It will now be a criminal offence for employers to intentionally underpay employees. This will be prosecutable by the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions or the Australian Federal Police. This offence carries a maximum penalty of 10 years imprisonment or three times the amount of underpayment over $1 million. There are safeguards available: if employers self-disclose conduct which may amount to wage theft they will not be referred for criminal prosecution. Instead, a voluntary small-business wage compliance code will be developed by the government and the employers group. The business must give evidence of compliance with the code to ensure that they will not be referred for criminal prosecution. In the event that a small business is referred to the FWO due to suspected intentional wage theft, the FWO may enter into a cooperative agreement. These amendments are necessary to ensure that employers understand that they must treat their employees with the utmost human respect for their labour. This bill itself is a paradox, and difficult to discern meaning in. Accordingly, I call on the government to carve out the provisions mentioned above and to place them in a separate bill. I move: That all words after "whilst not" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: "declining to give the bill a second reading: (1) acknowledges there are over 14 200 small businesses trading in Fowler—which comprises 99 per cent of the local economy; (2) recognises one in three small businesses in Australia are run by migrants and refugees (3) acknowledges small businesses often do not have the resources for legal and HR professionals to dissect complex reforms (4) recognises small business owners from culturally and linguistically diverse (CALD) backgrounds may require additional education and outreach on changes to regulation and compliance; (5) notes the bill's regulation impact statement does not adequately address red tape and compliance costs for small businesses; and (6) calls on the Government to: (a) conduct an in-depth analysis of the regulatory and financial impacts on small business owners before passing the bill through the House; (b )ensure small business owners from CALD backgrounds have equal access to information, materials and support; and (c) allow further small business consultation by respecting the Senate Education and Employment Legislation Committee inquiry's reporting date of 1 February 2024". The DEPUTY SPEAKER E0D Is the amendment seconded? Ms Tink 300124 I second the amendment as moved by the member for Fowler and reserve my right to speak. 18:39 Dr LEIGH BU8 Fenner Short-sighted employers would like to have highly-paid customers and low-paid workers. Wise employers recognise that their employees and their customers are ultimately the same pool of people and that paying workers well sustains strong demand within the economy. Labor is strongly committed to ending the flatlining of wages that we saw under those nine long coalition years, a period in which productivity growth was appalling, in which wage growth was sluggish and in which household income growth languished. Under the period of the coalition government, Australians found a government for whom keeping wages low was a 'deliberate design feature' of their 'economic architecture'. These were the words of the former finance minister. When we came to office, we set about changing that. Over our first year in office, our government saw more jobs created in the Australian economy than were created in any first year of a new government. In fact, more were created in our first year than were created in the first term of any former government. We have unemployment sitting below four per cent—full employment by anyone's definition. Since the monthly unemployment series began in 1978, there have been only 19 months in which unemployment has been below four per cent. Sixteen of those 19 months have been under this government. Of the half-a-million jobs created since we came to office, some 85 per cent have been full time. The gender pay gap has fallen to its lowest level ever. The number of days lost to industrial action has fallen sharply. We understand that there are many employers in Australia who are keen to ensure that we don't have a race to the bottom in standards. Australia's comparative advantage in the world will not be that we have the lowest-paid workers in the world. If companies want to find the place where labour is the very cheapest, they're going to find other countries than Australia. What Australia's economy will do well is to ensure that we have workers who are well-trained and are able to use new technologies, such as generative artificial intelligence, in an environment in which firms are competing based on the best product and service that they're offering, not based on a race to the bottom. The 'closing loopholes' bill is about fairness to employees, but it's about fairness to employers too. I've spoken to many employers who are sick of finding themselves competing with another firm that doesn't do the right thing—that doesn't pay fair wages. They feel that then they're in a circumstance where they have to look for those loopholes instead, rather than treating their workers well and getting on to grow their market share by looking after their customers. So we're not going to have a race to the bottom under this government. We're not going to have real wages languishing, as occurred under the former government. Instead, we're going to close the loopholes. I want to go to a number of the ways in which this bill seeks to achieve that—firstly, in relation to wage theft. Right now, if a worker steals from the till, that's a crime—as it should be—but if an employer steals deliberately from a worker, then that's not a crime. That's not fair. That asymmetry doesn't pass the pub test. So, as part of this bill, we're going to ensure that an employer convicted of intentional wage theft will face up to 10 years imprisonment and courts will be able to impose fines of up to three times the amount of the wage underpayment in both civil and criminal contexts. Now, this change will not affect employers who take reasonable steps to pay the correct amounts. It won't affect employers who make honest mistakes. It will allow the Fair Work Ombudsman to enter cooperation agreements with employers who come forward—a change that was requested by COSBOA. The enforcement of wage underpayments is a critical issue. This bill will allow the Fair Work Commission to allow a representative to enter a workplace if it is satisfied there is reasonable suspicion of wage underpayment. The bill also contains new protections and rights for workplace delegates which ensure that people are able to speak up about wage theft. Another loophole this bill closes involves casual employment. Many of us in this place would have worked as casuals. Many Australians would have worked as casuals. But, if you're finding yourself working as a casual year on year, then it is only fair that you have the opportunity to make a reasonable request to be treated as a full-time employee. Flexibility can't only involve the flexibility of employers to decide when workers work. We know now some of the new scheduling software allows employers to make decisions in retail based on the weather and predictions of customer demand, pushing to the last minute the allocation of shifts. That can be good for the bottom line, but it's bad for the household bottom line. It's bad for workers who need to juggle childcare duties and further studies. This sort of one-way flexibility turns into inflexibility on the employee side. The bill also prohibits sham casual arrangements, which will stop employers deliberately and unreasonably misrepresenting to an employee that their employment is casual when it is not. The bill also closes the labour hire loophole. There's certainly a role for labour hire. Labour hire emerged out of so-called 'temp firms' after World War II, filling unexpected vacancies when employees were sick. But labour hire, in some industries, has emerged as a way of taking whole sections of employees off the books and driving down wages. Normal labour hire involves labour hire workers being paid higher rates, and those cases are completely unaffected by this bill. But, where a business agrees on rates of pay in an enterprise agreement and then asks labour hire workers to work for less, then that's the labour hire loophole that Minister Burke has been referring to. This bill will allow the Fair Work Commission to make an order requiring labour hire workers to be paid at least the minimum rate in a host business's enterprise agreement. It won't apply to hosts who are small businesses. It won't apply to hosts who are independent contractors. It won't apply to training arrangements. Another important loophole that this bill closes is to do with gig workers. This has been an issue that I've long been concerned with. In 2015, from opposition, Labor set out a set of six sharing-economy principles. One of those principles was that new services must support good wages and working conditions. We made clear that, when offering services that involve human labour, sharing-economy companies should ensure that they achieve work outcomes at least equivalent to the prevailing industry standard. That was some eight years ago. Since then, we've seen a growth in the scale of what we used to call the sharing economy and now call the gig economy. The Australian Bureau of Statistics brought out estimates yesterday which, for the first time, outlined its best estimate of the size of the digital platform workforce in Australia. They estimated that, over the previous four weeks prior to the survey, the share of people who reported undertaking digital platform work was about one per cent of the employed population, with an employed population of some 14 million people in Australia. That means we're talking about around 140,000 people who are digital platform workers at any given time. The Australian Bureau of Statistics reports that those digital platform workers are about two-thirds male, with the average age being 38 for men and 36 for women. The most popular digital platform tasks were food delivery at 35 per cent and personal transport at 27 per cent. We know that these can be pretty dangerous occupations. We've had an ongoing spate of deaths of food delivery workers, and this bill ensures that those people are not left without any standards whatsoever. It allows the Fair Work Commission to make minimum standards orders for workers on digital platforms who don't meet the definition of 'employee' but nonetheless have low bargaining power or low authority over their work or comparatively low pay. That might involve people doing work via digital platforms in the NDIS, working in aged care, delivering food to people's homes or transporting us around. This is not about making these people employees; it is about allowing the Fair Work Commission to tailor orders for those people. For the example the minister has given in relation to ride share, the Fair Work Commission might go for a five-minute or permanent rate rather than an hourly rate. That recognises you can't logically pay somebody for all the time they're on the app—that'd wreck the form of employment—but these gig workers shouldn't be left outside the protection of our industrial laws. Gig workers will have new rights to seek reinstatement if they've been unfairly deactivated from a platform. There have been accounts of ride-sharing platforms that have sought to deactivate those gig workers that have sought to organise. That, now, will be a practice for which those gig workers can seek redress through the Fair Work Commission. This is a bill which recognises the long history of campaigning to close loopholes among those families who have lost loved ones. In the ACT I think of Kay Catanzariti and Barney Catanzariti, whose 21-year-old son, Ben, was killed on a construction site on the Kingston foreshore when a concrete boom collapsed on him and other workers. I've had the privilege of meeting family members of workers who have gone to work and never come home. Industrial safety is one of the issues on which my party was formed. Labor emerged as the political representation of workers in the parliament. We understand that it is vital that work is safe for everyone. We understand the value and the importance of ensuring that wages grow with productivity. This is fundamental to us as Labor people. This bill deals with a range of other loopholes too; I haven't gone to all of them today. Road safety will be improved. It expands the Asbestos Safety and Eradication Agency to eliminate silica related diseases in Australia. It simplifies workers compensation for first responders with post-traumatic stress disorder. It'll improve bargaining by giving the Fair Work Commission the power to make enterprise agreement model terms, allowing franchisees to bargain together in the single enterprise bargaining stream. It'll strengthen protection against discrimination for employees subject to family and domestic violence. Those opposite have scare campaigns, but they won't come out and say what they really believe. They won't come out and honestly say they're opposing this bill because they think that wage theft should continue to be legal. They won't defend the loopholes that this bill seeks to close. If they're not willing to have an honest debate with the Australian people, defending loopholes, then they should back this bill. They should back what this bill will deliver to the Australian people—an Australia which is more egalitarian and more respecting of workers, and whose industrial laws are being updated to deal with the challenge of new technology. I commend the bill to the House, and I commend the minister for his constructive work with businesses, with unions, with the community sector and with Australians in bringing this important bill to the House and in closing the many loopholes that are open right now and whose presence is hurting too many workers today. 18:54 Mr YOUNG 201906 Longman I rise to speak on the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes) Bill 2023. Longman is an electorate where university degrees are obtained by less than 10 per cent of the population. Most employers, including myself, have a work history where they have started work at the bottom and worked their way up the ladder, finally taking the plunge into small-business ownership. This pathway gives these individuals a unique lived experience of what I would call an all-round perspective, as we have been both an employee and an employer. I'm one of the few members in this House that left school in grade 10 at 15 years old and started work full-time on a minimum wage. I continued to work full-time on a minimum wage in two of the lowest paid sectors, in labouring and retail, until I was 19. In that time I also met and moved in with a single mum, who at the time had an 18-month-old daughter when I was just 18 years old myself, effectively becoming a single income family on a minimum wage overnight. Over the next five years I received various promotions, eventually becoming a retail manager at age 23 and finally owning my first retail business at age 33. I explain this to my community so that my constituents understand that, if they are on a minimum wage, I get the struggle because I have lived it. I know what it's like to have Vegemite toast for dinner and to shop at op shops for clothes. It's tough. Like many on low wages, I was told by co-workers that the Labour Party was the party for people like me on low wages and they had my back. Fortunately, I had good, sensible mentors around me who gave me a different understanding of this way of thinking. I want to state, as an employer for over 20 years and having many contacts with small-business owners, that it's the desire of every employer that their staff members earn as much as possible without sending their business broke. Your staff are your greatest asset and, as such, small-business owners do all they can to retain employees as staff recruitment for small business is an arduous and expensive task. The problem of course is that Labor are very short on people who have experience in running a small business but lots of members with union experience, so they have a very one-sided view on how the employer/employee relationship should operate. Unfortunately, their ammo is simply to create headlines that appeal to workers and on the surface appear to benefit them but in reality actually hurt them. I learned very quickly in small business that once you have signed your lease the rent cost is fixed. You cannot control your insurance, WorkCover, electricity, telecommunications and all other costs because they are what they are, with one exception—wages. Wages are the one cost you have control over. I'm not talking about the pay rates that workers receive. The Fair Work Commission determines the minimum wage, and you must pay above that. You have to do it by rostering and how many hours you employ people. So, when Labor try and keep up this myth that they are for the worker, they will implement policies just like the one we are debating today, but we should look at what this will mean in reality. They are proposing that if a casual has been employed on a consistent roster for six months they can be made permanent part-time. On the surface that sounds good. However, let's look at it from an employer's and an employee's point of view. I've spoken to various employers and employees about how they feel about this, and they don't want it. They don't want it because they like the flexibility of casuals in industries like the one I've been in—retail. You can have a casual that works the same hours for nine months of the year and then, come Christmastime or when a full-time employee goes on leave, they will pick up some extra work during these periods. If things suddenly get tough, like when COVID first hit, employers have the ability to reduce those hours. As tough a decision as that is, it's better than going broke and everyone losing their jobs. What some employers are telling me is that they will be forced to adapt and reduce hours for casuals or change casuals' rostered days some weeks so the hours vary and they won't be able to go to this permanent part-time classification anyway. This will be another task small-business owners don't need to be lumbered with, and it actually hurts the very person it's designed to help—the worker. For example, Mary, a worker who's been happily working three shifts on a Monday, Tuesday and Saturday, seven hours a day, all of a sudden now will be working Wednesday, Thursday and Sunday every three weeks with five-hour shifts so this ridiculous legislation can't be enacted. Unfortunately, Mary and her employer had agreed on their previous agreement. She has to pick up her kids from school on Wednesday and Thursday, which she will no longer be able to do on this new roster, so both Mary and her employer miss out. The crazy thing is that it looks like Labor might be getting an understanding of this and may amend their own bill to change this, but one can only hope. Another issue is that, whether we like it or not, we compete in the global market. I grew up in a country where we had a lot of sovereign manufacturing. Ford and Holden cars were made here. When I was in the electrical appliance industry, most things were made here. Everything from Malley's Whirlpool washers, Kelvinator fridges and Victa mowers to Sunbeam frypans were proudly made in Australia. Over 20 years I watched with sadness and dismay as these industries slowly disappeared. There are images of 300 workers now without a job outside the Westinghouse factory in Orange in New South Wales. Some had worked there for over 20 years. Why did these businesses shut? Put simply, it was a commercial decision as Australia became a country too expensive and too hard to manufacture in due to arduous bills just like this one. These very workers that various Labor governments and their union masters said they were fighting so hard for now have no jobs. The reality is that these companies have shareholders to answer to. They're a business, not a charity, who want a return on their investment and need to be profitable to survive. It's just like when we go to make a purchase ourselves: we look at the price, how easy the seller is to deal with and how simple it will be. If it's too hard or too expensive then we simply take our business elsewhere. This is no different when businesses look at which country to establish themselves in. Sadly, Australia is not in the mix for many of these companies, as we're simply too expensive and there's too much expensive compliance. So, again, rules and regulations meant to help workers actually hurt them. I also want to touch on gig economy workers and independent contractors. Again, I understand the headline being about standing up for gig workers—but let's look at what will actually happen in reality, because that's what matters. When I talk to gig workers, like the people who deliver for companies like Uber eats and DoorDash, the workers tell me they love the flexibility of getting notification of a job and having the ability to accept that job or refuse it. The decision is theirs. They're concerned that by making minimum three-hour shifts a mandatory thing they won't be able to take that 20-minute job as it won't make the three-hour minimum. So instead of receiving some pay they get no pay. It's another example of a headline that intimates that it's for the workers but, again, it will actually hurt workers. The minister has also admitted that this legislation will drive up prices for employers, which will in turn drive up prices for consumers at a time when the cost of living is out of control. So the employer, the employee and the customer are all worse off. We would expect there would be at least one winner, wouldn't we? My electorate of Longman is one of the fastest growing in the country. As such, many people earn their living in the construction industry and, accordingly, there are many private contractors. These contractors love the flexibility that being self-employed gives them. Again, Labor despises this as they're small-business owners and, therefore, have no union membership. So they're trying to introduce legislation to reinstate them as employers. They're trying to take away the fairness that's currently in place where the husband or the wife works out in the field as a tradie and the other one does the books. They split their income and, therefore, reduce their tax bill, which is only right. Compare that to the scenario under this legislation—one party is out of work and the other one is earning a higher wage and paying more tax individually. This means that the gross household income goes down, they pay more tax and, therefore, the real, or net, wage after tax—which is all people care about, by the way—is drastically reduced. The flexibility of being a small-business owner—you can choose to take time off for a long weekend or go to your child's sports carnival because you're self-employed—is also gone, as they'll now be an employee subject to the demands and rules of their employer. I thought Labor wanted more flexible working conditions. As usual, their actions don't line up with their words. Why does this Labor government behave in this manner? They despise the flexibility small businesses have as they are currently very hard to unionise. We know their main underlying ideology is to unionise all workforces. So every decision is based on this outcome in some way, regardless of what the headline says. Why would they want this? Because unions are the major funders of their election campaigns—in fact, $100 million over the past 10 years. That is $100 million of workers' money. It's not the unions' money; it's the workers' money. Labor's policies never have and never will have anything to do with workers. By making it harder and harder for small businesses, contractors and labour hire companies, they are trying to close these businesses so more and more people will be driven to employment with large corporates, which are much easier to unionise. Australians want more flexibility and freedom to make choices when it comes to their employment. My experience both as an employee and as an employer has shown me that, when governments stay out of it and let employees and employers get on with it, business flourishes. Conversely, the more government interference there is the more everyone loses. Of course, workers should not be exploited, and they have avenues to take their grievances, should they arise, which is only right. But let me contend that a business that exploits its workers and doesn't value them will not be a business that will be around for long. Labor need to stop creating laws that are designed for less than one per cent of employers who do the wrong thing and penalise the 99 per cent that are doing the right thing. Creating more stifling legislation, red tape and laws is simply not the answer. It will only make things worse, which is the intention—to drive people to employment in heavily unionised corporate companies. Sadly, this will stymie those in our community who have entrepreneurial flair and want to take the plunge of owning their own small business. This is just another ideology of socialism and communism. They are a party that by their actions just destroy aspiration, kill dreams, take away our freedoms and choice and hurt not only small-business owners and contractors but the very workers that they mislead into thinking that they care about. It's reprehensible. 19:07 Mr KEOGH 249147 Burt In my local community, cost of living is biting. There is no doubt about that. The Albanese government was elected on a commitment to get wages moving. A huge part of that is closing the loopholes that are undermining the pay and conditions of people in my community and communities across our country. There are four key elements to the legislation, the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes) Bill 2023, before us today: cracking down on the labour hire loopholes that are used to undercut pay and conditions; criminalising wage theft; properly defining casual work to make sure that people are not exploited; and making sure that gig workers aren't being ripped off. We're not proposing radical changes; rather, we are making sure that the law works for all Australians. We want to make sure that there is certainty for business, that there is clarity for the Fair Work Commission and, most importantly, that there is certainty for workers. We want to make sure people are paid properly and that they can make sure that they are protected in the workplace. But we need to make some tweaks. We are standing up for casual workers who want to become permanent employees, making sure that people stuck as casuals, working permanent, regular hours, get a fair go, because working like a permanent employee with no job security and no entitlements is not a fair go. Closing labour hire loopholes will simply require an employer to pay rates it has already negotiated and agreed to. This will help more than 850,000 casual workers with more job security. We know, particularly in this climate, that rent is not casual, bills aren't casual and groceries aren't casual. So people who are slaving over their monthly budgets at the dinner table shouldn't be treated as casual when they are not. We need to ensure that people have certainty so that they can plan ahead and so that they can plan for their families and their future. No-one will be forced to become permanent employees if they'd prefer to keep their casual loading and arrangements, but we want to give people that option, simplifying that pathway to permanency. We're concerned about labour hire loopholes, which some companies use to deliberately undercut agreements that they have made with their workers. Specifically, they've agreed on fair rates of pay with their workers and signed on the dotted line of an enterprise agreement but, rather than honouring that commitment they undercut it by bringing in a labour hire workforce that is being paid less, disadvantaging both permanent and labour hire workers. Key to this proposal is that employees and unions can apply to the Fair Work Commission for an order that labour hire employees be paid at least the wages in a host's enterprise agreement. Exemptions will apply in the cases of small business, and a three-month exemption period will also apply. This will make sure that surge workforces and genuine temporary replacements are not negatively impacted. We're extending the powers of the Fair Work Commission to include 'employee-like' forms of work to better protect people in new forms of work such as gig work from being exploited and from being put in danger. Again, we're not going to be forcing anyone to become a permanent employee when they don't want that. I know that many people in our community like the flexibility of gig work, like being a DiDi driver or delivering with Uber Eats. But we also want to make sure that people are not put in danger and are not taking unnecessary risks just to get by. There have been some horrific stories of just that. The Transport Workers Union shared with me Burak's story. Burak was living in Sydney, working as a food delivery driver. He received a food delivery job request at 12.51. At that same moment, he went under a truck. His phone received a reminder about the job at 12.53 as he lay dying. The company he worked for said his family wasn't entitled to any compensation, because he wasn't working at the moment he was killed. I went to school with Ash, who worked in food delivery as it was taking off in Australia. Ash talks of the massive pressure to deliver as quickly as possible, knowing that every step of the way, from the time he accepted a job, the race into a restaurant, weaving through traffic, he was being monitored. He says he was monitored by an algorithm that put the pressure on to work quicker. He was not managed by people. He received a serious injury when he was racing the clock. Ash says: 'We need to implement these proposed reforms. It'll make a massive difference to gig workers compromising on safety just to get paid.' We won't become a nation where you have to rely on tips to make ends meet. That is un-Australian. But also, if a worker steals from the till, it's a criminal offence—quite rightly—but in many parts of Australia, including in Western Australia, if an employer intentionally steals from a worker, it's not a crime. Business owners who knowingly withhold wages from employees should face harsh penalties. Unfortunately, wage underpayment is a real issue across the country in large and small companies. Victoria and Queensland criminalised wage theft on a state level after getting sick of waiting for the former coalition government to do it. We need a national wage theft system to end the rip-offs, to make sure wage theft can be properly investigated and to make it officially a crime across the country. This bill is also about introducing minimum standards for the road transport industry. It sounds cliche, but, without truckies, Australia stops, so we need to make sure the road transport industry is safe, sustainable and viable. I heard one story recently: of JC, a truck driver killed because of the pressure he was under. He got held up on a shift and called in to say that he'd reached his legal limit of hours on the road and he was too tired to keep driving—doing the right thing. He was told that, if he didn't keep going, the company would lose a contract. Twenty-four hours after he started his shift, JC's truck rolled hit a tree and burst into flames. He was killed instantly. In this place, I think we can all agree that these are not stories we should be hearing in Australia in 2023. Safety at work is a right, and penalties for breaching work health and safety duties should be proportionate. That's why we're introducing a new offence of industrial manslaughter in the Work Health and Safety Act and significantly increasing penalties for the existing category 1 offence. In Western Australia, in particular, we're a state that digs things up and ships them out, but this can't come at the cost of the people who make our economy strong. One death is one too many. The Australian Workers Union, in Western Australia, has been campaigning to improve safety on mining and resources projects. This legislation will go a long way to making sure that this is taken seriously. The Australian Workers Union has also been running a national campaign, for the last couple of years, to properly address silica-related diseases. They have been relentless, and I thank them for their advocacy in this place and the advocacy for those who, devastatingly, are living with silica-related diseases, and their families. This legislation will also drive the national coordination of actions to address silica-related diseases by extending the functions of the Asbestos Safety and Eradication Agency to silica. We need coordinated action in this space to address the alarming rise in the number of workers developing silicosis and other silica-related diseases caused by the inhalation of silica dust. As a former workplace delegate myself, I am pleased that this legislation before us will implement a Jobs and Skills Summit outcome to improve employee access to representation for safety and compliance issues at work. Delegates have such an important role in assisting their colleagues to understand their rights and entitlements and navigate the workplace. This measure will help safeguard the important work undertaken by delegates by providing specific protections and positive rights for them to perform their roles at work. Violence doesn't discriminate, and neither should the law. For many years now I've worked alongside Starick Services in my community as they advocate for, support and provide shelter to women and children fleeing domestic violence. Family and domestic violence can affect all aspects of a person's life, including their wellbeing and productivity at work. Part of the legislation before us now brings forward changes to improve protections against discrimination for those encountering family and domestic violence. This legislation will make sure workers are not penalised in any way if they disclose they have been subject to family and domestic violence. The final element of this bill that I'd like to draw to the attention of the House is an important change to back our first responders. The legislation will implement a presumption that, if a first responder covered by the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act sustains post-traumatic stress disorder, they won't be required to prove their employment significantly contributed to that PTSD for the purposes of their worker's compensation claim. This will include firefighters, Australian Federal Police, ambulance officers and other emergency services. These changes will provide a faster, streamlined claims process that seeks to reduce stress and trauma for first responders when making workers compensation claims. All of the changes in this legislation will make Australian workplaces safer and fairer by closing the loopholes that exist in the law as it currently stands. It is an absolute travesty that those opposite continue to maintain their opposition to closing loopholes that are so plain on their face. I commend this bill to the House, and I commend the minister for his tireless work, working with such a broad range of stakeholders, to bring this law forward to close loopholes. It will deliver a better future for all Australians. 19:18 Mr HOWARTH 247742 Petrie I rise to address the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes) Bill 2023. Can I start by being very clear that, quite simply, this legislation is another Albanese Labor government con job. It's a bill for union donors—nothing more than the member for Watson taking care of union donor mates. This isn't about closing loopholes, but it is a policy full of potholes. It's the Albanese Labor government's attempt to fool the Australian people by proposing to change the name of its signature industrial relations policy but not the policy itself. They stand in this place boasting about this fair work policy, but in reality there is nothing fair about it in its wording, intent or delivery. You may well call it the 'closing loopholes bill'—that's what they're calling it—but really it's about closing loopholes to union membership. Just yesterday we saw the real motivation of the Labor Party when they failed to support Australian workers and voted against the Senate's recommendations for this bill. In a deliberate opposition and blocking of the passage of this bill, the Albanese Labor government voted not only against coalition senators but against senators from independent and minor parties in the Senate by refusing to agree to splitting the bill. If the government supported the bills, as we on this side of the House proposed, specific measures for first responders, employees of small businesses, victims of family and domestic violence and those affected by asbestos would have passed and been in place. But instead they continue, in yet another shocking example of this government's lack of transparency, to ignore feedback within the industry and businesses it'll affect. At a time when businesses are crying out for staff and a fair go, they're not listening. The reality is that this government governs for unions. I believe the Labor Party are corrupt in the sense that they govern specifically for unions. Can you imagine if I came into this place or the coalition came in— Dr Freelander 265979 That's very inappropriate. Mr HOWARTH 247742 No, it's not. I was talking about the party, not an individual. Imagine if I came into this place and got all my donors and said, 'Righto, let's write laws according to what the donors want.' What do you think people in my electorate would think, or the attendants in this place would think, or whatever? They'd think: 'That doesn't sound right. You can't write laws for your donors.' That's what the Labor Party does every day of the week—and not just here in the federal parliament but in the state parliaments as well, whether it's abolishing the ABCC or whether it's changes to super funds that their union mates, like Wayne Swan, run. The AUKUS deal is not even off limits when it comes to governing for unions. Here we have a minister, the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations—has he ever in his life employed one person and actually paid their wages? I'm talking about not all his ministerial staff or the people in his office—the taxpayer pays their wages—but just one person. When I look at his history, basically his history is that he finished uni and was then a political staffer and a union organiser. He was a company director for 12 months before he resigned to run for a state seat and then joined the union. That's the minister in charge. He's never employed anyone. He has no experience. Instead, he writes legislation for his union donors. That's what it's about. The member for Longman, who spoke before me tonight, is spot on; he actually said the same thing. The member for Longman knows what it's like to employ people. He understands. He'd make a far better workplace relations minister than the Labor Party's minister for workplace relations. Minister Burke gets up in his second reading speech and talks about a better workplace for the gig worker, who currently has no minimum standards. To the member behind me here: have you—through you, Mr Deputy Speaker Goodenough—had a gig worker come into your office and actually raise these issues with you? Mr Pike 300120 Not one. Mr HOWARTH 247742   I've been in this place for 10 years. Do you know how many people have come into my office who are casual workers, gig workers or subcontractors and said: 'Oh, we need to make all these changes'? Zero, none. I'm pretty active in my electorate. If you come to my electorate and talk to people—I do regular mobile offices. I get out there. I talk to people. No-one's raised these issues with me. All of a sudden these people come into this place and speak with authority when it comes to gig workers, subcontractors and casuals—from a bloke who's a minister who's never even employed anyone out of his own pocket. Give me a break! At least this bloke over here has been a doctor. Maybe he's employed someone; I don't know. But the minister hasn't. So it's about a better workplace for a gig worker who currently has no minimum standards. When you look at the legislation, there are 200 pages of additional legislation that they want to put in. I'm someone who has employed people. I was a company director not for 12 months like this minister but for 10 years. I actually had a staff of 20 people—full-time workers, casuals and subcontractors. I actually understood what it was about. I can tell you that nothing in this bill is going to do anything to help a lot of these people apart from what I named before, which they voted down and wouldn't split on yesterday. The Independents pleaded with them to separate the bill and vote—'Let's get this through and get a committee to look at the rest of it.' But, no. Because they are governing for their union donors, they don't want a bar of it. It's disappointing. The coalition is serious when it comes to standing up for Australians employed in the job market. The government's Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes) Bill 2023 seeks to strip independent contractors of their ability to build their businesses. In question time today, the minister said, 'These gig workers are actually classed as small-business owners.' There are actually advantages to being a small business and working as a subcontractor. There are deductions. There are advantages. But, no. Everyone has to be the same. According to the Labor Party, we can't have casuals because they are not signed up to unions. We can't have subcontractors because they are not part of the union movement—this is the way they govern the country. The stuff they're bringing in to this place they brought in 30 years ago. They're rehashing it. They're bringing it back again. We're going to get rid of some of this stuff when we come in because it's not in the interests of all Australians. It's not. We're going to get rid of it. Do you know what? When most of us are dead and gone, in 50 or 100 years, the Labor Party will still be trying to save Medicare. They'll be saying, 'We invented this 200 years ago,' or whatever it is. They will still be coming in here saying, 'We've got to support unions.' That's what they do. They just rehash old policies. It does not matter what times we're in. It doesn't matter what our constituents actually say to those of us in this place. What matters to them is the union donors who pay and elect every single one of these members. All their funds come from union donors. Government members interjecting— Mr HOWARTH 247742 Don't wave your hands, members over there. Where did you get your funding from? From the unions. That's why you are legislating for them now. You actually come into this place and you legislate for your donors. If that isn't corruption, what is? I know if I did it for my donors, it'd be all over the place. What has the Australian Industry Group's Innes Willox said? He said the government hasn't gone far enough in ensuring that this law 'isn't able to be used by unions to challenge and interfere with a raft of other commercial arrangements'. That's what AiG said. They went on about wage theft. Members opposite bring up people that have died at work. Do you know what? Every single death at work is an absolute tragedy. Are you telling me that this legislation is going to stop people dying at work? Can you guarantee that? Of course, they can't. But they bring this bill in and spend hours debating it and making out that they are the saviours of the Australian people when it comes to workplace relations. Well, they're not. A lot of them have had a very narrow employment history in this place. We see under this government that productivity has fallen through the floor for three consecutive quarters. For the first time since 2005 we have experienced the deepest three-quarter fall on record. As a family business, you can never get those hours back. I understood that when I was employing 20 people. I sold my house, bought into my old man's business and grew the business from three staff to 20. I was involved in the pest control business, which is a bit like a trade. I had operators out there every day of the week. But if I had one job booked in for the day, I could never get those hours back. That's lost productivity. When you have lost productivity like we are seeing under the Albanese Labor government, guess what? It pushes up the cost of living. If those members opposite were serious and they had not been debating the Voice, which got voted down in every state in Australia, for the last 18 months and were actually listening to people, they'd understand that cost of living is going through the roof. It is through the roof. The reality is that productivity has fallen through the floor. When productivity falls through the floor, small businesses have to increase their prices. When you increase your prices it affects people. They have less money in their wallet, they have no money in their pocket, and they're living week to week. Debate interrupted. ADJOURNMENT 76 ADJOURNMENT Climate Change 76 19:30 Ms CHANEY 300006 Curtin I get more correspondence from constituents in my Curtin electorate about the need for stronger climate action than on any other issue. Recently I've been contacted by many people concerned about the Western Australian Climate Change Bill, which will soon be introduced into the WA state parliament. Most people in this parliament understand the climate change catastrophe that we're facing. Our deserts are becoming drier. The temperatures in the south-west of Western Australia have increased. The frequency, intensity and duration of hot spells have also increased. The annual rainfall over the west coast has declined. In the far south-west of WA it has declined by up to 20 per cent. Our wet areas are getting wetter. Our rain increasingly comes as intense downpours, creating higher risk of catastrophic floods. In January this year the Kimberley region of the north-west of WA experienced devastating floods. It is an inescapable fact that, as one of the biggest producers and exporters of gas globally, Western Australia is disproportionately contributing to Australia's pollution and emissions. Not surprisingly, there has been much interest in this bill and high expectation that it might finally bring Western Australia into line with the emissions targets set by the federal government and by other states. On 21 September the WA Department of Water and Environmental Regulation released an explanatory paper for this bill. The department hasn't released an exposure draft, which means we don't know exactly what we're dealing with. What we do know is that it is not intended that this bill will include a 2030 target. The bill will formalise the long-term 2050 target of net zero emissions and it will require the minister to develop an emissions reduction strategy over a period of another three years. A lot can happen in three years. Energy emissions in Western Australia increased by more than 50 per cent between 2005 and 2021 and fugitive emissions more than doubled during this same period. WA is way behind. We need climate change legislation that's ambitious and decisive in its commitment to emissions reduction and that reflects a serious commitment to the transition to renewable sources of energy. WA is missing out on its fair share of renewable energy projects. In 2022 only five per cent of renewable energy capacity committed was in WA. Without an energy grid that can support the transition and clear regulatory pathways for renewables we will continue to fall back on fossil fuels. In August this year the WA state and federal governments reached an agreement—with federal funding of $3 billion committed—to boost and upgrade the state's main grid in the south and the north-west grid in the Pilbara to support renewable energy projects by mining companies in the north of the state and by green industries in the south. Both governments are to be commended for this, but at the same time there are currently plans to extend the life of the North West Shelf gas-processing facility to 2070, an extension of almost 50 years, for which it's estimated that scope 1 emissions alone will be close to 385 million tonnes. The state government is sending mixed messages at best about our role in decarbonisation. There's no indication that this government recognises its duty of care that should arise to future generations. The explanatory paper anticipates the setting of some interim statewide targets but no targets for earlier than 2035, and there will be no targets at all contained in the bill. In fact, the bill kicks the can down the road and a 2035 target, 12 years away, will not even be set until 2025. Legislated targets are critical—targets aligned with science, targets that deliver steep reductions early and interim targets across all sectors of the economy that drive the emissions curve down. Targets are essential to send a clear message to investors that we are serious about decarbonising. Without legislated targets, very little will happen. Constituents have also approached me with concerns about the timing of the new legislation. The period of consultation for this bill has been contracted. In September, the WA government commenced a four-week targeted consultation period for 100 stakeholder groups chosen by government. There's been no period of broader public consultation and no draft bill. Any other group or individual wanting further information has been directed to a fact sheet and explanatory paper— (Time expired) Aston Electorate: Boronia Cricket Club, Tormore Reserve 77 19:35 Ms DOYLE 299962 Aston I rise to speak on a very special anniversary for one of the local sporting clubs in my electorate of Aston. One hundred years is a long time in anyone's life, but it is an especially long time in the life of a sporting organisation, and this year marks the 100th anniversary of the Boronia Cricket Club. I was lucky enough to be invited along to the club's night of nights celebratory dinner last Monday night—cup eve, actually. Let us ask first, what is a cricket club? Well, as Boronia Cricket Club President Paul Noone attests, the Boronia Cricket Club is not just the change rooms, it's not just the social rooms and it certainly isn't the reserve on which the club plays—as great as it is, and as great as it will become in the future. The Boronia Cricket Club is about community. It's about the people, the connections, the teammates and the friendships that are made along the way. The great game of cricket brings people together. It fosters lifelong relationships. It keeps the local community active. And it's just so much fun. The Boronia Cricket Club has been providing this vital community activity for over a hundred years. My hearty congratulations go to the club for such a terrific history. The club has been a cornerstone of the community since 1923. Boronia Cricket Club first found its home at Park Crescent in Boronia, before moving to Tormore Reserve, where they are located today. It's high time that the clubrooms at the reserve where the Boronia Cricket Club plays receive an upgrade. I'm so pleased that the Albanese Labor government will be delivering a $5 million boost to the over-46-year-old clubrooms at Tormore Reserve. Tormore Reserve pavilion is set to undergo a huge transformation that will breathe new life into the beloved sporting facility. The existing master plan will see a significant revamp of the pavilion, making it a modern and accessible hub for sports and community activities. The current pavilion, first constructed in 1976, is now deemed inadequate to meet the needs of the growing community, and, with limited facilities, a long overdue major overhaul is in order. Following advocacy from Boronia Hawks Football Netball Club and Boronia Cricket Club, this project has received $1.2 million from a Victorian state government funding grant, and federal government funding of $5 million is currently in the application process. A total budget of $6.2 million will be received over a three-year period for the delivery of this project. The proposed redevelopment will provide improved amenities for the existing clubs, and it includes a refurbishment of the existing pavilion, with the addition of a second storey. For the great local clubs that play there, like the Boronia Cricket Club, new purpose-built clubrooms will establish Tormore Reserve as the centre of the Boronia community, creating a greater social space for members of the community to come together, and making local sport more accessible for more people. Women in sport are important to the Albanese Labor government and to me as the local member. This investment in local sport will ensure that all members of the community can access great community sporting clubs, just like the hundred-year-old Boronia Cricket Club. The Boronia Cricket Club was also successful recently—and I say recently, because Aston was a special exception—in round 8 of the federal government's Stronger Communities Program grants, receiving $18,000 to upgrade the Chandler Park cricket pitch and surrounds. Alongside the Knox City Council, the players will benefit from a more improved playing surface for the cricket pitch. I would like to say a huge thankyou to all the players, parents, coaching staff, managers, umpires, scorers and supporters for their advocacy and hard work towards this amazing outcome. Well done to all of you and congratulations once again. Infrastructure 78 19:40 Mr TEHAN 210911 Wannon I rise on a matter of serious concern to people in my electorate: the lack of road funding flowing to regional and rural Victoria, particularly to regional and rural western Victoria. We've heard the devastating news today that the government now is cutting road funding by 30 per cent. There are serious questions that need to be answered by reducing the commitment that the Commonwealth will make to Victorian road projects from eighty-twenty to fifty-fifty. Does that mean existing programs which have already been signed up to—for instance, for much-needed repairs to the Princes Highway—will or will not go ahead? What does it mean for the Western Highway? Once again, the funding arrangement was eighty-twenty. Now the government is saying it's going to pull its contribution down by 30 per cent to fifty-fifty, so does that mean the upgrades to the western highway continue or do not? This is the time of year when road funding should be being applied to our roads because the spring, summer and autumn are when you fix the roads; it's too wet to do it in the winter. Just when we should be seeing all the road activity that we possibly can on our roads, as the death toll on country roads continues to climb, we're seeing complete inaction from both the federal Labor government and the state Labor government because of this inept review which has been undertaken by the infrastructure minister. The sad reality is that lives will be lost as a result of this inaction and now this serious cut to road funding right throughout regional and rural Victoria. This impact is growing. Already we're hearing that subcontracting companies that do work on our road maintenance are losing serious amounts of money. We're hearing of people being laid off. The major contractors who do our roads are also suffering because of the lack of investment in our roads, losing staff, losing money—all at a time when our roads continue to deteriorate, all at a time when there is a complete lack of transparency around the conditions of our roads. We're still yet to hear from the government whether they will support the initiative to provide full transparency on the state of every road across this nation. It simply is not good enough. We're seeing what is happening with the road toll in this nation. For the first time, it is starting to grow again. Now, the best thing all of us can do is support more investment into our roads. If you ask people in my community or right across rural and regional Australia, you will see that the No. 1 priority they have is roads because they understand how important it is to get them to and from work, to get their families to and from schools, to get their loved ones to netball or football on the weekends. You have to use the roads; there is no alternative. When it comes to transport—getting goods to and from market, getting goods to or from the saleyards—you need to use the roads. Yet there seems to be an absolute failure of understanding of how important roads are when it comes to the Albanese Labor government. They seem to think that you can have a review which is meant to last 90 days and ends up lasting over 150 days and then cut significant funds from the roads. 'Oh, nothing to see here.' There is everything to see here. Our roads are deteriorating. At a time when we should be doing the work which is needed right now, when the weather conditions allow us to undertake that work, nothing is happening because of this freeze on funding. Now, today, we hear of this 30 percent cut, which means that major upgrades to roads, like the Princes Highway and Western Highway, that need that investment are not going to occur. The sad reality is that it's going to be road users right across Western Victoria, right across my electorate, that will suffer as a result. It is simply not good enough, Albanese Labor Government. Domestic and Family Violence 78 19:45 Ms CLAYDON 248181 Newcastle Each year, I rise in this parliament to honour the lives of women who have died in the past year through acts of violence, often committed by someone known to them. Tonight, I stand to honour and pay my respects to the 48 women who have died so far this year. This equates to more than one violent death every week in 2023, and, regrettably, the actual number is likely to be much higher, as this list is limited to the deaths that have been publicly reported. Before I acknowledge each woman who is no longer with us, I'd like to acknowledge the researchers from Destroy the Joint, who do the heartbreaking and difficult work of maintaining the Counting Dead Women register in Australia, where this information is recorded. In Australia in 2023, we have lost the following women: Lindy Lucena, aged 64; Dayna Isaac, aged 28; Wendy Sleeman, aged 61; Krystle Monks, aged 19; Janet Guthrie, aged 51; Anastasia Slastion, in her 30s; Margarette Smetheram, aged 56; Jacqui Purton, aged 37; Hannah Pringle, aged 41; Lisa Fenwick, aged 59; an unnamed woman aged 51; Emmerich Lasakar, aged 35; Lynne Wright, aged 65; Heather Ball, in her 20s; Tatiana Dokhotaru, aged 34; Monique Lezsak, aged 37; an unnamed woman aged 41; Kristy Armstrong, aged 36; another unnamed woman aged 81; Amira Moughnieh, aged 30; an unnamed woman aged 45; Christine Rakic, aged 50; an unnamed woman in her 30s; and unnamed woman aged 47; Aleksandra Vergulis, aged 51; an unnamed woman aged 74; Gypsy Satterley, aged just 25; Georgia Lyall, aged 32; Jean Morley, aged 92; Erin Mullavey, aged 42; Tiffany Woodley, aged 35; Tayla Cox, aged 30, and her 11-week-old baby; Drew Douglas, aged 31; Katherine Safranko, aged 67; Heather Dean, aged 73; Krystal Marshall, aged 38; Thi Thuy Huong Nguyen, aged 65; Lillie James, aged 21; Analyn Osias, aged 46; Alice McShera, aged 34; three other unnamed women; and Dee Folpp, aged 60. Each of these deaths, through senseless acts of violence, is devastating. I don't want to stand in this parliament each and every year reciting the list of women who have been killed by the most violent means imaginable. But I do—and I will continue to—stand here because each and every one of these women needs to be remembered, and their deaths can never be in vain. On 24 November the Newcastle community will come together to reclaim the night with a candlelit vigil that will launch the 16 days of activism against gender based violence and call for an end to sexual assault and violence against women. The vigil, which will remember the women who have been killed by violence in 2023, will be followed by a collective scream born out of both grief and frustration. While I can't be there in person this year, I want to commend the work of the family, domestic and sexual violence sector in Newcastle in delivering vital services to women and children. I'd also like to recognise the work of the Newcastle Domestic Violence Committee in bringing together the agencies, organisations and community members who are actively committed to preventing violence in all its forms. Renewable Energy 79 19:50 Mr TED O'BRIEN 138932 Fairfax Labor's reckless indifference towards regional communities is jeopardising their target of 82 per cent renewables by 2030 and up to 100 per cent thereafter. To be clear, the coalition has never supported Labor's renewables-only strategy for decarbonising the Australian electricity grid. We don't believe the renewables-only approach is the way to decarbonise the system. Instead, we back an all-of-the-above approach. We do believe that there's an important role for renewables, but we should be aiming for the optimum level of renewables, not the maximum level. But Labor has adopted this renewables-only approach, and the problem is that their plan is not working. What we see now from the market experts is that they are publicly saying that Labor's plan is running at half the pace that it should. This won't change anytime soon, because we also know that investment in renewables has now hit its lowest ebb in years. After year-on-year increases under the coalition, we now see that final investment decision in renewables has dropped by about 40 per cent under Labor for new renewable generation projects. Their plan isn't working. You would think that, when their plan isn't working, they would be recalibrating the plan. They might decide to do what they should've done in the beginning and get either Treasury, the department or the Productivity Commission to model the viability of the plan and see the impact that it would have and whether or not they'd be able to achieve it. But they haven't done that. Instead, falling so short, they've become desperate and are steamrolling regional communities—for example, the Hunter region. The government opened public consultation for the Hunter offshore wind zone in February and closed it in April. It was a 65-day public consultation. My office was inundated with complaints from different communities, in particular Norah Head. I visited Norah Head in July. In an open forum, I heard from the community that most of them didn't even know that there was a public consultation about this offshore wind zone. Residents weren't even told about it. Unions had been coopted to encourage members to make positive submissions. Senior citizens had been denied the right to make submissions that were handwritten. There were too few public consultation forums. I heard complaints about residents asking very reasonable questions at those that were held and not getting enough answers—not getting any answers in some cases. There were complaints about threats to people's way of life and to their livelihoods, whether that be tourism or fisheries. On the day that I was at Norah Head I gave the government credit, because the minister had come out that very day and announced that he would ensure there was a community engagement review. This was tantamount to an admission that their community engagement process for all such projects wasn't working; it was broken. I gave him credit that at least maybe the government was listening, but within a fortnight the minister then declared that zone. So, on one hand, he concedes that the process is flawed, but he then goes ahead and announces the zone. We have therefore called on the minister to rescind that declaration and to fix the broken process before then reopening for public consultations. Let me make it clear: no-one in that community was talking about their concerns being anti action on climate change. It was quite the opposite! None of them were against the technology of wind—quite the opposite! Their concern came down to not giving social consent—a lack of social licence and not being engaged. I'm scared, because I've heard similar concerns out of the Illawarra. They need to listen to communities. Chisholm Electorate 80 19:55 Dr GARLAND 295588 Chisholm I want to take the opportunity this evening to update the House on what has been happening in my electorate of Chisholm and surrounds over the last few weeks. I recently had the great joy of attending Oakleigh Glendi, which was a two-day celebration of cultural diversity, Greek heritage, Hellenic culture and community spirit. We have a beautiful and vibrant Greek community in my electorate, and it was wonderful to welcome the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs, Andrew Giles, to the event—it was his first Glendi. And it's such great fortune to have the minister in the House this evening. Oakleigh Glendi was attended by thousands of people. It was a wonderful time of coming together to share delicious food, to enjoy fantastic performances and of course to celebrate Greek and Hellenic culture. I want to offer my congratulations to the Greek Orthodox Community of Oakleigh and District, and Oakleigh Grammar for organising a really wonderful Glendi. In the last few weeks I've also hosted the first Chisholm Women's Health Forum. Growing evidence has shown that systemic issues in healthcare delivery and medical research mean that women often suffer poorer health outcomes. We know that women disproportionately experience delayed diagnosis, overprescribing and failure to thoroughly investigate symptoms. I was really proud to talk to my community about the work that our government has been undertaking, including establishing the National Women's Health Advisory Council. This has brought together diverse expertise to examine the unique challenges that women and girls experience in the health system. The Chisholm Women's Health Forum allowed the Assistant Minister for Health and Aged Care, Ged Kearney, who attended virtually, along with Professor Helena Teede, director of the Monash Centre for Health Research and Implementation at Monash University, to listen to women, hear their stories and answer their questions. An invitation was extended to every woman in my electorate of Chisholm to join the forum and to share their stories of their experiences within the healthcare system. I really want to thank everyone who came to the forum and everyone who reached out to me with their stories of the health system. Women shared stories of missed diagnoses, delayed diagnoses and of not being listened to or believed. There were some positive stories too, of medical professionals taking the time to listen to and to communicate clearly with patients about their health. I'm really pleased that our government is prioritising women's health. Once again, I would like to thank all of the women who attended and the women who shared their stories. I'm grateful, and value their participation and contributions. I also had the pleasure earlier this month to open the Wild at Art Showcase at the Box Hill Community Arts Centre, in my electorate. I was really pleased to attend this event and to show my support. This year, over 6,800 children picked up their paintbrushes and pens across Australia to help raise awareness of Australia's threatened plants and animals as part of the Wild at Art threatened species competition. This was facilitated by the Australian Conservation Foundation. Of the chosen pieces of artwork, 157 pieces were completed by children local to Chisholm. There were some stunning, heartfelt and very thought-provoking artworks exhibited by Australia's next generation of artists. I want to say well done and congratulations to all involved. I'm pleased to advise the House that as part of the 'Save our big backyard' campaign, which the children were advocating for, I will be championing the cause of the southern brown bandicoot, an endangered animal which used to be common in our part of the world in the south-eastern suburbs of Melbourne. Unfortunately, it isn't anymore. I look forward to supporting this worthy cause at home in my electorate of Chisholm, and in this place through my role here. I've said previously in this place, many times, that it's a great privilege to be the member for Chisholm. It has always been important to me that I take the time to listen and engage in the lives of the people in my community in a meaningful way, and I'm really grateful for every moment in my electorate that I'm able to do that. I want to thank my community for the many invitations to attend events and I want to thank everyone who has taken the time to attend my many mobile offices in the electorate, and those who have contacted my office. The engagement and support of my community allows me to be a better representative. The House transcript was published up to 20:00. The remainder of the transcript will be published progressively as it is completed. The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mrs Andrews ) took the chair at 16:00.

Tuesday, 14 November 2023

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mrs Andrews ) took the chair at 16:00.

CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS 82 CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS Youth Voice in Parliament Week 82 16:00 Ms SHARKIE 265980 Mayo I am honoured today to read a speech by 11-year-old Emerson who attends Littlehampton Primary School in my electorate. Emerson took part in the 2023 Raise Our Voice competition, which encourages young people to consider what change they would like to make to make Australia a better place for future generations. He wrote about stopping plastic in the ocean, and many in my community know this is an area of great passion for me as well. Emerson wrote: I think that there should be more awareness on the subject and there should be more programs about the plastic problem in the sea. Even if there were more days to come together and clean the beaches and oceans, this act would be small but powerful. As a motivation to this idea maybe there could be a competition at each beach to see who could pick up the most plastic, and the winner would get rewarded at the end. It is a very important subject and if we do not do something about it there might be catastrophic consequences in later years. It makes me wonder if technology could play a part in cleaning up the oceans, such as using drones and computers to locate the plastic and bring back small amounts back to land. In my opinion we should also be trying to reduce the amount of plastic being used, I think that it will help the situation. Thank you, Emerson. This year I have thoroughly enjoyed listening to so many of my students across Mayo and visiting my schools, and I've been quite taken aback by the depth of civics knowledge that my students have. We do a mock parliament when I visit my schools. We have dress-ups and we even have our version of a mace. It's incredibly important that we teach civics to our students. Our young people need to know about the systems of government and parliament so that hopefully, one day, they too will be inspired to be part of the process and perhaps put their hand forward to be elected at the local, state or federal level. I would like to mention some of those schools I visited this year: Saint Michael's Primary School; Kangaroo Island community school—both campuses—with our Speaker; Coromandel Valley Kindergarten; Hills Christian Community School; Lobethal Community Kindergarten; Clarendon Primary School; Mount Barker Waldorf School; Basket Range Primary School; Tatachilla Lutheran school; Callington Primary School; Heathfield Primary School; Gumeracha Primary School; Kangarilla Primary School; Nairne Primary School; Bridgewater Primary School; Upper Sturt Primary School; and Mount Barker South Primary School. And soon I'll be visiting Littlehampton Primary School, which is where young Emerson attends. It's fantastic to be able to get out to see my community, and I'm sure all members of parliament get out to their schools. I'm looking forward to seeing even more schools next year, in 2024. Gorton Electorate 82 16:03 Mr O'CONNOR 00AN3 Gorton Today I wish to share with the chamber my experiences and insights from recent visits to the vibrant religious temples in my electorate of Gorton. Last week, I had the privilege of visiting the Sri Durga Temple located in Deanside in the western part of my electorate. Sri Durga is one of the largest Hindu temples, if not the largest, in Melbourne and certainly one of the largest in Australia. During a typical week, and particularly on weekends, literally thousands flock to this sacred space. Notably, nearly 75 per cent of these attendees reside in Melbourne's western suburbs, highlighting the significant role this temple plays in the lives of many of my constituents. During my visit, I was met by Sri Durga Temple president, Kulwant Joshi, and other dedicated committee members. Their passion for community service and charitable initiatives was truly inspiring. I learnt about their efforts in providing food to those in need, underscoring the vital role religious institutions play in addressing social issues and fostering a sense of community responsibility. This was the third temple I'd visited recently. Earlier this year, I went to Murugan Temple. It had recently received federal funding through the government's Stronger Communities Program for a well-needed upgrade to their kitchen facilities. Upon arrival, I was warmly received by the temple's president, Subramanium Dharmakularajah, and other committee members. The Murugan Temple stands not only as a place of worship for the temple community, but as a symbol of cultural preservation and identity. The commitment to maintaining traditions and values were evident during my visit, reinforcing the importance of religious institutions in preserving our diverse heritage. On the same day I had the privilege of visiting the Paramitha Buddhist Temple, where I was graciously shown around by its president, Peter Perera, and the committee. Paramitha recently received a federal grant to assist in the building of a secure gate and fence for their car park. It's another step towards their goal of creating a serene oasis for those seeking spiritual practice and mindfulness. The peaceful atmosphere and the commitment to Buddhist teachings were on display. These temples are not just places of worship, however; they are community hubs that extend their impact far beyond religious practice. They serve as catalysts for charitable works, social cohesion and cultural preservation. As representatives of diverse and dynamic communities, it is our responsibility to recognise and appreciate the valuable contributions religious institutions make. They play an integral role in fostering unity, compassion and social responsibility, and I urge my colleagues to continue supporting initiatives that ensure the flourishing of cultural and religious diversity in Gorton, recognising that it is a source of strength that binds us together. Let us all commit to supporting the endeavours of these religious and cultural organisations that contribute so significantly to the wellbeing of our constituents throughout the country. Nicholls Electorate: Infrastructure 83 16:06 Mr BIRRELL 288713 Nicholls One of the really good things about the previous coalition government was that it funded and built infrastructure. In my electorate, this included stage 3 of the Shepparton rail line upgrade, which is under construction at the moment; the Shepparton Art Museum, which is a great piece of cultural infrastructure; and the Echuca-Moama bridge. I was very pleased to walk across the Echuca-Moama bridge with the person who was then the infrastructure minister, the member for Gippsland. We were reflecting on governments that actually built things and have a legacy of things that actually improve productivity. I'm very worried that we're not going to see anything get built in regional Victoria again. I'll give you an example. I fear the 90-day infrastructure review—now closing in on 200 days—has in its sights the Shepparton bypass project, a critical road project in one of the most important centres in the food bowl of Australia. It would take trucks out of the main CBD and, with a second bridge crossing, make it much easier for us to cross over the Goulburn River, which is a divide in our area. The coalition government committed 80 per cent of what was then the best guess at what the cost would be. The reason the coalition federal government did that was to try and drag a recalcitrant Victorian government to the table on that project. Now it's subject to the 90-day—or 200-day—review and I'm worried that it's going to get cut altogether. Of course, we know it needs more money, but this was an attempt by the previous coalition government to put some money on the table—and get the Victorian government to the table—to build some infrastructure. I read this morning in the Herald Sun that we're moving away from 80-20 funding arrangements for infrastructure projects, whereby the federal government—which has more money, particularly compared to Victoria, which doesn't have much at all because of the management of the Andrews-Allan government—funds 80 per cent and the states fund 20 per cent, and instead moving to a fifty-fifty situation. That's why I say I fear that nothing will ever get built in Victoria again. Not only has the Victorian government blown the budget, but all of the money and focus seems to be on a crazy project called the Suburban Rail Loop, and Premier Allan is asking for more money for that pie-in-the-sky project. This is at the expense of critical infrastructure that supports where the money is made in regional Victoria: the Goulburn Valley. Road and rail projects are what we need to focus on, and the federal government needs to get to the table and start building things, as the previous coalition government did. Eden-Monaro Electorate: Community Events, Eden-Monaro Electorate: Volunteers 83 16:09 Ms McBAIN 281988 Eden-Monaro I rise today to say a big thankyou to the Philipzen family, a name that many families in the Bega Valley will be familiar with. It's synonymous with the Bega War Memorial Swimming Pool. The family has run the pool for more than 45 years. Phil Harris ran the pool for 39 years, before Phil's daughter Zoe and her husband Mark took over. As one of the families who has benefited from their hard work, I say thank you, and I wish you all the best in your next chapter, focusing on Henry. The public are invited to drop in to Bega War Memorial Swimming Pool between now and 28 March next year to share your stories and memories of their time running the pool. A huge and heartfelt congratulations to Barbara Foster from Yass who has won the Centre for Volunteering Senior Volunteer of the Year. Barbara leads a small band of volunteers who open the New South Wales National Trust's Cooma Cottage and garden to visitors ranging from schoolchildren to historians, film crews to family reunions and weddings. Barbara's extensive role also includes organising major events like the recent 150th anniversary of the Hamilton Hume and William Hovell expedition. Thank you, Barbara, and well done for being recognised for your huge volunteering effort. Another shoutout goes to the Queanbeyan Sleepbus team, which was recognised in the same awards for their ongoing support towards homelessness. The volunteer team provides small sleeping pods to those in our community sleeping rough, which comes with all that they need for an overnight stay. Since 2021, Sleepbus has helped more than 1,100 people with safe sleeps. Well done on winning this award. More importantly, thank you for everything you do week in and week out for our community. You are an amazing volunteer team and this is a great recognition. I was recently one of 15,000 visitors who streamed through the gates at Murrumbateman Field Days. In the best of traditions, the Field Days are an opportunity for the country and the city to come together to see, experience and taste the best on offer. The Murrumbateman Field Days certainly delivered, with over 300 exhibitors. You could taste apples from Batlow, olives from the Gilmore Valley and bread from Murrumbateman. You could sample gin from Braidwood and Tumbarumba, beer from Tumut and wine from Murrumbateman. The food was amazing, with Yass Public School, Binalong Public School, the RFS and the Lions Club providing sausage sandwiches, scones and spuds to keep up our strength. The Murrumbateman Community Association does such a great job organising this year in and year out, so make sure you book a weekend in Murrumbateman on 19 and 20 October next year, when the Murrumbateman Field Days will once again be held. Lastly, a quick shoutout to Dr Corin Miller of Merimbula, who took out the Rural/Remote Health Professional of the Year award in the inaugural National Rural and Remote Health Awards last night. She runs the fully integrated Jinggi Gudjaagalali Kids Clinic, which helps with early intervention on a range of health measures. Well done, Corin—you're a legend. Environment 84 16:12 Mr COULTON HWN Parkes I acknowledge the minister in the room because I am sure she will be as concerned as I am about the issue I am about to raise. I have in front of me here a letter that one of my constituents received last week from the Australian Conservation Foundation. Apparently, the Australian Conservation Foundation had noticed through satellite imagery that these particular landholders in the western part of my electorate have been land-clearing, and they've send quite a detailed, threatening letter to these people. We have a system in this country that is working pretty well to protect our vegetation. This farm had a PVP—a property vegetation plan—working closely with state government, who controls that on the ground. Clearly, the EPBC Act does have some role over the top, but this was not indiscriminate land-clearing; this was the removal of woody weeds, leaving more significant vegetation, turning a sterile scrub environment into a more productive and nutritious environment in a very planned and measured way. This is none of the Conservation Foundation's business, quite frankly. They have no government authority. Were they scrolling over satellite imagery, or was some busy bee going down the Arthur Hall way notice that there were some trees knocked over and lodged a complaint? They talked about an extinction revolution, or whatever, here in this letter. We've got a population in this world that in a few decades time will be at 10 billion people. We've also got to work out how we're going to feed and clothe those people, not just look at every form of land management and try to stop it, lock it up to become a sterile environment. Australian farmers have been caring for the land, managing the land and improving the land for a long time. They are a dynamic couple. They're very good farmers, and part of their plan—it's not their whole property—is done according to the rules. And the rules are working. We're getting a balance between conserving vital, significant vegetation and making a farm more productive. The final sentence is, 'If I do not hear from you by nine o'clock Monday 13 October, ACF may take further action without notice, including making public statements about clearing'. The ACF need to pull their head in. It's not their job. We've got a government department that does that, and this is a very disturbing trend that we're seeing here. Sydney Electorate: Schools 84 16:15 Ms PLIBERSEK 83M Sydney Before I go on to my own comments, I want to respond very briefly to those comments. We know that farmers are some of the best land managers around, and one of the things that our government takes pride in is working hand in hand with private landholders on really important conservation, including managing weeds on their property and dealing with feral animals: goats, pigs, cats and so on. One of the ways that we could drive even more investment into that private land management is by having your support for the Nature Repair Market, so I'll look forward to that. It's no secret that one of my very favourite parts of being a local member is visiting our fantastic schools in Sydney and seeing what the students, the staff and the community are up to. I recently went, just last week, to Alexandria Park Community School, which has just had a total rebuild, and it was just stunning. The school leaders showed me around their beautiful new facilities, including their open-plan learning areas. The students are learning Dharawal language, which is fantastic. I met the wonderful new principal, Debra Lade, and members of the school executive. The students particularly wanted to show me the Maani, which is their rooftop garden, and the school chicken coop. I got to meet the chickens, and we found a potato. The kindergarten students showed me the work they were doing there. They are really exciting learning opportunities for the kids. As well as that, recently, I went to Gardeners Road Public School. I went to a fantastic assembly one Friday morning in August. We were handing out environmental awards to some of the students that had shown real environmental leadership at the school. I want to acknowledge that Gardeners Road Public School will soon be celebrating its 140th anniversary. It is a wonderful school. As you go in the gates of the school, you see the beautiful sculpture of the cricket players on the school gates there. We're also very lucky to welcome many schools to parliament throughout the year. Question time is nothing without these students watching on passionately and inquisitively. I've had visits from Newtown Public School, Gardeners Road, Erskineville Public School and Ultimo Public School. Of course, our government believes that every child in every school deserves the best possible education, and that's why we're upgrading facilities, including in my area. We've announced funding for six schools: Yudi Gunyi, Glebe Public School, Macquarie Grammar School, Inner Sydney High School, Our Lady of Mount Carmel and SEDA College in NSW. I want to thank all of the hardworking staff of these schools. I want to thank the parents and carers who look after the kids and, most particularly, the kids—who are always our hope for the future. Health Care 85 16:18 Mr McCORMACK 219646 Riverina Jane Gentle is a caring person—you could almost say by name and by nature. But she says what she thinks, she means what she says and she says what she means. She's been a pharmacist for 23 years—19 of those have been as an owner of a chemist operation. She runs a pharmacy in Junee, a town of 6½ thousand people. Hers was the only pharmacy in town which was trading seven days a week, but she's had to cut back that seventh day. She's now closing, from December, on the Sunday. This is so unfortunate. She's doing it because the doctors in town aren't working on Sundays but also because of the recent government changes regarding 60-day dispensing. The chickens are coming home to roost. They're coming home to roost, unfortunately, particularly in rural, regional and remote areas. I know the health minister crows about cheaper medicines in question time, but the 60-day dispensing is going to affect—and it is affecting—our pharmacists, their ability to make income and their ability to trade. Ultimately, it will see chemists closing. This just isn't good enough. It's not just happening in Junee; it's also happening at Southcity Pharmacy at Wagga Wagga. I spoke with Jane. She says, about the 60-day dispensing, that it hasn't hit hard yet but it will. 'It will be a death by a thousand cuts,' she says, because they are doing it in stages. It wasn't an easy decision for her to make. What this meant was that many of the people in the district of the Riverina—Cootamundra, Temora, West Wyalong and Gundagai—went to Junee because they didn't have a chemist open on a Sunday. Well, they won't be able to now. You put up a post on X, formerly Twitter, and you get the usual city-centric view of this—that the demand for a chemist in a town of 6½ thousand people on a Sunday already wouldn't be high. Go figure. Then somebody else says, 'Within a 30-minute drive, there are a number of chemists open in Wagga on Sunday.' I defy anybody to drive from Junee to Wagga Wagga in 30 minutes. Be that as it may, people just think that country people don't matter. They think that we're second-rate citizens. Jane and her team want to make sure that people in Junee are well served, but the 60-day dispensing is not serving our chemists or our populations well at all. It's simply not good enough that the minister isn't listening to these people. They need to go back to the drawing board, they need to review the 60-day dispensing rule and they need to make it fairer for all rural people, who need a pharmacist seven days a week. Robertson Electorate: Ocean Beach Surf Life Saving Club 85 16:21 Dr REID 300126 Robertson I would like to acknowledge two phenomenal Central Coast men who have been recently recognised as life members of the Ocean Beach Surf Life Saving Club. Alan Moffitt and Kevin Manning, two highly respected and dedicated members of my community, have been honoured with the title of life members at the annual general meeting of Ocean Beach Surf Life Saving Club for 2023. Both Alan and Kevin have contributed significantly to Ocean Beach Surf Life Saving Club and their wider community. Alan Moffitt joined Ocean Beach Surf Life Saving Club in 1988 and obtained his bronze medallion that same year. Alan has since gone on to be a patrolling member for 34 years, with 30 of those as a patrolling captain. In 2014, Alan was awarded a Commonwealth National Medal and has been recognised as patrol person of the year on five occasions throughout his service. To this day, Alan continues to be an active patrolling member and coaches and mentors the club's rookies. Alan is an integral member of the Ocean Beach Surf Life Saving Club, never shying away from important duties and supporting the club wherever possible. He helps fundraise for the club community, participating in doorknocking, bucket brigades, raffles, functions and so much more. Not only is Alan involved with the Ocean Beach Surf Life Saving Club, but you can also expect to find him supporting other outstanding local organisations, including the Red Shield Appeal, Surf Life Saving NSW and the rock-fishing safety program Gone Fishing, as well as volunteering at Killcare Beach and the Entrance, plus more. Kevin Manning has been named a member of the Ocean Beach Surf Life Saving Club since 1980 and has never been associated with any other surf lifesaving club throughout his service. Kevin successfully completed his bronze medallion training in 1981 and has been a patrolling member for 18 years. Similarly to Alan, Kevin never takes a break and supports his club whenever they need assistance. For example, Kevin is a committed and reliable member with the club's fundraising activities, and he involves himself in the club's carnival events and so much more. He supports the club's memorial wall, is associated with Words on the Waves Writers Festival, Umina Blue Swimmers and the Umina rugby league football club and helps facilitate the luncheons for the Old Boys. Kevin has served in many positions at the Ocean Beach SLSC, including as club captain, deputy president, function director, bar staff and grants officer, as well as on the centenary committee and the state championships committee. To both Alan Moffitt and Kevin Manning, two outstanding members of the Central Coast community, a huge congratulations on your recognition. Thank you for everything that you do, not just for the Ocean Beach Surf Life Saving Club but for the wider Central Coast community and the peninsula. You are remarkable, you are passionate and you are definitely both outstanding men. Our community is so grateful for your service. Lockyer Valley: Hailstorm 86 16:24 Mr BUCHHOLZ 230531 Wright I rise to inform the House, yet again, of another disaster that has bestowed itself upon the Lockyer Valley. I was first elected in 2010, and it just feels like groundhog day, having to come into the chamber and once again share stories of loss of life and the complete flattening of agricultural product. It happened on Friday in the form of a hailstorm, affecting roughly 40 farmers. It was a small belt, about half a mile wide, that went through town. It de-roofed sheds, picking them up and throwing them three or four kilometres down the road. It snapped off power poles. Think of the ferocity! Signs on the side of the road—Brisbane 200 kilometres, Toowoomba, Darwin—laid flat as if a dozer had run over them. Mother Nature was cruel in the way she dealt a blow to the Lockyer Valley. Corn crops that would normally be seven or eight foot high—the odd thing about that, when you witness the aftermath, is that it looked like a slasher had gone through and just taken these crops off the ground— A division having been called in the House of Representatives— Sitting suspended from 16:26 to 16:45 Mr BUCHHOLZ 230531 As I was saying, when you run a slasher over a corn crop there'd normally be debris lying on the ground, but the ferocity of this weather event just cleared it. There is nothing; there is absolutely nothing. Spare a thought for people like Joy Greenwood, who lost her life. She was simply going about her tasks in the afternoon, down feeding horses or animals. A tree limb fell on her, and unfortunately Joy lost her life. My heart goes out to her partner, Colin, and her entire family, who will go through the process of mourning as they deal with the unfortunate consequences. Spare a thought for the growers, the 40 growers, who have had their crops destroyed. It is unfathomable to see and to work and to water and to have all the input costs—the fertiliser costs, the labour costs—to get this product up out of the ground only to have it destroyed. Just at the time that you would start picking your harvest, where you'd have the money in the bank and you could use the profits to go and plant the next crops, it's just not there. I want to acknowledge the amazing work of the mayor over there; the president of the growers association, Mick Sippel; and Jim McDonald, the state member. (Time expired) Hawke Electorate: Community Radio, Medicare 86 16:47 Mr RAE 300122 Hawke Last month I visited 97.9 FM, Melton's own community radio station. Students from Staughton College hosted the Homework Club. Started eight years ago, the Homework Club is on the air every Thursday from 4 to 6 pm. It has a team of 28 dedicated volunteers led by Staughton College staff member and all-round legend Will Cachia. It was wonderful to chat with three amazing student hosts Maddy, Lily and Karma. They asked the tough questions about our local community as well as our work here in the parliament. While I acknowledged that it could be a bellicose environment at times, I assured them that parliamentary debate was critical to having a strong contest of ideas in our democracy. The hosts' professionalism and skill were incredibly impressive and a testament to a fantastic program run by Will. Melton community radio has proven to be an invaluable community service since it was established almost 40 years ago. It not only gives kids like Maddy, Lily and Karma the opportunity to develop their broadcasting skills but also provides important community programming, with local community news and talkback, culturally and linguistically diverse programming, and local sports, including coverage of the local Ballarat football league games. Tune in to 97.9 FM and stay connected with our community in Melton. Thanks for your work, gang. I recently had the privilege of visiting the Grant Street Medical Centre in Bacchus Marsh after it received funding through our Strengthening Medicare GP Grants Program. Twenty-eight GP clinics right across Hawke, from Sunbury to Hillside and Melton to Ballan, will receive a share of the $220 million fund that will ensure that local clinics have the resources they need to care for our community. The money will enhance digital health capability, upgrade infection prevention and control, and help achieve and maintain accreditation. This is just one part of the Albanese Labor government's plan to strengthen Medicare, including in my electorate of Hawke. After the Sunbury urgent care clinic opened earlier this year, its opening hours have also been extended. Now open 14 hours a day, seven days a week, the clinic can see more patients more often, and they're all fully bulk-billed. This won't just make it easier for locals to get the care they need for urgent but non-life-threatening injuries and illness; it will also ease the pressure on our hospital emergency rooms. The Sunbury urgent care clinic has already treated 3,500 patients and is ensuring that locals can get the care they need closer to home without spending a dime. The Albanese Labor government is making sure that your healthcare bills are paid by your Medicare card and not your credit card. We'll continue to fight to make sure that locals, from Sunbury and Ballan to Bacchus Marsh and Melton, get the health care they need. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 230886 In accordance with standing order 193, the time for members' constituency statements has concluded. BILLS 87 BILLS Health Insurance Amendment (Professional Services Review Scheme No. 2) Bill 2023 87

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

Second Reading 87 16:50 Dr FREELANDER 265979 Macarthur I'd like to congratulate the Minister for Health and Aged Care, the Hon. Mark Butler, for bringing the Health Insurance Amendment (Professional Services Review Scheme No. 2) Bill 2023 to the parliament. It's great to be here with Ged Kearney, the Assistant Minister for Health and Aged Care, because, even though this may seem to be a relatively routine piece of legislation, it is in fact a very important one. It's important for me, as a paediatrician now of over 40 years standing, that, as a profession, health practitioners are seen to be above board and seen to be practising to the best of their ability and providing quality health care to all Australians. The Professional Services Review scheme is one that, for many years, has been left languishing, and there have often been calls by many people for it to be reviewed. Recently we've had concerns raised about Medicare fraud. The previous head of the Medicare review committee Dr Tony Webber, who's an old friend of mine, raised these concerns publicly, as have other previous members of the Medicare review committee, such as Professor Julie Quinlivan. So this is an issue that all medical practitioners view as very, very important. It's important that we are seen to be practising to the best of our ability and honestly to provide quality health care to all Australians. Thankfully I have practised as a paediatrician for that period of time without ever being called before the Professional Services Review committee, and I certainly hope that continues. I know that the vast majority of my colleagues in all sections of medicine—from general practice to surgeons, physicians, paediatricians, like me, and obstetricians—do the best they can to provide quality care to Australians. But they also want to know that those few rogue practitioners are held to account, and this legislation will help do that. This healthcare insurance amendment amends the Health Insurance Act to improve the operation of the Professional Services Review scheme, and it has the support of the entire profession. I can tell you that. The AMA, which has always been seen as a very conservative organisation—in fact it's seen as probably the strongest trade union in the country, and I'm pleased to see there's another AMA member sitting opposite—are often seen to be protecting doctors' rights, but, on this occasion, I know they support this legislation, and that has been a really important thing. The bill aligns requirements for qualifications of the PSR committee members to the definition of inappropriate practice in the act and clarifies how these requirements should be applied. It ensures that committees can be established for a practitioner with a combination of specialties even if there may be few exact peers in Australia for the practitioner who's been called to be reviewed. The bill also clarifies requirements for a person under review notifying the committee that they are unable to attend a hearing for a medical reason or for other important reasons, including that they must provide proof of that. It also provides clarification that reference to a particular practitioner can include former practitioners who may already be suspended from practice to ensure that adequate measures are put in place to prevent that practitioner from causing more harm to a person or persons. It's not a bill that's going to cost a lot of money and it's not a bill that will cause more frequent reviews of medical practitioners. But I do know that it will be a bill that can be used to adequately assess a practitioner who may have a range of impairments or a practitioner who may be practising inappropriately. It may be able to be used to call for a review of a practitioner who may be operating fraudulently. We have seen some evidence of that in the past, and this is a very important bill that will make sure that the public understands that our government is doing the very best it can to make sure that anyone who practises in the medical field, seeing patients, is able to be seen as being well qualified and practising appropriately under the act. That is very important for all of us. When a health practitioner is held to be practising inappropriately or fraudulently, it affects all in the profession. I know, as a still-practising doctor, it is very important to me that those in my profession are seen to be practising appropriately and that I am not tainted by people who are behaving inappropriately. As practitioners, we now deal with very large sums of money through our practices. Some specialty practitioners may have practices generating bills in the millions of dollars. That is important that that is public money, public funds, and it needs to be seen that it's being dealt with properly and earned in an appropriate manner: providing high-quality health care around Australia. I'm very glad the minister has brought this bill to the parliament. We have a health minister and a health group, if I can say that, in this parliament who are committed to making sure that we provide high-quality care around Australia and that it's seen by all Australians as being appropriate and above board. We know that sometimes it is difficult to hold practitioners to account for wrongdoing, and this bill will help simplify that and make people very confident that our health practitioners maintain high-quality, some of the best-quality, medicine around the world. I've certainly seen this from every area of Australia that I've travelled. We are very lucky with the health practitioners that we have. This bill is mainly administrative, but it is an important one—not only making sure that our practitioners are aware of the need to practice appropriately and provide high-quality care but also assuring the general public that, when they do see a health practitioner, they are able to know that that practitioner has mechanisms in place and that he can be held accountable for inappropriate practice. It will clarify the requirements for the person under review about the need to appear, how he must appear and the fact that he will be able to be appropriately represented and will be seen by his peers. It's one of the many approaches to our healthcare system done by the present health minister that are innovative and are looking to change and prepare our health system for the 21st century, and I congratulate him for this. I recommend the bill to the House and I'm glad to have been able to speak on it. 16:58 Ms KEARNEY LTU Cooper I'd like to start by thanking the member for Macarthur for his positive words about the Health Insurance Amendment (Professional Services Review Scheme No. 2) Bill 2023, and we really do appreciate the work he does in this House. Australia's universal healthcare system, Medicare, provides free and subsidised access for all Australians to most healthcare services. The government is committed to strengthening Medicare by improving the compliance framework that ensures the integrity of Medicare. This bill 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 2023 to respond to concerns about the operation of the Medicare system. The Philip review recommended a comprehensive review of legislation relating to Medicare to ensure it is fit for purpose. The bill will strengthen the operation of the Professional Services Review, known as the PSR, 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 the Medicare program by investigating whether a person has engaged in inappropriate practice. The investigation occurs by review undertaken by the director or by committees made up of health professional peers of the person under review. This bill will align requirements for qualifications of committee members with the definition of inappropriate practice and will clarify how these requirements should be applied. This will ensure that committees can be properly established for a practitioner with an unusual combination of specialties or where the practitioner is providing services in a different field from their formal specialist qualifications. The bill will also make several other amendments to clarify and improve administration of the PSR scheme. Reducing ambiguity will ensure that a person under review is aware of how the PSR scheme should apply, as well as 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. I thank all the members for their contributions to debate on the bill. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. Ordered that this bill be reported to the House without amendment. Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Supporting the Transition to Work) Bill 2023 89

Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Supporting the Transition to Work) Bill 2023

Second Reading 89 17:02 Mrs PHILLIPS 147140 Gilmore My electorate of Gilmore, on the New South Wales South Coast, has one of the oldest demographics of any electorate in Australia. Not only this, as a regional town with farming roots and that old country attitude, we are also incredibly hardworking people. When you've worked hard your whole life, whether that be on the family farm, in the local hospital or in the local cafe, it's not so simple to just say: 'That's it. I'm done now. Time for retirement and living off a pension.' With the cost of living rising higher and higher every day, it's also not viable for many people, particularly for those who have worked in the caring, hospitality or health sectors, as just a couple of examples—and especially for women. Sadly, over my years in this job, I have heard regularly from pensioners who tell me they feel like they are punished if they work more. They have worked hard their entire lives and they are now entitled to the age pension, but, if they keep working—even just a little bit—that pension is reduced, making it not worth it. They may as well not work because the extra hours don't actually give them anything extra in their pocket. It's incredibly frustrating for many, not just because they like or, in many cases, need the extra income but also because they are trying to keep themselves busy, trying to help their community and trying to do their bit. Regional areas like ours are also struggling through an unprecedented workers crisis. We actually can't afford to lose our qualified nurses and doctors, our cleaners, our farmers, our tradies or our hospitality workers. Local businesses are struggling to stay afloat and struggling to find people with skills—just struggling to find anyone. It's something I am hearing all too often from local businesses across the South Coast. Put all that together—an ageing population that feels punished for working and a workforce that is crying out for skilled and willing labour—and you've got the perfect storm. That's where this bill comes in and why I am so proud today to rise in support of the Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Supporting the Transition to Work) Bill 2023. This is the perfect solution to that perfect storm and one that is so very welcome in my electorate of Gilmore on the New South Wales South Coast. It answers the call of hundreds of local pensioners and hundreds of local businesses. It'll help keep our economy moving and help local pensioners keep up with the cost of living. What could be better? In the very first few months after winning last year's federal election, the Albanese government announced we would hold the Jobs and Skills Summit. We did this because we knew Australia was facing unprecedented challenges in the employment sector and we wanted to bring all sides of this together in one room to map out our employment white paper, which was released in September this year. The white paper outlines our vision for a dynamic and inclusive labour market where everyone has the opportunity for secure, fairly paid work. To ensure that local voices were heard during the Jobs and Skills Summit, I held the Gilmore jobs summit survey to find out what local people and businesses needed and what challenges they were facing and to hear their innovative solutions. Guess what? High on the list of solutions was allowing pensioners to work more hours without it impacting on their pension rate. Many people who responded to my survey talked about the underutilisation of, and barriers for, older workers. Many respondents talked about age discrimination and the disincentives to work that were built into the welfare system. Suggestions were made to change the impact of work on access to the pension, allowing more hours to be worked before deductions were triggered. Older Australians have the skills, and many have the will to contribute, but they are kept outside the workforce because of these structural barriers. Peter said we should 'realign the pension system to give incentives for able-age workers to contribute to the workforce'. Rodney said we should 'increase the amount of wages that people on the age pension can earn before their pensions are affected'. Felicity referred to our older Australians as an 'untapped resource'. She said: … many have skills, capacity and desire to work in retail, hospitality, but a major disincentive is the loss of benefits applicable should they work more than very minimal hours per week. She went on to say: With many of our businesses unable to operate for full opening hours or days, and a significant older population in the region, surely this is a potential solution? Felicity said this is a 'win-win option—increased trading and income for businesses, plus earnings for employees that then have spending capacity and increased feelings of connection and worth in our community'. You know what, Felicity? We agree. I put these ideas in Gilmore's submission to the Jobs and Skills Summit, and, following the summit, the government put in place temporary measures that allowed age pensioners to work more hours without it impacting their pension. A commonsense solution brought forward by local people, listened to by government and implemented—how great is that? It's democracy at work. This bill makes those temporary measures permanent. It implements the changes which were announced in our employment white paper in September. To put it simply, we are giving older Australians more choice and flexibility to participate in the workforce by permanently enhancing the pension work bonus. It includes an up-front credit of $4,000 to all new pension entrants over age pension age and to eligible veterans, and it permanently increases the maximum work bonus income balance from $7,800 to $11,800. This means that existing pensioners will continue to benefit from the elevated maximum work bonus balance of $11,800, with new pension entrants over age pension age to receive a starting balance of $4,000 instead of zero. Older Australians give so much to our community, and having them continue to work for as long as they want and are able is only a good thing. It gives businesses invaluable skills, knowledge and experience while allowing them to keep the doors open. It helps to keep these highly valued members of our community engaged with purpose and connection. It has health and mental health benefits for them and others as well—not to mention the economic benefits. There are only wins any way you look at it. Having a system that is set up to disincentivise or, at worst, punish them for wanting to stay active and contribute to our economy makes no sense whatsoever. People in our community recognise that. They called for it, and we have delivered it here today. These changes will take effect from 1 January 2024, with no gap between the existing temporary measure and the commencement of the new ongoing provisions. I could not be prouder to be part of a government that has listened to the views and concerns of the Australian people and businesses and that has made changes to better support them. We are serious about setting up a workforce structure for the future, one that is ready and prepared to meet the challenges Australia will face and is facing. Our employment white paper makes this a transparent process. It has made it a collaborative process. We have listened to industry, we have listened to consumers, we have listened to workers and we have made well-thought-out, economically viable, commonsense changes that will make a difference. Over the last 18 months we have made a lot of really important changes to help and support those doing it tough. We've increased the rate of working age and student payments by $40 per fortnight. We've increased the maximum rate of Commonwealth Rent Assistance by 15 per cent, expanded eligibility for Parenting Payments Single to single principal carers until the youngest child turns 14—up from eight previously. We've increased the income threshold for the Commonwealth Seniors Health Card to help an additional 10,893 older Australians access the card. That is just to name a few. This bill introduces another support by expanding the nil rate period from six to 12 fortnights, and expanding access to the nil rate period for those who enter full employment. What this means is people who have been receiving support payments such as JobSeeker, Youth Allowance, Abstudy, the Parenting Payment, the age pension, the Disability Support Pension and the carer payment can re-enter the workforce knowing that their safety net is still behind them should they need it. It means people can stay active in a system, retaining benefits like concession cards, childcare subsidies and other supplementary payments for a bit longer. If things don't work out for whatever reason—as we know can sometimes happen—people won't have to reapply or wait for the income support to come back. It helps to remove yet another disincentive, particularly for short-term contracts, casual work or work in the gig economy. The safety net remains a backup that is there when it is needed—as it should be. When work comes up, no matter what it might look like, people should have no hesitation in saying yes. It shouldn't be in the back of their mind that when their contract is up they will be left with nothing but a long bureaucratic process. This will help reduce those barriers, keeping access to the supplementary benefits and automatically restoring payments if circumstances change. This is just one more way that the Albanese government is making sure help is there when it is needed most—by those who need it most. There is no doubt we are facing tough economic times. Regional areas are harder hit than most, and local people want to know that their government is working to do everything possible to support them. Our 10-point plan on the cost of living is our highest priority, targeted to where people need it most. I have already mentioned several of these measures, but they are only the beginning. We have given electricity bill rebates of up to $500 to around five million households—a common issue I hear and something that can make a big difference. We have made child care cheaper, helping families on $120,000 with one child in care save around $1,700 a year. At the same time, we are expanding paid parental leave to 26 weeks by 2026—good news for families and our economy. We have made medicines cheaper. I'm so proud of this in particular because we all heard the cries that the sky would fall in if medicines were cheaper, but those changes came in and—guess what? The sky hasn't fallen in. Instead, millions of Australians had the cost of their medicines for many chronic conditions halved with 60-day dispensing. On top of that, we have also brought the maximum copayment on prescriptions down from $42.50 to $30—significant cost savings now. We have tripled the bulk-billing incentive, which came into effect just this month and is helping children, pensioners and concession cardholders see a bulk-billed GP. What else? Our Housing Australian Future Fund has officially started, building and supporting the supply of more affordable homes through our $10 billion fund, as well as our $3 billion new homes bonus and our $2 billion dollars social housing accelerator. I was a TAFE teacher, so you can bet that I am super excited that we have made TAFE fee-free for tens of thousands of students. TAFE, and vocational education in all its forms, changes lives. I've seen it firsthand, and we have made it so much easier to access. It's an exhaustive list, but it has been well thought out. It won't add to inflation; it will go to where it's needed most and to who needs it most. It's good for our country, it's good for people in my electorate and it's good for our future. I'll keep working hard every single day to ensure that local people in my electorate get the support they need when they need it. I commend this bill to the House. 17:15 Mr BRIAN MITCHELL 129164 Lyons I'm pleased to speak in support of the Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Supporting the Transition to Work) Bill 2023. This bill implements social security measures announced in the government's employment white paper released on 25 September this year. The employment white paper is a comprehensive roadmap for achieving a dynamic and inclusive labour market in which all Australians have the opportunity to secure fairly paid jobs. It envisions a country where workers, employers and communities can thrive and adapt to changing times. It's an ambitious vision that we are determined to turn into reality. It outlines the government's ambition for a dynamic and inclusive labour market in which Australians have the opportunity for secure, fairly paid jobs in a country where workers, employers and communities can thrive and adapt. Of course this segues nicely with the legislation that we have put to the House and the Senate, and which has come back in part from the Senate, which is all about getting jobs that are fair and also adaptive to the new environment. Frankly, this is a critical piece of legislation that will have a significant impact on the lives of older Australians and those transitioning from income support to employment. The bill is a pivotal part of the Albanese government's efforts to ensure more Australians can benefit from the transformations taking place in our economy and society in the coming decades. One of the key measures within the legislation is the enhancement of the pension work bonus. This measure reflects our commitment to giving older Australians greater choice and flexibility in their workforce participation. We will permanently increase the maximum work bonus income balance from $7,800 to $11,800. This enables pensioners to continue reaping the benefits of the elevated maximum work bonus balance. In addition, new pension entrants over the age pension age will receive an upfront credit of $4,000. Many older Australians are choosing to supplement their age pension—an age pension they deserve—with paid work. No-one should be financially disadvantaged by choosing to stay in the workforce longer or returning to the workforce after some time away. In Lyons there are some 13,500 people receiving the age pension, all of whom can potentially benefit from these changes to the work bonus should they choose to. It's important to say that. This is a matter of choice. No-one on our side believes that age pensioners should be forced back into work, but I know from personal experience a lot of age pensioners are keen to remain in the workforce if they're able to. I've already spoken to a handful of my constituents who are looking forward to this change. Like Malcolm, a pensioner from Old Beach, who recently wrote to me about wanting to increase his hours of work as a way of keeping active and in touch with his local community. Of course employers will benefit from these changes too. In many regional and rural areas, businesses are dealing with pretty chronic staff shortages. I know this is the case in particular for some of the hospitality venues on Tassie's east coast. This measure gives employers access to experienced people who are keen to work. Indeed, the work bonus initiative is not just about providing financial support; it's about recognising the wealth of experience and skills that older Australians can bring to the workforce. And when I talk about experience, I don't just mean position-specific hard skills. Older Australians bring life experience, maturity, wisdom and emotional intelligence to the workplace, often providing mentorship to younger workers. Not to mention, we know there are benefits for the older workers themselves: mental health benefits, social inclusion, staying active and community engagement to name a few. By increasing the work bonus, we hope to encourage more older Australians to remain engaged in the labour market should they wish to do so. The changes brought about by this legislation will come into effect on 1 January next year, pending its successful passage through the parliament. This transition ensures there is no gap between the existing temporary measure and the commencement of these new, ongoing provisions. To maintain the integrity of the system, the work bonus measure includes safeguards to prevent individuals from cycling on and off payments in order to receive multiple new-entrant bonuses of $4,000. We've seen how easy it is for people to take advantage of good intentions, so we're trying to corral this as much as we can. It's important to note that the costs of this measure are only incurred if pensioners actively engage in work. The indicative cost for this enhancement is approximately $42.4 million over the forward estimates from 2023-24—an investment that we are confident will yield substantial returns in terms of the economic contributions of older Australians and the wellbeing of our community. Another crucial aspect of this legislation is the extension of the employment income nil rate period. We recognise that transitioning from income support to employment can be challenging and the fear of losing access to essential benefits can deter people from even considering taking up work, particularly short-term, casual and gig-economy jobs. Frankly, it can all be a bit too hard to go through the rigmarole of dealing with Centrelink and the paperwork involved for what may be temporary, casual work. A division having been called in the House of Representatives— Proceedings suspended from 17 : 21 to 17 : 38 17:38 Ms TEMPLEMAN 181810 Macquarie I'm really pleased to rise to speak to the Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Supporting the Transition to Work) Bill 2023 because it is going to make a difference on the one hand to pensioners, and on the other hand to a whole lot of welfare recipients who get caught in this in-between place when they're finding their first bit of work and still trying to keep themselves afloat. It really tackles some of the issues that makes life difficult for people transitioning into work and for pensioners who might decide that doing a bit of work would be great for them, whether it's because they need the stimulation or they need the money. Either way, this is really dealing with some issues that have been outstanding. Let me talk through a couple of the things that are really important and why this bill needs to get through this place. I'll talk about pensioners first. This bill means that pensioners wishing to return to the workforce can do so with much less fear of losing access to their other income support measures if they take up some work. From 1 January—and that assumes this legislation passes the parliament—it means that all new age pension and veteran pension entrants will be able to start with a work bonus in their income bank balance of $4,000 rather than no dollars. Why this matters is that that allows you to earn a certain amount of money. But, when you first go on to pension, you can't actually get it immediately. So that's one of the changes that we're making. It's an upfront credit of $4,000 to all new pension entrants, and, as I've said, that means people on the age pension or veterans. The other part of it is the permanent increase in the maximum work bonus income balance you can have from $7,800 to $11,800. That's where it currently sits. A year or so ago we recognised that that would be a measure that would help get some older workers back into the workforce. Whether there's a skills shortage in a particular area or whether it's for things like a referendum, where the AEC is looking for a whole lot of extra workers, doing those small amounts of work can undermine their access to the pension. What we've found is that this is an effective way to do it, and we want to make this move from $7,800 to $11,800 permanent. It's about giving older Australians more choice and flexibility to participate in the workforce, and that's why we're going to permanently enhance the pension work bonus. How it works is that existing pensioners will continue to benefit from that elevated maximum work bonus balance, with the new entrants starting with a balance of $4,000 rather than a balance of zero. We want to continue to ensure that the option to take up work is open to people. I know that in my electorate, Macquarie, particularly in the Blue Mountains, there are a large number of retired people who not only are on a pension or part pension but also are really keen to contribute. This is the sort of thing that will potentially make a real difference to the way they plan their next few years. We recognise that there are not only substantial benefits for older Australians in continuing to work but also benefits to the entire community, particularly where we have skills shortages. They've got a wealth of experience and they're highly skilled in the things that they have done. When I think about my electorate, where we are short of tradespeople, the place we turn to is the Hawkesbury, where there are so many skilled and trained tradespeople. If this is an incentive to get some of them to move back into the workforce, it is well worth it, particularly if they are able to contribute, if they're keen to do so and if the only thing stopping them is that they'll have a disadvantage financially. All of these changes will take effect from 1 January, pending the passage of the legislation. That will mean that there's no gap between the existing temporary measures that we put in place and the commencement of these new ongoing provisions. It's worth pointing out that the work bonus measure also includes some safeguards just to ensure that individuals can't game the system by cycling on and off payments so that they receive multiple new-entrant bonuses of $4,000. We have thought that through to ensure there aren't incentives or, as we might say, unintended consequences of people doing that. There is a cost to this measure, and that cost is potentially $42.4 million over the forward estimates from 2023-24, for the next few years. But it's worth remembering that the costs for this measure are only realised if pensioners do take up the work. If this doesn't get taken up, the costs will obviously be lower. I'm really keen to hear from people about this. I know I've had conversations in the last few months talking to people about the ability to work in things like the referendum. We also had a state election in New South Wales, and I know that there are a lot of pensioners who really enjoy being part of that democratic process. For those pensioners who aren't working, we know that it's often due to a whole range of factors. Sometimes it's because of the type of work that's available or a desire to be retired. But this is here as an option. It's not a requirement, it's an option. It is about giving flexibility to older people. The second part of this targets a completely different group of people, and that is the other benefit recipients: people on JobSeeker payment, youth allowance, Abstudy, Austudy, parenting payment, disability support pension and carer payment. It includes the age pension, but it is clearly much broader than that. This is the change we're making around what's called the employment nil rate period. This gives some flexibility so that as people are transitioning from unemployment into employment, or from a particular situation but they're in a position now to take up work, it takes away the fear by making sure that the social security support—the safety net—will still be there for them as they're working through the transition to employment. It's very easy to think that one day someone's unemployed and the next day they get a job and off they go, but it isn't always a smooth journey. That would apply to students, to people on youth allowance and to people on the disability support pension. It would certainly apply to people on parenting payments where, even with all the very best of intentions of moving into work, things may happen that mean they still need to rely for a short time on that social safety net that we in Australia are so proud to provide people with. The measure, the employment nil rate period, extends that period of time for income support payments from the six fortnights to 12 fortnights. So, we're going from 12 weeks to 26 weeks—from three months to six months—and it expands access to the nil rate period to those who enter full employment. It allows people to stay active in the system. They can retain supplementary benefits—such as concession cards, childcare subsidies and other supplementary payments—for longer when they first get back into work. That is the safety net that's now going to be in place. The measure really addresses concerns about losing access to those benefits or having to reapply if things don't work out in your employment. Having to reapply and wait for income support if things didn't go the way people had hoped acts as a real discouragement for people to take up work, particularly short-term work. There's not much incentive in taking up an initial couple of months contract if you know that, at the end of it, there is total uncertainty and you've forgone the supports that you had. It also acts as a real disincentive for casual work and gig economy work. So, this is about giving people a bit more confidence to know that they can move forward without completely burning their bridges behind them. We know that people who have some work are twice as likely to ultimately exit income supports as those who don't, so getting those first bits of work are really important. Therefore, to improve employment outcomes, it is critical that people are not disincentivised from taking on these short-term, sometimes ad hoc, opportunities. We want to make the transition from income support to employment as smooth as possible. This reduces the barriers for payment recipients so they can take up work, by extending the period they're accessing those supplementary benefits that remain payable during the nil rate period, with their payment automatically restored if their circumstances change. These changes will come in from 1 July 2024, pending the passage of this legislation. Neither of these is anything other than a sensible step to genuinely support people, particularly as they're moving into employment, and, for pensioners, to allow them to continue employment. I think we should be very proud of these changes. I really hope that they are promptly passed through the House, and I want to touch on that point. As I say, we brought some of these things in as temporary measures. The maximum work bonus income bank measures were increased a year ago, from 1 December. The current temporary work bonus measure is due to end after 31 December. That means that, from 1 January, the work bonus income bank balance of 2.3 million pensioners will be reduced from the high it is at now, back down to the standard level of $7,800. That means there's a big gap, a big lag. If we get this legislation through—and I'd urge the parliament to support it—it will make this a seamless process for pensioners, who really deserve to have their lives made as straightforward as possible, not tied up in some sort of parliamentary red tape. I commend the bill to the house, and I'm very proud of these very sensible measures, which we hope will improve employment opportunities for everyone. 17:51 Ms McBRIDE 248353 Dobell On behalf of the people in my community of Dobell, in the northern part of the Central Coast of New South Wales, I'm pleased to speak in support of this bill, the Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Supporting the Transition to Work) Bill 2023. It has broad support across the parliament and broad support across my electorate. This is because, as the member for Macquarie has just said, this is a commonsense amendment with practical benefits which will flow not just to individuals but also to local communities and regional economies, like mine, on the Central Coast of New South Wales, and Susan's, in the Blue Mountains. In Dobell we have a population which is older than the national average. Some one in five residents currently living in Dobell receive the age pension. Across the Central Coast, almost 70 per cent of people aged 65 years and over receive the age pension—which, again, is higher than the state average. I've heard from many seniors in my community about their experiences and their exposure to cost-of-living pressures. Our government, the Albanese Labor government, is providing cost-of-living relief in many ways to help ease these pressures, particularly through our investment in Medicare, the largest since it was introduced 40 years ago. As the Assistant Minister for Rural and Regional Health, I know just how big a difference this will make, especially for older people living in communities like mine. In addition to that, I know from many conversations on the Central Coast that removing barriers to allow pensioners to earn a little more—some extra income—will make a genuine difference to households in my community. As members know, the current work bonus measure was an outcome of the Jobs and Skills Summit last year. It aligns strongly with the priorities in our employment white paper, and I know, when it was first announced, people in my community were very keen to see it introduced and keen to know more about it. It began as a temporary measure and, with the passage of this bill, it will become permanent. This will be an ongoing and permanent change. The increase in the work bonus since it was first introduced has allowed age pension recipients the flexibility either to remain in roles that they enjoy and find personally and professionally fulfilling or to re-enter the workforce and continue to earn without reducing their pension. New recipients of the age pension in particular will benefit from the $4,000 work bonus starting balance. As we know, this is a group of people who are much more likely to be keen to carry on in paid work. Pensioners will also benefit from a permanent increase to the maximum income bank balance limit, from $7,800 to $11,800. With the existing extension set to end on 31 December, passage of this bill will mean there is no gap between the temporary measure and the beginning of these new, ongoing provisions. One person to benefit is Mark from Blue Haven in my electorate. Mark is 71, and he contacted my electorate office earlier this year. He was concerned because he'd heard that the work bonus measure was ending. It had allowed him to earn some more to cover his expenses while still maintaining his pension, and the benefits associated with it, and staying connected with his workplace and the broader community. It's people like Mark that will now be able to benefit from this measure in an ongoing manner. We want our seniors to be supported in doing all of these things—staying connected in work, keeping their pension and the associated benefits, and earning a little more if they want to. I know that Mark represents the many seniors in my community who support this change, and I look forward to updating Mark and others on its passage through the parliament. Obviously, the work bonus change offers the option of an important top-up to a pensioner's income and to their household. Equally, at a time when skills shortages persist in regional communities like mine that are an hour and a half outside of major cities—we have a persistent skill shortage, but it's only being exacerbated at the moment—our government is investing in many skills measures, and this is one of them. So, in many sectors of the economy where we have experienced, willing and capable older workers who are keen to stay in the workforce, it makes sense to encourage them to do so and to support their efforts in doing so. Older Australians bring a wealth of experience, expertise, skills and economic value to workplaces and boost regional economies right around the country. I know employers too, and I have spoken about this with the local chamber of commerce, Business NSW (Central Coast), and I know that they are very keen to see these changes and will welcome the prospect of additional capacity and capability in our local labour market. Alongside these pension changes, the supporting the transition to work bill will address disincentives to those in the income support system taking up new work by extending the nil rate period from 12 to 24 weeks. I spoke about this with the member for Richmond earlier and about the real benefit that this will make in communities like mine and like hers. It means that people can stay active in the income support system. The example that we were talking about is someone who might be engaged in starting a new job and who's not sure whether it will be the right fit for them or for the employer, but, at the same time, they have the security to be able to retain other benefits such as concession cards, childcare subsidies and other payments for longer when they first get back into work. I think that it's really important in this job market at the moment to make sure that people have that certainty and that stability for their families and for their households. Once again, my own community is strongly representative of why this practical change is a positive step towards more employment and empowerment for low-income households. We know that people who have some work are twice as likely to exit income support as those who don't have work, so removing barriers to employment opportunities, even if they're short term to begin with, can change an individual's outlook for the better. Lastly, I'd like to touch on the social and health benefits. As an assistant minister for health, I know just how important being engaged in the workforce is for people's mental health and wellbeing. For many older Australians, there are great benefits to be had from continuing to work. We know that staying in work keeps people connected in their community and connected in their workplaces and leads to many mental and physical health benefits. Many choose to volunteer for the same reasons, and I want to note the equal importance and value that we place on volunteering and the vital contribution that volunteers make across our community. Employment, inclusion, social engagement, physical activity, financial security—all these are protective factors for good mental health, to boost your mental health and wellbeing. As the Albanese government progresses cost-of-living relief and other equity measures such as those in this bill, we are also motivated by a drive for greater equity, stronger mental health and stronger communities. The Albanese Labor government is working every day to address cost-of-living pressures across portfolios, across the whole of government. Once again, I'm pleased to support this bill as a positive part of that agenda. 17:59 Mrs ELLIOT DZW Richmond I too rise to speak on the Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Supporting the Transition to Work) Bill 2023. I'm pleased to be following the member for Dobell, and I certainly commend her for that speech and echo much of the sentiment that she and many other speakers have shared about the immense benefit of the changes that this bill brings for a whole host of people. It's one that this government is very proud of, in terms of the very practical measures that it makes, particularly for our seniors but also for a lot of people that are in receipt of different pension payments as well, and I will get to all the details of that. As the Assistant Minister for Social Services, I'm very proud to be speaking on this very critical bill, which sets out the smooth transition between income support and employment. It has a lot of benefits. As the member for Richmond, I also have a large proportion of seniors in my electorate—as the member for Dobell spoke about—and I'm very fortunate to have many senior Australians in my area. As I often say, these are the people that built our nation and we should always be cognisant of serving their needs whatever they may be. A lot of the changes in the bill are ones that have echoed what they have told me over a period of time. In terms of our government, the Albanese Labor government's No. 1 priority is helping all Australians, ensuring that no-one is left behind or held back and are provided with the support and changes that they may need. We've certainly seen that in a whole host of our cost-of-living initiatives, which, particularly in terms of our seniors, have been of great benefit—whether that be cheaper medicines, energy bill relief or our absolutely huge investment in Medicare, in terms of tripling the bulk billing rate, which has been absolutely crucial for our seniors, who rely on those particular services. We are also very focused on job creation and driving employment, and that's vital in regional economies too to ensure we have strong economic growth through employment in our regions. The changes in this bill will permanently enhance the pension work bonus and also extend, very importantly, the employment income nil rate period for those on income support. The bill will give people the support they need to be able to work. Following on from last year's Jobs and Skills Summit, the Albanese Labor government has undertaken a number of measures that focus on inclusion and reducing some of the barriers to employment. This includes our work bonus boost, the Carer Inclusive Workplace Initiative and the development of the Career Pathways Pilot for people with a disability. Through our landmark employment white paper released in September, we set the road map for a more dynamic and inclusive labour market—one that will deliver sustainable employment, underpinned by job security and wages growth. It's so important to have all that in place. We really want to continue to ensure that older Australians have the option should they wish to take up more work and do more work. I certainly hear that from many of my local constituents as well. Some of them are keen to do that and pursue it and have the capacity to do it. That's what this bill is allowing. This bill really does represent the very immediate actions we're taking to deliver on many of the objectives of that white paper. The changes to the pension work bonus will enable our older Australians who choose to work—and only if they want to—to earn more income from working before their pension is affected, and that could be through a variety of different forms of employment at times of the year when different circumstances arise. They want to be able to have that flexibility. This builds on the temporary work bonus measure the government announced at the Jobs and Skills Summit, which gave all eligible pensioners a one-off $4,000 upfront credit in their work bonus balance and increased their work bonus income balance from $7,800 to $11,800. This temporary measure was in place from 1 December 2022 to 31 December 2023. But now, with this bill before the House, we will permanently extend these changes, from 1 January 2024, to all eligible new recipients who are of age-pension age, who will commence with a work bonus balance of $4,000 from day 1 instead of starting with zero. We're making this particular objective permanent. It's wonderful that that will be in place. It gives people certainty for the future they are planning as well. Throughout this bill we will retain on a permanent basis the maximum income balance of $11,800 for all eligible pensioners and veterans to accrue in their work bonus income bank. It's a massive change that will assist many of our seniors and our veterans. In addition to enhancing the work bonus, from 1 July 2024 this bill will also double the length of the employment income nil rate period from 12 to 24 weeks and extend access for people who start full-time work. Of course, the employment income nil rate period is available to people on a whole range of different payments, including the JobSeeker payment, youth allowance, Austudy, the ABSTUDY living allowance, the parenting payment, the disability support pension and the carer payment. Having that in place will make such a huge difference, because people on these particular pensions won't be penalised or have their pension affected if they are working for that period of time. As we all know, once people gain employment, they have to see whether it does actually work out and if it meets the objectives that they and the employer had hoped for. Having those 24 weeks gives a certainty for all involved, particularly to those people who are in employment and making sure that it is exactly the course that they want to take. Of course, having to go off those pensions and then come back on, for many people, is a very lengthy process. To have the opportunity for choice gives a real certainty and a security to those people as well, just having that extension of time to 24 weeks. There are two very important parts to this bill. We understand, as a government, not only the substantial benefits for older Australians and the broader community, with older Australians returning to work in response to the changes in the bill, but also the economic benefits to that as well. When we look at our older workers, we know they have a wealth of experience and highly skilled working backgrounds to contribute, if they are able and want to be able to do that. I hear from many of my older constituents about the extensive experience and great wealth of knowledge they have that they'll be able to use in a whole variety of employment settings. I know a lot of employers are very keen to hire older workers purely because of that reason. It gives them an opportunity to do that and to be able to fit in employment with whatever they have in their busy lives as well. This bill will ensure that more than 195,000 senior Australians who commence getting the pension each year will be given added incentive to maintain their connection to the workforce and have that choice. It is important, and, of course, absolutely invaluable when it comes to both our labour market and our local economies to have those people working as well. The maximum income bank balance of $11,800 also means pensioners who are not working regularly are able to accrue credits with this higher maximum balance, allowing them to earn more, if they do take up some work, before their pension is even affected. It also means pensioners who haven't used their one-off $4,000 credit will be able to keep it in their income bank to use at a later date. Together, the higher maximum income bank balance limit and the starting balance are targeted and effective changes that really will deliver benefits to those pensioners who do choose to work. By doubling the length of the employment income, it will allow people to be more involved in the system and retain these benefits for longer when they first get back into work. We know that to improve employment outcomes, it's critical that people are not disincentivised from taking on short-term or ad hoc opportunities that could and may turn into longer term work. The changes to the income nil rate period are expected to benefit about 138,000 people each year, particularly those receiving JobSeeker and youth allowance, and it really is a game changer particularly for those younger people, to have the time to really see that they are settled in that employment environment. All of that allows us to provide more support for people to get back into work, without the fear they would obviously have if that social safety net wasn't there if they do need it again; they know it is there, over that period of time, and that is so incredibly important. In conclusion, the Albanese government is committed to giving many Australians more choice and flexibility to participate in the workforce, particularly older Australians with the work bonus. These changes deliver on our commitment of building on a really strong social security safety net that protects our vulnerable Australians and doesn't stigmatise people for needing help. We are very proud of our history of doing that. Our suite of safety net measures includes additional support for working age and student payment recipients. We would have seen, too, our increases to the Commonwealth rent assistance and expansion of the parenting payment, as well, providing that targeted support when it is required. The importance of this bill is that it really does work to overcome barriers to employment and broaden opportunity by reducing disincentives in the social security system and supporting more people to take up work. The measures in this bill will provide a broad range of support to many more Australians, and I commend the bill to the House. 18:09 Mr STEVENS 176304 Sturt I rise to speak in favour of the amendment moved by the member for Deakin in the other place. As he outlined in his second reading contribution as the lead speaker for the opposition, we will support the Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Supporting the Transition to Work) Bill 2023, but we have an amendment to the second reading to add some very important context to this debate. One of the reasons we are supporting the bill is that in many ways we never needed this bill in the first place. If 12 months ago the government had adopted the policy position that we put forward, and made a lot of these measures permanent, then we wouldn't be needing to pass this bill, which takes those temporary measures into permanency and gives that certainty to people that are benefiting from this sensible scheme announced by Peter Dutton in one of the first policy announcements we as a coalition made after the last election. The government were in a position where they couldn't possibly concede to a good idea from their opponents, so instead they had to mangle it a bit, change it and make it temporary. Now here we are 12 months later, debating legislation that fully implements the policy suggestion that we made to help more pensioners participate in the workplace. We all know the three Ps: population, participation and productivity. At the moment, population is well under control, if not galloping at quite a frightening rate. More than half a million people are due to join the ranks of this country from net overseas migration, according to the latest Australian Bureau of Statistics population estimates. Population is growing very rapidly, and we have concerns about whether or not elements of that program are too high, particularly when we're not investing in or apportioning the right amount of infrastructure, and making sure we are bringing in people that our economy needs rather than a lot of people potentially coming in under other avenues that aren't necessarily within the spirit of our skilled-migration program. On the participation side, this is absolutely a measure that makes an enormous amount of sense, which is why Peter Dutton suggested it after the last election. The government have tried to pretend it was their idea and now, 12 months later, are finally making it permanent, which is giving an opportunity for more people to participate in the workplace without impacting or affecting their pension. Quite reasonably, a lot of people are happy to work more hours in our economy if it doesn't impact their full entitlement to earning their pension, and there's a fair degree of human nature around that. The member for Gilmore, in her contribution, made the spectacular concession that under the government she is a part of it's harder and harder for people to retire now onto the pension, particularly with the spiralling, increasing cost of living. We have a member of the government making a point in a debate that the government they are a part of is failing the people of this country, particularly the most vulnerable people of this country—people who are on fixed incomes—and making it impossible—because of the spiralling increases in the cost of living under the government that she is a part of—to make ends meet without also joining the workforce. I'm happy for her to make the point in the debate. It's curious, politically, to be a member of the government and say, 'We are failing on cost of living,' in a debate that is recorded and able to be used in a whole range of politically advantageous ways by her opponents, but I welcome the honesty. We don't usually get that. According to the member for Gilmore, the cost of living is spiralling out of control. That's on her watch and the watch of the government that she's a part of. We agree with her, of course. She's absolutely right, and it's nice to have a member of the government be honest about the enormous cost-of-living burdens that are on people. As the member for Deakin makes clear in this amendment to the second reading, these cost-of-living burdens are making it really hard, particularly for people on a fixed income. We were told by this government during the election campaign, when they were seeking to become the government, that if people voted for them, they would ease their cost-of-living burdens. It was a core part of their message and narrative in the campaign. We heard claims that power prices would fall by $275 for the average household power bill. We heard that mortgages were too high under us, apparently. We had the famous comment from the Prime Minister, the then Leader of the Opposition, during the election campaign that mortgages were too high under the coalition. I think we all know what's happened since then. We have a cash rate—the Prime Minister wouldn't know what it is, but I know what it is—of 4.5 per cent at the moment. It went up one-quarter of a per cent at the last Reserve Bank meeting. Since the election it's gone up from 0.35 per cent, so a full four percentage points—it's increased by 400 basis points—on the cash rate. The overnight cash rate has only increased since this government was elected and so mortgages, if they were tough under the last government, are only four per cent harder under this government. That $275 power bill cut certainly hasn't manifested itself in my electorate or in my home state. We've seen increases across the country. How's this? We have a government that say they will decrease power prices by $275. In my home state they've gone up by more than 22 per cent—22 per cent—on the default market offer in the state of South Australia. I think the national average is about 19 per cent. It's quite a spectacular departure from what we were told would happen if an Albanese government was elected—the average power bill would fall by $275 for the average family in this country, but instead they've gone up by about 20 per cent only 18 months later. These huge cost increases are crippling for families, and they're particularly crippling for pensioners and people who are on a fixed income. So this bill is welcome because, regrettably, as the member for Gilmore conceded, quite remarkably, people do have to continue to work when they reach retirement age to make ends meet under this government. And that's no surprise if power prices are going up like they are. If you are retiring and you've got any mortgage left over, or if you rent—God help you if you rent and you're retiring onto the pension what with the way rental costs are going up at the moment! I have pensioners in my electorate who have told me they've moved from buying fresh fruit and vegetables to frozen because it's just too difficult to make the budget stack up under this government and with the way in which inflation has spiralled out of control. Some of the most essential items—rents or mortgages, depending on your circumstances; fuel; fresh vegetables; electricity—all these things people can't do without—are going up at an even greater rate than the overall inflation rate in our economy. It's making it really difficult for pensioners, really difficult for people on fixed incomes to be able to make ends meet. This bill does present us with an opportunity to allow pensioners to earn more money before it affects their pension. But, as our second reading amendment points out, we would like to see that go further. We think the work bonus should go up from $300 to $600 a fortnight. That would be $600 a fortnight before your pension is impacted because people need to earn that extra $600 a fortnight at the moment for all the reasons I've just outlined. They are having to make really difficult decisions—they're having to cancel family holidays or scale back the Christmas presents for the grandkids, whatever it might be. There are very few places that they can limit discretionary expenditure. Some of the most enjoyable things that people look forward to are having the family over for a Christmas celebration or buying the grandkids their Christmas presents, but now they've got to think really deeply about how they trim back the amount of money they spend on those things because it's all being gobbled by these huge increases in things like power bills. A lot of these people would be thinking: 'It's funny. I voted for the Labor Party because they said my power bill was going to come down by $275 a year, and that seemed good to me. I wouldn't mind having my power bill dropped by $275 a year.' They made the not unreasonable assumption, although they've now learnt a lesson here, that the now Prime Minister wasn't a liar when he said: 'Power bills would drop by $275. Vote for me. I'd like to run this country and one of the big things I'll do is reduce your power bills.' A lot of people probably reasonably thought that he would honour that promise. They probably thought that was the truth, and now here we are, eighteen months later, in a totally different reality under this government. The people that were deceived by those sorts of promises will have their revenge on this government, and they'll do it through the great processes of our democracy, particularly at the ballot box, at the next opportunity that they get. That is completely at the feet of the people who make and then break promises to the Australian people. Voters take them at their word, elect them and expect them to implement those promises. We support this bill. We would like to do a lot more to help senior Australians earn more money and contribute to the economy by taking a job and earning more in a fortnight before it impacts their pension. We know we've got very acute workforce issues across the board in this country at the moment. We of course would love to see senior Australians supported—not forced, but given the option—to stay in the workforce longer if they would like to, provided they get the commensurate and reasonable financial reward they would expect: being able to earn money without it impacting the pension they're entitled to. We'd like to see the bill go further, but we nonetheless support it. We urge others to support this amendment on the second reading because it's important to acknowledge the significant cost-of-living burdens on all Australians, particularly the Australians that will be impacted by the bill that we are passing. It's a burden that they're enduring at the moment, as the member for Gilmore outlined in her contribution. We urge people to support this second reading amendment, which I commend to the House, and we are then equally happy to see this bill passed. I will finish by acknowledging Peter Dutton for the excellent idea, which he first raised, that will now be implemented through the passage of this legislation. 18:22 Mr NEUMANN HVO Blair I've stood for federal parliament seven times and won six in a row, and I would tell the new member for Sturt over there a couple of things. He's pretty confident that he's going to win at the next election, but you can never take the people of Australia for granted. You get judged when you're in federal parliament by what you do and how you vote. The member for Sturt goes on about the cost of living and how the legislation before the chamber is going to help with cost-of-living pressures. Well, I hope that he goes back to his constituency and tells them that, when given the opportunity to provide $1.5 billion in electricity price relief, he voted against it. I hope he tells them that, when given the opportunity to support cheaper medicines with 60-day scripts, he didn't support it. I hope he tells his constituents that, when given the opportunity to support cheaper child care, he didn't support it and, when given the opportunity to support social and affordable homes in the Housing Australia Future Fund, he didn't support it. I hope he goes back to his constituency and says that, when given the opportunity to support a minimum wage increase, he didn't support it and, when given the opportunity to support wage rises in the aged-care sector, he didn't support it. Don't come in here and denounce us for a good cost-of-living measure in this bill and then give us the faux unction and sanctimonious drivel that we just heard. Let me tell you: you get judged by how you vote. The voters work you out, so don't come in here and be so self-confident. As for the idea that the member for Dickson, the opposition leader, came up with this transition-to-work stuff—it was just an idea. There were no costings at all that they provided in relation to this, nor indeed in their second reading amendment. This is good legislation that will provide cost-of-living relief and assist older Australians as they transition to retirement. This is legislation that comes from this side of the chamber, not the other side of the chamber. I say to the new member for Sturt: have a bit of grace and a bit of humility when it comes to how the voters will vote, and think about how you cast your vote before you so self-confidently think that you're going to turf out this government and get yourself re-elected in a marginal electorate. I've been in this place for six terms, representing a rural and regional electorate in Queensland as a Labor MP, and I can tell you that I'm the only one that's there in regional and rural Queensland as a Labor MP. So I think I might give a bit of advice, knock on his door, perhaps, and say, 'Have a look at that.' Don't be so self-righteous when it comes to this stuff. This legislation is important. It focuses on helping Australia secure and reconnect, and maintain that connection to, the workforce, and that's what this bill's all about. I know it's important because local constituents have talked to me about it. People have sat in my electorate office and talked to me about the challenges they face. But it's also about life choices that people want to undertake, and the bill implements a key outcome of the Jobs and Skills Summit. I held one in Blair, in my electorate, at the Brothers Leagues Club, and this was one of the many issues that were raised on that day. Housing was also raised at that thing on the Jobs and Skills Summit. Those opposite didn't support housing reform and the need for more houses in this country. The Jobs and Skills Summit was a very important summit that happened after we came to office. One of the immediate outcomes of the employment white paper is to help remove the barriers often faced by those on the age pension and veterans looking to re-enter the workforce, so this is important legislation that we're looking at today. At the Jobs and Skills Summit there was a very important message: it doesn't matter whether you're young or you're old. To use the words of the panel for positive ageing and those wonderful people like Brian Howe, the late great Susan Ryan and Everald Compton, one of Australia's true Independents: it's about turning grey into gold. There are a lot of older Australians who want to work more and want to gain the opportunity to be included in the workforce. That is a great productivity measure. It's also a great resource for us to tap into, with their wisdom, expertise and capacity, and this legislation promotes equal opportunities. The government took steps to address this, including the temporary work bonus boost, the Carer Inclusive Workplace Initiative and partnering with the Business Council of Australia—those opposite claim that they know what the business community wants, but the business community supports this legislation—and the Australian Network on Disability to develop the career pathways pilot for people living with disability. The next stage was to develop the employment white paper, Working future, which was released in September. It sets out a pathway for more Australians, as we make structural changes in our economy and our society. The economy is always changing, and our society is changing. It's always dynamic, and the labour market's the same. It's always moving about. Jobs that were there a while ago—remember those typing pools all those years ago?—have gone. The video stores are no more. The labour market moves around all the time, but we want everyone to have an opportunity to access well-paid, secure jobs, and that's really important. The white paper is a commitment to work together to deliver sustainable and inclusive employment. It signals ways we can reignite productivity growth, lift skills needs, build our future workforce and broaden opportunity, and that includes for older Australians. This bill gives effect to that vision and aims to provide more choice and flexibility for older Australians and eligible veterans, through an enhanced pension work bonus. It smooths the transition to work for income support recipients by doubling the employment income nil rate period and extends access to the nil rate period for recipients who enter full-time work. These changes remove barriers, and that's what that report from the panel for positive ageing talked about—removing barriers. One of the great things I enjoyed in my life was listening to, and having lunch with, Brian Howe in Melbourne, when he talked about the issues and Labor history. But he also talked to me about the need to harness—I remembered that a few years ago—that older vote for Labor's point of view but also as a matter of equity, a matter of fairness. Older Australians need to get access to any form of short-term, casual or gig economy work they can. This bill provides support at the right time to get more people in employment. You could almost say it was influenced by that Nordic or Danish 'flexicurity', which is a flexibility with security—or having flexible welfare and workplace arrangements backed up by a strong safety net. What we're seeing more and more is that older Australians are choosing to supplement their age pension with paid work, and good on them for doing so. We need to make sure that the system is incentivising them to work if they want to. No-one should be financially disadvantaged by staying— The DEPUTY SPEAKER C2T The member for Blair will resume their seat. It being 6.30 pm, the debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 192B. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. The member for Blair will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed on a future day. GRIEVANCE DEBATE 100 GRIEVANCE DEBATE Fraud 100 18:30 Ms CHANEY 300006 Curtin Some of the most heartbreaking constituent cases that come through the office are scam complaints—people who believe they've participated in genuine banking and finance transactions only to discover that they've been tricked and their money is gone. The number of people calling me to ask for help recovering money from a scam has increased in recent months. It's not just elderly constituents struggling with new technology; it's people of all ages, and it can involve the loss of remarkably large sums of money. Scams are a rising global problem. Scammers evolve quickly, taking advantage of the newest emerging technologies to impersonate official phone numbers and email addresses and to create fake websites of legitimate organisations. Because so many of the operators are overseas, they're really hard to pin down. I met with Choice recently and discovered some alarming statistics. Choice said nine out of 10 people have come across what they suspect to be a scam in the last 12 months; 84 per cent of people are being more cautious financially online because of scams; 64 per cent of people worry that they could lose money to a scam; and 66 per cent of people think digital platforms such as Google and Meta aren't doing enough to protect people from scams. The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission published a report earlier this year that revealed that Australians lost a record $3.1 billion to scams in 2022. This is a colossal 80 per cent increase on total losses recorded in the previous year. The report showed that investment scams were the highest loss category at $1.5 billion, followed by remote access scams and payment redirection scams. Traditional electronic bank transfers remain one of the most commonly reported means of payment to scammers, but social media scams are apparently the most profitable. ASIC found that banks only reimbursed two to five per cent of customers affected by scams. When I spoke with representatives from the Commonwealth Bank of Australia, they agreed that there has been a huge spike in scam activity over the last four to five years. CBA said there are a number of reasons for the increase, including the New Payments Platform, which makes money transfers quick and easy for all the right reasons but therefore also allows fast and seamless transfers for criminal activity. Money is now moving so fast in our global economy that it's hard to keep track of and even harder to recover. Since COVID started spreading around the world, there's also been an uptick in people moving to digital systems. More people use digital technology, and that means more opportunities for sophisticated scammers. CBA also reported that it's seeing increased scam activity with the increased use of cryptocurrency. One thing my constituents have raised with me is the embarrassment and shame that comes with being scammed. So often they feel humiliated and upset and reluctant to speak publicly about their experience. Given the increasing sophistication of scams, victims have not necessarily acted foolishly. We must make it harder for criminals to steal money rather than blame the victims. I want to describe a few of the scams that have come through my office recently. Lisa lost $750,000 in a scam related to setting up an account with the ING bank. After searching online for ING fixed deposits and clicking on the website, she was contacted by phone and email and proceeded to arrange the transfer of funds. Unfortunately the ING website was a fake set up by scammers. The scammers sent through ING forms, which Lisa completed, and signed the contract notes for three transfers of $250,000 each. Lisa's accountant arranged for funds to be transferred. Two weeks later, Lisa was contacted, allegedly by the bank, and offered further financial services, at which point she became suspicious. She investigated the details and found that an amount of $750,000 had been transferred to an NAB account. It stayed there for five days and then was distributed to five other accounts. ANZ and NAB have both investigated the matter and concluded that the money cannot be retrieved. Lisa has written to the minister and raised this issue with the media. She reported the crime to the police but unfortunately has received no follow-up. Lisa asked me to advocate for tighter banking regulations. She would like to see banks reimbursing scam victims and a system to crosscheck the account name with the BSB and account number before a transfer can be authorised. She would also like to see tighter rules around creating bank accounts to make it more difficult for scammers to set up Australian bank accounts. John lost $2.7 million in a sophisticated international scam. John was a successful businessman and an experienced ASX trader but was looking for international opportunities to trade. He was scanned by Worldwide Brokers, WWB, in an elaborate scheme, with an investment firm supposedly in Zurich. Two people posed as the managing partner and assistant of the firm. The financial advice provided appeared very good. John was able to track his investments in real time on WWB's website and was called daily by the advisor. He asked for $2.4 million to be paid to him once he had made $2.5 million of profits. The advisor told him he needed, firstly, to pay $1 million under Swiss law for profits, which would in turn be paid to the ATO, plus a further $500,000 to cover account insurance and the commission. John's bank and superannuation fund raised concerns with him about the transfer to WWB, but at the time he believed the company to be legitimate. The advisers then hatched up an elaborate story about WWB being corrupt and them having to go on the run so they couldn't pay him any money but needed more. The scammers also enabled a bug on his computer, which wiped all the relevant files. John has reported the scam to AFCA and has raised a complaint with CBA regarding the last transfer of $100,000 by an international money transfer. He has also been in contact with the AFP Cybercrime area. A third case: Tim told us his mother lost $800,000 in a scam. Due to the scam, certain assets were sold, which created a capital gains tax. This resulted in his mother owing $80,000 to the ATO. It's like a double whammy—scammed out of a very significant amount of money and being left with a tax debt on that sum, even though it was stolen, and taxed on money you never received. He has been appealing to the ATO, and now her tax balance is zero. But it appears that whenever she earns money—from dividends, for example—that is being paid towards the $80,000 debt despite it not being payable or visible in her tax statement. Tim asked me to advocate for a change to the tax rules so this doesn't happen again. So what do we need in relation to scams? I welcome the government's recent establishment of Scamwatch and the commitment it has made to establish new codes of conduct for scam harm. I thank Minister Jones for his engagement on the issue; I appreciated our recent meeting about this increasing problem in my electorate. But I would like to reiterate publicly what I said in my representations to the minister because this problem is only getting worse. We urgently need industry codes of conduct to ensure industry is doing everything possible to reduce harm from sophisticated scammers. Industry codes of conduct need to be comprehensive and to cover banking, social media and telecommunications. A banking scammers code is essential and should be the first code to be drafted. Industry codes need to be mandatory and industrywide, with clear principles for consumer reimbursement. Codes of conduct must require industry to share information to better understand how scammers are operating. There must be significant compensation for victims of scams if industry has not met its obligations under these codes of conduct. I look forward to seeing legislation when it's introduced. I'm delighted to be hosting the ACCC in my electorate next week for an information session on avoiding scams, because education is another part of what we need to do about this problem. We already have a crowd signed up to learn more about how to operate safely online. Public education with a prominent national campaign is essential in combating financial harms through scams. People need to have the confidence and the toolkit to examine and interrogate information that's provided to them and requests that are made to them. Scamwatch is becoming an excellent resource, but it's effective only if it reaches as many people as possible. I urge the government to continue to promote and disseminate any information that may help people to recognise and avoid scams, and I look forward to seeing legislation introduced with mandatory codes of conduct for banking, social media and telecommunications to address this increasing problem. Middle East, Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development Meeting 101 18:40 Ms PAYNE 144732 Canberra I rise today to talk about the situation in Israel and Gaza. Since I spoke about this issue in the previous sitting week, the violence has escalated dramatically. We have rightfully condemned the actions of Hamas, unequivocally. They have targeted innocent civilian Israelis, including children, who continue to be held hostage. While Israel has a right to defend itself, as our Foreign Minister has said: the way that they defend themselves matters. We have called for the protection of civilian lives. The scale of the death and destruction in Gaza at the moment is unfathomable. Babies in neonatal intensive care are dying due to a lack of fuel to power hospital generators. Families are being wiped out in their entirety. I have met with many from the Palestinian community in Canberra, including this afternoon, when I met with a group of women who wanted to tell me about what their community is going through. One woman said that 30 members of her family had been killed. I met with another Palestinian woman yesterday who said that 42 members of her family had been killed, but because many were under the rubble, and people are removing the rubble by hand because there is no other way, that number is actually far greater. I have heard horrific stories of amputations and operations going on without anaesthetics, and that the situations in the hospitals are absolutely dire. Medicins Sans Frontieres have reported that dozens of doctors, nurses, staff and patients continue to be killed in the al-Shifa Hospital which is under siege by the Israeli military and has already been bombed several times. It is reported that when people have attempted to leave the hospital they have been killed on the spot. Today, the UN observed a moment of silence for the 100 UNRWA staff who lost their lives in Gaza since 7 October. This marks the highest number of UN aid workers killed in a conflict in such a short period. Hospitals, schools, universities and refugee camps have been bombed. Palestinians have the right to live in peace in their homeland, as do Israelis. When I talked to members of the community this afternoon, they told me that they feel frustrated, hopeless and unable to do anything to help. To members of my community here in Canberra, whether they are Palestinian or Israeli, or have links to those communities: I have the deepest concern for your suffering at the moment, which I cannot fathom. Our government is concerned about every innocent person that is being killed, regardless of which side they are on. I thank the hundreds and hundreds of Canberrans who have written to me, calling for a ceasefire. I thank you for your concern about this situation and for writing to me about this, and I want you to know that I hear you. As our Foreign Minister has said, we all want to see the next steps towards a ceasefire and a political process for a just and enduring peace. We have reiterated our commitment to a two-state solution. Without an end to violence, that can never be achieved. Of course, this cannot be one-sided. Hamas is still attacking Israel, using human shields and holding more than 200 hostages. Our communities here in Australia and in Canberra are feeling deep hurt at the moment, and what we need to remember at this really challenging time is our humanity. There's no place for antisemitism or Islamophobia here in Australia. It's important at this time that we call for peace. That is what we all want to see. The indiscriminate nature of the bloodshed in Gaza is unacceptable. Over 13,000 Gazans, including at least 4½ thousand children, have been killed. This must stop. We've also started to see settler violence in the West Bank against Palestinians. Australia maintains that Israeli settlements in the West Bank are illegal. The unlawful taking of Palestinian homes is wrong and inflammatory. It makes the goal of a two-state solution harder, and it is a significant obstacle to peace. I was really concerned to hear from people in my local Palestinian community that they believed that Australia was sending weapons to Israel. We are not. We are not sending troops; we are sending only personnel to help people to get out. We've also committed $25 million of aid, which we are doing our best to see delivered. I just want to reiterate that everyone in our government is absolutely devastated by the killing of innocent people in this situation. The deepest hope of everyone in our government is for enduring peace in the Middle East and a two-state solution, where both Palestinians and Israelis can live in peace and security. I also want to speak about a recent opportunity I had to attend the OECD Southeast Asia Ministerial Forum, which was held in Hanoi, Vietnam, over 26 and 27 October. It was my great honour to represent the trade minister, Senator Don Farrell, in Hanoi for this important forum which Australia co-hosted with Vietnam. The forum was an important chance for nations in our region to meet and discuss ways to increase our economic ties. The theme of the event was Sustainable and Quality Investment. For the OECD, it was an important opportunity to engage with a region which historically has been ignored. Of the 38 OECD member countries, only two—Japan and South Korea—are geographically located in Asia. For a long time, we've seen the inclusion of South-East Asian nations in the OECD as a key objective. It's an important way for us to build economic ties with our neighbours and increase stability in the region. That's why we strongly support the decision of Indonesia to seek to accede to the OECD. Accession is not an easy process, but Australia will be behind Indonesia every step of the way. The visit also came at an important time in the Australia-Vietnam relationship. In 2023 we marked 50 years of diplomatic relations with Vietnam, and today that relationship has never been stronger. Our bilateral ties with Vietnam continue to go from strength to strength as we move towards the finalisation of a comprehensive strategic partnership. It was a privilege to meet with the Vice Minister for Foreign Affairs, Nguyen Minh Hang, to talk about what comes next for our relationship, and it was an honour to open the session alongside Deputy Prime Minister Tran Luu Quang, Minister for Foreign Affairs Bui Thanh Son, and OECD Secretary-General Mathias Cormann. I was also pleased to be able to meet with the UK Minister for the Indo-Pacific, Anne-Marie Trevelyan, for a bilateral meeting. I give special thanks to the Australian officials from the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, who put in so much work to make the forum a success, to the embassy in Vietnam, and to our Ambassador to Vietnam, Andrew Goledzinowski, who went to so much work to make our visit run smoothly and to brief us. It was really an incredible experience to be there, to visit Hanoi and to able to engage in so many important meetings at an important time for the OECD and our region. 18:50 Mr WALLACE 265967 Fisher I think Queenslanders across the great state of Queensland today, tonight, are waking up to this federal Labor government. They're waking up to the absolute hypocrisy of this Labor government. When the current Prime Minister was trying to get the top job, he told Australians that he would be a prime minister for infrastructure. He said: 'Trust me, I've been the infrastructure minister before. I was a great infrastructure minister. I'll be a great prime minister for infrastructure.' Well, that promise rings hollow today, because, earlier today, his infrastructure minister stood up and effectively redesigned the boundaries of how things are going to be funded across this country. Traditionally—in fact, certainly—while we, the coalition, were in government, we provided funding for projects, particularly on the Bruce Highway, on an 80-20 split. Now this government is saying, 'It's out with the bathwater, and now it's going to be a 50-50 split.' It's really interesting because this 90-day review was announced by the federal government almost 200 days ago and we still don't have an answer as to which projects are going to be cut and which are not. But they are softening Australians up. They're leaking a little bit of information each day. We saw the Treasurer trying to soften the blow on the weekend, on Insiders, talking about the fact that they can't provide funding for all projects. This Labor government is trying to soften the blow of the cuts that are about to come to infrastructure across this country. I want to concentrate on a couple of these projects on the Sunshine Coast, in my neck of the woods, the electorate of Fisher. The first one, of course, is the heavy passenger rail into Maroochydore from Beerwah station. About 85 per cent of the population of the Sunshine Coast lives on the coast—very different to how it was over a hundred years ago when people lived in the hinterland. Over those more than 100 years, people have moved to the coast. We don't have a railway line on the coast. It beggars belief that we don't, but when we were in government, Ted O'Brien, the member for Fairfax, and I secured federal funding from our government to the tune of $1.6 billion, half the cost we estimated it would cost to build that railway. We didn't get boo from the state Labor government, other than them saying, 'We'll do a review.' That $1.6 billion, which the state Labor government refused to match, is now potentially facing cuts by this federal Labor government. Whilst we offered to pay 50-50—it was a $3.2 billion project; we got $1.6 billion committed by the former coalition government—the state government refused to accept that $1.6 billion. They refused to enter into an arrangement, to start the work, to start the design and to even commit to it. The same applies to the $160 million that we got for the Mooloolah River Interchange. For both of those projects, the former federal government didn't need to put a cent towards it, but the state Queensland Labor government are so hopeless that we were having to put in a lot of money to help fund their infrastructure projects. When you come to the great state of Queensland and you look at the front or the side of a Queensland rail train, you'll see QR—you don't see CR—for Queensland Rail. We didn't need to put a penny to either of those projects, including the Mooloolah River Interchange, but we offered to pay half. Now what we find is that the federal government is not only looking to cut billions of dollars of infrastructure projects around this country; they are now saying: 'We're going to change the rules. The former government was prepared to pay 80 per cent for a lot of these projects, particularly on the Bruce Highway, on Highway 1, and we're going to cut that back to 50 per cent.' You know what's going to happen, don't you? The state government, because they are so broke and they are so inept, will scale down— Mr Perrett HVP They're in surplus! Mr WALLACE 265967 Well, if they're in surplus, how about they spend some of the money on infrastructure? Why don't they spend money on infrastructure? They don't, because they are totally inept. What we will find is that they will scale back the infrastructure projects, just like they did on the duplication of the North Coast railway line, another project where the former federal government offered to pay a contribution. Even though we didn't have to pay a cent, we thought a fifty-fifty contribution was a good idea, so we invested money into that project. But, in the true style of the state Labor government, they scaled back the project, so in effect the federal government was paying seventy-thirty— The DEPUTY SPEAKER C2T The member for Moreton will restrain himself. Mr WALLACE 265967 The state Labor government will continue to change the scope of works, because, if they have money in the bank, they are certainly not spending it on the Sunshine Coast. How about they spend money in all areas of regional Queensland, rather than just Brisbane? I reckon that Australians across this country have got a very serious case of buyer's remorse today because they have been sold a pup. They've been sold a pup because they were told by this Prime Minister that he would be a prime minister that builds things and that he would be a prime minister for infrastructure, just like he said he was when he was the infrastructure minister in the former Labor government. But Australians are now waking up to this lot, because they know that this lot are just not prepared to spend money in regional Queensland or regional Australia. But it'll go much further than that, because this federal Labor government, at the same time as it's doing this so-called 90-day review, excluded from this 90-day review the $200 billion road project in Melbourne. How can it be that the federal Labor government can say, 'Nothing to see here. We'll just park that job aside and look after our Victorian mates,' and then crucify other states but particularly Queensland? The good people of Queensland will have a lot to say about this in October 2024, just as they will again at the next federal election. It is absolutely unsatisfactory for this federal Labor government to have held itself out to the Australian people as being a future government for building infrastructure but then, once it got in, to announce this sham of a 90-day review. We're now at 200 days, and we're getting drip fed this little bit of disappointing information on a daily basis, like they think we're stupid. Well, I've got something to say and I reckon most of Queensland will have something to say about the cuts to infrastructure that this Labor government is meting out on Queenslanders. Queenslanders are not stupid. They will not put up with these cuts that this Labor government falsely portrayed that they would build. In the last budget they kept that $160 billion for the North Coast rail and now it looks like they are going to cut it. (Time expired) Cost of Living 104 19:00 Mr PERRETT HVP Moreton When Labor came into government last year, we knew Australia was facing a period of economic uncertainty and global uncertainty. We know Australians are doing it tough and that's why we have been working hard at finding solutions to this cost-of-living crisis. Global oil production cuts, the war in Ukraine and the conflict in the Middle East are contributing to price pressures globally and here at home, and many Australians are seeing the impact at the bowser. The Albanese government is providing help to ease some of the pressure on people, at the same time as it will help ease inflation in our economy. We all know that with inflation, it means that every dollar a person earn travels a smaller distance. The centrepiece of our second budget, of Treasurer Jim Chalmers' second budget, was the $14.6 billion cost-of-living package designed to ease pressures on Australians while putting downward pressure on inflation—not a cash splash. It was carefully designed. Our measures include spending $4.9 billion to increase the base rate of several working-age and student income support payments, like the JobSeeker payment and youth allowance, by $40 per fortnight for eligible recipients. We're extending eligibility for the existing higher rate of the JobSeeker payment to single Australians aged 55 to 59 years who've been on the payment for nine or more continuous months to match that applying to those over 60. And we've expanded eligibility to single parents who are principal carers whose youngest child is under 14 years of age, the majority of whom are women. Most sensible people realise this is a policy we needed to get right. Changes to pharmacy maximum dispensing quantities has reduced the cost of medicines by up to half for at least six million Australians—something that the coalition voted against. Some patients have already received two months worth of their medicines after a visit to their pharmacy. This measure will actually save $1.6 billion in out-of-pocket costs over four years. We also introduced legislation for cheaper child care that will help 1.26 million Australian families. And we've provided relief on electricity bills, in partnership with state and territory governments, through the Energy Bill Relief Fund to take pressure off households and small businesses. And again, those opposite voted against it. It's good to see that some of the injection of renewable energy into the energy grid is now starting to lower prices—maybe not at the retail point yet, but the energy market is certainly starting to have some of the pressure taken off. From 1 November, we've seen our 10-point cost-of-living plan ramp up, which includes tripling the bulk-billing incentive, which has made it easier for more than 11 million Australians to see a bulk-billing doctor with no out-of-pocket costs. This is the largest investment in bulk-billing incentives since Medicare was introduced by Labor to Australians. It's obviously designed to try to keep up with those cost-of-living pressures. We don't want them worrying about finding affordable medical care while making decisions about sick kids and the like. And we don't want people going to emergency departments. We want people to use our GPs. Although it was six months late because of the Greens, our Housing Australia Future Fund started on 1 November to support the delivery of 20,000 social homes and 10,000 affordable homes across the country. The Housing Australia Future Fund adds to the work of the $3 billion New Homes Bonus and the $2 billion Social Housing Accelerator. As someone with a wonderful TAFE in Acacia Ridge, which is in my electorate, I was very pleased to hear that our plan to train, retrain or upskill Australians and tackle the skills shortages that so many businesses are complaining about is a raging success with 180,000 fee-free places filled within six months. It means that more people can afford to be well trained for secure jobs in the future and, obviously, it doesn't add to inflation. One in four jobs in Australia are linked to trade. It's important as a trading nation that we make sure we get the settings right—especially when it comes to dealing with China, our biggest trading partner. A quarter of our trade jobs are linked to China, so we know we've got to get the setting right. We need a good relationship with our biggest trading partner because it helps our workers and it helps our farmers to keep their jobs. Last year, the trade of those industries that had impediments placed on them during the term of the coalition government was worth around $86 million. Under the Albanese government—under Senator Penny Wong's leadership as the foreign minister and under Prime Minister Albanese—these figures have gone up to $6 billion, and that doesn't include wine and barley. Our investment in renewables, like the $11 million to back in Australian solar technology developers to manufacture the world's most efficient solar modules, means we're making cleaner and cheaper solar energy even more affordable while creating jobs right here at home. Investments like this, and Labor's National Reconstruction Fund, are about making more things here, which means more jobs and avoiding those supply chain issues that we saw during COVID. The government's closing loopholes workplace relations reforms aim to close those loopholes that undermine pay and conditions, which basically had been flatlining for nine years under the coalition. Our closing loopholes legislation means that every worker can enjoy the pay and conditions they deserve, rather than being undercut by a person doing the same job alongside them. Whether it's bulk billing, energy rebates, cheaper medicines, cheaper child care, better working conditions or better wages, we're doing everything we can to responsibly ease the cost-of-living pressures facing the people of Moreton and the people of Australia. Sadly, we don't see a positive plan from those opposite. We haven't seen a positive plan come out of the member for Dickson. He's very good at saying no—he's an expert at saying no—but he doesn't have a positive plan. In the last few days, we have started to see a world of gutter politics emerge—to the extent that some of those opposite are bringing out the furniture to make themselves comfortable because they feel they're going to be there for a very long time. That's not what the nation needs. When there's a cost-of-living crisis, you need leadership, and that's what the Albanese Labor government is demonstrating. 19:07 Ms WARE 300123 Hughes I rise to speak about the Albanese government's failure to deliver for Australians and its failure to deliver for my electorate of Hughes. I say that now as we are 18 months into this government's first term. It is now an appropriate time for us to consider what the government has achieved, based on the election promises it made. I'll start with Anthony Albanese. When he was opposition leader, on 17 March 2022, he said, 'A Labor government will lower the cost of living.' That was a promise. It was a core election commitment; it was made eight weeks out from the election. At the Labor campaign launch, he spoke about cheaper mortgages and cheaper electricity, about making housing more affordable and about increasing real wages. Let's look at how some of that has turned out. Let's particularly look at cheaper mortgages. In my electorate of Hughes, home ownership is very important. Close to 70 per cent of my electorate own their own home, either outright or—about half that number—as mortgage holders. These mortgage holders have now endured 12 interest rate rises under this government, under the leadership of a prime minister who promised cheaper mortgages. An Australian family with a mortgage of $750,000—and many in my electorate have mortgages far higher than that—is now paying $24,000 more per year than it did under the former coalition government. The government has made all sorts of excuses about interest rates and particularly espouses the independence of the Reserve Bank in setting interest rates. That is correct: the Reserve Bank does have that independence and the Reserve Bank should have that independence. But the Reserve Bank's underlying concern is about inflation, and this is something that the government, under the leadership of the Prime Minister, can influence. Just yesterday, RBA Acting Assistant Governor Marion Kohler said: … domestically sourced inflation—in particular, services price inflation—has been widespread and slow to decline. She also said: underlying inflation is higher than expected a year ago The Reserve Bank has only one very blunt instrument to deal with inflation, and that is interest rates. This means that Australians with mortgages have had to carry the responsibility for government's failure to rein in inflation. The government can influence inflation through its own spending. By cutting wasteful spending and prudent fiscal management, the government can control inflation, but the OECD economic outlook forecast has predicted that inflation will be higher for longer under Labor. Turning to another one of the Prime Minister's election campaign promises, that of cheaper energy—the Prime Minister said on 97 separate occasions that a Labor government would bring down power bills by $275. Since being elected, I have conducted many mobile offices throughout my electorate, I have doorknocked and I have yet to find anyone in the electorate of Hughes who is now paying $275 less than in May 2022. If we look at some of the figures, in March 2022 an average annual power bill was $1,393. Now, in November 2023, it is $1,827—nowhere near a $275 reduction. I mentioned energy costs not only because of the Prime Minister's broken promise on this, but because Minister Bowen has gotten the entire energy policy wrong. The government has rightly committed to net zero—this is supported—but the minister will not consider a hybrid mix of baseload power. Therefore, he cannot assure my electorate or the rest of the country that he has the right policy to ensure affordable, renewable, reliable energy into the future. Independent reports are now providing that his transmission line rollout is well behind schedule and an independent review has forecast a blowout beyond the amount forecast of $1 trillion. Communities along our Eastern Seaboard, from the Illawarra to the Far North Coast, are questioning the environmental basis of offshore wind projects and regional communities are concerned about impacts on agricultural land. Minister Bowen, when asked question after question about looking beyond renewable energy only, has refused to answer the questions or sticks to his renewable energy zealotry. It cannot be that we can transition to net zero relying on only renewable energies. No other country in the world has managed this. Many countries in Europe, though, have embraced modern nuclear energy as net zero technology. Even the Greens in Finland have now endorsed it. In my electorate, with an only nuclear reactor in the country, my constituents understand the importance of nuclear sites. Many of them are employed at ANSTO in Lucas Heights. With the AUKUS arrangement and future nuclear-powered submarines, Australia will significantly increase its nuclear expertise in the years to come. It is, therefore, inexplicable to me and inexplicable to my electorate why Minister Bowen refuses to consider any other options to address our future energy supply. Housing policy remains another spectacular failure of this government. During the election campaign, and in the 18 months of this government, my constituents constantly raise housing affordability. This was a priority concern during the election and remains one today. Those under the age of 40 are concerned that they will never be able to afford a home within my electorate. Their parents and grandparents who have grown up there are similarly concerned. Minister Collins finally had to succumb to the Greens in order to have a Housing Australia Future Fund Bill passed. We heard nonsense from the Greens at the time about rent controls, which demonstrated their collective failure to understand one of the underlying tenets of Australia's strong history of economic growth and prosperity—that of private home ownership, the Great Australian Dream. Australia's rate of homeownership has been declining since the baby-boomer generation bought their homes. At the moment, homeownership among Australians under 40 is at its lowest rate since 1947. Being able to afford a home is becoming harder and harder for younger Australians not only in my electorate but throughout our entire country. The Labor government leaving private homeownership out of its housing policy means it has failed to understand the way the housing sector in this country works. Halfway through its term, the government has failed to deliver policies and legislation that will assist Australians, particularly younger Australians, into private homeownership. This is an intergenerational equity issue, but it significantly shows the government's failure to understand the importance of how our country has been built on the back of private homeownership. In my electorate, with median home prices around $1.5 million and $1.6 million, first home buyers now need more than $300,000, or closer to $400,000, as well as an income level of beyond $250,000 to service their loan. That is simply unaffordable. To great fanfare the minister declared that there was a housing fund that would deliver $10 billion for housing. It was not that. Instead, the minister could and should have incentivised state and local governments to increase urban densities in appropriate locations—those areas well serviced by transport infrastructure. Now we come to infrastructure. Heathcote Road, within my electorate, is 24 kilometres in length. It joins the western end of my electorate in Moorebank to the eastern end at Heathcote. There are more than 30,000 car journeys per day on this road. It joins Western Sydney to the Illawarra to the South Coast. Most of it is one lane each way. Former state and federal coalition governments commenced duplication programs. At the last election I committed to studies to investigate the full duplication of Heathcote Road for the safety and convenience of long-suffering commuters. This project now appears to have been abandoned by Minister King. This is an infrastructure investment that could have increased productivity, as those involved in the trades and the construction industry utilise this road every day. During the election, the Prime Minister said that Labor would put the focus back on nation-building infrastructure. He said, 'I will use the Infrastructure Australia model I created as minister.' Where is that model? Minister King announced a 90-day review of infrastructure projects committed to by the previous government. We are now at more than 200 days of that review, and it appears an important project for my electorate will be scrapped. On productivity growth, the Prime Minister said we were going to embark on a new era of economic reform with productivity growth at its centre. Unfortunately productivity is in freefall. It's now fallen for three consecutive quarters. It's the first time this has occurred since 2005. Therefore, cost of living, housing, infrastructure, inflation, productivity and energy prices are key markers of the government's failure halfway through his first term to have addressed those issues important to Australians and important to my electorate of Hughes. Australian Defence Force Parliamentary Program 107 19:17 Mrs PHILLIPS 147140 Gilmore For three days, the week before last, I was honoured to attend the Australian Defence Force Parachuting School in my electorate of Gilmore as part of the ADF parliamentary exchange. Defence plays a major role in my area on the New South Wales South Coast at both Nowra and Jervis Bay at HMAS Albatross and HMAS Creswell. But, for locals growing up in the area, less is known about the ADF Parachuting School just outside HMAS Albatross at Nowra. When the terrific opportunity came up to do the parliamentary exchange, I decided to do something about that and take a look behind the scenes at what really happens at the ADF parachuting school. Nowra is definitely known as a navy town, and for good reason. That's something we're proud of. But I was pleasantly surprised to learn that the Australian Army's Special Operations Command trains the best of the best special operations defence members to parachute, maintain their jump proficiency, become a parachuting instructor and learn rigging, ground support, air dispatch and all the many elements in parachuting. It's where you'll find commandos, the SAS and many other special operations defence members learning to parachute, maintain proficiency and upgrade their parachuting skills. Around 84 personnel are involved with the ADF Parachuting School, from serving defence members to reservists, Australian Public Service employees and even the CASA planes crew. Four courses were running at the parachuting school when I was there, involving well over 100 defence members, teaching everything from the basic parachuting course to parachuting instructor courses, ground support and more. There was drill after drill on mats about how to fall and land the static-line jump; rows and rows of parachute harnesses hanging from the high ceiling where parachuters practised, even with the heaviest packs; drills on land in a makeshift plane on how to prepare, enter and exit the plane to parachute; simulators to simulate every parachuting situation that can go wrong; and the towers to practise. On the second day I went up in the CASA plane with defence members, with some having travelled far on the day to jump and keep up their proficiency. Others were parachuting to become an instructor or gain new proficiency. I was down for a tandem jump on the third morning with a very experienced tandem parachuter, and I must say that tandem-jump proficiency is a highly valuable and much-needed skill. I've got to say that I have never been the thrillseeking type of person. I'm not one for fast rides at the show and certainly not one for heights. But the training that these special operations defence members were doing was first-rate. I thought I should just put away my fears and do it. I had multiple safety briefs and I had made sure I hadn't eaten breakfast, just in case. We climbed to 13,000 feet, which is about four kilometres high, above HMAS Albatross. I listened to every instruction. I felt like my life depended on it, and it did, but oddly I actually felt quite calm, which surprised even me. When the back of the plane opened, all I could see were the clouds—yes, we were hopping out here. The freefall was sensational through the clouds. There was even another freefall parachuter with a camera that somehow—I'm not sure how—came up in front of me and waved. Then the parachute went up, and, woah, up we went. Now, I do have a small grievance here. We started spinning rapidly round and round—and down. I was trying to remain calm, knowing that my tandem parachuter was the best of the best and had everything in hand, which he absolutely did. I'm not sure how he did it, but somehow he got rid of the main parachute. It went sailing into the air somewhere, and he pulled the reserve parachute out, and we landed with that. When we landed I was told to hop up and go and fight the enemy, which is a very fair point because that's the reality for our special operations defence members. Parachuting is a means to an end, or perhaps just the start, for military reasons and humanitarian reasons: parachuting in at night, parachuting in from extremely high heights and freezing temperatures, parachuting into the water or parachuting in supplies and infrastructure. I did have a slight problem with the landing. I accidentally put my left foot down at the last moment, which is not what you do. It turned out later that I had fractured my fibula just above my ankle, but, again, that's nothing compared to what defence members go through. I was told, with regard to the canopy malfunction, that that was not meant to happen, to which I said, 'I thought it was just part of the ride.' At that stage I probably did not grasp the severity of the situation. But the truth is that the ADF Parachuting School and our special operations defence members practise every scenario just in case something goes wrong. I believe I have had the full experience as part of my ADF parliamentary exchange, but people will be relieved, no doubt, that, once I'm fully recovered, I have been invited back to do another ADF Parachuting School tandem jump into the water at Jervis Bay. What could possibly go wrong there? I want to sincerely thank every defence member and the entire team at the ADF Parachuting School. What I learnt in three days was just the best. I have the absolute admiration for our ADF parachuters, the ADF Parachuting School team and the many insights they taught me. I never imagined I would learn so much or jump out of a perfectly good plane. I surprised myself. While the special operations members' identities are protected for very good reason, I will forever be grateful to them. The truth is they train to protect us all. We should never forget that. I encourage local people and people from right across Australia to consider a defence career. You just never know to what heights and where it will take you. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 144732 There being no further grievances, the debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. Federation Chamber adjourned at 19 : 25