2023-11-30 2 1 0 House of Reps 0 1

Thursday, 30 November 2023

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

STATEMENTS ON SIGNIFICANT MATTERS 1 STATEMENTS ON SIGNIFICANT MATTERS International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women 1 Reference to Federation Chamber 3 09:18 Mrs ELLIOT DZW Richmond by leave—I move: That further statements in relation to the International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women be permitted in the Federation Chamber. Question agreed to. STATEMENTS ON SIGNIFICANT MATTERS 3 STATEMENTS ON SIGNIFICANT MATTERS Australian Consular Support 3 Reference to Federation Chamber 7 09:40 Mr WATTS 193430 Gellibrand by leave—I move: That the order of the day be referred to the Federation Chamber for debate. Question agreed to. BILLS 7 BILLS Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment (Prohibited Hate Symbols and Other Measures) Bill 2023 7

Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment (Prohibited Hate Symbols and Other Measures) Bill 2023

Consideration in Detail 7 09:41 The DEPUTY SPEAKER E0D In accordance with standing order 133, I shall now proceed to put the question on the amendment moved by the honourable member for Bradfield to the Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment (Prohibited Hate Symbols 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 matter before the House is that the amendment moved by the honourable for Bradfield to the Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment (Prohibited Hate Symbols and Other Measures) Bill 2023 be agreed to.      

The House divided. [09:46]
(The Speaker—Hon. Milton Dick)

 61 AYES Andrews, K. L. Archer, B. K. Bell, A. M. Birrell, S. J. Boyce, C. E. Broadbent, R. E. Buchholz, S. Caldwell, C. M. Chaney, K. E. Chester, D. J. Conaghan, P. J. Coulton, M. M. (Teller) Daniel, Z. Dutton, P. C. Entsch, W. G. Fletcher, P. W. Gee, A. 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. Ramsey, R. E. (Teller) Ryan, M. M. Scamps, S. A. Sharkie, R. C. C. Spender, A. M. Steggall, Z. Stevens, J. Sukkar, M. S. Taylor, A. J. Tehan, D. T. Thompson, P. Tink, K. J. Vasta, R. X. Violi, A. A. Wallace, A. B. Ware, J. L. Webster, A. E. Wilkie, A. D. Willcox, A. J. Wilson, R. J. Wolahan, K. Young, T. J. 76 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. Chalmers, J. E. Charlton, A. H. G. Chesters, L. M. Clare, J. D. Claydon, S. C. Coker, E. A. Collins, J. M. Conroy, P. M. Doyle, M. J. J. Dreyfus, M. A. Elliot, M. J. Fernando, C. Freelander, M. R. Garland, C. M. L. 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. Sitou, S. Smith, D. P. B. (Teller) Stanley, A. M. (Teller) Swanson, M. J. Thistlethwaite, M. J. Thwaites, K. L. Watson-Brown, E. Watts, T. G. Wells, A. S. Wilson, J. H. Zappia, A. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.
Bill, as amended, agreed to.

 Third Reading 8 09:50 Mr DREYFUS HWG Isaacs by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. DELEGATION REPORTS 8 DELEGATION REPORTS Australian Parliamentary Delegation to Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories 8 09:50 The SPEAKER 53517 I present the report of the Australian parliamentary delegation to Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories on 16 to 21 July 2023. It was my privilege to lead this parliamentary delegation, which also comprised the honourable member for Bonner as the deputy leader, the honourable member for Higgins, the honourable member for Goldstein and the honourable member for Hasluck. The delegation was keen to develop parliament-to-parliament relationships and to gain a better understanding of the situation on the ground in relation to the systems and authority of government and the parliaments of Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories. In Israel, the delegation met with parliamentarians, representatives of business and community groups, government officials, journalists and academics in Jerusalem, Tel Aviv and the southern city of Be'er Sheva. This was the first time an Australian Speaker had led such a high-level delegation to Israel. The delegation was pleased to contribute to the valuable relationships that Australia has with Israel and to exchange views on matters of common interest, including innovation, technology, business, trade and security. In Ramallah, in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, the delegation met with the Palestinian Prime Minister, Mr Mohammad Shtayyeh, and the minister for foreign affairs, Mr Riyadh al-Maliki. We had constructive discussions about issues in the region, including supporting democracy and credible elections, Australia's development in humanitarian assistance and international law. In Sheikh Jarrah, in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, the delegation welcomed the opportunity to tour facilities and meet with doctors and staff of the St John Eye Hospital, which is assisted by Australia through the Fred Hollows Foundation. Overall, the parliamentary delegation gave all the delegates greater insight into the current political, social and economic issues faced by Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories. It was extremely valuable to delegation members to hear the perspectives of people, including parliamentarians, officials, experts and citizens, on a variety of pressing and important issues. Finally, I wish to record our appreciation of the work that went into preparing for the visit, including the arrangements made by the Australian parliament's International and Parliamentary Relations Office, and by officials from the Knesset and the Palestinian Authority. The hospitality we were shown by our overseas parliamentary counterparts is gratefully acknowledged. We also thank Australia's diplomatic representatives in Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories for their work in developing the programs and the excellent support during this visit. I commend the report to the House. BILLS 9 BILLS Defence Trade Controls Amendment Bill 2023 9

Defence Trade Controls Amendment Bill 2023

First Reading 9 Second Reading 9 09:54 Mr MARLES HWQ Corio I move: That this bill be now read a second time. Introduction It is my privilege to present the Defence Trade Controls Amendment Bill 2023. This bill will bolster Australia's national security and protect our sensitive defence goods and technology by enhancing our defence trade controls. It will also unlock defence trade, innovation and collaboration with our AUKUS partners. Background To keep pace with the difficult strategic circumstances we face, it is essential that Australia has a robust protective security framework. Australia's export control system is a key element of our protective security framework. It aims to prevent military goods and technologies from being transferred to foreign individuals or entities in ways that prejudice Australia's interests. Many countries already administer an export control framework to manage these activities. This bill strengthens Australia's existing export control system by enhancing the protections around the supply of controlled goods and technology within and outside of Australia. It also streamlines the transfer of defence goods and technology among and between Australia, the UK and the United States in order to support collaboration, innovation and trade between all three countries. The reforms in this bill are expected to provide a net benefit to the Australian economy of $614 million over a 10-year period. Australia is not making these reforms alone. The United Kingdom and the United States are also reviewing their export control frameworks to support the creation of a licence-free environment between AUKUS partners. The US Congress is currently considering several legislative proposals to provide Australia and the UK with a national exemption from United States export licensing requirements. Australia's access to this national exemption will require Australia to have comparable export control laws, regulations and policies to those of the US. Complemented by the Defence Amendment (Safeguarding Australia's Military Secrets) Bill that the government introduced earlier this year, the reforms in this bill are expected to achieve this comparable standard. The UK is also examining its export control regime to streamline the flow of defence trade among AUKUS partners. Substantive measures This bill amends the Defence Trade Controls Act 2012 in four ways. First, it regulates the supply of military and dual-use technology on the Defence and Strategic Goods List from Australia to foreign nationals within Australia. Second, it regulates the supply of military and dual-use goods and technologies on the Defence and Strategic Goods List within or from a foreign country where those goods or technologies were previously exported or supplied from Australia. Third, it regulates the provision of services related to military items on the Defence and Strategic Goods List to foreign nationals or entities. Fourth, it creates a licence-free environment for the supply of Defence and Strategic Goods List goods and technology and the provision of Defence and Strategic Goods List services from Australia to the UK and the US. To give effect to these changes, the bill creates new offences with appropriate penalties and exemptions. The penalty for engaging in the new activities regulated under this bill without a permit is a maximum of 10 years imprisonment or a fine of 2,500 penalty units, or both. There are also a number of exceptions to the offences created by this bill. These include certain exemptions for supplies by employers to their foreign national employees from countries on the Foreign Country List, for supplies undertaken in the course of employment or engagement by the Commonwealth, and for people holding covered security clearances. These reforms are not intended to prevent foreign nationals from working with Australia on DSGL goods or technologies. They are not intended to prevent foreign students or academics from engaging with Australian academic institutions. Indeed, much of the existing collaboration and trade between Australia and international partners will be unaffected by these changes. Rather, the policy intent of the bill is to prevent sensitive defence goods and technologies from being passed to foreign individuals or governments in a manner that may harm Australia's interests. Individuals or entities who want to supply controlled goods or technology on the DSGL to certain persons or from certain foreign countries will be required to first seek permission to do so. This is to ensure their activities are not damaging Australia's national interests. This bill will enable the Minister for Defence, or their delegate, to consider each permit application on a case-by-case basis. Permits may be granted subject to conditions and may be varied or revoked in certain circumstances. A permit will be refused if the minister, or delegate, is not satisfied that the activity would not prejudice the security, defence or international relations of Australia. The measures in this bill are serious and, in some aspects, complex. To this end, I intend to refer the bill to the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee for inquiry and for report. The government looks forward to a thorough inquiry into this bill by the committee, including any recommendations on whether sensible amendments can be made to ensure the bill is fit for purpose. I encourage all interested stakeholders to participate in the important work of the committee, and the parliament, in scrutinising—and potentially improving—this bill. The bill also includes a transition period for Australians to better understand how these amendments may impact their activities and what, if any, permits may be required. The offences under this bill will not apply during this period, and the government will work with industry, academia and research communities to ensure there is an understanding about obligations under the amended defence trade controls framework. Our government continues to support research and collaboration, and these amendments will assist that to continue while also protecting Australia's national interests. Conclusion This bill seeks to improve the government's ability to protect our sensitive defence goods and technology. It will also unlock defence trade, innovation and collaboration with our AUKUS partners. These tasks are central to preserving Australia's national security and to keeping Australians safe. I commend the bill to the House. Debate adjourned. Modern Slavery Amendment (Australian Anti-Slavery Commissioner) Bill 2023 11

Modern Slavery Amendment (Australian Anti-Slavery Commissioner) Bill 2023

First Reading 11 Second Reading 11 10:02 Mr DREYFUS HWG Isaacs I move: That this bill be now read a second time. Introduction Modern slavery is an egregious form of human rights abuse which deprives victims of their dignity, fundamental rights and freedoms. The Modern Slavery Amendment (Australian Anti-Slavery Commissioner) Bill is a landmark reform in Australia's response to modern slavery. The bill delivers on the Albanese government's election commitment to establish the first Commonwealth Anti-Slavery Commissioner to tackle modern slavery in Australia and abroad. Purpose Modern slavery encompasses a range of serious exploitative practices, including trafficking in persons and slavery-like practices such as forced marriage, forced labour, deceptive recruiting and debt bondage. We know modern slavery is present today in Australia. We've heard the horrific story of a Melbourne couple who secretly enslaved an elderly woman in their suburban home for close to a decade. The case exposed the unacceptable conditions the woman was forced to endure—working extremely long hours seven days a week, with every aspect of her life controlled. Due to relentless efforts from law enforcement and criminal justice agencies, the perpetrators were jailed for six and eight years respectively. For the first time, the government granted an application for a victim of slavery to receive a payment of almost $500,000 in recognition of unpaid wages and other entitlements owed to her. We've also heard the horrific story of a Brisbane couple convicted of forced labour in relation to a woman who worked as their domestic servant for eight years. The victim worked six days a week, from 6 am to 10 pm, and was paid on average $200 per fortnight. We know these are not the only instances of modern slavery in Australia which have become public in recent times. Other cases include individuals trafficked into sex work, and a young girl at risk of being sent overseas for a forced marriage. We must continue to tackle these crimes. The Albanese government is therefore strengthening Australia's response to modern slavery, ensuring we work to prevent, disrupt, and prosecute these crimes, and protect victims and survivors as well as individuals at risk. There are several pillars to Australia's response to combat modern slavery underpinned by Australia's National Action Plan to Combat Modern Slavery 2020-25. We have comprehensive criminal offences, specialist Australian Federal Police investigative teams, and a dedicated support program for victims and survivors. We have a dedicated human-trafficking visa framework and a human-trafficking and modern slavery research program and associated network. The Modern Slavery Act established a transparency regime to shine a light on modern slavery risks in the supply chains and operations of certain entities carrying out business in Australia. We also have strong international and regional engagement on modern slavery. However, the Albanese government recognises more can be done. We know measuring the true extent of modern slavery crimes is significantly challenging and changing. Crimes are often clandestine, sophisticated and underreported. The new independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner will complement Australia's response to modern slavery by working with others to raise the national profile of the issue of modern slavery. The commissioner will work across government, business and civil society to support compliance with the Modern Slavery Act, improve transparency in supply chains, and combat modern slavery in Australia and abroad. Importantly, the establishment of the commissioner provides an independent mechanism for victims and survivors, business and civil society to engage on issues and design strategies to address modern slavery. Functions of the commissioner The bill confers a number of important functions on the commissioner. The commissioner will play a key role in educating and raising awareness of modern slavery in Australia. This includes delivering education and community-awareness-raising initiatives to highlight modern slavery risks and how those risks may be addressed across all sectors. The commissioner will support victims of modern slavery by providing information about government and non-government resources, programs and services. Importantly, the commissioner will engage with victims and survivors of modern slavery to ensure their voices inform the design of measures to address modern slavery. The commissioner will work to support business to address risks of modern slavery practices in their operations and supply chains. The commissioner will also have an important role in promoting and harnessing research capabilities, to support evidence based responses. It is important that the government continues to lead by example in tackling modern slavery. The commissioner will therefore advocate for continuous improvement in policy and practice. Commonwealth agencies will also work cooperatively with the commissioner to assist with their important work. While the commissioner will not investigate or deal directly with individual matters of modern slavery, they will be able to make observations regarding systemic issues based on their engagement with victims and survivors and the broader community. Governance and other issues The bill provides the commissioner will be appointed through a merit based and transparent selection process, on a full-time basis for a term of up to five years. To be effective in their role, it is vital that the commissioner be independent. The bill provides that the commissioner will have discretion in performing or exercising their functions, and will not be subject to direction. To support transparency, accountability and the effectiveness of the independent commissioner's functions, the commissioner will be required to develop a strategic plan as soon as possible after their commencement that sets out what and how they intend to deliver and monitor the effectiveness of their functions. They will be required to develop an annual report, to be tabled in parliament, outlining their key progress and milestones. The government has committed $8 million over four years, from 2023-24, to support the commissioner's establishment and operations. Review of the Modern Slavery Act The government is committed to strengthening the Modern Slavery Act and is carefully considering the recommendations of the review of the Modern Slavery Act finalised earlier this year. Once appointed, the commissioner will play a key role in shaping implementation of future reforms. Conclusion The establishment of the Australian Anti-Slavery Commissioner is a pioneering reform and a new, independent pillar in Australia's comprehensive response to countering modern slavery. The commissioner will make a tangible, positive impact. I am proud to introduce this bill, which marks a necessary and critical next step in our fight against modern slavery. This bill follows the extraordinary efforts and tireless work of victims and survivors, civil society and industry stakeholders who campaigned for this important milestone. I thank each and every one of those individuals who have partnered with the government over many years to strengthen Australia's response. It is your voices and experiences that inspire us every day to fight against modern slavery both here in Australia and abroad. I commend the bill to the House. Debate adjourned. National Security Legislation Amendment (Comprehensive Review and Other Measures No. 3) Bill 2023 12

National Security Legislation Amendment (Comprehensive Review and Other Measures No. 3) Bill 2023

First Reading 12 Second Reading 12 10:12 Ms O'NEIL 140590 Hotham I move: That this bill be now read a second time. In December 2020, the Comprehensive Review of the Legal Framework of the National Intelligence Community—led by Mr Dennis Richardson AC—released its final report with 203 recommendations. This was the most significant review of intelligence legislation since the Hope royal commissions. Although the comprehensive review found that the legislative framework governing our intelligence agencies is largely fit for purpose, targeted reforms are required to ensure our laws keep pace with the ever-changing technological and security landscape. Today, I am introducing the National Security Legislation Amendment (Comprehensive Review and Other Measures No. 3) Bill 2023. The bill supports our intelligence agencies by making changes to improve their ability to protect the identities of their employees, communicate information to other Commonwealth and state agencies, where appropriate, and clarify approval processes for various activities. The bill also promotes increased oversight of our intelligence agencies by promoting further oversight of ASIO's security assessment work, and making it clear that junior ministers are not able to exercise certain powers. In making these changes, the bill would implement 12 recommendations of the comprehensive review. Importantly, the bill delivers on our firm commitment to implementing the recommendations of the comprehensive review as quickly as possible. Much of the security conversation we've had as a nation over the past 20 years has been dominated by discussions about terrorism. That is appropriate, and it is always going to be a core focus of the Australian government. Threats to life are our priority. However, it is no secret that we face enormously significant and important challenges when we look beyond our borders. In his 2023 Annual Threat Assessment, the Director-General of Security noted more Australians are being targeted for espionage and foreign interference than at any time in Australia's history. The Director-General of National Intelligence also noted in Senate estimates earlier this year that Australia is facing some of its most complex strategic circumstances since 1942. The importance of our intelligence agencies has never been greater. Overview of the bill The bill would implement 12 recommendations from the comprehensive review and make a range of other refinements to intelligence related legislation, including the AustralianSecurity Intelligence Organisation Act 1979 (ASIO Act) and the Intelligence Services Act 2001 (Intelligence Services Act). Schedule 1 of the bill seeks to clarify and enhance the scope of the security assessment framework in part IV of the ASIO Act. The bill would achieve this by expanding the definition of prescribed administrative action and allowing for further decisions or action to be prescribed by regulations. Schedule 1 would make clear that ASIO advice provided for the purposes of informing decisions by the Foreign Investment Review Board are not security assessments for the purposes of part IV of the ASIO Act. The bill would also enable ASIO to make a preliminary communication under part IV to a state, or authority of another state, in certain circumstances where the requirements of security make it reasonable to do so. Schedule 1 would also introduce a requirement for ASIO to notify the IGIS where certain security assessments are not furnished within 12 months. This promotes accountability on the part of ASIO in respect of delayed security assessments. Schedule 2 of the bill seeks to improve the protections of the identities of Australian Secret Intelligence Service (ASIS), ASIO and Australian Signals Directorate (ASD) staff members. The bill would improve and enable cover arrangements for ASIO, ASIS and ASD staff by enabling the respective directors-general to determine one or more authorities of the Commonwealth that may be identified as the employer or place of work for a current or former staff member. Schedule 2 will also strengthen identity protections for ASIO and ASIS staff and agents under the Archives Act. Schedule 2 would consolidate the secrecy offences in the Intelligence Services Act. The scope of these offences would not be expanded. Furthermore, schedule 2 would update and modernise the existing publication offence in the ASIO Act to take into account developments in technology and modern communications. Schedule 2 would introduce a new disclosure offence designed to strengthen protections for the identity of ASIO officers and affiliates, bringing them into closer alignment with those afforded to ASIS officers under section 41 of the Intelligence Services Act. These offences have been developed with reference to the principles for framing secrecy offences contained in the Commonwealth government's Review of secrecy provisions final report. Schedule 3 of the bill would make amendments to provide greater legal certainty and clarity with regard to ministerial authorisations and warrants. Schedule 3 would also amend the sequencing of ministerial authorisations in the Intelligence Services Act to enable a more streamlined authorisations process.. Schedule 3 would also ensure that certain powers vested in the Attorney-General can only be exercised by the Attorney-General or a person acting as the Attorney-General. Schedule 4 of the bill introduces additional oversight in relation to ASIO's security clearance work. The bill would introduce a requirement for ASIO to notify the IGIS where a security clearance decision or security clearance suitability assessment has taken more than 12 months to finalise. Schedule 4 also amends the ASIO Act to enable the Director-General of Security to delegate their power to furnish non-prejudicial security clearance suitability assessments to an ASIO employee regardless of their position. It does not change the existing legislation relating to the furnishing of prejudicial security clearance suitability assessments. Conclusion The measures I have outlined in the bill would make targeted amendments to the legal framework governing our intelligence agencies. This is what was recommended by the comprehensive review. It will also make some related changes which will strengthen protections for the identity of ASIS, ASD and ASIO staff and clarify or refine elements of the Intelligence Services Act. These changes will support our intelligence agencies in the vital work they do for the Australian people, while also enhancing oversight in some specific areas. The bill reflects the government's commitment to the continual improvement of Australia's strong national security laws to ensure that Australians are kept safe and our way of life is protected. I commend the bill to the chamber. Debate adjourned. Customs Tariff Amendment (Incorporation of Proposals) Bill (No. 2) 2023 14

Customs Tariff Amendment (Incorporation of Proposals) Bill (No. 2) 2023

First Reading 14 Second Reading 14 10:20 Ms O'NEIL 140590 Hotham I move: That this bill be now read a second time. The Customs Tariff Amendment (Incorporation of Proposals) Bill (No. 2) 2023 will amend the Customs Tariff Act 1995 to incorporate the measures contained in four Customs Tariff Proposals that were moved in the 2023 winter and spring parliamentary sittings. The measures relate to the support of space activities, the 2023 FIFA Women's World Cup soccer and extending existing measures that were put in place following the invasion of Ukraine. The first measure is the expansion in the scope of concessional item 9 of schedule 4 of the Customs Tariff Act 1995 to cover the types of goods specified in the Agreement between the Government of Australia and the European Space Agency for a Co-operative Space Vehicle Tracking Program. The amendment inserts a new paragraph into concessional item 9 to cover goods covered by this agreement. This will enable the duty-free entry of equipment, materials, supplies and other property that are for the European Space Agency and are for use in 'Agreed Activities' under the agreement and imported by persons employed or engaged by the European Space Agency. This will also enable the duty-free entry of personal and household goods imported by those persons. The European Space Agency is currently undertaking an expansion of their facility in Western Australia to include a new 35-meter diameter deep space antenna for communicating with various space science missions and a Biomass Calibration Transponder to support the 2024 Biomass mission which aims to provide critical information about forests globally and improve our understanding of the role forests play in the carbon cycle. Goods for this project and future projects will be eligible for a 'Free' rate of customs duty where they are imported on or after 1 December 2022. The second measure extends the duration of the temporary duty reduction for Ukrainian goods for a further twelve months. The amendment replaces paragraph (1)(b) of section 18B of the Customs Tariff Act 1995 to extend the end date for the measure. As a demonstration of Australia's ongoing support for the people of Ukraine who have borne a terrible cost from Russia's brutal invasion of their country, the 'Free' rate of customs duty will continue to apply to goods, other than alcohol, tobacco, petroleum and fuel products, that are the produce or manufacture of Ukraine, to 3 July 2024. The third measure in this bill enables certain goods to be imported with a 'Free' rate of customs duty if they are for use in connection with an international sporting event. The amendment inserts new schedule 4 item 59 into the Customs Tariff Act 1995, which enables the application of concessional treatment where goods are imported from 1 January 2022 and are prescribed by by-law for a specified international sporting event. The first event prescribed was the 2023 FIFA Women's World Cup. Co-hosting the FIFA Women's World Cup 2023 was an amazing occasion for Australian sport, and getting to share in the Matildas' inspirational journey has changed the game for women's sport in our country forever. However, the concessional item will have broad application for international sporting events that Australia may host in the future. The final measure is the extension of the temporary additional duty for Russian and Belarusian goods for a further twenty-four months. The amendment for this measure replaces the end date in paragraph (5)(b) of section 18A of the Customs Tariff Act 1995. The additional duty rate of 35 per cent will, therefore, continue to apply to goods that are the produce or manufacture of Russia or Belarus in addition to the general rate of customs duty that applies to these goods. The additional duty applies to goods that are entered for home consumption between 25 April 2022 and 24 October 2025, other than those that are eligible for a schedule 4 concessional item or left for a direct shipment to Australia from a place of manufacture or warehouse prior to 25 April 2022. The measure is a direct response to Russia's illegal invasion of Ukraine, supported by Belarus. As Russia continues to violate the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine and undermine the rules based international order, this measure is necessary for Australia's essential security interests. Australia is committed to upholding these principles, and they are essential for Australia's international, regional and domestic stability and security. Australia joins like-minded members of the international community in applying this economic measure, which is a necessary part of our response to this flagrant violation of the Charter of the United Nations. I commend the bill to the House. Debate adjourned. Treasury Laws Amendment (Better Targeted Superannuation Concessions and Other Measures) Bill 2023 15

Treasury Laws Amendment (Better Targeted Superannuation Concessions and Other Measures) Bill 2023

First Reading 15 Second Reading 15 10:26 Mr JONES A9B Whitlam I move: That this bill be now read a second time. The bill makes targeted, responsible reforms to support better economic, fiscal and regulatory outcomes. Schedules 1 to 3 to the bill reduce the tax concessions on total superannuation balances which exceed $3 million. The government's proposed objective of superannuation, which was introduced into the House by my friend and colleague the Treasurer last week, is 'to preserve savings to deliver income for a dignified retirement, alongside government support, in an equitable and sustainable way.' In line with this objective, the measure implemented by these schedules is a modest and responsible change to better target tax concessions in the superannuation system. From 2025-26, the concessional tax rate applying to future earnings of superannuation balances above $3 million will be a headline rate of 30 per cent. Earnings corresponding to amounts below $3 million will, of course, continue to be taxed at the headline rate of 15 per cent. This measure maintains concessional taxations within the superannuation system, and does not place a limit on the total amount that can be held within superannuation, beyond, of course, what is constrained by relevant annual contribution caps. It ensures that concessions are better targeted at amounts that deliver income for a dignified retirement. In 2025-26, the additional tax on earnings imposed by the bill is expected to apply to around 80,000 people, which is less than 0.5 per cent of individuals within the superannuation system or with a superannuation account—that is, 99.5 per cent of people with a superannuation account will be unaffected by these measures. The change will increase revenue by $950 million over the five years from 2022-23. In 2027-28, the first full year of revenue collection, the measure is expected to increase revenue by $2.3 billion. Schedule 4 will allow the Commissioner of the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission, the ACNC, to make disclosures about new or ongoing investigations where the disclosure would prevent or minimise the risk of significant harm. Current secrecy provisions prevent the ACNC from disclosing whether it is investigating an alleged misconduct by a charity. This can adversely impact public trust and confidence in the sector and the ACNC as an effective regulator. The reform will allow the ACNC to assure charities and donors that it is acting on issues of public concern and strengthening compliance, which will boost public confidence in the sector, and that the sector is doing the right thing. By increasing public trust and confidence in charities and the ACNC, this reform will help to ensure donors and philanthropists continue their support for the sector. This will contribute to the government's election commitment of doubling philanthropic giving by 2030. Schedule 5 of this bill changes the frequency of the Financial Regulator Assessment Authority, hereafter FRAA, review cycles. Increasing the frequency of FRAA review cycles to every five years will support the FRAA to deliver more comprehensive reviews of ASIC and APRA. It will facilitate the delivery of more considered recommendations than is possible under the current biennial review cycle, which will improve the effectiveness of our financial system regulators. This will be done by ensuring that regulators will have additional time to respond to and implement the recommendations between reviews, allowing future review panels to assess implementation meaningfully and direct their focus more productively. Schedule 6 amends various laws in the Treasury portfolio to ensure that those laws operate in accordance with their policy intent, make minor changes to improve administrative outcomes and remedy unintended consequences, as well as correcting technical and drafting defects. Schedule 7 provides licensing relief to facilitate access by Australian professional and wholesale investors to global investment opportunities so that they can diversify their financial holdings. This improves outcomes for millions of Australians as these services are commonly used by superannuation funds and institutional investors, among other financial firms. I want to stress that, to date, this relief has generally been provided by way of an ASIC instrument. However, the legislation and this schedule in the bill will elevate the relief to primary law and improve oversight for the regulator. This gives certainty to the industry that financial institutions and eligible investors can access the financial products and services offered by foreign financial service providers. This schedule provides targeted exemptions for foreign financial services providers that are either authorised in a comparable regulatory regime, a market maker in respect of derivatives that are traded on prescribed licensed markets, or providing financial services to professional investors. This schedule will also exempt certain foreign companies from the fit-and-proper-person assessment when applying for a standard financial services licence in Australia if they are regulated by a comparable regulator and it is a restricted licence that enables them to service wholesale clients only. Schedule 8 updates the payments system regulatory framework to address the risks posed by new and emerging technologies. The amendments expand the definitions of 'payment system' and 'participant' to ensure the Reserve Bank of Australia has the ability to regulate all participants and payment systems, including digital wallet providers and buy-now pay-later service providers. Further, it also introduces new ministerial designation powers that will allow the Treasurer to designate payment services or platforms that present risks of national significance, allowing them to be subject to additional oversight by the appropriate regulators. Finally, schedule 8 in this bill gives the Reserve Bank of Australia greater powers to regulate a broader range of players in the payment system, as well as extending these powers to other relevant regulators where there is a material risk to the 'national interest'. These changes will modernise our payment regulation framework to ensure that it is fit for purpose, now and well into the future. The Legislative and Governance Forum on Corporations were notified in relation to amendments in schedules 6, 7 and 8 in accordance with the Corporations Agreement 2002. Full details of the measure are contained in the explanatory memorandum. Debate adjourned. Superannuation (Better Targeted Superannuation Concessions) Imposition Bill 2023 16

Superannuation (Better Targeted Superannuation Concessions) Imposition Bill 2023

First Reading 16 Second Reading 17 10:35 Mr JONES A9B Whitlam I move: That this bill be now read a second time. This bill inserts a new division 296 in the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997, which imposes a tax rate of 15 per cent for superannuation earnings corresponding to the percentage of an individual's superannuation balance that exceeds $3 million for an income year. Full details of the measure are contained in the explanatory memorandum. Debate adjourned. Help to Buy Bill 2023 17

Help to Buy Bill 2023

First Reading 17 Second Reading 17 10:37 Ms COLLINS HWM Franklin I move: That this bill be now read a second time. 'Sold.' It's just a four-letter word, but for so many Australians it means much more. Whether it's said at an auction or a sticker stuck on a real estate sign, 'sold' and the purchase of a home is life changing. 'Sold' means the start of new beginnings, and new memories. 'Sold' means new neighbours. It means the start of a new community. And of course, for so many 'sold' is about family—a family home. Even as our society has changed so rapidly, the family home has remained the backdrop to the best days of so many Australians—summers spent crowded around the outdoor barbie, late nights playing backyard cricket in the fading light, pencilled walls where siblings jostle to mark growing height, the messy kitchen table which becomes a makeshift study for homework and school projects. The family home is in the books we read, the shows we watch and the songs we love. And while the dream lives on in our culture, the reality is home ownership has slipped out of reach for too many Australians. But we want to help change that. The statistics tell us the story. Home ownership rates between generations have decreased significantly over recent decades, particularly for lower income households. The average time to save for a deposit for a house on a median income now exceeds a decade. Our government understands the seriousness of this issue, which is why we have already acted. We know it will take a suite of measures to help bring home ownership back into reach for more Australians and that's exactly what we're doing. We committed to the Regional First Home Buyer Guarantee before the last election and delivered it three months early in October last year. This guarantee has already helped more than 13,000 people across Australia into home ownership. We expanded eligibility for the Home Guarantee Scheme from 1 July this year to help more Australians purchase a home through the scheme, and under our government we've already been able to help more than 86,000 people across Australia into home ownership through this scheme. We also know we need to build more homes of every type to help bring home ownership back into reach. That's why we've made the $3 billion New Homes Bonus available to states that exceed their Housing Accord targets to help to build 1.2 million well-located homes from 1 July next year. This is backed in by a new $500 million Housing Support Program. We've taken action already, but we know there's more work to do. So today we take another important step forward to bring home ownership back into reach for more Australians. Today we are introducing legislation to make Help to Buy a reality. The Help to Buy scheme is an important part of our government's ambitious housing reform agenda. Help to Buy won't just be a leg up to help Australians into home ownership. It will provide long-term relief for participants in the scheme. It will be the first national shared equity scheme of its kind. Help to Buy will be delivered through Housing Australia and will assist Australians to overcome the hurdle of both saving for a deposit and servicing a mortgage. Through Help to Buy, the Commonwealth will cut the cost of buying a home by up to 40 per cent. Participants will only require a minimum two per cent deposit and will benefit from lower ongoing mortgage repayments through a smaller home loan. States will need to pass legislation to participate in Help to Buy. At National Cabinet in August, all states agreed to progress Help to Buy legislation so that the scheme can run nationally. Housing ministers from across the country have recommitted to this agreement. We're now taking action with the introduction of this legislation to help to ensure the government is in the best position to make this support available to Australians once at least one state passes legislation to participate. We will continue to work closely with state and territory governments on the rollout of the scheme. The bill sets out that Help to Buy will be delivered by Housing Australia. Eligible participants will be able to access the scheme through participating lenders alongside a standard mortgage. Housing Australia will then provide the Commonwealth's equity contribution through a loan arrangement secured against the property. Housing Australia will be funded by a special appropriation to enter into Help to Buy arrangements and will provide a return to the Commonwealth when the equity is repaid. The Minister for Housing will provide written directions to Housing Australia on the operation of the scheme, including decision-making criteria for entering into Help to Buy arrangements. This is a similar approach to other government programs, like the Home Guarantee Scheme. The bill also includes the administrative framework for Help to Buy, including that Housing Australia must report to the minister on an annual basis, that the minister must cause a review of Help to Buy as soon as possible after the end of three years from the commencement of the bill, and that regulations for Help to Buy may enable administrative review of Housing Australia's decisions under the program. There is also a general power to make regulations that are required or permitted by the bill or are necessary or convenient to give effect to the bill. The bill contains provisions enabling states to pass legislation for their constituents to participate in the scheme. Help to Buy will be open to assist people who have owned homes before and those who haven't. It will help couples, siblings and singles alike—those who are close to retirement, those just starting out in the workforce and anyone eligible in between. Full details of the bill are contained in the explanatory memorandum. This is an ambitious government, committed to a housing agenda that will improve housing affordability and supply. This is a government that has already created the $10 billion Housing Australia Future Fund, the single biggest investment to support social and affordable housing in more than a decade. This is a government that has provided $2 billion to state and territory governments to deliver around 4,000 new social homes, a government that has unlocked $575 million from the National Housing Infrastructure Facility, with homes under construction across the country today. And it is a government that will invest an additional $1 billion in this facility to support yet more homes, and a government that has delivered the largest increase in Commonwealth Rent Assistance in 30 years, which is already making a difference. It is a government that wants to ensure that more Australians have a roof over their heads through a new National Housing and Homelessness Plan, a government that acts. Today we take another step forward, because this government understands what buying a home means to Australians. It's giving Australians the certainty of homeownership, an opportunity to live in their community and the chance to create opportunities for their own families. We know what a difference this will make. For Australians like Abbey and Corhan who were amongst the first to benefit from the Regional First Home Buyer Guarantee, when they purchased their home through the guarantee it meant they could spend last Christmas in a new home with their young son McKinnon. To quote Corhan, 'It really did help.' We want more Australians to have this opportunity, which is exactly what Help to Buy will deliver, to open the door of homeownership to tens of thousands of Australians. Delivering on Help to Buy, alongside our other housing commitments, will mean more Australians have a safe and affordable place to call home. It's what drives our government, every day. Our ambitious housing reform agenda is working across the board: more help for homebuyers; more help for renters; and more help for Australians needing a safe place for the night. Our government is working hard every day to help Australians facing housing challenges, and today we do more with this bill. Debate adjourned. Help to Buy (Consequential Provisions) Bill 2023 19

Help to Buy (Consequential Provisions) Bill 2023

First Reading 19 Second Reading 19 10:47 Ms COLLINS HWM Franklin I move: That this bill be now read a second time. This bill makes consequential amendments to support the establishment of the Help to Buy scheme, to clarify how it interacts with the Housing Australia Act 2018 and to reflect the broader remit of Housing Australia. Debate adjourned. COMMITTEES 19 COMMITTEES Public Works Joint Committee 19 Approval of Work 19 10:47 Dr LEIGH BU8 Fenner I move: That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, it is expedient to carry out the following proposed work which was referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works and on which the committee has duly reported to Parliament: Department of Defence—Defence Fuel Transformation Program—Tranche 2 Facilities Project. The Department of Defence is proposing works to remediate, replace, upgrade or dispose of existing Defence fuel installations across sites in Western Australia, the Northern Territory, Queensland, New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia. The estimated total capital cost to the works is $286.9 million, excluding GST. The project was referred to the public works committee on 12 September 2023. Following its inquiry, the committee has recommended that the House of Representatives resolve, pursuant to section 18(7) of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, that it is expedient to carry out the works. The committee also recommended that Defence conduct the proposed additional below-the-line works in conjunction with project scope where budget is available. Subject to parliamentary approval, construction is expected to commence in late 2024 for completion by mid-2027. On behalf of the government, I would like to thank the committee, ably led by the member for Moreton, for undertaking a timely inquiry. I commend the motion to the House. Question agreed to. BILLS 19 BILLS Economic Inclusion Advisory Committee Bill 2023 19

Economic Inclusion Advisory Committee Bill 2023

Consideration in Detail 19 10:50 The DEPUTY SPEAKER 230531 The question is that the amendments moved by the member for Clark be agreed to. 10:50 Mr WILKIE C2T Clark I appreciate the minister's comments yesterday, but I'm disappointed, and having talked to people since yesterday I've come across many disappointed people who feel very strongly that, unless the issue of poverty is explicitly addressed in the way in which the committee considers economic inclusion, then one of the matters affecting some of the most excluded people in the country won't be dealt with. I gave the figure of 3.3 million Australians living below the poverty line, including almost one million children. Surely everything we do in this parliament about domestic policy should be looked at through the prism of poverty and what we can do to lift people out of poverty. Spending government money to lift people out of poverty is often a very good investment. It can lift people up, ensure that they can enjoy a good level of health care, ensure they can be healthier, ensure they can eat properly and ensure they can have a safe and secure roof over their head. Along the way, we should take the opportunity to look at those drivers of poverty in this country. There's the fact that our supermarkets are charging record high prices at the same time as making record high profits. There's the fact that the banks are charging what in recent years are record high interest rates and saying they've got no say in it—that it's a matter for the Reserve Bank and the way it sets the rates, when that's not the case. Banks have room to move. The fact that they raise interest rates so quickly but lower interest rates so slowly at a time when they're making record profits is something that needs to be looked at, including by the economic inclusion committee. There's the fact that the energy companies are charging near record high prices for various forms of energy at the same time as making record high profits. There are very simple reasons for the poverty in this country, and unless the economic inclusion committee is tasked to look at all those drivers of poverty, I fear poverty will continue at rates we're seeing now. I made a reference yesterday to the Central Land Council and communication from them just yesterday, and they're observing that the rates of poverty in areas they're responsible for are going up. They're going up in one of the richest countries in the world. Through you, Deputy Speaker, to the minister: I do note that you will not be supporting the amendments, but I do ask again that the government consider subsequently amending this bill to ensure that the economic inclusion committee do look at the issue of poverty and that they are explicitly tasked to look at things through the prism of poverty when they look at everything from banks to supermarkets to energy companies to housing to medical care and so on. The SPEAKER 53517 The question is that the amendment moved by the member for Clark be agreed to.    

The House divided. [10:58]
(The Speaker—Hon. Milton Dick)

14 AYES Bandt, A. P. Bates, S. J. Chaney, K. E. Daniel, Z. Haines, H. M. Katter, R. C. Ryan, M. M. Scamps, S. A. Sharkie, R. C. C. Spender, A. M. Steggall, Z. Tink, K. J. (Teller) Watson-Brown, E. Wilkie, A. D. (Teller) 64 NOES Aly, A. Ananda-Rajah, M. Bowen, C. E. Broadbent, R. E. Burnell, M. P. Burney, L. J. Burns, J. Byrnes, A. J. Charlton, A. H. G. Chesters, L. M. Claydon, S. C. Coker, E. A. Collins, J. M. Conroy, P. M. Doyle, M. J. J. Dreyfus, M. A. Elliot, M. J. Fernando, C. Freelander, M. R. Garland, C. M. L. Giles, A. J. Gorman, P. Hill, J. C. Husic, E. N. Kearney, G. M. Keogh, M. J. Khalil, P. Lawrence, T. N. Laxale, J. A. A. Leigh, A. K. Lim, S. B. C. Mascarenhas, Z. F. A. McBride, E. M. Miller-Frost, L. J. Mitchell, B. K. Mitchell, R. G. Mulino, D. Neumann, S. K. O'Brien, L. S. O'Connor, B. P. J. 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. Sitou, S. Smith, D. P. B. (Teller) Stanley, A. M. (Teller) Swanson, M. J. Tehan, D. T. Thistlethwaite, M. J. Thwaites, K. L. Ware, J. L. Watts, T. G. Wells, A. S. Wilson, J. H. Zappia, A. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

11:03 Ms TINK 300124 North Sydney by leave—I move amendments (1) to (8) as circulated in my name together: (1) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 1), omit the table item, substitute: (2) Clause 8, page 6 (line 5), at the end of subclause (2), add: ; (h) the process and timeline for developing and achieving national poverty-reduction targets, or, if those targets are already developed, the progress towards achieving those targets. (3) Clause 8, page 6 (lines 15 to 19), omit subclause (5), substitute: Timing of report (5) The Committee must give the report at least 15 business days before the Commonwealth Government budget is delivered in the House of Representatives. (4) Clause 8, page 7 (lines 1 to 4), omit subclause (9), substitute: Publication (9) The Minister must cause a report given under this section to be published on the Department's website within 5 business days after the day it is given under this section. (5) Clause 11, page 8 (after line 12), after the heading to subclause (2), insert: (1A) In appointing the Chair and other members of the Committee, the Minister must ensure that at least 5 members are persons directly affected by poverty. (6) Clause 11, page 8 (line 14), omit "each member", substitute "each of the members not covered by subsection (1A)". (7) Clause 11, page 8 (lines 29 and 30), omit paragraph (3)(a), substitute: (a) ensure that at least half of the members of the Committee are women; and (aa) after consulting bodies representing Indigenous persons, ensure that the membership of the Committee consists of a sufficient representation of Indigenous persons; and (8) Clause 14, page 10 (lines 3 to 8), omit the clause, substitute: 14 Remuneration and allowances (1) A member of the Committee is to be paid the remuneration that is determined by the Remuneration Tribunal. If no determination of that remuneration by the Tribunal is in operation, the member is to be paid the remuneration that is prescribed by the regulations. (2) A member of the Committee is to be paid the allowances that are prescribed by the regulations. (3) Subsections 7(9) and (13) of the Remuneration Tribunal Act 1973 do not apply in relation to the office of a member of the Committee. Note: The effect of this subsection is that remuneration or allowances of the members of the Committee will be paid out of money appropriated by an Act other than the Remuneration Tribunal Act 1973. (4) This section has effect subject to the Remuneration Tribunal Act 1973 (except as provided by subsection (3)). The amendments I am moving today to the Economic Inclusion Advisory Committee Bill 2023 do five things to strengthen the bill and ensure the government receives and listens to the best possible advice on ways to lift economic inclusion and reduce disadvantage. I want to thank the Australian Council of Social Services not only for the work in advocacy they do every day for all Australians, most importantly our most vulnerable, but also specifically for their help in identifying the ideas I am about to present. I'd also like to thank Senator Pocock for his work in advocating for this committee and the member Andrew Wilkie for the work he has done here today already and to congratulate the minister, Minister Rishworth, for making this legislation a reality. The establishment of this committee, and the work it may be tasked with doing, has the potential to significantly impact Australia's social policy framework in a positive way which transcends any one government. But this will only happen if it is set up to function effectively, with the right processes in place to ensure its advice is heeded. In this context, then, the first amendment I am moving will require the committee to report on defined national poverty reduction targets. If the purpose of this committee is to help our government and this parliament shift the dial then we must know not just what we are currently dealing with but where we are trying to get to. Improving policy to eradicate poverty for all people in this country should be a central part of the committee's remit. As we are already seeing, growing inequality undermines social cohesion and is detrimental to economic growth. It is pivotal, therefore, that the very committee tasked with providing independent advice to the government on economic inclusion and how to tackle disadvantage put poverty reduction front and centre. My amendments task the committee with setting out the process and time line for the development of national poverty targets and measures and reporting on the progress made to achieve those targets. Secondly, these amendments require the committee's report to be released to the public at least two weeks before the budget. As we know, the interim Economic Inclusion Advisory Committee was established earlier this year pending this legislation being passed. Yet its primary recommendation—that 'the government, as a first priority, commit to a substantial increase in the base rates of the JobSeeker payment and related working age payments'—was not implemented in the most recent federal budget. Similarly, the interim committee's call for the scrapping of the activity test for child care subsidies went unheeded. This shows us there is a real risk that the Economic Inclusion Advisory Committee's recommendations will be ignored by the government, and it is imperative that the committee's report be made public at least two weeks before the budget to give the public, individuals, peak bodies, NGOs and social services time to consider the committee's recommendations and then monitor which are taken up come budget day. Thirdly, these amendments require that the committee be composed of people with lived experience of poverty. While efforts are being made to ensure that a diverse range of experts sit on the committee, the perspectives of a peak employer group, a business association or an academic are not the same of those of people with real lived experience of poverty and economic disadvantage. Only a woman actually living in a car knows exactly why she is there and why there is no other option, just as only a young person trying to survive in a city while seeking work knows what it's like to struggle, and only an older Australian trying to balance their pension across competing priorities knows what it's like to go without. To ensure people from all walks of life and all socioeconomic backgrounds can become committee members, these amendments provide for committee numbers to be remunerated. Making committee membership a paid position reduces the risk of people not being able to afford to participate or having limited capacity to participate due to a lack of resources. Finally, these amendments ensure there is gender equality and Indigenous representation by requiring that 50 per cent of the committee be composed of women and requiring sufficient Indigenous representation on the committee as determined through consultation with Indigenous representative bodies. My community of North Sydney and I strongly believe everyone deserves respect and a fair go no matter their background. We can have healthy, productive, thriving and inclusive societies, but to achieve this we must address the root cause of disadvantage, look for ways to ensure economic and social inclusion for all and provide adequate social security safety nets. That's why I welcome the establishment of a committee to provide advice to the government ahead of every federal budget on ways to boost economic inclusion and tackle disadvantage. It is an excellent opportunity to improve policymaking and outcomes for the Australians with the least. But to achieve this the committee must be diverse, independent, transparent, empowered and respected. If my amendments are not taken up today in this place, I call on the minister—through you, Mr Speaker—to remain open to ways to further improve this legislation and develop it in ways that enable tangible, measurable outcomes. (Time expired) 11:09 Ms RISHWORTH HWA Kingston I'd like to thank the member for North Sydney for her interest in this bill and her passion for advocating for our most vulnerable Australians. I acknowledge her commitment to that, but the government won't be supporting these amendments. I'll walk through the reasons why the government won't be supporting these amendments. Firstly, when it comes to committee members being remunerated, as is the case currently the committee members are appointed because of their expertise. Often they have full-time work in an advisory capacity. It has not been, and never was, intended for them to be remunerated. However, the government does recognise that for the advisory committee to do its work that it does need resources to carry out its work and is providing $8.7 million in funding over the forward estimates to support the committee to execute its functions, including research, consultation and secretariat support. The other amendments, being the measures of poverty—while I recognise the measures of poverty in the spirit that the member for North Sydney has put forward, poverty is a complex issue and the government has a very broad range of metrics to ensure different circumstances of people can be considered in assessing their wellbeing. The government has moved to measuring those different measures of wellbeing, including through our development of the Measuring What Matters framework. Our bill supports the committee to provide advice on a wide range of matters relevant to economic inclusion, including trends of inequality and poverty in Australia—as they have reported already in their first report—and to make international comparisons. In terms of the timing of the committee's report, we do need the committee to provide advice with adequate time for government to consider it as part of its budget deliberations. A specific timeframe of at least 15 days ahead of a budget, as proposed by the member for North Sydney, would mean that the committee could deliver its advice potentially only three weeks ahead of the budget. This is just simply not time enough for government to have any serious consideration of the committee's advice. In relation to the publication of the committee's advice, I note the government bill does require the Minister for Social Services to publicly publish the findings of the committee on the Department of Social Services' website. At the beginning of this process, the government has committed to do this at least 14 days ahead of the budget as we did with this year's report, and that commitment from the government has not changed, so we won't be supporting those amendments. In terms of the characteristics of the committee, I would like to reassure the member for North Sydney that we recognise that the membership of the expert committee must reflect the diverse experiences and expertise necessary for considering the complex and multifaceted issues of economic inclusion and disadvantage. Our bill does require that in making appointments the minister responsible should have regard to reflecting the diversity of the general Australian community. It also specifies membership, including representatives and organisations which advocate for or consists of individuals with lived experience from the community sector. Importantly, I would like to say that lived experience is critical to informing the committee, and that is why the government has provided funding for the committee to carry out its work to consult with those with lived experience, to consider and listen to the perspectives of what is a broad range of people who are experiencing economic exclusion and disadvantage and, importantly, to hear about their experiences in different parts of the country and what would help them. While we won't be supporting the amendments from the member for North Sydney, I can reassure her that the government takes these issues very seriously. We won't be supporting these amendments but we will, of course, when it comes to appointments, think very carefully about the appointments to the permanent committee and ensure that they do represent the diversity of the Australian community. 11:13 Ms TINK 300124 North Sydney I want to thank the minister for her response to the amendments as proposed by myself and my community, and I would just take a moment to reflect back to the minister and this government the point that it is one thing to provide budget for this community to operate but it is another thing to ensure that those who have a permanent seat on this committee actually are those who have lived experience in this space. I refer again to my speech as I tabled these amendments the concepts that only a woman living in a car knows why she's there, only a young person trying to live in the city like in my electorate of North Sydney on JobSeeker why they look for work knows what that is like and only an older Australian currently trying to juggle their life under what we classify as an appropriate pension knows exactly what they are foregoing week on week to ensure that they can afford other things. Academics and heads of organisations are one form of people. I pay no disrespect to them in terms of the knowledge and expertise they have, but I think involving those with lived experience at the heart of this on a day-to-day basis, not just in a passing, consulting fashion, would significantly improve this committee. To that point, I return to the fact that those people are the people who will not have the financial resources to participate in this. So, again, while I acknowledge that $8.7 million has been set aside over forward budgets, I would suggest that people like me will be looking for reports on how that budget is expended and whether part of that funding is used to enable those who are most vulnerable in our community to participate in this process. It could be compensating them for turning up for meetings or their travel arrangements. I think that would be an incredibly appropriate use of funding in this point of view. I think Australians would support the minister and the government in doing just that. The SPEAKER 53517 The question before the House is that the amendments moved by the honourable member for North Sydney be agreed to.    

The House divided. [11:20]
(The Speaker—Hon. Milton Dick)

10 AYES Bandt, A. P. Bates, S. J. Chaney, K. E. Daniel, Z. Haines, H. M. Ryan, M. M. Scamps, S. A. Tink, K. J. (Teller) Watson-Brown, E. Wilkie, A. D. (Teller) 54 NOES Aly, A. Ananda-Rajah, M. Andrews, K. L. Burnell, M. P. Burns, J. Charlton, A. H. G. Chesters, L. M. Claydon, S. C. Coker, E. A. Conroy, P. M. Doyle, M. J. J. Elliot, M. J. Fernando, C. Freelander, M. R. Garland, C. M. L. Gorman, P. Gosling, L. J. Hill, J. C. Husic, E. N. Kearney, G. M. Khalil, P. Lawrence, T. N. Laxale, J. A. A. Lim, S. B. C. Mascarenhas, Z. F. A. McBride, E. M. Miller-Frost, L. J. Mitchell, B. K. Mitchell, R. G. Mulino, D. Neumann, S. K. O'Brien, L. S. 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. Ryan, J. C. Scrymgour, M. R. Sitou, S. Smith, D. P. B. (Teller) Stanley, A. M. (Teller) Steggall, Z. Swanson, M. J. Thompson, P. Thwaites, K. L. Ware, J. L. Watts, T. G. Wilson, J. H. Zappia, A. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.
Bill agreed to.

Third Reading 24 11:23 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. COMMITTEES 24 COMMITTEES Workforce Australia Employment Services Select Committee 24 Report 24 11:24 Mr HILL 86256 Bruce On behalf of the Select Committee on Workforce Australia Employment Services I present the committee's report, incorporating a dissenting report, entitled Rebuilding employment services: final report on Workforce Australia Employment Services, together with the minutes of the proceedings. Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e). Mr HILL 86256 I ask leave of the House to make a statement in connection with the report. You'll see it's a very big report—so big they couldn't bind it. It's got ribbons! Who knew there were ribbons? Can we have leave? Sorry; I realise that I forgot— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The member for Bruce will cease speaking. Is leave granted? Leave granted. Mr HILL 86256 Apologies, Mr Speaker; I realise that I shouldn't have said that before I got leave. This inquiry has been the only first-principles review of the employment services system since privatisation by the Howard government almost 25 years ago. The committee's findings and recommendations have been informed by over 300 submissions, more than 60 hours of witness testimony, over 50 meetings and site visits in every state and territory, and direct engagement with OECD experts and over 10 other nations. The committee has approached its task in an open-minded and scrupulously nonpartisan manner, led by the evidence, not ideology or outside interests or direction. Over $9.5 billion will be spent over the next four years on the employment services system, including Workforce Australia, the Commonwealth's largest single procurement outside Defence, and departmental outputs and associated programs. Workforce Australia is the latest iteration of this system. It promised respectful, connected, simple and supported services, yet the overwhelming weight of evidence is that this promise has not been met. It's harsh but true to say that Australia no longer has an effective, coherent national employment services system; we have an inefficient, outsourced, fragmented social security compliance management system that sometimes gets someone a job against all odds. The committee's report makes 75 recommendations that underpin an ambitious blueprint to rebuild the Commonwealth employment services system. Australia's system has long been underpinned by two flawed theories: firstly, that unemployment is always an individual failing and that, if only you beat disadvantaged people hard enough, they'll somehow magically get a job; and, secondly, that more choice and competition in human services inevitably results in better outcomes for vulnerable people. Both theories have been proved for decades through the evidence to be rubbish, yet we've persisted in designing the entire system around them. Evidence confirms that the overwhelming majority of unemployed people want to work. It's what the previous government's review found, which was called I want to work, and it's certainly what we found right across the country. The current approach to mutual obligations is drowning providers in red tape, scaring away employers and not helping people to get into work. It is ridiculous that over 70 per cent of people with providers receive payment suspensions despite no evidence that 70 per cent of people are cheating. Employers have fled the system, dodging floods of inappropriate job applications. Providers are forced by the payment and performance frameworks to repeatedly try to place jobseekers into unsuitable vacancies just to chase outcome payments so they can pay their staff, yet there are inadequate incentives or support for businesses to take on disadvantaged jobseekers. It should not be controversial to state that full privatisation, full marketisation, has failed. The previous government implicitly admitted this by bringing a large caseload back to the public sector under Workforce Australia. The level and nature of competition is excessive and counterproductive. We visited numerous regional towns and disadvantaged suburbans centres and it seemed that there was an employment services provider operating on every street block, providing largely the same service with little variation. It's like having five ice cream shops all lined up side by side, selling the same vanilla ice cream. Meanwhile, the department sits there as the puppetmaster, studiously managing market share so that everyone gets a lick. Frontline staff too often have to fight the system to help their clients. There's little time or ability to tailor services and the workforce is in crisis, with over 40 per cent annual staff turnover. The system is choked with red tape, with staff spending more than half their time now on administration, with a terribly inefficient IT system, rather than working with clients and employers. More than 150,000 people have been stuck in the system for over five years. People are not adequately assessed when they come in or supported to make informed choices about the supports that would best suit them. We've never harnessed the purported benefits of contestability and choice. The committee was unable to find the department's secret Harry Potter style sorting hat which allocates people to services. We're sure it exists, and we would do away with it if we could find it. The current system also places little to no value on connections in local communities and labour markets. There's a Hunger Games style contracting model and regulatory culture, which drives very high turnover in providers during contract and licensing rounds. Bafflingly, in the last contract round, 22 per cent of regions saw all providers removed, so more than one in five regions had 100 per cent of the providers removed. The deputy chair would remember some of the evidence. We saw service disruption and devastating impacts on local relationships in Geelong and numerous other regions across the country. There's no other human service system where this level of provider or staff turnover would be considered remotely desirable or acceptable. The committee's conclusion is that these significant and numerous issues just cannot be addressed by mere tweaks to policies and programs. A new regulatory culture and more relational contracting model must be implemented. Government must move away from obsessively contracting services out and denying responsibility, to a system where service partners are contracted in to work alongside public agencies and employers in local communities—local, local, local. The government must have a much stronger, more active role; there's an overwhelming weight of evidence. Consistent with the world's best employment systems and other human services—think TAFE, education, health or aged care—a public sector core to the employment services system must be rebuilt. Now, before everyone freaks out or needs a dose of smelling salts, that doesn't mean recreating a giant new bureaucracy that does everything, but it's obvious that the complete hands-off approach, where the departments sit like puppet masters in Canberra, watching what goes on, having massive multibillion-dollar tenders every three to five years, has to stop; it doesn't work. The key to enhancing the role of the government will be the establishment of a new public stewardship and service delivery entity, proposed to be named Employment Services Australia, and the establishment of an employment services quality commission to drive service capability standards, best practice and more. These significant reforms should be complemented by enhancements to social procurement and formalised arrangements for engagement with academic and policy experts, service partners and other stakeholders as part of a collaborative, continuous learning and improvement system and culture. That's what the best systems around the world do. A rebuilt system also requires an enhanced and, in some respects, radically different service model in local areas which recognises that people have very different pathways to social and economic participation and employment. We need an enhanced assessment and referral process, a new digital hybrid service building on the previous government's establishment of Workforce Australia Online. Most countries across Europe and the developed world are moving towards digital, but the better systems have some hybrid capacity to proactively manage the case load rather than just be a call centre. For those jobseekers close to the labour market who don't need a lot of help to get back in—most unemployed people are just frictional. They're only in the system because they're poor and they don't have money in the bank, and they need a bit of income support before they get their next job. The vast majority of job seekers are like that. A combination of generalist and specialist case management services, therefore, is proposed for jobseekers who need further help. For too long, though, in Australia employment services have focused solely on kicking people off welfare. It sounds like a harsh thing, but the only people in Australia who are eligible for any support are people who are receiving income support. If you're unemployed—like the farmer's wife, as we heard down in Albany, or Australians' partners who arrive in the country and need a job—no-one cares and no-one gives you any help. Of course, moving people off income support into work must remain a primary goal, but a rebuilt system should also value economic security, sustainable employment, productivity, skills and workforce participation, and respond to industry transitions and workforce needs. That will mean some broader service eligibility in some places. We've also recommended measures to rebalance the focus on demand and employer engagement. The current system, because of that flawed belief that I outlined at the start, is strangely unbalanced. It focuses just about all of our effort on conditioning supply, on making unemployed people do things, with very little to no connection with demand—employers who actually have jobs. It's a peculiar system when you look at pretty much everything else around the world. This should include a dedicated employer focused service, as the BCA and many other business groups have called for, and serious consideration to integrating digital employment marketplaces, like Seek, LinkedIn and Indeed, into the employment services system. The committee does not propose a fully voluntary system. Society expects that people receiving JobSeeker who are capable of work will make efforts to secure work or increase their participation and move back towards the labour market. But it's the current approach to mutual obligation, activation and compliance, not the existence of requirements, which is self-defeating. A rebuilt system must include broader and much more flexible, tailored mutual obligation requirements supported by an individualised participation and jobs plan. A new shared accountability framework should replace the Targeted Compliance Framework. Now, these reforms are not intended to go soft on the small number of people who are going to cheat the system, but it is patently ridiculous that the whole system is now designed around that small minority, that cohort, and that everyone else is lumped into the same paradigm. It actually stops or hampers the majority of people from getting back into the labour market by making them do pointless things, such as courses that have no relevance, and making them endlessly apply for jobs they know they won't get, which drives employers away. To be effective, reforms will need to be supported by fundamentally different and fit-for-purpose commissioning, funding and performance management arrangements. These should include a notable increase—probably more than a doubling, back to where it actually started 25 years ago—in the number of service regions. The number of regions doesn't reflect regional labour markets or local labour markets. It is driven by ease of Commonwealth procurement and theories of competition. We need to reduce competition and service fragmentation in place and consider a blended funding model that reduces the reliance on chasing narrow employment outcomes. We should still reward good performance, but dial it back. We also propose measures to reprofessionalise the sector, streamline assurance and accreditation, make data publicly available and overhaul a range of active labour market and complementary programs. We're not naive. This is an ambitious proposal. But, as I said, it's the first first-principles review for nearly three decades. Rebuilding the system will be a multiyear project requiring bold and sustained political leadership and major changes in culture led by the bureaucracy. Some of the old hardheads—those who've worked around the system and have led public agencies—who've spoken with us have said they suspect that the major impediment to reform may be bureaucratic resistance, because for decades we've had a convenient view in parts of the Australian Public Service that we can contract everything out and not be responsible for anything. That's got to change. We can get better value for money and better outcomes if it does. In closing, I wish to convey my and the committee's heartfelt thanks to the numerous organisations and individuals who contributed to this inquiry, particularly the current and former employment services participants. We've actually suggested changing the language from 'participants' to 'clients'. These people, who have been or are in the system, have shared their stories with us in public and private. These are sometimes traumatic. It's not an easy thing to do. We also wish to thank the dedicated staff who support jobseekers. Frontline staff are absolutely central to the delivery of quality employment services. They are the single most important factor for supporting a disadvantaged person or a long-term unemployed person back into the labour market. All the research, internationally and in Australia, has shown that the most important factor is a trusted relationship between a skilled case worker and that person. Forty per cent staff turnover doesn't build a trusted relationship. Our critique of the system is not a reflection of individuals working to support people into work. Finally, I give a thank you to the committee members and the committee staff. Overwhelmingly, it was collegiate and professional. We were focused on what would make the system more effective. It's a fine example of how a parliamentary committee should work to seek answers to improve things. I particularly thank the deputy chair, the member for Monash, for his engagement, insights and wisdom. You brought to bear all your former lives, in business and in government, to the committee, and I thank you. I commend the report to the House. 11:38 Mr MT4 Monash BROADBENT () (): by leave—This report is for the future, not the past. It is worthy of notice by the Australian people and worthy of consideration by the Australian government. This report is about common sense, not common perceptions. People have very many barriers to overcome to access employment. The report is bipartisan, principled, professional, practical and passionate. Ideology played no part It is complete inasmuch as every recommendation is backed up by the evidence clearly articulated in the report. The voiceless and the troubled are our responsibility. We have heard you, and we have listened. Those workers at the coalface of the unemployed in this nation have our greatest respect and grateful thanks in that they are changing the lives of so many across this great south land. You are angels of the highest order, and I thank you for what you do. Each one of you knows who I'm talking to. I particularly draw attention to two members of the committee: the member for Bruce, for his passion, his wisdom and his experience as a former public servant in navigating what was a most difficult place to navigate—and I thank him sincerely for the work that he did and the professional way he carried out his obligations—and the member for Mayo, who brought her lived experience working in this sector to the tables of the committee. The member for Bruce carried the load, and the member for Mayo brought her lived experience working in the social security sector. I'm most appreciative of the secretariat for their professionalism and the way they went about supporting the chair of the committee, as well as those who were seconded from the department and all of the people who had any input into this excellent report. There is a dissenting report, which you can read; it speaks for itself. I'll leave that with the parliament. 11:42 Ms SHARKIE 265980 Mayo by leave—It was a privilege to be part of this committee and to work with the member for Bruce, the member for Monash, the member for Boothby and the member for Casey. We sought to do a deep-dive, a principles-first look at Workforce Australia employment services. Up to the 2025-26 financial year we're going to spend $7 billion of taxpayers' money on the Workforce Australia program, so the question is: are we getting value for money, is it on the right track, and will it deliver the outcomes that we're seeking for our nation? I think it's important to look at this over a landscape where we have an unemployment rate of 3.7 per cent. On 30 September this year Workforce Australia reported having 624,000 individuals connected with them. When looking at the data we realised that some groups are overrepresented: 14.5 per cent of the case load is Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, and 18.4 per cent are from CALD backgrounds. These statistics come on the back of the fact that we also have over 390,000 job vacancies in our nation. When we're looking at the vacancies, knowing that 175,000 of those are in retail, wholesale, accommodation, food services and the care economy, yet we have 624,000 people who are unemployed and looking for work, it seems that there's got to be some sort of mismatch here, particularly when we look at the fact that, stubbornly, nearly one in four people on the case load have been there for five years or longer. The truth is that many people will cycle in and out of Workforce Australia, but my focus was on how we can help the people who are in that cohort, who have been on the Workforce Australia program and its previous iteration, jobactive, and how we can intensively work with people to support them to have a better life and a better future. Clearly something's not right when you're spending that many billions yet 25 per cent of the people are not able to be properly supported into employment. This committee was tasked with a principles-first review of employment services to look at best practice, to work out how we can potentially create a system that helps people to address their barriers, and, importantly, to look at a strengths based system that can look at the work of an individual and help that individual to see what strengths they have within to help them find employment. Some of the barriers I'm talking about are health related and some are substance abuse related, but the biggest one we came across, particularly for young people, was having a licence. A young person having their driver's licence is the biggest key indicator of them being able to find employment. I commend the chair, the member for Bruce. His tireless dedication to this work was extraordinary; it was actually quite exhausting at times! But it was fantastic to be led by a chair that had such passion and drive, and that passion and drive has not waned over the years. On the member for Monash: I was in the previous parliament where the member for Monash was a chair of a committee—another select committee—where we were very much looking at these issues around how we better support long-term unemployed people, people who are part of a cycle of disadvantage where they've been disadvantaged for generations. In total the committee has made 75 recommendations, and I think it's fair to say that, out of all the committees I've been on, this has very much been a deep dive into policy best practice and evidence base. I'd like to touch on some of those recommendations. Recommendation 4, I think, is critical to so much of it. When we're looking at Workforce Australia, we have contracts delivered by very large, multinational organisations, and they're delivering them in a scattergun approach right across Australia depending on where they were successful in the tender process. But we need to keep them local. Local is the greatest chance of success, where we have a network of regional hubs and service gateways, where local organisations are able to properly map what the employment needs are in their area—and they know everyone, and there is a trust built in there. Two or three contracts ago, we used to have a lot of local delivery where maybe a small organisation was delivering in one regional map, rather than there being these large multinationals I mentioned. It needs to be about flexibility, working closely with those recipients, those jobseekers, and with employers. Recommendation 6 is a recommendation that says levels of government should implement strategies to provide those who are long-term unemployed with traineeships in the creation of entry-level jobs. Over the generations, or just over the last couple of decades, governments at all three levels have divested themselves of the responsibility of being the first job provider. Back in the 1990s, when I was a young person, the South Australian government was the biggest employer of apprentices. Now they do not provide any apprenticeships to any young people, and that's a great shame. I think that this is a very worthy recommendation, and that local, state and federal governments have a duty to provide young people in particular, but also long-term people, with a job. For young people, perhaps that first job can be a great foundation. Recommendation 7 expands on that concept by creating a permanent administrative employee in every electorate office. When I worked in South Australian politics, we had that. I think I had four or five trainees over that period of time. They would spend up to a year in the electorate office. They also gained a certificate III in government administration or business. Not all those young people stayed in politics, but they have all gone on to have very good, sound careers. I think we have a role to play in that. It's been a joy to watch their careers flourish, and I'd love to see us do that here in the federal parliament. Recommendation 10 relates to providing high-intensity case management for people furthest from the labour market. That's working with people on the challenges and barriers that are stopping them from getting employed. How can we expect a person to find employment when they don't have secure housing, when they are, perhaps, missing teeth, when they don't have any clothes to attend an interview or when they haven't got a quality resume or those skills for how you conduct yourself in an interview and need confidence building? We need to work with people on this. I think that someone getting a job is a byproduct of being able to have their life changed, working with them to change their life. I think this is an excellent recommendation. We need to work holistically with the person for them to lead on what issues they need the most support. Recommendation 11 is my favourite recommendation out of all 75 recommendations. This is for a youth-specific employment service. We know that for young people up to age 25 their brains have not finished developing. We know that the transactional style that we have of dealing with a provider in Workforce Australia does not work for a lot of young people. Transition to Work is a very successful program, but not all young people can connect to Transition to Work. So this recommendation is about providing a gateway for young people, irrespective of their level of need and support. All young people would be funnelled into a youth focused, youth friendly, youth specialist employment service provider that is perhaps connected near other youth support in the community. I think this is an excellent recommendation and one that would provide enormous dividends, particularly for young people, working with them in a flexible way. It's about career development as well as addressing those barriers. We know that young people are the largest cohort of homeless. We also know that, as I said before, getting a licence and having some of those really basic life qualifications is critical. Recommendation 45 is around employers. Very few employers connect with Workforce Australia. They don't like the system. As the member for Bruce said, there are often a number of organisations that have a shopfront in the one township. There's a huge turnover of Workforce Australia staff, so those relationships aren't built well in many locations with employers. Many employers have expressed frustration with respect to the kinds of candidates that are sent to them, candidates who are not a good fit. This all goes back to working better with the participant or the client to make sure that we can have a strengths based model where we look at what the person wants to achieve and then find the right fit for them so that employers are not flooded with people that are not going to be a good fit for their organisation, which makes them reluctant to then work again with that Workforce Australia provider. I will mention two more recommendations. Work in the community is recommendation 49. This is a really exciting recommendation. We saw in Ireland that work in the community worked really well. What I thought was very exciting in Ireland was that the people who were involved in work in the community—it sounds a bit unusual—could be doing things like connecting to their local township and be driving a bus and or part of taking care of the gardening grounds and ovals. In my regional community and, I am sure, in many regional communities in Australia, our local councils do not own our infrastructure; we manage that ourselves. So a program like work in the community could work particularly well in regional Australia and would be very valued. It would assist participants to build their personal capacity and their self-esteem, particularly if they are very long-term unemployed and have been naturally out of the workforce for a long time. Lastly, I will mention recommendation 50. We saw some fantastic social enterprises right across Australia—cafes, laundromats and gardening services. They are truly wonderful hubs that create a place of work experience, knowledge building and building of social connections for particularly people who are long-term unemployed, many of whom experience loneliness and social isolation. They're excellent, and I'd like to think that we can use recommendation 50 to look at building more social enterprises across Australia. It is my hope that this wonderful report—the writing of which has seen the blood, sweat and tears of, particularly, the member for Bruce and the secretariat—does not sit on a shelf and gather dust as so many excellent reports from committees do. There are some very sound recommendations in here. I hope that we all have the opportunity to see the minister and the department work collaboratively through these recommendations and implement some of them in the near future. 11:55 Mr HILL 86256 Bruce I move: That the House take note of the report. I thank the member for Mayo for her comments and for always reminding us that people need lunch and can't work all day. I also thank Dr Bateman and the committee secretariat again. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 265979 The debate is adjourned, and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. Reference to Federation Chamber 29 11:56 Mr HILL 86256 Bruce I move: That the order of the day be referred to the Federation Chamber for debate. Question agreed to. Industry, Science and Resources Committee 29 Report 29 11:56 Mr ROB MITCHELL M3E McEwen On behalf of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Resources, I present the committee's report entitled Sovereign, smart, sustainable: driving advanced manufacturing in Australia, together with the minutes and proceedings. I ask leave of the House to make a short statement in connection with the report. Leave granted. Mr ROB MITCHELL M3E The Minister for Industry and Science made a reference to the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Resources in February this year for an inquiry into developing advanced manufacturing in Australia. And we welcomed that referral because Australia is at a crossroads when it comes to our industrial and economic development. Manufacturing has been in decline in this country since the sixties. Now is the time to turn that around and set Australia on a course to becoming globally competitive in advanced manufacturing. The COVID pandemic and geopolitical tensions have shown us the folly of over-relying on imports for all the goods our society needs. But our manufacturing self-sufficiency is the lowest in the OECD. This can and must change. During this inquiry, we also heard that the notion Australian-made products cannot compete with foreign alternatives is now an outdated view. With advanced manufacturing processes and techniques, particularly Industry 4.0 technologies, Australian manufacturing can be globally competitive—including on cost. Other developed nations that have embraced Industry 4.0 technologies are seeing manufacturing jobs return to their shores. Robots are not replacing jobs; they are bringing them back from low-wage jurisdictions. We heard that Australian manufacturers are already succeeding in global markets in high value-added niches, where they can compete on R&D, quality, safety and trust rather than being 2c cheaper than the competition. The inquiry heard support for investing in the National Reconstruction Fund priority areas, as areas where our existing competitive advantages and sovereign capability needs coincide, and we welcome today's announcement by the Albanese government. For too long, most of our mineral wealth has been exported as raw product, with little or no onshore value-adding. This is a wasted opportunity—particularly when our critical minerals are key ingredients in global growth markets like solar panels. Inquiry participants applauded the government investments to revive Australian manufacturing, by both the current and former Australian government, as well as our state counterparts. They recognise that this is a long-term game, requiring long-term commitment and follow-through across political parties to draw in private sector investment. But make no mistake: while this is ultimately a long game, Australia is also in a race against the clock right now. Our global partners are looking to re-shore or friendly-shore their critical supply chains, and develop their own sovereign capabilities and advanced manufacturing. Our export partners for energy commodities like coal and gas—mainstays of our export wealth—are moving to decarbonise. Australia must act to maximise our slice of the pie in the new global growth industries, including renewable energy technologies, or be left behind. We heard that, for advanced manufacturing to succeed in Australia at scale, key barriers must be overcome. Manufacturers are struggling to access suitable investment capital on private markets alone. Australia's low rates of commercialisation and industry-research collaboration remain problems. Worker and skills shortage were raised by almost every participant in the inquiry. Our report does not minimise such challenges. But solutions do exist—solutions that will put Australian manufacturers on a path to working smarter and moving up the value chain. This report makes 10 recommendations to build on the existing program of work by the Australian government. They include recommendations to better support small and medium-size manufacturers—the majority of manufacturers—to access the funding and capability development programs they need to adopt Industry 4.0 and to pursue innovative value-adding opportunities. We note the transformative role being played by Australia's existing innovation precincts and common-use facilities and recommend that we should be building more. We suggest changes to skilled migration, education and training settings to help meet our critical workforce needs. This includes recommendations to help tap a more-diverse pool of potential advanced manufacturing workers, including women. I thank the submitters and the witnesses to this inquiry for contributing their insights and expertise. I would especially like to thank those who hosted the committee at site visits to world-leading advanced manufacturing facilities across Australia. These visits showed us what is possible—that Australia can be a leader in the advanced manufacturing game. I would also like to thank the secretariat for their hard work, their diligence and their forbearance. I also want to thank in particular the deputy chair, the member for Capricornia, for the spirit of bipartisanship and cooperation she brought to this inquiry. Lastly, I'd like to thank my fellow committee members, whose sharp questioning, analysis and ideas have shaped this report and recommendations. I commend this report to the House. 12:02 Ms LANDRY 249764 Capricornia by leave—I rise today to address the findings of the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Resources inquiry into advanced manufacturing and to emphasise the critical importance of supporting our regional manufacturers and strengthening assistance to our small businesses. The committee's careful investigation has shed light on a crucial aspect of our manufacturing landscape. While expressing gratitude for government support, manufacturers, especially small businesses, find that some existing programs for innovation and commercialisation are falling short of the mark. This sentiment echoes the recent report by Industry, Innovation and Science Australia underlining the challenges faced by small businesses in the realm of collaboration and commercialisation. It is imperative to recognise that the backbone of Australian manufacturing comprises predominantly small businesses, with the majority employing fewer than 20 individuals. These businesses form the bedrock of our economy, and their growth is paramount to our nation's prosperity. The promise of advanced manufacturing and Industry 4.0 technologies, including robotics and artificial intelligence, holds the potential to empower small businesses to compete and grow, which will enhance productivity and create jobs. Yet the committee's insights reveal a stark reality. The steep learning curve, high costs and associated risks serve as formidable deterrents to our small enterprises. The recommendations presented in the report strive to address these barriers by advocating for investments in common-user facilities and test beds in innovation precincts. The report aims to create an environment where smaller and traditional manufacturers can embark on the Industry 4.0 journey without daunting upfront investments. Furthermore, the report's call to explore and scale up successful education and training programs for SMEs is a crucial step forward. By bringing access to knowledge and skill development we can empower more Australian SMEs to harness the potential of Industry 4.0 technologies, preventing any business from being left behind in this transformative era. Equally significant are the recommendations urging the government to streamline investment programs and government procurement opportunities for small businesses. The acknowledgement that difficult application processes, unclear guidance and lengthy time frames have an extreme impact on resource-poor businesses is a call for actionable reform. We must ensure that the avenues of government support are not just accessible but easily understood by our small enterprises. Furthermore, the call for additional exploration of opportunities to support and scale up successful education and training programs for SMEs is a commendable step. This will empower more Australian SMEs to benefit from Industry 4.0 technologies, preventing any businesses from being left behind. A significant recommendation of the report is the creation of a national advanced manufacturing commissioner, acting as a centralised hub for federal and state government opportunities and support programs. This commissioner could serve as a valuable concierge service for small manufacturers, simplifying the process of navigating available opportunities. Regional manufacturers face distinct challenges, and our support must be tailored to their local conditions. The committee rightly acknowledges the unique challenges encountered by regional manufacturers, who serve as anchors for local economies. Industries such as food and forestry production, mining, and defence equipment play pivotal roles in the region and are facing challenges like higher energy costs, difficulty in skilled workforce acquisition, lower wages and increased vulnerability to natural disasters and droughts. Deakin University's insight into the lag in regional manufacturing's transition to high-value production emphasises a need for targeted interventions. The report's recommendation for investment in common-user advanced manufacturing facilities, specifically exploring underutilised land in regional areas, is a step in the right direction. The committee's acknowledgement of the specialisation of regional and rural economies around local anchor industries, such as agriculture or mining, underscores the importance of locally appropriate investments in common-user facilities and innovation precincts. These initiatives must be sensitive to existing industrial capabilities and needs. The recommendations put forward by the Standing Committee for Industry, Science and Resources are not just a road map for the future of advanced manufacturing—they are a call to action for us to invest wisely, support inclusively and ensure that no business or region is left behind in the transformative journey towards Industry 4.0. Let us seize this opportunity to shape a future where our manufacturers, big and small, urban and regional, stand united in the front of innovation and progress. In conclusion, my gratitude goes to the secretariat, specifically Lynlee, Tanya and Tessa, for their valuable efforts and support in aiding the committee to compile the inquiry report, Sovereign, smart, sustainable: Driving advanced manufacturing in Australia. Additionally, I extend my thanks to Mr Rob Mitchell, the chair of the committee, for his commitment and collaborative efforts in the pursuit of making Australian manufacturers globally competitive, and the rest of the committee for their input and commitment throughout this inquiry. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 230531 I'm sure the member for McEwen is deeply honoured to be mentioned, not by his name but by the parliamentary name! I thank the member for Capricornia for her statement with reference to the Standing Committee on Industry, Science, and Resources. MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS 32 MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS Annual Climate Change Statement 32 Reference to Federation Chamber 42 13:05 Mr BOWEN DZS McMahon by leave—I move: That the order of the day be referred to the Federation Chamber for debate. Question agreed to. BILLS 42 BILLS Water Amendment (Restoring Our Rivers) Bill 2023 42

Water Amendment (Restoring Our Rivers) Bill 2023

Consideration of Senate Message 42 13:07 Ms PLIBERSEK 83M Sydney I move: That the amendments be agreed to. In doing so, I want to say to this place that, as of today, the Murray-Darling Basin Plan is officially back on track. At the election, Labor made a promise to deliver the Murray-Darling Basin Plan in full. We promised to rescue the plan after a decade of sabotage, and today we are writing that promise into law. This is an historic day for Australia's largest river system, and it's a bright day for the future of our basin communities. It's a massive day for the environment of Australia and one of the biggest things that any Australian government has done for nature—certainly this decade. The Murray-Darling basin produces 40 per cent of Australia's agricultural output, it supplies three million people with their drinking water and it sustains over a million square kilometres of our inland environment. By passing this legislation today, we are voting to keep these rivers healthy. We're making sure that our water is shared sensibly between very different and vital uses: between farmers, industry, communities and the environment. Like so much else they touched, the Liberals and Nationals left this plan in a hopeless mess. We made good progress in the early years of this plan and achieved a lot, but that progress, under those opposite, just stopped. The Basin Plan was meant to be delivered next year, but, at the pace the Liberals and Nationals were going, the plan would have been delivered sometime around the year 4000. Of the 450 gigalitres of additional environmental water in the plan, they delivered just two in nine years. Of the 10 reports they received telling them that the plan was off track, they ignored those warnings every single time. The truth is that they never intended to deliver the plan, and they misled Australian communities about that. This bill gets the plan back on track, so we can finally deliver on our water recovery targets and protect our rivers. This bill offers more time to deliver the remaining water; more options to deliver that water—including on-farm and off-farm efficiency projects and, of course, voluntary water purchase; more funding to deliver the water and to support communities where voluntary water buybacks might have flow-on impacts; and more accountability for Murray-Darling Basin governance, including our own government, on delivering the remaining water on time. I thank members of parliament who worked constructively to pass this legislation. To my colleagues in the Labor Party, particular my colleagues from South Australia: I acknowledge your passion and your advocacy. I thank crossbench members both in this place and in the other place for the way they approached the negotiations on this bill in such good faith. I was very happy to work with you to address your concerns and to strengthen the bill where we could agree. We know that water will always involve difficult conversations in Australia but we can't forget why we designed the Murray-Darling Basin Plan in the first place. If we didn't act now to revive this plan, if we continued with the Liberals' and the Nationals' policy of sabotaging the plan, we would have seen our basin towns unprepared for drought. We would have seen our food and fibre production become increasingly insecure, our native animals facing the threat of extinction and our river systems, our ecosystems, risking environmental collapse. With the next drought just around the corner, we have to make sure there's enough water to go around. We don't want communities to wake up one day to dry riverbeds and dead animals and realise that their parliament could have done something to stop it and chose not to. That's why this plan is so important, that's why this legislation is so vital and that's why Labor refused to back down—because we know how critical this is. I thank everyone who worked on this bill, I thank those who voted for it and I commend— (Time expired) 13:12 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I join with the fantastic Minister for the Environment and Water in celebrating this day. The 'restoring our rivers' bill is so important, and the passing of this legislation will mean that progress is flowing as well as water. At last year's election we promised to deliver the Murray-Darling Basin Plan in full, and passing this legislation means our government is keeping that promise. It guarantees 450 gigalitres of water for the environment and gives community certainty to plan for the future. In nine years the former government delivered just two of the 450 gigalitres the basin needs. They said they were on track to complete the plan, but, unfortunately, they were on track to deliver sometime around the year 4000. They promised $40 million in First Nations water entitlement but did not deliver a single drop. They promised $1.33 billion for off-farm efficiency projects but only delivered around $350 million. Where we make promises, we deliver. The Murray-Darling is Australia's biggest river system, home to more than 2.3 million people that supports 7,300 irrigated agricultural businesses. It produces $22 billion worth of food and fibre every year. Delivering the Basin Plan is vital for the environment but is also an economic necessity for basin communities. The legislation provides more time and more options to deliver the remaining water, including infrastructure projects and voluntary water buybacks; more funding to deliver the remaining water and to support communities where voluntary water buybacks have flow-on impacts; and more accountability for basin governance on delivering the remaining water on time.   This legislation builds on the work we've already done to deliver water-saving infrastructure and purchase water from those who want to sell to help meet the plan's targets. This new law comes at a critical time. After a decade of delay and inaction, the deadlines to the original plan are about to expire. By passing this bill, we're ensuring a healthy and sustainable future for Australia's largest river system. We are building consensus. We're restoring the health of the Murray-Darling Basin. We're getting things done. We're bringing together state governments, local councils, traditional owners and farming communities to map the way forward. On the other side, Australians can see that relentless negativity always takes you to a dry gully. A dry gully is what those over there are stuck in. From one end of the Murray-Darling Basin to the other, we see proof that those opposite have nothing positive to offer the country. Our government is working for Australia. By saying no to everything, those opposite have left themselves up the creek without a paddle. Our government is getting things done. We're bringing people together. We're delivering for farmers, for producers and for our environment. We are working for Australia. Our approach is working. I commend this bill to the House. 13:16 Mr LITTLEPROUD 265585 Maranoa This is a sad day for basin communities, with the amendments to this important Water Amendment (Restoring Our Rivers) Bill 2023 that are being sent back. This is a piece of legislation that was first put in train by the member for Watson, and today the 450 gigalitres form a significant part of that. A mistruth that has been espoused by the minister here is that for some reason we have only delivered two gigalitres of the 450 gigalitres. This goes to the very heart of the design of the Murray-Darling Basin plan, the design that the member for Watson actually put in place. He put in place, in 2012, a safety mechanism to protect the social and economic viability of those communities that were going to have an additional 450 gigalitres ripped away from them. The original plan is 2,750 gigalitres. We have recovered 2,100 gigalitres, and the last element of that can be recovered through infrastructure, not water buybacks. Buybacks destroy communities. They don't destroy farmers; farmers walk away with a check. The communities that are left behind are the ones that are decimated. That's the lack of knowledge and understanding of this plan and its intricacies and its impact, economic and social, on these communities: this minister walked in here yesterday and made it clear that not even one ounce of economic modelling had been done about the cost of this fairytale that she is taking us on, nor about the flow-on effects to our communities. What responsible government takes away the very legislation that they put in place, with appropriate safeguards for the 450 gigalitres of additional water to the plan, and tears that up without any economic modelling for the lives and livelihoods of people living up and down the Basin? Are they just collateral damage sitting at the altar of political expediency, for city members to walk out and say, 'We did something'? Not one ounce of modelling—nothing done to understand exactly the impact of what they are doing in tearing up their very own legislation. While the member for Watson stands here before me, can I say that we acted in a bipartisan way in delivering the Northern Basin Review and the sustainable diversion limits, and then we were able to get the neutrality test, in agreement with every state, including South Australia. You have torn up that bipartisanship, a plan that was going to be delivered. The 2,750 gigalitres were going to be delivered. This nonsense of 'year 4,000' on the 450 was because of the very safeguards that the member for Watson, who is leaving now, put in place. You are actually tearing up your very own plan, the plan that was there to protect communities. This is the lowest moment for those communities up and down the basin. And you sit here and don't even show respect but show contempt—contempt for them, their future and their livelihoods—without even doing modelling, without even going out to these communities and having the courage of your convictions to eyeball them and to explain your courage of your convictions. No: you made every effort to only invite certain people. The SPEAKER 53517 The Leader of the Nationals will pause. The member for Lyons on a point of order? Mr Brian Mitchell 129164 A point of order, Mr Speaker: the Leader of the Nationals is continuing to not direct his comments through the chair. I'd ask that he do so. The SPEAKER 53517 Resume your seat. I'll uphold the point of order and just tell the Leader of the Nationals to direct his comments through the chair. Mr LITTLEPROUD 265585 I'm happy to do that. But we're upset. We're upset because we live in these communities. We know the people. We know them by name. These are their livelihoods that are just being ripped up by the stroke of a pen and some deal done over there with senators who live in the sanctuary of this town, who wouldn't know what the Murray-Darling Basin Plan means to the ACT. In fact, the ACT hasn't delivered any water back to the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. Yet you want us to lie at the altar of political expediency? There is a human toll to this, but there is an economic toll to this as well. Every Australian will foot the bill for this, because this means that you have taken away the tools that Australian farmers need to produce the food and fibre that you enjoy. When supply goes down, prices go up. You don't need a 6,000-word essay to work that out. This is tearing at the very heart of regional and rural Australia. This is nasty, vindictive politics. That is all this is, and unfortunately regional Australia will foot the bill for it again. 13:21 Ms LEY 00AMN Farrer The Basin Plan is no longer a plan; it's a death sentence. It's a death sentence that has been delivered by this government. Do you know what really hurts me? It's not the obvious political delight that the minister and the Prime Minister have just taken in this achievement. Do you know what really hurts me? It's the faith that has been broken with the communities that I represent. They all came here. They asked nicely. They sat and explained what they do. They tried. They said to me and all of my colleagues: 'Let's try and work with this government. Let's try to make them understand.' It's their hearts that have been broken today. It's those people who get up every morning and work so hard to deliver food, to deliver fibre, to deliver regional jobs. It's people in regional communities, people in small schools, people who care deeply. It's people in a community like Griffith, which the member for Riverina knows well, who came here after the war, who dug irrigation ditches with a horse and cart and who broke their backs and dug the soil in the heat and toiled for a future for themselves, their family and their children. It's those people who have been trashed here in this parliament today by this government. It's a bitter pill to swallow. The basin's heart has been broken by a government that has ignored communities. They haven't even bothered to visit them. We know the politics that goes on in this place. We know the glee with which the environment minister looks at all of us and laughs at us. We see it every day in question time. We know that she hasn't set one foot in the basin and hasn't demonstrated one shred of care for the communities that she's tearing apart. This is a really bad, bad day, and the smile on your face, Minister, says it all. It really does say it all. I don't care what you think of me. I don't care what you think of my colleagues. I don't care about the Prime Minister's carefully prepared speech when he comes in here. He didn't even mean it. He had no passion in his voice, because, deep down, I think someone who has been in the parliament as long as he has, as long as you have—you know exactly what you are doing, for base political gain. The SPEAKER 53517 Order! I just ask members to direct their comments through the chair. Ms LEY 00AMN The minister and the Prime Minister know exactly what they are doing, for base political gain, because they have banded together with the Greens to take more water out of communities that I represent—out of Griffith, Leeton, Deniliquin, Finley, Barham, Moulamein, Balranald and Wentworth. Do those places mean anything? They're just places on a map. They mean nothing to you, Minister. Transitional funding is your code for: 'We don't care if we shut down your town.' It's just such a nail in the coffin to single-handedly trade off the lives and livelihoods of the farmers that we represent and to not even to have the courage to look them in the eye and tell them what you had planned: buybacks, the simplest, laziest form of water recovery, with the biggest impact on regional communities. The regional communities I represent will not forget this. We will not forget this betrayal. I don't think every Australian will agree with what you have done. I think Australians in the cities will wonder why a government has used billions of taxpayers' dollars to try to take water away from farming with no positive result at all. Every single Australian will tune into this. Australians in Western Australia and Australians in Far North Queensland will wonder why you have done this and wonder what the point was. If it means what you say it means, tell us how much it will cost. But the minister couldn't say how much it would cost and how many billions of dollars would be allocated to this buyback. I know why. I know that it is a sham that you will try to do socioeconomic measures, that you will try to do infrastructure and that you will try to work with communities. I know it's a sham, because I know this government too well. What you will do is get money out of your budget process and lazily go into the basin and buy water, just so you can say you've delivered on a political promise. That's the only reason that the minister cannot say how many billions of dollars taxpayers will pay for something that achieves nothing, that takes the country backwards, that takes every regional economy in the basin backwards and that adds to the cost of fresh food and groceries in our country. The government refuses to recognise that Australia is also the Murray-Darling Basin and that Australians care about food, about farming, about the people who live in these communities and about the people who love these communities. We love our communities. It's so sad that this Labor government does not. 13:26 Ms PLIBERSEK 83M Sydney I move: That the question be now put. The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The member for Barker will cease interjecting. A division having been called and the bells being rung— Mr Brian Mitchell 129164 Settle down, silk! The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Lyons and the member for Barker will cease interjecting for the duration of the division. Mr McCormack 219646 On a point of order, I ask that the member for Lyons withdraw that last remark. The SPEAKER 53517 I didn't hear what the member for Lyons said. Mr Brian Mitchell 129164 I withdraw. The SPEAKER 53517 The question is that the question be now put.    

The House divided. [13:31]
(The Speaker—Hon. Milton Dick)

77 AYES 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. Chalmers, J. E. Charlton, A. H. G. Chesters, L. M. Clare, J. D. Claydon, S. C. Coker, E. A. Collins, J. M. Conroy, P. M. Doyle, M. J. J. Dreyfus, M. A. Elliot, M. J. Fernando, C. Freelander, M. R. Garland, C. M. L. 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. Neumann, S. K. O'Connor, B. P. J. O'Neil, C. E. Payne, A. E. Perrett, G. D. Phillips, F. E. Plibersek, T. J. Rae, S. T. Reid, G. J. Repacholi, D. P. Rishworth, A. L. Roberts, T. G. Rowland, M. A. Ryan, J. C. Scrymgour, M. R. Shorten, W. R. Sitou, S. Smith, D. P. B. (Teller) Stanley, A. M. (Teller) Swanson, M. J. Thistlethwaite, M. J. Thwaites, K. L. Watson-Brown, E. Watts, T. G. Wells, A. S. Wilkie, A. D. Wilson, J. H. Zappia, A. 61 NOES Andrews, K. L. Archer, B. K. Bell, A. M. Birrell, S. J. Boyce, C. E. Broadbent, R. E. Buchholz, S. Caldwell, C. M. Chaney, K. E. Chester, D. J. Conaghan, P. J. Coulton, M. M. (Teller) Daniel, Z. Dutton, P. C. Entsch, W. G. Fletcher, P. W. Gee, A. R. 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. Sharkie, R. C. C. Steggall, Z. Stevens, J. Sukkar, M. S. Taylor, A. J. Tehan, D. T. Thompson, P. Tink, K. J. Vasta, R. X. Violi, A. A. Wallace, A. B. Ware, J. L. Webster, A. E. Willcox, A. J. Wilson, R. J. Wolahan, K. Young, T. J. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

 13:36 The 53517 SPEAKER (): The question before the House is that the amendments be agreed to.    

The House divided. [13:36]
(The Speaker—Hon. Milton Dick)

86 AYES 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. Chalmers, J. E. Chaney, K. E. Charlton, A. H. G. Chesters, L. M. Clare, J. D. Claydon, S. C. Coker, E. A. Collins, J. M. Conroy, P. M. Daniel, Z. Doyle, M. J. J. Dreyfus, M. A. Elliot, M. J. Fernando, C. Freelander, M. R. Garland, C. M. L. Giles, A. J. Gorman, P. Gosling, L. J. Haines, H. M. 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. Le, D. 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. Neumann, S. K. O'Connor, B. P. J. O'Neil, C. E. Payne, A. E. Perrett, G. D. Phillips, F. E. Plibersek, T. J. Rae, S. T. Reid, G. J. Repacholi, D. P. Rishworth, A. L. Roberts, T. G. Rowland, M. A. Ryan, J. C. Ryan, M. M. Scamps, S. A. Scrymgour, M. R. Sharkie, R. C. C. Shorten, W. R. Sitou, S. Smith, D. P. B. (Teller) Stanley, A. M. (Teller) Steggall, Z. Swanson, M. J. Thistlethwaite, M. J. Thwaites, K. L. Tink, K. J. Watson-Brown, E. Watts, T. G. Wells, A. S. Wilkie, A. D. Wilson, J. H. Zappia, A. 52 NOES Andrews, K. L. Archer, B. K. Bell, A. M. Birrell, S. J. Boyce, C. E. Broadbent, R. E. Buchholz, S. Caldwell, C. M. Chester, D. J. Conaghan, P. J. Coulton, M. M. (Teller) Dutton, P. C. Entsch, W. G. Fletcher, P. W. Gee, A. R. Goodenough, I. R. Hamilton, G. R. Hastie, A. W. Hawke, A. G. Hogan, K. J. Howarth, L. R. Landry, M. L. Leeser, J. Ley, S. P. Littleproud, D. Marino, N. B. McCormack, M. F. McIntosh, M. I. McKenzie, Z. A. Morrison, S. J. O'Brien, E. L. O'Brien, L. S. Pasin, A. Pearce, G. B. Pike, H. J. Pitt, K. J. Price, M. L. Ramsey, R. E. (Teller) Stevens, J. Sukkar, M. S. Taylor, A. J. Tehan, D. T. Thompson, P. Vasta, R. X. Violi, A. A. Wallace, A. B. Ware, J. L. Webster, A. E. Willcox, A. J. Wilson, R. J. Wolahan, K. Young, T. J. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

 STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS 54 STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS Environment 54 13:38 Mr HAMILTON 291387 Groom I was very happy to recently receive three wonderful letters from year 3 students at St Monica's in Oakey. They all speak to the future, and they all speak to a consideration of fairness. They care for our world, wildlife and each other. Vanessa and Aubree write: … a lot of the rubbish in Hawaii is coming from Australia. … Why do we waste so much money on products and packages that end up as pollution that takes thousands of years to break down? What a great question. It's great to see young people considering waste and recycling. Thomas and Kenzie write about responsible farming practices: We think that cruelty to animals for fast food is wrong. … When we heard that this was happening, we felt like our families were bad but, realized we were good farmers. So, change the law so all animals must see the sun light at least once a day. I think that's a very important message coming out of a place like Oakey, where farming is such a key part of our local economy. Ruben and Audrey write on the issue of caring for our wildlife: We believe that all animals should be treated properly and looked after. People are making animals go extinct by destroying their habitat and polluting the environment. It is up to all of us to stop hurting these animals. To Ruben and Audrey, I say thank you very much. Listening to all of these, I am encouraged for our future and encouraged by the leadership provided by these young people. I will say that it's great to see them all speaking about themes of personal accountability, but what rings true to me is the issue of practical environmentalism. It echoes my nineties upbringing with the idea of thinking globally and acting locally. Crime Stoppers Western Australia 54 13:39 Mr LIM 300130 Tangney I recently met up with the CEO of Crime Stoppers Western Australia, Dr Vince Hughes. I knew Vince for several years during my time as a police officer, and I know just how important Crime Stoppers is in crime prevention. Crime Stoppers was established in Australia in 1987. With eight branches, it operates in each state and territory, delivering huge results in resolving unsolved crimes. Crime Stoppers runs as an independent not-for-profit registered charity. It is built on the pillars of anonymity and community collaboration. I have always said that if you see something say something. What you know matters. Every piece of information shared contributes to community safety. This unique platform for people to report crime anonymously without fear of retaliation is why Crime Stoppers has been so successful. Catching up with Vince in my role as a member of parliament was special. It was wonderful to see how Crime Stoppers supports Commonwealth activity across various portfolios, such as law enforcement, organised crime and cybersecurity. Let us continue to support and champion this vital service, ensuring that our streets remain safe and our community resilient, and let justice prevail for all. Youth Voice In Parliament Week 54 13:41 Mr HAWKE HWO Mitchell Last week was Youth Voice in Parliament Week, which gives our young people the opportunity to have their voices amplified here in the federal parliament. Young people were asked to write a speech about what change would make Australia a better place for future generations, and it is a privilege for me to read a speech on behalf of 16-year-old Eva from Santa Sophia Catholic College in the Gables in my electorate of Mitchell. This is the newest school in my electorate. These are Eva's words: 'My name is Eva. I'm 16 and I'm from the Mitchell electorate. Do you remember the time when you were my age and so incredibly eager to be an adult, to have responsibility and move from home? Well, I'm not. I'm extremely concerned. 'Young people like myself are struggling to independently set themselves up for a secure future. As young people, we should never have to worry about whether or not we will have a safe place to call home or if we can afford groceries at the local supermarket. In Australia the cost-of-living crisis has risen to an unprecedented rate, putting even more at risk of homelessness and mental health issues and putting pressure on vulnerable families. 'Data from Suicide Prevention Australia shows that more than half of Australia's population is experiencing mental distress directly linked to cost of living, the crisis that is challenging this nation. The cost-of-living crisis limits young people's quality of life, as it impacts whether we can afford education, stable housing, common groceries, electricity, gas and health care, therefore putting us in a vicious cycle against our financial, physical and mental health. 'Australian needs to act now. Policies must be put in place to help us combat the cost-of-living crisis. These policies should target the barriers that impact the availability for young people to easily access education, jobs and receive proper care in regards to our health.' Valedictory 55 13:42 Ms FERNANDO 299964 Holt I wish all my fellow members of parliament, our staff and everyone in Holt a joyous and merry Christmas. Christmas is a time for love, compassion and the spreading of goodwill. It is a time to connect with loved ones, cherish the moments that matter and extend a helping hand to those in need. It is also a time to remember the hardworking individuals who keep our communities running, like emergency services staff and volunteers, healthcare workers, and those in retail and fast food. These dedicated workers work tirelessly to serve us, often during the busiest times of the year, ensuring that we are safe and happy. During this season of giving I encourage everyone to show kindness and appreciation to these essential workers. A simple smile, a word of gratitude or even just a patient attitude can make a significant difference to someone who may be feeling overwhelmed or unappreciated. May this Christmas bring you peace, joy and an abundance of love—and lots of gifts! I would like to wish everyone in Holt and across Australia a happy, safe and wonderful Christmas. God bless you all. Child and Youth Mental Health 55 13:44 Ms STEGGALL 175696 Warringah I rise to speak today on the Our Kids Count campaign by Smiling Mind. This campaign has collected over 11,000 signatures in support of a federal minister and calling for a transformation in how we support children's mental health and wellbeing. We need a federal children's minister to deal with that. Seventy per cent of presentations to paediatricians in Australia are for mental health concerns. More than half of children experiencing mental health challenges don't get professional help. Our children's mental health and wellbeing are deteriorating at alarming rates. We know we have a mental health crisis, but prevention and early intervention present an opportunity to turn the tide around. A federal children's minister can put the needed energy into how we deal with child health, development, learning and wellbeing, including mental wellbeing. This will send a signal that child wellbeing is a national priority in Australia. We also need a children's rights act passed at federal level. There are currently eight ministers across four portfolios relating to children, and we have 28 different pieces of legislation that deal with children. Accordingly, we need to think differently about how we provide greater coherence to all legislation that touches on the health, wellbeing and care of our children. Perth: Safe Night Space 55 13:45 Ms MASCARENHAS 298800 Swan What women want is to be safe. What women want for their children is for them to also be safe. What women don't want is safe spaces being shut down. Today, the Safe Night Space in East Perth will be closed. It is shocking that the City of Perth is shutting its doors to vulnerable women. Safe Night Space has provided a vital safety haven for women from all over Perth who are fleeing domestic violence. If it were not for the Safe Night Space, those women would have been on the street or worse. Nine women in WA have been killed by domestic violence this year. They no longer have a voice. I stand here today on their behalf to condemn the decision by the City of Perth to close its doors on women. I condemn the position of Lord Mayor Basil Zempilas to ignore the pleas of the community to keep it open. Closing doors on vulnerable women, particularly during the 16 Days of Activism against Gender-Based Violence, is so outrageous. It comes despite the efforts to stand together, united, to protect women. At all levels of government we need to act. Everyone has a part to play, and I call on the mayor to play his part and step in before it's too late. I call on the mayor to overturn this decision and not put more women at risk. Climate Change 55 13:47 Mr BANDT M3C Melbourne Climate pollution under Labor is up. That's what the figures out today show. In a climate crisis, emissions under Labor have gone up 3.6 million tonnes this year. Labor are approving more coal and gas projects. Labor are gaslighting the country, telling people they're taking climate action while backing new coal and gas projects, in many instances using your money, public money. We know gas is as dirty as coal, and what the figures released today show is that the continued use and expansion of gas and the growth in LNG under this government is lifting pollution. Beetaloo, Scarborough, Barossa, Narrabri—these are all massive climate bombs that will dwarf any potential gains made under the government's scheme. Yet Labor is fast-tracking these new projects. Five new coal projects have been given approval by the government this year. We also heard from the minister that the climate crisis is a security threat, which is right, and that means every new coal or gas project approved by Labor is putting this country at risk. The Greens will keep fighting to stop Labor opening up these new coal and gas projects. In a climate crisis and a cost-of-living crisis driven by these very same corporations that are fuelling both, we will stop Labor opening new coal and gas projects. Davies, Ms Sienna 56 13:48 Dr REID 300126 Robertson I rise to congratulate Sienna Davies of Terrigal, who recently represented Australia abroad at the 43rd Shidokan open international karate tournament in Japan. Competing across several divisions, Sienna came third in point sparring and fifth out of 15 competitors in kata, a strong performance in the international arena by a young Australian athlete and a rising sporting star from the Central Coast. Sienna also has a remarkable record prior to her performance on the international stage. In 2022, Sienna was awarded two Australian titles at the Australian Martial Arts Championships held in Port Macquarie, and this included a first place in point sparring and a first place in sparring freestyle. Sienna also competed at the 2023 International Sport Karate Association world cup in Liverpool, Sydney. Here Sienna continued her sporting success, taking out third place in kata and third place in point sparring. Sienna now heads on to the International Sport Karate Association Australian National Championships and the Australian Martial Art Championships Australian Titles, where she will be vying to claim more national titles under her belt. To Sienna's parents Maria and Sean Davies, well done on supporting Sienna's sporting career. Sienna, you have made your country, community and family extremely proud. Good luck for your future sporting endeavours, and keep pushing for your goals. Invasive Species Management 56 13:50 Mr HOGAN 218019 Page Confirmation that red imported fire ants have crossed the border, from Queensland to New South Wales, this week is indeed devastating. We've been warning, on this side of the parliament, about the Labor government's funding package—firstly, that it was inadequate and, secondly, that it wasn't rolled out soon enough. We also established a Senate inquiry because we had lost confidence that this government could deal with this, and this outbreak unfortunately proves the case. To put this into perspective, these ants are dangerous and deadly. They will cost the economy billions of dollars and also mean thousands of extra medical visits every year. They sting around the eyes, mouth and nose, leading to blindness and suffocation. It feels like being set on fire. Their mounds can destroy equipment and machinery. They can prevent transport of stock and food and destroy ecosystems. Eradication is possible right now, but it won't be if this government waits any longer. There are unfortunate reports from locals at Murwillumbah that DPI officers are saying that their response is limited by available resources—things like checkpoints, community advertising and officers for certification and inspections seem to be taking time to deploy because of the lack of available funding and personnel. I'm asking this government to get on the case. They've been very slow on a number of things, but this is a very dangerous outbreak. I ask both the federal and state Labor governments to get off their backsides and get onto the eradication of this very dangerous ant. Ausmusic T-Shirt Day 56 13:51 Mr BURNELL 300129 Spence Today is Ausmusic T-Shirt Day. It is an opportunity for all Australians to get behind Australian musicians and raise much-needed funds for industry workers. Speaker, as you know, the Australian music industry is second to none. Our talented artists, for generations, have helped us through challenging times, partying on the weekend, getting over breakups or saying something about our nation or time which needed to be said. I can think of a few Australian bands and artists that have played their part in my life, such as: Midnight Oil, Beds Are Burning; Powderfinger, My Happiness; South Australian international stars Hilltop Hoods, The Nosebleed Section; and, of course, Hunters & Collectors, Throw Your Arms Around Me. In my electorate of Spence, covering the northern suburbs of Adelaide, we have a strong connection to the Australian music industry, with the great Jimmy Barnes hailing from Elizabeth. The future of music in Spence is now being fostered by incredible talents at the Northern Sound System, giving young artists access to recording studios and instruments to foster their creativity, under the watchful eye of Lisa Baker and her team. I also want to give a big shout-out to Molly Rocket, a local alternative rock band that is inspiring the next generation of musicians in Spence. Today, I encourage everyone to give back to an industry that has given to us and our nation so much and celebrate Ausmusic T-Shirt Day. Houghton, Mr James 56 13:53 Mr HOWARTH 247742 Petrie I rise to pay tribute to James Houghton, who passed this week during a holiday to New Zealand. A man of faith, I spoke with James at church just about 10 days ago about how he was looking forward to his trip to New Zealand with family. James lived to serve and do his bit for the local community and to make the world a better place. Straight talking and widely respected, he followed his father into public life. James served the community in local government for 19 years and was first elected to Redcliffe City Council in 1973 and again in 2004 before representing Division 5 in the Moreton Bay Regional Council. He was greatly admired by staff and colleagues. James had a passion for local history, being born and bred in Redcliffe, and he remained committed to the local community throughout his life, being a member of the Mousetrap Theatre Company and the first president of the Historical Society in 1967, which is still going. Aside from his passion for the community, James Houghton was a true Queenslander who loved his footy, playing for the Redcliffe Dolphins in the 1960s. In his later years, he still cheered on the Dolphins and was thrilled that they were in the NRL this year for the first time. Dearest to his heart was family. He will be sadly missed by John and Lisa, Chris and Haley, and Geoff; grandchildren Paige, Mia and Joshua; sister Elizabeth and brother-in-law Daryl Gomersall and their daughters, Naomi and Megan; and sister June Merilees. Thank you, James, for a life of service. May you rest in peace. Reid Electorate: Schools 57 13:54 Ms SITOU 298121 Reid It's school presentation season, and I have 45 wonderful schools in my electorate. Since I've been the member for Reid, I been awarding the Sally Sitou Friendship Award to students who show care and support to their classmates. At school presentations, we often recognise the brighter students, those who are great leaders, sportspeople and students who are creative. I came up with the friendship award because I wanted to recognise the kindest students. Thanks to all the primary and high schools in Reid who have nominated students for a friendship award—students who have worked to make their school community a wonderfully welcoming place. I look forward to popping round to as many schools as I can over the next few weeks to hand out these awards. There are two students in particular that I wanted to mention here. Year 6 student Ankhiluun Amgalanbat from Concord West Public School helps translate for other Mongolian students, making them feel welcomed and cared for at the school. Year 9 student Noah Capaldi from St Patrick's Catholic college in Strathfield trekked to Everest Base Camp this year to raise money for the Sydney women's hospital. Thanks to Ankhiluun and Noah and all the other amazing students who are receiving a Sally Sitou Friendship Award for their generosity of spirit. Flynn Electorate: Infrastructure 57 13:56 Mr BOYCE 299498 Flynn Many things have happened this year in the electorate of Flynn. I was pleased to recently open the Ivy Anderson retirement facility in Springsure, and it was great to see this project come to fruition. These units will fill the gap between independent living and long-term hospital aged care. The Springsure community raised $300,000 for the facility, and the previous coalition government and the previous member for Flynn, Mr Ken O'Dowd, also secured $4.1 million from the Building Better Regions Fund for these nine residential units. This month, after 200 days, we have found out that several projects in the electorate of Flynn were spared by the Labor government's infrastructure razor gang. The previous coalition government locked in $400 million in 2022 to seal more than 450 kilometres of Queensland beef roads and contribute to upgrading heavy vehicle corridors critical to the cattle and agricultural transport industry. The previous coalition government also locked in over $700 million for a second Bruce Highway, with a north-south route of over 1,000 kilometres from Charters Towers in North Queensland to Mungindi in New South Wales, on the border. Another good news story is that, after more than 10 years, the construction of the $568 million Rookwood Weir has finally been completed. Arts and Culture 57 13:57 Ms COKER 263547 Corangamite Life is always better with music. But, without our talented Aussie musicians, there would be less rhythm and groove in all our lives. So today, on Ausmusic T-Shirt Day, I stand to celebrate and support our Aussie artists. You guys rock! You give us all so much joy. On the weekend I had the privilege of opening one of Victoria's best-known festivals, the Queenscliff Music Festival. Now in its 25th year, it provides a platform for talented Australian artists. I'm proud to be part of a government that has funded this and thousands of other artistic events around the nation. The Albanese Labor government recognises just how important the arts are for our cultural identity, our economy and our wellbeing. And so it was last weekend, when festival-goers grooved the night away to the soulful sounds of Alice Ivy, Ian Moss and The Badloves, just to name a few. The Queenscliff Music Festival is not only about celebrating music; it celebrates community spirit. It is backed by the Queenscliff council, managed by passionate locals and driven by a team of hardworking volunteers. Congratulations to all involved. May the Queenscliff Music Festival thrive for years to come, and may government continue to support our amazing musicians, because music is good for the soul, it's good for our national identity, and it's good for our economy. Bruce, Mr William Wallace Mervin 58 13:58 Ms LANDRY 249764 Capricornia Today I pay tribute to a distinguished individual, Mr William Wallace Mervin Bruce, affectionately known as 'Bill'. This week the Nebo community bade farewell to a man whose life spanned an incredible 106 years, leaving a lasting mark on the community. Born at the Nebo Hotel in 1917, Bill's roots run deep in the town of Nebo. His journey unfolded against the backdrop of history—as a veteran of World War II, where he served as an electrician and mechanical engineer. Upon returning home to Nebo, Bill's commitment to community development became apparent. In the postwar era, he played a pivotal role in forming a group aimed at establishing a rodeo. The Nebo Rodeo, which first took place in 1956, became a cornerstone for raising funds to build a Nebo sub-branch of the RSL. From its humble beginnings, the rodeo has become one of the largest events in Australia. Bill's contributions extended beyond the rodeo. He was a founding member and secretary of the Nebo Bushman's Carnival. As the shire's mechanic, Bill played a crucial role in the development of Nebo. He brought electricity to the town and, prior to that, was responsible for lighting the streets. Nebo owes much of its development to Bill's unwavering dedication. His legacy is woven into the very fabric of the town. On behalf of the people of Capricornia, I thank Bill for his service, sacrifice and enduring dedication to Nebo. Vale, Bill Bruce. The SPEAKER 53517 In accordance with standing order 43, the time for members' statements has concluded. CONDOLENCES 58 CONDOLENCES Hand, Hon. Gerard (Gerry) Leslie 58 Reference to Federation Chamber 60 14:11 Mr BURKE DYW Watson I declare that the resumption of debate on the Prime Minister's motion of condolence in connection with the death of the Hon. Gerard 'Gerry' Leslie Hand is referred to the Federal Chamber. Hayden, Hon. William George (Bill), AC 60 Report from Federation Chamber 60 14:11 The SPEAKER 53517 The question is that the motion moved by the honourable the Prime Minister be agreed to. As a mark of respect, I ask all present to signal their approval by rising in their places. Question agreed to, honourable members standing in their places. The SPEAKER 53517 I thank the House. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 60 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE International Relations: Australia and China 60 14:12 Mr DUTTON 00AKI Dickson My question is to the Prime Minister. Yesterday I met with the Chinese Communist Party's top diplomat, who was here in Australia, and I commented and made clear my remarks in relation to China's attack on Australian Navy divers and expressed a very strong view that it was totally unacceptable and unprovoked. Why didn't the Prime Minister raise the attack on the Australian Navy divers when he met with President Xi? 14:13 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler The premise of the question is wrong—completely wrong. Yesterday, indeed, this official also met with the foreign minister, Penny Wong, in a formal meeting, and it was raised again by her, as was appropriate. Can I make this point as well: I've put on the record a number of times the difference with private discussions, which the Leader of the Opposition himself said should not be disclosed, as have former prime ministers Abbott, Turnbull and Morrison, and I have been consistent with that. But we've been very clear about the government expressing our concerns about the HMAS Toowoomba incident clearly, directly and unambiguously. The event was unsafe and unprofessional, and we've communicated that very directly in a calm and consistent way. There was a comment that is pretty important, I think, that was made on Tuesday. The Navy chief, Vice Admiral Mark Hammond was asked about this. The Leader of the Opposition, I would hope, has respect for the Chief of Navy in Australia, and this is what he said: The government has raised this very effectively … I'm very comfortable with the way the government's dealt with it. Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order, members on my left! The Leader of the Opposition will cease interjecting so I can hear from the member for Macnamara. Housing 60 14:14 Mr BURNS 278522 Macnamara My question is to the Minister for Housing. How will the Albanese Labor government's Help to Buy scheme help support more Australians into homeownership, and what is standing in its way? 14:15 Ms COLLINS HWM Franklin I do want to thank the member for Macnamara for that important question. I know that he is very supportive of our ambitious housing agenda, and, indeed, he is concerned about the housing challenges that Australia faces today. Help to Buy will be life-changing for tens of thousands of Australians. The legislation I introduced today will provide a pathway to homeownership for people who have been locked out. Particularly, it will help low- and middle-income Australians get over the hurdle of a deposit and enjoy ongoing savings thanks to smaller repayments. Eligible participants will only need a two per cent deposit for Help to Buy. The government will support them with an equity stake of up to 40 per cent for new homes and up to 30 per cent for existing homes. Help to Buy will help more than 40,000 Australians into homeownership. Mr Sukkar 242515 Less first home buyers under you. What are you doing? The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The member for Deakin will cease interjecting. Ms COLLINS HWM We're providing this support because we understand what buying a house means to Australians. It's security. It's stability. It's the great Australian dream. It's something that everyone in this place should be able to support. But, disappointingly, today we saw those opposite— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The member for Deakin will cease interjecting. Ms HWM team up with the Greens again to delay this life-changing legislation—five months of delays for people wanting the stability and the security of owning their own home. This delay shows that, yet again, the Leader of the Opposition again has nothing positive to offer the country. The opposition voted against cost-of-living relief when Australians are doing it tough, and now they're teaming up with the Greens to delay help for homebuyers. Over there, they talk a big game on homeownership, but now they're teaming up with the Greens yet again to stand in the way of Australians who want to own their own home. We want to help more Australians buy a home. The only thing they want to buy is more time to grandstand. We want to open the door to more Australians owning a home, but they just want to slam it shut. We want to give Australians the keys to a new home. They just want to lock them out. Those opposite have said no to more social and affordable housing. They've said no to cost-of-living relief. And now, unbelievably, they're saying no to more homeownership for Australians that want to get into a home. We know what a difference Help to Buy will make, but we won't stop working hard so that more Australians have a safe, affordable place to call home. We want to help more Australians with the housing support they need—more help for homebuyers, more help for renters and more help for Australians who need a safe place to call home. DISTINGUISHED VISITORS 61 DISTINGUISHED VISITORS European Commission 61 14:18 The SPEAKER 53517 I'm pleased to inform the House that present in the special visitors gallery today are representatives of the European Commission, including the vice-president of the commission, His Excellency Margaritis Schinas; member of the EU cabinet Ms Maria-Myrto Kanellopoulou; and EU Ambassador to Australia His Excellency Mr Gabriele Visentin. Welcome to you all. Honourable members: Hear, hear! QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 61 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Members of Parliament 61 14:18 Mr LITTLEPROUD 265585 Maranoa My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, Australians are facing a cost-of-living crisis. The government has wasted $450 million on the Prime Minister's Voice referendum and $250 million on monitoring hardcore criminals that did not need to be released. So will the Prime Minister rule out wasting more— Government members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order, members on my right! The Minister for Skills and Training is warned. Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The questions are going to be heard in silence, just as they were on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and today. They're all going to be heard in silence. The minister for skills is warned. If anyone else interjects, they'll be warned. I have to hear the question. The Leader of the Nationals will begin his question again. Mr LITTLEPROUD 265585 My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, Australians are facing a cost-of-living crisis. The government has wasted $450 million on the Prime Minister's Voice referendum and $250 million on monitoring hardcore criminals that did not need to be released. So will the Prime Minister rule out wasting more taxpayers' money on creating up to 53 new federal politicians and 200 or more staff who would come with them? Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! Members on my left will cease interjecting. The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Barker will cease interjecting. Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Members on my left will cease interjecting immediately. The question was heard in silence. The Prime Minister will be given the same courtesy, and he has the call. 14:20 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I thank the Leader of the National Party for his question, which goes to an attack on the existence of politicians. And on the suggestion that some politicians are a waste of money, I think he's right. Over there you could have one of those buttons that you press and it just says no in different ways: no, no, no, no, no. You could set that button up over there, and no matter what the legislation was, you could press the button and there it would be: no, no, no! You know you have really hit the bottom of the barrel, when it comes to desperation, when a politician who's the leader of a political party thinks it's okay to just say, 'Oh, we want less politicians.' This is the mob, across the Liberal and National parties, who recently had the largest international parliamentary delegation since Federation. Fifteen of them went to a conference in London: the members for Cook, Hume, New England, Wannon, Fairfax, Mallee, Bowman, Berowra, Canning and Groom—and that's before you get to the senators. The SPEAKER 53517 The Leader of the Nationals on a point of order. Mr Littleproud 265585 Mr Speaker, a point of order on relevance: the question was very tight, about whether the Prime Minister will— The SPEAKER 53517 Resume your seat. I don't think anyone could argue that that question was tight. It contained the issues of the cost of living, the referendum and immigration and also the issue of new politicians and the cost that comes from that. The Prime Minister has one minute to continue about the broad-ranging nature of that question. Mr ALBANESE R36 Almost as many people as they have in their shadow cabinet were at this cooker-fest in London. And what was it about? It was the Alliance for Responsible Citizenship, paid for by billionaires and global hedge funds. Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will cease interjecting. I can't hear a word that's being said. If this level continues, another general warning will be issued and people won't be here today. Mr ALBANESE R36 It was a conference about the future, with guest speakers such as John Howard, who went along to say, 'Multiculturalism is a concept that I've always had trouble with,' and Tony Abbott, saying that climate change was both 'ahistorical and utterly implausible', peddled by a 'climate cult'. That's what they see as the future. They went all that way to bag multiculturalism and to bag climate change. Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! Members on my right will cease interjecting, as will members on my left. The SPEAKER 53517 Order, the member for Hume and the Leader of the Nationals! I am going to wait until the House settles. The SPEAKER 53517 The Minister for Climate Change and Energy is not assisting. Housing 62 14:25 Ms FERNANDO 299964 Holt My question is to the Prime Minister. How will the government's Help to Buy Scheme legislation ensure more Australian families can buy a home, and what is standing in the way of getting this done? 14:25 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I'm glad to get a question about policy from this side of the House. Our Help to Buy Scheme will help more families achieve the great Australian dream. It is a shared equity scheme that will assist some 40,000 families on low and moderate incomes buy a home with as little as a two per cent deposit. We know that programs like this have worked very effectively in Western Australia. We know that the former New South Wales coalition government introduced a similar scheme. In Victoria, they produced a similar scheme as well. It is all about getting people into homeownership. It is part of our comprehensive plan on housing. What we saw earlier this year with our Housing Australia Future Fund was a 'noalition' of the Liberals, the Nationals, the Greens and One Nation all combine to defer a scheme that should have begun on 1 July, providing support for more investment in public housing. But they opposed it and they kept deferring it. They deferred it twice. Eventually, enough crossbenchers decided that they would support the program. But it was delayed. Those opposite held the line, to be fair. They were consistent. They are just against public housing, as they are against everything when it comes to the public—public transport, public health and public education. They are just against the public over there. We know that's their position. I would have thought maybe there was a chance that they were in favour of homeownership, but apparently not. The Senate has made a decision to defer consideration of the Help to Buy Scheme not for a month, not for two months, not for three months and not even for four months but for five months, from November right through to April. Once again, what we have is a coalition of people saying no. The same group that came together to oppose investment in social housing have come together to oppose support for homeownership. We will continue to advocate for our comprehensive agenda when it comes to housing. It's a comprehensive agenda to increase the number of homes in Australia by 1.2 million and to have a plan for social housing but also to assist people into owning their own home. (Time expired) Climate Change 63 14:28 Mr BANDT M3C Melbourne My question is to the Prime Minister. The first job of government is to keep people safe. Today's climate statement reinforces the enormous threat of the climate crisis to Australia's national security. So why is Labor backing the Beetaloo, Barossa, Scarborough, Browse and Narrabri gas projects that will fast-track climate collapse? With today's figures showing emissions rising this year under Labor, why is Labor opening new coal and gas projects and making Australian people less safe? 14:29 Mr BOWEN DZS McMahon I thank the honourable member for his question. Today, the government did release the annual climate change statement, which is a requirement under the Climate Change Act passed by this government and this parliament, and I released the latest projections, which show we are now on track to achieve a 42 per cent emissions reduction by 2030, up from 40 percent last year and getting closer to our 43 percent target. But we have more to do. With 72 months between now and 2030, it is a big list, but we are pleased with the progress we've made so far. We're pleased with the fact that projections are now on track to come down by 43 per cent. The honourable member asks about the need for new gas and other approvals. I make this point: we also released the Climate Change Authority advice today. One of the recommendations of the Climate Change Authority advice was to ensure adequate gas supply to gas-fired power stations as part of this transition—a recommendation we accept and are implementing. That's why we brought down the gas code to ensure that new gas is enabled for domestic supply, not international exports. This is the code the Greens sought to disallow. The Greens gas campaign died the day they moved to disallow the gas code. It died that moment because their credibility went down the gurgler at that point. We know that. The 'no-pposition' didn't know what to do—they didn't turn up. The Greens moved the disallowance. Who turned up to vote with them? Senator Canavan, the One Nation party and Senator Babet—the coalition of craziness. This is the degree of sophistication the Greens political party have brought to this debate. Yes, we need to ensure an adequate supply of gas to the gas-fired power stations to underpin this most important economic transformation. The honourable member talks about coal. We continue to need metallurgical coal in particular. I've got to say we need more steel for this transition than ever before. Transmission towers can't be built with papier-mache. It just can't be done. We need more steel across the world, including in Australia, and that requires coking coal while we're waiting for green steel to come on. All of this is part of the important economic transformation. We will continue to manage getting emissions down and jobs up. Slogans do not get emissions down. They do not get jobs up. Paddling around Newcastle Harbour does not get emissions down and does not get jobs up. Good policy gets emissions down and jobs up, and that's what the Albanese government will continue to deliver. Economy 63 14:32 Ms RYAN 249224 Lalor My question is to the Treasurer. How is the Albanese Labor government's responsible economic management helping in the fight against inflation, and what approaches have been rejected? 14:32 Dr CHALMERS 37998 Rankin Thanks to my great friend to the member for Lalor for her important question. We've got a long way to go in this fight against inflation, but— Mr Sukkar 242515 A very long time! The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The Treasurer will pause. The member for Deakin has been once again interjecting right throughout question time. He is warned. Dr CHALMERS 37998 We've got a long way to go in this fight against inflation, but in the last day or two we've received some glowing endorsements of the inflation-fighting plan that is key to our approach to the economy. We are making encouraging and welcoming progress in the fight against inflation, even as we recognise that people are still doing it tough. Our strategy is responsible cost-of-living relief to take the edge off cost-of-living pressures without adding to inflation; it's budget repair; and it's investing in the supply side of the economy. As I said, this has received some glowing endorsements in the last day or two. Overnight, the OECD talked about the importance of our energy plan to taking some of the edge off electricity prices. Deloitte Access Economics talked overnight about the importance of our fiscal strategy in this fight against inflation. The economists at Westpac said that our policies are putting downward pressure on inflation. Yesterday the ABS made it clear in their data release that our policies are taking the edge off electricity and rent and in other ways. The IMF, not that long ago, said that our budget strategy is helping in the fight against inflation. When Fitch reaffirmed our AAA rating, they said that our fiscal policy is working with monetary policy in important and helpful ways. And when the Reserve Bank governor was asked at estimates about our budget strategy, she said it was very helpful when it comes to the fight against inflation. Government policy is not the only reason why inflation is moderating, but it is an important reason why inflation is moderating. All of these people who have backed in our strategy have made that clear. It's a key reason why the monthly inflation number came down from 5.6 to 4.9. It's a key reason why quarterly inflation, when it was 2.1 under those opposite, is almost half that now, at 1.2. The trim mean under them for inflation was 1½ in March before the election; it's 1.2 now. Dr CHALMERS 37998 Here's a hint for the shadow Treasurer: 1.2 is smaller than 1.5, genius! So I say to the House: we're not getting carried away by the improvement in inflation. We know there's a long way to go. We know people are still doing it tough. But our policies are clearly helping, and others are making that very clear. The other thing that's clear is that, if they had their way, electricity prices would be higher, rent would be higher, inflation would be higher and wages would be lower. We're working for Australia. Our budget strategy is making welcome progress in this fight against inflation as we work to clean up the mess that those opposite left behind. The shadow Treasurer was given an opportunity to sketch out an alternative today, and he didn't have one. (Time expired) DISTINGUISHED VISITORS 64 DISTINGUISHED VISITORS Nepal: Parliamentary Delegation, Australia Awards 64 14:35 The SPEAKER 53517 I'm pleased to inform the House that present in the gallery is a parliamentary delegation from the Federal Democratic Republic of Nepal, led by the chairperson of the National Assembly, the Rt Hon. Ganesh Prasad Timilsina. In the gallery today are participants and course conveners of the Australia Awards short course on foreign policy run in Indonesia. A warm welcome to you all. Honourable members: Hear, hear! QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 64 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Immigration Detention 64 14:35 Mr TEHAN 210911 Wannon My question is to the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs. Why did the government tell the High Court that there was no real prospect of the plaintiff being removed from Australia in the reasonably foreseeable future when it hadn't yet made inquiries of relevant countries that might have accepted his deportation? Isn't it the case that, if the government were doing its job and had not made this error, the now 142 hardened criminals would not have been released into the Australian community? Government members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order, members on my right! The Minister for Home Affairs will cease interjecting. 14:36 Mr GILES 243609 Scullin I thank the shadow minister for his question. The government vigorously argued that the previous immigration detention settings were constitutionally valid and that those settings authorised the continued detention of the plaintiff. Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order, members on my left! The member for Barker will cease interjecting. Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order, members on my left! When the House comes to order, I'll hear from the member for Fraser. Wages 65 14:37 Dr MULINO 132880 Fraser My question is for the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations. How is the Albanese Labor government working to get wages moving again after a decade of wages being kept deliberately low? 14:37 Mr BURKE DYW Watson Thanks to the member for Fraser, someone who, every time he's had the chance to vote to get wages moving, has done exactly that. Yesterday the House passed a bill which will close the labour hire loophole, give casual workers a fair deal, provide minimum standards for gig workers and make wage theft a crime. We know that this government has made a difference in getting wages moving. Look at some of the impacts that are already emerging from last year's legislation. Take an argument we saw last week from David Marin-Guzman in the Financial Reviewabout 19-year-old Billabong employee Sarah Strybos. Under a decade-old enterprise agreement—to get rid of which they had to use the laws that we passed last year—until that could be changed because of our legal changes, that worker received no Saturday penalty rates or evening penalty rates, while Sunday and public holiday rates were as much as $10 an hour below the award. She was 19 years of age and had already been underpaid by more than $800. We changed the law, and she's now being properly paid. We know this government is getting wages moving because the latest wage growth data, at four per cent, compares with the previous government's average of 2.1 per cent. We know that aged-care workers have had a 15 per cent pay rise. We know that the increases to award rates, 4.6 per cent and 5.75 per cent, are way beyond what happened under the previous government. We know this government gets wages moving because the gender pay gap is now at its lowest level ever. The point when it was made clear that this government, if we were elected, would get wages moving was when the current Prime Minister was asked a question about the minimum wage and he answered with one word: absolutely. Does this government support higher wages for those on the minimum wage? Absolutely. Does this government support higher wages for people on awards? Absolutely. Did we support higher wages for aged-care workers? Absolutely. Have we backed higher wages for women? Absolutely. Are we about ending the labour hire rip-offs? Absolutely. Are we voting to get minimum standards for gig workers? Absolutely. Are we working to give casual workers a fair go? Absolutely. And, unlike those opposite, will we make it a criminal offence to steal from a worker's wages? Absolutely. Immigration Detention 65 14:40 Mr TEHAN 210911 Wannon My question is to the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs. The minister has told the parliament that the High Court's decision meant that 'every person required to be released by order of the High Court was so released'. In fact, the High Court only directed the release of the plaintiff, NZYQ, in that case. The decision to release the others was a decision made by the government in advance of the reasons being handed down— Government members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The member will pause. I'm going to ask him to state the question again because there is far too much noise from the Minister for Home Affairs and members on my right. The same rules apply to everyone. Questions are going to be heard in silence. It's not a free-for-all. You don't give commentary during questions. If you want to comment during the answer, well, go right ahead, but, for my job, I have to listen to the questions. The member for Wannon will state his question again. Mr TEHAN 210911 My question is to the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs. The minister has told the parliament that the High Court's decision meant that 'every person required to be released by order of the High Court was so released'. In fact, the High Court only directed the release of the plaintiff, NZYQ, in that case. The decision to release the others was a decision made by the government in advance of the reasons being handed down, based on what it expected the High Court to say. Isn't it the case that the minister has misled the parliament? 14:41 Mr GILES 243609 Scullin I thank the shadow minister for that extraordinary question. Let me be very, very, very clear. The High Court, in its decision, required the release of individuals in similar circumstances to the plaintiff, NZYQ. The government had to comply with this, as any government would. The opposition's claims to the contrary, including those of the shadow Attorney-General, a former first law officer of this country, are baseless, wrong and, frankly, unworthy. A former attorney-general, not from this side of politics, former senator Brandis, had this to say, and I think his comments are worth listening to: I have not disguised my concern at attacks upon the institutions of the law: the courts and those who practice in them. To attack those institutions is to attack the rule of law itself. He went on to say, in his valedictory remarks: It is for the Attorney-General always to defend the rule of law, sometimes from political colleagues who fail to understand it or are impatient of the limitations it may impose upon executive power. That is a very apt comment now, and members opposite should have regard to it, and they should be ashamed. The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Barker is now warned! Murray-Darling Basin 66 14:43 Ms MILLER-FROST 296272 Boothby My question is to the Minister for the Environment and Water. How is the Albanese Labor government delivering on its promise to protect the Murray-Darling river system and every Australian who depends on it? What has the government had to overcome? 14:43 Ms PLIBERSEK 83M Sydney Thank you so much to the member for Boothby for that question. I know that, as a proud South Australian, she is absolutely committed to seeing the Murray mouth open to the sea and water flowing right through the Murray-Darling Basin system. For the three million Australians that rely on this river system for their drinking water, for the 2.3 million people who live in the basin— The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Fadden is warned! Ms PLIBERSEK 83M and for the industry, the farmers, the First Nations peoples, the towns and the communities that depend on this water, this is a very important day. Of course, we need to make sure that our rivers have enough water in them for the driest periods— The SPEAKER 53517 The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will cease interjecting. Ms PLIBERSEK 83M and we know that another drought is approaching. Opposition members interjecting— Ms PLIBERSEK 83M It's really interesting to hear the interjections and the hostility from those opposite. The SPEAKER 53517 The Leader of the Nationals will cease interjecting. Ms PLIBERSEK 83M They are in a complete bind on this because, on the one hand, they keep saying they support the Murray-Darling Basin Plan, but, with every word and every action, they have opposed the delivery of this plan. You have senators like Senator Ruston saying: 'We will not give up. We will not stop trying because we are committed to the delivery of the plan.' We've got Senator Birmingham saying they will deliver the plan in full and on time— The SPEAKER 53517 The minister will pause. The member for Barker was on a warning— The member for Barker then left the chamber. The SPEAKER 53517 and is a quick learner; it's good to see! The House will come to order. The question was heard in silence. The minister will also be given the same courtesy. Ms PLIBERSEK 83M We had the member for Sturt and Senator McLachlan just weeks ago saying they support buybacks and support the 450 gigalitres being delivered, yet at every opportunity they have voted against it. We had the member for Sturt voting against the delivery of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan today. The SPEAKER 53517 The Deputy Leader of the Opposition is now warned. That means—just pause, Minister—if the Deputy Leader of the Opposition continues to interject, she won't be here for question time either. We are going to have silence for the remainder of this answer. The minister has the call. Ms PLIBERSEK 83M I'm not really sure what's worse—the member for Sturt voting against the interests of his community, the community he represents, or Senators McLachlan and Antic being too gutless to turn up and vote either way in the Senate. Today is a very important day for the delivery of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. We achieved a lot when we were last in government. Communities worked hard to achieve the outcomes in that Murray-Darling Basin Plan, and then for 10 years we were on a go-slow. For 10 years nothing happened. Today, with the passing of this legislation, the Murray-Darling Basin Plan is back on track. It's important for communities and it's great for the environment. MOTIONS 67 MOTIONS Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs 67 14:47 Mr DUTTON 00AKI Dickson I seek leave to move the following motion: That the House:    (1) expresses its grave concern that:       (a) the Albanese Government's— Government members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The minister for infrastructure, the minister for industry and the Minister for Communications will all cease interjecting. The member for McEwen will also cease. The Leader of the Opposition is going to be heard in silence while he reads this out. Mr DUTTON 00AKI I seek leave to move the following motion: That the House: (1) expresses its grave concern that: (a) the Albanese Government's catastrophic handling of the NZYQ High Court case has resulted in the mass release of hardened criminals from detention into the Australian community; (b) the Government released child rapists, murderers, sex offenders, people smugglers, drug dealers and outlaw motorcycle gang members; (c) many of these criminals are repeat offenders and are almost certain to offend again; (d) the Minister for Immigration has now released 142 highly dangerous individuals, when the High Court's full reasons make clear he was only required to release the applicant NZYQ; (e) the Minister for Immigration's agreement in May that there was no real prospect of NZYQ being removed from Australia in the reasonably foreseeable future was made before all resettlement options had been exhausted and led directly to the loss of the case; (f) the Minister for Immigration claimed these criminals were on visas with strict conditions and then later admitted that those conditions were completely unenforceable; (g) the Minister of Immigration lost one of those dangerous criminals for a week and refuses to take responsibility or to explain how this happened; and (h) the Minister for Immigration claimed no legislative response was required and to this day is having to be forcibly spoonfed new laws by the coalition. (2) condemns the Albanese Government for: (a) causing the greatest failure of Australia's immigration system since 50,000 people, including NZYQ, arrived on more than 800 boats under Labor; (b) catastrophically failing to prepare for a High Court decision, despite having almost six months warning; (c) failing at every step following the court's decision to take the action necessary to keep Australians safe; and (d) putting Australian lives at risk by undertaking a chaotic and uncontrolled mass release of hardened criminals into the community. (3) calls on the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs to resign or for the Prime Minister to enforce accountability and to sack him. Leave not granted. Mr DUTTON 00AKI I move: That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent the Leader of the Opposition from moving the following motion forthwith: That the House: (1) expresses its grave concern that: (a) the Albanese Government's catastrophic handling of the NZYQ High Court case has resulted in the mass release of hardened criminals from detention into the Australian community; (b) the Government released child rapists, murderers, sex offenders, people smugglers, drug dealers and outlaw motorcycle gang members; (c) many of these criminals are repeat offenders and are almost certain to offend again; (d) the Minister for Immigration has now released 142 highly dangerous individuals, when the High Court's full reasons make clear he was only required to release the applicant NZYQ; (e) the Minister for Immigration's agreement in May that there was no real prospect of NZYQ being removed from Australia in the reasonably foreseeable future was made before all resettlement options had been exhausted and led directly to the loss of the case; (f) the Minister for Immigration claimed these criminals were on visas with strict conditions and then later admitted that those conditions were completely unenforceable; (g) the Minister of Immigration lost one of those dangerous criminals for a week and refuses to take responsibility or to explain how this happened; and (h) the Minister for Immigration claimed no legislative response was required and to this day is having to be forcibly spoonfed new laws by the coalition. (2) condemns the Albanese Government for: (a) causing the greatest failure of Australia's immigration system since 50,000 people, including NZYQ, arrived on more than 800 boats under Labor; (b) catastrophically failing to prepare for a High Court decision, despite having almost six months warning; (c) failing at every step following the court's decision to take the action necessary to keep Australians safe; and (d) putting Australian lives at risk by undertaking a chaotic and uncontrolled mass release of hardened criminals into the community. (3) calls on the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs to resign or for the Prime Minister to enforce accountability and to sack him. It's telling that this Prime Minister won't stand up to defend the hapless minister that is making Australian— The SPEAKER 53517 The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. I will hear from the Leader of the House. Mr Burke DYW I require that this be dealt with as the first item of business after the MPI, which I expect will be the same speech. The SPEAKER 53517 We will move to the next question. I give the call to the honourable member for Pearce. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 68 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Immigration Detention 68 14:53 Ms ROBERTS 157125 Pearce My question is to the Minister for Home Affairs. What steps is the Albanese Labor government taking to resolve the issues created by the High Court decision in NZYQ, and is the minister aware of any opposition to these approaches? 14:53 Ms O'NEIL 140590 Hotham We have seen two very different approaches across the parliament since the NZYQ decision— The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Page is warned. Ms O'NEIL 140590 and we just saw that on display with that truly pathetic attempt—that truly pathetic stunt to again politicise what our government regards as a serious national security concern for the country. At every turn in the way the government has handled this matter we have focused on one thing, and one thing only, and that is the safety of the Australian community. Meanwhile, what we have seen are constant and pathetic attempts— The SPEAKER 53517 I ask that the minister pause. I ask the member for Wright to resume his seat. The minister, in continuation. Ms O'NEIL 140590 What we've seen is a deep contrast with the opposition, who have tried at every turn to duck, weave and find some way to make politics out of this decision. Now, you would think that the work that our government has tried to undertake to protect the community would be supported across the chamber, but we have seen and heard some absolutely extraordinary things in the last three weeks. On Monday we saw the opposition, led by the Leader of the Opposition, come into the chamber and vote to protect paedophiles over children. That's what they did. They came in here and, instead of supporting Labor's attempts to criminalise paedophiles who loiter near daycare centres and schools, the Leader of the Opposition came in here and played politics. And that wasn't it. The work that the government was doing with that bill was not just about protecting children from paedophiles. It was also doing things like criminalising people who are violent domestic abusers who contact their victims. How could the opposition not support that? And yet, for politics and politics only, they came into the chamber and voted against it. The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The minister will pause. The member for Fadden is on a warning. That means you don't interject, so you'll leave the chamber under 94(a). It's the same for anyone else on a warning, which are the members for Barker and Deakin, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the member for Page and the Minister for Skills and Training. The minister has the call. The member for Fadden then left the chamber. Ms O'NEIL 140590 But that wasn't it. We saw the opposition come in and try to support paedophiles over children and support domestic abusers over their survivor victims. What we have also seen this week is an unspeakable lack of leadership from the Leader of the Opposition in calling to attention the behaviour of one of his front bench. Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The minister will pause. There's far too much noise. We're going to do this one at a time. This goes to the issue that I can't hear because there's far too much noise. I understand there's an issue at hand, and I'll deal with it. I give the call, on a point of order, to the member for Deakin. Mr Sukkar 242515 I request that you demand the minister withdraw that disgusting slur that she's repeated on a number of occasions. It is below contempt that the minister, in an attempt to protect herself, would throw disgusting smears like that— The 53517 Order! Resume your seat. On the point of order, I'll hear from the Leader of the House. Mr Burke DYW As a precedent as to why this should be in order, when Speaker Smith was Speaker, a member referring to the then shadow Attorney-General said this: He stands up instead for the criminal. It was considered to be in order. The person who made that statement is now the Leader of the Opposition. Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! I'm just going to ask all members and—the member for Deakin on the point of order? Mr Sukkar 242515 It's a clear reflection on members. 'Protecting paedophiles' is something that should not come out of any minister's mouth. The SPEAKER 53517 The Leader of the House on a point of order? Mr Burke DYW To the point of order: it's extraordinary that we're having this discussion after the motion that was just moved. Beyond that, what the minister referred to was the impact of a vote that members took. She has precisely described the impact of that vote. Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! There are two points I want to make on this. First of all, before this moment occurred, I just addressed the House and said there was far too much noise and there were people on warnings. If you want me to hear everything that is said, it's really simple: don't interject. I'm going to ask the minister to make sure her language is tempered and to make sure that she is not reflecting on members. At the same time, I'm going to ask all members to reflect on their behaviours and standards that have been occurring this week. The Leader of the Opposition? Mr Dutton 00AKI I would ask that you request the minister withdraw the reflection that was made on members on this side of the House. As I said before, with all respect to you, I don't believe it's an issue, frankly, that needed to be drawn to your attention, because I was anticipating your ruling. I would ask that you rule accordingly. The SPEAKER 53517 The Leader of the House? Mr Burke DYW Mr Speaker, to the point of order: only a moment ago the Leader of the Opposition took a decision that had been made by the High Court, not by the government, and made reflections on the government with respect to 'child rapists, murderers, people smugglers, drug dealers and outlaw motorcycle gang members'. That goes further than anything the minister just said. So, if there's going to be—and I'd say there ought not be—a withdrawal from the minister, there are about seven or eight withdrawals that would immediately have to happen from someone with a glass jaw who can dish it out but can't take it. The SPEAKER 53517 The Leader of the Opposition on the point of order? Mr Dutton 00AKI To the point of order and the point that the Leader of the House raised, to quote what I said, and in context—this is the direct quote of the words I used in the motion—it reads: 'The government released child rapists, murderers, sex offenders, people smugglers, drug dealers and outlaw motorcycle gang members.' That is a statement of fact. The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Deakin on the point of order? Mr Sukkar 242515 At present, without a withdrawal, every member on this side of the House is accused of protecting paedophiles. Think about that. It would be extraordinary that that would be allowed in this chamber, and I request again that the minister not only withdraw but apologise. Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! There is far too much temperature in this chamber today, and all week. That means: everyone stop interjecting right now. To assist the House I am going to ask the minister to withdraw, but I'm going to remind all members that, moving forward from this moment, the same principles will apply when motions, questions are put forward. The same principles will apply. I put up with a lot this week. It's the right of members to say what they wish. But, moving forward now, the same standards will apply with motions, questions and comments in the chamber. I'm going to ask the minister, to assist the House, to withdraw, and we'll move forward. Ms O'Neil 140590 Speaker, to assist the House, I withdraw. The SPEAKER 53517 The minister in continuation. Ms O'NEIL 140590 It's important that all of us in this chamber are accountable for our actions. And, whether that comment stands or not, the facts show the record. And the record is, on a bill that Labor put forward to criminalise paedophiles standing in front of schools, the Leader of the Opposition and his team voted against it, and you cannot hide from that. And it's not the only example of this kind of conduct, because we have had a deafening silence from the Leader of the Opposition about the behaviour of a hand-picked member of his frontbench, Senator Dean Smith, who chose to use his power to argue that a paedophile get released from immigration detention. I would say to the Leader of the Opposition—he likes to get up and speak emotionally about child sexual abuse—that he's got an opportunity to make a stand, and I want him to do it. Fuel 70 15:04 Ms 300124 North Sydney TINK () (): My question is to the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government. In April this year you issued a media release saying that your government would announce its proposed fuel efficiency standards by the end of the year. When I asked about the exact time line for the standards in May this year, Minister Bowen said that you and he had opened a consultation process and that it would take six weeks to get the details right. That was more than six months ago. Today Greenpeace released figures showing that Australian motorists would have saved $10.1 billion in avoided petrol costs if a fuel efficiency standard had been introduced in 2016. Minister, when will the proposed fuel efficiency standards be released? 15:04 Ms CATHERINE KING 00AMR Ballarat Thank you very much to the member for her question. Of course this government wants Australian households and businesses to reap the benefits of modern, cheaper-to-run, low-emission cars. We know that they will save consumers right across the country, including in regional Australia, money on fuel. Australia is next to Russia as one of the only advanced economies without fuel efficiency standards. Frankly, we have the previous government to thank for that embarrassing legacy. That is why the government is committed to introducing fuel efficiency standards, as we have said previously. We have a real opportunity in this country to save consumers money at the bowser while assisting Australia to reduce its carbon emissions. We know fuel efficiency standards will incentivise an increase in EV supply while also incentivising vehicle manufacturers to supply more fuel-efficient and cheaper-to-run cars to our market. As we continue to develop the standards—and I welcome the member's question in relation to this—it is important that we work with community and industry to make sure we get this right. We are finalising the details and will have more to say about that in the near future. Medicare 71 15:06 Dr REID 300126 Robertson My question is to the Minister for Health and Aged Care. How are the Albanese Labor government's actions to strengthen Medicare helping Australians access the health care they need while relieving cost-of-living pressures? Why is the government so determined to strengthen Medicare after a decade of cuts and neglect? 15:06 Mr BUTLER HWK Hindmarsh The member for Robertson is this talented young emergency physician who decided to pause his promising medical career to run for parliament and deliver better healthcare services for his community on the Central Coast. On this side of parliament, we count ourselves so lucky that he took that decision, because by working shifts every day at Wyong Hospital and Gosford Hospital he saw, shift after shift, the consequences of 10 years of cuts and neglect to Medicare under those opposite. He argued, for example, for the reversal of the decision that the former government made to cut the ability of general practices on the Central Coast and the Hunter Valley to recruit overseas trained doctors, a decision that hollowed out general practices right through that Central Coast and Hunter Valley community. That's why we reversed that decision. That decision came on top of a six-year freeze to the Medicare rebate, a freeze that was kicked off by the Leader of the Opposition when he was the health minister because he could not get his infamous GP tax through the Senate. Labor's approach, and the approach of the member for Robertson, could not be more different from the approach of the Leader of the Opposition. While he tried to abolish bulk billing altogether and make every single Australian pay a fee every single time they visited a doctor, in the May budget we tripled the bulk-billing incentive, the biggest ever investment in bulk billing in Australia's history and one that's particularly important for the Central Coast of New South Wales, which has one of the lowest bulk-billing rates in the country. The member for Robertson also promised his community a Medicare urgent care clinic, to make it easier to see a doctor for one of those urgent, non-life-threatening emergencies and also to take the pressure off those local hospitals he'd been working in as an emergency physician. He delivered on that promise, because the Peninsula Medicare urgent care clinic is now open seven days a week, with extended hours. It is fully bulk billed and is delivering services to the people of his community. It's already making it difference. Christine sent a message to Dr Gordon Reid saying, 'I want to thank you so much for your work in providing the Peninsula Medicare urgent care clinic. Our son had a red, swollen spider bite and was able to see a doctor after work this afternoon straightaway. He got a trophy emoji and a golden star emoji as well.' Jenny took her son in at 8.30 am and got him seen within 15 minutes, fully bulk billed, and also thanked the local member, because he is a terrific member for Robertson who supports our campaign to strengthen Medicare, tripling the bulk-billing incentive, rolling out urgent care clinics and delivering cheaper medicines. Immigration Detention 71 15:09 Ms LEY 00AMN Farrer My question is to the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs. The government brought forward legislation which it said would address the impact of the recent High Court decision. Why did that legislation fail to include a prohibition on paedophiles being released by the government on being allowed to go near a school or childcare centre? Why did that legislation fail to include a prohibition on violent criminals being allowed to have contact with and threaten their victims? Why was this legislation so weak? 15:10 Mr GILES 243609 Scullin I thank the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party for her question, although perhaps it's a question she could have addressed to herself as someone who voted for the legislation. While she is answering that, she could also ask herself this question: why did she, not once but twice, vote against a bill which passed the House this week which did exactly that? What a joke. Education 71 15:10 Dr CHARLTON I8M Parramatta My question is to the Minister for Skills and Training. How many Australians have been able to enrol in high-quality education and training for free thanks to the Albanese Labor government? And how is this helping solve the massive skills deficit left by the previous government? 15:11 Mr O'CONNOR 00AN3 Gorton I thank the member for Parramatta for his question because he fully understands how important it is to educate workers and students in this country to ensure we have a productive and efficient labour market and economy, and that's what we're doing by investing in education and training in that way. I have said before in this place that upon coming to office we inherited one of the deepest and broadest skill shortages we have seen. In fact, it was the deepest and broadest skills shortage in five decades. It didn't matter where you looked across the economy, there were shortages. It that was for that reason that the Prime Minister and the Treasurer convened the Jobs and Skills Summit, bringing together industry, universities, the vet sector and state and territory governments. The first announcement was to ensure 180,000 fee-free TAFE places. I'm happy to inform the House that we have smashed that target. There are now almost 300,000 Australians enrolled in fee-free TAFE this year. There are 296,107 Australians enrolled in fee-free TAFE and vet courses for this year, providing the skills that we need for our economy. Sixty-five thousand of those enrollees are in the age, disability and care sector. We have 26,000 in the tech and digital sector. We have 21,000 in construction, 14,000 in early childhood education, 12,000 in agriculture and 11,000 in hospitality and tourism. Sixty per cent of those enrollees are women. More than one-third of the courses that we are delivering are in regional Australia, which is critical for our communities within the regions. This is a remarkable achievement by the state and territory governments, working with the Albanese government, to deliver the skills that we need in this country. That's why it's so hard to fathom why the opposition opposed this initiative and why they attack it and call it a waste of spending. Why will the Leader of the Opposition not support workers who need these skills? Why doesn't he support the need for businesses to have the skills that they are crying out for? Why does he oppose our economy getting the skills that it needs? I will just take one example. A woman enrolled in a Diploma of Nursing in Victoria would have to find more than $15,000 to access that course. Without this initiative, we would not have people in the numbers we have enrolling in areas of demand in all sectors of our economy. This is a successful initiative. This is a collaboration between this government, state and territory governments and industry. We will continue to deliver more. We are starting another 300,000 fee-free TAFE places next year. We will continue to supply the skills needed to this economy. Mining Industry 72 15:14 Mr KATTER HX4 Kennedy Minister, the Eureka Stockade's 'use it or lose it' mining law was enacted by Theodore and later Bjelke-Petersen's aspirational working-class government. These laws were abolished in 1995, enabling inter alia Glencore's Mount Isa copper mine to announce its closure. Minister, will you enforce the legislation which makes mandatory a $1,000 million environmental rehabilitation? This would rescue 1,200 jobs by forcing Glencore to either (a) continue mining or (b) onsell its interests to parties inspiring stability and prosperity for our mining communities? 15:15 Ms PLIBERSEK 83M Sydney Thank you to the member for Kennedy for his question about the Mount Isa copper mine facing closure. Of course, the thoughts of all of those in this parliament are with the workers, who face an uncertain future following the announcement of the mine closure. I'm encouraged to hear that workers, unions and the local council are working together to support those impacted by the decisions. Mount Isa copper has been a cornerstone of the Queensland economy for 60 years, and as a government we are absolutely committed to supporting the community and ensuring the city has a strong future, including, as the resources minister has pointed out frequently recently, a big future in critical minerals. The member for Kennedy has raised policies of 'Red Ted' Theodore. I'm not sure where to go with those exactly! I know Red Ted was one of the member for Kennedy's three favourite Queensland Labor treasurers. Mr Katter HX4 Point of order, Mr Speaker. The SPEAKER 53517 The minister will pause. The SPEAKER 53517 Member for Kennedy, hold your horses. I'm just going to deal with the point of order. It was a point of order on relevance? Mr Katter HX4 Very much so. The SPEAKER 53517 Okay. That's what you need to state. Moving forward, everyone who raises a point of order needs to state what it is. The question did mention 'Red Ted' Theodore, and the minister was referring to that, so she's entitled to give some context to what was in the question. But I'm just going to ask her to make sure she's relevant to the question. Ms PLIBERSEK 83M I think the member for Kennedy is really referring to the responsibility of mining companies to clean up after themselves, and we are absolutely on a unity ticket on that. We absolutely agree that a company like this that's been in operation for 60 years, if they've made commitments about how they're going to clean up after themselves, should do it. And of course he's right in saying that there are jobs in post-mining rehabilitation work, and we want to see that work carried out appropriately. On this specific example that he's using, it is largely a matter for the Queensland government. Responsibility for ensuring that the mining company complies with its rehabilitation obligations rests primarily with the Queensland government. This is done in a variety of different ways—with money set aside, bank assurances and so on. But I would say to the member for Kennedy that we agree with him that, if mines close, they need to be cleaned up, and we are absolutely committed to seeing a future for Mount Isa—for the people who have made a living and made their home in a place that relies on mining. We are going to work to ensure that. The Palaszczuk government has already announced a support package of up to $50 million for mine workers and for the Mount Isa community, and that includes $30 million to accelerate development of resource projects in the North West Minerals Province for the next five years and another $20 million to be matched dollar for dollar by Glencore in a structural adjustment package for Mount Isa and for Queensland. Middle East 73 15:18 Mr BURNS 278522 Macnamara My question is to the Prime Minister. How has the Australian government supported the release of hostages kidnapped by Hamas? 15:19 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I thank the member for Macnamara for his question and his strong advocacy for the people of his electorate. The Australian government has called consistently, unequivocally, for the release of all hostages taken on 7 October during Hamas's terrorist attack on Israel. Earlier this week, the Israeli ambassador, Amir Maimon, brought a delegation of Israeli citizens to Parliament House, and I, along with the Deputy Prime Minister and the foreign minister, met with them in my office. These are people who are doing it incredibly tough but who were here, having lost loved ones who were either murdered or kidnapped. One of the people who we met was a young woman, Mika. She's 18. She spoke about her brother, Amit, who's 16. It is good news that, since we met, Amit has been one of the hostages released. We have been very consistent about our concern about the loss of innocent lives—Israelis and Palestinians. Every innocent life matters. What we saw last night in Melbourne at a hotel in Docklands goes beyond the right of people to peacefully protest in our democratic country. Why people would make the conscious decision to hold a protest where the families of these people were staying is beyond my comprehension and beyond contempt. I'm appalled by the actions of these protestors, and I condemn them. This does nothing to advance the cause of the Palestinian people. It does nothing to advance justice for Palestinians or peace in the region. My government supports a two-state solution in the region in the interests of Palestinians and Israelis. At the moment, what we are seeing is humanity cast aside. There is no excuse, no circumstance, where people should organise a demonstration against grieving families—none. I call it out, and I express on behalf of the Australian government our regret. To those families who we met with: this is not the Australian way. These are people like Tali Kizhner. She lost her son, Segev. We had a very respectful private conversation with all of the families. It was captured at the beginning that they just wanted to tell their stories. I've also had discussions with Palestinians who have lost their family members during this conflict. It's awful. People need to really think about where we are as a nation. We are a successful multicultural nation. There is no place in this country to try to bring conflict in that sort of way through that sort of action here in Australia. Regardless of what views people might have about international politics, we should be respectful. We should have compassion. We should understand that people are hurting. Australians of different backgrounds and different faiths are hurting at the moment. I say that we need to bear that in mind. I spoke on the evening I was elected about kindness. This country could do with a bit more kindness and a complete rejection of any action that targets people who are going through such a difficult time. 15:24 Mr DUTTON 00AKI Dickson on indulgence—I want to start by thanking the member for Macnamara for not just the question but also his actions. I saw him recently at the opening of the Holocaust museum in Melbourne, and, like many members of the Jewish community, he has been astounded and in disbelief as to some of the scenes. The Prime Minister has detailed the latest episode of that. So I pay credit to him for the leadership he has offered the community. It is an act of depravity, and it is an act that is rightly condemned. I hope that these organisers and those who are responsible and others who are like-minded hear a very definite voice from this parliament—from the Prime Minister, from myself and from all members—that we condemn those actions. The fact is that people were taken, people were slaughtered, people have been held captive, people have been tortured, raped and murdered and, somehow, people have seen fit to occupy a hotel lobby or to maintain a presence where they think they can intimidate the families of those victims. The Prime Minister is exactly right to say that it has no place in our country whatsoever. I hope that the police and other authorities can take whatever is available to them under the law to deal with it, because it is a completely and utterly depraved act. The concentration of people's thoughts now should be on getting those who remain in captivity, who are still held hostage, released and returned to their families so that some peace, civility and stability can be restored to the region. The reality is that these are acts of depraved terrorist organisations, listed and prescribed as such in this country. From day 1, October 7, the actions of those individuals and their supporters, including, unfortunately, in our country, as we've just evidenced, stand to be absolutely condemned by all Australians. Mr Albanese R36 I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper. STATEMENTS ON INDULGENCE 74 STATEMENTS ON INDULGENCE Borges, Ms Luzia 74 15:26 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I want to take a moment to pay tribute to a great Australian, a wonderful human being and a person who has given so much to this place over so many years. After 35 years, Friday 8 December will be Luzia Borges's last day as a member of the Parliament House cleaning staff. Luzia joins us in the gallery today. Luzia is up there with her husband, Marcelo, daughters Isabel and Luzia, son-in-law Raymond and grandson Leon. We welcome all of you as well, and we thank you for giving us your wife, your mum, your mother-in-law for such a long period of time. In the early hours of the morning and late nights, as a result of the nature of the work that is done here, when we depart this place, we come back the next day, and it's pristine, due to the commitment of Luzia as part of the wonderful team who we have here. Her daughter Marianne and her son-in-law Michael are proudly watching at home, I'm told. I should note that Luzia had no idea we'd be doing this today. We invited her for an afternoon tea, which we'll be having this afternoon next to the cabinet room, because she mentioned that her husband wanted to watch a Question Time from the chamber before she finished up. I make this point: that was perhaps not her best decision! But this was, of course, too good an opportunity for us to miss. This building is a scene that undergoes continual change. Elected representatives average—I'm not sure what the figure is now. I remember, a few years ago, it was five-point-something years in this place. Bear that in mind. It constantly changes. Staff have a high burnout rate due to the nature of the work, the hours and the pressures of being away from home. Advisors and public servants move around and they move on. Luzia has been one of those rare certainties, here from day one when the flag first went up on this wonderful, new Parliament House that is, of course, above us; part of the office for every Prime Minister, going back to the great Bob Hawke, performing a demanding job. It's hard. It's physical work every day, yet every day Luzia has such a genuine and joyful presence, a warmth that cheers even the coldest Canberra morning, a light that brightens even the glummest day. There's a magnetism about Luzia that over the years has drawn everyone to want to meet her and to have a chat and have a photo with her, from President Obama to the Dalai Lama. She's got quite a collection. Whoever you are, she is always up for a chat, although she giggles now I've known her for so long. When I became Prime Minister, she was very formal and always adopts that but treats everyone exactly the same, regardless of their title, just in that great Australian way. And she radiates pride in what she does, the essential work that she has performed for over 35 years to keep this building going to keep our democracy running. I remember—I don't mind saying this as well—as a proud trade unionist, standing up for the rights of cleaners. In paying tribute to Luzia, we must of course—it would be like talking about Abbott without Costello—mention Anna Jancevski, because whenever you see them they're together. There have been some great double acts in Australian history, but it's hard to think of a more joyful one than Luzia and Anna. They are such a perfect partnership, such a complementary duo. They've always been such a reassuring sight in this place, and once you spot them you feel like everything is as it should be. They've kept the wheels turning in this place and they've always got the job done with pride, with professionalism and with a whole lot of heart. So I say to Luzia, Parliament House simply won't be the same without you, but I hope you drop in. You would be welcome, I'm sure, in any office right across the parliament. You are respected. We wish you nothing but the best in your richly deserved retirement, with more time with your loved ones. We've got a little present that we'll present in a short while, that I'm told is appropriate for you because you are a great gardener, and I'm not surprised by that at all. You leave this building with our thanks and with our deepest affection and gratitude. Honourable members: Here, here! 15:33 Mr DUTTON 00AKI Dickson Luzia, I want to say to you thank you very much for your service to this parliament and, most of all, though, your discretion, your friendship and your beautiful nature. Many here and those who have had the honour of serving in the ministry will have seen Luzia—and the double act of Anna—in the corridors. You can have a joke with them. They are wonderful people. I first came across Luzia over 20 years ago, and we've swapped stories about our children growing up. She's seen my kids grow up in this place. We've always had a conversation about her own children over the years and grandchildren now. I probably can't convey adequately the beautiful nature of this lady and her huge work ethic. She takes a great deal of pride in what she has achieved in this building and in the support of her family over her very long career, but she is a wonderfully natured person. I wish you all the very best into retirement. I want to say thank you very much to Marcelo, to your three children, Luzia, Isabel and Marianne, and to your son-in-law Raymond, but most importantly to your five grandchildren. I know that they are now your focus. Now that you don't have to put up with Anna anymore, you will be able to concentrate on the grandkids! We wish you every success and good health. It's a wonderful contribution that you've made. As the Prime Minister said, you go back Bob Hawke's day. You recall fondly the comments from Paul Keating when he told his staff to treat the cleaners with respect. You said that you will never forget that, that it meant a lot to you. You also noted that you like all the PMs, but especially John Howard, who you always try to see when he visits, to give him a hug. The point of relief for all of us is that you've said to us that there will be no book published in retirement! That will be a relief to prime ministers and ministers past and present! You're a wonderful person, with a beautiful, warm heart. We wish you every good health into the future. The SPEAKER 53517 On indulgence, may I thank Luzia, on behalf of all members, for her service and for a job well done. COMMITTEES 75 COMMITTEES Government Response to Report 75 15:36 The SPEAKER 53517 For the information of honourable members, I present a schedule of the status of government responses to committee reports as at 24 November 2023. The schedule will be incorporated in Hansard. The schedule read as follows— Speaker's Schedule of the Status of Government Responses to Committee Reports As at 24 November 2023 The Speaker's schedule to the House of Representatives on the status of government responses to committee reports is presented at six monthly intervals, usually in the last sitting weeks of the winter and spring sittings. The last schedule was presented in the House on 22 June 2023. The schedule presents a list of committee reports that contain recommendations requiring a government response. Government responses received during the period are included in the schedule and the report it relates to is then removed from subsequent schedules. The timeframe for government responses to committee reports in this schedule is determined by the resolution adopted by the House on 29 September 2010, in which government responses to House and Joint committee reports are required within a six month period from the presentation of the report in the House. The Senate has resolved to require government responses to Senate and Joint committee reports within three months of a report being tabled.[1] This schedule does not list reports that do not require a government response. In the past, the practice was to include all reports tabled in the Speaker's schedule. However, the intent of this schedule is to provide an update to the House on the status of government responses to committee reports.[2] The schedule does not include advisory reports on bills introduced into the House of Representatives unless the reports make recommendations that are wider than the provision of the bill and would therefore be the subject of a government response. The Government's response to bill inquiry reports is apparent in the resumption of consideration of the relevant legislation by the House. Also not included are reports from the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works, the House of Representatives Committee of Privileges and Members' Interests, and the Publications Committee (other than reports on inquiries). Government responses to reports of the Public Works Committee are usually reflected in motions for the approval of works after the relevant report has been presented and considered. The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights' regular scrutiny reports on the human rights compatibility of bills and legislative instruments are not listed, as the timeframe for a response is specified in correspondence to the relevant minister. Reports of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit primarily make administrative recommendations but may make policy recommendations. A government response is required in respect of such policy recommendations made by the committee. Responses to administrative recommendations are made in the form of an Executive Minute provided to, and subsequently tabled by, the committee. Agencies responding to administrative recommendations are required to provide an Executive Minute within six months of the tabling of a report. Executive Minutes are included in this schedule and are listed as (Partial response). The table below provides a summary of government responses received and outstanding to committee reports of the 44th to 47th Parliaments inclusive: The following table lists responses received (since tabling of the last schedule on 22 June 2023) and outstanding (as at 24 November 2023): Notes [ 1 ] This practice has arisen from a Senate resolution of 14 March 1973, in which the Senate declared its opinion that the government should provide a response to committee reports within three months of tabling. Successive governments have affirmed their commitment to providing such responses. [ 2 ] The Liaison Committee of Chairs and Deputy Chairs agreed at its meeting of June 2023 to recommend removal of all outstanding government responses for House or Joint committee reports presented prior to the commencement of the 46th Parliament (2 July 2019), unless the relevant committee's successor resolved to retain those reports on the schedule. This schedule is reflective of those removals or resolutions to retain the relevant reports. [ i ] The date of tabling is the date the report was presented to the House of Representatives or to the Speaker, whichever is earlier. In the case of joint committees, the date shown is the date of first presentation to either the House or the Senate or to the President or Speaker (if presented earlier out of session). Reports published when the House (or Houses) are not sitting are tabled at a later date. [ ii ] If the source for the government response date is not the Votes and Proceedings of the House of Representatives or the Journals of the Senate, the source is shown in an endnote. [ iii ] The Government has undertaken to respond to committee reports within a six-month period—see House of Representatives Standing Orders, resolution of the House of Representatives of 29 September 2010. This resolution also puts in place additional steps for reports not responded to within that six-month period. The period from when the 44th Parliament was prorogued on 9 May 2016 to the commencement of the 45th Parliament on 30 August 2016 is not included in the response period. The period from when the 45th Parliament was prorogued on 11 April 2019 to the commencement of the 46th Parliament on 2 July 2019 is not included in the response period. The period from when the 46th Parliament was prorogued on 11 April 2022 to the commencement of the 47th Parliament on 26 July 2022 is not included in the response period. [ iv ] On 1 July 2023, the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity (ACLEI) transitioned into the new National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC). Accordingly, the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity ceased to exist. The oversight of the NACC is undertaken as of that date by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the National Anti-Corruption Commission. BUSINESS 84 BUSINESS Leave of Absence 84 15:36 Mr BURKE DYW Watson I move: That leave of absence be given to every Member of the House of Representatives from the determination of this sitting of the House to the date of its next sitting. For the information of members, I expect I'll have to move that again next Thursday, but the clerks have advised that we should move it today as well. Question agreed to. COMMITTEES 84 COMMITTEES Government Response to Report 84 15:37 Mr BURKE DYW Watson I present the status of government responses in the House of Representatives to parliamentary committee reports as at 30 September 2023. These documents are tabled in accordance with the list circulated to honourable members earlier today. Full details of the documents will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings. MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE 84 MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE Immigration Detention 84 15:37 The SPEAKER 53517 I have received a letter from the honourable Leader of the Opposition proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The Government's chaotic handling of the release of hardcore criminals into the community has put Australians at risk. 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— 15:38 Mr DUTTON 00AKI Dickson This matter of public importance debate is an opportunity to really reflect on a government that clearly, in the eyes of the Australian public, is not only a disappointment but now is making grave mistakes, the consequences of which will likely be felt, sadly and tragically, by the Australian people. The fact is that the immigration minister of the day needs to deal with cases on a regular basis. We're a migrant population. We have people moving across our borders every day. But the Australian public rely on the minister for immigration and, of course, the Prime Minister to be in a position to make decisions in our country's best interests, to make decisions to allow people to stay in the right circumstances and for them to be deported from our country in very quick fashion if they commit offences or on other grounds they breach the migration laws. That's why this minister stands condemned today. It's why this minister's position is untenable and it's why, if we had a strong Prime Minister and not a weak Prime Minister, he would have already been sacked. If he had any self-respect of dignity, he already would have taken the decision to resign himself. That's the reality. When we look at what is before us, we see these cases are referred regularly to the High Court. The minister for immigration is the most litigated minister in the Commonwealth. In relation to this particular case—NZYQ—the minister for immigration, as we now know, given that the High Court has published details, facts and reasons in their judgement, conceded a point which he should not have conceded. He conceded a point erroneously in agreeing to the court that NZYQ had no prospect of return. In that circumstance, the High Court has legitimate reason to find as they did, but the concession should never have been made. Had the concession never been made, the High Court would never have found in favour of NZYQ. Now, this is an individual case, and individual cases can be part of case law and part of considerations and appeals over a long period of time. Some of them are consequential. Some of them apply only to the facts in relation to that matter. This case is hugely consequential because it has led to a decision—again, erroneously taken by the minister—to release now 142 additional criminals, people of significant criminal histories, people who have committed sexual offences against children and against women, people who are members of outlaw motorcycle gangs, people who have harmed the community, people who have killed Australians. This minister, as it turns out now that we read the High Court's words, was not instructed by the High Court to release those individuals. There's no reason, we now know, why those people should be released into the community, why they're now at large in the community. In some cases, the minister went even further in his negligence and released people without ankle bracelets, so there was no comprehension of their location, where they were—in relation to those that had committed sexual offences against children, whether they were in the proximity of schools, preschools or childcare centres. In some cases, at least initially, given the failings in the first wave of legislation, the conditions of the visa release were completely unenforceable. That was another failing of this minister. This Prime Minister sits idly by. It's telling that he's not in the chamber today to defend his minister. Does he have confidence in this minister? How can he have confidence in this minister? There are people who have been released unnecessarily into the community, and that rests on the shoulders of the minister for immigration. When the minister comes to this dispatch box, he should issue to the Australian public an unqualified apology. He should hang his head in shame and apologise because it's clear that this minister has put Australians at risk. And it's not just the 142 that we're talking about now. There is the potential for hundreds more to be released in similar circumstances because we have a minister who is following his ideological inclination, not who is acting in our country's best interest. That's what we're seeing here at the moment. That's the reality of what we're dealing with. I don't believe his position is tenable, and I fear for Australians who may be the next victim at the hands of one of these vicious criminals. I think that is the concern that many Australians have—let's be very honest. When the government first came into this parliament—remember when the Prime Minister was off overseas again—they said: 'We've got this decision from the High Court, but we don't yet have the reasons handed down, so we're acting in advance of finding out the true advice from the High Court. But there's nothing we can do about it. There's no legislation. There's no ability for us to legislate and to try and keep these people in custody, to try and apply conditions or to try and impose a regime that would go some way to providing security or safety to the Australian public.' As it turns out, because the coalition took a stance and moved six amendments and convinced the government that that there was legislation that was possible, they eventually adopted the position, but only because the Prime Minister was out of the country. The Acting Prime Minister approached me to say: 'Okay, we admit that we got it wrong. We'll take up your suggestions, and we'll support your amendments through the parliament.' What did those amendments provide? Well, the minister didn't have the capacity to contemplate that paedophiles should be kept from schools. He didn't have the capacity to know that those people who had committed serious offences or murder shouldn't be contacting the victims of crime or the family of a deceased victim of crime—and there were other measures that we put in place. That's what we put in place that Labor never had the wit to imagine. I fear what would have happened had the government not adopted the proposals put forward by the coalition. We've got a situation at the moment where there's another bill that's been pulled today from the Senate. That's the citizenship bill. The government again came to us in a panic this week and said: 'We want this bill passed through both houses on Monday.' We sat down and had a briefing. We said, 'What's the urgency in relation to the citizenship bill?' It doesn't apply to Benbrika, the most dangerous terrorist convicted in our courts. It doesn't apply to the other three high-profile terrorists who have been convicted and who have offended against Australians. It doesn't have any application to cases which are before the court at the moment. It doesn't have any applicability to a case where there is a pending sentence. It doesn't have any applicability, we were advised, in relation to a matter that's about to be rushed before the courts. So why such urgency? Because the government was looking for political cover; that's why. They were driven by a political imperative to try and cover up their mess, to try and somehow look strong by driving through, in a hurried fashion, national security legislation. As it turns out, there are deep flaws in the citizenship bill as well. We have made a number of recommendations and a number of amendments, which include stripping paedophiles of citizenship. Do you know what the government has done? They've gone to water on that issue, and they've pulled the bill from the Senate today. They had the opportunity to get our support today to pass that bill in an amended form which would see terrorists, those who have committed acts of espionage against our country, child sex offenders, those who have been convicted of extraterritorial murder of Australians and those who have committed many other offences of a similar character lose their Australian citizenship. What happened? Here we are on Thursday, the last sitting day of this week, and the bill still hasn't passed. The advice of Monday that the bill had to be passed urgently has lapsed. The government sought our support this morning to suspend standing orders in the Senate to bring the bill on, to which we agreed. Crickets! Nothing! If the Australian public thinks the wheels are falling off this Albanese government, if the Australian public is losing confidence in their Prime Minister, they are spot on. Their instinct is dead right. This Prime Minister is taking our country in the wrong direction. He is causing harm in the Australian community. He is a weak and failed Prime Minister. 15:48 Mr GILES 243609 Scullin This is an MPI that reveals quite a lot about the opposition and its leader—much more about those than anything else. It really does speak to the determination of someone who in more than two decades in public life has never made a positive contribution, whose inclination at every turn is to divide, whose inclination— Honourable members interjecting— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 Just stop for a moment, Minister. The Leader of the Opposition was heard in silence, and I assured that. I don't want— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 Sorry? Member for Hume, would you like to have some contribution to this debate? Right. I'm just asking for a little bit of respect either side here. Minister, you have the call. Mr GILES 243609 As I was saying, the disposition of the Leader of the Opposition is always to divide. He is addicted to opposition, and he has never proved himself to be a leader, and you see this throughout his conduct over the last couple of weeks. All of us in public life face choices, and one of the key choices when challenges emerge is whether you take responsibility or look for someone to blame. I can assure you that the Leader of the Opposition and those who sit alongside him always look for someone to blame, and we've seen that through the extraordinary anger. Ms Bell 282981 Projection 101—a classic Labor tactic. Mr GILES 243609 There's an interjection about projection. I think in question time this week we saw a lot of projection, as we do. The Leader of the Opposition spends a lot of time talking about weakness and toughness. He loves describing himself as tough. But what we've seen throughout his time in public life is that his rhetoric is completely undermined by his actions and, indeed, by his inactions too. His record as a minister over the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison government really bears this out. In question time this week we saw the Deputy Prime Minister eviscerate his record in defence, which is quite something given the number of defence ministers under that former government. Honourable members interjecting— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 Look, if you're going to leave the chamber, please do so quietly, or I'll be having you back in here to apologise. Mr GILES 243609 He is someone who was regarded by stakeholders as Australia's worst health minister. But it's his record in immigration and in home affairs—which is his creature, really—that really is the most important and most concerning thing—along with, it has to be said, his disposition. Earlier, I referred in question time to comments of the former attorney-general former senator Brandis. He had more to say in his valedictory, which is worth repeating. He talked about his concern about powerful right-wing elements who've abandoned both liberalism and conservatism, and he touched particularly on conservatism's respect for institutions and about abandoning that 'in favour of a belligerent, intolerant populism'. Does that sound familiar, anyone—a belligerent, intolerable populism? If anything sums up the attitude of this Leader of the Opposition, it is that, particularly through this year, with his relentless campaign, which I though was about defending the sacrosanct nature of the Australian Constitution when it came to that generous offer from First Nations people. But, as soon as it became convenient, he was prepared to trash the Constitution and, frankly, as we've seen in recent days, to trash the separation of powers and trash any sense of regard for the rule of law. Senator Brandis, as he then was, went on: I have heard some powerful voices argue that the coalition should open a political front against the Labor Party on the issue of domestic national security. I could not disagree more strongly … Nothing could be more irresponsible than to hazard the safety of the public by creating a confected dispute for political advantage. He was right then, and recent weeks have proven him to be even more right with the passage of time. It is worth repeating that every member of this place and every member of the other place is concerned for the safety of the community. It is worth repeating. My focus as minister for immigration, through this time and throughout the time that I've been privileged to hold this office, has been resolutely on that. I noted that in the contribution of the Leader of the Opposition he didn't particularly focus on some rather glaring omissions when it came to his record, including in respect of the NZYQ matter. But it begins before that, because of course it was he more than anyone else who oversaw a broken migration system in this country—an absolutely trashed migration system. When we came into government, we inherited a mess, and perhaps one of the most visible symbols of that mess was the million visas waiting to be processed. It went so much deeper than that. One of the key failings of the former minister, now Leader of the Opposition, the man who always talks tough but in whom, when you scratch the surface, weakness appears almost immediately and marks him indelibly— Mr Chester IPZ Talk about your own legislation. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 I just warned the House about interjections, Member for Gippsland. You weren't in the chamber, but I'm giving you the courtesy of warning you now. Mr GILES 243609 He cut compliance functions in immigration in half. And what happened because of that? Well, Christine Nixon had a bit to say: rampant sexual exploitation, organised crime running rampant and our protection system absolutely trashed. These are scars which persist, and we have taken responsibility for fixing the problem. We continue to do that, because every decision we make is with the safety and the values of the Australian community in mind. It was really disappointing that the Leader of the National Party, someone for whom I have some regard, asked a question which spoke about the commitment we have made to Border Force, the Federal Police and the Commonwealth Department of Public Prosecutions in utterly inappropriate terms. Those investments are absolutely critical to keeping communities safe. Something that's also critical is for parliamentarians and anyone who holds public office to speak the truth, to not mischaracterise facts—particularly wilfully. The commentary on the High Court decision is, frankly, absolutely unworthy of any member of this place. Members should reflect on their wider responsibilities as lawmakers, particularly those who have held significant executive responsibilities previously. It is worth repeating a couple of points in respect of this story. It is the case that the Commonwealth vigorously defended the proceeding. We did so, and we also sought to maintain the detention of the individual in question—unlike, it has to be said, certain former ministers. Before the decision we took some steps to let state and territory law enforcement officials know that there could be an adverse decision and to prepare for that. We also undertook a range of steps ourselves. Immediately after the decision we set up Operation AEGIS to coordinate the work of the ABF, the Australian Federal Police and those state and territory agencies. We got to work, despite what they said otherwise, immediately on exploring what regulatory and legislative options would be open to us, having regard to the limited nature of the information we had when we only had the order, not the reasons for the decision. Within eight days we passed a bill through this parliament—strong new laws. I acknowledge the cooperation of the opposition in securing the passage of those laws. When we looked at those laws, which were moved through quickly and contained significant amendments, we sought to boost the sanctions available in them and to improve the laws otherwise, as any reasonable government would. Indeed, as I indicated on the morning those laws became operative, we will continue to review them to ensure community safety is maximised. We introduced new laws and briefed the opposition on them. For some reason, despite the fact they created offence provisions in respect of the very amendments they put forward as visa conditions, they voted against them not once but twice. Mr Rae 300122 That's strange! Mr GILES 243609 I think someone should have explained that to the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party; that would have assisted her and perhaps also assisted the House. We now have reasons, and we're working through those reasons, as my friend the Minister for Home Affairs said in anticipation of the reasons being delivered, with a particular view to looking to see how we can design a preventative detention mechanism—and a mechanism that's lawful, because one thing we also know about the Leader of the Opposition is he tends to rush to judgement and he tends to get things wrong. As I've had the opportunity to say more often than I would have liked, tough talk doesn't keep people safe; tough laws do—and that means constitutionally sound laws. He has got a track record of failing there, consistently. We are determined to get it right because community safety must be our No. 1 priority. This should be a shared priority of members across this chamber and indeed in the other place. I say to members opposite and their colleagues in the Senate: we have an opportunity to come together to put in place a legal framework that is proportionate, is defensible and will help keep Australians safe. The question for them is: do they want to continue to seek to divide or do they want to make a positive contribution? 15:58 Mr TEHAN 210911 Wannon I'm glad that the minister has talked about taking responsibility. If he is serious about taking responsibility, the first thing he'll do is own his own actions. If he owns his own actions— Ms Bell 282981 Inaction! Mr TEHAN 210911 or inaction, but in this instance his own actions—then we will be able to get to the bottom of why we are in this mess. It is a statement of fact that the government told the High Court it was an agreed fact that, at 30 May 2023, there was no real prospect of NZYQ being removed from Australia in the reasonably foreseeable future. Now, Minister, as you disappear from the chamber, you need to take responsibility for the fact that you did that, because that is what led to 142 hardened criminals now being out in the community. And there are more questions that need to be answered by the minister so that the Australian people know they are being kept safe. First: why, through sheer incompetence did you do that? Then, once those 142 were released, why have you failed to provide information about every single one of them? One of the things the government has kept secret—you get up here next and tell me the answer to this thing—on Monday it was said that 141 detainees were released, yet the head of Border Force said that only 138 will be required to wear ankle bracelets and to be monitored. What happened to the other three? Are any of them in custody? Is it said that the minister made the decision that they didn't have to wear ankle bracelets? So, whoever's next on that side—because you laughed when I said we need information for the public—come up and tell us the answer to that. What has happened to those three? Where are they? Ms Ryan 249224 A point of order, Deputy Speaker: I'd ask the member to address his comments through the chair. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 Thank you. It does help to depersonalise the comments, as the standing orders suggest—through me. Mr TEHAN 210911 Deputy Speaker, I ask a member of the government to come to the dispatch box and tell us what has happened to those three. Did the minister say that they don't need to wear ankle bracelets? Or is one of them in custody? And if they're in custody, what are they in custody for? We don't know the answer to that. We still do not know, for the 142, what the crimes are that they committed. We don't know the reasons the absconder absconded. We've read media reports that he absconded because when he left detention he wasn't told that he had any requirements on him. That's what the media reports are saying. That's how he absconded. Then there is the question about the detainee who took the pregnant woman and blew her up. Al Jazeera has reported that he was released without requirements. When I asked the minister about that yesterday, even though it had been on Al Jazeera and on Sky the day before, he said he knew nothing about it. How hopeless and hapless can you get? And today, did he come in and give an explanation? No, he didn't. So, the Australian public are still wondering whether a detainee who murdered someone and blew the body up was released without any requirements. Have requirements now been put in place, Minister? That is responsibility: owning your action—or your inaction—fessing up and saying, 'Sorry; the buck stops with me.' And I say this to the Prime Minister, because the Leader of the Opposition is absolutely right: you are not across the detail, and you are not ensuring that your minister is across the detail. So you both deserve to be condemned. But the No. 1priority of any government is to keep the Australian population safe, and the minister for immigration has failed to do that, and that is why he should go. (Time expired) 16:03 Dr CHARLTON I8M Parramatta I am delighted that those opposite, particularly the Leader of the Opposition, have decided to stand in this place and discuss the handling of migration matters as the matter of public importance. The reason I'm delighted is that it gives us a wonderful opportunity to review the record of those opposite when they were in government—specifically, the record of the Leader of the Opposition, who was then the Minister for Immigration and the Minister for Home Affairs. The record of the Leader of Opposition at that time was characterised by one feature, and that feature was tough talk and weak action. Let's remind ourselves of some of the greatest hits of the Leader of Opposition when he was the Minister for Home Affairs. Everyone will remember that time as a time when he talked a lot about boat arrivals. He really worked hard to demonise refugees during those years. Remember he bought the fancy new uniforms for the Border Force, the $6 million uniforms? Beautiful touch—fantastic touch! While he was talking tough, while he was buying those expensive new uniforms, he was so busy punching down that he forgot to look up. At the time when he was the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection, between 2014 and 2018, non-boat arrivals increased from 8,500 to 27,000. So busy was he with the new uniforms and looking out over the water that he forgot to notice a tripling of non-boat arrivals. At the same time, the number of visitor visa holders who contributed to net overseas migration increased from 50,000 to 78,000. There he was, punching down on the refugees who came by boat, all the while seeing a massive increase in unregulated migration. The previous speaker accused this government of not being across the detail, and that reminded me of one of my favourite moments from the last month. That moment was when the Leader of the Opposition puffed himself up and came out swinging with a big accusation about this government. Speaking in Perth on 4 October, he said: Why did they lose control of our borders … ? Why have they allowed 105,000 asylum seekers into our country over the last 15 months? He underlined the point, saying, Labor 'presided over 105,000 asylum seekers over the course of the last 15 months'. Unfortunately, when the department and the former deputy secretary checked those numbers, it was revealed that 94,000 of them were let in under the watch of those opposite. That's 90 per cent of his claim of 105,000, brought in under their watch. What a gaffe. It's unbelievable that he's not across even the most basic elements of the detail of the policy in this area. Let's remember back in 2019 when he was the home affairs minister. He created a backlog of more than 221,000 people waiting for citizenship applications. In fact, just a year earlier the situation was even worse. The Auditor-General said that in 2019 the citizenship applications pipeline was bogged down with more than 244,000 applications. That was a 15-year low in applications processing. He was unable to complete even the most basic elements of the management and running of that department. It's no wonder that, while he was talking tough but doing nothing, the Nixon review found that Australia's protection visa system was allowed to be exploited by criminals. The Nixon review spoke of grotesque abuses characterised by human trafficking, organised crime and sexual exploitation. While the Leader of the Opposition was talking tough but doing nothing, the review revealed a range of disturbing practices that went under the radar under his watch. The review found that of all the migration agents used by people wishing to enter Australia, 40 per cent were unregistered. These are the basic elements of running the department of immigration: making sure we don't have a 15-year record backlog, making sure that migration agents are properly registered and making sure that you're watching the arrivals into this country from any source. He wasn't doing any of those things, because he was too busy talking tough, buying fancy new uniforms and demonising refugees—punching down while not looking up and not being across the detail. This is the characterisation of the Leader of the Opposition: he talks tough, but he does nothing. 16:08 Mr WOLAHAN 235654 Menzies The member for Parramatta is a serious person with a serious intellect, but that was not a serious contribution. It was not a serious contribution for one of the most important debates this parliament has had, which is about keeping the public safe. That goes to whether the people trust this government to keep them safe. When given an opportunity to answer questions or to explain themselves, the relevant ministers engage in whataboutism. In fact, the member for Parramatta commenced his contribution by welcoming this as an opportunity to talk about the greatest hits of the opposition. Greatest hits—that's a cute line, but it's a not a serious contribution. In addition to blame, we've actually seen the government seek to blame the High Court. They've said they were surprised by this. It was a jack-in-the-box judgement. It was like: 'Surprise!' No-one expected it. Let's interrogate that. We had the reasons from the High Court on Tuesday 28 November, and I want to go through the relevant time line. On 7 and 8 November we had the hearing and the order. So 8 November was the date on which, the government claims, it was surprised that a 20-year precedent had been overturned. But let's go back further. On 1 September we had submissions made on this matter and on 2 June we had a special leave application. So over the preceding months a lot of things happened—a lot of serious things by serious people who put in a lot of work on this question. They didn't do it because it was pointless or because it was going to get nowhere. They did it because they thought it had a proper and probable chance of success, and the government knew that too. I want to note some things. In the proceedings of the special leave application and the two days of hearings, there were 99 pages of transcript. That involved 14 counsel, six of whom were silks. There were six silks and eight juniors, plus all of these solicitors. It involved the full bench of the High Court—seven High Court judges—with all of their staff and all of their resources. They were considering written submissions that went to 94 pages. I'd like to reference some of those. The plaintiff's submission, in paragraph 1, says: The Plaintiff accepts that both propositions are contrary to Al-Kateb v Godwin. To the extent necessary, that decision should be overruled. In paragraph 1 they were flagging what the purpose of this case was about. Then the respondent's submission notes throughout that this very question is the question before the court. It acknowledges in paragraph 1, which the ministers would have signed off on: Accordingly, the first issue is whether leave should be granted to re-open Al-Kateb. If that leave is granted, the second issue is the correctness of the construction … That was the question. That was the debate before the High Court. Then the government would have us believe that, through all of the submissions and all of the work, they were all wasting their time. All of these submissions were just put together for a pointless debating exercise. There were seven justices of the High Court, 14 counsel, six silks—some of the best in the country. We had the plaintiff and the defendant. We had the Australian Human Rights Commission and the Human Rights Law Centre make submissions, and their submissions also noted that there was a serious question about Al-Kateb. But, again, the government would have us believe that they were all wasting their time. The shadow minister made a very important point: cases are decided by facts and law. We had 14 counsel make submissions on the law, but they would have taken, on instruction, the facts. They would have had a conference. They would have sat down with the minister and the minister's adviser and the department, and they would have put in the documents 'no real prospect of being removed'. The very fact that decided this case was on instruction from the minister. So you can't say: 'This was a surprise. I wasn't ready.' Anyone who has looked after others knows that you can hope for the best but you plan for the worst. What is clear is that there was no planning from this government and that this is on them. 16:13 Dr ANANDA-RAJAH 290544 Higgins Some days when I'm in this place I feel like I'm an alchemist turning piles of ash into gold—or trying to. And what do those piles of ash represent, colleagues? They represent the torched policies of those opposite in just about every single portfolio. They refer to the laundry list of Liberal legacies that we inherited when we formed government and that was bequeathed to the Australian people. Let's start with the collapse of bulk-billing, a topic close to my heart. The Medicare system was on life support. There was a housing crisis because they neglected to attend to supply, leaving it to the states and washing their hands. There was energy chaos and secrecy. There was a skills black hole where productivity went to die. In fact, we had the lowest productivity in a generation. Mr Chester IPZ I raise a point of order on relevance, Deputy Speaker. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 I'm listening to it. Don't you worry. Mr Chester IPZ It's been a minute and she hasn't even touched on the subject of the MPI. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 Am I taking another point of order, Minister? Mr Conroy 249127 Very briefly. Traditionally MPIs get a fair rein. I urge the shadow minister to consider the repercussions of interrupting a debate like this for the rest of— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 This is actually day two of this kind of point of order being raised, so there is a little pattern developing which we will consider. But I am listening closely to the member. There has been a fairly wide-ranging debate on both sides, and I am sure that at some point there will be a reference back to the MPI. Dr ANANDA-RAJAH 290544 I was going through the Liberal legacy that we inherited. I will get to the point of this MPI, but I just want to remind everyone what we are dealing with and the context that we have inherited. It reflects the competency of those opposite when they were in government. We had 28 major defence projects that were running a collective 97 years late, nearly a century. Let's not forget the secret ministries which almost certainly contributed to this disaster, a welcome mat that was laid out for corruption to bloom in this country thanks to a lack of leadership around legislating the National Anti-Corruption Commission, robodebt, reflective of a broken culture where the bureaucracy became hostile to the Australian public, and rorting of the migration system which allowed all kinds of criminals syndicates to flourish in Australia, including allowing modern-day slavery to thrive right under our noses. Let's not forget the trade embargoes, stagnant wages and, of course—the big one—inaction on climate change. But why stop there? We now also have to deal with unconstitutional detention laws. We had to deal with the release of long-term detainees. This decision was not made lightly. It was made by the full bench of the High Court. It was a decision that we resisted, argued against and were disappointed was handed down. But we respect the decision. Why? Because we live in a country that respects the rule of law. The High Court determined that the minister could not be the judge, jury and proverbial executioner, that the minister could not be the one who could punt a person from this country, deport them. That was a decision made by the full bench. The question is: where those opposite forewarned? It turns out they were forewarned. They were forewarned by our now Attorney-General, who raised questions of validity when these laws were crafted all those years ago under the stewardship of the current Leader of the Opposition. But did they listen? No. In characteristic style, they did not listen. They barrelled through, and now we are having to clean up this mess. We as a government have acted swiftly, and we thank those opposite for cooperation in helping to enact these laws in a moment of crisis to keep the community safe. We brought in stringent post-offending controls, including electronic monitoring, individual case management, social media monitoring of these individuals and setting up exclusion zones around places where children frequent. We have also boosted the services of the AFP and Border Force as well as the Commonwealth public prosecutions office. But we need to do more, and we urge cooperation in order to keep Australians safe. 16:18 Mr BUCHHOLZ 230531 Wright It is an absolute privilege, through the opportunity afforded to the House for the remainder of the MPI, to be able to stand and speak on the government's chaotic handling of the release of hardcore criminals into the community that has put Australians at risk. During the course of the debate since these detainees were released onto the streets, we on this side of the House have been asking a series of questions. The MPI provides those opposite with one last opportunity to try to answer some of these questions. We have asked in this place: how many murderers have been released into the community? We have asked those questions. They know. Those on the other side of the House know how many but have not shared that completely with us. They have not been transparent. How many rapists? In the first account we saw that there were 141 detainees, but then in the next tranche, how many? We just don't have a line of sight to it. Australians deserve to know. It's incumbent upon you, as a government, to be transparent. Another question: how many drug traffickers have been let out? It's abhorrent. If they were out on our streets at home, I'd want to know for the protection of my community and for the protection of my children. How many gang members? How many bikie members have been let out into our communities? These are questions that are not unreasonable. These are questions that are quite easily answerable by those on the other side, because they have access to all of this information. But for some reason those on the other side have found it safer to keep that information hidden from the Australian public. The MPI today is an opportunity, the last opportunity before we rise, for those opposite to answer some of these questions. The opposition has asked the government on a number of occasions the exact nature of the visas that these criminals, these detainees, are on while they're roaming around the community. What are the conditions that are keeping Australians safe? What is the nature of the supervisions that these criminals are under? If anything, we know that bracelets are on some of them. We know that the bracelets are not on others. Those on the other side know exactly who they are. All I say is the Australian public has absolutely every right to know as well, and it shouldn't be kept from them. What resources does the government have if a criminal breaches a visa condition? What's available for them to exercise? More importantly, it flies in the face of our pensioners and those in our communities that are on welfare, that have made contributions all their life to our community. The Australian public have a right to know how much financial support this government is providing these detainees. They know the answer. The Australian public has the right to know. Are they being provided accommodation, and how long will that accommodation be provided for? There are people in my community who are worthy—very worthy—of having accommodation provided to them, who are not criminals, who have not breached the law. They deserve to be looked after. What additional payments have been made? These are all questions that should be answered. When we talk about providing accommodation, I raise the point: how do you lose someone when you're providing them a home? How do you lose them? Are we providing flights for these people? Those on the other side know the answer to that. We don't. The Australian public don't. They deserve to know. Earlier in the week the major headline on the front page of the Australian was, 'Voters abandon Albanese as Labor's fortunes nosedive'. There are a number of reasons that the fortunes of the ALP are nosediving. The issue before us today is just one of them. In the time that's remaining on this debate, please answer the questions that Australians are desperately wanting answers to. You've got minutes left. Use them wisely. 16:23 Ms MASCARENHAS 298800 Swan I'd like to remind members in this House that all governments want to keep their citizens safe. That is something that I think we can all agree on. Yet what we see from those opposite are people who want to whip up fear, hate and division. We had 10 years of recklessness from those opposite. They were asleep at the wheel. We are in the process of cleaning up their mess—a decade of waste and neglect, and here we are, having to clean up their mess. I understood when the member for Higgins was saying that we're needing to be alchemists—we're needing to turn the chaos into a systematic way of dealing with government. The previous member talked about the need for leadership. The thing that I'd say is that what governments do during difficult times is lead. There's also this thing called the High Court and the rule of law, and it's something that we respect on this side of the House. Meanwhile, we know what the reputation of those opposite was. The last time I stood here and talked on a similar matter put forward by the opposition—I'm surprised that we're here. It feels a little like groundhog day, and that's because they have no other policy. So here we are, responding to statements by the opposition that are designed to stoke fear in the community. All of this is about talking tough but not acting tough. They talk it; they don't walk it. The truth is that what we actually need is a government that is prepared to lead. Those opposite don't have a record to show, because when they were in government they created havoc when it came to border security. There was systemic failure. They broke the rules and they inflicted pain and suffering. Who was in charge at the time? Who was overseeing the mess? Who was responsible? It was the current Leader of the Opposition. He's the one who talks up a tough game but, in reality, is weak. He's weak because he didn't stand up when it mattered to fix the issues that went on in his department. He's weak because, when he found out that a member of his leadership team was advocating for a criminal, he would not remove him. WA senator Dean Smith wrote letters to the minister for immigration, calling for a convicted sex offender to be released from jail. I don't know how that's meant to keep the community safe or why the senator still holds a position of leadership in the Liberal Party now that this information has been revealed. Obviously, the Leader of the Opposition does not think that this is something serious. But does it surprise me? If you think about it, the opposition leader leaves a legacy of a broken immigration system. His legacy left us exposed, and we're trying to fix it: a dysfunctional legal framework and underfunded border security. Now we have a competent and responsible government. We're getting the job done and working to provide the necessary resources to do it. In doing so, we will follow the rule of law. We will act quickly and responsibly, and we will act to keep the community safe. These are not mutually exclusive. New laws, which were introduced quickly, are keeping us ahead of the game to give us a government that has the necessary powers to keep our citizens safe. We have done this. We have worked hard to do this, putting politics aside and putting people at the centre of government. It's not cheap stunts or cheap grabs, because the Albanese Labor government is above that. We are here to govern. We are here to create a better future for Australians, and we are doing that. In rejecting this matter of public importance, we affirm our dedication to the governance that transcends political posturing. In the end, what this is about is making sure that our communities are kept safe but also that we respect the rule of law. Sometimes I feel we come back to this place and need to do a lesson 101 on what the role of the High Court is. Nobody in this place is above the law. I'm really proud that we're introducing a National Anti-Corruption Commission. That's because we want to make sure that we act with integrity and represent our citizens to make sure that we keep all people safe. This is something that I'm really proud to be a part of, and I commend the Albanese Labor government on its amazing policies. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 There being no further speakers, the discussion has now concluded. STATEMENTS ON INDULGENCE 92 STATEMENTS ON INDULGENCE Jabbour, Mr Ramzi 92 16:28 Mr DUTTON 00AKI Dickson I appreciate the opportunity to speak on indulgence and thank the Leader of the House. During my time as the home affairs minister, Ramzi Jabbour was a deputy commissioner of the Australian Federal Police. I had regular contact with Mr Jabbour in that role. He regularly briefed me on significant issues, including national security matters. Mr Jabbour had always impressed me as a person of outstanding character. He served the Australian Federal Police for 29 years with great distinction. Mr Jabbour was subjected to an investigation and was subsequently totally cleared. It was anomalous to me at the time because the allegations were completely out of character with the person that I knew. It was also unfair because it precluded him at the time from being considered for the role of commissioner. He would have been a strong contender for that position. I'm pleased but not surprised that Mr Jabbour had no case to answer, and he should stand today as a proud example to his sons and the Australian community as a police officer who served his country with great distinction and integrity. I seek leave to table a letter to Mr Jabbour from ACLEI, which states in part, 'All matters have now been finalised with no adverse findings against you.' Leave granted. Mr 00AKI I table the letter. ADJOURNMENT 92 ADJOURNMENT Cost of Living, Housing 92 16:30 Mr NEUMANN HVO Blair The Albanese Labor government is focusing on matters that people in my electorate are concerned about. Our No. 1 priority remains addressing cost-of-living challenges. I know a lot of people are doing it tough locally, especially when it comes to the cost of housing and finding a place to stay. That's why we're delivering $23 billion in responsible targeted relief, while not putting upward pressure on inflation and interest rates and making it easier for people to pay off their mortgages. The evidence shows our policies are working. Yesterday's monthly CPI indicator shows inflation moderating to 4.9 per cent over the 12 months to October, down from 5.6 per cent in September. In a statement, the Australian Bureau of Statistics confirmed that the government's policies are playing a key role in moderating monthly inflation. For example, without the largest increase to Commonwealth rent assistance in 30 years, the ABS says that rent would have gone up 8.3 per cent in the year to date, not 6.6 per cent. These are encouraging results, but I know many constituents are under the pump and still doing it tough, so we're trying to make it easier for people to break into the housing market, as well as building more social and affordable housing and providing more support for renters. This week, the Albanese Labor government took another step forward in delivering the most significant housing reforms in a generation with the introduction of our Help to Buy shared equity scheme legislation. This is life changing. It brings homeownership back into the reach of 40,000 Australian households. That's 10,000 applicants per year. They're capped by location and price. For example, in the capital city and regional cities in my home state of Queensland, they're capped at $650,000, and, in the rest of the state of Queensland, they're capped at $500,000. This will include many electors in my electorate, particularly renters who otherwise wouldn't be able to buy a house. Similar schemes have operated in New South Wales, Victoria and Tasmania, where they run their own similar shared equity scheme. Under the federal government's scheme, the government will support eligible homebuyers with an equity contribution of up to 40 per cent for new homes and 30 per cent for existing homes, beginning in 2024. Homebuyers will just need a minimum of two per cent deposit of the house price, and that's the house price I referred to earlier. They will have lower ongoing repayments, saving hundreds every month on their mortgage. Eligibility for individuals will be up to $90,000 a year. For couples, it will be $120,000 a year, and that includes so many in my electorate. It won't just be a leg-up into homeownership with savings from a small deposit; it'll be long-term relief to homeowners in Blair, whether they're living in Spring Mountain, Springfield Central, Redbank Plains, Brassall, Raceview, Lowood or Fernvale. The Albanese Labor government has already helped more than 86,000 people across Australia into homeownership since the election, through the expanded Home Guarantee Scheme, including 13,000 through the new Regional First Home Buyer Guarantee, making it easier to buy a home. Recent data shows more than 2,600 homebuyers in the Ipswich region in my electorate have taken advantage of this scheme since May last year, which is one of the highest rates of take-up nationally. The Help to Buy scheme will mean more local residents can have the opportunity to achieve the great Australian dream of homeownership. That's why it's disappointing and inexplicable that the Greens political party have teamed up with the coalition, who claim they're in support of homeownership, to delay this scheme by five months. Ipswich is one of the fastest growing regions in the country, and a lot of young families moving into that area are in search of more affordable housing, so this scheme will make a big difference to people in Ipswich. The Greens political party is all rhetoric and no action. Don't look at what they say; look at how they actually vote. It is a shame that the Greens have done this. Recently, under the Albanese government's $2 billion Social Housing Accelerator, the Palaszczuk government has received more than $398 million to build 600 homes across the state. This will speed up the rollout of dozens of social housing projects in Ipswich and homes across surrounding areas, like the Somerset Region, the Lockyer Valley and the Scenic Rim. It'll add to the Queensland government's public housing projects underway in places such as Booval, North Ipswich and Redbank Plains. It will help build more of the rental homes I know our region needs. This is on top of the $10 billion Housing Australia Future Fund, which commenced 1 November and will deliver 30,000 social and affordable rental homes in the fund's first five years. Eating Disorders, Climate Change, Multiculturalism 93 16:35 Ms SPENDER 286042 Wentworth More people die each year in Australia due to eating disorders than on our roads. This shocking statistic reflects what I'm hearing from our community. I was recently approached by a young woman in Paddington who told me about her experience with an eating disorder and the difficulties of getting treatment, with one doctor saying she wasn't yet sick enough for care. She was admitted soon after and became friends with another young woman receiving the same treatment. This other young woman, tragically, died. This woman was heartbroken and grieving but ultimately frustrated and angry about the lack of support for her and her friends. Earlier this month, I held a body image forum in Wentworth with the Butterfly Foundation which brought together experts and advocates as well as people with lived experience to discuss how we can best support young people experiencing negative body image. We heard about the importance of talking with your child if they make comments about their own body or somebody else's as well as the challenge of social contagion in schools. People also shared concerns about 'what I eat in a day' trends on social media and outdated methods still used in health classes such as measuring BMI. The National Eating Disorders Strategy that the government has put forward is a promising start to addressing some of these issues, but the government must ensure adequate funding and ensure that this plan delivers prevention as well as treatment. I also commend the member for Goldstein, who has been working tirelessly on this issue for this parliament, and look forward to the recommendations she will bring forward, alongside the Butterfly Foundation and others, relating to social media and eating disorder. In Wentworth I will be providing resources to schools as well as to young people and their parents about how they can best support each other in the situation of eating disorders. I will also be working nationally to ensure that we get support for eating disorders in order to make a difference to Australians around the country. This is important work and will be one of my priorities for the year ahead. In last year's election Australians voted for strong climate action. They voted to end the denial and delay and get on top of lowering our emissions and our power bills with cheaper renewable energy. We've made significant steps forward, with emissions now estimated to reduce by 42 per cent by 2030, compared with just 30 per cent under the previous government. It has been a privilege to strengthen some of those key policies that have got us to this point, including reforming the safeguard mechanism and a billion-dollar investment to help households electrify. Today's Annual climate change statement 2023 makes clear that the ship has turned around, but it is not full steam ahead yet. Our actions are still not enough to meet Labor's modest 43 per cent target and fall well short of a minimum 50 per cent reduction that is aligned with science. That's why I will be pushing for more ambitious climate action over the coming year, including a people power plan to lower energy bills, a strong fuel efficiency standard to improve access to cleaner vehicles and the incorporation of climate into our national environment laws. Finally, I'd like to mark the end of the year with a story from my own community. My children go to a school with a lot of diversity and that brings together children of different faiths. Children from Christian families, Jewish families, other faiths and those without faith come together at the end of the year to mark the end of the year. This is a time of significance and celebration, but it comes when the world seems chaotic and when an international tragedy weighs heavily on our minds. So what a joy it was last week to attend my and other people's children's school end-of-year performance, where children from different faiths told the stories. We had Christian children telling the story of Christmas. We had the Jewish students telling us the story of Hanukkah. We had other children of other faiths and no faith celebrating the world together and peace together. It was inspiring. At a time when we are struggling for social cohesion, it was an inspiring moment to see those children out there on stage respectfully sharing their faiths and coming together as one to celebrate this time of year. It is a special time of year, and I hope that we all enjoy a peaceful and restful summer spent with those we love. Albanese Government, Canberra Electorate 94 16:40 Ms PAYNE 144732 Canberra In one of the last speaking opportunities I will have this year, I want to reflect on what a big year 2023 has been—the first full year of the Albanese Labor government. There is a lot to reflect on, on what we have achieved this year. We've legislated a new climate change act. We've introduced the long-awaited National Anti-Corruption Commission, and the Housing Australia Future Fund is now up and running as well. Today the Minister for Climate Change and Energy delivered the Annual climate change statement—a really important part of our plan to keep governments accountable as we address this incredibly pressing issue into the future and update on the progress we've made, including an announcement last week around substantial underwriting of investment in renewables to really get that transition going. Today we also had the minister for housing and small business introduce the 'help to buy' legislation as well. Just today we have made some really key achievements. Australians now have access to cheaper child care, cheaper medicines and fee-free TAFE. We've also tripled the bulk-billing incentive—the biggest investment in bulk-billing since the inception of Medicare—and I know this means so much to Canberrans; we have some of the lowest rates of bulk-billing in the country. We are really looking forward to the impact this will have on enabling people in my community to access bulk-billing. Thanks to the work of my ACT colleague the Minister for Women, Katy Gallagher, Australia has jumped 17 places in the world for gender equality rankings, as Labor delivers the biggest investment in women in 40 years. Labor has listened to the experts and has accepted and is implementing the recommendations of the Respect@Work report, the robodebt royal commission, the disability royal commission and the royal commission into aged care. In all these areas the evidence was clear that urgent action was needed. Our government is not wasting a day in government. That is a really refreshing change from the last 10 years, where we saw a lot of neglect. Another great thing we've done this year is invest in our national institutions, the majority of which are based here in Canberra, and give them the funding they need to continue doing what they do so well into the future and not have to worry about leaking roofs, cutting staff and things like that. It has been such an important thing, and this is not just for Canberra; it's for our whole nation. That leads me to something else I want to reflect on: my work this year as the chair of the Joint Standing Committee on the National Capital and External Territories. We've been doing an inquiry into fostering the significance of the national capital. This has been a great opportunity for representatives of those national institutions, of local business, of local environment groups, of residents groups, of tourism groups and of sporting groups to come together and talk about their visions for our capital and our city, its incredibly important role as our nation's capital and the significance that that has nationally and internationally, and how we can build on that and how we can share all the wonderful things about our city even better with the rest of the country and the world. I'm looking forward to our committee making recommendations on that in the new year, and I really hope we'll see some important suggestions made based on the great work and contributions of those Canberrans who have been part of that. Another major project I did locally this year was The Canberra Forum, an Australian-first deliberative democracy process which was very generously run for me by DemocracyCo, who are based in Adelaide and who designed this unique model. Over a period of six months we had 40 randomly selected Canberrans come together to discuss an issue—the one they chose was housing—and to make recommendations on that, which are published on my website. As we come into the Christmas period, I want to give a shout-out, too, to our amazing small businesses in Canberra. They really are the life of our city and give it so much character, and we rely on them every day. So, when you're buying Christmas presents, please look to our small local businesses in Canberra and support them. Lastly, I want to wish everyone in Canberra a safe and happy holiday season. Electric Vehicles: Rural and Regional Australia 95 16:45 Mrs MARINO HWP Forrest Parts of Australia are already dealing with bushfires, and we know the Labor government is trying to force Australians into buying, by majority, electric vehicles. But how would these vehicles work during sudden bushfires, cyclones and/or floods, particularly for those of us who live and work in regional and remote parts of Australia, when there is no power because the poles and wires have been destroyed or damaged? Will our lives and livelihoods be at even greater risk as a result? I want to paint you a picture. In the sudden summer lightning strikes that caused the Yarloop bushfires in 2016, 69,000 hectares were burnt and two people lost their lives. In the windy conditions, the fires moved very quickly. Given the time of year, we were home, working on our dairy farm. As the fires raged, one of the first things we lost was our electricity. The poles and wires had been burnt. The first thing we had to do was fuel up each of our farm and personal vehicles in case we had to evacuate, and we had to move those farm vehicles into green paddocks and away from the fires as much as we could. Very quickly, several of our neighbours came to fuel up at our farm fuel tanks because their own vehicles were low on fuel and they didn't have enough fuel to get away if they were told they had to evacuate because the fires were so close. What happens when all or most of these vehicles are electric, according to the government's plan—our personal vehicles, tractors, trucks, utes and motorbikes? How and where will we charge our vehicles at the height of an emergency when there is no power, when there are aggressive, fast-moving and unpredictable fires, driven by strong and changing winds, for instance, or when the spot fires are at times kilometres ahead of the actual fire front? What about when the embers are landing on our homes and on our dry paddocks and when the charging stations have no power because the power lines have been burnt down? When whole towns and communities are told to evacuate, how will they get away from the fires, cyclones or floods when there is little or no charge left in their batteries? Where and how far will we have to go to charge our vehicles or find a charging station that actually works? And, if we do, how long will the queues be? People in the Harvey and Yarloop communities were told to leave and travel to an evacuation centre or to family or friends to get away from the fires. Where will people go when there is no power to charge their vehicles to get away? How is the government planning to risk-proof our areas and people in these circumstances? And what happens when all the buses are electric? There will not be time for all of these vehicles to be recharged in the face of disasters. I haven't heard anything about plans for this. Events in Queensland and WA right now should be a very stark warning—because additional lives will be put at risk. And we know it can take weeks to restore these basic services at a time of crisis. And what will be the additional cost of lost vehicles, property and human life as a result of a total dependence on electric vehicles, and on wind and solar sources that may also be burnt when there is no power generation? What happens if the power's cut to charging stations because the power lines have burned down? What do we do then? And how much will our insurance premiums increase to cover the cost of the increased risk? This will disproportionately affect those of us who live and work in regional and remote parts of Australia. Will some of the 1,700 fire and rescue vehicles also have to be electric, and how far are they going to go? What happens when they're in the middle of a really serious fire, like those 69,000 hectares? How often will they need recharging and where will they go when they're trying to fight a fire front? This is when the power lines are already down. We also lose our communications at the same time. That's what happens to us out in the regions. Often you'd rely on your vehicle to help charge your phone to try to get in touch with someone if you could, but often the towers are out as well. I know that what happened at Donnybrook and Balingup was that residents didn't even know if they needed to turn right or left because of the intensity of the fires. In hilly areas, with fast-moving fires and wind changes it can be really impossible to get accurate warnings and communications. So this is now a very real issue for us in the regions. When the power goes out in regional and rural areas, we rely on diesel generators and gas for cooking, and we don't need to be not only cold and hungry but also stationary when these disasters happen—and they will keep happening. Bean Electorate: Tuggeranong Arts Centre, Bean Electorate: Christmas Lights for MS, Bean Electorate: Volunteers 96 16:50 Mr DAVID SMITH 276714 Bean If ever there was an arts program significantly influencing and changing the lives of creative teenagers across the ACT, it is the Messengers program of the Tuggeranong Community Arts Association. Initially funded through a suicide prevention initiative in January 2000, Messengers has provided young people with a creative respite from the pressures of navigating adolescence. Messengers is a non-clinical social support program for vulnerable young people and their families in the ACT. The program works with young people aged nine to 25 who are experiencing mental ill health, social isolation and a range of other issues. Through weekly arts based groups, participants are encouraged to develop new artistic skills and make social connections in a safe and inclusive environment. Messengers programs are specifically designed to improve psychological and social wellbeing via targeted participation in the arts. Messengers, as an evidence based program, is informed by the base of global research in the arts-for-wellbeing field. This program is building empowerment and resilience in young people through equipping them to lead fulfilling lives. Participants learn social skills and new ways of expressing themselves, and they create lifelong bonds with peers. It was great to be able to launch the program's current exhibition at the Tuggeranong Arts Centre just near my electorate office. This is an invaluable program providing a significant public good for my community and the people in Bean. The exhibition is open till 26 January. While you're there, check out the Fresh Funk retrospective as well. It is an exhibition that celebrates 20 years of this amazing hip-hop and choreography program. Lighting up the streets of the south side with stunning displays, the epic Christmas Lights for MS showcase is back to make life merry and bright for light lovers everywhere but particularly in the Tuggeranong Valley. Ben Walker and James Crowther are two constituents of mine in Bean. The pair have decorated their family houses in Tuggeranong with Christmas lights for many years. In fact, they started when they were still schoolchildren. The displays have brought a smile to the faces of countless Canberrans and visitors, and they will do so again this year. I should note that they are solar powered displays too. But, having grabbed the attention of Christmas lovers all over Canberra, in 2017 the duo quickly realised they had a platform to do something extra special for a cause close to their hearts: multiple sclerosis. So Christmas Lights for MS was created in 2018, and over the last five years the pair have raised over $56,000, an extraordinary amount, for MS Australia. Last year, MS Australia chief executive Rohan Greenland awarded the duo the MS Australia 50th anniversary president's medal in recognition of their contribution to the MS community. The fundraiser is running again this year. Be sure to look them up and visit the displays, buy raffle tickets or make a donation online. Look them up on Facebook by searching for 'Christmas Lights for MS'. I would like to wish Ben and James from Christmas Lights for MS the best of luck once again this year and thank them for their extraordinary work. Their dedication not only brightens our holiday season but also brings hope to those affected by MS. This is only one example of the extraordinary voluntary work that happens right across the electorate of Bean. While I note many of my colleagues are on the way back to their electorates across the country, the good people of Bean are actually on their way to the house, because later this evening we are running the Best of Bean, the best volunteers of 2023, in the main committee room. Recognising how hard everyone has worked, right across this week, I don't necessarily expect MPs to attend, but you'd be most welcome to hear and meet some most extraordinary Canberrans, let alone Beanites, who do amazing things every day across all fields of voluntary endeavour. Nicholls Electorate: Albanese Government 97 16:55 Mr BIRRELL 288713 Nicholls I thought I might take the opportunity to sum up the year and how things that have happened in this place have affected my electorate. My electorate had a tough start to the year, because there was a lot of flooding last year and some hailstorms that damaged the fruit crops. But I must say with disappointment—and I don't take any joy in reporting this, but—I don't think the Albanese government has governed well for the people of Nicholls this year. Obviously the dominant thing that happened this year was the Voice referendum. I think it was undercooked, underprepared. In my view it created unnecessary divisions. There was a high 'no' vote in my electorate, I'm sure because people didn't want the Constitution changed in that way. Unfortunately, that has led to many Indigenous people thinking that it was a rejection of them and their culture. I emphasise I do not believe that is the case. But I think it just shows that we've got to be very careful when we have these debates and put these referendums forward. We are still dealing with the division that that undercooked and underprepared referendum project delivered, and that's a source of sadness for me. Today, there was some legislation passed in this place that has devastated my community. Against all the advice and all the warnings from people who live in basin communities, this parliament did pass the Water Amendment (Restoring Our Rivers) Bill, the updated Murray-Darling Basin Plan, which removed some of the protections that had been put in the plan in the first place. They were protections around the extra 450 gigalitres that was sought to be delivered but that could only be delivered if it could be proven to have no socio-economic detriment. I've said many times in this place, the definition of socio-economic detriment is: does it have a detriment to society and does it have a detriment to the economy? This legislation clearly will, and it won't achieve the environmental outcomes that it seeks to achieve. I'm so disappointed that the minister's not across her brief enough to understand that or to even understand that when you're not across your brief you go into basin communities and ask them what they think, because I think we could have come to a much better arrangement that would have delivered not only great environmental outcomes for the river—the 'Golden River', which I grew up on—but also prosperous communities and with all the benefits we have from the great Australian farming produce that is produced in the Murray-Darling Basin, particularly in my area of Nicholls. Again, it's a great disappointment that people didn't understand the harm that buybacks did last time and, therefore, couldn't project forward and understand the harm buybacks will do this time. We will try to work through that. I can tell you, the Albanese government came here and said we're governing for everyone, but my people in Nicholls don't feel that based on that legislation and other things. There was some really disappointing news about infrastructure and regional infrastructure. We have some great pieces of infrastructure that were built and are being built under the previous coalition government. I thank the member for Gippsland for being here, because he and I ran—we ran across a bridge. The member for Gippsland built a bridge and got over it, which is a great piece of infrastructure that links the two towns of Echuca and Moama across the Murray River. It's a great example of what can be done by governments who have a focus on building things and not reviewing things and not trying to find excuses why things need to be cut. The road network in my region is in a parlous state. That's causing all sorts of problems around safety and around being able to get our produce to, particularly, the Port of Melbourne, where it needs to go to earn those wonderful export dollars for Australia. It's affecting our ability to do that, and the money that was going to the councils to help fix those road projects isn't going in the way it used to. I urge the Albanese government in the coming year to focus on all of those things. Try and understand: What's the engine room of the economy? Where's the money made? And do something serious about this cost-of-living crisis that's forced mortgages up in my electorate and all sorts of other prices up. We need these businesses to survive and thrive if we're going to go forward. Merry Christmas to everyone. I hope we can have a better year next year in terms of the governance of the nation. STATEMENT BY THE SPEAKER 97 STATEMENT BY THE SPEAKER Breen, Mrs Bev 97 17:00 The SPEAKER 53517 Before I call the adjournment, I have one notice to make. That is, to wish Mrs Bev Breen the best for her retirement. Bev Breen has worked as the Speaker's attendant for a number of years and has the utmost respect and admiration of all members of the House. She is someone who has served and looked after people. Now it is her time to enjoy her retirement. Bev, congratulations on a wonderful service to our parliament. We all wish you the very best in your retirement. House adjourned at 17:00 The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Payne ) took the chair at 9:30.

Thursday, 30 November 2023

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Payne ) took the chair at 9:30.

CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS 99 CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS Youth Voice in Parliament Week, Gas Industry: Protests 99 09:30 Mr BANDT M3C Melbourne Thanks to everyone in Melbourne who submitted speeches for Youth Voice in Parliament. This is a speech from Arwa Millwala: Australia must listen to its youth, hear our voices and participate in carrying out our proposals for better change. Although we are your future, we do not feel sufficiently supported. The policies of the government constantly appear to fall short, and we never get what we need. However, what do we require? Australia needs to be accessible. Access to education, avenues for change, networks of support, and a more inclusive Australia because, after all, aren't diversity and inclusivity what we're all about? Even though we are still youngsters learning, you tell us to shout louder while ignoring our cries for assistance, and you blame us for being immature because "it's too complex for you to understand," but I disagree. We do comprehend. We acknowledge the difficulty of your work, but we would like to live in a country where the fundamental issues of our planet are dealt with. Targets include living standards and quality of life as well as climate change. Many of us are getting tired of fighting for the change that needs to occur. We want to preserve Earth and take advantage of all it has to offer, but you only worry about your financial gain. Australia is our home, and you can undoubtedly do better. Thanks, Arwa Millwala, for such an amazing speech. In Western Australia, gas corporations have more rights than people have. In recent months, activists have had guns pointed at them and their homes raided. They've been thrown in jail and had their computers and phones searched and seized. They've been handed massive fines by the state and threatened to be sued by Woodside. Western Australia's emergency services minister, Stephen Dawson, even called one protest 'an act of terrorism'. Labor is acting for Woodside and against the people. Disrupt Burrup Hub has used non-violent direct action to draw attention to the dangers posed by Woodside. They've drawn attention to Woodside's new gas project, which will release 4.8 billion tonnes of emissions into the atmosphere. These emissions will increase the risk of fires, floods and heatwaves here. The WA government has always given Woodside special treatment. Woodside has always given big donations to Labor and Liberal. Protesters—students, teenagers, activists, First Nations communities and the public who want to advocate for their future—are in the crosshairs. We need to protect the right of people to protest. If we don't, Labor is going to keep backing more coal and gas. This country is built on the back of civil disobedience—the Pilbara strike, the Wave Hill walk-off, the Franklin Dam rallies and the Green bans. These were often against the law, but they were non-violent actions on the side of what's right. We will act with the community in their fight to stay safe in the face of the power of politicians from Liberal and Labor and their mates in coal and gas. Zyngier, Dr David 99 09:33 Mr BURNS 278522 Macnamara I rise with sadness to acknowledge the passing of Dr David Zyngier this past weekend. David was a sitting councillor in the city of Glen Eira and a passionate advocate for social justice, education and our community. David's passing came as a great shock to all of us. David was the son of Holocaust survivors from Poland, and he was the first in his family to complete high school and attend university. He graduated from Monash University, where he later returned as an academic and as an educator. David was a well-respected member of our Jewish community. We didn't always agree on things—in fact, we often didn't agree on things—but I respected his intellect and his willingness to tackle difficult issues. He was a leader in the youth movement Hashomer Hatzair, a principal of the King David School, an active member of his synagogue, a member of the Jewish Climate Network and a fierce advocate for LGBTIQ+ rights in our community. He was elected as the councillor for Camden Ward in the city of Glen Eira just a few years ago, and he quickly became a passionate advocate for climate action and public services on the council. He co-founded the Glen Eira Emergency Climate Action Network and helped to develop the council's target of achieving net zero council emissions by 2025. David and I belonged to different political parties. Indeed, not only did he not vote for me but he actively campaigned against me at the last election. He was a proud member of the Greens. But, before he drifted into that journey, David actually launched my campaign, in 2014, when I was a candidate in the state election. He was a friend. I think he probably had sympathy for both our parties, but in the end he made the decision, he stuck with it and he was proud of that association. David was respectful, kind and compassionate. He was an active member of our community and he always sought to represent people in the best way he knew how. He came into my office frequently. He would sit down and, as we had a cup of tea, he would try and convince me of what actions needed to happen, usually on a council matter. He would push for things like greater bike paths, greater active citizenship and, obviously, climate action as well. He joined our campaign in the referendum and was a big part of the Macnamara for Yes campaign, even though he was unwell at the time. Throughout his life he committed himself to research, to education, to activism and to community life. He was a good man, he was a smart man, he was a community man and he enriched our community by all of his efforts. To his wife, Suzanne, and his children, Romy, Talia and Joel, I send my deepest condolences. I also send my condolences to the Greens and the broader Greens community. As we say in the Jewish tradition, may his memory be a blessing. Fairfax Electorate: Transport Infrastructure 100 09:36 Mr TED O'BRIEN 138932 Fairfax The Sunshine Coast is one of the fastest growing regions in Australia—and for good reason. We are a lifestyle capital. Our natural environment is second to none. We have a very tight-knit community, and we are the most entrepreneurial region of the country. We are experiencing net migration like no other place in the country, and one of the growing pains for the Sunshine Coast, for some time now, has been a lack of transport infrastructure. So the objective has been to put the building of infrastructure ahead of the population curve. Now, there are three big priorities here: (1) Bruce Highway, (2) North Coast rail line and (3) Sunshine Motorway. The Bruce Highway and the Sunshine Motorway present challenges to safety. Then, when you add on the rail, there are serious issues with travel time, especially with congestion. For the Bruce Highway and the North Coast rail line, the former coalition government was able to secure over $4 billion to upgrade those networks. Never before had the Sunshine Coast seen so much federal government funding for infrastructure than under the previous coalition government. For the Sunshine Motorway, although it is 100 per cent the responsibility of the Queensland government, the former coalition government announced $160 million towards that $320 million project around the Mooloolah River Interchange at the southern end of the Sunshine Motorway, which is the real pain point for people, especially locally. In morning and afternoon traffic, it is effectively a car park. We put that $160 million on the table to force the hand of the state. Eventually, it worked. Planning was done and construction was ready. In fact, we had hundreds of houses moved. We had residents relocate—and then what happened? After Labor candidates at the last federal election promised they would honour it, and after the Albanese government promised, in office, they would honour it, the Labor government have subsequently scrapped that $160 million for that project, effectively ripping it out. Those residents that had moved houses—amidst a housing crisis, no less—are now faced with the prospect of looking at their old homes with no such road being built. Our communities are at a standstill. This is going to be dangerous for our residents, and the government, including people in this chamber, laugh. That's how Labor feels about the Sunshine Coast. Fraser Electorate: Casa Bonita 100 09:39 Dr MULINO 132880 Fraser I rise to acknowledge the work of Liliana Bravo and the great partnership that her social enterprise and her social enterprise empowerment hub have with Victoria University and Maribyrnong City Council. Casa Bonita is a social enterprise and women's empowerment hub that was formed several years ago and works with migrant women to facilitate their empowerment and the growth of emerging businesses. There are three prongs to Casa Bonita. Firstly, it is a storefront that allows Latin American and Indigenous artisans to offer their products to the local community in Victoria that I live in. It also offers empowerment and business development opportunities to migrants and international students, and it holds socially conscious events. In addition, Casa Bonita is a wonderful reflection of partnerships. I was at an event just last week, and what was clear from that event was the depth of partnerships that Casa Bonita has developed with Victoria University and Maribyrnong City Council. Victoria University has provided a space that Casa Bonita is going to be able to operate in and move into from its Seddon shopfront that it has worked in for several years. Already that space is a vibrant space full of life and colour. In fact, on the day that I attended last week, it was also full of music and dancing, and I was actually dragged into one of the dances, but fortunately that wasn't captured on any video equipment as far as I'm aware. I also want to talk about another aspect of what Casa Bonita offers. It is about small business, it is about migrant small business and it is about social enterprise. There are around 620,000 migrant owned businesses around this country. A recent report found that they offer employment opportunities for over 1.4 million people. That is remarkable. As a migrant myself, I know of many small businesses that have been created by migrants and that offer employment opportunities and entrepreneurial outlets for migrant. But Casa Bonita offers something in addition to that; it provides a distribution channel for 250 artisans and entrepreneurs in Columbia, and, as I mentioned earlier, it is a social enterprise. The social enterprise sector is one that I've talked about many times in this place. Social enterprises have social purpose and business sustainability hardwired into their operations, and Casa Bonita is a wonderful example of that. Casa Bonita won the Victorian Multicultural Award for Excellence in Business in 2021 and was a nominee for the Maribyrnong City Council business awards in 2022. A division having been called in the House of Representatives— Sitting suspended from 09 : 42 to 09 : 53 Youth Voice in Parliament Week 101 09:53 Ms McKENZIE 124514 Flinders I'm very excited today to rise and present two speeches written by Emma and Samuel Gardner from the Mornington Peninsula Shire as part of the Raise Our Voice Youth Voice in Parliament Week. Emma writes: My name is Emma and I am 12 years old. I live in the electorate of Flinders. I am here to tell you about homelessness, which means not having a safe place to live. As American politician Linda Lingle once said, "We have come dangerously close to accepting our homeless problem as one we cannot solve." The main reasons for homelessness include: unsafe home environments, physical/mental health issues, and expenses. On any night, at least 122,000 people will be experiencing homelessness. These people are not just on the streets, they can be couch surfing, or sleeping in public transport or their cars. It doesn't have to be this way. We can help these people by doing things like lowering the house prices. This could be achieved by passing a law where if you have been homeless for more than six months, you are entitled to a discount to make it more affordable. The average house price in Australia is $896,000, which is quite expensive for many people. This law would help people who are stuck living in homelessness to get a house, job and sense of safety. We need to work together to make a brighter future for all Australians, and helping the homeless would be a great start. The second one: My name is Samuel Gardener and I am 11 years old. I live in the electorate of Flinders. I am here today to recognise the major problem that is food waste. It is an issue for the environment that I think is an enormous one. This is because every year, the amount of food wasted could fill the MCG 9 times! It costs Australia over 100 million dollars a day. We must work together to fix an issue that has affected us for decades. As Pope Francis once said, 'throwing away food is like stealing from the table of those who are poor and hungry'. So we have a choice. We can either rise to the challenge and the occasion, or we can sit back on our heels and wait for someone else to fix it. So tell me. Did racism and sexism just stop? Or did it take hard work and dedication from the government? Right now, that's the challenge we're faced with. An issue has come, and it's up to us to decide whether it becomes bigger, or we can stop the reason so many people are dying of malnutrition. My generation and all the others after it, will grow up thinking it's ok to waste food and won't be able to have great quality roads and food. Thank you to Samuel and Emma. Eden-Monaro Electorate: Remount, Eden-Monaro Electorate: Gravity Eden, Waste Management and Recycling 101 09:56 Ms McBAIN 281988 Eden-Monaro I recently had the pleasure of attending the annual open day of Remount, which is a not-for-profit organisation assisting those who have served to get 'back in the saddle' and reconnect through horsemanship. Located on a beautiful farm in Binalong, near Yass, they deliver horsemanship programs for current and former service men and women and their families, who may be experiencing stress, PTSD and/or physical injury related due to their service. Their experienced team takes participants through all aspects of horsemanship and mustering. Remount is delivered at absolutely no cost to current and former serving members of the military and has recently widened its remit to service first responders as well. The team of drovers and ringers who run the programs are all volunteers, generously giving their time, and they're putting on 10 circuit-breaking weekends this year. At the open day I was able to talk to participants, who told me that Remount had literally saved their lives. I'm thankful for what founders Ben and Marina Maguire have achieved with Remount, and I share their optimism and recognise them for the support they give to those who have served. I was absolutely thrilled to celebrate the opening of Gravity Eden, which took place on the weekend. This project has been in the works for many, many years, and it's one that I've been a big supporter of, from its conception to its reality. Gravity Eden is Eden's new mountain-bike park, consisting of more than 58 kilometres of mountain-bike trails and spanning a remarkable 300-metre elevation. The project came about thanks to the collaboration between the Eden Mountain Bike Club, Eden Community Access Centre, and Forestry Corporation of NSW, along with a $4.52 million co-contribution from the Australian and NSW governments under the Bushfire Local Economic Recovery program. Eden represents not only an exceptional mountain-biking destination but also a vibrant community. The multimillion-dollar project will deliver a critical contribution to our local community. I can't wait to get the kids down there. Well done to everyone involved. Recently we had the launch of the national circularity centre in Bega. Quite simply, circularity is how we use our scarce resources, with the aim of using them to their highest value in a more sustainable way going forward. The community in Bega, along with industry, agriculture and government, have joined to create a regionally based program to improve circularity. I was so proud to be there at the launch. It's a place where so many people have come together. The circular valley would not have happened without the Bega Group, one of Australia's great food companies and home of Bega Cheese and Vegemite. Under the leadership of CEO Barry Irvin—and together with Bega Valley Shire Council, the NSW government, the University of Wollongong and many others—this project has grown from an idea to a reality. The Albanese government are so committed to circularity that we have a one-billion-dollar investment to improve circularity in Australia. (Time expired) Lindsay Electorate: Cost of Living 102 09:59 Mrs McINTOSH 281513 Lindsay 2023 has been a hard year right across Western Sydney because of the Albanese Labor government. The cost-of-living crisis is crippling families in my community. In parliament this year I've raised this issue time and time again, because cost of living is the key driver of discussions around the kitchen tables of family homes in Western Sydney. It is so dire that mental health organisations are telling me that cost of living is now presenting in issues for children's worries at school and in their surveys and studies. We know kids can take on the burdens of Mum and Dad, but it doesn't have to be this way. We have a prime minister who promised Australia a $275 reduction in power bills. This has not happened. Energy and gas prices have risen substantially. I have constituents from St Marys in my community that have contacted the office saying they can't turn on the heater because of the cost. With summer around the corner and Penrith being one of the hottest places in Australia, I can only imagine the stress and anxiety going through many families' minds as they consider turning on the air conditioning in a sweltering home. Food and grocery prices are up and real wages have fallen by five per cent over the last 12 months. Many won't be celebrating Christmas with the usual festive spirit; they will purchasing what they can at the shops and making the most of being with family and friends, whilst many will be lining up at food banks when they've never had to do so before. The Leader of the Opposition and I recently visited Penrith Community Kitchen, where we were told that double-income families were lining up for meals to take home for the very first time. Interest rates have risen time and time again. This impacts my community, with more mortgage holders and renters than average in Australia. Families in Londonderry and Glenmore Park have contacted my office worried they might have to move to the regions as they cannot afford to live locally. These are mums and dads who work in Western Sydney, the kids go to school and play sport in Western Sydney, their families and friends are there. The Albanese Labor government is killing the Western Sydney dream for so many aspirational families working so hard to get ahead. We need real action to drive down inflation and to turbocharge the economy. We need to back in small businesses and our local Australian manufacturers, which are working so hard but are not getting anywhere under this government. This is what a Dutton led coalition government would do for the people of Western Sydney who are struggling so hard right now. It is not just about cost of living; we have had cuts to major infrastructure projects that our community has needed for so long, particularly with Western Sydney International Airport coming on. Millions of dollars were just ripped away from Western Sydney. With an airport that is due in only a couple of years time, Western Sydney is dying. It is in dire straits and really calling on the Albanese government to listen to the people. Lilley Electorate: Infrastructure, Lilley Electorate: Community Events 103 10:02 Ms WELLS 264121 Lilley The suburb of Banyo in my electorate of Lilley is home to the only group that's building batteries made out of 100 per cent Australian compounds and materials. I recently took the Minister for Industry and Science for a tour of the QUT Advanced Battery Facility and the Energy Storage Research Group based at the Banyo Pilot Plant Precinct. The Albanese government has announced a $392 million Industry Growth Program to support Lilley businesses to commercialise innovative ideas like this one and to expand their operations. Small and medium enterprises in Lilley will be able to receive advice from industry experts to apply for grants from $50,000 to $5 million. This is exactly the kind of investment that we need on the north side to support local jobs and deliver a future made in Australia. Residents of Brisbane's northern bayside in my election of Lilley have been waiting for more than a decade to see the Brighton Foreshore revitalised. In 2011, the Brisbane City Council paused a promised multimillion-dollar rejuvenation project ostensibly due to financial pressures caused by the Brisbane floods of the same year. Nearly 13 years later I'm pleased as the federal member for Lilley that I have been able to deliver on an election promise to commit $5 million to the Brighton Foreshore upgrade alongside the Councillor for Deagon Ward, Jared Cassidy. A concept plan for Brighton Foreshore is now open for public consultation and outlines more opportunities for recreation, relaxing and meeting with family and friends in one of the many places that make the electorate of Lilley great. I urge Lilley locals to have a look at the Brighton Foreshore concept plan on the Brisbane City Council website at the moment and to offer your feedback online or to attend a local information session. On 23 October, 5,000 Northsiders turned out to enjoy market stores, food trucks and free entertainment at our inaugural Geebung Street Party. The community event was inspired by the 70th birthday of the Geebung State School to celebrate the history and the future of this vibrant suburb. I would especially like to thank the council for Deagon Ward, the member for Aspley and their teams, the event sponsors, the Geebung RSL and Kuhn Corp Print & Packaging for making this great family celebration such an outstanding success. With my bonus remaining time, may I congratulate Min Woo Lee on his outstanding success at the PGA Championship in Brisbane last weekend. He is a proud Perth man who is going from strength to strength and taking the golf world by storm. I also wish him, Adam Scott and Cam Smith all the very best as they take on the Australian Open Golf in Sydney, which starts today. Very best of luck, gentlemen. We wish you all the very best. Good luck to Minjee Lee as well, who will try to defend her crown. Human Rights: Armenia 103 10:05 Mr LEESER 109556 Berowra In recent weeks the world's attention has rightly been focused on the aftermath of the Hamas terror attacks in Israel. We've also seen Putin's war on Ukraine, where autocrats and dictators are seeking to enforce their will on others. Less remarked upon but just as important is that the Armenian people are witnessing a new era of genocidal crimes against them. In 2020 the Azerbaijani dictator Aliyev launched a premeditated attack on the Republic of Artsakh. Azerbaijan used drones, targeted civilians and destroyed community gathering points such as schools and churches. Targeting of Armenian churches in Artsakh mirrors activity undertaken a century ago during the Armenian genocide. Azerbaijan executed POWs and deployed illegal white phosphorous bombs—the bombs that melt skin. The 2020 attack was a forerunner of what was to come. In December last year a group of Azerbaijanis blocked the Lachin corridor, which is the lifeline road that connects Armenia to Artsakh. The goal was clear: starve the people of food, medicine, supplies and gas. In February, the International Court of Justice ordered Azerbaijan to open the corridor and they refused. As an International Criminal Court prosecutor remarked, 'Starvation is the invisible genocide weapon.' On 19 September this year, following a 10-month blockade, Azerbaijan undertook a 24-hour military assault. It was a final choke. The choice for the people of Artsakh was stark: leave or die—put another way: genocide or ethnic cleansing. Over 100,000 Indigenous Armenians fled their homes, leaving everything—homes, clothing, pets and memories—and taking little more than what was on their back. Old people left their only world, and children left the security of their homes. Fewer than a thousand people remain in Artsakh, and, for the first time in 5,000 years, the region has been emptied of its Armenian inhabitants. All through the terrible actions of the past years, we see the invisible hand of the Turkish tyrant Erdogan. The evidence is that he stands in wait for a full-scale war on Armenia. My hope is that Turkiye as well as Azerbaijan will take a step back from the brink. That starts with the release of political prisoners, hostages and POWs held by Azerbaijan, and it must include the right of ethnic Armenians to return home to Artsakh. Solidarity matters, and words matter because they sustain hope. I stand with my Armenian friends, as so many Australians do. I commend the Armenian National Committee of Australia for its work highlighting what has been happening in Artsakh. It was wonderful to meet the committee's youth advocates recently. I met with Vache Kechichian, Noobar Chahinian, Sebastian Majarian, Maral Keerfork and Isabelle Parazyan. They are purposeful, passionate and optimistic and a reminder of the wonderful multicultural country we have. It's right we acknowledge our friends the Armenian people. It's right that we stand in solidarity with the Republic of Artsakh. May the people of Artsakh be free to return safely to their homes soon. McMahon Electorate: Fairfield West 104 10:08 Mr BOWEN DZS McMahon I want to tell the House about a very important new book Fairfield West:From Rural to Residential, which was recently published in my electorate. I want to congratulate: Florence Callicott, for authoring the book; Florence and Margaret Shears, who are the editors; and the Fairfield West history group for this very, very important book and—I'm sure honourable members would agree—a very substantial history of the fine suburb of Fairfield West. As I write in the foreword, other parts of our community have received more attention in the history books, like Fairfield itself and Cabramatta, so it's high time that Fairfield West got this attention. Fairfield West is, of course, a very important home to many in our community, and it has a vibrant history. There's much here. There are some things in here I knew about and some things I learnt when I read this book. Despite the fact that my office has been in Fairfield West for the last 11 or 12 years or so, there is always something more to learn. Of course, we know about the history of the Kmart store in Fairfield West, which was New South Wales's most successful Kmart store when it closed, and now my electorate office is on its site. Very famous in the history of Fairfield West is the time the elephants from the visiting circus walked down Hamilton Road. But there are many other great things in this book. There's the great history of the King's Hall. There's the great history of Fairfield West Public School. Of interest to the Minister for Sport, who joins us in the chamber, is a great section on the history of Westfield Sports High School, which has produced many fine Australian sportspeople, including the former captain of the Australian cricket team, Michael Clarke; many Olympians, including Dani Stevens; and many Matildas. Westfield High School is, of course, a block down from my electorate office. I'm a regular visitor there, and I'm very proud of it. Florence Callicott, nee Stimson, and the Stimson family are a very important part of our history. Several mayors of Fairfield and other local government areas have been members of the Stimson family. I was also recently pleased to attend the reopening of the fountain in Fairfield, which was established many decades ago and then was lost. It was recently found in a tip and Fairfield council restored it. I was pleased to join the mayor, Frank Carbone, and members of the Stimson family as it was put back in its rightful place, in The Crescent in Fairfield. I commend Florence Callicott and the Fairfield West Old Timers History Group for their very fine history of Fairfield West. I will leave a copy in the waiting room of my electorate office. I try not to keep my constituents waiting too long, but occasionally there's a small delay. At least they'll have something to read as they're waiting for their constituent interviews. Given my office is in Fairfield West, it's a very fine thing to have in my electorate office. I congratulate Florence and all involved. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 144732 In accordance with standing order 193, the time for members' constituency statements has concluded. CONDOLENCES 104 CONDOLENCES Hayden, Hon. William George (Bill), AC 104 10:11 Mr BOWEN DZS McMahon Bill Hayden was a favourite son of Queensland. He was a servant of our party. He was an eminent Australian, and he was a friend of mine. Bill Hayden's loss did not come as a surprise to those of us who knew him, but it came as a sadness nonetheless. Bill Hayden was a very, very good man. I want to talk about his political achievements over many portfolios in a long time in this House. I want to focus particularly on his achievements as Treasurer. He spent a relatively brief period as Treasurer—only six months—but his impact as Treasurer was enormous and is still felt today. In that six-month period, he crammed in a lot. He inherited a very difficult situation. It was probably the hardest incoming brief of any Treasurer since Ted Theodore before him and Wayne Swan, who came after him. Labour treasurers from Queensland tend to have a rough road, as they inherit very tough economic situations. Bill Hayden was no exception to that rule of the three Labor treasures from Queensland. Of all the treasures of Australia, few were better suited or better prepared for the role than Bill Hayden. He famously entered parliament as a policeman, but then studied at night in the Old Parliamentary Library and got his economics degree. He studied very hard, and he was a very, very fine Treasurer indeed. He brought discipline and toughness but also compassion. He got out-of-control spending back in control. He reduced the budget deficit substantially. In that six-month period, he also embarked on an amazing period of economic reform, reducing the number of tax thresholds from 14 to seven, which is an amazing thing to think about in today's context. He also ensured that fairness and compassion were his talisman in the budget that he brought down. Bill Hayden's crowning achievement, which has stood—and will stand—for generations, was his work as the Minister for Social Services in engineering Medibank, which was the precursor to Medicare. Medicare is now an inbuilt part of our body politic and of our social construct. It is a standard that nobody would dare attack, but it was highly controversial when it was introduced. It's sometimes easy to gloss over and forget what a hard job it was for Bill Hayden. He was subject to scare campaigns and vicious attacks. His wife received threatening calls at home. His personal health records were released to the public as part of that campaign against him, and yet he persevered, and he delivered Medibank. The scare campaign was, of course, not borne out. It was eventually watered down by the Fraser government, but it came back strongly in Medicare. That is his crowning achievement, for which Australians enjoying Medicare in 2023 can still be thankful. In many ways Bill Hayden set the tone for the Hawke-Keating years of reform. He took over as Leader of the Labor Party in 1977 and served until that famous—or infamous—day in 1983 when the election was called. He set a tone of compassion, again, but also discipline and toughness. He made clear that the Labor Party would need to engage in fiscal rigour and careful, methodical reform if we were to return to the government benches. It's often said that the Hawke-Keating cabinet was the best cabinet in the history of Federation, which I think is true. Bill Hayden of course was a very important member of the cabinet, as Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade. More importantly, the Hawke-Keating cabinet was the Hayden shadow cabinet; he put it in place. When Bob Hawke became leader, he didn't change a thing. Apart from appointing Bill as minister for foreign affairs, he left the rest of the arrangements in place—as close as possible—and that is to Bill Hayden's great credit. I came to know Bill in later life when I wrote The Money Men, a history of the treasurers. I included Bill Hayden as one of the 12 most notable treasurers in Australian history, despite his relatively short tenure. I got to know him. He was a little bit wary, at first, that I was writing this book and I was from the New South Wales Right. The New South Wales Right wasn't always high on his Christmas card list, it's true to say. He was a little wary, but, as soon as I assured him that it was a very genuine exercise, he was extraordinarily generous and we became good friends. I would visit him. I visited him in hospital. He had a long stint in hospital in the electorate of the member for Blair. He was in hospital for many weeks. I spent half a day with him in that hospital room at one point. He made a point of bringing all the nurses in to meet me. He introduced me to everyone, and anybody passing by in the corridor got pulled in by Bill. I got the opportunity to see Dallas on that visit and on other visits to Bill as well. It was wonderful to see Dallas in the parliament yesterday. It was a very big effort for her to make it to the parliament. We all know how deeply Dallas is feeling the loss, after decades of marriage, and a very successful marriage at that. I do want to stay, on a personal note, that I had a deep and warm and abiding affection for Bill Hayden. He was a very genuine, deeply compassionate and considered man, and his company was always a pleasure. He always had a view about events in Canberra. He watched events very closely. It was his destiny not to be Prime Minister of Australia. He would've been a very good Prime Minister of Australia, but that wasn't his destiny. We ended up with another very good Prime Minister in Bob Hawke. Bill Hayden made his contribution as Minister for Social Security, as Treasurer, as Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade and as Governor-General. There are a few people who can say they've been Treasurer, minister for foreign affairs and Governor-General—Lord Casey is one—but not many; it's a rare trifecta. In his later years, Bill could certainly look back with great pride, as the many generations of his family can today. Bill Hayden, my friend, rest in peace. 10:18 Mr WILKIE C2T Clark I hope to bring another dimension to this debate on the passing of the late Bill Hayden. I'd like to talk a little bit about his time as Governor-General of Australia. I was very fortunate in January 1989 to be appointed as aide-de-camp to the Governor-General. I served there for 12 months, until January 1990. That was the last six weeks or so of Sir Ninian Stephen and the first year or so of Bill Hayden as Governor-General. I have to say I came into that position with some wariness, given Bill's outspokenness about Australia becoming a republic. Honourable members would recall the controversy when it was announced that Bill would be the Governor-General, but he took it in his stride as he took on the role. I was fairly conservative back in those days—I wasn't the old leftie that I think I've become—but I took up the appointment and went to work for Bill. I've got to say that I was very, very quickly won over by Bill and his wonderful wife, Dallas. I would be hard pressed to think of a more thoroughly decent man than Bill Hayden. And I don't say that lightly. I don't say that because it's a condolence motion. I don't need to stand here and say that. He was genuinely a thoroughly decent man and he influenced me deeply. He used to take the ADCs under his wing a bit. As we were either driving out to the 34 Squadron in the Rolla, driving around Sydney in the Comcar or sitting on the plane, or at a dinner with the personal staff, we'd talk about all sorts of things, and it was Bill who introduced me properly to the whole idea of social justice. I think in that one year I did a backflip from a staunch conservative army officer to a bit of a sly leftie in the ranks, and I'm really, really grateful for that influence that Bill had on me back then. I would also add that Dallas won me over straightaway as another thoroughly decent human being, and it was a delight to speak briefly with Dallas and her son and two daughters when they were in Parliament House this week—a really lovely family. Apart from everything else, this is a sad family story that they've lost their dad and their husband. I would add to the comment earlier that it was a very long and very loving marriage, and quite a good example was set for us all. However, I must add, though, that I did feel that, as warm as the Haydens were to the military staff, they were initially, at least, a bit uncomfortable in having uniformed military personnel hovering around them. It wasn't really Bill's thing. I understand that, after that first year, he might have even removed the military staff, or at least the uniformed ADCs, although I think more recently they've come back and are on the payroll, so to speak. Mind you, Bill did see the value of us in uniform, and I remember a lovely trip up to the Kimberley. I think we were in Kalumburu talking to the schoolchildren at the school there. Bill was trying to explain to them the role of the Governor-General and all the concepts that swirl around that. You could see, with the little kids, that their eyes were just glazing over and they were nodding off. I think that Bill, with a little bit of exasperation, eventually just gave up and called on me: 'Captain, come over here. They're all looking at you, not me. They're looking at your aiguillette, your uniform and your slouch hat. Please tell them about that.' And I did. He commented afterwards—I think it might have been as we were flying out of Kalumburu to somewhere else, and I don't know if this was a joke or if he was half-serious—that maybe he should bring back the vice-regal ceremonial uniform with the big hat and the feathers. He thought, perhaps if he did that, he might get more attention from the schoolchildren. This is not entirely unrelated to another episode I recall. During the pilot strike of 1989, whenever he went anywhere in Australia he generously invited government ministers to grab a lift on the VIP flight. I recall that, very late one night, we were flying back from Perth—it might have been after the funeral of the late governor—and he had at least two senior cabinet ministers on the plane, and I was lucky enough to be sitting there with them. Red wine had been consumed, and one of the senior cabinet ministers—I won't name him, as a courtesy—made some comment. We started talking about the dismissal, or, well, they started talking about the dismissal—I just sat respectfully. One of the senior cabinet ministers made the observation that the dismissal wouldn't have happened if Bill Hayden had been the Governor-General. Bill Hayden stopped them in their tracks and said: 'I don't know. Maybe the Governor-General's mistake at the time was not so much what he did but that he acted too quickly'—and that he would have been well advised to have given Malcolm Fraser and Gough Whitlam more time to resolve the issue. He recounted an episode in British history where apparently the sovereign, whoever it was at the time, called the British Prime Minister and the British opposition leader into their office and said something like, 'You're not leaving this office until we've resolved the impasse.' So that was one aspect of Bill's take on the dismissal. Interestingly, Bill also said at the time that he believed very strongly that there should be a strong head of state to counterbalance the head of government. So that was, in a roundabout way, saying that we do need a Governor-General with some power, not just a figurehead. That bringing people together in the sovereign's office does also remind me of how Bill would try and bring people together. There was a memorable dinner at Government House in 1989, where Bill Hayden actually had both Gough Whitlam and Malcolm Fraser around for dinner with him, and by all reports the three of them got on famously. He brought people together. Bill was a very astute man. He was very forgiving. I won't go into detail, but he forgave my rowdy roof party at Government House in Canberra, and he also forgave me for an unapproved rowdy party that I somehow managed to bring together at Admiralty House in Sydney one weekend when he wasn't there. He forgave me for both, so I think he was a very forgiving man and I'm grateful. Thank you, Bill. Thank you, Dallas. Bill, you were a remarkable man, a thoroughly decent man. You were highly intelligent and inquisitive, compassionate and forgiving. There is no doubt that Bill Hayden influenced a great many people, and he left the world a better place. For that, I think we should all be grateful. I am personally very grateful for the way he has reshaped my life in a significant way, and I think it's reflected in my voting pattern in this very parliament. Thank you, Bill. 10:26 Mr NEUMANN HVO Blair Bill Hayden was the best Labor Prime Minister Australia did not have. He was a decent, honourable, wise and compassionate man. He was my first federal MP. He served as member of Oxley for 27 years, and during that time he was a great example for me. He was my federal MP and my constituent later in life. Bill Hayden was born in Brisbane on 23 January 1933. He was raised in a tough environment in South Brisbane. A child of the depression, he called himself. He told me that on numerous occasions. He grew up in poverty in difficult family straits. He grew up 'getting angry', as he said in his 1996 autobiography. World War II deeply affected Bill, as did the death of his beloved wartime leader, Labor Prime Minister John Curtin, in 1945. Bill started his working life in the Queensland public service, but it didn't really excite him very much. He was conscripted into the Navy as part of the national service training, an experience of compulsion which nearly influenced him into joining the Communist Party. He joined the Queensland police as a constable and was posted at Redbank police station in Ipswich. His earlier life experiences made Bill set about attending to the 'great register of social injustices', as he would describe it. He accumulated these from childhood, through his police years and into parliament. He married Dallas, a coalminer's daughter. 'Love at first sight', he said, and that without her he would've been a lesser person. His beloved children gave him purpose and made him a better person. That was Bill's humble way of saying how people influenced his life. He was elected to the House of Representatives in 1961. It was a remarkable feat to get elected to the federal seat of Oxley. He was 28 years of age and up against long-sitting member Dr Donald Cameron, the health minister in the Menzies government. He needed a huge swing. Dr Cameron's grandfather was the principal at Ipswich Grammar School, Dr Cameron's wife, Rhoda, started Meals on Wheels in Ipswich, and Dr Cameron had been Dallas's family doctor and had delivered Dallas as a baby. Oxley was 18,000 square kilometres, a combination of Blair, Oxley, Wright, Longman and Maranoa in our terms. It was a regional and rural electorate. Bill won a preselection of intensity and drama against a favoured AWU candidate, a win that would rival Paul Keating's preselection nearly a decade later. It was full of vim and vigour, but Bill would win that preselection comfortably, so it didn't become a national issue as Paul's preselection became. He won Oxley in the general election. He campaigned in country towns up and down the rural parts outside of Ipswich. I met many people, when I first started campaigning in 2004 and 2007, who said that they'd not met a Labor candidate since Bill Hayden. He was a wonderful local representative. That young man proved how good he could be as an MP, and if I could be even a quarter as good an MP as Bill Hayden I would achieve a lot. He was devoted to country and city. He turned up at rural shows dutifully. As he told me, when he was driving behind wagons, tractors and horse carts, driving up those country roads, he was thinking about the fact that he had to go up to those areas on a Saturday for a country show. He used to say to me: 'Just keep doing it, Shayne. You've just got to keep doing it.' He established Labor Party branches in country areas. He helped his constituents faithfully. He did mobile offices to ensure they could access him. On the day Bill passed away, someone at the dinner celebrating 100 years of the Country Women's Association in Esk—an area that he represented initially and I represent now—gave me a copy of a now-defunct newspaper, the Brisbane Valley Star. I'd never heard of it. On 12 February 1965, here was Bill Hayden advertising a mobile office at the Club Hotel in Toogoolawah and Martin's shop in Esk. I don't know Martin's shop in Esk—it's not there anymore, and I don't know what it sold. I would call that a country mobile office run. Bill and Dallas were constituents of mine, and they lived on their rural property up on the hill at Bryden, overlooking Somerset Dam. Bill told me many times to keep doing those mobile offices in the Somerset region, but he used to say, 'Don't forget Ipswich.' If my vote was too low in Ipswich, he used to tell me to keep campaigning there. Bill said when he got preselected the idea was that the Ipswich vote would look after itself, but it was never high enough federally. He traced the difference between the state vote in Ipswich and the federal vote and said that, back into the 1920s, the state vote in Ipswich was always higher than the federal vote. He had to get that vote up in Ipswich, he said. The Ipswich Civic Centre exists because of Bill Hayden and the Prime Minister Bill would call 'the great man', Gough Whitlam. Buildings and streets are named after Bill in Ipswich: the WG Hayden Humanities Centre and WG Hayden Drive in Collingwood Park. He left his imprint everywhere. By the end of his days in parliament, his seat of Oxley looked like Oxley now plus the urban parts of Blair, after numerous redistributions—some of which he was really happy about, let me tell you. He told me so after he and I both spoke at the funeral of Herb Olm, who was one of his campaign workers in the Lockyer Valley. Without Bill Hayden, we wouldn't have universal health care. As the member for McMahon said before, it was a tough gig. Bill and Dallas lost friends. People would walk on the other side of the street because they hated what Bill was doing, and Dallas copped so much opprobrium. But Medibank, hard fought, paved the way for Medicare. And that controversial single mothers pension—I met people who told me they would never vote for Bill Hayden again because of that, because somehow it would ruin morality. But Bill's experience as a child, and his experience as a police officer, meant that he knew that bringing in a single mothers pension was the decent and honourable thing to do. That paved the way for what we call family tax benefits today. He did that as social security minister. He became Treasurer much too late; Whitlam should have appointed him and not Jim Cairns. But, interestingly, Malcolm Fraser's coalition passed Bill's budget unamended. In the dying days before the dismissal, Bill gave Labor economic credibility. He gave Whitlam his sage advice—his copper's instinct. He told me this, too, and it's been recorded in history: be wary of John Kerr as Governor-General. As a teenager, I asked Bill about the dismissal at a St Paul's Anglican Church dinner dance one night. I hadn't voted in a federal election. I was there with a girl—who would later become my wife, can I tell you—and I asked him, 'Was that a conspiracy?' Now, Bill was too clever for me. He was opposition leader at the time. He was my local MP, and Bill said to me, clearly and cleverly, 'Kerr did not act alone.' Subsequent events and documents have proved Bill's copper's instincts were correct: Kerr did not act alone. In 1975, Bill nearly lost. He was the only serving Labor MP in federal parliament after 1975. He didn't stand for the front bench and only became leader in '77. He told me that, for years after the 1975 election, he couldn't bring himself to drive a certain way into Brisbane, because those suburbs had voted against him in droves. So he didn't forgive or forget too easily. He was shrewd. He was smart. His life experiences meant he had great insight—a certain perspicacity, I think—and was a shrewd judge of character. People have said he was humble. I've spoken to people like Rachel Nolan, a former member for Ipswich, and David Hamill, a former member for Ipswich, both ministers in the Queensland Labor government. David was a Treasurer in the Queensland Labor government. He knew Bill very well and had the benefit of Bill launching their campaigns, as he did mine at times. Dallas was always there with him. She would always come. David always called him 'William George' with great affection, because David worked for him. Rachel has always said about Bill that he was so wise and so clever he could pick people out really well. Even in his retirement, before ill health incapacitated him, he'd ring me up and say: 'It's Bill Hayden here, Shayne. It's Bill Hayden.' I'd say: 'I know who you are, Bill. I recognise your voice. You're my federal MP.' And he would talk to me about fishing in Italy and about how climate change was affecting Spain. He'd watched some program or read some book. He was really worried that NRL players wouldn't get a proper workers compensation scheme. So he had great knowledge. I remember in the last meeting I had with Bill, just months before he died in his home at Bryden, he asked me, 'What's Penny doing about Vietnam?' He said, 'I think Albo's doing alright. Just let him know about this.' And I mentioned to Albo—to the Prime Minister—about Bill's ill health. I was honoured, and so was David and Rachel, to have Bill write to me about the fact that he was going to be baptised in the Catholic Church after a lifetime of spiritual scepticism. Now, Bill's letter to his friends—and I was just one of many—was reasoned, cogent and profound as ever, and it reminded me of CS Lewis's apologetic treatise Mere Christianity. It was so well thought-through. This idea that it was somehow just instinctive or intuitive—it's not true. Bill had thought about this for a long time. I saw, as I said, Bill and Dallas, with Madonna Stott from my office—we'd left the Esk Show—some months before he died. I was doing a mobile office up there. Bill was poorly, and we talked about things. One of the things that Bill talked about that day was Vietnam. He was really keen to know what Penny Wong, as foreign minister, was doing about that. I remember a meeting at the Silkstone-Booval branch of the Labor Party in the eighties. Bill was foreign minister at the time, and he talked about his long-standing opposition to the war in Vietnam and how as foreign minister we needed to help Vietnam and bring it back. For him to talk to me just months before he died about his concerns about what we needed to do to engage with Vietnam showed to me his international perspective. For that boy from South Brisbane, that young man from Ipswich, it was still there at the end of his life. Bill rebuilt the party and made us electable. If only Queensland had swung in 1980, as it needed to, Bill would have been Prime Minister in 1980. It swung, but not enough. I remember having lunch with former Labor Deputy Prime Minister Brian Howe. I was the shadow minister for ageing, and Brian was on the panel for positive ageing. For nearly two hours Brian hardly touched his food at this Melbourne university; he hardly touched it at all. For nearly two hours he talked about what a great healer and leader Bill was in the Labor Party. He lauded Bill for his policy development and his promotion of talent, and how Bill never got the credit that he thoroughly deserved. I remember the late great Susan Ryan, who I got to know really well towards the end of her life, who told me many times—even as she said in the Hayden oration in Ipswich one night—that Bill was way ahead of society in promoting women and women's rights, and LGBTQI+ rights as well. I remember the day Bill died. I was with Rainbow Labor at the Mardi Gras-Burg at Marburg, a celebration of gay and lesbian rights. I was with those people there—and how propitious it was—and saw how much they respected and admired Bill for his foresight and for being ahead of society and everyone in that area. Bill was sadly not given the opportunity to become prime minister in 1983, and people, locally, were really concerned about that. I remember he told me a story about a lady who told him, during the 1983 election, that, because of what Bob Hawke had done to him, she would never vote Labor again. She lived in Oxley, and he said: 'No, for heaven's sake, vote for me. I need your vote. I'll need every vote I can get.' He served with distinction as foreign minister, and as Governor-General, of course, from 1989 to 1996. He and Dallas rejoined the Labor Party and joined the Ipswich North branch. They'd come to the front row—Bill's hearing was starting to go a bit by then—at branch meetings. This was the former Labor leader at the front row at a branch meeting of the Labor Party. Then they joined the Somerset branch and became life members of the party, and they were deeply respected figures locally in my area. I'm so pleased that Sister Angela Mary Doyle, the respected hospital administrator whose example actually led Bill to God, was there with him in the last years of his life. Bill found her to be an example and confidant. Bill was generous and thoughtful, learned and always learning. His house was full of souvenirs and mementos of a lifetime in politics, but it was also full of books and papers. His study of economics as a mature student led his views to the political centre on economics, while he retained his independent thinking to the left on social issues. I recall—and Barry Jones talks about this, and I've spoken to Bill about this—how, after 1983, he and some of the caucus members formed the now defunct Centre Left faction. It was mainly uncommitted moderates from states other than New South Wales and Victoria. In his autobiography, Bill explained that: The Centre Left was formed as an act of self-preservation for a gaggle of mild Fabian reformers. As Barry Jones once explained to us at a meeting when we were anxiously exploring an identify crisis: 'We are a political lonely hearts club. What draws us together is that no-one else loves us.' A few seconds for the message to sink in, a few more of grave head-nodding agreement, and with that high crisis resolved, we moved on to other lesser business. How appropriate—typical Bill, quirky as ever. He called Paul Keating, can I say, a big hitter. He saw in Paul the man most likely to succeed him as Labor leader and possibly become prime minister. Bill, it has been said, created the greatest cabinet in Australia's history, only for Bob Hawke to inherit it. 'Standing down on the eve of the 1983 election hurt like hell,' Bill said. But Bill was totally crucial to Keating and Hawke in helping the Centre Left support the much-needed economic reforms of the 1980s. As Keating said, about Bill Hayden's time as foreign minister, Bill supported ANZUS, the American alliance, but he was no sycophant or supplicant to Washington. He championed a peace settlement with Cambodia and he delivered that idea and the whole process to Gareth Evans, his successor, to deliver it and eventually bring it to fruition and implement it. When Bob Hawke died, in 2019, I reached out to Bill and asked him what he'd like to say of Hawke. He had a nuanced and unusual relationship with Hawke, as you can imagine. Bill told me to say this, 'While Hawke had his human weaknesses, he had no peer.' Bill was saddened by Bob's passing and said that Bob was 'the Don Bradman of Australian politics'. That's typical, because Hawke loved cricket, and Bill knew he did. It was a typical, generous, insightful and discerning Hayden comment. I'll save the last word in my speech for Gareth Evans, who's given me permission to say this of Bill, and I couldn't put it any better—he succeeded Bill as foreign minister. I caught up with Gareth here in parliament, and I actually caught up with him in Kuala Lumpur just last week. Gareth says this about Bill: 'Bill had a lifetime of incredible achievement, for which he deserves the utmost respect and recognition. He was the sanest voice in the Whitlam government, with heroic achievements in health and Treasury, and did a terrific job in managing the huge task of making Labor electable again. He had a really creative period as foreign minister, which certainly helped me. And his time as Governor-General was an appropriate capstone to a brilliant career as a great Australian. I owe Bill a lot, as do all of us in the movement, and his legacy will be with us a very long-lasting time.' My deepest condolence to Dallas, his 'constant companion', as he says in his foreword to his autobiography, and beloved and adoring wife of more than 60 years; his children Georgina, Ingrid and Kirk; his extended family; and his many, many friends. 10:45 Mr GOSLING 245392 Solomon It was also with much sadness that I learned of the passing of William George Hayden AC, 21st Governor-General of Australia, at the age of 90 on 21 October. As the member for Clark put it, Bill Hayden was a thoroughly decent man. It was interesting to hear about the member for Clark's somewhat of a road to Damascus experience with Bill as Governor-General when he was working with him as an ADC. It was also a privilege to listen to the member for Blair and to hear about that letter, which I would love to read, where Bill Hayden talked about his thinking when he decided to get baptised into Catholicism. My family's thoughts are with Dallas, Bill's beloved wife of 63 years, their children and all those who knew him and loved him best. We mourn the passing of a thoroughly decent man, as has been said, a great servant of the Australian Labor Party and a great servant of our nation. Bill was born in 1933 and grew up in working-class Brisbane. After leaving school he joined the Public Service and then the Queensland Police Force. In the police, he saw poverty, violence and injustice firsthand, which was a really formative influence on his political career. In 1961, he was elected as the Labor member for Oxley in the election that Labor almost won under Arthur Calwell. After years in opposition, Bill Hayden was appointed as a minister and Treasurer in the Whitlam government. As a reforming Minister for Social Security, he introduced Australia's first single-mothers pension, having seen, as a Queensland police officer, how women often became trapped in violent relationships. This wasn't a popular thing to do—the reaction to it was an indicator of the conservatism of his time—but it was a reflection of Bill's character. Bill Hayden also introduced Medibank, the forerunner of today's Medicare universal health system, again in the face of fierce opposition from doctors, conservative state governments, private hospitals, the inefficient private health funds and some Senate obstruction. As Treasurer in the last months of the Whitlam government, Bill Hayden succeeded in introducing some discipline to economic policy and the budgeting process. Following the dismissal of the Whitlam government in 1975 and the further defeat of 1977, Bill became the leader of the parliamentary Labor Party and Leader of the Opposition. He wrote in his autobiography that being opposition leader is the toughest job in the country. As Leader of the Opposition, Bill Hayden got very close to winning the 1980 election, where Labor achieved 49.6 per cent of the two-party preferred vote, the largest swing to Labor in the preceding quarter of a century. The electorate result was more clear cut, with 74 seats to the LNP coalition and 51 to Labor in the then House of Representatives of 125 seats. In the face of growing support within the party for Bob Hawke, as the 1983 election approached, Bill Hayden decided to resign in the interest of party unity, and we've heard from the member for Blair, who knew him well, how difficult that was. There is no doubt that Labor would have won the 1983 election under Bill Hayden's leadership. He memorably said that a drover's dog could have led the party to victory at that time. Bill Hayden's great contribution to the Labor Party and to the nation during those hard years of opposition and his ministerial career was, as Paul Keating has said, to lay the foundation for the social and economic reforms that created three decades of economic growth and delivered Australia a new era in education, foreign affairs, environmental policy and universal health care. Bill Hayden served the nation with distinction and dignity as Minister for Foreign Affairs and then as Governor-General, as we heard earlier from the member for Clark. Bill Hayden was also very notable for his humility and service—that service which started as a young man. I note his connection to this service in that he wanted donations to the St Vincent de Paul Society in preference to flowers at his funeral. This was also noted by some fellow Vinnies friends of mine in Darwin this weekend past. We mourn the passing of an influential giant of the Labor Party. As the Prime Minister has said: Like so many of my colleagues, I benefited greatly from Bill's advice, I valued his insight and I always appreciated the considered way in which he offered it. My family's condolences to Bill's family and to all those who grieve for Bill Hayden. God bless you all and, of course, God bless Bill. May he rest in peace. 10:50 Mr BURNELL 300129 Spence I'd like to start by acknowledging all the contributions by the previous speakers in this place, but I would like to draw light on the contribution by the member for Blair. It's very clear that he and Bill Hayden had a very exceptional friendship, and I think this place is much the richer for the member for Blair's contribution and delivers a very hard act to follow. The 47th Parliament has seen many new faces join it, myself included amongst them. It's an honour and duty, bestowed upon me by the people of Spence to sit here in this place, that will never wear off. I know that this is not a feeling that is unique to myself—not even close. Since our federation, just under 1,900 individuals have been given this privilege, the privilege of sitting in the House of Representatives or in the other place. During this 47th Parliament, there have 49 people who have joined that number, with that number soon to become 50 once a vacancy in the other place has been filled. I open with this to reflect upon the gravity of the offices we hold but also to highlight the individuals that stand taller amongst our ranks, those of us who led a truly exemplary career both inside and the parliament. On 21 October, we lost one of those exemplars. We lost Bill Hayden—not a figure that put himself out to stand above his peers, but a man who his peers saw as a giant amongst their number. Bill Hayden's story is not just a chronicle of political triumphs; it is a testament to resilience, a relentless pursuit of social justice and an unwavering commitment to the values of the Australian Labor Party. Born into the crucible of the Great Depression, his early life was steeped in adversity—a crucible that forged a man of unbreakable spirit and deep empathy for the struggles of ordinary Australians. From humble beginnings in Queensland, where he walked shoeless to school, to the highest offices of this land, stands as a testament to his unyielding determination and dedication. As we reflect on his legacy, we remember a man who, despite his towering achievements, remained grounded and true to his roots. His journey from Highgate Hill to high office, and ultimately to role of Governor-General, epitomises the Australian spirit of striving for greatness while maintaining humility and connection to one's origins. His time as a police officer deepened his understanding of the struggles faced by everyday Australians, instilling in him a resolve to effect change through public service. These experiences laid the foundation for a career defined by a passion for social reform and a profound understanding of the responsibilities of leadership. Bill Hayden's political career, spanning over three decades, was characterised by significant reform and visionary leadership. As a member of this parliament, a minister and later as Leader of the Opposition, he was a driving force for progressive change. Throughout his career, Bill Hayden's contributions were as diverse as they were significant. As Minister for Social Security, he championed reforms that provided a lifeline to the most vulnerable. His tenure as Treasurer saw the implementation of economic policies that were both progressive and pragmatic, safeguarding Australia's financial stability in times of global uncertainty. A division having been called in the House of Representatives— Sitting suspended from 10:54 to 11:05 Mr BURNELL 300129 Yet it was his role in the development of Medicare, Australia's public healthcare system, that stands as a towering achievement. His vision for a healthcare system accessible to every Australian was revolutionary. It was a policy born of a belief that health care is not a privilege but a fundamental right. I believe that has ensured the health and wellbeing of millions of Australians to this day and millions more in the years to come. His role in establishing Medibank, the precursor to Medicare, transformed Australian health care, ensuring access for all citizens and laying the foundation for a system that remains a cornerstone for the Australian way of life. The years that followed remain something that every member of the federal parliamentary Labor Party has worn as a badge of honour. Bill Hayden was elected as the member for Oxley at the 1961 election. He continued to serve the people of Oxley for over 26 years. His first speech to the House on 1 March 1962 took place at a time when Gough Whitlam was Deputy Leader of the federal parliamentary Labor Party, a time when Harold was serving as Treasurer. His time as Treasurer, though brief, was impactful, demonstrating a commitment to responsible economic management. It was under his stewardship that the Australian Labor Party began its transformation, preparing the ground for a period of reform and prosperity. His leadership saw the emergence of a party ready to govern. The Treasurer, when delivering his condolence speech in the House on Wednesday, put it best when he took stock of Bill's ability to bring together competing and sometimes conflicting traits to make each add value greater than the sum of its parts. The Treasurer spoke of warm hearts and hardheads, responsibility and reform, pragmatism and principle, ends and means. For Bill, no trait was mutually exclusive. It would explain why many credit Bill to this day as being one of Labor's great economic rationalists. It is indeed true that Bill Hayden always had an interest in economics as a means of societal transformation. It was apparent at a very early juncture in Bill's parliamentary career. Arthur Calwell, the opposition leader at the time, once remarked while wondering aloud why Hayden gravitated towards economics rather than being a normal politician and worrying about his electorate instead. Thankfully, though, Gough was able to see the traits and qualities in Bill that would see him join the Whitlam cabinet's economic committee after Labor came into power after the 1972 election. It was a role that would lead him to be known as Frank Crean's understudy, another Labor heavyweight in his own right. It wasn't all that long ago that this House paid its respects in condolence to his son Simon for his immense contribution to the Labor Party, to this parliament and to Australian public life. Bill Hayden's tenure as Treasurer, though brief, was impactful, demonstrating a commitment to responsible economic management, paving the ground for further reforms for Labor governments to implement in the years that followed. In fact, Paul Keating himself was reported to have said that, if it were not for Bill Hayden, it would have been unlikely that he would have become Treasurer. What a different country we would have been. It was under his stewardship that the Australian Labor Party began its transformation, preparing the ground for a period of reform and prosperity. His leadership saw the emergence of a party ready to govern, a testament to his strategic vision and his ability to inspire and unify. Bill Hayden was more than just a transformational figure in our political history—he was transformational. His leadership prepared the Australian Labor Party for a new era of social and economic reform, sowing the seeds for what would become a period of unparalleled growth and progress in our nation. His personal qualities were as notable as his political achievements. Known for his humility, Bill Hayden was a man who never lost sight of his roots. He remained grounded and connected to the real issues affecting Australians, a quality that earned him respect across the political spectrum. His selfless act of stepping down as Leader of the Opposition, with the prime ministership in reach, was a defining moment in our political history, demonstrating his commitment to the greater good over personal ambition, leading to him being played by Paul Gleeson in the straight-to-TV movie Hawke, which portrayed those events with a certain degree of political licence. Earlier this week, we had condolence statements made for Bill Hayden by the current and one former member for Oxley, which in itself is quite an uncommon occurrence. It was a testament to his character and life of public service and to the sheer level of respect across all walks of life and across all political divides. As we honour the legacy and achievements of the honourable Bill Hayden AC, we are reminded of the impact a single individual can have in shaping the course of a nation. Bill Hayden's life was a journey of service and a journey dedicated to the pursuit of a better Australia. His contributions to our party and our country are immeasurable and his vision for a more inclusive and compassionate society remains as relevant today as it ever was. In remembering Bill Hayden, we are reminded of the qualities that make not just a great politician but a great Australian: a dedication to the public good, a profound sense of justice and an unyielding commitment to the principles of fairness and equality. His life serves as a beacon, guiding us through the complexities of governance and reminding us of the fundamental purpose of our roles as representatives of the people. As we bid farewell to this great Australian, we carry forward the lessons of his life: the importance of humility, the pursuit of social justice and the belief in the power of collective effort to create a better society. Bill Hayden's memory will continue to inspire us, guiding our actions and reminding us of the ideals he championed. If there is anything we as members of this place could do to honour his legacy, it would be to learn from it and build upon it—something we should all be striving to do and striving to never lose sight of as we go about our own journeys in public life. Vale, Bill Hayden. 11:12 Ms STANLEY 265990 Werriwa Australia has many people who, when looking back, have inspired, changed lives and empowered Australians. In fact, every day I am reminded about the greats of our party, given the honour and privilege it is to represent the seat of Werriwa after other great luminaries like Gough Whitlam and John Kerin. In the pantheon of Labor greats, though, few stand taller than Bill Hayden. In reality, he stands tall not just as a great Labor man but as a great Australian. Few have achieved so much over such a long period of time. Bill Hayden's list of achievements runs to pages: police officer, member of parliament, minister, Treasurer, Leader of the Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition and Governor-General, to name a few. From our side of politics, though, I think his time as opposition leader is the most seminal. After the disaster of the 1975 election and the equally devastating loss in 1977, Bill took over the leadership at an extremely difficult time, but he quickly found his stride. The fact that he did so is not really surprising. He had immense talent and a natural instinct for politics and government. His time as Whitlam's Treasurer, albeit for a short period, showed his potential. I'm left to ponder how things may have been different for Gough and his team had he taken on the role earlier. With Bill as ALP leader in the period of 1977 to 1983, the Labor Party again became competitive. In the 1980 election, he gained a healthy swing to Labor and slashed the Liberal majority in half. He very much laid the foundation for the eventual triumph in 1983 by Bob Hawke. During his time as Leader of the Labor Party, Hayden reformed the party, not least by introducing a quota of 30 per cent women MPs and opening up the party to an emerging professional class. He understood people, he understood the aspirations of everyday Australians and he understood the parliament processes to bring about change. Perhaps this natural instinct and empathy came from his upbringing. As one of five children, he grew up in a poor family, and, after attending Brisbane State High School, he left school at the age of 15 to become a clerk and then later join the Queensland police. He studied at the University of Queensland. His story in some respects is typical of its day, but the gift of his upbringing to the Labor Party and then to the Australian public is that it made him grounded. He knew firsthand of the needs of the people he grew up with—the struggles of everyday Australians. Who better, then, as minister to introduce Medibank, Australia's first universal health scheme? Medibank changed the lives of families across Australia, particularly mine. He took the pressure and worry away from my father, because my mother had an illness that made her very unwell. My father was equally devastated when the election of the Fraser government meant that Medibank was discontinued. Hayden also introduced the pension for single mothers so that they then had a choice not to stay in situations that were not good for them. Our nation owns a debt to Hayden. Brisbane and Ipswich gifted this man, a man who made a difference, made an impact and changed things for the better. No more can be asked of any representative of this place. Bill Hayden's portrait graces the Labor Party caucus room as a reminder of all that is good about our party and its cause. But, more than that, it reminds us that one life from humble beginnings can make an enormous difference and that all of us, regardless of any political difference— A division having been called in the House of Representatives— Sitting suspended from 1 1 : 1 6 to 11 : 26 Ms STANLEY 265990 But, more than that, it reminds us that one life from humble beginnings can make an enormous difference and that all of us, regardless of any political differences, can take enormous encouragement from this. May Bill Hayden rest in peace and may his family take comfort in the fact that he was greatly loved and enormously respected by so many around Australia. 11:26 The DEPUTY SPEAKER 176304 I understand that it is the wish of honourable members to signify at this stage their respect and sympathy by rising in their places and I ask all present to do so. Honourable members having stood in their places— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 176304 I thank the Federation Chamber. 11:26 Mr BRIAN MITCHELL 129164 Lyons I move: That further proceedings be conducted in the House. Question agreed to. BILLS 113 BILLS Treasury Laws Amendment (Tax Accountability and Fairness) Bill 2023 113

Treasury Laws Amendment (Tax Accountability and Fairness) Bill 2023

Second Reading 113 11:28 Mr PITT 148150 Hinkler The Treasury Laws Amendment (Tax Accountability and Fairness) Bill 2023 is a complex bill, but I'll be focusing my remarks on the PRRT, the petroleum resource rent tax, deductions cap. In terms of the complexity—to give the House a bit of an indication—here's just one section of the proposal: A person to whom the deductions cap applies will be taken to have a taxable profit of 10 per cent of their assessable receipts derived in relation to the project and the year of tax, with PRRT being payable on this amount of deemed taxable profit. That person will be taken to incur augmented denied deductable expenditure on the first day of the next financial year. It has always been a very complex methodology. On our side of politics, we stand for lower taxes. To me that is a value of our party. It is not a guide. It is not something that we should throw away loosely or carelessly. It is of value, in my view, and that value is one that I'll stand up for in this circumstance. I'll be opposing the government's original proposal on that basis and for a range of other reasons, which I'm about to outline. Fundamentally, this is a proposal about an additional $2.4 billion worth of tax to be garnered by the Labor government from the offshore industry. This is an industry which is under attack by this government. It is outrageous: the things that they say compared to the things that they do. To give you an example, for the mining and resources sector, according to the ninth annual Corporate tax transparency report, the tax payable by the mining and energy companies amounted to $42.4 billion in 2021-22—in one year alone. It was a staggering 50.6 per cent of all corporate tax collected in Australia during that period. Some may say that's a one-off, but it's not. To give you an indication over a period of time, between 2012-13 and 2021-22, according to the Royalty and company tax payments report by EY, the sector paid a staggering $295 billion. But apparently, according to those opposite, that's not enough. The industry is getting penalised from every single direction, and, in my view, this will be the feather that potentially breaks the camel's back. It is quite incredible. Let's look at some of the things that this government has done that directly impact the feasibility, the profitability and the availability of the essential resources that this country not only needs but relies on for taxes and royalties to pay for the roads, schools and hospitals that this country requires and in fact our citizens deserve. Here's the first one: the safeguard mechanism will ratchet up by five per cent every year to 2030. That sounds like an interesting sort of description—'safeguard mechanism'—but what it does is it guarantees an increase in costs, and, at some point between now and when this policy comes to fruition in its entirety, these businesses will become unprofitable, particularly if they're in the cement industry. We've already seen the aluminium industry say that it resulted in a writedown of over a billion dollars of their aluminium assets and their production assets, and we see an attack on offshore through this change in PRRT and also the safeguard mechanism. Because of that safeguard mechanism, every board, in my view, is working out at what point their business becomes unprofitable, at what point they can't meet these requirements and at what point they're going to have make very, very difficult decisions. It's not only those decisions but also final investment decisions already made in an industry where it can take up to 10 years in terms of lead time through to production. Once again, this Labor government is moving the goalposts. They've moved the goalposts on the safeguard mechanism, and now they're proposing to move the goalposts on taxes that affect offshore through the PRRT. What will they do with that money? Here's one expenditure: they give nearly $10 million to the Environmental Defenders Office, who many here may not have heard of, and then they give them more than $2 million a year ongoing. What does the Environmental Defenders Office do with that money? It attacks offshore and mining projects, looking to stop them through the courts. So taxpayer money goes to apply lawfare against projects that employ literally tens of thousands of Australians and pays them very, very well for their technical skills and expertise. I have two examples. The Barossa, up off the Northern Territory, was a $5 billion project. It was roughly halfway expended—it might have even been further than that—and the Environmental Defenders Office found a gentleman in the Tiwi Islands who the courts determined hadn't been consulted enough. That project got parked up. You think about what the cost impact has been not only to that company but to the shareholders, who are, in the majority, Australians. They're the Australian people. They're Australian superannuation funds. They're the ones looking for a return for their superannuation, in particular, into the future. The project is parked up because of action by the Environmental Defenders Office, which is funded by the taxpayer through the Labor government budget. So you have an attack through the safeguard mechanism and you have an attack through additional taxation on offshore assets, which have significant lead times, decision times and expenditure. The gas from the Barossa project is required to keep the Darwin LNG plant open. For the 20-year refit of the existing Darwin LNG facility, it needs backfill gas and it has to come from this project because the lead time is so long, and now it's held up in the courts. Now we see Woodside, who took a final investment decision on Scarborough, a roughly $15 billion project. Admittedly, while I was the minister, I was very pleased about that. This is a significant investment in Western Australia, a resources state that relies on this industry for its economy, for royalties and taxation and for employment. Now they find themselves in a court battle, similarly, with someone funded through the Environmental Defenders Office to attack the project and to stop it on the basis, if I recall correctly, that there were whale songs that might be affected or impacted. I don't understand what that means. I know that, as part of the process, before they get an approval from NOPSEMA and others, they have to have demonstrated that they've achieved consultation and they've done all that sort of work. But now we see another $15 billion project held up by a group, which is funded by the taxpayer, under this Labor government, that now wants to take more tax from this industry—not less tax, more tax—and put these projects at risk. On top of that, they're getting the tax through what's allegedly a 'closing the loopholes' bill on industrial relations. And these decisions are already taken. To retrospectively go back to an industry which invests significant amounts of money, to see the Japanese ambassador saying that there is now a sovereign risk for investment in Australia—one of this nation's greatest partners for trade, for export and for investment—is just extraordinary. It is astounding. Does the government not understand what that means? You need tens of billions of dollars of investment to make these projects occur. Without them, there will be a gap in production, and that gap will be in gas. And without gas, guess what? Well, you can't make kayaks, you can't make neoprene wetsuits and you certainly can't make fertiliser. This nation also relies on agriculture, which needs a fertiliser price that is competitive. Otherwise, they simply can't compete. They can't buy what's necessary, they can't deliver it and they can't grow food. If the sovereign risk is too high, if these projects fall over, if the companies decide not to continue their investment—and I know there are some people in the chamber who might think that's good outcome—why would anyone else come here and invest in the sector in this country? If we look at some of the information put forward by the Minerals Council—and these are their numbers around global mining and investment required to reach net zero—guess what? You need US$4 trillion by 2030. You need 140 additional copper mines, 60 nickel mines, 50 lithium mines and 17 cobalt mines. I'd like to see them in Australia, but why would anyone come here and invest to then find that they have a government that will retrospectively change the rules that impacts their profitability and their ability to actually deliver these projects, that impacts their ability to hire anyone, pay them and pay the taxes? This is quite an extraordinary turn of events. What else will we see? We'll see even more of the taxpayers' money, some of which I'm sure will go towards this appropriation, this additional taxation, from the 'Minister for Energy Secrets' who won't tell the Australian people how much that will be. Minister Bowen has proposed that the taxpayer will prop up and fund and guarantee a rate of return for intermittent wind and solar projects in this country that no-one knows about. Companies won't build them, because they're too high risk; they're unreliable and they're an unknown price. Things are moving. The cost of money has increased. Inflation is going up, interest rates are going up and the cost of construction is going up—the cost of everything is going up! But Minister Bowen's proposal is to take the taxpayers' money, of an unknown amount, and guarantee a rate of return for investors. That will be union and industry super funds. That will be international companies. They are the ones who will then build projects that currently aren't technically nor economically feasible, yet this government wants more money and more taxation to do secret deals on a return for projects that won't work, at a time when the country will need gas in the future because, quite simply, these projects take years and years to deliver. I ask you: Would you build a house under this government? Would you sign a contract knowing that the government could come back and change their mind? Look at the impact on you as an individual, on the money that you would put forward for the next 10, 20 or 30 years, only to find that that those costs that you thought were right were wrong. They're not wrong because of an estimate or a decision that you've taken but because the government of Australia has decided that they will change the rules. They will increase taxes. They will increase green tape and red tape. They will increase costs through the safeguard mechanism. They will fund the Environmental Defenders Office. They will change industrial relations rules, which will make it even harder to deliver these projects. And for what? To what purpose? You cannot expect significant investors to come to Australia and invest in this country if the rules keep changing for projects they've already decided on. If we look at what happened in Queensland, the LNG industry there was built in under a decade; some $50 billion was invested. That was done and started and initiated under the previous Labor government, under a Gillard led government. As a result, we have LNG export terminals—three at Gladstone—we have significant exports out of the Northern Territory and Darwin, and we have a significant export out of Karratha and out of WA. All those plants need to ensure they have a supply of gas. If the lead time is 10 years and you make a decision now, in 10 years time you may or may not get the gas. But we can absolutely guarantee that if you change the rules to a point where they simply can't make any money and the project is not feasible, they will not build it. These companies will not build it. No matter what else this government puts forward, they can't continue to retrospectively change the rules for investors. And who pays the bill? It is the Australian people that will pay. They are the ones that will get higher prices for gas, they are the ones who'll have higher prices and unreliable electricity, and they are the ones who are shareholders in these businesses who get less returns because more taxes are taken out. How much more does the Treasurer think he might need? Forty billion dollars in a year, more than 50 per cent of all corporate tax take, is quite astounding, and they want to attack the industry paying for the things this nation needs. I will leave my remarks there, but I will reiterate what I said at the outset: I will be opposing Labor's proposal regardless of what discussions, negotiations or other things might happen, because it is fundamentally wrong. If we stand for lower taxes, we stand for lower taxes. It is a values decision. I would urge the government—I would implore them—to stop attacking Australia's biggest employing industry. One point two million Australians rely on the sector for a job. It is a job that pays extraordinarily well, and that is how those Australians pay their mortgages, educate their children and ensure their life is well lived and a contributor to this nation. 11:42 Ms STANLEY 265990 Werriwa The PwC scandal—there can be no other word for it—is of such proportions and magnitude that it is unprecedented in this country. It was a catastrophic failure on so many levels, and it highlighted and exposed huge loopholes and shortfalls in the regulatory framework. I suspect there will continue to be fallout from the scandal for years to come. The government inherited the regulatory mess from the previous government, who largely ignored some of these issues for years. Unfortunately we can't ignore it any longer. It's time to act. I'm pleased to rise and speak today to detail the significant steps that this government is taking to ensure that the concerns the scandal highlighted are addressed and the environment that allowed it to continue can't happen again. The PwC scandal goes much further than just a breach of handling of sensitive government information. If that were all it was—as bad as that is—we would have been grateful, but the issues go much further and are much more dire. What the scandal really shows, and what it exposes, is a total disdain and disregard to our tax laws. Further, it highlights the huge barriers faced by regulators to respond and a regulatory framework that does not provide appropriate oversight in governance. If we are to rebuild trust and restore people's faith in our tax system, then we need to come down heavily on misconduct and build stronger structures and systems. The work to rebuild this trust, to restore the confidence of Australians, has already begun. To this end, I am proud of the fact that earlier this year we introduced new legislation to strengthen the Tax Practitioners Board and increase the board's funding by $30 million to increase compliance activities. We've also directed PwC to remove any staff involved with the confidentiality breach from contract work until the outcomes of the Switkowski review are known. But more is required, and that brings us to the matter before us today. Schedule 1of this bill addresses tax agents and others who advise their clients on how to avoid Australia's tax laws. Astonishingly, current tax promoter penalty laws have remained largely untouched since they were created and have only been applied six times. That's not good enough. Schedule 1 will increase the maximum penalty for promoters of tax schemes, expand the scope of promoted penalty laws and give the ATO more time to identify and penalise promoters. The aim of these changes is clear. Bigger penalties will ensure promoters face the consequences of their actions and, more importantly, it will deter them from acting improperly in the first place. Schedule 2 extends the tax whistleblowers protections, as those who report misconduct need to feel safe. Consequently, these changes extend whistleblower protections to those eligible who make disclosures to the Tax Practitioners Board, the TPB. This change responds to key recommendations of the independent review into the TPB and the Tax Agent Services Act 2009. Schedule 3 refers to the reform of the Tax Practitioners Board. Our regulators need the right tools to identify and discipline those who break the law. Therefore, schedule 3 enables the TPB to conduct more thorough investigations and gives it more time to address complex misconduct, particularly relating to large firms such as PwC. Schedule 4 will amend limitations in the tax secrecy laws and the Tax Administration Act 1953 that were a barrier to regulators acting in response to PwC's breach of confidence. This reform is necessary because the PwC scandal shows that regulators were limited by overly prescriptive restrictions on information sharing. These amendments will strengthen the power of regulators and boost coordination within the government to identify and pursue breaches of confidence or ethical misconduct. It will act as a deterrent to future misconduct by tax advisers. Finally, schedule 5, which was open to public consultation from 21 August 2023 to 15 September 2023. This schedule addresses the findings of the two comprehensive reviews which were conducted into the petroleum resource rent tax, the PRRT, and whether or not it was operating as intended for the offshore liquified gas industry. To date, not a single LNG project has paid any PRRT, and most are not expected to pay any significant amounts before the 2030s. The change will ensure that offshore LNG projects make a minimum payment sooner by introducing a cap on the use of deductions from 1 July 2023. These changes will be brought forward and ensure a minimum payment of PRRT from the LNG projects. It is expected these changes will increase the Australian government's tax receipts by $2.4 billion over five years from 2022-23. Time and again over the last 18 months or so, the government has had to address matters largely the result of the previous government's neglect or inertia. This is another one. The bill before us today represents the biggest crackdown in tax adviser misconduct in Australia's history. More importantly, it's about restoring faith and trust in the tax system, and Australians deserve nothing less. I commend the minister and his staff in the department for the work on this bill. I commend the bill to the House. 11:48 Ms STEGGALL 175696 Warringah I rise to speak on the Treasury Laws Amendment (Tax Accountability and Fairness) Bill 2023 and I move: That all words after "acknowledging" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: "the role of gas companies in influencing the drafting of this bill, the House declines to give the bill a second reading as it is of the opinion that: (1) the bill should: (a) adopt an 80 per cent deductions cap for the Petroleum Resource Rent Tax, lowered from the current 90 per cent, which would double the amount of revenue subject to the 40 per cent Petroleum Resource Rent Tax for that year and remain consistent with Treasury advice provided to the Government; and (b) abolish the seven-year exemption to the deductions cap which supports the development of new oil and gas projects and is contrary to the Government’s claim to be committed to the Paris Agreement and keeping global warming below two degrees; and (2) the Government must stop presenting omnibus bills of this nature to the House combining complex, disparate policy issues that require greater interrogation and consideration than is currently allowed for whilst also undermining the Government’s own credibility to present a clear, coherent policy programme". Yet again we see the government put forward an omnibus bill intended to divert attention, wedge non-government members of this House and avoid scrutiny and accountability. The Treasury Laws Amendment (Tax Accountability and Fairness) Bill 2023 outlines very necessary reform in response to the PwC scandal, but it piggybacks in that legislation a very sneaky attempt at also bringing in the changes to the PRRT, the petroleum resource rent tax, which needs to be much stronger. The government knows that by piggybacking these two very disparate topics in one piece of legislation, we are left with the question: do you support something that is not good enough or do you take a stance against it? The amendments that I am proposing attempt to deal with that. It's completely unacceptable for confidential government tax information to be used by advisory firms to design and promote a scheme to avoid the very tax upon which they are advising. That was the PwC scandal, and there's no doubt that the Australian people and the residents of Warringah absolutely want us in this place do something about it. Responding swiftly to introduce reforms that increase penalties for such behaviours and broaden definitions to capture such schemes and practices have widespread support. Schedules 1 to 4 of this bill do the following: they increase tax promoter penalties, allow more time for the ATO to take civil penalty proceedings in the Federal Court and expand application of tax promoter penalty laws. They extend whistleblower protections for those who make disclosures to the Tax Practitioners Board, boost the TPB's investigative powers, and allow the sharing of protected tax information between the Tax Practitioners Board and Treasury about suspected breaches of confidence by tax intermediaries engaging with the Commonwealth. I welcome these reforms and note that the Senate, two weeks ago, passed further changes relating to membership of the Tax Practitioners Board. In fact, so sensible are these amendments that I'd imagine nearly every member of this House would support them, as would every Australian taxpayer who expects corporations to pay their fair share of taxes, just like they do. It's very important that the whole consultancy area is cleaned up. Having spoken in this House and strongly advocated for whistleblower protections, the provisions supporting whistleblower protections in this legislation are also very welcome. These are good reforms, and I really, really want to support them. However, schedule 5 of this bill is an absolute disgrace. It sneaks in reform on a very different issue—how these two things can genuinely be put in the same piece of legislation is farcical—the petroleum resource rent tax, or PRRT as it's known. This is the key issue I want to talk about today. The PRRT is a tax that is meant to deliver to the Australian people money to our economy—it is rental payments for our gas resources—but it doesn't deliver much. The government would like a pat on the back for saying that they're delivering reform in this area, but what they are doing is the bare minimum and really only bringing forward revenue. It's so poorly designed that it effectively allows multinational companies reaping super profits from gas reserves to pay less than one per cent. Schedule 5 of this bill caps deductions for LNG projects such that the LNG entity will be taken to have a taxable profit of 10 per cent of the assessable receipts derived in a year with tax being payable on this amount. The effect of the cap will be to bring forward PRRT collections for gas projects, but it won't bring in any more revenue to the government. It is a bait and switch. The PRRT, even with the government's proposed reforms in this omnibus bill, is the most lax resource rent tax system in the world—I repeat: the most lax resource rent tax system in the world—at a time of cost-of-living crisis and record profits in the gas industry. Its failures have been highlighted in recent years, as gas companies have reaped windfall profits yet many projects have not paid any resource tax. Australia has one of the weakest resource tax regimes in the world, and you only have to listen to members of the coalition and the previous speaker to understand just why it is so weak. The blinkers that have been on in relation to this sector are quite amazing, and it has cost the Australian people. We have one of the most generous tax regimes in relation to oil and gas companies. In contrast, Norway's resource tax system taxes 78 per cent of export profits, delivering a $2 trillion sovereign wealth fund to their economy, supporting healthcare, childcare and social measures, all without discouraging investment. You'll hear a lot of fearmongering about the effect, but the reality is that it's time for the open access, the free run, to end. In 2023 it's estimated that oil and gas export taxes will deliver some A$145 billion to the Norwegian economy, the equivalent of a staggering $107,000 per family. In comparison, Australia is nowhere. The amendments to the PRRT introduced in this omnibus bill, while being framed as delivering more to Australians, do so very little at a time where so much more is needed. They do limit the amount of deductions that can be applied to determine the PRRT payable, and they do therefore bring forward, but not increase, money payable on that 10 per cent. This reform brings forward $2.4 billion over the next four years, equating to some $600 million per year. This amount is trivial in comparison to the super profits that have been generated by gas companies in recent years. The government's rhetoric will seek to have Australians believe that this is good policy, and the coalition will make you think that somehow this is terribly unfair on the gas companies. The reality is that this is unfair on the Australian people. The PRRT is meant to strike a balance of supporting Australia's revenue base by providing an equitable return to Australians from the extraction and sale of oil and gas without discouraging investment. In reality it establishes Australia as one of the most favourable jurisdictions for oil and gas companies. Many projects avoid paying PRRT year after year, often allowing companies to take gas from Australia for effectively nothing. It provides too much support, allowing favourable deduction strategies and incentives—and the deductions increase in value over time. On the rare occasion PRRT is paid, it is then a deductible expense from the income tax of a company. That is why I wrote to the government during the consultation on the PRRT this year, proposing—and I put this forward in my motion today—that we should do two very important things: we must adopt an 80 per cent deductions cap, down from the current 90 per cent cap; and we must abolish the seven-year exemption to the deductions cap which supports the development of new oil and gas projects. Imagine if the Australian people had the benefit of a seven-year exemption before tax was payable for them. I mean, the audacity is just staggering. Altering the deductions cap would double the amount of revenue subject to the 40 per cent petroleum resource rent tax for that year and would remain consistent with Treasury advice provided to the government. Having a lower deduction cap at 80 per cent would not negatively impact gas companies, contrary to the dire picture painted by coalition members. Even Treasury advised that the cap could be set lower. In fact their recommendation was a range, and the government elected the weakest element of the range—at 80 per cent—included in Treasury's recommendation. This was revealed under a Senate order. It was not something forthcoming from Treasury. Tony Wood at the Grattan Institute, Jason Ward from the Centre for International Corporate Tax Accountability and Research, together with the Tax and Transfer Policy Institute, the Australia Institute and an ongoing list of supporters for broader reforms to be adopted for the PRRT—everyone came out, quite stunned, at how generous the government's proposal was. Well, I should say everyone except the gas companies. They of course welcomed it and talked about it as being fair. The former chair of the ACCC, Rod Sims, stated that it could have been three times more valuable to the Australian people, delivering some $21 billion to Australians, with a 66 per cent cap, but the government chose to adopt a 90 per cent cap, helping out gas companies and denying Australians their fair share of revenue. This brings me to the exemptions for new gas projects, which effectively give new gas projects a 'Get Out of PPRT Free' card, with a seven-year exemption to help them recover their capital costs of establishing and drilling new oil deposits off our pristine coastline and on our beautiful land. For example, for the people of Warringah on our coast, if PEP-11 goes ahead off the coastline of New South Wales, that project will get a seven-year exemption from this cap on deductions. As I note in my private member's bill to end PEP-11—which I sincerely hope the government will support—there is just no return to the Australian people for these projects. This seven-year exemption is contrary to the government's claim to be committed to the Paris Agreement and keeping global warming below two degrees. We know that we have huge costs ahead in meeting the increased impacts of global warming. It is going to cost the Australian people in their cost of living, in their insurance premiums, and in their safety and security; and yet, when the opportunity is there to recover the revenue for the Australian people to meet those costs from the culprits—the industries that are making this problem worse—we see a meek and small response; we see kowtowing to the gas industry. The world is on fire. We know we are in a global boiling situation. We are meeting thresholds. We are hitting records all the time. We're in for a brutally hot summer here in Australia. We have seen records dropping in Europe nonstop. We've seen a catastrophic failure of Antarctic ice to form over the winter. Scientists are pondering what the implications of that are going to be. There are grave concerns about that. In fact, today we'll see the annual climate statement delivered in the House, which will, I hope, paint the true picture of the challenge ahead for Australia. I know that many small and medium-sized Australian business owners are crying out for the kind of support that the PRRT provides to big oil and gas companies. Imagine if a small SME got seven years before it had to deal with any kind of revenue or profit tax. Wouldn't it be nice for a small SME to get that kind of free ride in the system? Many Australians are ropeable at the level of support Australia's huge multinational businesses that pay little company tax are afforded—and rightly so. How is it that we design a scheme to support huge multinational companies that take our resources, give us no corporate tax, and then pay little to no resource rent tax in return? It begs the question: why on earth are we giving the same level of support to small business? Reform to the PRRT is significant, and it must be tackled, but it is so significant that it should have its own legislation. It should not be piggybacked on legislation around consultants. Yet the government has tried to sneak in with its universally welcomed PwC integrity reforms to avoid scrutiny. This bill does not go far enough. It seeks to perpetuate disproportionate and grossly inappropriate support for the gas industry. It is a lost opportunity for greater reform that would deliver more to the Australian people for health care, transport, child care, education, NDIS and ageing. We have so many challenges and so many demands on the budget. Proper scrutiny is warranted. I hope the Senate will not allow such a significant opportunity to bring billions of dollars to the Australian economy to slip on past without a real fight. I have to say that, this being my second term in this place, the approach the government has taken on this is deeply disappointing. For a party that, in opposition, talked a big game on integrity, on good legislation, on taking to the election a promise around multinational tax reform, to do so now in such a sneaky way and such a weak way is deeply, deeply disappointing. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 249710 Is the amendment seconded? 12:02 Ms TINK 300124 North Sydney I second the amendment. I want to start by thanking the member for Warringah for these amendments, for continuing to fight to hold this government to account for what it is and isn't doing and, ultimately, for doing everything she can to ensure that we are focused on increasing integrity across our society whilst advocating we do all we can to address the very real and current impacts of climate change on our environment, our society and our economy. You see, in the first instance, this legislation seeks to ensure that the abuse of confidential information shared by the Commonwealth with those outside is made as difficult as possible and that those who abuse that privilege face appropriate consequences. These reforms are to be welcomed, and, indeed, my community of North Sydney is happy to see them come in. But this good legislation reform is then used as a fake pass, for want of a better analogy, which then sees this government introduce reform to the petroleum rent resources tax. This is where I'd like to focus the rest of my time. The petroleum rent resources tax—or, as Australians know it, the PRRT—is broken. It's a system of taxing resources that was built for a different time and a different asset class, and yet here is this government trying to, as my grandmother would have said, put lipstick on a pig, offering this reform up to Australians as both appropriate and enough. Well, it's not enough. Not only does this proposed legislative change not come anywhere close to inspiring confidence in this government's approach; it should actually be offensive to all Australians, not the least future generations. Others have worked out how they can transition their own economy whilst supporting other nations on their road to change through the reliable supply of the resources they need. We need look no further than the Scandinavian countries for examples on how to do this well. In particular, in Norway, they have figured out how to extract revenue from their natural resources whilst also building an extraordinary sovereign wealth fund, which will ensure that not only those who are reaping the immediate profits benefit but that future generations will have the capital they are likely to need to navigate the pressing social issues of their time. With that precedent right in front of us, then, why would we not choose to emulate it? Foreign multinational companies are currently reaping the profits from the sales of our limited natural resources. It is not unreasonable for Australians to expect that they pay a premium for access to these limited, rapidly depleting and extremely valuable products. These companies are not doing us a favour by extracting our resources, so why is it that successive governments have continued to behave like apologists when it comes to placing real value on what is rightly ours? I am all for being a reliable trading partner, but in this instance I would rather be the David Jones food hall than Aldi. Inflating deductions too quickly, which is the end result of this legislation, sees Australians receive little in return for their natural resources. It's not just now; it has been little in return for our natural resources for decades upon decades. In fact, the government's latest budget papers show that this government will make more money off smokers, with a tobacco tax of $3.3 billion over four years, than it will make from extracting our limited gas resources, which will only return, through the PRRT, $2.4 billion. I'll just repeat that: the government will make $3.3 billion on tobacco and only $2.4 billion on extracted gas resources. I'm not an economist but I have run plenty of businesses, and that doesn't sound like a great business dynamic to me. While I have spent most of my time speaking on the PRRT reforms proposed in this legislation, the truth is that, as I've said before, these reforms are tacked onto the end of a bill that actually leads with reforming tax laws to crack down on tax practitioner misconduct. This is of itself an important discussion for us to have as both a society and a parliament. But, as a consequence, what we have in this piece of legislation is two very important topics rolled into one. The question must be asked: in what world does it make sense to lump these two things together in one piece of legislation? I'll tell you where it makes sense: in a world where tricky politicking and wedge politics has taken precedence over good policy. No wonder public trust in both our government and individual politicians has eroded so significantly in the last decade. What's next? Will this government's delayed fuel efficiency legislation be bundled in with housing reform? Must we scan the education bills for traces of changes to the Migration Act? Let's be really clear about what this legislation is. This government knows that it has passed up the opportunity for fundamental reform of our resource taxation system, selling Australians short and caving in to the gas industry. To cover it up, it has bundled that missed opportunity into a bill to crack down on tax advisor misconduct, catalysed by the PwC scandal. It is a sweet treat with a rotten centre. Australians deserve better. They deserve a fair share of their resources and they deserve good policy practice, but this bill provides neither of those things. 12:09 Ms SPENDER 286042 Wentworth The Treasury Laws Amendment (Tax Accountability and Fairness) Bill 2023, before the House today, deals with two very important issues. The first is the government's response to the PwC tax scandal, where a private company used government secrets to enrich itself and its clients. The second is important changes to gas taxation arrangements—legislation intended to ensure Australians get a fair share of the profits when their resources are sold overseas. These are both critical issues, and they are both completely unrelated.   How we tax resource companies and how we ensure accounting firms play by the rules are completely different issues. There is no reason they should be combined into a single bill, and yet, inexplicably, this is what the government has done. The government has not done this with other legislation before the House this week. The expansion of paid parental leave was not combined with legislating the superannuation objective. The Small Business Energy Incentive was not combined with improving animal welfare protections. Legislating the Economic Inclusion Advisory Committee was not combined with changes to the Australian Human Rights Commission, and rightly so. These bills cover very different issues. It is therefore hard to understand the rationale behind combining the response to the PwC crisis and reforms to the PRRT. There is no clear justification for this, and indeed the minister has been unable to provide such justification when questioned on this issue. It is exactly the kind of wedge politics that people in my community are sick and tired of. They were sick and tired of it under the coalition, and they are sick and tired of it from a government that promised to do better. I support the second reading amendment moved by the member for Warringah, which calls this out for what it is. On the substance of the bill, I want to start by talking to schedule 5 and the government's changes to the petroleum resources rent tax. With the baby-boomer generation heading into retirement, our tax system is increasingly dependent on taxing the incomes of younger working people. It's these same younger people who are feeling weighed down by the cost of housing, renting and education and the growing cost of climate change. Our current system just isn't fair to them. Between 2004 and 2016, the average wealth of a household headed by someone over the age of 65 increased by over 50 per cent, while the wealth of a household headed by someone under 35 barely moved. Tax policy has been a major driver of this intergenerational inequality. It is one of the reasons why I've been leading an independent tax reform process, bringing together economists, business leaders, unions, social sector organisations and environmental groups in a series of roundtables. These stakeholders don't agree on everything, but there is clear consensus about the need to do better on resource taxation, in relation to our current resource exports as well as those we're likely to develop in future as we shift to a low-carbon economy. Against this backdrop, changes to the PRRT are welcome, and I'm pleased the government has heeded calls for reform from the crossbench. The PRRT is supposed to ensure that Australians get a fair return when their oil and gas resources are sold overseas, but it doesn't work well. In the past couple of years, Australian LNG exports have boomed, increasing from $71 billion to $93 billion in the last financial year alone, as gas prices skyrocketed following Russia's invasion of Ukraine. Climate Energy Finance estimate that the gross profits of LNG exporters exceeded $63.5 billion last year. Despite these record profits and despite gas exporters being able to extract these resources for free, the Australian people have seen little return. In the 2020-21 financial year, there were 33 projects eligible for the PRRT yet only six paid any tax. Even more shockingly, despite Australia being the second-largest LNG exporter in the world, the most recent set of budget papers noted that not a single LNG project has paid any PRRT and many are not expected to pay significant amounts of PRRT until the 2030s. It is clear the Australian people are not getting their fair share, and the system is ripe for reform. Sadly, I believe that the government has missed an opportunity for significant reform with this bill. Whilst a few projects that would never have paid the PRRT will now do so, the main impact of this legislation is to bring forward some of the revenue a few years earlier, giving the budget bottom line a boost today at the cost, potentially, of taxpayers tomorrow. And it's not that much revenue. The reforms will bring in just $600 million a year over the forward estimates, despite gas companies bringing in an additional $20 billion in revenue in the last financial year alone. That doesn't sound like a fair return for taxpayers. And it's a missed opportunity for significant reform, because more substantial changes were possible and had broad support. The government have rejected a proposal from the crossbench in the Senate to lower the deductions cap further to 80 per cent—a move that was backed by Treasury officials. This would have brought in a further $2.6 billion over the forward estimates. They have rejected a proposal to raise the PRRT rate from 40 to 50 per cent, which would divide the profits from selling Australian resources equally between the Australian people and gas exporters. Even before the introduction of the deductions cap, this would have brought in a further $660 million over the forward estimates. They have rejected several proposals from Senator Pocock which would close the loopholes in the current regime by ending the carve-out given to Woodside, shortening the seven-year grace period before the deduction cap applies and no longer allowing expenses incurred many years in the past to be brought forward at a massively inflated rate. They have rejected more substantial changes to the structure of the tax that were put forward by the Callaghan and Treasury reviews, such as changing transfer pricing arrangements so that PRRT is calculated based on the real value of the resource, rather than the discounted rate that is currently used. All of these sensible approaches have been rejected, and, whilst this change is better than nothing, it is a missed opportunity for more significant reform. Before I conclude, I want to speak briefly to the remaining schedules of this bill, which deal with the government's response to the PwC tax information scandal. People in Wentworth and across the country are rightly outraged at the conduct of PwC and the complete lack of professional ethics that has been revealed through the course of the Senate inquiry. The inquiry exposed a culture where profit was prioritised above the ethical behaviour that anyone in this country would expect. When the firm was trusted with highly confidential information and was asked for assistance in cracking down on multinational tax avoidance, they betrayed that trust and put their own financial interest ahead of the Australian people. So it is absolutely right for the parliament of Australia to respond by increasing penalties for those who promote tax-dodging schemes, by improving transparency around cases of misconduct and by expanding whistleblower protection so that we can uncover this unlawful behaviour in the first place. There is one further reform that the government should pursue in its response to the PwC scandal, and that is to ban political donations from substantial government contractors and current bidders, as is done in the majority of OECD countries. The big four accountancy firms, including PwC, have donated $4.3 million to the Labor party and the coalition over the past decade. During that time, the value of the big four's contracts from the government has increased by 400 per cent. People will make their own judgements about that relationship and about the return on investment of those political donations, but there is no doubt that it creates a perception of a cash-for-contracts arrangement. If the government is serious about cleaning up politics, this is a response to the PwC scandal that they should implement without delay. 12:18 Mr STEVENS 176304 Sturt There are quite a few second reading amendments that have now been moved on the Treasury Laws Amendment (Tax Accountability and Fairness) Bill 2023. This wouldn't surprise anyone, but I certainly am a supporter of the amendment moved by the member for Hume, who of course made a contribution on this bill in the chamber yesterday, I think, or Tuesday—apologies if my recollection isn't completely accurate there. I don't support the other amendments. The member for Warringah makes the same point that the member for Hume did, and I'd like to start on that: how ridiculous it is to have these two completely separate issues crammed together within the one bill. It's putting a lot of people in a position—I respect that I've got a different view to some of the Independents that have made contributions, but I think it's ludicrous that they should be expected to take a position on the bill because of one part which they hold a view on. That would mean they are torn on whether to support this bill because there other elements, which are completely separate and unrelated, that they do in fact support. That point is made by the member for Hume in his amendment and by the member for Warringah in her amendment. Whilst I don't support the member for Warringah's amendment because of other elements within it, I'll just put on the record that she's quite right, as is member for Hume, about how ludicrous and ridiculous this is. This bill should not be one bill; it should be two separate bills. I think the important matters to do with addressing the awful PricewaterhouseCoopers scandal—which has exposed significant shortcomings in legislative arrangements to prevent people advising on, essentially, breaking the law—have unanimity within the parliament. I would hope that they would. But then, within that, also having the changes to the tax deductibility treatment of investments in the oil and gas sector is patently ridiculous. These are two very separate matters. So I would start by very clearly saying that the government should not be doing this to the parliament. The government should not be bringing in legislation on completely different matters and expecting people to vote for or against a bill with such dramatically different propositions contained within it. The whole point of us having different pieces of legislation to debate and vote on is that we all have different perspectives and opinions on the different legislative changes that are proposed. The extension of this principle is the ludicrous concept that maybe we'll just do all legislation in one omnibus bill each week and have every single measure frankensteined together into the one proposition, which is where, in what we see in this bill, we could be heading. Let's not forget that even when we deal with something as totemic as a budget—and I've had experience in other parliaments where the budget is done quite differently to the way we do it in this Commonwealth parliament—we see governments hand down budgets that have a vast amount of legislation associated with them that are separately put to the parliament as individual pieces of legislative change. When we have the appropriation bills come forward, parliament passes the appropriation bills, which are underpinned by a whole range of expenditure that might not subsequently be legislated. When, particularly the Senate, which governments rarely control, decides to pick and choose which of the budget measures that are in the appropriation bills they've already approved, they will indeed choose to go ahead and authorise where legislation is required. That's quite a common thing in budgets. We've got the reverse principle here, where in one bill two very separate matters are being put together, and that point is being made by the member for Hume and the member for Warringah in their amendments. Schedules 1 to 4 are on the PwC elements—I think there are four schedules that are specific to that. I'd like to start by saying that I commend the Tax Practitioners Board—the chair is, indeed, a constituent of mine. I think they've done an excellent body of work in getting to the bottom of what has happened with the conduct of PwC. A lot of people, who were initially in a state of shock, are now surprised that that was going on in such a blase way and that we don't have an appropriate statutory regime in place to punish that sort of behaviour and conduct. So the first four schedules of this bill are doing exactly that. It is just outrageous that people who are operating in the Australian economy and being supported by the Australian government, and where the Australian government is providing the economic circumstance for them to operate a successful business in this country, would be providing advice on effectively breaking the law and how to avoid paying your fair share of tax to the Australian government—that they would be looking at every opportunity to cheat the Australian people out of an appropriate amount of taxation that you should be paying to the government to run this country. Every dollar of tax that is avoided and cheated out of by someone with a clever little scheme to hide away the way in which they're making money out of the Australian economy is just a greater tax burden on other Australians. I'd love for taxes to be as low as possible, and I'd love for everyone to pay as little tax as is necessary to make sure we have the fundamentals of government—a proper social safety net and all the other important services that government provides—and the security of our nation et cetera. But I want that to be through the lowest amount of expenditure that we can make it, which therefore means I want all Australians to be able to pay as little tax as they absolutely have to. Every dollar that we don't take out of the household budget of an Australian family is one that they get to spend in their own way. As someone coming from the free-market capitalist school—if not with a little bit of libertarianism in there as well, in my case—and the heritage of the centre right of politics in this country, it's always been our objective for government to be as small as we can make it and it's always been our fundamental principle that we think Australians are much better at spending their own money than their government is. That has been borne out in countless examples in the history of this democracy and any democracy, let alone other governments that aren't democracies. We want taxation to be as low as possible, but it also needs to be fair. It's also vitally important that, in the decisions that we make and the policy settings that we put in place—where we say this is what the taxation arrangements need to be for individuals on income, for companies on their earnings and on capital gains and the like and what the deductions frameworks and regimes that are put in place need to be—and when we pass those laws, they capture everyone as they are intended to. If there are people out there that are saying, 'Hey, come and pay me a little bit of money to advise you on how to avoid paying tax in Australia and to break the law'—even if it's not the law they're breaking but the spirit of those tax settings we have—then that is appalling. It's morally bankrupt, and hardworking Australians and businesses are the victims of that, because the cost to government doesn't change. But, when people aren't paying the tax that they should, it results in the rest of us taxpayers paying more tax than we should. That is fundamentally wrong. We in the coalition welcome the work of the Tax Practitioners Board and the other work that's being done to make sure that the powers are appropriate, the whistleblower protections are in place and the investigative cooperation between agencies is properly legislated so that, if a situation like the PwC scam ever comes along again, there are no loopholes or gaps in legislation and to make sure that it is well and truly, comprehensively known to be wrong, to be prosecutable and investigable. We need the corporate advisory ranks of this nation to understand full well that that sort of behaviour won't be tolerated by our government or within our economy. I'll reconfirm in the final few moments of this debate that it is ridiculous that we're seeing the matter of responding to PwC's egregious and outrageous behaviour coupled with these changes to the PRRT and that some of those changes to deductibility to bring forth some of the revenue are being brought forward. How these two matters are related and why they should be in the same bill is absolutely ridiculous. The member for Hume, of course, made that point in his second reading amendment, and the member for Warringah has made that point. Just to conclude, one thing I've not enjoyed but been surprised at is the number of people who have talked about how important it is for us to increase the amount of money the government earns from fossil fuels. A lot of the people that are talking about Norway and saying, 'We've got to earn more money from natural gas than the taxpayer,' are the same people that are saying they want to ban gas entirely. It's a very contradictory point from the people that are saying: 'This tax regime on gas is not high enough. We want to earn more money from gas and ban gas.' The exact same people that want to get rid of all gas also want to make even more money from the gas that they want to get rid of. I struggle to understand that point—I can't really connect the dots there—because I think you're either for or against that sector earning money from royalties for the taxpayer, encouraging an important framework of investment. But, if you don't believe in the industry existing into the future, it is a little bit hypocritical, little bit rich, to be also saying in the same breath that we're not earning enough tax from something that you don't think we should be earning any money from it all. So some of those contributions are to me a little bit strange. Nonetheless, in the coalition we support the gas sector and want to see it continue to be part of the transition into the future. So I commend to the chamber the contribution from the member for Hume and his second reading amendment. Debate adjourned. ADJOURNMENT 123 ADJOURNMENT Democracy 123 12:30 Ms CHANEY 300006 Curtin In the last few months I've noticed, with increasing concern, the worsening division in our communities. On Gaza, the Voice referendum or immigration detention, there's a constant pressure to take a side. Our adversarial political system allows issues to be freely debated, but our leaders also have a duty to support social cohesion. But we consistently see division and pointscoring in this House, which does nothing to rebuild trust in our politicians. Faith in democracy is waning. This is not a uniquely Australian problem. In fact, globally, there is declining trust in democratic governments, and today I want to talk about why this is and what can be done about it. Loss of trust can be attributed to a number of factors, and this polarisation is only one of them. Voters are worried about the influence of money on their democratic systems. Citizen engagement is declining. The structure of media and social media incentivises this same polarisation. Governments have too much power; legislators have too little power; and democracy is failing to deliver on the promise of broad economic prosperity. So what can be done to rebuild trust and protect our fragile democracy? In August, I introduced a restoring trust bill. Over the last 20 years, only 21 per cent of private funding to major parties was disclosed as donations, and we don't find about those until months after an election. We must fix this so voters know, before they vote, who's funding their politicians. We need to reduce financial influence and increase accountability so we can trust governments to make decisions in the best interests of the country. Donations from social harm industries and government contractors should be banned. Voters showed in the last election that they want more political choice. At the moment, 99.6 per cent of Australians are not a member of a major political party, but many of our electoral laws make it harder for these people to elect a representative outside of the major political parties. We must be careful to ensure that any electoral reform preserves competition in politics and doesn't embed the two-party oligopoly. On misinformation, until now we've been willing to mandate strong protections for consumers against lies and deception in business but not in political communications. Voters deserve protection from lies in politics too. Banning lies in political ads has broad support. The focus of any truth in political advertising framework must be on regulating purported statements of fact, rather than opinions or ideas in contested areas. Taking this approach will ensure we balance voters' rights to not be lied to against the right to freedom of political communication. We also need to focus on increasing citizen engagement. Democracy only works if people are informed and involved. The community Independent movement mobilised about 20,000 volunteers before the last election, most of whom had never been involved in politics before. That's about a third of a major political party's members nationally, but in only a handful of seats in a matter of months from a standing start. In the context of declining involvement in so many aspects of public and community life, this was a beacon of hope. In my electorate, as a community Independent I hold community events at least every few weeks. We develop community submissions to feed into committee processes, and my advocacy is informed by what I hear from my community, not what a party tells me to say. To strengthen democracy in Australia, we must inspire Australians to become active in our political system. We need to apply this lens to any electoral reform and ask: will this reform inspire more people to get involved and build trust that people are being represented? Our democracy is fragile and precious. We must be vigilant and continue to adapt and evolve it so it can continue to function effectively in a changing world. Improving transparency, reducing financial influence, banning lies, maintaining competition in politics and inspiring citizen engagement are all important ways we can buck the global trend in order to rebuild trust and safeguard our democracy against the decay we see in so many other countries. The crossbench has driven democratic improvements for some time. Listed on the Notice Paper right now are three such bills the government could implement: my restoring trust bill, the member for Warringah's voter protections in political advertising bill, and the member for Kooyong's lobbying reform bill. I urge the government to implement these reforms to improve our democracy. Gilmore Electorate: Infrastructure 124 12:35 Mrs PHILLIPS 147140 Gilmore Quite frankly, I have had enough of the absolute rubbish coming from local Liberals with ambition to progress their own careers, with little care about the harm they cause to our community with their lies and scare campaigns. I've shaken my head through lies about the $40 million I've already delivered in the budget for Shoalhaven City Council to fix local roads. I was disappointed by lies about the impact of the federal infrastructure review on critical local projects—all going ahead, fully funded, unchanged. I've been appalled by the lies about the Illawarra offshore wind zone, a process started by the former federal Liberal government in the Illawarra Renewable Energy Zone, created by the former New South Wales Liberal government, now with seemingly appalled views and deliberate misinformation coming from former members of those governments. But this week has really taken the cake. Seat-shopping Andrew Constance walked away from his seat of Bega, wanted the seat of Eden-Monaro, had a crack at the seat of Gilmore—and lost—and has now failed twice to secure a Senate seat from his own party. He's now spouting absolute falsehoods about decisions made, while he was the member for Bega, by the former government when he was in cabinet. I will set the record straight on the Batemans Bay hospital emergency department—a decision, I repeat, that the former member for Bega and his government made as early as 2020 and, to be clear, a decision the Australian government and I as a federal MP have no say in at all. The Liberals are trying to rewrite history and stoke unnecessary fear and anxiety in a vulnerable community for their own political gain. I won't have it. These men have zero regard for what is best for our community. The community led a campaign for a level 4 regional hospital for the Eurobodalla, under the banner 'one Eurobodalla hospital', because the current facilities at Batemans Bay hospital and Moruya hospital no longer service the wider needs of the community. When we have local people forced to travel to Canberra or Sydney for cancer services, paediatric care, mental health services and intensive care, we have a problem. It took many years of campaigning led by the current fabulous member for Bega, Dr Michael Holland, to get the former government to agree to build a new hospital. It took even longer for them to agree to make it a level 4 hospital. It was the Liberals who stood in the way of the Eurobodalla Radiation Therapy Centre. They still don't think we need one, but I have delivered that funding and will work with the New South Wales government to see it happen. The Liberals are saying there is some new announcement that the New South Wales government will close Batemans Bay hospital's emergency department, but in 2018, when presented with the 3,000-signature petition for a new—one—regional hospital, Andrew Constance said, 'It is a vision of mine to see one big regional facility.' In 2021 he announced a new HealthOne facility, funded by New South Wales government, to be located at the Batemans Bay hospital site. He said, 'The new health facility will complement the new Eurobodalla hospital'—not the Batemans Bay hospital, because he knew it would close. This week Mr Constance has said the HealthOne facility isn't happening. Clearly, he has been far too focused on his failed Senate bid. In a November statement, the local health district confirmed the Batemans Bay Community Health Centre is going ahead. Mr Constance said the Batemans Bay ED will close next month—not true. It will remain open until the new hospital opens in 2025. He, and the facilitator of a community forum—another Liberal—have tried to score political points against me by lying about why I wasn't at the recent forum. I was here, in the parliament, and the organisers were told that in advance of the meeting. He also threw in a lie about the Moruya bypass; it is being delivered as promised. The Liberals just cannot be trusted. We desperately need a new level 4 hospital for the Eurobodalla. The Liberals never wanted it, and they are still standing in the way. We don't have the resources for multiple EDs so close to one another, but this won't put the community at risk. The Batemans Bay urgent care clinic I have funded federally and the New South Wales community health centre will fill the critical care gap, covering more than 55 per cent of presentations to the Batemans Bay ED, with emergency patients treated at the new fit-for-purpose facility so that fewer people have to travel to Canberra or Sydney and so that we get the health services we deserve. Dr Holland and I will continue working hard to represent the best interests of our communities. Hinkler Electorate: Constituents, Hinkler Electorate: Infrastructure 125 12:40 Mr PITT 148150 Hinkler Christmas and the new year are rapidly approaching, and I think it's an appropriate time to look at the year in review, the challenges that have been overcome and the great things that have happened in the electorate of Hinkler in the last almost-12 months. The predominant role of a member of parliament is to help your constituents. Whether it's a challenge inside Veterans' Affairs, Aged Care or other federally funded and supported government departments, the role of an MP is about helping people. I'm very pleased to have the opportunity to once again highlight the great outcomes for some of our local constituents. Firstly, Hervey Bay athlete Ethan Parry was a Local Sporting Champion recipient, and he represented Australia at the Virtus Global Games in France in June, where he won bronze in the long jump. These games occur every four years, and what a remarkable achievement for a young man from Hervey Bay. George Rowland is another individual from Hervey Bay. He is 11 years old. I love George. He's actually known by Senator Ross Cadell as well—from the other place and from New South Wales—which is a surprising connection to me. George wrote to me about Dyslexia Awareness Month. He told me it was in October and that he has dyslexia. He hopes that all teachers undertake a training program to help them support students with dyslexia. What a marvellous thing for George to do—to take the time to write to his federal MP. I know he has approached state and local governments as well and I hope he gets the outcome that he wishes for and desires. Ann from Burrum Heads came to Canberra to raise awareness for early-onset bowel cancer. Ann's daughter Carrie-Ann was in her early 40s when she was diagnosed with bowel cancer and sadly passed away last year. Ann is calling for the age required to take part in the National Bowel Cancer Screening Program to be lowered, and that's been recently recommended by the National Health and Medical Research Council. Judith Stutchbury, a now famous primary-school teacher from Kalkie State School in Bundaberg, won the Prime Minister's Prize for Excellence in Science Teaching in Primary Schools for providing 'unique and engaging, deep-learning science experiences and opportunities to students at a regional and international level'. Once again, this is a remarkable achievement from someone from Bundaberg at what is a relatively small state school. On behalf of my office and all the individuals, I want to thank the almost 500 people we sent certificates to as local volunteers—to thank them for the contributions that they make to our community. The work that you do is so important. It is the heart of what happens in our local region, and I encourage you all to continue to volunteer your time and help support local people who desperately need help at times. LifeFlight Bundaberg, the rescue helicopter service, celebrated 25 years. They are co-located with the RFDS in a facility that was jointly funded by the Commonwealth, the RFDS and LifeFlight a number of years ago under programs which unfortunately have now been cut by the federal Labor government. This is a critical service, and I congratulate them on their 25 years. Another shout out to John Kennedy, a long-term servant at LifeFlight who retired this year. The YMCA Vocational School in Bundaberg was officially opened, and it provides alternative education for local students. What a remarkable thing. That's not to forget infrastructure. We have the Torbanlea-Pialba Road upgrade, which is flood-proofing this important link road to the Bruce Highway from Hervey Bay. That is underway and almost completed. The Boundary Road extension is almost finished. The Royal Flying Doctor Service Aviation Training Facility, part of the Hinkler Regional Deal and which the Commonwealth provided $15 million for, is almost complete. I've got to say that success has a lot of fathers. There seem to be a lot of people coming out and claiming this facility as one that they helped deliver. But I particularly want to point out the support that the RFDS received from QCoal and others. This will mean that the individuals who fly the new King Airs will do a number of their hours at the simulator in Bundaberg. That's great for our economy. It's a new strand, and I'm very pleased to have been part of it. I don't want to forget Paradise Dam, the biggest infrastructure failure in this country's history, which took place under a Labor government. They've now had to knock down the wall of Paradise Dam, and it will cost $1.2 billion to repair. We committed 50 per cent from the Commonwealth—$600 million. That's still there, and it has to remain. We need to ensure we have reliability of water supply for our agricultural industries because without it we go back to broadacre crops of low value, and we know that horticulture—macadamia nuts and others—helps to drive our economy. Our growers need certainty. Just lastly to every single constituent: this Christmas, please be safe on our roads. If it's flooded, forget it. Remember the fatal five. I wish you and your families a very joyous Christmas and a happy and prosperous new year. Thank you for your continued support. Education 126 12:45 Mr KHALIL 101351 Wills There is untapped human potential in all of us—yes, even over there across the parliament! It doesn't matter where you come from. There is untapped potential, and a good education is the key that opens the door to opportunity, whatever obstacles you may face in life. Higher education is critically important because nine out of 10 new jobs created today require you to go to a TAFE or university. The average income of someone with a university degree is about $94,000. In comparison, the average income of someone who's last year of education was year 12 is around $68,000. Everyone should be able to access a good education if they choose to and if they want to. No matter who you are, no matter your background, gender, ethnicity or faith and no matter whether you're in remote or regional parts of Australia or the cities, whether you're disadvantaged socioeconomically, whether you have a disability or whether you come from a new and emerging migrant background or an older established migrant background, you should be given the same opportunities as every other Australian. That's what I got, as a migrant kid growing up in public housing, because of Labor governments and their policies. I went to university because of Labor governments—because of Labor's commitment to equality of opportunity. Bob Hawke, one of the greatest prime ministers of this country, was also the member for Wills, so I've got big shoes to fill. I once asked Bob, 'What is the policy area that you are most proud of?' I won't do the accent, but he said: 'When I started as Prime Minister in 1983, about a third of students finished high school, but, because of the policies that my government put in place, by the end of my time as Prime Minister, it was almost 80 per cent.' That's a tremendous achievement. The importance he placed on that relative to everything else he achieved in that government says a lot about the importance of education. I said: 'Bob, I was one of those kids. I did year 12 in 1990, and, if it wasn't for you and your government, I wouldn't have had the opportunity to go to university.' Despite my socioeconomic circumstances and my migrant background, I still got a chance to do something with a good education. That's what good policy is all about. Investing in education means giving people the chance and the opportunity to reach their full potential. But if it's too expensive—if it's out of reach of people because they can't afford to take on that debt—we are failing our citizens before we even begin. My electorate of Wills in the northern suburbs of Melbourne is home to many students and staff in the university sector, and, when I speak to young people in particular, one of the issues they often raise is their HECS debt. This debt should not be a deterrent to people seeking education opportunities. Our future as a diverse, modern society depends on students from all walks of life being afforded the opportunity of a higher education if they choose it. It's one of the great Labor traditions to ensure that a university education never remains out of reach for any Australian wanting to obtain one. The Albanese government is committed to a higher education system that not only gives Australians the opportunity to learn and grow as individuals—the inherent value of learning—but also provides them with the means to realise their aspirations and be equipped with skills required for future employment. The budget was the first pillar of our long-term plan to revitalise and re-establish our higher education system as world leading and inspiring. We announced $485 million over the forward estimates to provide up to 20,000 additional university places, $2.7 million for the Australian Universities Accord and $15.4 million for the Startup Year program to help university students turn their ideas into reality. That's an investment in the future and the potential of our country's greatest asset: our children and our young people. Since the budget, we've expanded on this. Students commencing teaching degrees in 2024 can now register for scholarships worth up to $40,000 to encourage people to be teachers. We've also provided relief to students by increasing youth allowance, Austudy and rent assistance. I know HECS affordability remains an issue, and Minister Clare has asked the Universities Accord team to look at this closely, along with other important issues in our system. Professor Bruce Chapman, the architect of HECS, has been engaged by the accord team to work on this. Whilst we know more can be done, we will not rest until our higher education system is the envy of the world. The great thing about Australia is that everyone gets the same access to a quality education. That is fairness. That's equality of opportunity. That is a faithfulness and a commitment by the Albanese Labor government to what is the quintessential Australian value, and that is the fair go. Rookwood Weir 127 12:50 Ms LANDRY 249764 Capricornia I rise before you today with a profound sense of accomplishment, as last week we reached the end of a decade-long endeavour, the completion of the $568.9 million Rookwood Weir. With the construction of Rookwood Weir being the largest since World War II, this is a monumental achievement with far-reaching implications for the growth and diversification of agriculture, bolstering drought resilience and addressing industrial and urban water requirements of the Gladstone, Capricorn Coast and Rockhampton regions. The Rookwood Weir stands not only as a symbol of modern engineering but as a lifeline for the agriculture heartland of Central Queensland. Water, the essence of life, is now harnessed to fuel growth and resilience in our communities. The importance of this project extends far beyond the concrete walls of the weir. It reaches into the very fabric of our economy; specifically, into the backbone of our region—agriculture. As we know, agriculture is the lifeblood of Central Queensland, providing sustenance, employment and economic vitality. However, this critical sector has long grappled with the unpredictable nature of water availability. The Rookwood Weir changes this narrative. It empowers our farmers with a reliable water source, enabling them to plan and invest with confidence. It transforms uncertainty into stability, unlocking the full potential of our agricultural landscape. Rookwood Weir is a project close to my heart and something I and my fellow colleague Senator Matthew Canavan and former colleague Mr Ken O'Dowd have fought relentlessly for. We have championed for Rookwood Weir to get off the drawing board and made a reality. In fact, the importance of the establishment of Rookwood Weir was so great that former Labor Queensland Premier Peter Beattie saw what a game changer having a dam in this location would be for the economic growth and strength of Central Queensland. On 27 April 2007, former Premier Peter Beattie made the bold claim that it would be the Labor Party who would build the Rookwood Weir. How wrong could one man be? It was the coalition who saw the potential, and I lobbied successfully to have Rookwood placed on the green and white papers on the future development of northern Australia and the future competitiveness of Australian agriculture. It was the coalition government who would provide $2 million to the Queensland government for the final business case for Rookwood; it was the coalition government who would deliver half of the initial funding for the project, a sum of $130 million, to set the wheels in motion for the Queensland Labor government to begin construction. The Premier of Queensland and her Labor colleagues were tardy in allocating the necessary funds to initiate the Rookwood Weir project. It took nearly two years before Labor would deliver the remaining funding, during which time costs escalated. To address this cost overrun, the Labor government opted to decrease the height of the weir wall, resulting in a reduction of Rookwood Weir's capacity from 76,000 megalitres to 54,000 megalitres. Yet again, the responsibility fell on the former coalition government to provide an additional $15 million in funding, enabling the elevation of the wall. This crucial investment resulted in a heightened water yield of 10,000 megalitres, bringing the total water volume to 64,000 megalitres. After many years of fighting state Labor to get this off the ground, the first concrete was poured on the massive weir in September 2021. In the subsequent two years, the project would engage hundreds of local workers, apprentices and trainees from across Central Queensland, bringing economic benefits to numerous small businesses. Unfortunately, it is unlikely that an Albanese government would prioritise additional water infrastructure investment for ensuring agriculture diversity and drought resilience. The slashing of $7 billion in water infrastructure funding in Labor's initial budget not only deprived us of the essential tools needed for producing the nation's food and fibre but also jeopardised the future of the next generation in agriculture. Nevertheless, despite the reduction in funds for other water projects, Labor was more than ready to cut the ribbon last week on water infrastructure that resulted from the hard work and investment of the former coalition government. The Nationals stand as the sole force capable of providing water infrastructure and security for Capricornia, despite Labor's attempts to rewrite history. The critical necessity of water infrastructure in Capricornia lies in its pivotal role in supporting agricultural growth, ensuring a sustainable water supply for local communities and fortifying the region against the impacts of unpredictable weather patterns and droughts. The Nationals understand the irreplaceable value of water in securing the prosperity and resilience of Capricornia, and they are committed to delivering the essential infrastructure needed for the region's flourishing future. Hawke Electorate: Child Care, Hawke Electorate: Community Events 128 12:55 Mr RAE 300122 Hawke Local families in Ballan won't have to wait much longer, with more early childhood education spots on the way thanks to a brand new federally funded service. The Albanese Labor government is investing $600,000 into the Yaluk Burron Early Learning Centre through the Community Child Care Fund limited supply grants program. This will mean more local families can get back to work when they want to, and it will give our little ones the best start in life. It will be run by the stellar team at the Ballarat and District Aboriginal Co-operative, including the general manager of early years, Casey Brown, and the amazing new centre director, Slavica Harrison. They've got the best staff going around, and they're ready to deliver world-class early education services for local families. Kids starting at this centre will also benefit from the Albanese Labor government's recently increased childcare subsidy, already making early childhood education more affordable for more than 6,800 families in Hawke. Thank you to early childhood education minister Anne Aly for your tireless work. It's making a real difference in the lives of so many in our community. I recently dropped into the Hume Men's Shed in Sunbury. Dale, Albert, Chris, Ian, Peter and the gang showed me around the shed, sharing with me the amazing progress they were making on their projects, as well the important work they do to keep men in the area connected with each other. Men's Shed plays an important role in communities like mine and all across Australia. They provide a space for men to come together, work on projects and stay connected with one another. Men's Shed help to combat social isolation and break down barriers around health and mental wellbeing. The guys down at the shed are preparing for a garage sale this Sunday 2 December where they'll be selling their amazing handcrafted wares. I encourage everyone to get down there, pick up a Christmas present or two for your loved ones and support this important local organisation. Earlier this month, my family and I joined thousands of local families in Melton for the annual Djerriwarrh Festival. It's been running strong for two years, with the organisers putting on a spectacular day once again. Kicking off with a street parade, our local schools, clubs and groups were well represented on the day. Our dedicated emergency services workers and volunteers also joined in on the fun. The whole of High Street was absolutely chockers as thousands of people descended on the market stalls. There was fun for the whole family, with food vans, emergency services displays, a kids zone and cultural performances. Music, dancing, food and fun went on for the whole day. There was a stellar live music line-up, including legends Regurgitator, Pseudo Echo and many more. It was great to meet so many people at our Labor stall with Melton MP Steve McGhie and our incredible Labor volunteers who are always there with us rain, hail or shine. We capped off the night with fireworks, leaving Djerriwarrh Festival as yet another raging success for Melton. I want to give a special shout-out to all the volunteers and council staff who contributed in the lead-up to it and on the day—it couldn't happen without you. To our traders, restaurants, community groups and the whole community: thank you very much. Earlier this month, the legends at Blackwood Special Schools Outdoor Education Centre organised the annual Super Ride from Blackwood to Trentham and Lyonville and back. Forty-five kids braved the hot weather to ride a 40-kilometre loop through some of the best scenery that Hawke has to offer. I want to give a big shout-out to the legendary campus principal, Tony, for organising this important event. I cheered them on from the sidelines. I would have liked to ride, but I'm pretty sure that the kids would have left me for dead on the hills. Congratulations to all the kids and the amazing staff that make this event happen every year. I'm so pleased and proud that they could bring it back to life after the difficult years through COVID, and I know the kids appreciate it so much. Question agreed to. Federation Chamber adjourned at 13:00