2023-12-07 2 1 0 House of Reps 0 0

Thursday, 7 December 2023

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

 

STATEMENTS ON SIGNIFICANT MATTERS 9191 STATEMENTS ON SIGNIFICANT MATTERS National Ban on the Use of Asbestos: 20th Anniversary 9191 Reference to Federation Chamber 9194 09:25 Mr BURKE DYW Watson by leave—I move: That further statements on the twentieth anniversary of the banning of asbestos be permitted in the Federation Chamber. Question agreed to. Charitable Organisations 9194 Reference to Federation Chamber 9197 09:46 Mr BURKE DYW Watson by leave—I move: That further statements on backing charities and building community be permitted in the Federation Chamber. Question agreed to. BUSINESS 9197 BUSINESS Rearrangement 9197 09:46 Mr BURKE DYW Watson I move: That business intervening before notice No. 7, government business, be postponed until a later hour this day. Question agreed to. Suspension of Standing and Sessional Orders 9197 09:47 Mr BURKE DYW Watson I move: That standing order 31 (automatic adjournment of the House) and standing order 33 (limit on business) be suspended for the sitting commencing on Thursday, 7 December 2023. For the information of members, this is the standard one that leaders of the House usually move on the final day of the year, where there are final aspects of legislation that might come through from the Senate, to make sure that we're still able to receive any messages that come from the Senate. For the information of members on where things are tracking, while I always advise members on the final day to still be here on the Friday morning, at the moment I think that is unlikely. I think there is every likelihood that we will be finished today sometime between 5 pm and 6 pm. As I get further information from the Senate, I'll continue to keep members informed. 09:48 Mr FLETCHER L6B Bradfield I indicate on behalf of the coalition that we treat with very considerable scepticism the honeyed assurances from the Leader of the House that this is perfectly standard behaviour and nothing to be concerned about. Let me remind the House that the reason we're at this point—and the reason that the Leader of the House is scrambling for extra time and therefore moving, as he is now, to negative the adjournment so that the House would need to continue sitting—is that the government has repeatedly been caught unprepared and has left things to the last minute. Of course, back in September/October this year, the government cancelled a week of sittings to facilitate the Prime Minister's extensive, discursive, meandering travel program and, in response, put just one additional day into the sitting timetable: today. So we've had this quite extraordinary arrangement where this week the Senate's been sitting but only one day has been scheduled for the House. We've also seen a consistent pattern of chaos and disorganisation from this government when it comes to its legislative program and its legislative strategy over the past several sitting weeks. We had, of course, a High Court decision which caught the government completely flat-footed. After releasing well over 100 hardened criminals, the government then spent several days saying, 'There's no need for legislation,' even though the opposition was pointing out that in fact legislation was not only possible but indeed desperately needed. It took three parliamentary sitting days before the government began to take that suggestion seriously. At 8 am on the Thursday of that particular sitting week—and I'm talking about not the last sitting week but the sitting week before—the government finally shared some draft legislation with the opposition, having evidently had the public servants work all night to prepare it, because they hadn't been prepared; they hadn't done the work. Similarly, on this side of the House we've spent weeks saying to the government that what you need to do is legislate provisions to establish a preventive detention regime. We again had weeks of indolence and inaction from the government, and then all of a sudden it was a desperate scramble. The coalition makes the point that this negativing of the adjournment that the Leader of the House has now moved, this disruption to the normal and settled procedures of the House, is entirely unnecessary and is wholly a consequence of serial mismanagement, chaos, lack of coordination, lack of planning, lack of preparing for entirely foreseeable scenarios and a mentality of leaving everything to the last minute. This is a government which is in chaos and disarray. The fact that this motion has been moved is simply more evidence of that. I indicate that the opposition is entirely unpersuaded that this is necessary or desirable. Question agreed to. BILLS 9198 BILLS Administrative Review Tribunal Bill 2023 9198

Administrative Review Tribunal Bill 2023

First Reading 9198 Second Reading 9198 09:52 Mr DREYFUS HWG Isaacs I move: That the bill be now read a second time. These bills would abolish the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and replace it with a new and much improved Administrative Review Tribunal. In doing so, these bills represent the most important reform of the federal system of administrative review for decades. Effective administrative review is critical to Australia's system of government. A strong, user-focused administrative review body provides an avenue for community members to seek independent review of government decisions that have major and sometimes life-altering impacts on their lives. This function is critical to protecting the rights and interests of individuals and organisations, including the most vulnerable members of our community. And critically, high-quality review of government decision-making can—and, if this bill is enacted, will—encourage better quality decision-making across government. Background The Administrative Appeals Tribunal commenced on 1 July 1976, following reports by the Commonwealth Administrative Review Committee in 1971 and the Committee on Administrative Directions in 1973. The Commonwealth Administrative Review Committee report, in particular, recognised the need for individuals to be able to challenge a growing range of government decisions, and recommended the creation of a comprehensive and 'essentially Australian' system of administrative law. In the second reading speech for the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Bill 1975, then Attorney-General, the Hon. Kep Enderby QC, outlined the intention to establish a single independent tribunal and a vision of the AAT as the main tribunal for Commonwealth administrative review. The foundational principles of administrative review are as relevant today as they were in 1976. An independent person 'stepping into the shoes' of the original decision-maker still lies at the core of merits review. The objective of ensuring that government reaches decisions that are correct or preferable is, and remains, the goal. Unfortunately, the AAT no longer enjoys the trust and confidence of the Australian community it serves, and is not fit-for-purpose. The previous government's record of appointing dozens of individuals from the same political party to the AAT is well known. However, the AAT's problems extend beyond the absence of a merit based selection process under the former government. Government inherited an AAT that is not on a sustainable financial footing, that is beset by delays and a large and growing backlog of applications, and an AAT that is operating multiple and ageing electronic case management systems—a legacy of the poorly executed amalgamation of multiple tribunals into the AAT in 2015. The government also inherited an AAT that is no longer taken seriously—or, at least, seriously enough—by government departments and agencies. As the robodebt royal commission highlighted, the AAT made hundreds of decisions that the approach to calculating and raising debts under the scheme was unlawful—but those decisions, and their obvious implications, were ignored and ultimately buried. In developing this package of legislation, the government has had the opportunity to look at the original vision for the AAT afresh, and consider how it can best be realised now and into the future. We have the benefit of nearly 50 years of experience since the AAT was established and multiple reviews—old and new—into the AAT and the administrative review system more generally. We have drawn on the knowledge and wisdom of an expert advisory group. That group is led by former High Court Justice, the Honourable Patrick Keane AC KC, and comprises Ms Rachel Amamoo, Professor Anna Cody (now the Sex Discrimination Commissioner), Emeritus Professor Robin Creyke AO, Emeritus Professor Ron McCallum AO, Former Federal Court Justice, the Honourable Alan Robertson SC, and Emeritus Professor Cheryl Saunders AO. And over the course of the last year, the Attorney-General's Department has undertaken significant consultation with AAT staff and members, AAT users, peak bodies, legal assistance providers, advocates and other experts. This package of legislation is transformative. It is ambitious and comprehensive—we are building an institution that is intended to serve the community and drive better decisions for many years to come. Consultation has provided the government with an in-depth understanding of what does not work within the current system. The outcome of this process is legislation that aims to create a unified, cohesive tribunal with flexible powers and procedures that best meet the needs of applicants. We are proposing to create an adaptive framework with flexibility for the tribunal to continuously improve its operation, and to support best practice across its entire caseload. Of course, not all problems can be fixed by legislation. Close attention will be given to implementation, practice, monitoring and evaluation to ensure ongoing improvement into the future. Today I am introducing two bills: the Administrative Review Tribunal Bill 2023, the primary bill, to establish the new Administrative Review Tribunal and the Administrative Review Council, and the Administrative Review Tribunal (Consequential and Transitional Provisions No.1) (Consequential and Transitional Bill) 2023, to abolish the AAT, make consequential amendments to 138 Commonwealth acts, which collectively represent about 93 per cent of the AAT's caseload, and transition AAT staff, operations, and matters across to the new tribunal. A second consequential and transitional bill will be introduced early next year. The amendments in that second bill will be predominantly minor and technical updates to a range of Commonwealth Acts, which collectively represent approximately seven per cent of the AAT's caseload, and will include amendments requiring consultation with states and territories. The bill sets out the objective of the new tribunal, which will guide its operations and the actions of all members and staff. The bill's objective is to provide an independent mechanism of review that: is fair and just resolves applications in a timely manner, and with as little formality and expense as is consistent with reaching the correct or preferable decision is accessible and responsive to the diverse needs of parties improves the transparency and quality of government decision-making, and promotes public trust and confidence in the tribunal. To ensure it is able to achieve this objective, the bill would establish a tribunal with the following key features: a user focused design, including simpler and more consistent processes, and an emphasis on non-adversarial approaches to resolving applications a suite of powers and procedures—largely harmonised across the tribunal—to respond flexibly to changing case loads mechanisms to identify, escalate and report on systemic issues in administrative decision-making, including through a new guidance and appeals panel a simple membership structure with clear qualification requirements and role descriptions for each level of membership clear and delineated roles and responsibilities for those who hold leadership positions in the tribunal a transparent and merit based appointment process for members, and powers for the president to manage the performance, conduct and professional development of members. Structure and membership The tribunal will be made up of the president, deputy presidents (both judicial and non-judicial), senior members and general members. This streamlined membership structure responds to feedback that the AAT's seven membership levels are confusing and arbitrary. The tribunal's president will have clear functions, including hearing particularly significant and complex matters as a member, managing the business of the tribunal, managing the performance and conduct of members and consulting with civil society. A single chief executive officer and principal registrar (principal registrar), will assist the president to manage the administrative affairs of the tribunal, and will be responsible for managing corporate and registry services. The tribunal will be made up of eight jurisdictional areas: general intelligence and security migration National Disability Insurance Scheme protection social security taxation and business, and veterans and workers compensation. Within these jurisdictional areas, the president can establish 'lists', led by senior members or deputy presidents, to ensure the tribunal can build specialist knowledge to deal effectively with distinct case loads. This structure builds in flexibility to ensure an enduring, responsive foundation for the tribunal's work into the future. Each jurisdictional area will be led by a non-judicial deputy president who will be responsible for identifying and managing trends in and changes in the case load of their jurisdictional area, and managing the performance, conduct and professional development of members assigned to that area. The president will have the power to assign members within the tribunal to work in different jurisdictional areas. Vesting this power in the president will allow members to be deployed more flexibly. A Tribunal Advisory Committee will provide strong collective leadership to the tribunal. Comprised of the president, principal registrar and the jurisdictional area leaders, the committee will ensure these leaders are individually and jointly responsible for promoting the tribunal's objective. Transparent and merit based selection process A transparent and merit based selection process for members is provided for in the bill. The suitability of prospective members (other than judicial deputy presidents) will be assessed through a thorough, competitive, merit based and publicly advertised process. The assessment will consider how well candidates fulfil the skills, expertise, experience and knowledge required to be a member of the tribunal. This assessment must also consider the need for a diversity of skills, expertise, and lived experience, noting that the tribunal should reflect the community it serves. Performance, conduct and professional development of members The bill would give the president powers to manage member performance, conduct and professional development. The power to adequately address allegations of member underperformance, bullying and harassment was noticeably absent from the AAT Act. The bill provides powers and processes that will help ensure the tribunal is a safe and respectful workplace, and the public can be confident in the quality of the tribunal's decision-making. User focused accessible design The bill strengthens the tribunal's objective of providing independent merits review that is accessible and responsive to the diverse needs of parties, including people with disability and people who do not speak English as a first language (or at all). Enhanced powers and procedures The bill provides the tribunal with a range of powers and procedures that can be applied flexibly across all jurisdictions within the tribunal. This will allow the tribunal to tailor its processes to best suit each matter. The bill also introduces procedures around party participation to make proceedings more flexible and less adversarial. Specifically, the bill provides a mechanism for decision-makers to elect not to participate in the review process. Some kinds of proceedings will be better suited to a less formal process of review involving only the applicant. The majority of AAT reviews are already conducted in the absence of a decision-maker and the more inquisitorial nature of these reviews is valued by applicants. The ability of decision-makers to elect not to participate in proceedings will be subject to limits set out in the bill, including that the tribunal may order a decision-maker to participate. Retaining powers and procedures that work The new tribunal will also have all of the essential powers, procedures and requirements currently applicable in the AAT. Improved administrative decision-making A key objective of the tribunal will be to improve the quality and transparency of decision-making across government. The bill achieves this important objective in a number of ways, including by re-establishing the Administrative Review Council. This was a key recommendation of the robodebt royal commission. The council will comprise members with administrative law expertise and knowledge of the needs of people significantly affected by government decisions. The tribunal's senior leadership will also be directly responsible for identifying and monitoring systemic issues in government decision-making, and bringing them to the attention of government and the Administrative Review Council. The president's functions also include engaging with civil society on the performance of the tribunal's functions, to ensure that users' voices and interests are heard directly by the most senior leaders in the tribunal. The bill also strengthens requirements for the publication of tribunal decisions, in line with the recommendations of the robodebt royal commission. Guidance and appeals panel The bill also establishes a guidance and appeals panel within the tribunal to resolve matters raising systemic issues and review tribunal decisions that may be affected by error. This will promote consistent tribunal decision making and more rapid responses to emerging issues. The guidance and appeals panel will be able to hear matters on appeal that raise a significant issue in administrative decision-making or where the decision of the tribunal may contain a material error. The president may also refer a matter to the guidance and appeals panel if it raises an issue of significance to administrative decision-making. A decision of the guidance and appeals panel on a systemic issue will provide clarity for others seeking review and will enhance the quality of future administrative decisions, both by the original decision-maker and by the tribunal, on similar issues. Tribunal members will be required to treat these decisions as guidance decisions. Conclusion Before I conclude, I would like to thank the many organisations and individuals who have contributed to the development of this legislation, including the members of the expert advisory group, staff, members and users of the AAT, and the many legal assistance providers, advocates and other experts who have made submissions to, or met with, the Attorney-General's Department. I also want to thank all of the officers at the Attorney-General's Department who have worked on these bills for their excellent work. This legislation represents an opportunity to significantly improve Australia's administrative review system—a key pillar of our democracy. The new tribunal is intended to serve as a safeguard against abuses of power. It is intended to play a vital role in protecting the rights and interests of members of the community, and ensuring that government and the Public Service act within the bounds of the law. It is intended to lead to better government and better government decision-making. My hope is that the bills will benefit from parliamentary scrutiny through the Senate committee process and, ultimately, gain broad support across the parliament. I welcome discussions and views on this legislation. We are committed to getting this right. As the robodebt royal commission noted: Effective merits review is an essential part of the legal framework that protects the rights and interests of individuals; it also promotes government accountability and plays a broader important role in improving the quality and consistency of government decisions. With this legislation, the government is seeking to restore trust and confidence in Australia's system of merits review, and I look forward to the support of this parliament. Debate adjourned. Administrative Review Tribunal (Consequential and Transitional Provisions No. 1) Bill 2023 9202

Administrative Review Tribunal (Consequential and Transitional Provisions No. 1) Bill 2023

First Reading 9202 Second Reading 9202 10:11 Mr DREYFUS HWG Isaacs I move: That the bill be now read a second time. The Administrative Review Tribunal (Consequential and Transitional Amendments No.1) Bill 2023 supports the establishment of the new Administrative Review Tribunal (Tribunal), which will be created by the Administrative Review Tribunal Bill 2023 (the ART Bill). It makes consequential and transitional amendments to 138 Commonwealth acts, covering approximately 93 per cent of the tribunal's caseload. Those amendments are needed to effectively implement this significant reform. Further technical amendments will be required to approximately 120 acts which refer to the AAT, and these will be introduced in parliament as soon as possible. Decisions under these other acts collectively account for approximately seven per cent of the AAT's jurisdiction by caseload. Abolishing the AAT The consequential and transitional bill repeals the AAT Act and other legislative provisions that provide for the operation of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. The Administrative Review Tribunal, established by the ART Bill, will replace it. Consequential amendments The bill contains consequential amendments to acts in 14 Commonwealth portfolios. These include Social Services, Treasury, Veterans' Affairs and Home Affairs, as well as matters affecting the National Intelligence Community. The changes in this consequential and transitional bill focus on addressing the highest-volume caseloads within the tribunal and the most complex consequential amendments. They also make simple but essential reference changes. Migration Act The Migration Act will be amended to harmonise and improve the review process for migration and protection visa applicants. To provide for more effective and efficient reviews, the exhaustive statement of the natural justice hearing rule will be adjusted so that it applies in limited, critical, areas. The Immigration Assessment Authority, which provides a 'fast track' style of review for certain protection visa applicants, will be abolished. These applicants will have their matters reviewed in the same way as any other protection visa applicant. The reform significantly standardises the availability of tribunal powers and procedures for migration and protection matters, supporting consistency and collaboration across the tribunal. This includes the ability to hold directions hearings, case conferences and to use broader dismissal powers, directions powers and summons powers. Administrative and procedural tasks will be able to be delegated to registrars and staff. It is no secret that the Migration and Refugee Division of the AAT is beset by delays. The Nixon report found that these delays were 'motivating bad actors to take advantage by lodging increasing numbers of non-genuine applications for protection'. This has come at a cost to people in genuine need of protection and to the broader Australian community. Together with the changes introduced by the Administrative Review Tribunal Bill 2023 and the government's recent appointment of over 90 additional members, the changes to the Migration Act in this consequential and transitional bill will give the tribunal the tools it needs to swiftly resolve unmeritorious applications that cause delays in the migration system without sacrificing fairness for genuine applicants. Social Services and NDIS The consequential and transitional bill provides for a more flexible, robust and fit-for-purpose style of review for social security and child support decisions. Among other things, the amendments reflect the fact that the new guidance and appeals panel will be able to hear social security and child support matters on appeal that raise a significant issue in administrative decision-making or where the decision of the tribunal may contain a material error. In light of the new structure, social security and child support matters will be triaged from the outset, and resolved according to the complexity of the matter and whether the participation of the decision-maker will assist its effective and efficient resolution. The consequential and transitional bill also updates references in the National Disability Insurance Scheme Act, to ensure reviews of these decisions can continue in the new tribunal. The new tribunal is focused on flexible, informal and accessible reviews, and has the power to appoint practitioners—where needed—to assist people with disability. The tribunal is expressly required to promote accessibility in proceedings, ensuring that parties can effectively participate, and be responsive to the diverse needs of parties to the proceedings. Treasury portfolio A range of modifications which currently apply for taxation and charity matters in the AAT will be retained to, among other things, protect tax revenue collection, and to uphold longstanding core tax principles and practices. For example: mandating private hearings to protect taxpayer confidentiality, retaining rules which require the initial lodgement with the tribunal of all documents that are necessary to the review (rather than all documents relevant to the review), and maintaining rules which provide that the applicant has the burden of proof for tax and charity matters, to ensure the workability of such proceedings and consistency with Australia's tax system being based on self-assessment. Veterans' reviews The arrangements for veterans' matters that currently apply in relation to the AAT are retained in the context of the new tribunal, including the ability to seek review in the tribunal following consideration by the Veterans' Review Board. Given the complex nature of the issues relating to the determination of liability and compensation, modifications such as application time limits will continue to apply, to ensure veterans and their dependants are not disadvantaged. Provisions setting out protections for matters involving national security information are contained across various acts and will be harmonised to ensure clarity. Transitional amendments The consequential and transitional bill also facilitates the smooth transition from the AAT to the new tribunal. The bill makes provision for institutional and corporate arrangements, such as the transfer of staff, assets, liabilities and records from the AAT to the new tribunal. The bill provides that all ongoing and non-ongoing staff will transfer to the new tribunal. It provides clarity by ensuring that applications that have already been made to the AAT, or proceedings already in progress, will automatically transfer to the new tribunal when it commences operations. Parties with matters in the tribunal at the time of transition will be notified, and will not need to reapply to have their matter continue. AAT members who are judges will have their appointments transferred to the ART. Moreover, AAT members (including the President) who have been appointed since 1 January 2023 through a transparent and merit based selection process will also transition to the tribunal for the remainder of their terms. All other current members have been given the opportunity to apply for roles in the new tribunal through the merit based appointment process that has already commenced. Current full-time AAT members who are appointed to the new tribunal and whose appointments would have continued beyond the commencement date will have their remuneration preserved at their current AAT rate for up to four months, unless their remuneration would be higher in the ART. Current full-time members who are not appointed to the new tribunal and whose appointments would have continued beyond the commencement date of the new tribunal will be paid an amount equivalent to up to four months of their current salary. This arrangement ensures that compensation payments are fair and reasonable but not excessive. Conclusion The consequential and transitional provisions bill makes essential consequential amendments to legislation across the Commonwealth, and outlines robust transitional arrangements needed to support the smooth establishment of the new Administrative Review Tribunal. It also harmonises, streamlines and enhances the operation of provisions across a range of jurisdictional areas, simplifying the process for applicants and promoting a more efficient, accessible and cohesive tribunal. I commend the bill to the House. Debate adjourned. Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Enhancing Consumer Safeguards and Other Measures) Bill 2023 9204

Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Enhancing Consumer Safeguards and Other Measures) Bill 2023

First Reading 9204 Second Reading 9204 10:21 Ms ROWLAND 159771 Greenway I move: That the bill be now read a second time. Access to telecommunications underpins much of today's economic, social, cultural and political activity. The Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Enhancing Consumer Safeguards and Other Measures) Bill 2023 will deliver improved safeguards for Australian consumers when they access broadband and voice services. The Bill contains five schedules. Schedule 1, the bulk of the bill, sets out measures to refine and improve the statutory infrastructure provider, or SIP, regime in part 19 of the Telecommunications Act1997. Currently, part 19 provides the legislative basis for NBN Co, and other telecommunications carriers, to provide access to high-speed broadband networks across Australia. Most changes are minor and will enhance the operation of the regime, but there are a number of more significant measures. First, the bill will bring private networks in new developments, for example those operating in retirement villages, into the SIP regime for the first time. Bringing these private networks under the regime will mean that consumers living in these developments will have greater certainty they can access broadband and voice at appropriate standards. Second, the bill will provide a mechanism for SIPs to be required to pay compensation to customers where they do not meet a standard or a rule. This will give providers an incentive to lift performance in the event that new standards or rules are implemented. Third, the bill will clarify that the obligations of SIPs start in an area once buildings have been constructed and someone has moved in. Currently, the obligations start once a network has been installed. This has meant that when there is a delay in deploying a network, occupants can face delays in being able to access telecommunications. Fourth, the bill will clarify the powers of the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman to resolve complaints about SIP connections. This will provide an additional safeguard for consumers. Fifth, the bill provides stricter rules when SIPs exit their service areas. Appropriate notice will then be given to NBN Co, as the default SIP, to arrange for continuity of service in an area. Sixth, the bill repeals an exemption from the SIP supply obligation, due to uncertainty in the industry about how the obligation operates. The bill proposes to replace the exemption with a power for the minister to adjust the SIP supply obligation in the event a SIP is temporarily unable to fulfil the obligation. This mechanism would be delivered by legislative instrument, and the minister would be able to specify conditions that must be met, such as reporting obligations, to provide transparency to consumers and the regulator. Schedule 2 to the bill would provide powers for the Australian Communications and Media Authority to issue remedial notices to developers who do not install functional fibre-ready facilities, such as pit and pipe, in developments. This will further encourage developers to install fit-for-purpose pit and pipe and remediate it if it is deficient. Schedule 3 to the bill clarifies the powers of the ACMA to identify carriers and carriage service providers in public reports on their performance. This will improve transparency and accountability. Carriers and carriage service providers will be encouraged to improve their performance, and consumers will have better information when they choose a service provider. Schedule 4 provides powers for universal service providers to be determined in relation to specific areas of Australia. This provides future flexibility, for example, if Norfolk Island is fully integrated into the Australian telecommunications regulatory framework. Schedule 5 makes some technical amendments to legislation, including to clarify the powers of the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission to issue infringement notices. The bill will also clarify the maximum penalties that should apply for breaches of carrier separation rules and also the anti-avoidance measures relating to the Regional Broadband Scheme. Taken together, the measures in the bill will improve access to broadband and voice services for people in Australia. I commend the bill to the House. Debate adjourned. PARLIAMENTARY ZONE 9205 PARLIAMENTARY ZONE Proposed Works 9205 10:26 Ms McBAIN 281988 Eden-Monaro I move: That in accordance with section 5 of the Parliament Act 1974, the House approve the following proposal for works in the Parliamentary Zone which was presented to the House on 27 November 2023, namely: Senator Susan Ryan commemorative sculpture. Question agreed to. BILLS 9206 BILLS Disability Services and Inclusion Bill 2023, Inspector-General of Live Animal Exports Amendment (Animal Welfare) Bill 2023 9206

Disability Services and Inclusion Bill 2023

Inspector-General of Live Animal Exports Amendment (Animal Welfare) Bill 2023

Assent 9206 Public Health (Tobacco and Other Products) Bill 2023 9206

Public Health (Tobacco and Other Products) Bill 2023

Consideration of Senate Message 9206 10:28 The DEPUTY SPEAKER E0D I understand it is the wish of the House that the amendments be considered together. 10:28 Mr BUTLER HWK Hindmarsh Tobacco has caused immeasurable harm and costs countless lives in this country. We can't stand by and allow another generation of people to be lured into addiction and suffer the enormous health, economic and social consequences. Together with the strong measures that we're taking against vaping, these reforms, which will pass the parliament today I hope, will help us keep pace with the cynical marketing strategies of big tobacco. Simply put, the laws passed today will save Australian lives. Australia now has the legislation in place to underpin our renewed fight against tobacco and to protect the next generation from the devastating impacts of smoking. The passage of this bill returns Australia to its place as a world leader in tobacco control. I want to thank a range of the senators for amendments to the bill that is before the House now. I want to thank Senator Pocock, Senator Steele-John and the Greens party for their engagement, as well as other senators for their support. I also want to thank Senator Ruston for her constructive amendments to the tobacco legislation and her willingness to continue Australia's world-leading tobacco reforms. We look forward to working with the opposition, and I look forward to working with the shadow minister, Senator Ruston, and the crossbench as we introduce vaping legislation in the new year. The government has also worked closely with tobacco control and public health experts to ensure that we have the best possible protections in place. At the risk of singling some people out in a very vast group of terrific public health experts, I do want to thank the Cancer Council—especially the leadership shown by Tanya Buchanan—Professor Emily Banks, the Australian Council on Smoking and Health and the Public Health Association of Australia for their tireless advocacy. I assure the parliament that the government will move quickly to finalise new regulations to support the reforms in the bill. I move: That the amendments be agreed to. Question agreed to. Nature Repair Market Bill 2023 9210

Nature Repair Market Bill 2023

Consideration of Senate Message 9210 10:31 The DEPUTY SPEAKER DZY I understand it is the wish of the House to consider the amendments together. 10:31 Mr BUTLER HWK Hindmarsh I move: That the amendments be agreed to. The SPEAKER 53517 The question is that the amendments be agreed to.  

The House divided. [10:35]
(The Speaker—Hon. Milton Dick)

82 AYES Aly, A. Ananda-Rajah, M. Bates, S. J. Burke, A. S. Burnell, M. P. 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. Georganas, S. Giles, A. J. Gorman, P. Gosling, L. J. Haines, H. M. Hill, J. C. Husic, E. N. Jones, S. P. Kearney, G. M. Keogh, M. J. Khalil, P. King, C. F. King, M. M. H. Lawrence, T. N. Laxale, J. A. A. Le, D. Leigh, A. K. Mascarenhas, Z. F. A. McBain, K. L. McBride, E. M. Miller-Frost, L. J. Mitchell, B. K. Mitchell, R. G. Mulino, D. Neumann, S. K. O'Connor, B. P. J. O'Neil, C. E. Payne, A. E. Perrett, G. D. Phillips, F. E. Plibersek, T. J. Rae, S. T. Reid, G. J. Repacholi, D. P. Rishworth, A. L. Roberts, T. G. Rowland, M. A. Ryan, J. C. Ryan, M. M. Scrymgour, M. R. Sharkie, R. C. C. Shorten, W. R. Sitou, S. Smith, D. P. B. (Teller) Spender, A. M. Stanley, A. M. (Teller) Steggall, Z. Swanson, M. J. Templeman, S. R. Thwaites, K. L. Tink, K. J. Vamvakinou, M. Watson-Brown, E. Watts, T. G. Wells, A. S. Wilkie, A. D. Wilson, J. H. Zappia, A. 49 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. Coleman, D. B. Conaghan, P. J. Coulton, M. M. (Teller) Entsch, W. G. Fletcher, P. W. Goodenough, I. R. Hamilton, G. R. Hastie, A. W. Hawke, A. G. Hogan, K. J. Howarth, L. R. Joyce, B. T. G. Leeser, J. Littleproud, D. Marino, N. B. McCormack, M. F. McIntosh, M. I. McKenzie, Z. A. O'Brien, L. S. Pasin, A. Pearce, G. B. Pike, H. J. Pitt, K. J. Price, M. L. Ramsey, R. E. (Teller) Stevens, J. Sukkar, M. S. Taylor, A. J. Tehan, D. T. Thompson, P. van Manen, A. J. Vasta, R. X. Violi, A. A. Wallace, A. B. Ware, J. L. Webster, A. E. Willcox, A. J. Wolahan, K. Wood, J. P. Young, T. J. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

 Nature Repair Market (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2023 9212

Nature Repair Market (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2023

Consideration of Senate Message 9212 10:41 Ms PLIBERSEK 83M Sydney I move: That the amendments be agreed to. When Labor came to government, we promised to protect more of what's precious, restore more of what's damaged and manage nature better for our children and our grandchildren. Today the House has the chance to pass two more crucial environmental reforms. Firstly, this legislation establishes a new nature repair market in Australia, the first of its kind in the world. It is legislation that will encourage good environmental work, making it easier for businesses, philanthropists and other groups to invest in projects that protect and restore nature. Crucially, it will guard against the threat of greenwashing. This is not to replace government effort but to reinforce it. This means landholders, farmers and First Nations groups will be paid to improve nature on their properties. It will guarantee that the money invested does what it intends to do: restore habitats, improve our soil, eradicate feral species, protect our beaches and make our land more resilient to droughts and floods. The market will be strictly monitored by the Clean Energy Regulator to ensure full transparency and integrity in the system. This is part of Labor's mission to build a nature-positive Australia. We need effective national laws, we need active government investment and, wherever possible, we need the support of private money and philanthropists. Secondly, the Nature Repair Market (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2023, with its amendments, will update the water trigger in our national environmental laws so that new unconventional gas projects will be assessed for their impact on water resources. Labor promised this change before the election and today we are delivering it. It's a commonsense reform providing businesses with certainty and the community with confidence that water resources are properly regulated and protected. I want to take a moment to thank the member for Lingiari. The member for Lingiari has fought passionately for this change for her community since not just her election to this place but long before. I'd also like to acknowledge the member for Mackellar. The member for Mackellar introduced a private member's bill on this subject earlier this year. Three expert reports over five years have recommended making this change. The water trigger already applies to coal seam gas, but now it will include types of unconventional gas such as shale gas and tight gas. Most new projects will be unaffected by the change as coal seam gas production is already covered by the existing water trigger and the changes do not apply to conventional gas production. Existing gas projects that are in production and have already been approved are also unaffected by this update. Projects regulated by NOPSEMA, the National Offshore Petroleum Safety and Environmental Management Authority, are also unaffected by this update. This will provide certainty for business and ensure continuity of gas supply. Last week we passed our bill to rescue the Murray-Darling Basin Plan, and today we are, I hope, passing two more important pieces of environmental protection. I encourage all members of this House to support the bill and deliver more environmental protection in nine days than the previous government did in nine years. The SPEAKER 53517 The question is that the amendments be agreed to. For the benefit of the members of the House, I'm going to call the Leader of the Nationals. I understand he has amendments to these amendments. Under the standing orders, this is the time to move amendments to the Senate amendments. Moving forward, so all members understand the process— The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Wannon will cease interjecting. Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The Leader of The Nationals definitely has the call. 10:46 Mr LITTLEPROUD 265585 Maranoa by leave—I move opposition amendments (1) and (2), circulated in my name, to Senate amendment (3) together: (1) Senate amendment (3) (proposed new definition of unconventional gas development in section 528 of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999), omit the definition, substitute: unconventional gas development means any activity involving unconventional gas production or carbon sequestration that has, or is likely to have, a significant impact on water resources (including any impacts of associated salt production and/or salinity): (a) in its own right; or (b) when considered with other developments, whether past, present or reasonably foreseeable developments. (2) Senate amendment (3) (proposed new definition of unconventional gas production in section 528 of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999), omit the definition, substitute: unconventional gas production or carbon sequestration means extraction, recovery, injection, or intentional release, (whether by drilling, hydraulic fracturing or other means) of methane or carbon dioxide from or into: (a) coal seams or beds; or (b) layers of shale rock; or (c) tight gas reservoirs; or (d) aquifers. The coalition requests that it make a simple amendment to the amendments that it moved as a result of the bill passing through the Senate yesterday—the one around carbon sequestration. There was an amendment to the EPBC Act— The SPEAKER 53517 The Leader of The Nationals will pause. The minister for infrastructure and the member for Wannon will not be interjecting. No-one will interject during this process—trust me. The Leader of The Nationals has the call and will be heard in silence. Mr LITTLEPROUD 265585 Mr Speaker, thank you. The Senate made amendments to the Nature Repair Market Bill 2023 that addressed the EPBC and gas extraction. The Nationals and the Liberals believe that this is an opportune time to also pursue an opportunity to look at carbon capture, storage and sequestration, particularly on shore. At the moment, there is a development in my own electorate where a carbon capture and storage project will collect carbon from a coal-fired power station and inject it into the Precipice. That goes through the Great Artesian Basin, the biggest potable water source for this country. It services stock and domestic use right across the Great Artesian Basin. We obviously support carbon capture and storage, but it has to be in the appropriate place. The technology is emerging, and we support that technology, but it has to be done at an appropriate place where we have confidence in the approvals process. At the moment, the Queensland government will be the ones that will make that determination, and what we feel is that this is a national environmental asset that should also trigger the water trigger under the EPBC Act to ensure that proper approval processes are taking place and there is oversight by all levels of government, to give confidence to those primary producers and to our communities who rely on the Great Artesian Basin for their water supply. This is a commonsense solution to what is an emerging problem in understanding the science and the technology, which we do believe we should invest in. We don't walk away from the fact that carbon capture and storage will play a very important part in reducing our emissions, and we should continue to make those investments, as the Biden administration has, with over $1.2 billion worth of investment in reducing US emissions. But with that comes a responsibility for us as legislators to protect our environment, our way of life and Australian agriculture. Appreciating the size of the Great Artesian Basin, the sheer magnitude of the area which it covers and the reliance on it by agriculture and our communities means that it is beholden on us, not just for now but for the future, to protect these communities and to protect the environment for future generations. As the technology and science evolve, the opportunity for these companies to make these investments will continue to provide itself there. But, until that's proven on technology that is new to the world, particularly in this form in this model that is being proposed in south-west Queensland, it poses too many risks. As legislators, we should propose the precautionary principle to make sure that we make a sensible decision here in this parliament to protect our environment, protect these communities and make sure that we work with the science and the technology at a methodical pace that gives everyone confidence. This is the opportunity for this parliament today to give that confidence and greater investment confidence for carbon capture storage into the future, and to do that in harmony with Australian agriculture, our environment and particularly our communities. We believe that this is a sensible amendment that posed itself as an opportunity when there was an amendment in the Senate to the EPBC Act. We believe that acting responsibly in understanding the impact on the Great Artesian Basin and making sure that this legislation would give that protection of another lens of oversight would give confidence to our regional communities not just in my electorate but across the Great Artesian Basin that could be impacted by this. We think this is a sensible amendment that gives everyone confidence to move forward, that gives approval-process certainty and that gives the community certainty. I ask the House to accept this amendment as a commonsense approach to protecting our environment and nature. 10:51 Ms PLIBERSEK 83M Sydney I want to thank the Leader of the Nationals for moving this amendment to the Nature Repair Market (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2023. I really appreciate his concerns about the Great Artesian Basin. He is absolutely right in saying that this is a vital water resource for Australia and that it must be protected. I thank him for the intent of the amendment that he has moved. Given that the government have only just received notice of the amendment, we're not in a position to support it today, but I would say that we are very keen to work with the Leader of the Nationals on the intent of his amendment. Certainly, as we advance our reforms to the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act next year, I would be very pleased to work with him on making sure that we can give these assurances for the Great Artesian Basin, and more generally for the impact that carbon capture and storage would have on water resources. The intent behind expanding the water trigger, as we have done, is to ensure that new unconventional gas projects will be assessed on their impact on water resources. That has been a longstanding commitment of our government, and it's a very commonsense reform. It makes sure that coal seam gas is covered by the water trigger. Other types of unconventional gas were not really contemplated when the original water trigger was written. We're expanding the water trigger to cover those other types of unconventional gas. This has been recommended in a number of inquiries: the Northern Territory government's Pepper scientific inquiry, the 2018 Senate inquiry into water use by the extractive industry and the Senate inquiry into oil and gas exploration and production in the Beetaloo basin. All of these recommend that the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act water trigger be expanded to unconventional gas. As I say to the member for Maranoa, while we're not in a position to support this amendment today, I would be very happy to work with him next year as we further develop our EPBC reforms. That will give us the opportunity to consider the science and to work more broadly with industries, farmers and other affected people—the water users of the Great Artesian Basin—and make sure that we get any details of further amendments correct. 10:54 Mr BOYCE 299498 Flynn I rise to make a contribution on the Nature Repair Market (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2023 and our further amendments that have been circulated. What we're proposing to do here is include 'carbon sequestration' in the unconventional gas development definition, and to add 'carbon dioxide into water aquifers' to give some protection around Australia's greatest underground water assets. These include the Great Artesian Basin. I've just heard the minister very piously say that she is protecting properly the water assets of Australia. Now, the minister knows very well that the current EPBC Act offers no protection whatsoever to the waters of the Great Artesian Basin in respect of carbon sequestration. That is because it is not deemed to be a coalmine or a gas operation. The minister knows this very well. As David Littleproud, the member for Maranoa, has pointed out, in Central Queensland at the moment there is a proposal to possibly pump hundreds of millions of tonnes of industrial waste into the Great Artesian Basin's waters. In their EIS statements, the proponent who is doing this has said that they will compromise the receiving ground water. They have also said that they cannot meet the current environmental protocols surrounding it, of the Queensland government, so they need those environmental authorities changed to be able to proceed. The minister stood up there and said that she is protecting the underground waters. She is not, and the EPBC Act, as it currently reads, does not do this. What we are asking here is to include carbon sequestration—the injection of carbon dioxide and these other things into the waters of the Great Artesian Basin, in particular—so as to give those waters some protection in respect of future developments. I urge you all to support these amendments—otherwise, you are just hypocrites. 10:56 Ms WATSON-BROWN 300127 Ryan It's been a big week at the end of a big parliamentary year, with some lows and some highs. This week, there was a high. The Greens secured significant environmental reforms, to protect our environment from greenwashed habitat-destruction and dangerous fracking. After months of pressure, the government has finally agreed to scrap their controversial offsets from the Nature Repair Bill and to establish new environmental protections from climate-wrecking, environment-wrecking and community-wrecking gas-fracking projects. This agreement, secured by the Greens, is a major blow to climate-bomb projects in places like the Beetaloo Basin and the Kimberley. It's a win for the climate, a win for the environment and a win for First Nations communities. Prior to this—and unbelievably—the minister was not required to assess fracking projects for their impact on the environment. Let that sink in. Yet, as most thinking people know, fracking can have absolutely catastrophic impacts for our critical water resources. The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The member for Ryan will resume her seat. I call the Leader of the Nationals on a point of order. Mr Littleproud 265585 Mr Speaker, we are debating the amendments, so I don't believe the member is being relevant. The SPEAKER 53517 There is some latitude given. Just to remind all members: as I explained at the beginning of the debate, we are dealing with the amendments to the Senate amendments moved by the Leader of the Nationals. Whilst the member has been able to reflect on the broader Senate amendments, I'll ask for her shortly to get to the Leader of the Nationals' amendments. The member for Ryan has the call. Ms WATSON-BROWN 300127 For a decade—and this is all relevant to this—the Greens and environment and First Nations groups have been campaigning for an expanded water trigger, to ensure these projects are assessed. The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The member for Page will cease interjecting. Ms WATSON-BROWN 300127 Therefore, we will not be supporting the amendments. The passage of this legislation will close the loophole which currently gives gas-fracking corporations a licence to drill without any federal environmental water assessment. The SPEAKER 53517 The Leader of the Nationals will cease interjecting. Ms WATSON-BROWN 300127 This is going to throw sand in the gears of climate-bomb projects like the Beetaloo Basin and throw a lifeline to water sources you're concerned about, like the mighty Roper River in the Northern Territory. The original inclusion of offsets in a scheme to ostensibly 'repair' nature was a huge red flag. Allowing corporations to pay to destroy nature is obviously not nature positive. With offsets— The SPEAKER 53517 Order, the member for Page! The member for Ryan will pause. Just so that every member is clear: this is not a debate about the bill. We are dealing with the Senate amendments and the individual amendments by the Leader of the Nationals. So, to be clear, you can talk about the Senate amendments, and/or preferably the Leader of the Nationals' question, not the general bill. The member for Ryan can continue. Just reflect on that. Ms WATSON-BROWN 300127 We're explaining why the original amendments should stay in their original form and not be amended. The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Ryan can continue. Ms WATSON-BROWN 300127 With offsets in the bill, this would have been a scheme to effectively greenwash to facilitate nature destruction. Now, as a result of strong opposition from the Greens and stakeholders, Labor has agreed to completely scrap biodiversity offsets from the bill. The original Nature Repair Market Bill—and I note that it's still called that on the screen—will now be renamed the Nature Repair Bill, as it will provide a voluntary system, as the minister mentioned, for private investment and philanthropy to protect and restore biodiversity on private land without offsets. Our water, our environment, our climate, are all one precious, interlinked ecosystem. Scrapping those dodgy offsets that would facilitate the actual destruction of nature and ensuring that damaging projects undergo proper environmental assessment are both critical to meaningfully restoring biodiversity and protecting our climate and our communities. Thankfully Labor has finally heeded Greens calls, and this recrafted bill will effectuate the delivery of these significant environmental reforms. Make no mistake: the environment minister has the power to stop gas mines and fracking, and we will be watching closely and doing everything that we can to ensure that Labor actually uses these powers to stop the climate-destroying, catastrophic Beetaloo and Burrup Hub projects. Our future depends on it. 11:01 Ms STEGGALL 175696 Warringah I rise to speak on the original amendments before the House, being the amendments from the Senate, which essentially expand the water trigger to this legislation, and the further amendments by the member for Maranoa, which essentially seek to, at this last minute, introduce carbon capture and sequestration and the consideration of its impact on water. Whilst in principle I think that is absolutely necessary, I am concerned at this very last-minute attempt to put this in without any explanation or discussion. It seems to be a very last-minute discovery by the member for Maranoa of the procedure in this place, or the ability to move amendments to improve legislation. I commend the government for supporting the amendments in the message from the Senate when it comes to expanding the water trigger and updating its definition. I note it was a commitment prior to the election. It is really important for this to happen. It was only in October that the member for Mackellar, who unfortunately can't be here today due to illness, introduced a private member's bill to that effect. I had the pleasure of seconding that private member's bill to expand the water trigger to include all forms of gas extraction, to ensure consideration by the minister of the impact of projects on water. We know that, for traditional owners, water is an incredibly important part of culture. We also know, through our warming planet and climate, that our water resources are going to come under more and more pressure. We know there are expected reductions in water tables and amounts of rainfall per year. We know that, for communities, water is an incredibly important resource. We really need to distinguish between the use of water by projects—in particular, when it comes to all forms of gas fracking—and maintaining water as an essential element for sustaining human life and for traditional owners, in relation to their cultural association and recognition of it. I think it's incredibly important, and I thank the crossbench in both houses—in particular, the Greens—for having pushed the government to accelerate this amendment. I acknowledge it was a commitment, but the delay had been concerning, because it's incredibly important that the impact on the water table of projects like the Beetaloo basin is part of that environmental approval. We know the Northern Territory government had green-lit gas production in the Beetaloo basin—the region between Katherine and Tennant Creek that has big reserves of shale gas. It's incredibly important for those communities and elders who travelled down to Canberra—and I hope many in this place actually took the time to listen to them—to talk about the importance of the impact on their water and their communities. It's incredibly important, from the Pepper inquiry into fracking in the Northern Territory, to note the deep concern and the strong opposition to development of any onshore shale gas industry on their country. I welcome the amendments. I would like to see further information from the Nationals in relation to their last-minute amendment because I think that would assist the procedure in this place. I certainly welcome any legislation that increases scrutiny of the use of nature and resources and water in relation to mining, gas extraction and, in particular, carbon capture and storage. 11:05 Dr RYAN 297660 Kooyong The effectiveness of biodiversity markets rests on whether or not they reward stewardship that really benefits biodiversity or whether they rely on offsets that harm biodiversity elsewhere. When we first saw the Nature Repair Market (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2023, we were concerned about its potential for commodifying nature and about the scheme's integrity around its interaction with our national environmental laws, particularly given its offsets provisions. So it was with great joy that I and others on the crossbench saw, two nights ago, the use of biodiversity certificates for offsetting specifically excluded by the Senate. It is a vast improvement to this legislation that it is now clear that biodiversity certificates cannot be used to meet offsetting requirements under Commonwealth, state or territory legislation. This markedly improves the integrity of the system, and I congratulate the government on this achievement. The aspect of this bill that sparks the greatest joy, however, is that the government has now, in response to sustained pressure from the crossbench in both chambers, revised the water trigger in the EPBC Act. What this means is that the Minister for the Environment and Water must now consider the impact of all forms of conventional and unconventional gas development on local water resources. Unconventional gas projects are not currently covered by the water trigger but rather are assessed and approved by relevant state and territory legislation. Sadly, we have seen that the states and territories cannot be trusted with responsibility for our environment. In recent months, we've seen the Northern Territory government falsely claim implementation of all recommendations of the Pepper inquiry. It has given the green light to fracking in the Beetaloo basin, a process which could well compromise the safety of 90 per cent of the water relied upon by Territorians. It could well cause irreversible damage to the natural environment in an area the size of Victoria. Concerns were raised recently by climate scientists from the Territory who found methane bubbling in hot springs in the Territory, suggesting that exploratory fracking was already impacting the integrity of its aquifers, springs and rivers, including the iconic and beautiful Mataranka hot springs and the Roper River. Last week I met with representatives of First Nations communities potentially affected by this process in the Territory, and I heard their distress about the potential contamination of their country. Expansion of the water trigger was a pre-election commitment of this government, and I congratulate the environment minister and the members for Lingiari and Mackellar for delivering on that commitment. It is time for Australia to lead the way out of the climate crisis, so I and many of the members on the crossbench will be glad to see this bill passed today with the improvements generated with our input. I commend the bill to the House. 11:09 Ms SCRYMGOUR F2S Lingiari It gives me great pleasure to stand here and speak on the Nature Repair Market (Consequential Amendment) Bill 2023, and I applaud the Minister for the Environment and Water. This has been a major win for the Australian Labor Party. Whilst we hear the Greens and others take credit for the water trigger, a water trigger for non-conventional gas can be delivered only by a Labor government. I thank the minister for the environment and the cabinet. I was just thinking back to my maiden speech, where I talked about how mining is a big contributor in the Northern Territory. We had the large mines in the seventies. Anyone who knows the landscape of the Northern Territory knows it's not about saying that we don't need mining. But it is about saying we need strong environmental laws. That is what is important here. I know that firsthand from talking to Aboriginal people and to other communities in the Northern Territory, because it's not just Aboriginal people; there are pastoralists, there are people living on small outstations, and everyone as a collective needed to be spoken to in relation to the non-conventional gas or fracking that was being proposed in the Northern Territory. There were a number of concerns coming from a lot of the Aboriginal groups, but there was one thing that was uniting all of the Aboriginal groups, and that was water. The minister has listened. The government has certainly listened. I, too, have spoken to many of the groups in my electorate, and they said very clearly that they wanted the delivery of a water trigger. This has been a Labor government that has delivered on this—not the Greens, not the crossbench. We've needed that support, and I thank the Greens for their support. I also thank the member for Mackellar, because I know that there were conversations, and I did have some conversations with the member for Mackellar when various groups came down to talk to members of the crossbench and our government about these issues, particularly in relation to water. It would pay for some of those members not just to stand in this place but also to come out and have a look at what needs to be done in these communities. One thing we can't do is lock up our communities. If anyone has read the Pepper review in the Northern Territory, they'll know it isn't about locking up the Territory. There were two critical recommendations that were in the purview of the Commonwealth government. The former government ignored those two recommendations. The former Chief Minister of the Northern Territory put a moratorium on that report until such time as we could work through and understand fully what the Pepper review entailed. It is pleasing to be part of a government who has been strong enough, courageous enough, to take the water trigger and put it in the Nature Repair Bill. I want to thank the minister's staff, who have worked very closely with me and with my office to have a look at how we can proceed with this. This is important for the Northern Territory. This is important for water resources into the future. But it's not about locking the Northern Territory up away from projects. There's a lot of mining activity, like critical minerals, that needs to happen and that we still need to proceed with, but this will go a long way. I was sitting here before I stood up thinking in particular about a lot of my constituents in Elliott—many of them on renal dialysis—who have been waiting for this to happen. I'm hoping that, when I go back up there, I'll do a trip to Tennant Creek, Elliott, Katherine, Mataranka, Jilkminggan and all of those communities, not just those feeding into the Roper River but all of the other parts. The artesian basin, which people might talk about in Queensland, does come through Central Australia. (Time expired) 11:14 Ms SPENDER 286042 Wentworth I rise to speak in support of the Nature Repair Bill 2023 and the amendments that have been added by the Senate. I want to reflect that this parliament has a supermajority for action on climate change and the environment across this House and across the Senate. I think that this bill is a reflection of that supermajority. It is a reflection of the government working constructively with the crossbench in this House and in the Senate to deliver something that the Australian people are asking for, which is to make sensible protections for our environment so that we can safeguard those for future generations. I would like to firstly say thank you to the minister and to my colleagues here and in the other place for the constructive negotiations on this. I'd like to thank the member for Lingiari and also the member for Mackellar for their absolutely wonderful advocacy on this because they have done a brilliant job. I want to really highlight that this legislation, as other members have noted, will expand the water trigger under the EPBC Act. This is a matter that I and many others on the crossbench have been pushing for. Those amendments are absolutely critical for safeguarding Australia's environment, and they ensure that unconventional gas projects such as those proposed for the Beetaloo basin will be properly assessed for environmental impacts. The lack of a water trigger was a major flaw, and I'm so pleased to see that being rectified. This is what can be achieved when the parliament works constructively together on the issues that matter most to Australians. I thank the House. 11:16 Ms TINK 300124 North Sydney I rise today to acknowledge that there are a lot of people who are very deeply committed to this legislation and very deeply committed to moving us forward when it comes to environmental practices. I never thought I would hear these words coming out of my mouth, but it seems to me that the amendment that the Nationals have moved makes sense. It makes this legislation stronger. As somebody who grew up in north-west New South Wales, I'm very aware of the importance of the artesian water basin. I think that, with respect to my colleagues from the other side of the House, this legislation has gotten better and better because the minister was willing to listen to everyone in this process. The first draft of the legislation that was brought in had many of us concerned. I think it has been the combined efforts of everyone and the minister's willingness to listen and engage that has meant we have gotten closer to a very excellent piece of legislation. Is it the best it can be? No. I think the minister still knows that and, indeed, she's acknowledging that today by standing and extending an offer to the Nationals to work with them when it comes to improving this legislation. I want to stand today to say that that should be the process with this legislation and with every other piece of climate and environmental legislation that we intend to move through this place in the next 12 months to two years or three years, because we will never get it right the first time. If we adopt the attitude that we are getting it right the first time, we will be failing our communities. I commend the Nationals for identifying this as an opportunity to improve this legislation. I support its movement in the House and encourage the minister and her team to continue to explore adopting it, because, ultimately, we must be united. We must move beyond bipartisan politics and party politicking if we are going to create sustainable change in our environmental laws. 11:18 Mr JOYCE e5d New England As someone who has lived in Charleville, St George and Moree, it is incredibly important for me that people clearly understand that you have concerns about the water that comes out, but you've also got concerns about what goes in. An unknown quantity is what this can do to the world's largest potable water resource. Without the Great Artesian Basin, you basically have economic devastation everywhere that relies on that water source. You have the capacity to create a toxic plume. You have the capacity to change carbon dioxide; you have a form of mild or carbolic acid that can be created. We've got to be incredibly cautious about this. It's new technology that's being brought to the fore. It's basically untested and untried. If we don't have a precautionary process now, we won't be able to unwind what happens next. It'll be too late. I remember, and I'm sure the member for Maranoa is aware, when Linc Energy had the great idea to start burning coal underground for the creation of commercial gases. It turned into a complete disaster. It turned into a thing that infected and affected bores all around the area and basically made the place, as far as the groundwater went, a wasteland. We don't want to double up on that. Now, I acknowledge that there are a few times when we have points of agreement. I acknowledge that, across the chamber, and with the teals and the Greens, there are areas where, generally, you can pick it every day—that they'll be on different sides of the fence. But I ask you, on this one, to really consider this. I hear that people say that it's a last-minute amendment. The member for Flynn has been working on this for months; I'd say, for—I don't know—even a year. He's been— An honourable member interjecting— Mr JOYCE e5d No, you've actually got to follow the media. He's been in the media. He's been everywhere on this. He mightn't have been in the media circles that you listen to, but he's certainly been in the media circles of western Queensland and other areas. We need to pay respect to that. It's hard to break into Sydney media from Gladstone. But this is an incredibly poignant thing. I rarely speak to amendments. But I'm speaking to this one today in the hope that, at this stage, you consider exactly what you're doing. It is going to look—I'm being very polite—confusing. And I warrant that you have great concerns about the water issues in one area. But this is exactly the same thing; it's a water issue. The only difference is the direction the water is going. We're not talking about taking water out; we're talking about putting water in. But if we foul the resource, it won't really matter what you do with the water—whether you take it out or not—because it'll be unusable. Also, there's a sort of commercial nuance behind this. If you actually look at what Glencore can make out of this, they can make, basically, billions of dollars—billions of dollars, out of something that could be to the detriment of, and could cause the destruction of, a large section of the Murray-Darling Basin. They'll basically get paid a credit for what they're going to be putting into the Great Artesian Basin. I think it was a really neat trick by some big corporate minds and big corporate accountants to come up with this, but they've come up with this at the behest of those getting a return. This will leave bereft the people of western Queensland and western New South Wales, and others, right down into sections of South Australia and up into the Northern Territory. So just really think about this. You're about to go on the record, and you don't want to be on the wrong side of history. 11:22 Mr BANDT M3C Melbourne Give me a break! The member for New England, in the previous government, presided over some of the most destructive water policies that this country has seen for decades! Under the previous government, we have seen the Murray-Darling being starved of water. We saw the previous government put its hands in taxpayers' pockets to fund fracking—to fund the expansion of the gas industry, with all the threat that that poses to farmers and the water table. They had a whole decade to bring in this reform that they've decided, at the last minute, is suddenly so critical. It's so critical they couldn't show it to anyone, so we could have a chance to have a look at it, to work out whether it does the thing that they're saying. It's so critical that they couldn't even be bothered circulating a paper copy of it in the chamber—the usual practice—so that people could look at it. It's so critical to them that they couldn't even be bothered coming to anyone else before this vote and saying, 'Would you mind supporting this one because it's a good idea.' It's so critical that, when the debate was happening in the Senate, they didn't even bother moving it there, where it might have had a chance of getting passed. So give me a break! When the member for New England stands up here and, in honeyed tones, tries to convince the parliament and the nation that he somehow cares about the water table, after a decade of being the most destructive water minister, at times, that this country has ever seen, well—pardon me—I don't accept that for one minute. There might be some merit in an amendment that the Leader of the Nationals wants to approve, but when the member for New England gets up and says, in hand-wringing, unctuous tones, 'This is the best thing that ever happened,' when he never bothered to bring it to parliament over the last decade, no-one believes it for a moment. The previous government, the coalition, had a decade to act to protect farmers. What did they do? They backed the frackers every time—every time. Every time we tried to say: 'Give farmers the right to lock the gate. Give farmers the right to protect the water table against the destructive influence of the gas industry,' the National Party, a wholly owned subsidiary of gas and coal corporations in this country, picked coal over crops. They always pick gas over farmers, every time. Now, as they see themselves dwindling further into irrelevance, they come in here with a last-minute stunt and expect people to take them seriously. Give me an absolute break! Even the member for New England can't hide a smile, because he knows it's a con that he's trying on here. He had years to do something about it and presided over the destruction of this country's water table. We will look carefully and seriously at any amendment that actually protects water in this country, because that's what we have tried to do. We have fought the Nationals when they have backed the gas industry against farmers every single time. If they have a good suggestion, of course we're prepared to look at it. But give people time to have a look at it, come here and at least keep a straight face while you're trying to do it. You're not trying to hide the smirks that you have at the moment, after a decade of delivering for the gas industry and driving farmers into the ground. Don't come in here with a last-minute stunt and pretend you care. 11:26 Mr McCORMACK 219646 Riverina This amendment put forward by the Leader of The Nationals, the member for Maranoa, merely aligns the approvals required for industry activities for both gas extraction and carbon sequestration to the same standards, ensuring that, where there is the potential for a significant impact on water resources, the injection and permanent storage of carbon dioxide underground will meet the same scientific standards through the approval process as part of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act. That's what we're talking about here. We just heard a rant from the member for Melbourne. He asks and calls to give him a break. I tell you what: Australian farmers won't just give him a break; they'll give him the food on his table, three times a day every day. He should thank farmers. He shouldn't come into this place, as he and his coterie so often do, and malign our farmers, who are the best in the world. If they were left at the behest of the Greens, our farmers would not even be in existence. We hear so often from the Greens about the Beetaloo basin, about our farmers and about the Murray-Darling Basin. I challenge the member for Melbourne, the Greens leader, and his cohort to actually leave their capital cities, leave the confines of their ivory towers, come into regional Australia and see some real work being done, to see the farmers who, with the sweat of their brows and the work of their hands, are getting dirt under their fingernails to produce the food on limited water. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 265979 Order! Member for Melbourne. Mr McCORMACK 219646 The member for Melbourne should just be quiet. He just might learn something. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 265979 I think that's my job to tell him that; not yours. Mr McCORMACK 219646 He just might learn something about our farmers. He talks about the Murray-Darling Basin. I appreciate that this is about the amendments brought to the chamber by the member for Maranoa, but our farmers aren't the only ones who are going to be affected by the changes that Senator Sarah Hanson-Young and the water minister, who I quite like, have brought to this place. Honourable members interjecting— Mr McCORMACK 219646 I do, and she knows it—and it's mutual. Honourable members interjecting— Mr McCORMACK 219646 I know it's mutual. The member for Lyons can laugh all he likes, but I've got a lot of respect for the water minister. That said, when Labor and the Greens get together on a motion, on a piece of legislation, it's not just going to affect our farmers. It's going to affect the cafes, the hairdressers, the schools and everyone else in the Murray-Darling Basin. This is sensible environmental policy, brought to you by the National Party, brought to you on behalf of our farmers. The member for New England is right when he talks about that wonderful underground inland river system called the artesian basin. We have to protect it. We have to look after it. Mr McCORMACK 219646 We had a decade. That's more than what I hope you ever get, member for Melbourne. Let me tell you: when the leader of the Greens in the ACT wants the Greens to have cabinet spots in the federal parliament, I worry, I shake, I shiver with fear, because you could just imagine Senator Shoebridge in charge of justice. You could just imagine Senator Hanson-Young being in charge of agriculture. They're enough to make our farmers fear. They're enough to make our communities worry, to keep them awake at night. This amendment will not keep Australians awake at night if it is approved. I appreciate the water minister saying she would look at it in the future. I hope they do more than just look at it in the future; I hope they vote with us today, because we have to look after our artesian basin. We have to make sure that the potable water is there not just for present needs but for future generations, because, once destroyed, we will never get it back. That's why these are sensible amendments. That's why the member for Maranoa has put forward these amendments to the amendments coming back from the Senate. The member for New England is also right when he talks about what the member for Flynn has put forward. The member for Flynn has been working on this for months. He is a passionate Queenslander. He understands better than anyone the benefits of the artesian basin and the need to protect it. He comes to this place with experience in that regard. He was a former Queensland member of parliament. He understands how important mining is. He understands how important Gladstone harbour is. He understands how important farming is because he actually runs a farm, owns a farm, works a farm—more than I can say the member for Melbourne ever will. 11:31 Mr COULTON HWN Parkes I too rise in support of the amendment moved by the member for Maranoa and the Leader of The Nationals. Water is our most valuable resource, and we need to have safeguards around the use of water to protect the resource for future generations. It doesn't mean we should prohibit the use of that water—it's a resource, and I firmly believe that these resources are to be used to the benefit of the whole of society—but we need to have safeguards. I think this is a sensible amendment. But what we have seen today in this debate is the tale of two members of parliament: the member for Flynn, who is a man of the land whose family still produces beef and grain in a sustainable manner in the electorate of Flynn, and the member for Melbourne, who has turned one of the great rivers of Australia into a concrete drain. When the member for Melbourne comes in here and starts talking about restoring the Yarra to its original condition, maybe talks about the businesses in the CBD of Melbourne turning their lights off when they go home at night-time, maybe stops flying around in jets to climate change conferences all over to globe, maybe I will take some notice. I've said in this place, and I'll repeat it: my dung beetles have done more for the environment than the member for Melbourne! We see a lot of talk in this place from people in the leafy suburbs of the capital cities. In the last debate we had here, two weeks ago about the Murray-Darling Basin, we had the members who represent those communities and who are fighting for those communities debating people who were reading from prepared speeches on ideological background. They've got no skin in the game. The member for Flynn has skin in the game. He lives on top of the Great Artesian Basin, as does my electorate, as do the farmers in my electorate who rely on this water, and they have for a long time. I support this amendment. It's important that we protect our resources. But, unlike the Greens, I don't oppose extractive industries. The Greens are opposing the industries that keep their lights on. How does the member for Melbourne think Melbourne was built? Did the good fairies come in and build those concrete, steel and glass structures? Somewhere in Victoria there is a hole in the ground where the raw materials came from that built that city. Somewhere in regional Australia the people, as we're speaking here today, are out there producing the food for the residents of the member for Melbourne's electorate. Somewhere out in regional Australia coalminers are digging up coal to keep the lights on for the member for Melbourne. It drives me absolutely to distraction in this place when people want to bite the hand that feeds them. I support this amendment. It's common sense, and we should support it. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 265979 The question is that the amendments moved by the member for Maranoa be agreed to, and I call the minister. 11:35 Ms PLIBERSEK 83M Sydney I move: That the question be now put. Question agreed to. The SPEAKER 53517 The question is that the amendments moved by the honourable member for Maranoa to Senate amendment (3) be agreed to.  

The House divided. [11:40]
(The Speaker—Hon. Milton Dick)

 59 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. Coleman, D. B. Conaghan, P. J. Coulton, M. M. (Teller) Daniel, Z. 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. Joyce, B. T. G. Le, D. Leeser, J. Ley, S. P. Littleproud, D. Marino, N. B. McCormack, M. F. McIntosh, M. I. McKenzie, Z. A. O'Brien, L. S. Pasin, A. Pearce, G. B. Pike, H. J. Pitt, K. J. Price, M. L. Ramsey, R. E. (Teller) Ryan, M. M. 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. van Manen, A. J. Violi, A. A. Wallace, A. B. Ware, J. L. Webster, A. E. Willcox, A. J. Wolahan, K. Wood, J. P. Young, T. J. 73 NOES Aly, A. Ananda-Rajah, M. Bandt, A. P. Bates, S. J. Burke, A. S. Burnell, M. P. 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. Doyle, M. J. J. Dreyfus, M. A. Elliot, M. J. Fernando, C. Freelander, M. R. Garland, C. M. L. Georganas, S. Giles, A. J. Gorman, P. Gosling, L. J. Hill, J. C. Husic, E. N. Jones, S. P. Kearney, G. M. Keogh, M. J. Khalil, P. King, C. F. King, M. M. H. Lawrence, T. N. Laxale, J. A. A. Leigh, A. K. 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. Templeman, S. R. Thwaites, K. L. Vamvakinou, M. Watson-Brown, E. Watts, T. G. Wells, A. S. Wilkie, A. D. Wilson, J. H. Zappia, A. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

 11:45 The SPEAKER 53517 The question before the House is that the Senate's amendments be agreed to.  

The House divided. [11:45]
(The Speaker—Hon. Milton Dick)

83 AYES Aly, A. Ananda-Rajah, M. Bandt, A. P. Bates, S. J. Burke, A. S. Burnell, M. P. 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. Daniel, Z. Doyle, M. J. J. Dreyfus, M. A. Elliot, M. J. Fernando, C. Freelander, M. R. Garland, C. M. L. Gee, A. R. Georganas, S. Giles, A. J. Gorman, P. Gosling, L. J. Haines, H. M. Hill, J. C. Husic, E. N. Jones, S. P. Kearney, G. M. Keogh, M. J. Khalil, P. King, C. F. King, M. M. H. Lawrence, T. N. Laxale, J. A. A. Le, D. Leigh, A. K. Mascarenhas, Z. F. A. McBain, K. L. McBride, E. M. Miller-Frost, L. J. Mitchell, B. K. Mitchell, R. G. Mulino, D. Neumann, S. K. O'Connor, B. P. J. O'Neil, C. E. Payne, A. E. Perrett, G. D. Phillips, F. E. Plibersek, T. J. Rae, S. T. Reid, G. J. Repacholi, D. P. Rishworth, A. L. Roberts, T. G. Rowland, M. A. Ryan, J. C. Ryan, M. M. Scrymgour, M. R. Sharkie, R. C. C. Shorten, W. R. Sitou, S. Smith, D. P. B. (Teller) Spender, A. M. Stanley, A. M. (Teller) Steggall, Z. Swanson, M. J. Templeman, S. R. Thwaites, K. L. Tink, K. J. Vamvakinou, M. Watson-Brown, E. Watts, T. G. Wells, A. S. Wilkie, A. D. Wilson, J. H. Zappia, A. 49 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. Coleman, D. B. Conaghan, P. J. Coulton, M. M. (Teller) Entsch, W. G. Fletcher, P. W. Goodenough, I. R. Hamilton, G. R. Hastie, A. W. Hawke, A. G. Hogan, K. J. Howarth, L. R. Joyce, B. T. G. Leeser, J. Ley, S. P. Littleproud, D. Marino, N. B. McCormack, M. F. McIntosh, M. I. McKenzie, Z. A. O'Brien, L. S. Pasin, A. Pearce, G. B. Pike, H. J. Pitt, K. J. Price, M. L. Ramsey, R. E. (Teller) Stevens, J. Sukkar, M. S. Taylor, A. J. Tehan, D. T. Thompson, P. van Manen, A. J. Violi, A. A. Wallace, A. B. Ware, J. L. Webster, A. E. Willcox, A. J. Wolahan, K. Wood, J. P. Young, T. J. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

 QUESTIONS TO THE SPEAKER 9228 QUESTIONS TO THE SPEAKER Parliamentary Standards 9228 11:49 Mr FLETCHER L6B Bradfield on indulgence—I have a question for you about a matter of House practice and procedure. As you would be aware, last night the House considered a message from the Senate concerning the Migration and Other Legislation Amendment (Bridging Visas, Serious Offenders and Other Measures) Bill 2023. During this time, the Leader of the House was speaking in an agitated fashion with the clerks about the operation of the standing orders. On any objective measure, the manner in which the Leader of the House chose to engage with the clerks was aggressive and intimidatory and not consistent with the standards of respect that the professional public servants who serve us in this place have the right to expect from members. Mr Speaker, can I ask whether you have had regard to ensuring the welfare of the clerks at the table? May I ask you to investigate this incident, including speaking with those involved and reviewing the video? May I ask whether you would make a statement to the House, once you've investigated it, clarifying your expectations as to how interactions between members and the clerks ought to be conducted? 11:50 The SPEAKER 53517 I shall deal with the second part of the question immediately. I agree: unacceptable behaviour was occurring in the House last night. I remind all members to act in a professional, respectful and courteous way. I'm unaware of any issues that were raised or any complaints that were made, but of course I will look into the matter and report back to the member. The Leader of the House on a point of order? Mr Burke DYW I have had a good, positive and constructive relationship, and every conversation I have had with the clerks—ever—has been completely professional. The allegation that has just been made, I dare say, will never be made without parliamentary privilege, and I think that says it all. BILLS 9228 BILLS Identity Verification Services Bill 2023 9228

Identity Verification Services Bill 2023

Consideration of Senate Message 9228 11:52 The SPEAKER 53517 I understand that it is the wish of the House to consider the amendments together. 11:52 Mr DREYFUS HWG Isaacs I move: That the amendments be agreed to. Question agreed to. Identity Verification Services (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2023 9232

Identity Verification Services (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2023

Consideration of Senate Message 9232 11:53 Mr DREYFUS HWG Isaacs I move: That the amendment be agreed to. Question agreed to. COMMITTEES 9232 COMMITTEES Social Policy and Legal Affairs Committee, Health, Aged Care and Sport Committee, National Anti-Corruption Commission Joint Committee, Human Rights Joint Committee 9232 Membership 9232 11:53 The SPEAKER 53517 I have received advice from the Chief Government Whip nominating members to be members of certain committees. 11:53 Mr JONES A9B Whitlam by leave—I move: That: (1) Ms Templeman be appointed a member of the Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs; (2) Ms Thwaites be appointed a member of the Standing Committee on Health, Aged Care and Sport; (3) Mr Hill be appointed a member of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the National Anti-Corruption Commission; and (4) Ms Payne be appointed a member of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights. Question agreed to. National Anti-Corruption Commission Joint Committee 9232 Membership 9232 11:54 The SPEAKER 53517 I have received advice from the Chief Government Whip that she has nominated Mr Gosling to be a member of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the National Anti-Corruption Commission in place of Mr Burns for the period 7 to 15 December 2023, and Mr Burns to be a member of the committee in place of Mr Gosling from 15 December 2023. 11:54 Mr JONES A9B Whitlam by leave—I move: That: (1) Mr Burns be discharged from the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the National Anti-Corruption Commission on 7 December 2023 and that, in his place, Mr Gosling be appointed a member of the committee from 7 to 15 December 2023; and (2) Mr Gosling be discharged from the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the National Anti-Corruption Commission and that, in his place, Mr Burns be appointed a member of the committee from 15 December 2023. Question agreed to. Agriculture Committee 9233 Report 9233 11:55 Ms SWANSON 264170 Paterson On behalf of the Standing Committee on Agriculture, I present the committee's report entitled Australian food story: feeding the nation and beyond, together with the minutes of proceedings. Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e). Ms SWANSON 264170 by leave—I present today the report of the inquiry into food security in Australia. Despite Australia being one of the most food-secure countries in the world, recent developments both here at home and abroad have shown that food security presents real and growing challenges for our nation. Food security is not something that any of us can or should take for granted. It requires ongoing attention from industry, the community and government. There are a variety of threats to food security in Australia. Food security is already a challenge for many in our community—particularly those on lower incomes and in remote communities. COVID-19 disrupted our food supply chains, as did the recent floods. The war in Ukraine has driven up grain prices, and the cost of energy, fuel and fertilisers has also been impacted by this. Outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease and lumpy skin disease in Indonesia have highlighted biosecurity risks to our food system—as has the arrival of the varroa mite on Australian shores. The report's key recommendation is the formulation of a comprehensive national food plan. The national food plan will engage the whole food system, from paddock to plate and beyond. It will deal with the production and distribution of food, supply chain resilience, access to food, good nutrition, and the management of food waste. The plan will be overseen by a minister for food, supported by a national food council made up of industry and community experts. As part of this process, the food supply chain should be mapped and the vulnerabilities identified and addressed. While Australia broadly speaking produces far more food than it consumes, there are two production sectors that require attention from government—dairy and seafood. The report recommends the adoption of specific strategies to expand domestic production for both. Innovation has the capacity to improve and, in some directions, revolutionise the production of food in Australia and across the world. Opportunities for expanding innovation and value-adding in food production must be pursued. New industries—such as alternative proteins, protected cropping and vertical farming—have the capacity to enhance food security. Governments at all levels should commit to supporting these and other novel approaches to feeding our nation. There are significant challenges around the cost and availability of inputs such as fuel, energy, labour and fertiliser. These challenges have the capacity to undermine food security. Local manufacturing of inputs and skills development are crucial. Moreover, we need to encourage people to see the wide range of careers available in the food and agricultural sector at the cutting edge of technological and scientific innovation. Food production is much more than growing crops, even when you are growing crops. Addressing food waste is a key aspect of improving food security. Tonnes of food worth billions of dollars goes to waste every year. The committee has recommended a number of measures to better manage food waste. Biosecurity threats represent a real and significant risk to Australia's food security. We must be ever vigilant. The government must ensure that biosecurity is adequately funded, and that everyone understands their responsibility for protecting Australia from pest and disease incursions. Food insecurity is a major challenge for Australians and affects significant portions of our population. A range of solutions is available, including better education around food and nutrition, providing school meals, researching the nexus between food and health, particularly mental health, and developing community food networks. Remote communities in Australia, particularly in our north, face unique challenges brought about by isolation, inadequate infrastructure, and the impacts of seasons such as the wet season. Resolving these challenges requires investment by governments in community-specific solutions. I would like to conclude with some words of thanks for those who have contributed to the inquiry. The committee received a great deal of high-quality evidence from across the nation. In fact, we received 188 very high quality submissions. They weren't submissions where there were hundreds of them that were just generated by a computer; these were 188 handwritten and often really deliberative submissions, and I sincerely want to thank the people, groups, researchers and scientists and those who really put their shoulder to the wheel in trying to resolve this issue and made submissions. They came from a full range of perspectives. I would like to thank the individuals and organisations that hosted the committee at various places around the country and who provided insights into their contributions to food security. I also thank my colleagues—my darling aggies as they were referred to on many of our long trips in vans and cars and charter planes across the length and breadth of the country. You know who you are, my hardworking committee, those of you that were able to come on the trips with us and take the evidence, and we did do a good job, although I know self-praise is no recommendation. I want to especially thank the unflappable inquiry secretary, Dr Bill Pender, who has put so much work into this report, not only attending all of the hearings and taking incredibly detailed notes but also writing what I really feel is a major piece of policy work leading us forward in this space. Bill, thank you for that. I also thank our research officer, Ben Vea Vea, who corralled witnesses and kept the show going at all times. Ben, you are an outstanding individual. We just need you to give up smoking and you'll be top of the pops. We want you around for as long as we can, mate. Both Bill and Ben travelled the breadth and width of the country with us. Fran Denny, you are an exemplar, and your wise counsel as committee secretary is always welcome. But my final thanks go to those who make the meals for the header and chaser bin drivers who eagerly await the headlights coming across the paddock, signalling the dinner break; those who get up early to drive the forklifts and trucks to the market; those who pilot the planes and boats; those who get up, oh, so very early for the cows and those who don't go to bed at all; those who manage the soil profiles and the overdraft; the kids who hear the conversations about when the rain will come or when it will stop and the impact that'll have on the crop; those who don the suits, do the hair and the make-up to market the commodities and lobby the lawmakers or the price setters. From our farmers and families to our foodies we all have a role in the Australian food story—feeding our nation and beyond. 12:04 Mr WILLCOX 286535 Dawson by leave—I rise today to support the report of the Standing Committee on Agriculture as the deputy chair, the Honourable Rick Wilson, is on leave. The report: Australian Food Story: Feeding the Nation and Beyond is an outstanding report. This report is about strengthening and safeguarding food security in Australia, and what could be more important? Enormous work has gone into this report, and members have worked together right across the political divide to deliver a very solid report that will have longevity. There are recommendations for us to take forward and really provide food and fibre for our nation. The committee received 188 written submissions from individuals, industry and community groups, and government bodies. The quality of the submissions was simply outstanding. We held 24 public hearings across the length and breadth of the country. We travelled to where it's at. I think that is important. It's a lesson for everybody: get out of the cities, go out into the country areas and have a look at where our food and fibre and our economy are actually driven from. The committee workshopped and agreed to 35 recommendations. I would like to acknowledge the experience and professionalism of the committee chair, Meryl Swanson, and the deputy chair, Rick Wilson. I personally thank them for the inclusive way that this committee was run and the collaborative approach in developing the report. I would also like to thank all the committee members, all the people who provided written submissions and who hosted us at public hearings. I acknowledge and thank the inquiry secretary, Dr Bill Pender, and research officer, Mr Ben Vea Vea. He is an outstanding young man who looked after us every step of the way. We were always on time, as was all the transport. Let me tell you, for some of the places we visited, it was no spring picnic to get in and out. Planes were cancelled, it was quite logistically difficult, but everyone in the committee put their shoulders to the wheel. Our chair, Meryl Swanson, drove us hard but we delivered a good result. At one point I was going to write a strongly worded letter to the chair to see if I could get a bit of support, because some of those days we worked 14 or 16 hours. We have delivered a very good report. I want to thank the committee secretary, Fran Denny. I look forward to speaking to this report in a lot more detail because there's a lot to come from this. There's an enormous amount of work being done. I look forward to speaking in the Federation Chamber to deliver more detail about this very good report. I commend this report to the House. 12:08 Ms SWANSON 264170 Paterson I move: That the House take note of the report. Debate adjourned. Reference to Federation Chamber 9234 12:08 Ms SWANSON 264170 Paterson I move: That the order of the day be referred to the Federation Chamber for debate. Question agreed to. Law Enforcement Joint Committee 9235 Report 9235 12:09 Mr LLEW O'BRIEN 265991 Wide Bay On behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Law Enforcement, I present the committee's report, incorporating a dissenting report, entitled Law enforcement capabilities in relation to child exploitation. Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e). Mr LLEW O'BRIEN 265991 by leave—It's my privilege to rise today to speak on this report. This is a report from the joint law enforcement committee into child exploitation, and it's a comprehensive report. It's a report that I would recommend all parents and all concerned citizens read. This is a scourge that has afflicted our societies throughout the world, and the report addresses many of the ways that we deal with it and makes recommendations on what we need to do to enhance the framework on how we address this serious problem. I want to commend the secretariat for their outstanding work in facilitating the hearings, the logistics associated with visits to places that were relevant to the inquiry and, as always, their advice throughout these inquiries, which is vital for us to come up with a final product to the standard that this one has. I also commend Senator Helen Polley, the chair, for her conduct in chairing the inquiry. The nature of this problem is extensive. In terms of its evolution, we've always had evil individuals who would seek to in some way gratify themselves or profit from the exploitation and harm of kids. It's a horrible thing to even consider. But whilst the proliferation of the internet over the past 25 years has given society a lot of positives in terms of connectivity, access to information and many great things to do with industry, it has also come at a cost, and child exploitation—the sharing of this material and people profiting from this material—is one of the serious downsides to the internet. It ranges. We heard evidence in this committee of horrible, horrible practices. People are taking advantage of young, innocent human beings, from extorting money or other things from them by way of getting images that they don't want people to see and using those, right through to evil people paying to see the live raping of children and little kids. That's what we're dealing with here. It truly is the worst of humanity. It's a complex problem to address. The internet has many facets. Whether it be the dark web—the organised groups who conduct these terrible atrocities are sometimes in countries that are very hard to police—we are doing our best as a nation here in Australia, and there are also many non-government organisations who are doing some extraordinary work. I thank everyone who gave evidence to the committee in relation to this, particularly those people who, with the passion that they have, have chosen to take this on as something that needs to be stopped, and for good reason. We heard from a couple of local, home-grown NGOs—Project Paradigm, Destiny Rescue and Project Karma—who are all doing amazing work in this space. They are saving children. That's what they're doing: saving children. The coalition's got a good record when it comes to the elimination of child exploitation. I don't think, at this point in time, there's anyone in this House that's done more to rid society of these evil individuals than Peter Dutton, the leader of the coalition. He was at the forefront. Under his leadership the Australian Centre to Counter Child Exploitation was established. In 2020 it opened its doors. That will see these offences detected and children saved and helped out of horrible conditions. Also, we've implemented the Online Safety Act and the eSafety Commissioner, the regulatory body who enforces that. There is good work being done. Only recently it came very much to everyone's mind when Operation Tenterfield was in the media. That was a horrible case where a man who was working in childcare centres was charged with 1,623 child abuse offences against 91 kids. That's in our country. That's an individual who was operating using these internet, dark web and technology tools to abuse children. I think that brought home to all of us that this is not just something that happens in Third World countries where people go to exploit poverty and find opportunities to take part in this horrible stuff. It happens right here amongst us, and we need to be forever vigilant. I commend the AFP for their investigation. The Australian Federal Police, along with the state bodies, are doing as much as they can with the resources they have. But we must look to every possible avenue to try and help them. This report ran over two parliaments. I acknowledge the former member for Ryan, Julian Simmonds, and the great work that he did. He was the chair of the committee at the commencement of this inquiry, and he did some great work there too, establishing the Parliamentary Friends of Combating Child Exploitation in Australia and the ACCCE, and I commend him for his work. During the hearings, we heard from a number of government departments. We heard about end-to-end encryption, which is going to make the task of detecting these horrible acts even harder, and about the major platforms embracing end-to-end encryption, which, as I say, will make the job of law enforcement harder. Unless we have a way that we can address this, more children will be the victims of child exploitation. There were 15 recommendations that came from the report. They related to the monitoring of existing criminal offence frameworks and called on governments to monitor those to ensure their effectiveness. There were also recommendations in relation to the effectiveness of sentencing and the sentences that are handed down to these offenders once they are detected and captured by the justice system. There are recommendations in relation to the addition of community impact statements, where victims have the opportunity to speak and be a part of the process and the justice system and to help in their recovery. I need to speak briefly about the dissenting report, because it is important. There were two elements to the report that coalition members felt were absent or not addressed in an adequate way. The first one lies at the very heart of the terms of reference, and that's our capability. This inquiry was all about the capabilities that we have to prevent, detect and prosecute in relation to child exploitation. Age verification is a tool that we have already. We certainly need to develop it more. We have the ability to trial age verification technology with sites such as pornographic sites that are able to be accessed by adults but obviously should not be accessed by kids, but at the moment there is virtually nothing stopping a child from accessing one of these sites. It's not just a case of the terrible circumstance where they're going to see some of the hideous things that are on these sites, but, once they get on there, they're going to be exposed to other individuals. There's the potential of them being in chatrooms and in contact with offenders that can groom them, and they will potentially end up as victims of child exploitation. We need a way to prevent them getting in there. One of the recommendations from a report, Protecting the age of innocence, of the Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs, chaired by the member for Fisher, was that the eSafety Commissioner create a road map for age verification, and they did that. This year it handed down its recommendations. This is the body that this place charges with keeping an eye on the online situation and enforcing the act that we created. Their recommendation was that we trial technologies that already exist around age verification. Recommendation 10 of the report that I'm tabling today says that government should consider this. Children are being exploited now. The technology is here now. I cannot impress too greatly upon this parliament the seriousness of this. We have had inquiry after inquiry. We need to do this now and it's with that urgency that this is a dissenting recommendation, and we call on the government to take the advice of the experts and the eSafety Commissioner and commence that trial. The other recommendation of the dissenting report is in relation to aspects of the Australian sex offender register being public. This is another matter that the inquiry and the report examined, but the recommendation was absent from the committee report. There was nothing about this, and this is an important tool not only for law enforcement, where coordination of information relating to these evil perpetrators is consolidated, but also for good citizens who need to be protected. Parents should be able to access certain information to know whether their children are safe. That is the other recommendation from the dissenting report, and it was made because the committee report did not mention it. Finally, I want to pay tribute to and thank those who work on the front line of this terrible set of circumstances: those officers who have to view things like those I spoke of earlier—children being raped and kids in the most distressing situations. I pay tribute to those people. As a former police officer, I know I couldn't do it. When it came to children in distress, that was my weakness, and I couldn't do that. It takes a very courageous and strong individual to be able to do that, and I conclude by thanking them for what they do. Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Joint Committee 9236 Report 9236 12:24 Mr NEUMANN HVO Blair As chair of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, and on behalf of the Human Rights Subcommittee, I present the committee's report entitled The pursuit of equality: inquiry into the rights of women and children. Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e). Mr NEUMANN HVO by leave—The inquiry was referred to the committee by the Minister for Foreign Affairs, the Hon. Senator Penny Wong, in September 2022. The terms of reference were broad in scope, which allowed the committee to gather evidence on a wide range of issues facing women and children around the world today. The committee received 49 submissions and held nine public hearings. Evidence was received from a range of stakeholders, including government agencies, aid organisations and representatives of women and children's rights groups both domestically and internationally. Almost every witness and submitter in the inquiry told the committee members the same thing: the rights of women and children around the world are in decline. This is manifesting in a range of indicators, including rates of violence, exploitation and abuse of women and children. A combination of the impacts of COVID-19, climate change, and conflict and instability have led to this regression of human rights. Further elements, such as growing inequality and resistance from nation-states hostile to the international rights agenda, have further added to this situation. While efforts have been made over decades to improve the rights of women and children, the international community continues to grapple with these issues. Without strong and urgent action, this will condemn multitudes of women and children to lives affected by abuse, neglect and violence. It is imperative that Australia takes the lead to reverse the tide. The committee heard that the Australian government is doing a great deal of work in this space, including the recent release of Australia's International Development Policy and changes to the Official Development Assistance program. However, further work can be done to improve outcomes for the world's most vulnerable groups. This report makes 10 recommendations which the committee hopes will address both the broader picture of the role of women and children in Australia's foreign policy, and specific issues that impact the rights of women and children. The key recommendations of the report include: The creation of an international policy aimed specifically at children, similar to the current gender strategy; Highlighting gender based violence as a key strategic issue in the International Gender Equality Strategy currently being reviewed by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade; The implementation of a suite of strategies designed to eliminate orphanage trafficking and tourism; and Improving legislative responses to the rights of victims of child sexual abuse material distributed online. The committee heard sensitive and harrowing evidence from victims of gender-specific violence, many of whom continue to live with the impacts of their abuse. On behalf of the committee, I extend my thanks to the victims who retold their stories so bravely to us, and to all the stakeholders and submitters who contributed to this inquiry. I also thank the subcommittee chair, the member for Calwell, Ms Maria Vamvakinou, who did a great job in leading this critical inquiry. I also thank the deputy chair, the Hon. Senator Linda Reynolds, for her collegiality, cooperation and engagement during the inquiry. I thank also Ophelia Tynan and Kimberlee Armstrong, who helped draft the report, for the great work they did. I thank both of them, and they're here in the chamber. I also thank the committee secretariat generally, who performed with efficiency and effectiveness in what was a difficult, disturbing, confronting and controversial inquiry. But particularly I want to give my thanks to the person in charge of this committee, Susan Cardell. Susan is about to leave the parliament, after working for decades in this place. Her service to our country cannot be underestimated. She has been efficient and effective in all that she has done. I have travelled with Susan overseas to various parts of the world. She always conducts herself in a most professional and expert way. The way she has led this inquiry and corralled all of us and the leadership she has shown are exemplary. Susan, I know that you propose to continue your contribution to your local community in the same way you have contributed to our country. You intend to do voluntary work. I know that your son is currently now working in this place, having followed your lead. That contribution by your family is simply fantastic. I want to thank Susan. People on both sides of the chamber would know her, and I think it behoves all of us to express our deep and abiding admiration, respect and affection for Susan. Thank you for the many reports and many inquiries that you have led and been involved with. On behalf of the committee, Susan, I wish you well in your retirement. I know it will not be retirement; I know you will keep on contributing. Thank you very much, Susan. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 230531 Given that there are no other members seeking leave to speak, does the member for Blair wish to move a motion in connection with the report to enable it to be debated on a future occasion? Mr NEUMANN HVO I move: That the House take note of the report. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 230531 In accordance with standing order 39, 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 9237 12:31 Mr NEUMANN HVO Blair I move: That the order of the day be referred to the Federation Chamber for debate. Question agreed to. Intelligence and Security Joint Committee 9238 Report 9238 12:31 Mr KHALIL 101351 Wills On behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, I present the following report entitled A review of regulations re-listing Jama'at Nusrat al-lslam wal-Muslimin and Islamic State Khorasan Province as terrorist organisations under the Criminal Code Act 1995. Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e). Mr KHALIL 101351 by leave—I present today the statement of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security for the review of regulations relisting Jama'at Nusrat al-lslam wal-Muslimin and Islamic State Khorasan Province as terrorist organisations under the Criminal Code Act 1995. Under the Criminal Code, regulations may be made specifying an organisation as a terrorist organisation for a three-year period. Organisations can be relisted, provided the minister for the Australian Federal Police, currently the Attorney-General, is satisfied on reasonable grounds that the organisation continues to directly or indirectly engage in terrorism or advocates the doing of a terrorist act. The effect of being listed as a terrorist organisation under the Criminal Code is to trigger the application of offences for supporting or associating with the organisation in specified ways, such as being a member of, recruiting for, or providing funding to, the organisation. The committee's review examined the Attorney-General's decision to relist these particular organisations. Section 102.1A of the Criminal Code provides that the committee may review a regulation which lists or relists an organisation as a terrorist organisation and report its comments and recommendations to each house of the parliament before the end of the applicable 15 sitting day disallowance period. This statement serves this purpose and is being presented within the required period. In determining whether the regulations for the relisting of these organisations should be supported, the committee reviewed the merits in accordance with the Attorney-General's explanatory statement and statement of reasons for the organisations as well as other publicly available information. The committee also invited public submissions on the listings. No submissions were received. The committee noted the following information about the two organisations. Jama'at Nusrat al-lslam wal-Muslimin is a religiously motivated organisation whose primary goal is to build a Salafi-Islamist state in West Africa. The organisation is primarily based in Mali but is active across much of West Africa, including Burkina Faso, Niger and Togo. JNIM's activities have brought the organisation into conflict with the United Nations Multidimensional Integrated Stabilization Mission in Mali. Over the past decade, more than 300 peacekeepers associated with the MINUSMA—the mission—have been killed as a result of targeted insurgent attacks. JNIM, the terrorist organisation, has been listed as a foreign terrorist organisation by the United States, the United Kingdom and Canada. Islamic State Khorasan Province is a religiously motivated violent extremist group that adheres to extreme Salafi jihadist ideology promoted by the Islamic State. IS-KP, as they're called, are primarily based in Afghanistan; however, the group also operates in parts of Pakistan, Turkmenistan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Iran and Bangladesh. IS-KP has been listed as a terrorist organisation since November 2017. Since the group were relisted in 2020, they have re-shifted their operational focus towards urban warfare in Afghanistan and parts of north-western Pakistan, which has resulted in an escalation of IS-KP's operations, particularly in Afghanistan. IS-KP is subject to sanctions by the United Nations Security Council and IS-KP has been listed as a foreign terrorist organisation by the United dates, Canada and New Zealand. There is evidence that these groups continue to be engaging in, preparing, assisting with or fostering terrorist activities that could potentially and profoundly impact the Australian people. After examining the evidence that has been provided, the committee is satisfied with the relisting processes and considers that they have been followed appropriately for these organisations. The committee therefore supports the relisting of Jama'at Nusrat al-lslam wal-Muslimin and Islamic State Khorasan Province as terrorist organisations under division 102 of the Criminal Code in order to protect Australians and Australia's interests and finds no reason to disallow the regulations and the listing. I commend this report to the parliament. Petitions Committee 9239 Report 9239 12:36 Ms TEMPLEMAN 181810 Macquarie I present report No. 19 of the Standing Committee on Petitions for the 47th Parliament. The report read as follows— HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES PETITIONS COMMITTEE REPORT No. 19 Ministerial responses 7 December 2023 MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE Chair Ms Susan Templeman MP Deputy Chair Mr Ross Vasta MP Mr Sam Birrell MP Ms Alison Byrnes MP Ms Lisa Chesters MP Mr Garth Hamilton MP Ms Tracey Roberts MP Ms Meryl Swanson MP This committee is supported by staff of the Department of the House of Representatives Report summarising the ministerial responses being presented. The committee met in private session in the 47th Parliament on 29 November 2023. 1. The following 21 ministerial responses to petitions were received: From the Minister for Industry and Science to a petition requesting the establishment of a government assistance scheme to assist with the rectification of combustible cladding (EN4146) From the Minister for Indigenous Australians to a petition requesting a referendum to remove discriminatory laws and acknowledge First Nations peoples in the Constitution (EN4425) From the Minister for the Environment and Water to a petition requesting that all new coal and gas approvals be paused (EN4967) From the Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister to a petition regarding the remuneration of parliamentarians and superannuation arrangements (EN5130) From the Minister for Industry and Science to petitions regarding the impacts of Artificial Intelligence (EN5163, EN5172, EN5215) From the Minister for Indigenous Australians to a petition requesting the House vote against the Voice referendum legislation (EN5231) From the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs to a petition regarding reinstating stripped citizenship (EN5232) From the Minister for Health and Aged Care to a petition requesting that gender affirming care not be covered under Medicare (EN5252) From the Minister for the Environment and Water to a petition regarding chemical deployments into the atmosphere (EN5255) From the Minister for Health and Aged Care to petitions requesting that gender affirming care be covered under Medicare (EN5256, EN5257) From the Minister for Communications to a petition requesting that the Communications Legislation Amendment (Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation) Bill 2023 be rejected (EN5258) From the Minister for Health and Aged Care to a petition regarding the implementation of reforms to residential aged care facilities (EN5259) From the Minister for Regional Development, Local Government and Territories to a petition requesting that the Australian Government override Australian Capital Territory legislation providing for the compulsory acquisition of Calvary Hospital (EN5264) From the Minister for Communications to a petition requesting the removal of the Communications Legislation Amendment (Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation) Bill 2023 (EN5295) From the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government to a petition requesting the implementation of standards and requirements on new passenger vehicles (EN5317) From the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry to a petition requesting the classification of flea, tick and heartworm treatments as Schedule 4 in the Poison Standard (EN5359) From the Minister for Foreign Affairs to a petition regarding reports of human rights violations in Bangladesh and concerns about upcoming elections (EN5376) From the Assistant Minister for Social Services regarding the Disability Support Pension partner income test (EN5382) From the Special Minister of State to a petition regarding matters relating to the Australian Electoral Commission (EN5421) From the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry to a petition requesting an end to live animal export (EN5439) From the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry to a petition requesting an end to live animal export (EN5443) Ms Susan Templeman MP Chair—Petitions Committee PETITIONS 9240 PETITIONS Responses 9240 12:36 Ms TEMPLEMAN 181810 Macquarie by leave—I present 21 ministerial responses to petitions previously presented: Infrastructure: Building Standards 9240 Australian Constitution 9240 Climate Change 9241 Parliamentary and Local Government Standards 9242 Artificial Intelligence 9242 Australian Constitution: Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice 9243 Citizenship 9244 Gender Dysphoria 9245 Environment 9245 Gender Dysphoria 9245 Freedom of Speech 9246 Aged Care 9247 North Canberra Hospital 9247 Freedom of Speech 9248 Vehicle Emissions Standards 9248 Veterinary Medicines 9249 Bangladesh 9249 Disability Support Pension 9250 Australian Electoral Commission 9251 Live Animal Exports 9251 Live Animal Exports 9251 Statements 9252 12:36 Ms TEMPLEMAN 181810 Macquarie by leave—The Petitions Committee is taking this opportunity to present these ministerial responses to petitions before the House adjourns for the year, rather than waiting until parliament resumes next February. These 21 ministerial responses were received by the committee at its last meeting. Now that they have been presented to the House, they can be published on the parliament's website and sent to the principal petitioners, who will be very pleased to receive them. I thank the House. COMMITTEES 9252 COMMITTEES National Disability Insurance Scheme Joint Committee 9252 Report 9252 12:37 Ms COKER 263547 Corangamite On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on the National Disability Insurance Scheme, I present a corrigendum to the committee's report entitled Capability and culture of the NDIA. Public Works Joint Committee 9252 Report 9252 12:37 Mr PERRETT HVP Moreton On behalf of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works, I present a corrigendum to the committee's report 9 of 2023, Department of Defence—Defence Fuel Transformation Program—tranche 2 facilities project. BILLS 9252 BILLS Paid Parental Leave Amendment (More Support for Working Families) Bill 2023 9252

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

Second Reading 9252 12:38 Ms COKER 263547 Corangamite Family is the foundation of a prosperous and optimistic nation, and the most critical time for a family is when children are born. The Albanese government recognises this, and that's why I'm proud to support this bill, the Paid Parental Leave Amendment (More Support for Working Families) Bill 2023. This bill will empower families to do well, it will invest in women's economic equality, it will give fathers the capacity to be more involved in their children's lives at a critical time, it will have significant benefits for the wellbeing of families, and it will help drive Australia's economy. The bottom line is that this bill will enable parents to have more time with their newborns—six months in total. Whether you're a single parent, a young couple with twins or an adoptive parent, this bill creates an even stronger foundation for families to do well. It will ease cost-of-living pressures and create greater capacity for parents to share parenting, build careers and earn a wage. I recently met up with parents and some of my youngest constituents in Torquay at a multiple birth playgroup. They said expanding paid parental leave to 26 weeks would make a real difference, advance gender equality and reduce the gender pay gap. Playgroup secretary Jemma Smith, the mother of one-year-old twins, said the changes to paid parental leave would have made a huge difference to her life with her boys, Angus and Charlie, when they were born. Longer parental leave would've allowed Jemma and her husband, Lachie, more precious time to bond with their children. She said: 'When you are the parent of multiples, you can spend a lot of your paid leave in hospital, so this would have been fantastic.' She also welcomed the extra flexibility that parents could exercise when taking leave to better accommodate the many demands facing working parents. Jemma said: 'It's so much harder to go back to work when you have twins. This would have been so helpful. Our family would have had a steadier income sooner.' So, for young families like Jemma's and Lachie's, and for all of those who will soon have children, we are acting—acting to better support families. Many of these families will raise their children in my electorate of Corangamite, which is one of the fastest growing regions in the nation, with a significant cohort of young families. In the latest census, the largest change in my area was in the 30 to 39 age group, with a 30 per cent population increase. The urban growth area of Armstrong Creek, where my electoral office is located, is now the youngest locality in the region, with a median age of 30 years. There are similar growth areas, with many young families, in Bannockburn, Ocean Grove and Torquay. So, at a local level, this bill matters. It will directly benefit young families in my growing communities, and I'm proud to have advocated strongly for this much-needed legislation. By giving more families access to government parental leave payments and providing greater flexibility in how they take leave, we're encouraging parents to share the important role of caring for children. In the process, we're advancing gender equality. These reforms mean that more women can work if they want to, to earn more and grow their super. Superannuation is particularly important for women. We know that women over 55 are the group most vulnerable to homelessness, and this is unacceptable. The reforms have been driven by our Labor caucus, which, for the first time ever, proudly has a majority of women. Our Labor government is absolutely committed to advancing equity and opportunity for women. I seek leave of the House to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. BUSINESS 9253 BUSINESS Days and Hours of Meeting 9253 12:43 Mr BURKE DYW Watson on indulgence—Thanks very much, Acting Deputy Speaker, and thanks to the member for Corangamite. I will only be a moment. I just thought it was important to give members an update, at the earliest opportunity, on likely finishing times. I know, at this time of year, there are many electorate events that people need to know if they can get back to or not. The Senate have now concluded their deliberations on the final piece of legislation we've been waiting on. That will come across to us as a message. Realistically, I don't expect we will get it before question time, but we will certainly have it sometime after question time today. We've already negated the adjournment. It is a reasonable expectation that between 5 pm and 6 pm today we will have concluded all consideration of government business for the day. With the normal warning that I always give people to always presume you are here on the Friday, I can let you know the chances of that are as close to zero as I can imagine. Something very, very wrong would have to occur, which I certainly can't see. We're not waiting on anything further from the Senate, so members should work on the basis that sittings today will conclude at about the ordinary time that members would normally expect. Thank you very much. BILLS 9254 BILLS Paid Parental Leave Amendment (More Support for Working Families) Bill 2023 9254

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

Second Reading 9254 12:44 Ms COKER 263547 Corangamite Superannuation is particularly important for women. We know that women over 55 are the group most vulnerable to homelessness, and this is unacceptable. The reforms have been driven by our Labor caucus, which, for the first time ever, proudly, has a majority of women. Our Labor government is absolutely committed to advancing equity and opportunity for women. Let us remember that, until 1972, around a decade before I entered the workforce, no major party had a women's policy, let alone a robust paid parental scheme. It was only under Labor, led by former prime minister Gough Whitlam, and his women's adviser, Elizabeth Reid, that a revolution for women's rights began. Since then, our society has made significant strides in gender equality, but women still do the lion's share of nurturing and caring for children across our nation. For example, data shows that, only two years ago, women accounted for nearly 90 per cent of primary parental leave, yet 91 per cent of organisations do not discriminate between men and women taking parental leave. Over the past 40 years, there have been significant changes in the composition of Australia's active workforce. There have been large increases in the employment participation of women, who comprised 48 per cent of the total employed in 2022, compared to 36 per cent in 1979. Australian Bureau of Statistics data reveals that the most common reason women were unavailable to start a job or work more hours was caring for children. While we celebrate the incredible nurturing spirit of women, we must work together to create equitable opportunities for everyone: mums, dads and all parents. Making life easier and more productive for Australian parents is critical reform. This is why paid parental leave reform was a centrepiece of our first budget, where we invested half a billion dollars to expand the scheme to six months by 2026. This is the largest investment in paid parental leave since Labor established it in 2011, benefiting over 180,000 families each year. Many in my community would remember that, in the past, dads were only able to take government paid leave at roughly half the rate of mums. The scheme was built on the gendered assumptions of primary and secondary carers, which limits parents' ability to share care. Our reforms have addressed that anomaly, and this bill we speak on today further addresses these issues by implementing the second tranche of our government's paid parental leave reform, announced in the 2022-23 October budget. It follows the first tranche we legislated at the start of the year to modernise the scheme to reflect how Australian families and their needs have changed over the past decade. These changes, which commenced on 1 July, have given more families access to payment, given parents more flexibility in how they take their leave and encouraged parents to share pay. This is a strong foundation and will help parents across our nation. This bill does many things. It builds on our commitment to support young families who are struggling to make ends meet. We know that raising a family can be expensive. It often means young people are unable to buy a house when they raise children. That's why, alongside our expansion of paid parental leave, we are working with states and territories to deliver the Help to Buy scheme, supporting up to 40,000 families in purchasing a home of their own. This will bring homeownership back into reach for thousands of families who have been locked out of the housing market. The Albanese government has already helped more than 50,000 Australians into homeownership through the Home Guarantee Scheme, including more than 6,000 through the new Regional First Home Buyer Guarantee. It is important to raise a couple of the things that are taking place in this bill. The bill will provide flexibility by increasing the number of weeks where parents can take paid parental leave at the same time. All in all, our reforms strike an important balance in increasing support for mums and encouraging dads as well. Many in my community will remember that men really do not get the same amount of time with children, and we want to see that both parents have an opportunity to play an active role at a critical time when children are so young. It makes such a difference to parents. So we are looking forward to being able to offer all families this opportunity. It means that more families will have roofs over their heads for their children, and our expansion of paid parental leave will help do this as well. In closing, the Paid Parental Leave Amendment (More Support for Working Families) Bill 2023 reaffirms Labor's commitment to paid parental leave. It is good for parents, it is good for kids and it is good for the wellbeing of families. It is good for employers and, importantly, it is good for our economy. I commend the bill to the House. 12:50 Ms TINK 300124 North Sydney I acknowledge the words of the member for Corangamite. She eloquently summed up where we are at with this bill and the significant work that has been done to date. As a bill that seeks to improve the lives of working families in Australia whilst also improving outcomes for children and advancing gender equality, the Paid Parental Leave Amendment (More Support for Working Families) Bill 2023 is indeed a welcome step in the right direction. Yet even in the face of its introduction, many in my community of North Sydney continue to lament the fact that Australia remains far behind much of the rest of the world when it comes to family support and paid parental leave provisions. With so much evidence accumulating around the world of the benefits of adopting progressive policies to support shared care and gender balance in a society, why is it that we as a nation seem to still be debating legislative reform that has been operating in some countries for more than four decades? Australia can and should go further in adopting international best practice, including the payment of superannuation, unpaid parental leave, ensuring 26 weeks is the minimum leave entitlement for a family, and furthering the 'use it or lose it' provisions to encourage greater shared care. Shockingly, expanding the paid parental leave payment from 20 to 26 weeks by July 2026 is the largest investment in this scheme since it was introduced in 2011. In the time of at least four prior governments, this is the single largest investment we have seen in this scheme in over a decade. Our public policy is not keeping pace with societal expectations. In this context, I thank all who have been tirelessly advocating for these improvements over many years, and I'm grateful that this government is currently listening to voices of women and families. Extending the period reserved for a non-childbearing partner from two to four weeks should better encourage shared care. However, as a mother of three, in the course of a child's life or, indeed, a baby's first 12 months, four weeks is barely a drop in the ocean. Encouraging both parents to share the responsibility of caring for young children fundamentally shifts a cultural expectation which currently frequently forces women into the primary care role regardless of what a family may desire. I believe our goal as a society should be to provide families with the maximum support they need to enable them to choose who the primary carer is and when without a gender biased lens brought no the discussion. As stated by one North Sydney mother: 'I think sharing caring responsibilities is critical. Men need greater incentives to pause their careers, and women need to be free from the patriarchal assumption they are better at the at-home piece and less likely to be able to support the family financially.' International experience shows us the fastest way to address the gender pay gap is to introduce shared paid parental leave. When I first saw this in action in Finland in 1988, I was incredibly impressed by the impact such a practice had. At the time in Finland, every family expecting a child received an enormous box of products in the later months of their pregnancy. In that box was a pram, formula, bottles, nappies, indeed, pretty much everything a child or a family could need for the first 12 months of a baby's life. The box even doubled as a crib for the first six months of the child's life. In this way, that community was ensuring all children began life on an equal footing, and families, regardless of their economic circumstances, were supported in their decision to have a child. The other thing that struck me while there was the clear expectation of shared parental responsibility, with each partner taking time to be with their child in that first 12 months. This isn't something that was forced on them. It was something they were empowered to choose, and, therefore, they were encouraged to do it. The long-term impact was absolutely evident in both the operation and the attitudes of their society. At the time, this was in stark contrast to where I'd come from here in Australia. At that stage, it still felt very largely like it was every woman, or perhaps even every baby for itself. At the time, our country was disputing single-parent payments, accusing women of deliberately getting pregnant so they could live off the government, whilst also making it clear that it was the man's job to provide for the family. As the Grattan Institute noted in 2021: Greater sharing of childcare is one of the best ways to improve women's economic security. But I'd go one step further in asserting that greater sharing of child care is one of the best ways to strengthen family bonds and connection and, ultimately, improve community attitudes and behaviour. For this to be possible, however, flexibility and equity in approach are especially important. Ensuring both parents are encouraged and enabled to take leave during a child's first year of life can make a huge difference in the way a family and society operates, and it's for this reason we should be embracing this reform as a priority. My wish is that both my daughters and my son will know that, when they choose to have their families, our community is united in its expectation that they are equal to their partner in parenting responsibilities. Recently the Women's Economic Equality Taskforce reported Australian women still face deep gender inequality and continue to shoulder a disproportionate burden of unpaid labour across all spheres of life. From being caregivers, nurturers and educators to taking on professional roles and community leadership, women's essential contributions are often undervalued and unpaid, perpetuating economic inequality. Outdated systems, policies and norms discount women from active participation in our society and our workforces. Indeed, the estimated value to the Australian economy that could be realised by purposefully removing the persistent barriers to women's full and equal participation in economic activity is an astounding $128 billion. As one North Sydney carer said to me recently: Being a full-time carer for a young child is such an undervalued role in society. It's an enormous undertaking to raise a healthy, happy, kind child with both parents working. We are indeed fortunate to live in this country, yet it must be acknowledged that the Australian Paid Parental Leave scheme is one of the least adequate in the developed world. Not only is the leave significantly less than OECD countries' average; it presents significant gender inequality and limited access to services and leaves Australian families facing financial hardship. If current working patterns continue, the average 25-year-old woman today who has just one child can expect to earn $2 million less over her lifetime than the average 25-year-old man who becomes a father. How can this be allowed to be so in our nation? The North Sydney community have shared with me the difficulties with the current Paid Parental Leave scheme, with 75 per cent of them expressing that their leave time was simply too short. The global average of total paid parental leave entitlements available to mothers is 54.1 weeks. That's over two times more than what we are aspiring to offer here in Australia under this bill. So how do we continue to build on the efforts of this bill to further improve the lives of many working families in Australia at the same time as improving outcomes for children and at the same time as advancing gender equality? Firstly, as mentioned in the final WEET report, North Sydney joins in calls to legislate the payment of superannuation on all forms of paid parental leave, with 100 per cent of North Sydney constituents agreeing superannuation should be paid on parental leave, when they were recently consulted. An inequitable labour market and household career dynamics have resulted in a superannuation gap of approximately 23 per cent at retirement age between men and women. In the 2019-20 fiscal year, the median superannuation balance of a woman aged over 65 was $168,000, compared to $208,000 for men. I understand this is a measure the Treasurer has said the government would like to implement when there is budget to do so, yet to date there has been no action in this area. Given that modelling done by KPMG has estimated that this reform could cost as little as $200 million, I call on the government to prioritise this investment, as we all know the truth is governments choose to afford what they want to afford. The security of our families and the strengthening of our broader social constructs should be just as important as investments in weaponry or fossil fuels. Secondly, North Sydney supports calls for the 26 weeks paid parental leave to be the minimum leave entitlement and calls on the government to do more to phase the scheme up to an eventual 52 weeks of paid leave, whilst maintaining the principles of shared care and flexible arrangements. ABS data from 2021 showed 24.7 per cent of respondents cited 'caring for children' as the main reason they were not available to work, with women of all ages spending nine hours more per week, on average, on unpaid care and work than men. While 26 weeks of paid parental leave covers the child's first six months of life, there are indisputable benefits to introducing 52 weeks of paid parental leave spread across two parents, with modelling showing that a scheme such as this would only cost the government an extra $600 million a year. In turn, this investment would boost GDP by $900 million a year, thanks to increased workforce participation by mothers, whilst also boosting the average mother's lifetime earnings by $30,000. In the words of a North Sydney constituent, 'Living in Sydney is expensive. Without paid parental leave we can't afford to pay our mortgage, with rates going up, and will have to go back to work sooner. Please advocate for the professionals, the women, the supportive men that want to care for their children. We need to support men to take time off to care and bond with children and we need to enable women the right to choose when they return to work.' The commitment of this government to women's economic equality is evident in the measures included in this bill, and the benefits of purposeful action can already be seen in the reduction of the gender pay gap to 13 per cent. But we still have so far to go and there is no time to rest on our laurels. As a society, we must decide who we want to be, not just in the next three years but over the decades to come. I implore this government and this 47th Parliament to be that moment, to be the moment that we decided, as a nation, that it was time for us to embrace equity: gender equity, racial equity, financial equity and social equity—indeed, equity in every meaningful way—and, ultimately, invest in moving our society forward. 13:02 Mr LAXALE 299174 Bennelong Becoming a parent changes your life. It happens so fast, and it's never really what you expect. You try and prepare for it—you read the books; you read blogs online—but it's always so much more than you prepare for. And, as parents know, the early days with a newborn are the most extraordinary. In amongst the fog of bringing a newborn home—or two newborns, as was my experience—I still somehow remember those early days with each of my children. Even after the two weeks they spent in the neonatal intensive care unit, where we were able to ease into new parenthood, I still remember getting home and saying to myself: 'What next?' Because of the Labor government, I was able to spend some time at home in those first few weeks. Thanks to a Labor government, my kids' mum was able to stay at home for much longer. We were able to do that because of Labor's paid parental leave. At the time, we were one of the last countries in the OECD to offer it, and it was well overdue. Now, reform is also overdue. It's time to make paid parental leave better. I was lucky to be able to spend those early days with my kids. Paid parental leave is a lifeline for parents navigating the challenges of childbirth and the responsibilities of raising a child. Thirteen years ago, the first Labor member to hold my seat of Bennelong stood in this place and proudly spoke to the Paid Parental Leave Bill 2010. When she won the seat of Bennelong in 2007, only 54 per cent of female employees and 50 per cent of male employees had access to some form of paid parental leave, and only one-third of employed women with children actually received paid parental leave from their employer. Of course, as is always the case, the women left out were low-income workers—women who worked in early childhood education, in care industries, in retail and in cleaning. The work of my predecessor and that government she was a part of marked a pivotal turning point. It had a commitment to rectifying the imbalances in access to paid parental leave and ensured that, in law, every working parent, regardless of their socioeconomic status, had the opportunity to embrace the joys and challenges of parenthood without undue financial strain. The groundbreaking Paid Parental Leave Bill 2010 laid the foundation for a more equitable future. Today we can see the enduring legacy of that policy. The majority of employees in Australia now have access to paid parental leave, whether provided directly by their employer or by the government. Because of that, there has been a fundamental shift in how our society values and supports those navigating the complexities of work and parenthood. That's the lasting change that great policy can achieve. It goes beyond the legislative text; it transforms lives, shapes futures and creates a ripple effect that extends far beyond the halls of this parliament. The legacy of the Paid Parental Leave Bill 2010 is not merely in numbers or percentages; it's in the countless moments of connection, the shared laughter and the warmth of family life. It's being with your partner at a really challenging time. It is in the empowered women in our community who, once left without this support, can now navigate the challenges of parenthood without sacrificing their economic and career security. It's in the fathers who, encouraged by policies promoting shared care, can actively and more easily participate in the upbringing of their children without fear of professional repercussions. It's a testament to what great policy and forward-thinking governments can achieve: policies that help transform people's lives. Just as a former Labor government knew when it created the Paid Parental Leave Act to fit the circumstances of that time, we know that the landscape of our nation has evolved. Our understanding of family dynamics, of gender roles in parenting and of the intersection of work and life has expanded, calling for a recalibration of this policy to align with the contemporary needs of Australian families. Since we've come to government, we have undertaken the reform needed in a methodical and meaningful way. This bill, today, is another example of that. In the first budget, we invested half a billion dollars to expand the scheme to six months by 2026. This historic investment, the largest since Labor established the scheme, will benefit over 180,000 families each year. It's a reflection of this government's dedication to improving the lives of working families, fostering better outcomes for children and advancing women's economic equality. This bill builds on the changes we made to modernise the Paid Parental Leave scheme earlier this year. These changes, which, if the bill is passed, will begin on 1 July, will give more families access to the payment, offer parents greater flexibility in how they take leave and encourage parents to share care. This amendment will allow us to provide even more comprehensive support to working families. The bill, if passed, will expand paid parental leave by increasing the length of time of payment from 20 to 26 weeks. It will also double the period where parents can take paid parental leave at the same time from two to four weeks. Starting on 1 July 2024, two additional weeks of leave will be added each year until 26 weeks are reached in 2026. This expansion is not just a numerical increase; it's a qualitative enhancement to the support we provide to families during a crucial time in their lives. The journey to parenthood is always diverse and the pathways in family life are always varied. Extending the leave duration responds to the needs of families, offering an extended period for parents to bond with their newborns and establish the foundations of a secure family unit. As it stands right now, up to 18 weeks are available for one parent—usually taken by the mother—with two weeks reserved for the father or partner. The proposed increase to 26 weeks means mothers can access up to 22 weeks paid parental leave, which is an additional month compared to the current scheme. As mentioned, it also doubles the period reserved for the partner from two to four weeks. This expansion is not just about extending financial support; it's about recognising the importance of parental involvement with a newborn from the very beginning. Crucially, this expansion sends a clear message that parenting should not always rely on one parent. This bill and the changes being proposed acknowledge that parenting is an equal partnership. The government value men as caregivers too, and we want to see that reinforced in workplaces and in our communities. In Bennelong, where families come in all shapes and sizes, we understand that diversity extends beyond ethnicity and gender; it includes the diversity of roles within a family. This amendment acknowledges and cultivates a culture of shared care and reinforces the importance of both parents in the upbringing of their children. It's a recognition that family responsibility should be shared and parents' roles in their families should be viewed as equal. When the government announced our paid parental leave reform in the October budget, we entrusted the Women's Economic Equality Taskforce with providing advice on the best model for 26 weeks to advance women's economic equality. The taskforce recommended reserving four weeks for each parent on a 'use it or lose it' basis and allowing parents to take up to four weeks of leave at the same time. This bill reflects that advice. This decision is not just about meeting a quota. It's about creating an environment where families can thrive and where one partner can pursue their ambitions and, where applicable, the other can be an active participant in the lives of their children. Our government is not blind to the fact that paid parental leave is not just a social policy; it's an economic imperative. As the global economic landscape evolves and we work towards greater economic resilience, we must recognise the pivotal role that families play in sustaining our nation's growth. Our national birthrate matters, and it's absolutely imperative that governments of all persuasions do what they can to make sure that having a child does not become an economic burden. Expanded paid parental leave will ensure families are supported at a time when they are less likely to work. Businesses, unions, experts and economists all concur that one of the most effective ways to boost productivity and workforce participation is to provide families with more choices and flexibility and greater support. This isn't an economic theory; it's a reality that resonates across schools, homes and businesses in Bennelong and right across the country. Paid parental leave, when done right, can be a powerful catalyst for advancing gender equality, and the Albanese government is committed to fostering an environment where women can thrive in both their professional and their personal lives. The reform proposed today is not an acknowledgement of the challenges faced by women; it is a commitment to dismantling barriers that exist and to creating opportunities. For many families in my electorate of Bennelong, this reform means more than just financial assistance; it will signify the recognition of the immense value of the early years of a child's life. It'll mean the ability for parents to be present during those precious first months, to witness those amazing first milestones and to create a foundation of love and security for their kids. It'll help foster an environment where the burdens of balancing work and a newborn are alleviated, enabling parents to make choices that align with the unique needs of their households at a challenging time. It recognises that every family, regardless of its composition, deserves the support and flexibility to nurture its children in an environment of love and understanding. It's also a commitment to equality, acknowledging that all parents—irrespective of gender or circumstance—should have the opportunity to be active participants in the early days of their newborn's life. In a world that often moves at a relentless pace, access to paid parental leave—and expanded access, for that matter—becomes a promise that, as a community and a government, we value and prioritise the wellbeing of families and newborns. This amendment is more than just passing a law; it's investing in the future and prosperity of Australians, and it's another sign of our clear commitment to an inclusive and well supported community. By providing flexibility in how parents can arrange their care, we hope to ensure that the support offered is adaptive to the unique circumstances that define Australian families. I commend this bill to the House. 13:14 Dr HAINES 282335 Indi I rise to speak in support of this bill, the Paid Parental Leave Amendment (More Support for Working Families) Bill 2023. As a former midwife and academic who researched maternal and child health outcomes and remembering my own experience in returning to the workforce and balancing work and care, I know the importance of support for parents in those early years. I'm particularly thinking of all the parents-to-be and growing families in Indi who this bill will benefit. Last year, more than 1,500 parents and families in Indi accessed government paid parental leave in our region. I really want to see this number increase, and I absolutely hope this bill will help do that. This bill creates a pathway to increase paid parental leave to 26 weeks by 2026, in line with international best practice. It also increases the number of weeks of paid leave reserved for each parent so that by 2026 each parent will have four weeks of use-it-or-lose-it leave. I'm very pleased to see the government extend the weeks that are reserved for each parent and for which they can't transfer the paid leave entitlement to the other parent. It's a take-it-or-leave-it approach, and this is vital to improve gender equity in this country. Evidence continues to show that a significant gender pay gap between men and women persists in Australia. A major factor, if not the major factor, to this gender pay gap is the unequal division of unpaid caring labour, including caring for children. In Australia, despite 92 per cent of employers offering parental leave regardless of the gender of the parent, only 12 per cent of those who take up the offer of primary carer leave are men. This shows that women are leaving the workforce at a much higher rate than men to care for children, contributing to the gender pay gap. It's absolutely not good enough, especially when other western democracies like ours have made significant improvements to close the gender pay gap. I spent many years studying and working in women's and children's health research in Sweden, a place to which, alongside other Nordic countries, we have looked for guidance on best-practice policy for families. In those days, my Swedish colleagues regularly asked me why we did not have paid parental leave in Australia. It was as fundamental to them as Medicare is to us. You can understand why: Sweden introduced a use-it-or-lose-it system in 1995, reserving a month of leave specifically for fathers. This increased to two months in 2002 and three months in 2015. It's absolutely incredible, when you think about it, that Australia is not offering four weeks until 2026, almost three decades after it was offered by Sweden. The Swedish experience provides strong evidence for incentives for fathers to take up paid parental leave. The total proportion of leave days used by men has slowly increased from seven per cent of all parental leave in 1989 to 25 per cent in 2013. Furthermore, the percentage of couples that share parental leave is slowly increasing, indicating a more equitable distribution of child rearing. Evidence shows that a use-it-or-lose-it system of reserved leave for the non-birthing parent or father is particularly effective when combined with income replacement so those taking paid parental leave don't just receive the minimum wage. Evidence shows that the use-it-or-lose-it entitlement, alongside income replacement of 50 per cent or more of earnings, can increase the uptake of leave by non-birthing parents. The government should consider whether wage or salary replacement should be implemented alongside the use-it-or-lose-it approach as we continue to strive to support unpaid carers, no matter the gender. Based on what we've learned from the long history of parent leave in Sweden, I encourage the government to fund an effective and targeted campaign to ensure that non-birth parents are actively encouraged to access these new benefits. Paid parental leave is critical to support families, advancing gender equity and promoting greater workforce participation, but these measures will not be most effective without tackling the crisis in child care. Back in February, when the government introduced their first reforms to improve paid parental leave, I spoke about how important it is to also address the drastic shortage of early childhood educators and childcare places right across the country. Now, 10 months later, we have still not made enough progress on this important piece of the puzzle for parents. In Indi, parents frequently contact me about how hard it is to find places with local early childhood education and care centres. One mother, who lives in a small town in Indi, has had her youngest child on four waiting lists for months—one for at least 18 months. For families living regionally, early learning centres can be an hour's drive away in a neighbouring town because local centres are at capacity or simply don't exist. This mother is struggling to keep her small business open, which means fewer shifts for her workers. She says: 'Families need child care here desperately. Something, anything, needs to be done. People can't work. Women in particular can't go back to work after maternity leave if there is no-one to care for their children.' Another mother, a social worker, told me of the ripple effects of the lack of access to child care, the struggle to undertake work and further study, and the reliance on her supportive mother, herself an aged-care worker, and her sister, a childcare educator, who are both taking time off work to care for their grandson and nephew. This mother says: 'I understand that there's been government incentives for childcare rebates; however, there is inadequate staff to fill positions due to the underpaid staff feeling completely burnt out.' That's what I'm hearing from owners and managers of early childhood education and care centres across Indi. In the past week I've visited three centres in Benalla and Wahgunyah. The predominant issue that these childcare providers shared with me was the difficulty they faced in trying to recruit, train and retain staff to meet the demand of their communities. One centre has more than 100 children on its waiting list. Another paused enrolment because of a lack of staff. One centre manager told me they've lost staff to the local supermarket because the pay there is better. Early childhood educators teach children throughout the most foundational and formative years of their lives, yet our system does not recognise or remunerate that work appropriately. We must find practical outcomes to attract people to become early childhood educators to meet the demands of the community and help parents to return to the workforce after parental leave, particularly in regions. One of my constituents, a local GP and parent of two children, wrote to me saying that she and her husband, also a GP, are both extremely motivated to live, work and raise their family in regional Australia, yet it's feeling too hard. This constituent said: 'The need for an urgent overall in the way child care is offered in this country, but particularly within the regions, is imperative in sustaining a productive environment, and one that continues to attract families to live and work.' We need GPs. We need healthcare workers, teachers, social workers and aged-care workers to return to our workforce, and a lack of early childhood educators is one factor that's stopping this from happening. This is deeply concerning. Lack of affordable, available and high-quality early childhood education and care is having detrimental consequences for parents, for children, for the regional workforce and for the regional economy. This problem, especially in regional, rural and remote areas, is not just anecdotal. In recent weeks, the Productivity Commission released their draft report on early childhood education and care, and their findings paint a pretty bleak picture. Only eight per cent of the country has enough access to centre-based day care to provide at least three days of care for every child up to five years of age. The commission found a big reason for the lack is a lack of workforce. A survey of 1,000 childcare centres conducted by the United Workers Union last month found that 90 per cent of centres have a current staff vacancy. The survey found that in regional and rural areas which don't have access to casual agency staff, providers were resorting to closing centres early and turning children away. The Parenthood, an independent not-for-profit advocacy group for available, high-quality, affordable child care, published more evidence last month about the desperate situation of regional child care. Their report found that children living regionally or remotely are denied—and their hardworking parents and carers are denied—the opportunity to access early childhood education and care. This report included stories just like the ones I've shared from my constituents. The evidence is mounting: early childhood education and care is inaccessible in regional, rural and remote areas, and the impacts of this are dire. I call on the government to implement the recommendations of the Productivity Commission to improve child care in this country, especially in regional, rural and remote Australia. First, child care should be fully subsidised for three days a week for lower income families to ensure all children can access child care. Second, the Productivity Commission recommended that these families not have to meet work or study requirements to access three days of child care. More childcare support for low-income families would really help my constituents. Indi has the 50th-lowest median wage out of 151 electorates. This puts Indi in the bottom third of electorates for wages. Third, the commission recommended that more must be done to improve career and qualification pathways for early childhood education. The Productivity Commission was very clear that workforce shortages must be fixed. Commissioner Stokie said: Without addressing the educator and teacher challenges, we can't do anything. They found that fixing workforce shortages is critical to setting Australia on a path towards universal child care. That path needs to be determined, but it is clear that increasing wages and workforce participation is key. I acknowledge the government has provided additional funding for fee-free TAFE to provide more training for industries like child care, which is a really positive development. More work must also be done to acknowledge prior learning by educators who seek to upskill and stay in the sector, and I hear that consistently. The government also recently announced funding to open 55 new early childhood education services in regional communities and more support for existing services to stay open. These are great measures. I congratulate them on them, but, frankly, they're not nearly enough. I said this in February, and I'm deeply disappointed that I'm saying the same thing again 10 months later. In addition to the Productivity Commission recommendations, I call on the government to look at the many intersecting factors that are causing worker shortages, including for childcare workers in regional and rural Australia. I support measures that make it easier for families to balance work and care, particularly in those crucial first months of a child's life. Measures such as the bill that's before us will make a difference. I very, very much welcome this for the families of Indi. I very much welcome it for both partners in a caring relationship with children. If I step back to the research that I undertook many years prior to coming here, the transition to fatherhood, in particular, is stymied by the inability of many men to come back to the workforce. This measure that we are debating today is critical for getting both partners, of either gender, back into the workforce, and doing so in a financially sustainable way. It's critical. I commend this bill as a step in the right direction to help working families. But I say that the government must do a whole lot more for families, especially in regional, rural and remote Australia, and especially when it comes to child care. 13:26 Ms MASCARENHAS 298800 Swan When I found out about the Paid Parental Leave Amendment (More Support for Working Families) Bill 2023 I was very excited to put my hand up and say: 'Yes. This is something I wholeheartedly agree with and support.' This is an example of the way that governments can tangibly help families. I think it's really, really wonderful. This particular bill is a great example of a triple whammy effect: being great for children, great for parents and also fantastic for the economy. Labor has a strong legacy on parental leave. One of the people I'd like to pay tribute to is Senator Pat Giles, who was one of the architects of the original parental leave, where we got to see parents leave and then return to their workplaces. We want to see parents return to the workplace, as opposed to what we've seen in the past, where people have left workplaces. This is something that's truly wonderful. I have lived experience of this, and I would not be the only person. I'm sure that there are people here in this place, as well as people in the gallery, who have seen how wonderful it is that we have access to this. The Albanese Labor government is looking at the way that we can tangibly fix this and continue to improve it. We want to make sure that we continue to improve the lives of all Australians. As a working parent I recognise that there's this tricky balance of work and care, and it's a constant juggle. This is something that tangibly helps parents. The juggle is real. This is something that we're trying to help families with. When people find out that they're becoming a parent, it's a pretty exciting time, but sometimes it can be quite overwhelming. The thought of taking time off work and what that means for household finances can be quite challenging. This will tangibly help families. I know that sometimes it can be a challenging time, where you think about financial, emotional and physical implications. These are choices that parents have to think about: whether to work or whether to care, and whether there is actually a choice to do one or the other. Sometimes it is about choices that are based purely on finances as opposed to their hearts and what they really want to do. So I think this is something that will help families be more flexible about what they really want to do and what they want to choose, and I think it's wonderful that this government is providing more tools to help households decide on what to do, particularly for the birth of their first child. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 74046 It being 1.30 pm, the debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour. STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS 9262 STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS Fishing Industry 9262 13:30 Mr BOYCE 299498 Flynn I recently downloaded the MarineTraffic app on my computer, which reveals real-time information on the movement of registered shipping throughout the world. I have seen many ships leaving the port of Gladstone and all the exports of gas, coal and so forth. Looking at the South China Sea and the Java Sea, I see thousands of ships in that area, including many fishing vessels. Amidst all these turbulent tides, the struggle is real for the commercial fishing industry in Australia, including battling quotas, environmental green tape and market prices. The immediate future of the wild-catch commercial fishing industry and supply of fresh local seafood to consumers is under threat. In June 2023 the Labor federal and state governments released a statement advising that 100 net fishermen will be out of business by 31 December 2023. Under the Sustainable Fisheries Strategy, a net-free north, from Cape Bedford to the tip of Cape York, will also be established, and phasing out the limited remaining N1 licences will make the reef fishing free by 2027. We have the strongest regulations in our commercial fishing industry compared to any other country in the world. Robertson Electorate: Young, Authentic and Social! 9262 13:31 Dr REID 300126 Robertson I rise to celebrate and congratulate YAAS, the Central Coast's only dedicated LGBTQIA+ youth program, on their first birthday. YAAS is a transformative arts and culture program for young people aged 12 to 24 living on the central coast, with a focus on those with diverse identities and abilities. YAAS stands for Young, Authentic and Social and was developed by the Naughty Noodle Fun Haus, the region's leading contemporary arts and culture organisation, a registered charity with a constitutional mission to deliver positive impact across urban vitality, civic pride, social cohesion, community engagement and development of local creative ecology. The YAAS program uses creative workshops, celebrations and social groups to promote positive mental health and provide a space for young people to connect with their peers and have their identities affirmed and celebrated. It also won the national ABC Trailblazer 2023 award for the most innovative youth program in the country. YAAS held their first social group last year on R U OK? Day and had nine young people in attendance. Since then, YAAS has expanded across multiple areas on the Central Coast. They've had almost 400 young people attend these social groups over their first year, and that doesn't include additional youth accessing the school holiday programs. YAAS is at the frontline of positive social change, and the demand for this service is evident, with participation at their events quadrupling initial expectations. It is a vital and valuable program, and I commend and support the program. Farrer Electorate: Australia Day 9262 13:33 Ms LEY 00AMN Farrer I rise to express concern at the City of Albury's unilateral decision to dump its formal Australia Day celebrations next year. The council has done this without public consultation and without any debate afforded to its own councillors. Instead, an internal reconciliation committee decided to shift its community awards and citizenship ceremonies away from 26 January. This is cancellation by stealth of one of the most important days on our national calendar, and that is a disgrace. It must be reversed. My petition demanding the council keep Australia Day on 26 January where it belongs has been signed by 2,000 people and counting. It's ironic in the extreme. Albury's reconciliation action plan commits it to work with the community. Following the failed voice referendum, an ANU study out last week found that most Australians do support reconciliation. What they don't want is radical change rammed through, and that's what we have here. Our community's response tells me and should tell Albury City: keep the date where it is. The final council meeting of the year is this Monday 11 December. Another date they should remember is 26 January. That is Australia Day, and we must not allow it to be tampered with through undemocratic and authoritarian action. Albury's councillors will have heard the message loud and clear. I hope and expect them to respond accordingly and keep Australia Day on 26 January. Spence Electorate: Salisbury Community Christmas Parade 9262 13:35 Mr BURNELL 300129 Spence We are taking stock of the year that was, with all its highs and its lows, and looking ahead to the coming year. But, before that comes to pass, we celebrate Christmas with our loved ones and with our local communities. Last Saturday I had a fantastic morning out in Salisbury for the annual community Christmas parade, an event that saw a turnout of thousands to see both Santa and, of course, me—in no particular order!—grace the main streets of Salisbury and spread a great deal of much-needed Christmas cheer. It was fantastic to see a number of familiar faces amongst those participating and spectating alike, along with their families, including many of my state parliamentary colleagues and the community leaders, local business owners and many local identities who make Salisbury a great place to represent and work. The parade was a credit to the hard work and logistical wizardry that went into making Saturday such a huge success by none other than David Waylen and the Salisbury Business Association team, along with the City of Salisbury. I can't wait to come back and do this all again next year and make enough popcorn to give out to the hundreds of kids who visited my stall, along with their parents and caregivers. It was an experience that made smelling phantom butter and salt aromas almost a week after entirely worth it. Just in closing, I'd like to send a message to all my colleagues and the chamber attendants, the staff in this building and our communities back home: I hope you all have a very safe and prosperous Christmas. Stay safe. Tasmania: Salmon Farming Industry 9263 13:36 Mr WILKIE C2T Clark Salmon farming is obviously an important industry in Tasmania, but it's not so important that it should be allowed to ride roughshod over local communities and the environment generally or to continue to drive the maugean skate to extinction, particularly in Macquarie Harbour. It's not just me saying this. Indeed, the federal Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water's expert conservation advice identifies low dissolved oxygen as the primary threat to the skate. To quote from their report, 'The most important anthropogenic contributor to the oxygen debt in Macquarie Harbour is ongoing salmonid aquaculture.' Moreover, the report goes on to describe the consequences on the skate of current salmon farming as 'catastrophic'. In other words, it's the salmon farms. No wonder many people welcomed the federal Minister for the Environment and Water's recent decision to openly consult on whether existing federal approvals are sufficient or need updating. And no wonder I'm being contacted by industry whistleblowers with allegations of extensive and careless plastic pollution, possible collusion with regulatory agencies, drastic under-reporting of fish deaths and escapes, and even fuel spills. Rest assured I'll have more to say about this at another time. For far too long, the Tasmanian salmon industry has made staggering profits while ignoring the environment. Frankly, it is like shooting fish in a barrel for them, and it's way beyond time governments did something about it. Middle East 9263 13:37 Ms VAMVAKINOU 00AMT Calwell Palestinian women are renowned for their exquisite embroidery, recognisable as uniquely Palestinian. Generations of dignified and resilient Palestinian women pass on their craft with pride and determination, preserving this unique symbol of their identity. Tragically, thousands of Palestinian women, their children and their families have been killed in Israel's brutal assault on Gaza, which has seen women and children accounting for over 70 per cent of the 20,000 civilian casualties so far. What we are witnessing is Israel's breach of international humanitarian law, the ethnic cleansing of Gaza and the renewed expulsion of the Palestinian people from their ancestral homelands. It is to the shame of this parliament that we have not, at the very least, given equal weight to the dead children and women of Gaza, not acknowledged that at the heart of this tragedy is Israel's occupation and the Palestinian people's right to self-determination. As we approach Christmas, I convey a message from a letter I received from Brother Peter Bray, the Vice-Chancellor of Bethlehem University, who I met on a visit there some years ago: We are struggling to come to terms with what is happening to Palestinians in Gaza, we need to weep for what is happening, we need to stop this genocide. Please keep us in your prayers as we deal with these challenges here. Indi Electorate: Project 365 9263 13:39 Dr HAINES 282335 Indi Imagine, if you will, a giant circus tent at the Wangaratta Rodeo grounds, 1,700 people gathered, local food trucks and hours of fantastic rock music, hit after hit, across genres. It sounds awesome, doesn't it? Well, I'm here to report that Project 365's Ripple Effect event in Wangaratta last weekend was absolutely rollicking. It was a fabulous event. But it wasn't just a concert. There was an important message and purpose. Project 365 promotes positive mental health. They encourage us to talk about the elephant in the room, a message that many people across rural and regional Australia can relate to. The crowd was buzzing, and I was so proud to be there. Everyone was connecting and sharing a strong sense of community and a story or two. The U Can Cry band played songs and shared messages about facing adversity and mental ill health and where to find support. The message from Project 365 is particularly important at this time of year. The Christmas period can be a particularly tough time for many people. But no-one needs to struggle alone. Check in with family, friends, neighbours and colleagues. Have a yarn and ask them how they're doing. If you need support, reach out to Beyond Blue or headspace or speak to someone you know and trust. Thank you to Peter Rourke, Cynthia Andrews and the Project 365 team for bringing us together to talk about mental health. I wish you all a safe and happy Christmas. Asbestos 9264 13:41 Dr MULINO 132880 Fraser Today we pay tribute to a momentous anniversary. It is 20 years this month since the total ban on the manufacture, supply, use, re-use, import, transport, storage and sale of all forms of asbestos. It's around 100 years since asbestos materials were first manufactured in Australia. It was commonly used in the manufacture of residential and commercial buildings from the mid-1940s until the late 1980s. During this period, Australia was one of the highest users of asbestos per capita. This issue remains critically important today. An estimated one-third of all houses in Australia still contain asbestos products, and in many parts of Australia, including Melbourne's west, asbestos is all too often found when major infrastructure projects are commenced. I want to pay tribute to the long fight to get the ban implemented, a battle fought by trailblazers such as Bernie Banton, the union movement, public health advocates, and the many people directly affected and those championing their cause. Bernie Banton AM died when he was 61. In his victory speech, Kevin Rudd paid special tribute to Banton, saying he represented the great Australian trade union movement and was a beacon of decency in his fight for compensation. The Rudd government created the Asbestos Safety and Eradication Agency, which was established in 2013 to administer the safe management, removal and disposal of asbestos. The work of that agency continues to be very important, and there remains much to be done. I congratulate the new CEO of the agency, Jodie Deakes, and wish her and her team all the best in continuing their important work. Cost of Living 9264 13:42 Mr McCORMACK 219646 Riverina I have with me the Macquarie Concise Dictionary, Australia's national dictionary. It's well worth reading. The next edition of this dictionary is going to have a new term in it, and that new term is 'cozzie livs'. Do we know what 'cozzie livs' is colloquial for? Cost of living. That term was not in that dictionary when we were in government, because people had their cost of living under control. But, under Labor, everything is going up. If you go to the supermarket, the prices of the groceries are higher. If you go to the petrol bowser, the fuel is more expensive. If you try to pay your house off, it has become unaffordable. Just yesterday, in Wagga Wagga, 2,000 people turned out to the Primary Health Network's Foodbank event to receive a food hamper for Christmas. What a remarkable number of people, and how sad it is that 2,000 people in a place the size of Wagga Wagga need help this Christmas. Of course, if you do need help, there's always the Salvos or Vinnies, but there's never, ever Labor, because they are putting the cost of living through the roof. They have the levers to make it more affordable for Australians, but they're just going on this frolic and ignoring the wishes of good, ordinary hardworking Australians. Pearce Electorate: Surf Lifesaving 9264 13:44 Ms ROBERTS 157125 Pearce Last week I was on my feet in this House talking about volunteer bushfire brigades. Today I'm about to talk about the amazing volunteer surf livesaving clubs right around our country. I have three in Pearce. We have 32 kilometres of coastline, and almost 40 per cent of our community were born overseas. Some people have never been near the beach, so our surf lifesaving clubs are amazing and important assets. I would like to give a big shout out to the Quinns Mindarie Surf Life Saving Club President Nathaniel Lee, the Yanchep Surf Life Saving Club President Jason Maliphant and also the very new Alkimos Surf Life Saving Club President Shaun Nicholls—a big shout out for what they do with their teams in helping people in our community. Looking after our community in the Quinns Mindarie we have a swimming enclosure, which is really good, but also the Surf Life Saving club keeps a strong eye on that. If you're out at the beach this summer, as school holidays are coming up and people flock to beaches in the warm weather, a very big shout out to all our surf lifesavers not only in the seat of Pearce but right around the country. You do an amazing job in keeping people safe, and it's reassuring to know you're there. Please do swim between the flags, listen to instructions and watch out for the weather because things can change in an instant. We do put our volunteers under pressure, but we thank them for the training that they do to make sure that they're across all their brief, and they do a great job. Mental Health 9264 13:45 Mrs McINTOSH 281513 Lindsay Suicide Prevention Australia puts out some pretty harrowing research. One piece of research is really relevant as we close this year: cost-of-living and personal distress. For 'middle wage, middle age' workers, it has tripled in the last 12 months. There's an alarming level of distress with cost-of-living and debt pressures for all Australians having risen since last December to 46 per cent of the population. The organisation's quarterly Community Tracker notes that nine in 10 Australians believe that social and economic circumstances will pose a significant risk to suicide rates. This is alarming as we move into the Christmas period, which we know is a difficult time of year for many Australians. Time and time again, organisations have told me the Albanese Labor government is just not listening and not acting on their concerns, and one big thing that would help people struggling right now would be the return of the Medicare funded psychology sessions that this government cut in half, from 20 to 10. It is approaching 12 months since the health minister did this, and Australians are calling for action from the Albanese Labor government, particularly at this time of year. Labor Government 9265 13:47 Ms MILLER-FROST 296272 Boothby It's the last day of the sitting year, so I thought I'd do a quick recap. The National Anti-Corruption Commission is up and running. We've legislated a 43 per cent emissions reduction target and a plan to get us there. We've updated the Murray-Darling Basin River plan, and we've introduced the Nature Repair Market to bring more money into environmental work. The gender pay gap is at 13 per cent, the lowest ever in this country, with paid parental leave, paid domestic violence leave and cheaper child care helping to make that difference. We've introduced a pay rise for aged-care workers and 24/7 nursing in every nursing home. We've increased the JobSeeker rate and Commonwealth rent assistance and raised the age cut-off for the single parent payment, and enabled seniors to earn more before it affects their pension. We have an urgent care clinic in Marion and an endometriosis clinic in Glenelg, and we've tripled the bulk-billing incentive. The reduction in the pharmaceutical co-payment and the introduction of the 60-day scripts means cheaper medicines. Locally, the Marion Road and Cross Road tram overpass prep work is well advanced, and work has begun on the Majors Road on- and off-ramp. Marino Hall has been demolished, and a fantastic new replacement is being built. Blackwood Library has been completed, and I'm about to turn the sod on the Eden Hills Scout and Rotary rebuild. There's the reserve redevelopment at Weaver St, Edwardstown, and Ballara Park in Warradale was opened some months ago. And a defib machine has gone into Seacliff Surf Life Saving Club. There's so much more: fee-free TAFE, more university places, closing loopholes. Merry Christmas, Boothby. Argentina: Presidential Election 9265 13:48 Ms McKENZIE 124514 Flinders This coming Sunday will see a new government begin in Argentina, with President-elect Javier Milei taking office. This will happen exactly 40 years to the day which marked the end of Argentina's most horrific military dictatorship, from 1976 to 1983. It was on 10 December 1983 that Raul Alfonsin, a human rights lawyer from the Radical Party, became president. Three years later, Alfonsin visited Australia—the first ever Latin American head of state to come to our shores. In the two centuries of independence from Spain, Argentina has become the most modern and developed democracy of Latin America, but Argentina is also a nation that during the last century endured seven military takeovers of government. This Sunday will mark 40 years of uninterrupted democracy, during which Argentina preserved and strengthened its great democratic institutions. The Argentine anniversary also falls on the 76th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. In response to the barbarous acts which outraged the conscience of mankind during the Second World War, it was proclaimed on 10 December 1948. Sunday, therefore, in so many ways, reminds us that democracy and freedom from tyranny must never be taken for granted and must be preserved and nurtured every day. With the swearing in of the new congress in Argentina, I hope that we may also begin a new phase of enhanced bilateral relationship and cooperation, including through our parliamentary friendship groups, including the one I lead with the member for Macquarie. Climate Change 9265 13:50 Mr LAXALE 299174 Bennelong In May 2022, Bennelong went to the ballot box and left a clear message: they wanted a government that would finally take action on climate change. After 15 years of the Liberals' climate chaos, they finally have that government. In 18 months, we have shown we are a government that has taken this mandate seriously. Last week's climate change statement delivered by the Minister for Climate Change and Energy shows that we are on track to achieve our legislated 43 per cent emissions reduction target. We are delivering more renewable energy and community batteries, we are helping people get into electric vehicles and we are helping households across the country electrify. We all know the work is not done. Calls for further action are consistent, and, in my view, they are justified. We need to be bold, and we need to keep pushing for more climate action. As the minister said last week, Labor's plan is ambitious and achievable but, thank goodness, we are the ones in government, because the Liberals oppose renewable energy, but we on this side back renewable energy. The Liberals push for a nuclear energy fantasy, but on this side, we are investing in new low-emissions generation that will actually deliver new power into the grid. As we look to 2024, here is my prediction: it will be the Liberals who will continue to ignore that Australia voted for climate action, whereas we on this side will keep pushing for more—and thank goodness for that. Wide Bay Electorate 9266 13:51 Mr LLEW O'BRIEN 265991 Wide Bay I rise to thank the 2,000 constituents who responded to the Wide Bay electorate survey that I recently conducted. The results of that survey showed that 86 per cent of respondents were feeling the pinch from cost-of-living pressures. People want more investment in the Bruce Highway, with 76 per cent wanting four lanes for the Tiaro bypass, and 74 per cent wanting the Bruce Highway to be four lanes between Gympie and Maryborough. The state and federal governments need to get their skates on with these two projects. On electricity, 74 per cent of people do not want to pay for Albanese's unreliable renewable energy, and 67 per cent do not want high-voltage transmission lines through private property. I hope the Labor government are listening before they pour more billions of dollars into these crazy projects. In what should be a major wake-up call to the Albanese and Palaszczuk Labor governments, just nine per cent said they thought the federal and state governments were going on the right direction. It appears very clear that the people of Wide Bay are feeling very let down by this tricky, arrogant, incompetent Labor government. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 Just before I give the call, I did not interrupt you but, in future, use correct titles for members when referring to them directly. Natural Disasters: Response and Recovery Planning 9266 13:53 Ms LAWRENCE 299150 Hasluck Christmas is coming, and I wish everyone in Hasluck the best for the holiday season. However, in Australia that season is also the fire season, and I hope Hasluck residents are well-prepared. At my own home in Mundaring, we have been busy in every spare moment getting our place ready using the Department of Fire and Emergency checklist—cleaning gutters, cutting the grass, pruning shrubs so they are not dense, ensuring the gas cylinders are secured, chained and with the valve facing away from the property. We are testing our generators, our sprinkler systems and making sure our evacuation kit is up-to-date and immediately usable, with heavy duty protective clothing, hard hat protection, goggles and masks. Ten years ago, my husband and I lost our home to bushfires, so it is a risk we do take seriously. We know how devastating bushfires are for communities. During the 2021 Wooroloo fires in Hasluck more than 11 million hectares were burnt, including the loss of 86 homes. Huge swathes of our important biodiversity habitat were destroyed, with significant loss of the cockatoo, possum, goanna and echidna populations. Hasluck residents will be glad to know that the Albanese government is supporting local communities to deliver on emergency preparedness and response projects ahead of the 2023-24 severe weather season that's expected around the country. I implore everybody to check the checklists and take action. Centofanti, Ms Rhonda Louise 9266 13:54 Mr PASIN 240756 Barker This chamber has been rocked in recent days by the passing of one of its members. The member for Dunkley lost her battle with cancer just one day after my own community of Barker began grieving the loss of much-loved and long-serving councillor, Rhonda Centofanti, who also lost the fight with cancer this week. I don't think there are many in the Riverland who would not have been touched in some way by Rhonda. She was a force to be reckoned with. Her determination was surpassed only by her willingness to serve her community and the love she had for her extended family. Rhonda wasn't only the matriarch of the Centofanti family. She was a community leader, steadfast in her dedication to making the Riverland a better place to live. Serving the community formally as a councillor for a herculean 27 years, she worked in local schools across the region and was a member of so many local community organisations that time allocated for my speech doesn't allow me to list them all. Rhonda was also a passionate cook, who would inevitably turn up at one of our community events with her famous cakes for all to share. I am honoured to have known Rhonda. I am honoured to have served the community of the Riverland alongside her. My deepest condolences go to her husband, Jack; her children, Paolo, Michael and Carla; as well as her extended family and friends. Vale, Rhonda Centofanti. Hunter Electorate 9266 13:56 Mr REPACHOLI 298840 Hunter It's almost that time of the year when the big man with the big beard and nicely rounded belly comes to town. Just to clarify, I'm not talking about myself. It's almost Christmas and Santa—a man with a beard a lot wider than mine—will be visiting the hardworking families of the Hunter. As 2023 comes to an end, I want to use this opportunity to say thank you to all the people of the Hunter. Thank you for putting your trust in me to represent you in Canberra. There's nothing I enjoy more than travelling around the Hunter and meeting people every day. You're a kind bunch with a great sense of humour. The cafes, pubs and takeaway shops know how to make great burgers and fantastic food, which definitely comes in handy on my travels. To everyone in the Hunter, I hope you have a very merry Christmas and a happy new year. If you're travelling, please be safe on our roads. I hope Santa is nice to you all. Please don't forget to leave out some cookies or maybe even a beer or two for him. And remember, diets don't apply over Christmas and calories don't count, so eat that third serving of pavlova, finish off that last bit of ham and save all the healthy habits for 2024. Tasmanian Symphony Orchestra 9267 13:57 Mr PEARCE 282306 Braddon Speaker, you will appreciate that a certain tune or song has the power to elevate us all. It can connect us to the present or transport us to another place in another time. There is plenty of research that proves that listening to music has an incredible physical and medical benefit. That is why music plays such a crucial role in healthy ageing. The Tasmanian Symphony Orchestra is one of Australia's greatest orchestras. In partnership with Uniting AgeWell, the Tasmanian Symphony Orchestra is bringing their wonderful music to residents in aged care, including residents at Strathdevon in Latrobe in the electorate of Braddon, using live streaming, video on demand and small ensemble visits. These have proven to be remarkably successful. The feedback from the homes is that the Tasmanian Symphony Orchestra brings joy and connection to residents, who are being uplifted by the special memories that this music invokes. With the value of this program having been well and truly demonstrated, the Tasmanian Symphony Orchestra's goal is to make these digital concert experiences available to every single aged-care resident across Tasmania. This is something that I back 100 per cent. I want to thank the Tasmanian Symphony Orchestra for all that you do, including improving the quality of life and care outcomes for those living in our aged-care communities. Swan Electorate: Christmas 9267 13:59 Ms MASCARENHAS 298800 Swan It's 19 days to Christmas, and I hope that everyone is getting into the Christmas spirit of love, joy, hope and peace. This is something that all our neighbourhoods need, as does our whole world. To all the families that are in the process of creating special memories: some of mine include listening to Patsy Biscoe records and making sure that I leave a sixpack on the bin for the garbo. Meanwhile, in Swan, there are many households and families that are creating amazing Christmas spirit, such as Christmas lights displays. This includes Peachey Avenue in Kewdale, Larix Way in Forrestfield, Jecks Street in Maida Vale, Pontiac Avenue in Cloverdale, Palmer Crescent in High Wycombe, Glastonbury Way in Wattle Grove and, of course, the infamous Willis Street in Victoria Park. Please stay safe. I remind the people in this place that we had a special moment in the House where we all came together, and I think that it's really important that we hold onto our loved ones. Hold them tight, and please stay safe. Have a merry Christmas. The SPEAKER 53517 In accordance with standing order 43, the time for members' statements has concluded. CONDOLENCES 9267 CONDOLENCES Murphy, Ms Peta Jan 9267 14:00 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 signify their approval by rising in their places. Question agreed to, honourable members standing in their places. The SPEAKER 53517 I thank the House. STATEMENTS ON INDULGENCE 9267 STATEMENTS ON INDULGENCE International Relations: Australia and Papua New Guinea 9267 14:01 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler It was an honour to host my friend Prime Minister Marape of Papua New Guinea here today. Australia and Papua New Guinea share a very special relationship. As I said to the PNG parliament in January, we are partners and we are equals. As close neighbours and regional leaders, our security and prosperity are bound together. We help each other in times of need, and we respond together to the needs of the Pacific family. Since coming to government, we've boosted our support for Papua New Guinea's economic ambitions in infrastructure, health, education and labour mobility, and we've made significant progress on improving visa processing and access. Today, we've fulfilled our commitment to elevate our partnership by signing a legally binding bilateral security agreement. This is historic. It will make it easier for Australia to help Papua New Guinea address its internal security needs, and easier for Australia and PNG to support each other's security and the region's stability. Policing and domestic security are priorities for Prime Minister Marape. They are central for the economic development of PNG and for the welfare of the people of that great nation—that consists, as Prime Minister Marape always reminds me, of 800 languages. We will provide a new package of support for policing infrastructure and training for the Royal Papua New Guinea Constabulary, as well as new support for the judiciary and correctional services, and for combatting gender based violence. We'll also support PNG to establish a police recruitment and investigations training centre, to help Papua New Guinea build a larger, more capable police force and provide training to other Pacific police forces there. This security agreement is a natural progression in our security partnership—one that has always enjoyed bipartisan support. I look forward to hosting Prime Minister Marape in February, as a guest of the government. Today, Mr Speaker, as you know, I've written to you. I've discussed with the Leader of the Opposition—and he has supported it—my invitation, on behalf of the parliament, for Prime Minister Marape to be the first Prime Minister of Papua New Guinea to address a joint sitting of this parliament. That will occur on 8 February next year. Papua New Guinea can always count on Australia, as we counted on them in our darkest hour. We share a future, and together we're building a partnership that will deliver peace, prosperity and opportunity for our people and for our region. 14:04 Mr DUTTON 00AKI Dickson I want to thank the Prime Minister for his advice to the parliament in relation to this latest advance in our very important and special relationship with Papua New Guinea. I want to thank him for his call, earlier today, in relation to his decision to invite Prime Minister James Marape to address this parliament. It will be a great honour for us to have Prime Minister Marape in the parliament, in this chamber. I hope it sends a very clear message not only to the government of PNG but to the people of PNG that they have a very strong abiding friend in Australia. The people-to-people links, as the Prime Minister says, go back many decades and, importantly, to the Second World War where, with the assistance of many brave Papua New Guineans, we were able to save our country from certain devastation. We will never ever forget that. I want to say thank you to Prime Minister Marape for his continued engagement with our country. It is a contested era in which we live. We do know that we live in precarious times and that the relationship with PNG is more important than ever for both countries. We know it's a democracy that is longstanding and, as democracies, we will always stand together. I welcome supporting the Prime Minister in whatever moves the government continues to make to enhance the relationship which has been building for many, many years; may it continue to do so long into the future. Munro, Ms Bridget, Osborne, Mr Paul 9268 14:06 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I want to pay my respects to those who are mourning the loss of a well-known and much-loved former member of the press gallery, Bridget Munro, who passed away suddenly on 22 November. Bridget was universally liked and respected as a wonderful human being, with a smile that lit up every room. Bridget was a senior news producer with both Sky News and, later, the SBS, and I know that many members of the Federal Parliamentary Press Gallery attended the funeral that was held just yesterday. Her sudden passing at such a young age has been felt heavily by her many friends in the gallery. Our thoughts are with her husband, Adrian, and their two little girls, Gracie and Margot. Bridget was rightly proud of her accomplishments in her career. She loved what she did; but her greatest joy in life was her family, and we're all thinking of them at this very sad time. I also note, after more than 22 years with Australian Associated Press—that was in danger at one stage—Paul Osborne is leaving the NewsWire. Paul is, as always, watching question time from the press gallery. Paul started with AAP in January 2001. His time covering the news has included more than a decade in Canberra where, most recently, he has managed the bureau. Paul is a highly respected journo—for his integrity, news sense and for calling it straight. In his job, he has to work fast, but his work is always fair. Paul is rightly admired by his colleagues as a tireless advocate for AAP—we well remember when its very existence was threatened—and for public interest journalism. As a mentor and a source of great advice, he's assisted many generations who've come through the gallery. Congratulations, Paul, I wish you all the very best with what's ahead. 14:08 Mr DUTTON 00AKI Dickson I join with the Prime Minister in mourning the loss of a person way too young to leave this world, Bridget Munro, leaving behind her two little girls, Gracie and Margot, and her husband, Adrian. To all of her family members and friends, who will be mourning her loss, we send our sincere condolences, and also to those in the Press Club who knew Bridget well and worked with her closely. They too, of course, have been shocked by her passing. It is a very sad moment that we mark but an important one, because we want to pay tribute to Bridget's work here in the building, as the Prime Minister pointed out, with Sky News and SBS. She was a very respected colleague of many within the press gallery, and we pass our condolences on to her family and friends at this time. On a brighter note, presumably, for Paul, in terms of his life—after 30 years, he's either a slow learner or other opportunities haven't come up—it's taken a 30-year sentence in this place for him to finally leave! Congratulations, Paul. There are some journalists who we would wish were leaving but who aren't, but you're not in that category, Paul. Paul is one of the gentlemen of the gallery. He's a person who is a true professional, and he is somebody who is respected by both sides of parliament. He is somebody who has contributed significantly to reporting on major events, as his LinkedIn biography says: … I have covered G20, APEC, CHOGM, ASEAN, UNGA, PIF, AUSMIN, AUKMIN and pretty much every other major global acronym you can think of. He has a meticulous and organised approach. He is a person of great integrity and character, and we wish him very well in the next stage of his life. MINISTRY 9269 MINISTRY Temporary Arrangements 9269 14:10 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I inform the House that the Deputy Prime Minister will be absent from question time today. The Minister for Skills and Training will answer questions on his behalf. The Minister for Climate Change and Energy will be absent from question time today. The Minister for the Environment and Water will answer questions on his behalf. The Minister for Indigenous Australians will be absent from question time today. The Minister for Education will answer questions on her behalf. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 9269 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Immigration Detention 9269 14:11 Mr DUTTON 00AKI Dickson My question is to the Prime Minister. The Albanese government failed to prepare for a High Court decision it knew was coming for almost six months, which resulted in the release of almost 150 hardcore criminals, including rapists, murderers and paedophiles, into the Australian community. At least four of these criminals are alleged to have already reoffended, including a sex offender committing another assault and a paedophile attempting to contact minors. Will the Prime Minister apologise to the Australian people? 14:11 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler The High Court ruled that indefinite detention was unconstitutional, and that is now the law of the land. The government must act in accordance with the law. We argued against it, of course, but once the High Court ruled, we had no choice but to respond. Community safety is our priority, and I'm very pleased that the parliament has passed stronger laws to keep people safe. I'm pleased that they received the support of both sides of the chamber. Our actions mean we have four layers of protection: preventive detention, community safety supervision orders, electronic monitoring devices and curfews, and stringent visa conditions. Certainly, I am sorry any time someone is a victim of a crime, wherever it's committed, at any time, against any victim. Workplace Relations 9269 14:13 Mr REPACHOLI 298840 Hunter My question is to the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations. How will the passage today of the Albanese Labor government's Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes) Bill 2023 deliver better pay and safety for Australian workers? 14:13 Mr BURKE DYW Watson I thank the member for Hunter for the question and acknowledge that from the moment he arrived here he's been arguing that we need to close the labour hire loophole. We're going to do that today. Today is a great day for workers across Australia. Today's legislation will make workplaces across Australia safer. Today's legislation will also stop underpayments by closing the labour hire loophole and finally making wage theft a crime. I want to thank those members of the Senate crossbench who were part of this—the Australian Greens, Senator Lambie, Senator David Pocock and Senator Lidia Thorpe. I want to acknowledge, though, that those opposite did what they have always done. Once again, when given the chance, which way do you vote on wage theft being a crime? The SPEAKER 53517 I'll hear the Manager of Opposition Business on a point of order. Mr Fletcher L6B On relevance, the question was commendably tightly drafted in talking about Australian workers. There was no reference to the opposition. The Leader of the House has gone straight there. He's outside of the terms of the question and should be directed back to the question. The SPEAKER 53517 The question was about the passage of today's legislation. Obviously, the minister, in his answer, is going to talk about what happened in the passage of the legislation, so he is being directly relevant in his answer. And, in continuation, he'll be heard in silence. Mr BURKE DYW Some of those opposite, in particular, might not be aware of just how unfair the labour hire loophole is, and so I want to repeat an account given by the member for Hunter himself from when he worked in the coal industry. There were five workers in a car, and he was one of them—I don't know how you got five people in the car when he was one of them—and the five of them would drive to work together. All five were doing the same job. All five were on the same roster. Three of them were directly employed, and the other two were labour hire. The difference in wages for those people with the same qualification on the same shift was, each year, a total of $30,000. Simply because there was technically a different employer, miners were earning $30,000 a year less. Imagine if some of the companies that have been responsible for this behaviour had spent a little bit less on advertising and a little bit more on paying their workers. But, when it was simply asked of them why they were using this way of underpaying staff, the answer was, 'Well, it's legal.' Well, it's not going to be legal anymore. It's not going to be legal anymore, and, after question time today, the message will come back to this House and the final part of the passage of this legislation will be before us. So far, this term alone, when it's come to the passage of legislation, those opposite have voted 34 times to keep wages low. The final chance will come this afternoon to vote on whether or not they believe wage theft should be a crime and whether or not it's time to close the loopholes that see workers underpaid. The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Page is warned. When a minister concludes their answer and I'm about to call a member, that is not the time to interject. He knows that, so he's now warned. That's no more interjecting from the member for Page. Parliamentary Standards 9270 14:17 Ms LEY 00AMN Farrer My question is to the Prime Minister and concerns the Attorney-General's aggressive verbal attack on a young female journalist yesterday. This occurred in a media conference— Government members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Members on my right will cease interjecting. There'll be no interjections during questions being asked. Out of courtesy, the deputy leader will be invited to begin her question again. Ms LEY 00AMN My question is to the Prime Minister and concerns the Attorney-General's aggressive verbal attack on a young female journalist yesterday. This occurred in a media conference regarding the government's botched and mishandled actions in releasing almost 150 hardcore criminals into the community. A young female journalist asked if a woman who had been assaulted by one of those released deserved an apology. Not only did the Attorney-General refuse to apologise; he aggressively shouted at the young female journalist. Has the Prime Minister forced the Attorney-General to apologise? 14:18 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler My understanding is that the Attorney-General has spoken to the journalist concerned, has apologised and has had a courteous discussion with her. When our standards that we expect aren't met in this place, that's the appropriate course of action to take. Labor Government 9270 14:19 Ms SCRYMGOUR F2S Lingiari My question is to the Treasurer. Treasurer, how is the Albanese Labor government's responsible economic management strengthening our economy and cleaning up the mess of a wasted decade? 14:19 Dr CHALMERS 37998 Rankin Thank you to the wonderful member for Lingiari for her question. We are working for Australia to take the pressure off Australians, to strengthen Medicare and to build a future made in Australia in a world of churn and change. We know that people are still doing it very tough because of persistent inflation, higher interest rates and global uncertainty, and this is slowing our economy in expected ways, and we did see that in yesterday's national accounts. We aren't just acknowledging this; we are acting on it, with a combination of cost-of-living help, budget repair and investing in housing, energy and skills. The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Hume will cease interjecting. Dr CHALMERS 37998 We are making welcome and important progress on inflation, on the budget and on the economy. As a result of our efforts, quarterly inflation is now around half of what we inherited. Wages growth is stronger. Budget deficits are much smaller. The participation rate is higher. The unemployment rate is lower than when we came to office. More jobs have been created on our watch than any other first-term government ever. We are restoring real wages growth. We've had two consecutive quarters of real wage growth, compared to the minus 3.4 per cent that we inherited at the election. Wages are now growing around twice as fast as they did under those opposite. The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Bowman is warned. Dr CHALMERS 37998 We are repairing the budget. We turned a $78 billion deficit into the first surplus in 15 years. That $100 billion turnaround is the biggest ever in this country. Because of our responsible economic management, gross debt will now peak lower, and that's saving Australians tens of billions of dollars in interest costs. The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Hume will cease interjecting. Dr CHALMERS 37998 This comes from a combination of spending restraint, savings and banking upward revision to revenue in our budget. Our progress and our strategy on budget repair have been welcomed by the IMF, the Reserve Bank, Fitch Ratings, Deloitte Access Economics, the OECD and others as making an important contribution to this fight against inflation. It has made room for $23 billion in cost-of-living relief, which took half a percentage point off inflation in the most recent data. Remember, this is the help that those opposite voted against. We finish the parliamentary year not just understanding the pressure that people are under and the reasons why our economy is slowing but, most importantly, providing the responsible economic management to steer our economy through. Responsible economic management has been the defining feature of this government this year. It will be the defining feature of the mid-year update I released with Minister Gallagher. It will be the defining feature of the year ahead as well. DISTINGUISHED VISITORS 9271 DISTINGUISHED VISITORS Australian Olympic Change-Maker National Summit: Delegation, Hodgett, Hon. David John 9271 14:22 The SPEAKER 53517 I'm pleased to inform the House that present in the gallery today are delegates attending the Australian Olympic Change-Maker National Summit in Canberra. We also have a guest from the Victorian parliament: the member for Croydon, the shadow minister of state and the shadow minister for employment and industrial relations, the Hon. David Hodgett. Welcome to you all. Honourable members: Hear, hear! QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 9271 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Great Western Highway 9271 14:23 Mr GEE 261393 Calare To the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government: the axing of over $2 billion in federal funding for the Great Western Highway upgrade is outrageous and disgraceful. Traffic jams over the Great Dividing Range have become a way of life. You yourself said, 'It's a project that certainly is needed.' Why have our communities been betrayed in this way? Will you reinstate this funding? Why haven't you or your office answered my written request for a meeting with you? Mr McCormack 219646 You'd know all about betrayal! The SPEAKER 53517 Order! Members on my left will cease interjecting before I call the minister. The member for Riverina is warned. 14:23 Ms CATHERINE KING 00AMR Ballarat I thank the member for Calare for the question. As the member knows, and as most members here know, because we put it out by email, I hold a clinic on Wednesdays. Every member, every backbencher, every minister and every shadow minister is welcome to come to my office. I've got the department secretary there, I am there and my staff are there to talk to and answer questions about projects right the way across. We do it all the time. Many members come. You've come previously as well. I'm always happy to talk to you about that. In relation to the decision taken on the Great Western Highway—I know this is a project that the member for Calare has been talking about for some time—let's look at the facts. The project that was supported was supposed to connect the top of the Blue Mountains with the west of the divide. It was meant to include an east and west realignment to the highway and a central tunnel to connect the two ends. You can't just do both ends; you've got to do the entire corridor. The tunnel— Opposition members interjecting— Ms CATHERINE KING 00AMR Well, let me just tell you a little bit about the genius of this. The SPEAKER 53517 The Leader of the Opposition will cease interjecting. Ms CATHERINE KING 00AMR This is important for those opposite to actually listen to. The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The minister will pause. The Leader of the Nationals and the member for Barker will cease interjecting during this answer or they'll be warned. That means no more interjections in this answer. And to the rest of the chamber: the minister deserves to be heard in silence, because the question was asked in silence. The minister has the call. Ms CATHERINE KING 00AMR Thank you. I note, with some irony when you do that, the previous question about shouting at women, but thank you very much for the protection. Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order, members on my left! Order! The minister shall return to the question. Ms CATHERINE KING 00AMR As I said, the tunnel that was proposed by the National Party, as part of the previous New South Wales government, would have been 11 kilometres long, the longest tunnel in the country. The Commonwealth and New South Wales governments had agreed to jointly fund $2.5 billion for the east and west sections, on the basis that the former New South Wales government would be responsible for the middle bit. However, not a single dollar of funding was ever committed to that project—not a single dollar. I well remember the previous minister John Barilaro making some comments about how he felt that somehow the Commonwealth should stump up 80 per cent of what would possibly have turned out to be an $11 billion 11-kilometre tunnel—we suspect more. So, unfortunately, the delivery of this project has not been possible. We will continue to work with the New South Wales government about what we can do along that corridor to ensure the safety of people who use that. But that, of course, means that we are investing significantly in the regions already: doubling Roads to Recovery, increasing funding to the Black Spots Program and creating a new program for local councils to apply for to ensure that we've got safer roads. (Time expired) National Cabinet 9272 14:27 Dr ANANDA-RAJAH 290544 Higgins My question is to the Prime Minister. Yesterday, the Prime Minister brought first ministers together for a National Cabinet meeting. What are the outcomes of this significant meeting, and how will they strengthen Medicare and the NDIS for years to come? 14:27 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I thank the member for Higgins—my favourite ever member for Higgins, I must say—for her question. Indeed, yesterday the National Cabinet advanced reforms in health but also following on from the work that we've done with the National Skills Agreement. We had the most significant National Cabinet meeting on domestic policy that we've seen for a very, very long time. There was a significant deal on health reform: locking in health and hospital funding so the Commonwealth contribution rises to 45 per cent by 2035—locking in a 12-year agreement on health and hospitals is a significant achievement—whilst delivering also an immediate $1.2 billion injection in strengthening Medicare, with more urgent care clinics and action to keep older people out of hospital and to get those who should be in hospital out of hospital earlier. We are providing them with the pathway in order to do so. We are making sure we deal with health workforce issues as well. Secondly, of course, we had the National Disability Insurance Scheme. The NDIS has delivered life-changing support for Australians, and we want it to be strong and sustainable into the future. National Cabinet agreed to work together to progress the legislative changes and to improve the experience of participants and restore the original intent of the scheme. We'll jointly design and fund foundational supports to be delivered through existing service settings such as schools and childcare centres, and we'll work in a constructive way to make sure that people with disabilities get the care that they need. We also agreed to extend the GST no-worse-off guarantee in its current form for three years, from 2027-28. What this combination does is to provide states and territories with the certainty to be able to provide the services that people rely upon, making sure that we're delivering in a way that's constructive. This is the federation working as it should: in a constructive, cooperative manner. I do want to thank the premiers and chief ministers for the work that they have done and for the agreements reached. This is an outstanding outcome from yesterday's meeting, and I look forward to seeing the results in issues— The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Deakin is warned. Mr ALBANESE R36 like addressing elective surgery waiting lists, which will be an absolute priority from the health reforms that we dealt with. Immigration Detention 9273 14:30 Mr TEHAN 210911 Wannon My question is to the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs. The Courier Mail has just reported that Queensland police have arrested a fifth criminal released by the minister into the Australian community. The individual has reportedly been arrested in connection with an outstanding return to prison warrant after being released by the minister without any checks being carried out. Can the minister confirm that this person should not have been released into the community? 14:31 Mr GILES 243609 Scullin I thank the shadow minister for his question. The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Barker is warned. Mr GILES 243609 As the opposition, and indeed the shadow minister, are well aware, I can't comment on individual cases. In fact, as the opposition leader himself has said: … I'm not going to comment on individual cases because … I will have been a decision maker … if the matters go to the Court again, I don't want to interfere or taint that process. I will also say this: on 10 November we, as a government, set up Operation AEGIS, a joint taskforce between the AFP and the ABF working closely with state and territory police forces to share information and enforce visa conditions, steps which have been enhanced by the legislation which passed the parliament late last night. This work of course continues. Hospitals 9273 14:32 Mr NEUMANN HVO Blair My question is to the Minister for Health and Aged Care. How is the Albanese Labor government working cooperatively with the states and territories to ensure that public hospitals are properly funded after a decade of cuts and neglect? 14:32 Mr BUTLER HWK Hindmarsh I thank my friend, the member for Blair, for his question. As the Prime Minister said, what we saw yesterday was all of Australia's governments working together for the people of Australia. That hasn't always been the case. Australians for too long and too often have watched governments stuck in trench warfare playing the blame game, particularly in critical service areas like health, hospitals and disability support. You saw a very different approach yesterday, and it was an approach that was a great credit to this Prime Minister and to all the premiers and chief ministers. It's an approach that will deliver Australians better health care, better hospitals and more sustainable and functional systems of disability support. In health, as the PM said, he announced more investment in strengthening Medicare—things like more urgent care clinics, as well as an historic funding deal around hospital funding, which will see the Commonwealth increase our supports for state efforts to do things like curb ramping and clear those elective surgery waiting lists that have built up over the course of COVID. At the same time states have agreed to support the Commonwealth in our efforts to make the NDIS sustainable and to develop a shared system of supports for people living with disability who are currently outside the NDIS, as the minister for the NDIS outlined at the Press Club today. This is what Australians want to see from all their governments—better health care, better hospitals, better disability supports. The approach that you saw yesterday from this Prime Minister could not be more different from the approach you saw over the past decade: a decade of division, of duckshoving and of savage funding cuts. This duckshoving was, of course, exemplified by the member for Cook, the former Prime Minister, with his daily refrain and daily protest of 'That's not my job,' and those cuts were championed by the Leader of the Opposition, more than any other person from that former government, when he was Australia's health minister. Far from working together for Australia, the 2014 budget document shows the approach of the Leader of the Opposition. He cut $50 billion in his first budget. Now he says, 'Oh, rubbish.' It's here, sunshine—it's in the graph, mate: $50 billion in funding cuts from the state hospital system. This is in the same budget where he wanted to abolish bulk billing altogether and the same budget where he wanted to jack up medicine prices altogether. No wonder this man was voted the worst health minister in the Medicare era—40 long years. He was also the Wreck-It Ralph of Australia's Federation. Immigration Detention 9274 14:35 Mr BIRRELL 288713 Nicholls My question is to the Prime Minister. Emran Dad lived in my electorate and was convicted and jailed for child sex offences and causing or inducing a child to take part in sex work. Dad recruited vulnerable children in state care for a child sex ring. The Albanese Labor government released him into the community, and he has now been re-arrested for alleged sex offender register breaches, including contacting children online. Why didn't the Prime Minister act sooner to protect my community and all Australians? 14:36 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I thank the member for his question. It is indeed terrible that this person, as a result of the High Court—something that we did not want to see—has been in that situation. But, of course, it is a fact that from time to time— The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Forrest will cease interjecting. Mr ALBANESE R36 Let me quote this: Three convicted terrorists have been released without any court-ordered supervision after a legal stuff-up saw police run out of time to apply for control orders. Paul Dacre, Antonino Granata and Kadir Kaya were freed from a Victorian prison yesterday after serving four years in jail over a plot to sail to the Philippines and incite an Islamist uprising to bring down the government. …   …   … Because the trio of "tinnie terrorists" had served their complete jail terms, they are not on parole and are therefore not subject to court-ordered supervision. The SPEAKER 53517 The Prime Minister will pause on a point of order from the member for Nicholls. The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Casey will cease interjecting. The Prime Minister will pause for a moment so I can hear from the member for— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The member for Casey will cease interjecting. Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! We'll move on. We won't hear the point of order. The Prime Minister, in continuation. An opposition member: How is it his fault? The SPEAKER 53517 If members cease interjecting, I will hear the point of order. Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Members on my right will cease interjecting. The member for Nicholls is on his feet, on a point of order. He will be heard in silence. Mr Birrell 288713 A point of order on relevance: the question related to a specific person who committed offences in my electorate and why the Albanese government hadn't acted sooner to protect my community and all Australians in relation to that. The SPEAKER 53517 The question contained, 'Why didn't the Prime Minister act sooner?' He's giving an answer. I'm not sure what the subject matter is, but I'd like to hear what he's got to say so I can deal with the point of order and make sure the Prime Minister is being relevant. Mr ALBANESE R36 I'm speaking about the context of the law, from what was said in the Herald Sun on 11 May 2020, when you were in office: 'The Federal Police have never succeeded in obtaining a continuing detention order.' The Herald Sun said, on 14 March 2021, that 'three-quarters of the high-risk terrorism offenders released in 2020— The SPEAKER 53517 Order, the Leader of the Nationals! Mr ALBANESE R36 were rearrested and charged with breaching their control orders.' That occurred in: November 2020; December 2020—a 30-year-old Melbourne man; January 2021—a 25-year-old Sydney man and a 35-year-old Melbourne man; April 2021—a Sydney man; November 2021—a convicted terrorist offender arrested for— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The Leader of the Nationals will cease interjecting or be warned. Mr ALBANESE R36 repeatedly breaching a control order. I am sympathetic with anyone—any of these circumstances. We have had to deal with these, because you have to deal with the law as it is—just as the former government did during the nine years in which it was in office. Barely a month went by when there wasn't a circumstance such as this. The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The member for Fisher will cease interjecting. Employment 9275 14:40 Ms MILLER-FROST 296272 Boothby My question is to the Minister for Skills and Training. What is the Albanese Labor government doing to combat the severe workforce deficits left by the previous government, and how is the government helping Australians facing cost-of-living challenges to skill up into secure, stable and well-paid work? 14:40 Mr O'CONNOR 00AN3 Gorton I thank the member for Boothby for her question and her very strong support for the VET sector. It was only a while ago that the member and I joined the Treasurer and other ministerial colleagues to launch the employment white paper, talking about the correlation between the investment in skills and ensuring we've got sufficient skills for our labour market and our economy. Of course, that was the reason the Prime Minister convened the Jobs and Skills Summit. We just heard the Minister for Health and Aged Care talk about how critical it is to have collaboration amongst governments to deliver health reform and health investments. So, too, with education and training, we need the collaboration of all governments, and that Jobs and Skills Summit set the tone for the collaboration which culminated in the announcement of 180,000 fee-free TAFE and VET places. This year, as of 30 September—because the data does come in across all the VET providers—we have now reached 296,107 Australians enrolled in TAFE and VET courses in areas of demand. This is a great example of the efforts that can be realised in terms of real outcomes, if you work closely with state and territory governments and if you work with industry. Now, looking at what we have done this year, we've put together Jobs and Skills Australia, a body that represents industry, universities and the VET sector, bringing together all of those constituent parts to provide better advice to government. We now have 10 jobs and skills councils. They are critical because they represent different sectors of our economy, so we understand more fully what we need to supply the skills to each and every part of our economy. Of course, when it comes to delivering the skills, we inherited the deepest and broadest skills shortage in this country for five decades—for 50 years it hadn't been so bad. I have to say, we have done very well to date, but we have got a lot more to do. That's why the Prime Minister and I, with the ACT Chief Minister, recently announced that we would be increasing an additional 300,000 fee-free TAFE and VET places, starting next year, because we need to supply the skills to our economy; we need to make sure working people have skills, so they can get meaningful work. We need to ensure that businesses can have the skilled workforce they're crying out for, and our economy has sufficient skills so our economy grows and so we can produce the goods and services that Australians deserve. We will continue to work with state and territory governments and continue to work with industry to ensure that we supply the skills that are very much needed. Immigration Detention 9275 14:43 Mr FLETCHER L6B Bradfield My question is to the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs. The Vice President of the Rule of Law Institute, Chris Merritt, has written: On November 8 … the government was obliged only to release NZYQ. It was under no obligation to release the others because it could not be certain about the new principles governing indefinite detention. The government could have used the time between 8 November and 28 November to put legislation in place to keep Australians safe. Will the minister apologise to Australians for his catastrophic failure and to the victims of crimes carried out by the released detainees? 14:44 Mr GILES 243609 Scullin As the statement tabled by the Attorney-General earlier this week makes crystal clear, the decision set a new limit on the power the executive has to detain anyone in the same position as the plaintiff—anyone in the same position as the plaintiff—and, further, that that had to be implemented immediately. That is the case. That is the law—a law that was unequivocally confirmed by the written decisions delivered by the court. The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The member for Barker has been continually interjecting and will leave the chamber under standing order 94(a). Merry Christmas! The member for Barker then left the chamber. Gun Control 9276 14:45 Mr BRIAN MITCHELL 129164 Lyons My question is to the Prime Minister. Yesterday, National Cabinet agreed on a new national firearms registry. What does this registry do, and why is it needed? 14:45 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I thank the member for Lyons for his question. It's appropriate that it comes from the member for Lyons, who, of course, represents Port Arthur, the site of the horrific massacre back in 1996. The landmark agreement from yesterday represents the next big step forward in the gun reforms that were initiated following that massacre. For decades, federal, state and territory law enforcement agencies have repeatedly raised concerns about the difficulty of tracking firearms across state and territory borders. We know the dangers that those who work in law enforcement face while keeping us safe. We saw it in South Australia just last month, with the death of Brevet Sergeant Jason Doig. We saw it at Wieambilla on 12 December last year, with the murders of Constable Rachel McCrow, Constable Matthew Arnold and Alan Dare. The national firearms register will make sure police officers have the vital information they need in potentially dangerous situations. It will be a central register developed and managed by the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission to provide information and connect with the National Criminal Intelligence System to integrate firearms information with other risk factors, such as criminal history and court orders. It will include a national licence verification function for firearms dealers to check a person's status in near-real time. It will integrate firearms dealer information with state and territory registries. The system will be fully operational by 2028. It will save lives. I acknowledge the great work done by the Attorney-General and all state and territory police ministers. I also want to acknowledge great Australians like Walter Mikac. Walter's daughters, Alannah and Madeline, and their mother were killed at Port Arthur. He wrote to Prime Minister John Howard and state and territory leaders urging them to act on gun reform—remarkable letters with such strength amid grief. He finished his letter with a simple call, 'Be strong and act now.' To the credit of former prime minister Howard, Tim Fischer and people across the political spectrum, action did take place; we did make the first steps. Yesterday, we as a nation took the next step, working together to keep Australians safe. Political Advertising 9276 14:48 Mr WILKIE C2T Clark My question is to the Minister for Communications. Minister, yesterday on ABC radio you disassociated politicians from the government's misinformation and disinformation bill by claiming that truth in political advertising is a matter for the AEC. However, we all know that the AEC has no jurisdiction over the honesty of political parties, politicians and political candidates. Will you now admit your statement yesterday was misleading, correct the record and commit to properly regulate truth in political advertising? The SPEAKER 53517 The Leader of the House on a point of order? Mr Burke DYW While the question about the role of the AEC is certainly a question that it's in order to ask—I'm not disputing that—it's being asked to a minister who has no responsibility for that agency, simply because the minister referred to it in a radio interview. Ordinarily, it would have to be redirected to the appropriate minister. The SPEAKER 53517 It may assist the House if the member could rephrase the question, because the minister is obviously not responsible for the Australian Electoral Commission. It's regarding her remarks. I'll give the member the opportunity to rephrase the question to assist the House. Mr WILKIE C2T Minister, yesterday on ABC radio you disassociated politicians from the government's misinformation and disinformation bill by claiming that truth in political advertising would not be covered by that bill. However, we all know that the AEC has no jurisdiction over the honesty of political parties, politicians and political candidates. So will you now admit that your statement about the exclusions from your misinformation and disinformation bill was misleading, and will you correct the record and commit to properly regulating truth in political advertising? 14:49 Ms RISHWORTH HWA Kingston In my capacity representing the Special Minister of State, I thank the member for his question. The growth in mis- and disinformation is widespread. It's not only on our shores but occurring in democracies around the world. Elections and referenda are a contest of ideas. However, the truth must be at the core. Last year, the Special Minister of State wrote to the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters and asked— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The minister will pause. The member for Clark on a point of order? Mr Wilkie C2T Speaker, on relevance: the essence of the question clearly goes to the Minister for Communications misleading the Australian community in the media yesterday. The SPEAKER 53517 The minister is being relevant to the question, and under the standing orders she's entitled to answer it. Ms RISHWORTH HWA As I was saying to the member. last year the Special Minister of State wrote to the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters and asked that it inquire into the 2022 federal election and related matters, including the potential for truth-in-political-advertising— Mr Dutton 00AKI Mr Speaker, on the point of order, I have a question to you. As I understand the member for Clark's question, he is referring to comments made by the Minister for Communications, and he's asking for a response and clarification in relation to the comments made by the Minister for Communications, which is why the question is properly put to her. The SPEAKER 53517 The Leader of the House? Mr Burke DYW Thanks, Mr Speaker. If the— The SPEAKER 53517 Order, the Leader of the Opposition! We're just going to deal with this matter in a courteous way. Mr Burke DYW For any question to be asked in the House, it has to be to a minister, relating to their ministerial responsibilities. So the only way the question can be in order is for it to be answered by the minister who is representing the minister who has responsibility for the AEC. Page 549 of Practice makes it clear: If a question has been addressed to the incorrect Minister, the responsible Minister may answer— which is exactly what's happening. The SPEAKER 53517 I did give the opportunity for the member, because of the subject content, to rephrase the question. He chose not to do that. The subject matter, because of the question—if he'd rephrased it just to the minister's interview or given the date, it wasn't— Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Well, I gave him the opportunity. He chose not to do that, so we'll just continue under the standing orders and the Practice for that to occur. Mr Wilkie C2T I did reword the question. The SPEAKER 53517 Yes, but the question contained information about the Australian Electoral Commission. Under the standing orders and under the Practice, the way the question was phrased means the minister has the responsibility, and I'll just get her to conclude her answer. Ms RISHWORTH HWA Thank you, Speaker. Last year the Special Minister of State wrote— Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 The minister will pause. I'll deal with one moment at a time. If someone's used unparliamentary language, I'll ask them to withdraw. I didn't hear what was happening, but anyway I'll deal with— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The member for La Trobe and the member for McEwen will cease interjecting. The Leader of the Opposition is on his feet on a point of order. Mr Dutton 00AKI Mr Speaker, I think in the circumstances it would be appropriate, if I might say so, to ask the member for Clark now that he understands your point, because I don't think it was clear. To be fair, I don't think it was clear in the first instance. If, in the redrafting of his question, he doesn't make specific reference to the AEC, I don't see how the question couldn't be in order. The SPEAKER 53517 I've explained the situation. I've explained the opportunity I gave to the member for Clark. I'll discuss it with him after question time to make sure he's crystal clear on the standing orders and the Practice moving forward. I'm just going to ask the minister to conclude her answer. Ms RISHWORTH HWA Last year the Special Minister of State wrote to the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters and asked that it inquire into the 2022 federal election and related matters, including the potential for truth-in-political-advertising laws to enhance the integrity and transparency of the electoral system. Of course— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The minister will pause. The member for Clark? Mr Wilkie C2T Mr Speaker, the government is attempting a cover-up, and I ask— The SPEAKER 53517 Resume your seat. I will just ask the minister to conclude her answer. Ms RISHWORTH HWA Of course, the government will consider the recommendations and changes put forward by JSCEM in its final report. We welcome that report when it does come. Environment 9278 14:55 Mr JOSH WILSON 265970 Fremantle My question is to the Minister for the Environment and Water. How is the Albanese Labor government delivering on its promise to protect, restore and manage Australia's natural environment? What challenges has it faced in achieving these protections? The SPEAKER 53517 The Leader of the Nationals will just remain silent for this answer—hopefully. 14:55 Ms PLIBERSEK 83M Sydney I want to thank the member for Fremantle for his question. He is truly one of this parliament's greatest environmentalists. Labor has delivered more to protect our environment in the last nine days than those opposite did in nine years. In fact, in this sitting of parliament, we have rescued the Murray-Darling Basin Plan, protecting the animals and the plants of Australia's largest inland river system and making sure that the three million people who rely this river system for their drinking water—the farmers, towns and communities—are able to share that water resource. Ms PLIBERSEK 83M In fact, we've also passed our legislation to establish the world's first nature repair market, bringing more private and philanthropic investment into environmental restoration, without greenwashing, and supporting farmers and First Nations communities to look after their land. The Northern Land Council called this a game changer for Aboriginal people across northern Australia. And we have made good on our promise to update the water trigger in our national environmental laws, meaning that all unconventional gas projects will be assessed against their impact on our water resources. This has been the biggest week for environmental protection in over a decade— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The minister will pause. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will cease interjecting. She is warned. No more interjections! Ms PLIBERSEK 83M All of this comes on top of the policies we have delivered already: doubling funding for our national parks; doubling the number of Indigenous rangers; putting net-zero emissions firmly into our national law; boosting renewable energy projects—we have doubled the rate of approvals for renewable energy projects; restoring our urban rivers; protecting the Great Barrier Reef; increasing our recycling capacity by more than a million tonnes every year; and tripling the size of the Macquarie Island Marine Park, one of the biggest conservation decisions made this year anywhere in the world. In fact, we have added 40 million hectares of land and sea to the area under conservation in Australia. When we establish Australia's first environment protection agency, we will do even better. When we rewrite our national environmental laws, we will do even better. Labor is turning the tide after a decade of neglect by those opposite—a decade where the Liberals and the Nationals undermined climate action, sabotaged the Murray-Darling Basin Plan, launched 22 different energy policies and didn't land a single one of them— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The minister will pause. The Leader of the Nationals has been interjecting consistently all through this answer and through question time. He will leave the chamber under 94(a). The member for Maranoa then left the chamber. Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! Members on my left will cease interjecting! The minister will continue with her answer. Ms PLIBERSEK 83M Australians voted for an end to the political fighting over climate change; they voted for a government that will fight to get things done for nature, and that's exactly what Labor is doing. (Time expired) Immigration Detention 9279 14:59 Mr TEHAN 210911 Wannon My question is to the Prime Minister. The Minister for Immigration has now confirmed that he released a criminal with an outstanding warrant into the community. What will it take for the Prime Minister to finally take action and sack this incompetent minister? Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! Members on my right and left, there's far too much noise during these answers. 14:59 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler Ministers O'Neil and Giles have done more to address this issue in a month than those opposite did in nine years. I make this point— The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Fisher will cease interjecting. Mr ALBANESE R36 after the High Court— Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! Members on my left, I just said before the Prime Minister spoke that there's far too much noise. There's now a general warning issued. The member for Bowman was on a warning. He interjected during that answer. That means he will leave under the standing orders as well. There's far too much noise. I know it's the last day; there's far too much noise. The member for Bowman then left the chamber. Mr ALBANESE R36 After the High Court made the decision that they did, our government has been focused on fixing this. This is something that we inherited from a decision that overturned a 20-year-old decision under the Howard government, not under a Labor government. One of the things that happened on Sunday, as we said very clearly, was that we offered a briefing to the opposition on the legal advice. Did they get it on Sunday? Did they do it on Monday? Did they look at the legal advice on Tuesday? Did they look at the legal advice on Wednesday? Did they look at the legal advice on Thursday? No. Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The Prime Minister was asked about what it would take, and he's answering the question, so he's being directly relevant, so the member for Wannon will have to state the point of order, not just give a statement, because there'll be consequences for that. The member for Wannon has the call. Mr Tehan 210911 On relevance— The SPEAKER 53517 Resume your seat. As I said, under standing order 104, the Prime Minister is being relevant to the question, but I'll make sure he sticks to the question. He has the call. Mr ALBANESE R36 I was asked about the minister, and he has responded on the basis of the legal advice that we have said, under the terms agreed to by the opposition, we would make available for them—to go into the room and read the legal advice—so that they could assure themselves of the basis of the government's actions. They haven't read it on Sunday, Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday. Too interested in playing politics, they refuse to make themselves available. The member for Wannon was busy off at the races—the Jericho Cup—so he wasn't available; Senator Paterson, the shadow minister for home affairs, is too busy off at Harvard doing a course; Senator Cash wasn't able to find time in between Sky interviews; and the Leader of the Opposition has not made himself available either. Sunday, Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday—they have failed to avail themselves of the offer that we made very clearly. We contacted them. We made times available. We made three times available for them, and on none of them have they made themselves available to walk into the secure room and read the advice on that basis. The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Cowper is warned. Mr ALBANESE R36 They have been too interested in being able to say things they know are not true rather than— (Time expired) Infrastructure 9279 15:04 Dr CHARLTON I8M Parramatta My question is to the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government. How is the Albanese Labor government reforming Infrastructure Australia to ensure that all communities benefit from Commonwealth infrastructure investment, and why is this reform needed? 15:04 Ms CATHERINE KING 00AMR Ballarat I thank the member for Parramatta for the question. This government is getting on with the job of delivering the infrastructure that our nation needs, creating jobs and growing the economy, whilst not increasing pressure on inflation. I heard an interjection before from the member for New England about how Inland Rail is going. It's going better than it was under you, when there was a $31 billion blowout in cost. It's better than it was under you. We've delivered our reforms to the Infrastructure Investment Program that will see over 400 nation-building projects completed or substantially delivered over the next 10 years. We've released our infrastructure policy investment statement that will guide Commonwealth infrastructure investment into the future, and we, of course, are making record investments in programs like Roads to Recovery and the Black Spot Program for every single council. There are no colour-coded spreadsheets; that investment is for every single council across the country. Last night, the parliament finally passed the reforms for Infrastructure Australia, delivering on our election commitment to restore the organisation to being the Commonwealth's premier adviser on major infrastructure investment in this country. Of course, under the Liberals and Nationals, Infrastructure Australia had lost direction. It was full of political appointments and its advice on infrastructure matters was often ignored. Under the Liberals, we saw significant pork-barrelling when it came to the Infrastructure Investment Program. When presented with our proposal to reform Infrastructure Australia, the Liberals and Nationals refused to engage with the government and tried for months to obstruct passage of the bill to this critical legislation. The SPEAKER 53517 The member for New England is warned. Ms CATHERINE KING 00AMR They diminished Infrastructure Australia when in government and they were determined to do it again from opposition. Nevertheless, we worked to ensure the passage of this bill through the parliament, and our reforms mean that Infrastructure Australia has a properly defined mandate that will improve the evaluation of infrastructure proposals across the country— The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Fisher is warned. Ms CATHERINE KING 00AMR and provides government with a more targeted infrastructure priority list—a list that will mean that nationally significant infrastructure proposals are prioritised for consideration by the Australian government in the unique co-investment position we are in. We are reducing duplication with states and territories and improving evaluation of infrastructure projects, and we're creating stronger governance—comprised of three expert commissioners supported by an advisory council—ending, frankly, the coalition's record of appointing their mates to this significant economic body. Underpinning this, sound infrastructure investment decisions make an important contribution to productivity. This is the Albanese Labor government getting on with its election commitments, getting on with the job of delivering and, frankly, cleaning up the mess of those economic vandals opposite. (Time expired) Climate Change 9280 15:07 Mr BANDT M3C Melbourne My question is to the Prime Minister. In my last two questions to you on coal and gas, you handed it off to someone else. But I ask you directly today, as head of the government: will Labor join more than 100 countries and support a call for a phase-out of coal, oil and gas in the communique from this week's climate summit? 15:08 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I thank the member for Melbourne for his question. Australia, when we are at the COP summit—where Minister Bowen is representing Australia—will be back around the table with credibility, as we have been at the Pacific Island Forum, and as we are in our region, because we are a government that is taking climate change seriously. We are, a government that understands that in order to take climate change seriously, you need to bring the community with you. You can't just flick a switch or have the best of intentions. What you need is a plan and a strategy to get there. We have that through the safeguards mechanism, which is the key to driving that change to 43 per cent reduction by 2030 and net zero by 2050. In the last month, this has been supported by the measures we took on the Capacity Investment Scheme, which will provide for that certainty to de-risk projects, to make sure that the investments flow through in renewable energy. You can't simply say, 'We'll just change overnight.' What you've got to do is make sure that energy security and reliability is part of the system. That's why, for example, gas will continue to play an important role in providing stability in the system. That's how renewables will be able to operate. We have a comprehensive plan including our Rewiring the Nation plan based upon AEMO's Integrated System Plan that's been in place for a long period of time. When you combine all those measures, all of which were supported by the crossbench—the legislation in order to achieve those targets, in order to put the safeguard mechanism in place— The SPEAKER 53517 The Prime Minister is being relevant to the question, so I'm going to ask the Leader of the Australian Greens to state his point of order. Mr Bandt M3C The point of order is on relevance. The question was about the phase out of coal and whether that would be something that Australia will join in the communique at this week's summit, not about other matters. The SPEAKER 53517 In the first sentence the Prime Minister mentioned the COP summit. He's talking about the question. You may not agree with the answer; you may not like the answer, but under the standing order 104 he's got to be relevant to the question, and he is being relevant. Mr ALBANESE R36 I'll make this point as well: Australia will remain a reliable energy supplier. We're a country that does not renege on the contracts that we make. In the region, that's really important. But we need to make sure that the transition that's occurring through market based mechanisms—because the cheapest forms of new energy are the cleanest forms of energy. The prospects that we have in an area like Whyalla to make steel, where the coal-fired generator has been turned off, is that they'll go through gas first and then, importantly, green hydrogen to produce green steel, which is very much Australia's future. The SPEAKER 53517 The Prime Minister's time has concluded. Albanese Government 9281 15:12 Ms LAWRENCE 299150 Hasluck My question is to the Prime Minister. How has the Albanese Labor government been working for Australians over the course of 2023. 15:12 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I thank the member for Hasluck for her question and for her commitment to the people of that wonderful part of Perth. We have, since we came into office, seen the creation of at least 624,000 new jobs. That will always be a priority of a Labor government. That is more jobs created than in any new government in Australia's history, and we're only halfway through. We have the lowest gender pay gap on record. We have record women's workforce participation. We've got real wages moving two quarters in a row. We have a 15 per cent pay rise for aged-care workers. We have an increase in the minimum wage. We have, of course, the first budget surplus in 15 years, turning a $78 billion deficit under them into a $22 billion surplus. We're also delivering on cost-of-living measures. Cheaper child care began on 1 July. Cheaper medicines began on 1 January. There will be 58 Medicare urgent care clinics by the end of the year. We've tripled the bulk billing incentives for Medicare. We've delivered already 300,000 fee-free TAFE places and energy bill relief. We've strengthened paid parental leave and increased support for jobseekers and single parents and people who need rent assistance. All these motions were opposed by those opposite. We're putting in place the Housing Australia Future Fund, the Social Housing Accelerator, the national housing target of 1.2 million homes, the better deal for renters and the expanded home guarantee scheme. And we're delivering. The National Reconstruction Fund is up and running. We've passed the Safeguard Mechanism to bring down emissions. There is 10 days paid family and domestic violence leave. We said there'd be a national anticorruption commission, and it is operating. We had the robodebt royal commission, consigning that to the dustbin of history where it belongs. We've restored Australia's standing internationally. We have been getting on with the job of working for Australia each and every day, delivering on promises that we made but also pointing towards the future. There will be more fee-free TAFE places and more cost-of-living relief. Further strengthening of Medicare was underlined by yesterday's National Cabinet meeting. We'll continue to work for Australia. On that note, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper. STATEMENTS 9281 STATEMENTS Valedictory 9281 15:15 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler We've limited valedictories this year to just me and the Leader of the Opposition. It will be of some relief to some who've been here in past years! Yesterday was a really emotional day to be in this place, and I thank people from across the chamber for paying tribute to our dear friend Peta Murphy. It was the parliament at its finest. I know that Rod Glover, Peta's beloved husband, listened all day, as did other members of her family, and they were very touched by the tributes that were made in this chamber. Through those speeches there was a common theme, I've got to say, about the privilege that we have of serving this great nation. It is a gift that should be cherished every minute that those of us who've had the privilege of sitting in this chamber, the House of Representatives—and there haven't been many throughout the time since Federation—have had. It is a gift, and we must cherish it every day. Every day in this place there's also a chance to change the country for the better, and we should always understand that we only get that privilege because of our electorates that send us here. I know, because of the sacrifices that are made in people's personal lives in order to be here, that overwhelmingly, regardless of where people sit in this chamber, people go into this life with the best of motives. So this is an opportunity each year to thank some people without whom we wouldn't be here. I'll begin by thanking my electorate—without that, you do not get here. I also thank my Labor caucus colleagues for giving me the great honour since 2019 of leading the oldest political party in Australia and one of the most successful social democratic parties in the world. It is a great honour, and I certainly don't take it for granted. I thank my partner, Jodie Haydon, who has been thrown into all sorts of circumstances, such as Jill Biden, on stage at a state dinner, throwing the mike to Jodie to give a speech. That's probably not what she, a decade ago, was envisaging her life would be like, but she has served her country well in areas like that as well, and I thank her for her personal support. I thank my son Nathan. It's his birthday tomorrow. He also is just so supportive, and I'm so proud of the young man that he has developed into. To my deputy, Richard Marles, who tragically today has the funeral of his mother-in-law: no-one could hope for a better, more loyal, more hardworking, more committed deputy than Richard. I thank him for everything that he does. To the Leader of the House, Burkie—it's a fun job! He does an outstanding job here. To our Senate leadership team, led by Penny and Don—they do a fantastic job. As much as sometimes I speak about the parliament as if it is just this chamber, they remind me all the time that there's another place, where legislation has to be got through. They have done an outstanding job doing that. To Jim and Katie, the economic team—they are doing such an extraordinary job in what are very turbulent global times in the economy, and they're really delivering. Both of them are passionate about delivering for working people and for making a difference for people who really rely upon Labor governments. For a lot of people government is an academic exercise about values, and that's important. But there are a lot of people out there, in my view—and it's obviously a partisan statement—for whom the Labor government makes a difference to their lives. In the deliberations on issues like single parents and other things that we have during the budgets that have been brought down, we have very much focused on that. To the people who look after my security—I thank all of them. To all the defence personnel, including the RAAF and others who look after us—I thank you for your service and I thank you for what you do. Whether it's people who work on personal detail or people who are servants of the nation, who wear our uniform, the men and women do us proud, whether they're serving here or overseas. To my department—I went down yesterday; it was an extraordinarily busy day and saw all my department at Prime Minister and Cabinet led by Glyn Davis—I thank you. The Public Service is an honourable profession. We're determined to restore its status. We make no apologies for saying that permanent public servants need to be elevated in the way that we honour them and treat them, rather than just contracting out, and people being engaged, which ends up costing more in the long run as well. To you, Mr Speaker—you do an extraordinary job in keeping all of us on track, and I thank you for the work that you've done. Of course, the Chief Whip and all of the whips up the back there do an incredible job, just ticking over too. My personal staff are led by Tim Gartrell, who began as my chief in the Marrickville electorate office in 1996. He has done a fair few things since then. I don't know what he did to have to come back! People who come back haven't got any reason to complain, because they know what they're getting. A range of them, including everyone sitting in the box over there, have come back after stints away from my office. It's an incredible team. To Marika, Bell, Anna and Daniel, who do the more personal diary, running around and doing things that have to get done—I thank all of you. To Liz Fitch and the media team—you're outstanding and I thank you for the patience you show with me and with the liaison between me and the media. 'The media have an important role to play in our democracy,' I said last night, when hosting drinks for them at the Lodge. More people turned up at the Lodge last night for media drinks than work in the gallery, I reckon! We did have to escort them out at some stage. There are some still there, I suspect, somewhere down the bottom. You play an important role in our democracy, and it's an honourable profession to be a journalist in this country, or in any country. We're reminded that, in places like Ukraine and the Middle East, journalists are losing their lives in order to cover stories that are important. To Tim Murray and my electorate staff as well: I'm sorry that there are so many demonstrations at the moment, in particular. I'll just make this point: blocking an electorate office of a member of parliament doesn't change a political decision. What it does is stop people who need their local member from getting access on issues of social security, health care and others. The Middle East is a very difficult issue, but my electorate office are not responsible for anything that is happening there. I wish the Leader of the Opposition and Kirilly and their children all the very best for Christmas and the new year. It's a terrible job—I know, having done it—but I wish you well on a personal level. I think that, in spite of other things I say publicly, what I say privately is that we are always able to engage. I've had more conversations with you in a month than I had in the previous three years, when I was in your position, with my counterpart. You need to be able to talk in a civil way even when there are disagreements, and we're able to do that. Christmas is a joyous time for many of us. For people of faith, of course, it is particularly important for Christians. I will spend Christmas Day, as usual, with Bill Crews at the Exodus Foundation, who served last year, I think, up to 4½ thousand meals on Christmas Day. People start queuing before 6 am every year, and it's a wonderful occasion and really uplifting. I note that they now close off volunteer applications because they have more people who want to volunteer and spend Christmas Day there to help than they can deal with, and that says something about the character of our country: that at the worst of times Australians always show the best of who we are. It can be a hard time for people too. We need to acknowledge that it can be a really hard time for people who've suffered loss. It is a time when we think about and reminisce about what has gone the year before. One of the things that happen at Bill Crews's is that it's not just people who are homeless or who are in need financially; it's also people who are in need of someone to have lunch with—people who are lonely. So it would be good if people can think about their neighbours and their community and reach out to people who might be going through a tough time or might just need someone to have a word or a meal or a drink with. These are testing times for the world, and Australia is not immune from it. We're confronted daily with news of terrible loss and devastation and with images that challenge our very faith in humanity. We know that, for so many people in the Jewish community, the rise in antisemitism is having a real impact. For those who have relatives and friends in Gaza, it is a tragic time as well. We have seen that Islamophobia is a very real issue that we need to deal with. It is a time when the ethic of kindness, which I was certainly raised with, should be a theme for all of us as we go forward. That's what the message of Christmas is about: it's about reaching out and assisting others. I hope that 2024 is a more peaceful time, whether it be in the Middle East or Ukraine or other troubled areas. We're very fortunate to live in this great country of Australia. We need to make sure that we don't take the social harmony that characterises our multicultural nation for granted—that we cherish it, enrich it, nurture it and celebrate it. That is very important. I look forward to seeing everyone in 2024, and I wish everyone in this chamber—people who are staff and people who are listening or watching, including, I want to say all the crossbenchers as well. The way that you have handled yourselves, the sorts of questions that are asked and your diligence in representing your community are very positive things as well. For me, as a major party loyalist, that's a very difficult thing to say, but it is true in terms of the respect that I have for people who are genuinely representing their electorates. So I wish everyone a merry Christmas. 15:30 Mr DUTTON 00AKI Dickson I want to start by saying thank you to all of my colleagues for their support during the year, for the support they provide to their constituents and for the differences that they've made in individual cases in the lives of Australians. That goes for everybody in this chamber, for the work that they've done in their electorates and the Australians they've been able to help, some of whom have been in their darkest hour and have had some reprieve because of the intervention that a member of parliament has been able to provide. I think sometimes we forget to remind ourselves of that. On behalf of all of my colleagues, I want to extend a merry Christmas and very best wishes to the Australian people. There are many Australians who will do it tough this Christmas because they have lost their jobs or because there is a cost-of-living crisis for them. For many businesses across the country who have closed during the course of the year, the disruption to that family and their life is quite profound. So I wish all of those people who are much less fortunate than us all the very best over the course of this Christmas. I hope that it's a time when they can at least spend some time with their family, those they love and those closest to them. Can I very much thank my deputy, Sussan Ley, who does a fantastic job and has a wealth of experience that she brings to the job. To David Littleproud, Leader of the Nationals—oh, he's not here. He's headed out early. But, again, he is a great mate and somebody who really stands up for the interests of people in regional and rural Australia, as all the members of the Nationals do. Thank you very much to Simon Birmingham and to Michaelia Cash for their leadership roles in the Senate; to Perin Davey; and, of course, to the Manager of Opposition Business in the House, the member for Bradfield, Paul Fletcher. That's not a desirable job either, Paul, but you do a great job with it. Thank you to my shadow ministry and the entire team. Thank you to our staff for the work they do. They're tireless. In many cases, they are here before we arrive and depart after we leave. I acknowledge the work of Alex Dalgleish, my chief of staff, and, in my electorate office, Jacqui Cooper and all of our staff there, who, as the Prime Minister rightly points out, put up with way too much on too many occasions. Thank you to my constituents in Dickson. They have been very loyal to me over a long period of time, and it's the greatest honour to represent them in this place. Thank you to many others who work in this place and who provide support to us in terms of logistics—the cleaners and others who provide very significant effort and time away from their families, even over Christmas, to support us and keep us safe. I thank the members of the Australian Federal Police on my close personal protection team and the static officers at home who look after my family in my absence. I thank them very much for their work and for the time that they spend away from their families, particularly those with young kids. I really acknowledge their sacrifice for our country. It has been a year, right around the world, of difficulty, as the Prime Minister points out. There is war in the Middle East, the Ukraine war continues, and our thoughts and prayers are with people right across the world in very difficult situations at the moment. I particularly want to acknowledge the members of the veteran community. This year we commemorated the 70th anniversary of the Korean War armistice and the 50th anniversary of the end of Australian involvement in the Vietnam War. There are many, particularly from the Vietnam conflict, who still live with that pain and suffering, and we acknowledge that at this time of year as well. Thank you to all of those who wear a uniform: the members of the Australian Defence Force, the emergency service workers, the doctors and nurses, the firies, the ambos and all of those who will work around the clock both here and in posts around the world to serve our national interests. We couldn't be the great country we are without your sacrifice and the work that you do in our name. I want to say thank you very much, Prime Minister, for the engagement we've been able to have. As you point out, there's rightly a robust, adversarial nature to this chamber, and, for better or worse, that's the part that the Australian public sees, but there is a lot we're able to resolve and there are issues that we can work on for the betterment of our country, and I thank you for that engagement. I wish you, Jodie and Nathan all the very best over Christmas, and I hope that you're able to spend some quality time together. Thank you very much to my long-suffering wife, Kirilly; Rebecca, Harry and Tom; and now Ralph, our youngest baby, who dominates the family! He's our spoodle, who's well and truly way too indulged, and will be again at Christmas. Fortunately, Tom, our youngest, made it through year 12 and through schoolies. I speak on behalf of all parents who are relieved to have that behind them! It's a time for celebration for those people of the Christian faith. Our Christian faith teaches us gratitude, and Christmas is a time when we give thanks for the things we hold dear in life: our family, our friends, our community, our great country. This Christmas and new year period, many Australians will spend a lot of time on the road and travelling. Out of all of those people that we've spoken about in the chamber who have, sadly, passed away this year, I particularly remember Charlie Stevens, 101, the young South Australian who lost his life during the course of schoolies as a result of a traffic incident. For his family, like many others—the 100 before him in South Australia, those who will, tragically, follow this Christmas and those right around the country—please take care when you're driving. Please make sure that you rest, listen to the authorities and the advice that they will give over the course of Christmas. But, most of all, stay safe together and take care of each other. We live in the best country in the world, and we celebrate that again this Christmas. STATEMENT BY THE SPEAKER 9284 STATEMENT BY THE SPEAKER Valedictory 9284 15:37 The SPEAKER 53517 Before we leave, I too would like to make some final comments. First and foremost, on behalf of my colleagues and particularly the Speaker's panel, I'd like the Clerk, Ms Claressa Surtees, for all the work that you do and for your calm stewardship and sage advice in assisting me in my role as Speaker. In addition to the Clerk, I'd like to pass on my thanks, on behalf of all members, to the hardworking professional staff of the Department of the House of Representatives, including our wonderful chamber attendants, committee office staff, the Serjeant-at-Arms Office team, finance, people strategies, Information Management Office, Procedure Office staff and the Table Office. Thank you for the work that you do to ensure that this chamber runs as smoothly as possible. On behalf of all members, I'd also like to make special note and a thank you to Ms Susan Cardell after 35 years of distinguished service to the department. Ms Cardell started in the department in 1988 as an admin trainee in the Procedure Office. She was awarded the Australia Day Achievement Medallion in 2016 and is finishing her career as secretary to the parliament's largest committee, the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade. I was honoured to be accompanied by Ms Cardell on a parliamentary delegation overseas to Israel earlier this year, and I can attest to her professionalism and work ethic. On behalf of the House, I also want to thank the members of the Department of Parliamentary Services. We're enormously grateful for everyone who supports us in the building, from our cleaners, security officers to building services, catering, broadcasting and IT support. We appreciate that you only hear from us when things go wrong, but we unreservedly appreciate and acknowledge your service of the building and its occupants. To the press gallery, thank you for what you do in this building as well. To my fellow members of parliament and to all your staff, it's been a massive year. Thank you for your hard work and contribution in this place. Most importantly, thank you for the kindness that you've shown me. We all have such an important role to play in creating good legislation and maintaining Australia's great democracy. To the Deputy Speaker, thank you for your support and good humour throughout the year. Thank you to the Second Deputy Speaker and all members of the Speaker's Panel, who do an excellent job in keeping the chamber running. I also want to give a big shout-out and thanks to the Chief Government Whip and the Chief Opposition Whip and your teams. We simply couldn't do our jobs without you. My final thank you is to the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition, the Leader of the Nationals, the Leader of the House, the Manager of Opposition Business and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. I'm going to miss your texts, our chats and, of course, your interjections—but I know they'll be waiting for me when I return next year! It's been a busy and demanding year for all of us and I hope you all get the opportunity to take a well-deserved break before we come back in 2024. I wish you and your families a very merry and safe Christmas. STATEMENTS 9285 STATEMENTS Personal Explanation 9285 15:40 Mr TEHAN 210911 Wannon Speaker, I'd like to make a personal explanation. The SPEAKER 53517 Do you claim to have been misrepresented? Mr TEHAN 210911 Most egregiously, Mr Speaker. The SPEAKER 53517 You may proceed. Mr TEHAN 210911 During question time, the Prime Minister said that I wasn't available for a legal briefing because I was at the Jericho Cup—a commemorative race meeting which honours those who have fallen in the service of duty during the First World War, including the Charge of the Light Brigade—and he said that I was playing politics. The SPEAKER 53517 The member may resume his seat. You've corrected— An honourable member interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Well, you've confirmed what the Prime Minister said was true, so you need to claim what the misrepresentation was. Mr TEHAN 210911 He said I wasn't available to have that briefing. That briefing hadn't been offered. It was offered Sunday night—Sunday night, after the races. You— The SPEAKER 53517 Resume your seat. The Prime Minister is seeking the call. Order! Personal Explanation 9285 15:41 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler Mr Speaker, I seek leave to give a personal explanation. The SPEAKER 53517 Do you claim to have been misrepresented? Mr ALBANESE R36 I do, Mr Speaker. The offers were made—I go to the member for Wannon's statement—on Sunday night, Monday at 8 am, Monday at 4 pm and ever since. It is now Thursday, at 20 to four, and at no stage has the opposition taken up the opportunity of receiving access to the legal advice. DOCUMENTS 9285 DOCUMENTS Presentation 9285 15:42 Mr BURKE DYW Watson Documents are tabled in accordance with the list circulated to honourable members earlier today. Full details of the documents will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings. BUSINESS 9286 BUSINESS Leave of Absence 9286 15:42 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. Question agreed to. MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE 9286 MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE Labor Government 9286 15:42 The SPEAKER 53517 I have received letters from the honourable member for Bruce and the honourable member for Wannon proposing that definite matters of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion today. As required by standing order 46, I have selected the matter which, in my opinion, is the most urgent and important; that is, the proposal by the honourable member for Wannon, namely: This Government letting down Australians on every front. 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— 15:43 Mr TEHAN 210911 Wannon What will it take for the Prime Minister to sack the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs, and the Minister for Home Affairs? The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The member for Wannon will resume his seat. 15:43 Mr BURKE DYW Watson The message that we were waiting for has arrived, so, under standing order 46(e), I move: That the business of the day be called on. Question agreed to. BILLS 9286 BILLS Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes) Bill 2023 9286

Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes) Bill 2023

Consideration of Senate Message 9286 15:44 The SPEAKER 53517 I understand that it is the wish of the House to consider the amendments together. 15:44 Mr BURKE DYW Watson I move: That the House: (1) acknowledges the position previously taken by the House that the division of a bill in the House in which it did not originate is undesirable; (2) without departing from this position, distinguishes this occasion on the basis that it involves the division of a Government bill in the Senate, at the initiation of the Government, setting it apart from previous occurrences; (3) therefore concurs with this action taken by the Senate on this occasion; and (4) agrees to the amendments made by the Senate. We have a chance right now to close loopholes that have been undermining pay and safety in the workplace. We have an opportunity as a House right now to change the law to criminalise wage theft, to stop companies using labour hire arrangements as a way to cut pay, to change the law to ensure better support for first responders with PTSD, to change the law to protect workers subjected to family and domestic violence from discrimination at work, to change the law to expand the functions of the asbestos agency to also include people affected by silica and to close the loophole in which large businesses claim small business exemptions during insolvency as a way of avoiding redundancy payments. We hear so many times in this House about the challenges people are facing with cost of living. There is no stronger way of acting on cost of living than to improve people's wages. There are no people with a worse wages deal than the people who are having their wages stolen. We should never forgot the 7-Eleven footage of the worker being marched across to the ATM in the corner, having to take out their pay that had just been deposited and hand half their pay to their employer, knowing full well that if they had walked around behind the counter and taken the exact same money out of the till, it would have been the worker who had committed the criminal offence. It should be against the law for a worker to steal from the employer. As of today, we should change the law so it's illegal for an employer to steal from a worker. I want to acknowledge this is in front of us today because of good work that has happened in the Senate involving the Senate crossbench. I want to acknowledge the constructive role played by the Senate crossbench, including the Australian Greens. In particular, I acknowledge the member for Melbourne and Senator Barbara Pocock. I want to acknowledge Senator David Pocock, Senator Jacqui Lambie, Senator Tammy Tyrrell and Senator Lidia Thorpe. All these people have decided to stand on the side of working Australians. I am proud to be part of a government that made a decision that it had been going on too long in this place that every time someone found a loophole that would undermine tax revenue, the parliament would come in with a taxation laws amendment bill to protect the revenue of government. But when a dodgy employer came up with a way to cut the revenue that is meant to go into the bank account of a worker, for too long this parliament has done nothing. Well, that should end today and that should end with this vote that will come today. I say to those opposite: 34 times voting to keep wages down probably ought to be enough. It was only a week ago those opposite went through a series of measures in this bill and said, 'Well, if the Senate agrees, and you can do it right now, what is standing in the way?' Well, I say to those opposite: the Senate agrees we can do it right now. Don't stand in the way. Australian workers have a right to have safer workplaces and we can legislate for that right now. Australian workers have a right to know that we will close the loopholes, in particular the labour hire loophole and wage theft that have been used to hit the pay packets of Australian workers. If those opposite have any integrity when it comes to claiming that they care about issues of cost of living, step one is to give people better pay packets. We have the chance to do that today. I commend the resolution to the House. 15:50 Mr FLETCHER L6B Bradfield This is a very sad day for keeping the cost of living low and creating more jobs. This is a very sad day for all of those who take a risk to create jobs and opportunities, because Australian businesses have been sold out today by the Albanese Labor government. They've been sold out by Senate crossbenchers who have teamed up in a dirty deal with this government to pass highly damaging changes to this country's industrial relations system. Today the unions, the paymasters of this government, are celebrating their Christmas gift while Australians who are grappling with a cost-of-living crisis will foot the bill. The simple fact is that we've seen members of the crossbench side with the government to pass through highly damaging, prescriptive, interventionist, ill-thought-through, productivity-sapping, prosperity-damaging regulation before it has been properly scrutinised through the Senate inquiry process. We've seen something that has been an absolute trademark of the way this government operates. When they know they're doing something grubby, something to be ashamed of and something that will not stand up to scrutiny in the full light of the examination process, they use every trick in the book of parliamentary process to avoid the scrutiny that the Australian people expect their parliament will be able to carry out on their behalf. They have been desperate to rush through this legislation, because they've always wanted to hide the true intent of this legislation. What we've seen from this government is, at every stage, every possible sneaky, tricky mechanism to avoid debate, avoid scrutiny and resort to untruths because they knew they could not, in the court of public opinion, make an objective, fact based case for this set of payback measures. This is dancing to the tune of the union bosses and running through the to-do list that the union bosses have had for years and years, all while the percentage of Australians who are actually members of unions sinks and sinks and sinks. Now only eight per cent of private sector employees are members of a union. But, of course, this government knows who pays its bills and pays the donations. Do not be fooled; this is what this is all about. We know that this government does not have the right priorities. This is a desperate ploy by an embattled government. They're trying to get a headline because they know they've had an absolutely dreadful month. They know that the Australian people are reeling at the shock of nearly 150 hard-core criminals being let out while the two hapless and hopeless ministers yawn and say, 'There's nothing we can do about it.' They've been desperate to bring on some kind of political fix, and so they've done a deal which has led to what we are seeing. The fact is that the costs that are incurred as a result of these legislative changes will ultimately be passed on to 26 million Australians. These are changes that are incompatible with a modern labour market that needs to be flexible, dynamic and rewarding for workers. This will be a particularly devastating blow to this country's mining and resources sector, which is the engine room of the Australian economy. Look at the Labor Party and the Greens. Who do they think pays the taxes and the royalties? Who pays for the roads, schools and hospitals? Why is this government determined to try and damage the industries that are so central to the prosperity of this nation? That is what this legislation is about. The process that has occurred here has been appalling. The time that has been available is, frankly, entirely unsatisfactory. The Australian people would be absolutely shocked if they knew the process this government has embarked on. I seek leave to move the consequent amendments, amendments (1) to (4), as circulated in my name, together. Leave granted. Mr FLETCHER L6B I move: (1) Senate amendment (1), subparagraph (b)(vi), omit the subparagraph, substitute: (va) Part 6 (closing the labour hire loophole); (vi) Part 7 (workplace delegates' rights); (2) Senate amendment (1), subparagraph (b)(xi), after the subparagraph, insert: (xia) Part 14A (amendments relating to mediation and conciliation conference orders made under section 448A of the Fair Work Act 2009); (3) Senate amendment (3) (proposed new table items 7, 8 and 20A in subclause 2(1) of the Bill), omit the table items. (4) Senate amendment (9) (proposed new Divisions 3, 4 and 6 of Part 15 of the Fair Work Act 2009), omit the Divisions. I don't pretend in any way that these amendments make this acceptable, but they're a desperate attempt to try to address some of the most appalling aspects of this legislation. The SPEAKER 53517 Before I call the Prime Minister, the member for Hawke and the member for Hunter are not in their seats. Interjecting while out of your seat is highly disorderly. If that continues, they will be warned. 15:55 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I rise to support the adoption of the Senate amendments and the passing of the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes) Bill 2023. Those opposite, clearly, are going to vote against it. That's what they do. They just don't like workers getting a fair go. They don't like workers being properly paid. What is scary about this bill? What this bill provides for is common sense, decency and fairness. It is stopping companies underpaying workers through the use of labour hire. It is criminalising intentional wage theft. It is introducing a new criminal offence of industrial manslaughter. It is better supporting first responders with PTSD. It is better protecting workers subjected to family and domestic violence from discrimination at work. It is expanding the functions of the Asbestos Safety and Eradication Agency to include silica. It is closing the loophole in which large businesses claim small-business exemptions during insolvency to avoid redundancy payments to people who've lost their jobs. This is one of those times where the Australian interest is quite clear. This is a balanced industrial relations legislation designed to also make sure that it benefits those businesses that are doing the right thing. If you have two companies competing and one of them is using labour hire loopholes in order to drive down their costs and gain an unfair advantage against a company that is sticking to enterprise agreements and paying people proper wages and conditions, then what you do over a very short period of time is get a race to the bottom. We know that that was their conscious policy. A deliberate design feature of the coalition's economic architecture was low wage growth. When we passed the first tranche of legislation, do you remember what they said? November 2022, the Leader of the Opposition: 'Labor's laws will revive the crippling economy-wide strikes.' Maybe I've missed them! Industrial disputes and days lost are down, not up, from when they were in government. The shadow minister, Senator Cash, said it would return Australia to the dark ages, would close down the economy and would leave supermarket shelves bare. The truth is that there are now more than 14 million Australians in jobs for the first time, there are a record number of women in full-time employment, real wages have grown two quarters in a row and there are record participation rates. We have had an unemployment rate with a three in front of it more times since we have been in government than previously since records began, by many times. There have been fewer days lost to industrial disputes. It was 128,000 in their last quarter; the most recent quarter was 10,200. The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Petrie will cease interjecting. Mr ALBANESE R36 We know, of course, that they continue to out themselves about what their views are. Today Senator Cash said: Those on the coalition side of the chamber will always stand with the employers of Australia. There it is: with the employers; against the workers. We recognise that good employers value their workers. That's why this is connected to enterprise bargaining. That's why this will encourage good behaviour. That's why, for all their bleating about Qantas, which is one of the companies that have used labour hire loopholes in order to have people working side by side with the same experience and the same conditions to drive down their wages, we don't hear anything about that now. They will never stand up for working people. That is the truth. Remember when during the election campaign the former Prime Minister said any increase in the minimum wage would wreck the economy? That is what they said. I stood proudly with a $1 coin during that election campaign and proudly said that I didn't want people to fall behind. This legislation is about people getting ahead. Those opposite can't talk about cost of living when they support wages being in decline. We on this side support good employers and we support workers. (Time expired) 16:00 Ms SPENDER 286042 Wentworth by leave—I move amendments (1) to (3) to the Senate amendments, as circulated in my name, together: (1) Senate amendment (1), subparagraph (b)(vi), omit the subparagraph, substitute: (vi) Part 7 (workplace delegates' rights); (2) Senate amendment (3) (proposed new table item 8 in subclause 2(1) of the Bill), omit the table item. (3) Senate amendment (9) (proposed new Division 4 of Part 15 of the Fair Work Act 2009), omit the Division. Firstly, I'd like to talk to the government amendments that have come down from the Senate. I'd like to acknowledge that, finally, the government has decided to split the bill. This has been the desire of many of the crossbench for a period of time because we have recognised that there are many important parts of the bill that support people who need it right now, including to support for those suffering domestic violence and those suffering silicosis, to ensure that people get the correct redundancy payments and also to ensure that people do not have their wages stolen from them. This is absolutely important. I don't fully support, however, the split as it is, and one of the amendments is about that split. I also wish to urge the government, as it considers what it does next with the rest of the bill, to take some positive steps to make it easier to employ people in this country. The government could take some positive steps for business that would also make a huge difference to workers. These are things such as making it easier to have increasing part-time flexibility for part-time workers. The minister and I have spoken time and time again about award simplification because I would still like my niece, when she asks me if she is being paid the right amount, to look that up herself rather than have me spend half an hour on the Fair Work website, trying to work it out for her. There is significant work to be done that would benefit workers and would benefit business, and I urge the government to seek that common ground much further. The specific amendments I am making are pretty simple. The Senate amendments have the effect of shifting most parts of the Fair Work bill into a separate bill which will be considered next year. In addition to the parts being shifted out, I would like to add division 1 of part 7. This division deals with workplace delegates, providing them with additional protections and rights, and imposes a requirement on businesses to provide delegates with paid time off for training. The bill provides a carve-out for small businesses—defined as those with fewer than 15 employees—but otherwise provides no guardrails on the number of delegates or how much paid time off they can receive. The minister has told this House that this would be policed by Fair Work, but many businesses would like to see clear, legislated guardrails such as reasonableness tests given the size of the business. As somebody who has run two different businesses, the idea that someone in my workplace may have an unlimited amount of time off that I am obligated to pay for with absolutely no control or guardrails is concerning. It's nice that Fair Work might police this, but, honestly, when you're trying to run a business, you just want to know pretty simply what you're allowed to do and what you're not allowed to do. I'm afraid that the legislation as drafted does not do that enough for business. We need to make it easy for businesses to do the right thing, because most Australian businesses want to do the right thing but do not want to have to go back to Fair Work and work out what they're meant to be doing. I continue to urge the government to look for simplification so that businesses can know what they are doing. I appreciate that, at the moment, it's not appropriate to move an amendment to impose this test in the House; however, I'm simply asking that the government shift this division into another bill, which means it can be considered as part of the Senate inquiry and appropriate guardrails can be considered and adopted. It is a sensible measure which will provide clarity, support small and medium-size business and not be contrary to the government's policy intentions, so I encourage the government to support it. I also encourage the opposition to support it. I have to say that I sat through the original debate on this bill earlier—I think it was the other week—and I watched the opposition vote time and time again against sensible amendments from the crossbench, including amendments that would remove union powers for delegates and remove the right for unions to go into workplaces without notice. I do not understand the opposition's reasoning on this, when these are the challenges that you as the opposition say that you're trying to preserve for businesses. It is time to work constructively with the whole House to make bills better. 16:05 Mr BURNELL 300129 Spence It gives me great pleasure to rise today and speak on the Senate amendments to the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes) Bill 2023. For the last 27 years I've been a labourer, I've been on the end of a shovel, I've driven trucks and I've worked at sea as a seafarer. Throughout the time of my professional career, I've often been at the coalface when it comes to things like wage theft, and it's a really important day when we see provisions within our industrial relations framework that criminalise wage theft. Far too often during my time as a union official at the Transport Workers Union, I was sitting across a table from unscrupulous employers, both small and large, who had been taking calculated risks and ripping off workers. The problem you have with that is that, for a company, a few dollars doesn't make a lot of difference, but for a worker it means the difference between whether or not you have a roof over your head, the ability to pay the bills and the ability to feed your family. More importantly, it also affects your ability to retire with dignity. That's why making sure that wage theft is criminalised is so important. A vital part of our society is that, if you go and do a fair day's work, you get a fair day's pay. It's not un-Australian to expect that. I note that both Sally McManus, the secretary of the ACTU, and Michele O'Neil, the president of the ACTU, are here in the chamber this afternoon. They are two giants of trade labour movement. They've done a lot of work for the working-class people of this country, and I commend their work on this bill. That gets me to the next point I want to talk about, which is the same job, same pay. I know it's an issue that is very close to member for Hunter's heart as well. There have been quite a few workers from the TWU who have been affected by this, most notably the Qantas workers—the under-wing workers. They saw their enterprise agreements effectively usurped by the former head of the company, Alan Joyce, through unscrupulous practices of outsourcing through labour hire. It is vitally important that we close the loophole whereby a company can actively seek to undermine an agreement that has been negotiated in good faith, as a result of which you have multiple employees—not just one or two, but potentially four or five—working under a wing loading an aeroplane who are all being paid different rates of pay. It's absolutely outrageous that this is acceptable in 2023. That is why this bill is so important. The return of dignity in the workplace is important so you don't have workers being pitted against other workers for turning up and putting in a hard day's work. I note the member for Wentworth made a few comments about delegates' rights earlier. I spent the best part of my time at sea—10 years in the offshore gas and oil sector—on the back deck trying to keep my work colleagues safe, and for most of that time I was a delegate. You become the conduit between the workforce and the bosses. It is vitally important that you have empowered delegates who feel like they have the ability to speak out on behalf of those who don't feel like they have a voice to ensure that they stay safe and to ensure that they have the right to be respected in their workplace. It isn't too much to ask. On the other side are the bosses, who have their own associations that represent their workers. It isn't too much for us to ask for unions to look after our workforce and it's not too much to ask for delegates to be their representatives in the workplace. That ensures an effective conduit on issues of importance. I commend this bill to the House, and I look forward to voting on it in a very short while. 16:10 Mr FLETCHER L6B Bradfield I rise to speak further on the amendments that have been circulated in my name, to explain the effect of the amendments to the House. There has been agreement reached over a number of weeks as to matters that the coalition would be very pleased to support in relation to this industrial legislation: the small business redundancy exemption; changes to the treatment of post-traumatic stress disorder for first responders: changes to the Asbestos Safety and Eradication Agency; and protections against discrimination for those who experience family and domestic violence. The coalition has supported those measures consistently, and we continue to support them. The difficulty that has occurred today is that, at short notice and with, certainly, zero consultation with the opposition, the government has reached agreement with a number of crossbenchers in the Senate to strip those four elements out of the 270 pages of its closing the loopholes bill, which covered a very wide range of matters, putting them into a separate bill. So far, so good; the opposition can absolutely support that. But the government has also put in at least two aspects which are deeply, deeply problematic. The arrangements in relation to the rights of union delegates are deeply problematic and would see small businesses around the country facing extraordinary cost burdens. This would be enormously damaging. Of course, there are the so-called labour hire arrangements. What will happen is very clear from what has been said in the course of this debate and from questions asked by the opposition not being answered adequately. The government tells us that there's a process by which service contractors can establish that they're not caught by the so-called same job, same pay labour hire provisions. But, in fact, it's a cumbersome process. It requires them to engage in a separate legal process and it doesn't deliver the certainty that's claimed. It's far from clear, still, despite the assurances, that companies which are service contractors in the mining sector—or, indeed, from my own experience in the telecommunications sector, where all of the big telcos use outsourced providers to do specialised work such as rolling out networks facilities, building towers and other things—won't find themselves automatically, and by force of law, having the industrial conditions of the company they're contracting to imported so that it applies to all of their workers. That creates enormous uncertainty; it's most undesirable and the opposition's clear view is that that matter should continue to be investigated by the Senate committee. If it can be demonstrated through the Senate committee process that the fears we're articulating, which have been raised with us by many businesses, are groundless, then let that process go through and have that demonstrated. But, for some reason, the government wants to rush it through now. The purpose of these amendments is to make it very clear that, if the coalition has these amendments accepted by the government, then the coalition is in a position to support the amended bill—the 'shrunken down' bill, if I can refer to it in that form, or the 'compressed' bill or the 'reduced bill. So far, it has not been reduced to a form that is to the satisfaction of the coalition, but if it slims, reduces, further by the removal of the measures that we have specified in our amendments then we are ready to support it. We are a constructive opposition engaging in a positive and constructive fashion. We've worked very rapidly, despite the lack of consideration by the government, to be in a position where we can be very clear on what it is we are prepared to work for. But we're certainly not prepared to support measures that would grant extraordinary rights to union delegates—rights of entry that are not shared, frankly, by the police. This is just remarkable. That is what this government is supporting. That would be a disaster for businesses around the country, it would be a disaster for productivity and, ultimately, it's a disaster for all Australians, because real incomes are going down and this kind of productivity-sapping change is going to make that much worse. I offer that explanation to the House of the basis on which we have moved these amendments. 16:15 Mr REPACHOLI 298840 Hunter Fairness and equality are fundamental human rights that we must protect and uphold in our society. Those opposite did nothing. When the bill was coming through, not once did those opposite speak about a worker's rights—not once. For me, coming from a worker's rights background, that is disgraceful, absolutely disgraceful, to not speak about it. All they spoke about was how it was going to hurt the bottom end, how it was going to hurt this and how it was going to hurt that. Remember when they said the sky was going to fall in when we gave a $1 pay rise to the lowest-paid workers in Australia? I remember that. The sky didn't fall in. I know that people in my area of the Hunter got to spend more money, got to look after their family, got to do more things together as a family, because they got that $1-an-hour pay rise. If you ask me, that was an amazing we did as an Albanese Labor government. I've lived and seen firsthand the inequality of labour hire in the workplace. The growing use of labour hire firms by employers has become a scourge, not just in the Hunter but right across Australia. It is a business model that is used by bosses to undercut pay and conditions for workers, and it drives a race to the bottom for employers looking to dodge their responsibilities in their workplace. This is really important reform in order to improve job security, wages and conditions for workers in Australia. When I was working at Mount Thorley Warkworth—as the minister said earlier, when he gave me a glowing review, and thank you for that too—I worked with Gary, Benny, Yatesy and Adam. Three of us were full-time workers with Rio Tinto and two were casual labour-hire workers getting paid $30,000 less than the three of us in that car crew. We were doing the same job and not getting paid the same pay. We were working exactly the same hours, exactly the same rosters—except the difference was they got no holiday pay, they got no sick pay, they got sent home when it rained. They couldn't call up a safety issue, because they had a carrot dangled in front of them the whole time that they're going to have a permanent job one day. They were told, 'Just do the right thing, keep your nose clean, and you'll get a permanent job.' They couldn't call a run-up when it was wet, when it was unsafe going down those ramps with a 600-tonne truck fully loaded with over-burden at 20 kilometres an hour. They couldn't do things like that in the rain. They couldn't pull them up because they were too scared that they would never get a full-time job and actually get what they deserve, which is holiday pay, sick pay and the same pay as full-time workers working next to them. We took holidays together and we got paid; labour hire guys didn't. We took sick leave and we got paid; labour hire guys didn't. This bill will have a life-changing impact on workers in the Hunter and in the mining industry all around Australia. This will be such a big, big part of what is going to come, and this Albanese Labor government is the government that has delivered this. I started on this campaign when I first got selected to run as candidate for the Hunter. I was lucky enough to speak to Tony early on in the piece and 'same job, same pay' was something that we spoke about very heavily on the very first day. Same job, same pay—I went to mine site after mine site, talking to contract labour hire workers. I was there at eight o'clock in the morning and I was there at 10 o'clock at night at some of the sites, telling them that we were going to do this. Now, I'm so proud to be part of an Albanese Labor government that is actually delivering on our commitment. Unlike those opposite, who all say that the worker is no good, that the workers aren't here for the people. Workers are what makes Australia—blue-collar workers, people like me with my background. I'm a blue-collar worker. I left school at 15 to go and become a tradesperson. Mr Pitt 148150 You're the only one over there. Mr REPACHOLI 298840 Remember, all you guys did was talk about the bosses when this legislation came up. Not once was a worker spoken about. Just remember that. I can tell you, everyone on this side remembers that. That's disgraceful, and you guys are the ones who have to live with that. This is very personal to me. It's not very often that I get up here and have a bit of a blow-up like this, but—seriously—you are on the wrong side of history here, and I'm so glad that I'm on the right side of history. Thank you to Leigh Shears from Hunter Workers. We've got Sally and Michele here from the ACTU—I'm glad you are here to see this today, because this is a massive change in the fabric of Australia. Thank you, Minister Burke, for getting this going and putting your whole heart and soul behind this. This is going to make a massive difference to people of the Hunter and to people of Australia. Thank you all. 16:20 Ms CHANEY 300006 Curtin I congratulate the Senate crossbench, particularly Senators Pocock and Lambie, for ensuring that the mammoth Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes) Bill 2023 was split. This bill in front of us now has some positive changes in it. It provides clearer rules around small business insolvencies, simplifies compensation for first responders, expands the Asbestos Safety and Eradication Agency and improves protections for employees subjected to family and domestic violence. I support these elements of the bill as I supported attempts to have these elements passed through the House when they came here as private senators' bills. But I don't want to see schedule 1 part 7, expanding union powers, in this bill that we're passing today. The government knows that this part of the bill is controversial. When we debated the omnibus bill in the House, I spoke and proposed amendments to ensure that the bill goes no further than closing loopholes. In my second reading speech, I noted that there were some instances in which the expansion of union powers went further than required to close a loophole, and an example of this has reappeared in the bill. By including division 2 of part 7, this bill introduces a series of new rights for union delegates employed in workplaces. I note that there's no limit on the number of union delegates permitted within a workplace. Additional benefits for union delegates include uncapped time off for union training; making employers engage with delegates on any matter they wish to raise, even when the matters are fanciful or unrepresentative of the priorities of the majority of employees on site; allowing unions to demand their delegates be given subsidised access to various benefits; and inserting union delegate terms into all modern awards and agreements. In effect, these provisions give union delegates preferential treatment over other employees. The case has not been made for these changes. They've not been backed by any identified problem to be solved or by specific difficulties experienced by delegates which could not be addressed by working with employers or using the enterprise bargaining system. That's why I support the member for Wentworth's amendment to limit these increased union powers. I encourage the coalition to support that amendment, too, and act according to principle, not according to politicking. I'm also very concerned about the inclusion of part 6, relating to labour hire. The government says it's closing a loophole that allows business to engage labour hire providers in order to save costs by paying these contractors less than employees being paid to do the same job. I agree that this is a bad practice. Throughout all our briefings and discussions, it seemed clear that this change was aimed at certain businesses and labour hire companies. I'm glad to see that service contractors have now been excluded from this change, which I spoke about a few weeks ago, although the process is still cumbersome and difficult. I still have concerns about the additional complexity created by this, and the potential impact on employers beyond the two or three employers at which the government says this legislation is aimed. These changes still add complexity to an already complex framework. The additional admin burden for labour hire and host employers, as they try to wade through EBAs and previous agreements to find the correct rate of pay, adds yet another degree of difficulty. There's also a risk that this change affects competitiveness and productivity, as pointed out by numerous business and industry groups today. I'm especially concerned for my state of Western Australia and the potential impact on the mining industry. I would prefer to wait until after the Senate inquiry is complete to debate these changes. They are significant and they deserve proper scrutiny. Pushing this change through prior to the Senate inquiry doesn't send the right message about the government's willingness to hear reasonable voices and fully understand the consequences of these big changes. Removing the parts of the bill relating to delegate rights and labour hire, as per the coalition's amendment, would address my concerns and allow me to vote in favour of this bill, but the combination of overreach, driven by union interests, and lack of scrutiny by the committee process in relation to labour hire means that, despite being supportive of some parts of the bill, I'm not able to support it in its entirety in its current form. 16:24 Dr GARLAND 295588 Chisholm These laws have been a long time coming. Workers around the country have been fighting for the best part of a decade to ensure that a lot of these loopholes are closed, including labour hire workers. At this point, I really want to thank all the workers across Australia, the union delegates, the union members, the union leadership, the ACTU and all other trades and labour councils across the country for the hard work, vision and courage they've been possessed of to ensure that these changes are finally going to be made law. The pendulum has swung too far in one direction. Our government is about getting things back where they should be, to make sure that our country is a fair one for workers. As a member of the Australian Labor Party, I am absolutely unapologetic of the fact that I stand with workers right across Australia. I urge those opposite to do the same. I've met too many people who have suffered the pain of insecure work. I spoke about my own experience of insecure work in my very first speech in this place. It devastates communities. It's not just about individual lives. When people don't have a secure job, they cannot make that commitment to the local sporting group. They cannot participate in the parents and friends associations. They can't make plans. They can't think of what a good life for them and their families might look like. It holds people back. Making sure that we're taking action here to ensure that labour hire workers are treated the same as the people they work next to every single day in the workplace will go a long way in giving certainty to those people. I'm really proud to stand with them today. I've met too many workers, particularly young, migrant and women workers, who have experienced wage theft. We talk in this place of the cost-of-living crisis. We hear, frankly, ridiculous MPIs day after day in this place about the cost-of-living crisis. Now, given the opportunity for people to be paid their lawful wages and for consequences to follow when that doesn't happen, those opposite are voting no. We're talking about people who are paid $4 an hour, for goodness sake. We're talking about making that a crime. Opposition members interjecting— Dr GARLAND 295588 Frankly, I can't believe those opposite are interjecting when we're talking about some of the poorest people in this country. We're talking about people who are forced to live in shipping containers in workplaces. We're talking about people who experience wage theft and have been too afraid to come forward and speak about it, because they fear nothing would be done, and who have put up with horrendous things, like sexual assault. I have met these workers. I urge those opposite to speak to those workers too. I do not understand how anyone in good conscience could think of not supporting this legislation before us today. I really thank those people in the other place who have been constructive, who want to see a better Australia for everyone. When we were elected, we said that it was a better future for everyone; that we would leave no-one behind. The Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes) Bill 2023 goes a long way to making sure that no-one is left behind, that people who work alongside one another are treated the same, and that those who have experienced some of the most horrendous treatment at work and wage theft now have a course to correct that. This will act as a disincentive to employers who seek to do the wrong thing. What we're talking about here is simply not rewarding bad behaviour. We shouldn't be encouraging employers to do these things. There are plenty of employers around the country who do the right thing every day. We're making a criminal offence of industrial manslaughter. I would have thought everyone in this place would think that any worker who goes to work should come home safely and alive, and that if that doesn't happen, if their employer does not have a sufficiently safe workplace for people, then that should be a crime. I simply am astounded that, given this opportunity to build better workplaces, safer workplaces and stronger communities, those opposite have yet again said no. As I said at the outset, I thank every worker across Australia who, for many, many years, has been working hard to this point. I am proud to stand with them today and every day. 16:30 Mr BURKE DYW Watson It being 4.30, I move: That the question be now put. The SPEAKER 53517 The question is that the question be put.  

The House divided. [16:34]
(The Speaker—Hon. Milton Dick)

 73 AYES Albanese, A. N. Aly, A. Ananda-Rajah, M. Bandt, A. P. Bates, S. J. Burke, A. S. Burnell, M. P. 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. Georganas, S. 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. 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'Neil, C. E. Payne, A. E. Perrett, G. D. Phillips, F. E. Plibersek, T. J. Rae, S. T. Reid, G. J. Repacholi, D. P. Rishworth, A. L. Roberts, T. G. Rowland, M. A. Ryan, J. C. Scrymgour, M. R. Shorten, W. R. Sitou, S. Smith, D. P. B. (Teller) Stanley, A. M. (Teller) Swanson, M. J. Templeman, S. R. Thwaites, K. L. Vamvakinou, M. Watson-Brown, E. Watts, T. G. Wells, A. S. Wilkie, A. D. Wilson, J. H. Zappia, A. 55 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. Coleman, D. B. Conaghan, P. J. Coulton, M. M. (Teller) Daniel, Z. Entsch, W. G. Gee, A. R. Goodenough, I. R. Haines, H. M. Hamilton, G. R. Hastie, A. W. Hawke, A. G. Howarth, L. R. Joyce, B. T. G. Ley, S. P. Littleproud, D. Marino, N. B. McCormack, M. F. McIntosh, M. I. McKenzie, Z. A. O'Brien, L. S. Pasin, A. Pearce, G. B. Pike, H. J. Pitt, K. J. Price, M. L. Ramsey, R. E. (Teller) Ryan, M. M. 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. van Manen, A. J. Violi, A. A. Wallace, A. B. Ware, J. L. Webster, A. E. Willcox, A. J. Wolahan, K. Wood, J. P. Young, T. J. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

 16:42 The SPEAKER 53517 The question is that the amendments moved by the honourable member for Wentworth be agreed to.  

The House divided. [16:42]
(The Speaker—Hon. Milton Dick)

9 AYES Chaney, K. E. Daniel, Z. Gee, A. R. Haines, H. M. Ryan, M. M. Sharkie, R. C. C. Spender, A. M. (Teller) Steggall, Z. Tink, K. J. 91 NOES Albanese, A. N. Aly, A. Ananda-Rajah, M. Andrews, K. L. Bandt, A. P. Bates, S. J. Boyce, C. E. Broadbent, R. E. Burke, A. S. Burnell, M. P. 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. Coleman, D. B. 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. Georganas, S. Gorman, P. Gosling, L. J. Hill, J. C. Husic, E. N. Jones, S. P. Joyce, B. T. G. 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. Ley, S. P. Marino, N. B. Mascarenhas, Z. F. A. McBain, K. L. McBride, E. M. McCormack, M. F. McKenzie, Z. A. Miller-Frost, L. J. Mitchell, B. K. Mulino, D. Neumann, S. K. O'Brien, L. S. Payne, A. E. Pearce, G. B. 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) Sukkar, M. S. Swanson, M. J. Taylor, A. J. Tehan, D. T. Templeman, S. R. Thwaites, K. L. Vamvakinou, M. Ware, J. L. Watson-Brown, E. Watts, T. G. Webster, A. E. Wells, A. S. Wilkie, A. D. Willcox, A. J. Wilson, J. H. Wolahan, K. Wood, J. P. Young, T. J. Zappia, A. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

16:44 The SPEAKER 53517 The question is the amendments moved by Mr Fletcher be agreed to.  

The House divided. [16:46]
(The Speaker—Hon. Mr Dick)

48 AYES Andrews, K. L. Archer, B. K. Bell, A. M. Birrell, S. J. Boyce, C. E. Broadbent, R. E. Buchholz, S. Chaney, K. E. Chester, D. J. Coleman, D. B. Conaghan, P. J. Coulton, M. M. (Teller) Daniel, Z. Entsch, W. G. Gee, A. R. Haines, H. M. Hamilton, G. R. Howarth, L. R. Joyce, B. T. G. Ley, S. P. Marino, N. B. McCormack, M. F. McIntosh, M. I. McKenzie, Z. A. O'Brien, L. S. Pasin, A. Pearce, G. B. Pitt, K. J. Price, M. L. Ramsey, R. E. (Teller) Ryan, M. M. 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. van Manen, A. J. Wallace, A. B. Ware, J. L. Webster, A. E. Willcox, A. J. Wolahan, K. Wood, J. P. Young, T. J. 72 NOES Albanese, A. N. Aly, A. Ananda-Rajah, M. Bandt, A. P. Bates, S. J. Burke, A. S. Burnell, M. P. 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. Georganas, S. 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. 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. Payne, A. E. Perrett, G. D. Phillips, F. E. Plibersek, T. J. Rae, S. T. Reid, G. J. Repacholi, D. P. Rishworth, A. L. Roberts, T. G. Rowland, M. A. Ryan, J. C. Scrymgour, M. R. Shorten, W. R. Sitou, S. Smith, D. P. B. (Teller) Stanley, A. M. (Teller) Swanson, M. J. Templeman, S. R. Thwaites, K. L. Vamvakinou, M. Watson-Brown, E. Watts, T. G. Wells, A. S. Wilkie, A. D. Wilson, J. H. Zappia, A. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

 16:54 The SPEAKER 53517 The question is that the motion be agreed to.  

The House divided. [16:54]
(The Speaker—Hon. Milton Dick)

74 AYES Albanese, A. N. Aly, A. Ananda-Rajah, M. Bandt, A. P. Bates, S. J. Burke, A. S. Burnell, M. P. 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. Daniel, Z. Doyle, M. J. J. Dreyfus, M. A. Elliot, M. J. Fernando, C. Freelander, M. R. Garland, C. M. L. Georganas, S. 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. 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. 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) Steggall, Z. Swanson, M. J. Templeman, S. R. Thwaites, K. L. Vamvakinou, M. 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. Chaney, K. E. Chester, D. J. Coleman, D. B. Conaghan, P. J. Coulton, M. M. (Teller) Entsch, W. G. Gee, A. R. Goodenough, I. R. Haines, H. M. Hamilton, G. R. Hastie, A. W. Hawke, A. G. Howarth, L. R. Joyce, B. T. G. Ley, S. P. Marino, N. B. McCormack, M. F. McIntosh, M. I. McKenzie, Z. A. O'Brien, L. S. Pasin, A. Pearce, G. B. Pike, H. J. Pitt, K. J. Price, M. L. Ramsey, R. E. (Teller) Ryan, M. M. Sharkie, R. C. C. Spender, A. M. Stevens, J. Sukkar, M. S. Taylor, A. J. Tehan, D. T. Thompson, P. Tink, K. J. van Manen, A. J. Violi, A. A. Wallace, A. B. Ware, J. L. Webster, A. E. Willcox, A. J. Wolahan, K. Wood, J. P. Young, T. J. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

16:55 Mr BURKE DYW Watson I move: That the house do now adjourn. The SPEAKER 53517 The House stands adjourned until Tuesday 6 February 2024. House adjourned at 16:56 The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Payne ) took the chair at 09:30.

Thursday, 7 December 2023

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Payne ) took the chair at 09:30.

 

CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS 9304 CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS Business Standards 9304 09:30 Dr RYAN 297660 Kooyong Coles used to run ads about how you could feed a family of four for under $10. Let's have a look at what you can buy for $10 at Coles these days: a single bag of Coles branded grated cheese, a box of Nutri-Grain, two packets of chips or a jar of Nutella and some Helgas bread. I'm not sure my kids would be too happy with a bowl of grated cheese for dinner. The supermarkets say that this is what happens in a cost-of-living crisis, but they are wrong. Coles and Woolies have increased their prices by about 10 per cent in the last 12 months while giving themselves record profits—there's $1.1 billion for Coles this year and $1.6 billion for Woolies. While everyone else is struggling, Coles and Woolworths are making more money. They've made their shareholders happy at the expense of us basket holders. For many of my constituents, the weekly trip to the shops has become a source of anxiety. I see them picking up an item and then putting it back on the shelf and tallying up items as they go to make sure that they're not going to be over budget when they get to the check-out. They're going without fresh meat, vegetables and fruit, unless there's a decent special. They're going in to pick up a few things but coming out having spent $40. They're putting off going to the supermarket until just before it closes in the hope that there'll be something on the bargain shelf. This feels wrong. It shouldn't be like this in this country. Coles and Woolies own two-thirds of the supermarket sector nationally. In some parts of Australia they own 90 per cent of the sector. This is a competition crisis as much as it is a cost-of-living crisis. The two supermarkets can push prices up because they know that we have to shop with them. In other countries, supermarkets have been threatened with price controls, financial penalties or even being forced to open their wholesale operations to supply independent grocers. We need more independent grocers in Australia again. We need to address this duopoly. We should give the ACCC greater powers to crack down on price gouging in the supermarket sector. If the supermarkets won't keep their prices down after that, we should explore the penalties and controls that other countries have put in place. Murphy, Ms Peta Jan 9304 09:33 Ms RISHWORTH HWA Kingston I want to add my words to the condolence motion for Peta Murphy, the member for Dunkley. Of course, my first comments will be to offer my sincere condolences to Peta's husband, Rod; her mum and dad, Jan and Bob; and her sisters, Jodi and Penni. With the passing of Peta, so many people in our community and in our country have lost a role model, someone to look up to, someone to aspire to be like. Of course, so many people in this place, including me, have lost a dear friend. I first met Peta when she was working for Brendan O'Connor. When she was in that role, I was first struck by her enormous tenacity, no-nonsense approach and desire just to get things done. That attitude really prevailed as she ran and didn't win her first attempt at the seat of Dunkley. But she got up, knew what she wanted to do, ran again and was successful. That passion and commitment to her community was always on display every time I visited her, whether it was at the Langwarrin Skatepark, where she'd run a campaign to upgrade it—it was pretty dire when we saw it, and that was a wonderful campaign with the community to upgrade the skatepark—or it was at the Lyrebird Community Centre. It was like she was part of that community centre when she visited. She knew everyone there and fought so tirelessly for that community centre. And when we visited the Carrum Downs Early Learning Centre she, again, was really part of the community there and so loved. Of course, she came to this place with that same no-nonsense attitude, that tenacity, that desire and that impatience to get things done. She applied her passion and also her deep intellect to her work here in getting good outcomes for Australia, as well as for the community. She was always thinking about people that needed our help, people that needed our assistance, people that needed government, and she was always thinking of ways to contribute to that. Her most recent work was on the House of Representatives gambling inquiry, and, when you look back at those hearings, she was always standing up, talking and asking questions on behalf of people that had been harmed by online gambling. She was a true inspiration to many of us and a dear friend to me. She will be deeply missed by so many people—a life taken too soon. Truro Bypass 9304 09:36 Mr PASIN 240756 Barker I rise to express my disappointment, and the disappointment of the wider South Australian community, regarding the decision by those opposite, particularly Minister Catherine King, to cut funding for the Truro Bypass. The Truro Bypass is easily the most significant infrastructure project outside of those that are currently funded in South Australia. It's a critical component of South Australia's and the nation's freight task going forward. Truro is a small community on the Sturt Highway north of Adelaide, but this project is about much more than just the people of Truro. In fact, it's about much more than the people who live, work and commute along the Sturt Highway corridor. It's critical to all South Australians, particularly those who live in metropolitan Adelaide. Why do I say that? The South Eastern Freeway connects Adelaide to Melbourne via the Dukes Highway in the south-east of South Australia, and a significant—and I mean significant—amount of heavy-vehicle freight traverses that road into Adelaide. These heavy vehicles pull themselves up the Adelaide Hills and down the Heysen Tunnels and are presented at the intersection of Cross Road and Portrush Road. Seventy per cent of these trucks are headed to Port Adelaide, and they're going right through the middle of Adelaide. It's the only metropolitan capital in this country where we have heavy freight travelling right through the city. It goes past dozens of primary and high schools. It interchanges with traffic and with people dropping kids off to school and travelling otherwise. We as a state know that we need to establish the greater Adelaide freight plan to get trucks out of Adelaide. Seventy per cent of them will be able to go via the greater Adelaide freight route, via the bypass at Truro, into Port Adelaide, travelling at 100 kilometres per hour the whole way and providing a productivity and safety dividend. But you can't do that unless you fund the Truro freight route. It's the very first component of the greater freight plan, and those opposite have turned their backs on South Australians. The member for Boothby, I'm sure, is quietly filthy. The member for Sturt is campaigning with me and I've got to say that the member for Mayo's not happy either. We're going to make those opposite understand how damaging this decision is for them politically and for our state and nation. Northern Australia 9305 09:39 Mr GOSLING 245392 Solomon Last week, the report of the Joint Select Committee on Northern Australia's inquiry into Northern Australia workforce development was tabled by the member for Lingiari, my friend from the Territory, and by fellow committee members. I want to congratulate Marion on that report and just underscore that Australia depends on the north for mining, for agriculture, for the pastoral industries and most importantly for our defence and security. Tourists are drawn to the wild beauty of the region and its rich cultural heritage going back many tens of thousands of years. But the north also has longstanding development challenges. They include a lack of access to child care and health care, to affordable flights—to transport, full stop—and there is limited community infrastructure. The committee received extensive evidence that housing is the No. 1 issue affecting workforce development across northern Australia. Severe overcrowding is affecting the ability of First Nations people and communities to engage in employment and to engage in the economy. Tackling northern Australia's housing issue is therefore integral to furthering the north's workforce development. Dr Andrew Taylor, a demographer at Charles Darwin University, told the committee: … northern Australia is unfortunately becoming less favoured as a migration destination for people who leave other states and territories. There are six recommendations in the report to tackle this challenge: (1) that the Australian government establish a review into the distribution formula of the federal assistance grants; (2) that the Australian government establish a review into current tax incentives to encourage people to live in northern Australia; (3) that the Australian government consider ways to provide incentives for appropriate modular homes to be built to address the immediate housing crisis in northern Australia; (4) that the Australian government develop a northern Australia focused regional infrastructure strategy with state, territory and local governments; (5) that the Australian government, in conjunction with states and territories, explore options for a regional infrastructure fund; and (6) that the Australian government consider ways to fund and support long-term projects that train and employ local First Nations people on housing construction and maintenance projects in the north—which is essential and which gets talked about decade after decade and must finally start to happen. I commend the report of the committee to the House. It will undoubtedly contribute to our efforts in the north to overcome the geographic narcissism that can pervade this place. Tasmania: Salmon Farming Industry 9305 09:42 Mr PEARCE 282306 Braddon The minister of the environment, Tanya Plibersek, recently announced that she will re-examine a two-decade-old decision to grant approval for salmon farming in Macquarie Harbour in Strahan on Tasmania's rugged west coast. This is setting a very dangerous precedent. It's a one-off decision that will basically evolve into a shameless capitulation, backing environmental activists over science. More broadly, Minister Plibersek has willingly pushed open the door and turned on the green light to every activist organisation and their playbook, a playbook that has pages filled with one intent—that is, to shut down Tasmania's world's-best-practice salmon industry. I was on the west coast on Tuesday, and I want to thank Tom and Linton from Petuna Aquaculture and Huon Aquaculture for taking me out onto the harbour and updating me on what is really happening. Let's have a look at that. These are the facts. Macquarie Harbour is Australia's second-largest harbour—six times larger than Sydney Harbour—at 315 square kilometres, with an average depth of 15 to 20 metres. Salmon farming takes up around 2.13 per cent of that 315 square kilometres. If you haven't been there and you're just gleaning your information from the green-activist handbook, you would assume that fish pens take up the whole harbour. Well, it's not the case. It's not true. Salmon farming has one of the lowest environmental impacts of any protein production anywhere in the world. It's much less than beef production—and that's coming from me, a beef farmer. Making this decision under the guise of protecting the maugean skate has absolutely no scientific basis. At best, Minister Plibersek is kowtowing to some loose, unsubstantiated correlation. The truth is that there's absolutely no evidence of a causal link between salmon farming and the reduction in skate numbers in Macquarie Harbour. Yes, conservation of the skate must be a priority, and we must look after our environment, but this mustn't be done on a whim and as a knee-jerk reaction. The minister must give appropriate time for the conservation action plan to deliver some meaningful data that we can move forward with. Unlike Labor, the coalition actively invests in building a stronger and more prosperous west coast because we understand the region and its people. Population doesn't necessarily equate to productivity. The west coast delivers far above its fair share of support, given the wealth it creates for the state. I call on Minister Plibersek to actually visit Macquarie Harbour and to have a look at what's really going on on the ground. She needs to stop blatantly listening to the environmental activists and back the real people on the ground—the ones with a genuine interest and desire to support the west coast and its crucial industry. Macarthur Electorate: Christmas Donations, Road Safety 9306 09:45 Dr FREELANDER 265979 Macarthur Each year my office receives donated gifts and toys from the Macarthur community to be distributed to local children and their families doing it tough at Christmas time. This year we've partnered with two wonderful local charity groups, Kids of Macarthur Health Foundation and Uniting Macarthur, both of which provide tremendous community services and are well-placed to act as the community's Santas. So far we've received many gifts and toys that would make any boy or girl in the Macarthur region smile, from babies to young adolescents. I'd like to particularly thank the following Macarthur residents for their donations to my office: the Millar family, the Sporne family, the Lowry family, the Steele family, the Nissiotis family, the Legge family and the St John family. I would also like to give special mention to the Pelican Pre-School & Long Day Care centre in Blair Athol. The wonderful staff, families and, of course, kids of Pelican preschool ran their own toy drive to supplement my office's and contributed a huge number of gifts and toys to my office for young people in Macarthur. I'm very grateful for their continued support. They've helped make Christmas that little bit better for many Macarthur households who are doing it tough this Christmas time. I again thank the Macarthur community for their continued generosity this holiday season; they always give and they give incredibly generously. I'm very grateful for their support and that they are putting the less fortunate first for once. I'm sure that, come Christmas Day, together we will have made many Macarthur households and many Macarthur kids that little bit happier. Finally, I would like to make a plea to everyone in our community this year. We've had a terrible increase in our road toll statistics. Unfortunately, many more people have died on our roads around Australia this year than in previous years. The reasons for this are unclear. One particular problem is that we don't collect adequate data to give us information about our road tolls. That's something that needs to happen on a national basis so we can better understand the causes of many of these fatalities. It's obvious to me that many things are happening, like the size of vehicles increasing; the huge utility vehicles don't leave much room for error, and, if you're hit by one of them, very often the result is fatal. In my own community, we have terrible roads, like Appin Road, that really urgently need upgrading. This could be one of the causes. I just want to make a plea to everyone in our community to drive defensively, drive safely, think of other people on the roads and, please, try to stay safe this Christmas and holiday time, because it is urgent. We don't want people dying on our roads like has been happening in the last year and we must do something about it. Cost of Living 9306 09:48 Mr PIKE 300120 Bowman Many households within the Redlands community are facing a challenging Christmas. Hardworking locals will be digging deep into their savings, working extra hours, taking on extra jobs and making sacrifices in their household budgets to try to deliver a memorable Christmas for their loved ones. The sad economic reality is that Australians are suffering the worst fall in real disposable income in the OECD, collapsing productivity and an economy that is going backwards on a per-person basis. Every day, Australians are paying the cost of the Albanese government's failure to address the rising cost of living. The ABS tells us that, over the last year, the cost of food has gone up across Australia by 8.2 per cent, the cost of housing has gone up by 10.4 per cent, the cost of electricity has gone up by 18.2 per cent and the cost of fuel has gone up 8.6 per cent. With wages unable to keep up with these rising costs, it will be a stark Christmas for many. With homegrown inflation still challenging our economy and no effective answers from the government, the RBA is forced to continue to squeeze households. The Reserve Bank's decision to hold interest rates at 4.35 per cent is of cold comfort for the hardworking Redlanders who are struggling to pay their mortgages this Christmas. The Reserve Bank is flagging that they are expecting inflation to remain a challenge until the end of 2025, so we know that these mortgage pressures will be here long after the lights and decorations are packed away. The Salvation Army has told us that 62 per cent of Australians are more stressed about their finances this year compared to last year—that's a 10 per cent increase—and that, of all the Australians reaching out to charities, almost half are doing so for the first time. Within my electorate, the Champion Support Services in Thornlands has reported a threefold increase in demand for their food services. It's clear that many are finding it tough this Christmas. I want to take this opportunity to thank all the organisations like Champion Support Services within Redland who are working to make Christmas a little easier for local families. I want to mention the work being undertaken by Redland Community Centre's Christmas Appeal. This community effort is driven by the belief that no child should be left out during this time of joy and no family should bear the burden of hardship alone. STAR Community Services' Secret Santa project has also become a Redland Christmas tradition. Last year this initiative collected more than 2½ thousand gifts and 6,200 food and personal items through community donations, and packaged them into 761 hampers that were presented to local seniors who may be spending Christmas alone. I'm hearing that they may well surpass those numbers this year. I want to thank the community for getting behind these important initiatives. Your generosity will make a real difference to local Redland families this Christmas. Valedictory 9307 09:51 Ms DOYLE 299962 Aston I rise to speak and reflect on this year and to thank everyone for all the support they've given me. As this is the last day before we break for Christmas, I thought it would be appropriate that I take this opportunity to deliver a special Christmas message to my electorate of Aston. Christmas means different things to the various cohorts in our diverse nation. For some it's a time to party and let your hair down after a long year and relax. For others it's a time for a bit of retail therapy and a chance to grab a bargain in the post-Christmas sales. But for many it's a time for great stress and financial hardship as they try to make sure that their kids aren't the ones on their street who miss out. Some people don't celebrate, acknowledge or recognise Christmas at all, or they observe a different religious celebration. That's how it is in our beautiful, diverse country. I'd like to say thank you to the constituents of Aston. Thank you so much for your kindness throughout 2023 and for electing me to this wonderful place in April. I truly appreciate it. It was a pleasure to see some of you in person when I was out and about throughout the year, and I hope to see you again soon, in the future. It has been a great year. However, I am looking forward to spending some time with my family, whom I have not spent much time with over the past few months, it has to be said. Thank you to the members in this place and senators in the other place for spending time with me and helping me navigate through the halls of this place. It takes a bit of getting used to. I had a lot of learning to do when I was first sworn in, and I am still learning as I go. I would like to thank everyone for their patience and for supporting me in this journey. I am very grateful to be surrounded by such supportive people and staff. I'd also like to pay many respects to the late Peta Murphy, whom I was just getting to know. She helped me so much. I will miss her very much. I'd also like to take this time to show appreciation to all my volunteers who have all worked tirelessly and earnestly this year. Thank you for all that you do for me. I couldn't have gotten this far without you. I hope you enjoyed the Christmas party that I hosted in November, and I can't wait to get together again for another fun celebration. I say to my constituents in Aston: as your federal Labor member and your voice in the federal government, I will work with our community each and every day to get things done, to deliver for you and to hear from you about what matters most. To those who celebrate: have a great Christmas and a fantastic new year, and I will see you are back in next year for another terrific year. Enjoy the holiday season and stay safe. Hinkler Electorate: Small Business 9308 09:54 Mr PITT 148150 Hinkler As we come into Christmas, I'd encourage everyone in the Hinkler electorate to shop local. I went to my staff and said, 'If you're going to buy something for your special someone, where might you go?' I must say it's a very broad range. Nana's Pantry in Bundaberg with all of the things you would expect. Who could not buy something from a shop called Nana's? You can get everything from an air compressor to industrial paint at JA Toft & Co. Red Shed Seafood: get down and get your local seafood, your local prawns, while you can. One of my personal favourites in Childers is Bucks Butcher Shoppe. At Bucks you can get a duck. Bucks ducks, good luck. Put them in your truck; they're that big you'll need one to take it away with you. There is Book Boutique Bundaberg, where you can also purchase vinyl records, and they have quite a good selection. There's Jake's Candy for those with a sweet tooth, and for my southern constituents—and there's a bit of a theme here—get out and try some minigolf. We've got a lot of minigolf in Hervey Bay. It's a perfect opportunity. Pie and Pastry Paradise is a well-known local shop where you can buy all the sweet things you might need for your Christmas lunch, and of course, there's the Hervey Bay Golf Driving Range. Don't forget to utilise our local tourism facilities. We have Fraser Island, which happens to be in the member for Wide Bay's electorate, Llew O'Brien, but you launch out of my electorate to get there. You can get on the barge to Fraser Island from down at the point, on your way from River Heads, or maybe you want to get on a jet ski. That's another option you could take, and I suggest it, if you have the opportunity. So try to spend your money locally. We've got lots of local businesses who need your support. Finally, I want to congratulate SSS Strawberries. This is owned by the Dang family, a local farming organisation. It stands for seven successful siblings. There are seven of them, brothers and sisters, would you believe. They grow 300 acres of strawberries. They employ 300 staff, and they've just opened a brand-new freeze dryer factory in Bundaberg. They can now freeze dry strawberries. So all their excess stock and stock that may not be quite perfect can now be turned into freeze dried strawberries. They can do up to three tonnes a day. Three thousand kilograms is a lot of strawberries, I've got to say. They are a well-known local family. They are significant contributors, particularly to charity, and they do a fabulous job. I want to congratulate them on this new facility in Bundaberg. Everybody knows SSS Strawberries. It's on the turnoff of Rosedale Road. If I could briefly tell a secret, it's actually in the member for Flynn's electorate but just! It's just over the boundary, so they do spend a lot of money in my electorate . They employ a lot of people, they've got a wonderful facility, they've got a great story and they're a strong part of the Vietnamese community. And I congratulate them again on investing in our local region and manufacturing. Health Care 9308 09:57 Ms LAWRENCE 299150 Hasluck Labor will strengthen Medicare. That's a line that we shouted loudly and often during the election campaign. We knew then, before coming to government, that a decade of Liberal neglect had started coming home to roost. Pressure was already mounting on household budgets in our communities. We knew then that access to GPs and the affordability of medical treatment were becoming a more significant burden on the weekly budget. We knew then that people were forgoing doctors and appointments and medicines in order to pay for housing, food and fuel. We knew it was unacceptable then, which is why, when we were elected to government, we got to work to fix these issues. We recognised that the cost of medicines can be a barrier to people getting and staying healthy, so we added more medicines to the PBS for various cancers, neuromuscular diseases, kidney diseases and multiple sclerosis to name a few. These medicines can run into the many hundreds of thousands of dollars per course, and we've capped them at $30 per script. In fact, we've capped all PBS medicines at $30 per script, down from $42.40, the single biggest reduction since the PBS was introduced by the Curtin and Chifley Labor governments in the 1940s. This measure alone has saved people in my electorate of Hasluck more than $1.6 million since it was introduced on 1 January this year. This week I had the pleasure of meeting with Sally and Damien from the North Street Medical Centre on Great Northern Highway, in Midland, which is the location of Hasluck's first Medicare urgent care clinic. Urgent care clinics are a game-changing Medicare investment. They'll be open for extended hours seven days a week and be fully bulk billed. All you need is a Medicare card. Medicare clinics will ease the pressure on the hospital system and give families more options to see a GP or a nurse when they need urgent but not life-threatening care. More than 35 per cent of presentations to the St John of God emergency department in Midland are for non-urgent or semi-urgent care. I've spoken to so many people who've had long waits in emergency with a child or family member simply because that was the only option available locally. I can't overstate how much of a difference this clinic is going to make in our community, providing that much-needed affordable and urgent access to health care. Having the urgent care clinic located on the north side of Midland, amongst the residential streets, provides an extra level of accessibility. And when you pair the delivery of this commitment with the entire suite of Medicare and health sector investments made by this government, you start to see a pattern emerging, an overarching vision for more accessible and affordable health care in Australia. Labor understands health. Labor is the party of Medicare, and only Labor invests in Medicare. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 282237 In accordance with standing order 193, the time for members' constituency statements has concluded. BILLS 9309 BILLS Treasury Laws Amendment (Tax Accountability and Fairness) Bill 2023 9309

Treasury Laws Amendment (Tax Accountability and Fairness) Bill 2023

Second Reading 9309 10:00 Dr RYAN 297660 Kooyong The Treasury Laws Amendment (Tax Accountability and Fairness) Bill 2023 does several things. In September, the Treasury released a two-year roadmap for reform of our tax ecosystem. This bill is part of that reform, the catalyst for which was the PwC tax leaks scandal. In May this year we learnt that a consultancy firm to the government, PwC, had used information gained from its consultancy to promote tax avoidance and evasion. Not only did it fail to report a serious breach of confidentiality, despite having a legal obligation to do so, it then fought tooth and nail, repeatedly, to claim legal professional privilege to withhold information during tax audits. The scandal exposed serious and apparently systemic problems not just in PwC, where more than 50 staff members were directly involved or had knowledge of this leak, but also in the corporate behaviour of the companies implicated in this scheme. This bill therefore expands the promoter penalty regimes currently used to deter the promotion of tax avoidance and evasion schemes by including those which fall within the diverted profits tax provisions or the multinational anti-avoidance law. It increases the maximum penalties applicable under the promoted penalty regime to levels which will now be significant. They won't just represent the cost of doing business and be brushed off by those who profit from tax exploitation schemes. The bill prolongs the period during which the commissioner can take action against an entity, and it extends the scope of the promoter penalty laws to apply to all ATO rulings. It extends at the whistleblower protection to eligible whistleblowers who make disclosures to the Tax Practitioners Board and permits disclosures to people who may assist whistleblowers, such as psychologists or medical practitioners, or those who might be prescribed by future regulations such as professional associations. The bill introduces reforms relating to the operation and powers of the Tax Practitioners Board. It extends the default period in which the TPB must conclude investigations, giving it an extra 18 months. It also permits the TPB to publish the results of investigations with more information about the investigations than they can presently divulge. The bill will permit taxation officers and TPB officials to share protected information with Treasury about breaches or about suspected breaches of confidence with the Commonwealth. It will allow taxation officers and TPB officials to share protected information with prescribed professional disciplinary bodies. These are all important measures and decisive action is warranted. However, the period for consultation with industry about the way that the changes suggested in the bill will operate and interact with existing state and territory regimes has been very limited. A two-week period is far too short for a quality consultative process. For example, the Law Council of Australia, which acts on behalf of 16 law societies and bar associations and 90,000 lawyers, has said that a truncated consultation process risks introducing laws that are not fit for purpose and which may require subsequent amendments. A two-week consultation period does not require, represent or provide adequate time for effective consultation, especially for representative bodies such as the Law Council. Similarly, Chartered Accountants Australia and New Zealand have said that brief consultation time frames do not promote the achievement well-considered and workable policy outcomes. They suggested that objective integrity and governance reforms cannot be achieved efficiently unless the measures are designed carefully and implemented appropriately by all stakeholders. As a person on the crossbench in this place, I can appreciate the criticisms by others in relation to legislation made on the run, and the often extremely limited opportunities that we're given to review proposed new laws. Again and again, we are denied the opportunity to consult with experts in the field or with our communities—to consult broadly and consider the broader application of these laws and how they impact on other policy areas. Sadly, we've seen that again in this House in the last few weeks—and even in the last 24 hours. Today we find ourselves in the invidious position of having to vote for a bill that contains provisions which been arrived at too quickly and with limited consultation—a bill which responds to a problem which is undermining public trust and which must be addressed urgently. As parliamentarians, it is our responsibility to scrutinise the work of government—to represent the interests of the public in decisions and laws which are made here. I take that obligation very seriously and, frankly, I feel that the opportunity to fulfil it is far too frequently stymied by this government. But wait: there's more! This bill, oddly—and randomly—also deals with an amendment to the Petroleum Resource Rent Tax Assessment Act 1987. The PRRT currently allows very generous deductions for capital investment. This limits significantly the revenue raised from fossil fuel companies like Santos and Woodside—gas companies which are currently reaping billions in profits. The bill, as it is, caps the availability of deductible expenditure incurred in relation to a petroleum project for a tax year. As it's being proposed today, this bill means that the offshore LNG industry will pay more PRRT more quickly than it would under the current regime. But the bill will cap deductible expenditure to a maximum value of 90 per cent of assessable receipts in respect of each LNG project in the relevant tax year. So a company will have to pay PRRT on only 10 per cent of its income after an initial seven-year grace period. While this change is consistent with the recent recommendation from the Treasury's gas transfer pricing review—which was, let us remember, commissioned in terms made by the former government—in my view it does not go anywhere near far enough. For the last 18 months I have been calling for changes to the way that the PRRT is levied in this country. The government is talking about an additional $2.4 billion income from our fossil fuel industry over four years. While of course we welcome all positive changes, this is a piddling sum! I can only imagine the amount of lobbying by the oil and gas companies that took place to ensure that this government adopted this 90 per cent price cap. Our government is selling us short. What can we do? As a start, I would suggest that the deductions cap should be 80 per cent, not 90 per cent. Doing so would increase our fiscal balance by about $2.9 billion and the underlying cash balance by about $2.6 billion over the 2023-2024 forward estimates period. My constituents regularly express their extreme frustration at the inadequacy of the tax paid by multinationals, especially by offshore oil and gas companies. We have a weak resource tax regime; it's far too generous to the oil and gas companies. The windfall profits that these companies receive are grossly unfair and they're selling us short. Norway has amassed a $2 trillion sovereign wealth fund. On 1 September 2023, our equivalent, the Future Fund, was worth $205 billion. The bill is extremely problematic. It conflates two separate but individually important matters, which should, more appropriately, be treated separately. They've been bundled together in what might cynically be suggested as preventing a veto to the more contentious elements of the bill. The Albanese government has to stop presenting omnibus bills of this nature to the House. This combination of disparate policy issues deserving of much greater and more mature interrogation and consideration than is currently allowed by the time frame of the legislation development, and for the debate allowed in this House, is undermining the Albanese government's credibility. It is detracting from the government's capacity to present clear and coherent policy, and it is detracting from other members of the House's ability to hold the government to account, to provide useful suggestions for improvement of legislation and to represent our constituents to the best of our abilities. The Australian public is already experiencing a crisis of trust in government. A Roy Morgan report in September this year referred to the moral blindness displayed by many of Australia's corporate leaders. This lack of professional integrity has been enabled by a culture of contempt for process and for principle. We can restore trust only by acting ourselves with the utmost respect for due process, by acting with consideration and judiciousness in our composition and our consideration of legislation. I'm very disappointed that the government is failing to do this and that it is depriving other members of this place of the ability to do so. I cannot commend this bill to the House. 10:11 Ms DANIEL 008CH Goldstein There are two key questions here: of process and of ambition. First, to process. This bill, the Treasury Laws Amendment (Tax Accountability and Fairness) Bill 2023, is an absolutely ridiculous document. Euphemistically titled 'tax accountability and fairness', the bill bundles together two miscellaneous and completely unrelated measures. This is a wedge if ever there was one. In what universe, other than a political one, does it make sense to put integrity changes relating to the PwC tax leaks scandal into the same bill as the government's lowballed tax changes to the PRRT. Other than the word 'tax', these two issues bear zero relationship to each other. When it comes to the PRRT element of the legislation, what the government is proposing is far from adequate and is therefore difficult to support. This means that members of this place, again, have to choose between voting for the bill because of some of the positive measures in it or rejecting it because it has a major flaw. The government has lowballed the opportunity to get a real return to the Australian people from the mega profits our gas producers receive. The gas giants, predominantly foreign owned, have had more than a free ride over recent years. Indeed, since Vladimir Putin's illegal invasion of Ukraine, they've been making windfall profits they could never have factored into business or investment plans. This is free money for them, and a wasted opportunity for this government, at a time when the community is facing a severe cost-of-living crisis. The government is paying the political price for being seen as having failed to address it as comprehensively as the public thinks it should. As I've been saying for more than a year now, we should be taxing these multinationals on their windfall profits, not letting them make megamoney via the exploitation of an asset owned by all of us: the fossil fuels deep underground and underwater. The value of LNG exports rose by more than 60 per cent in the past year to $90 billion, but the revamped PRRT is forecast to bring in less than one per cent of that. Something isn't adding up—or maybe it is, given the historical relationships between governments and big business, especially fossil fuel companies. Woodside, for instance, booked a record profit of $9.65 billion after tax in the last financial year. Broad based tax reform and appropriate taxation of what lies beneath our feet would assist budget repair. Minerals in the ground and under the sea are publicly owned assets exploited for private gain. Australia's prosperity has been built on public access to affordable energy—not anymore. Energy consumers, households and businesses are feeling the squeeze as never before. The government has provided some relief, but, while energy bills are not as high as they might have been, households and businesses are still feeling the pain. As we manage a precarious but essential shift to clean green energy, consumers deserve insulation from the undeserved bonus that gas producers have received because of the death and destruction that Vladimir Putin has wreaked upon the people of Ukraine. As I've said before, we need to end subsidies on the use of fossil fuels, we need more substantial reform of PRRT to ensure greater returns to the taxpayer, we need a road user charge and we need support from the Commonwealth to reform tax measures as they relate to property. I will be supporting the member for Warringah's second reading amendment. In the lead-up to the budget, the Treasurer had three options in front of him on the PRRT. We discovered, courtesy of the Australian Financial Review, that he chose the option the gas producers wanted. What a surprise. Obviously it was the option that would cost them the least. The government estimates that its new approach will raise no more than $2.4 billion over the next four years—a drop in the bucket. Treasury presented the Treasurer with two other options, one of which would have effectively seen an 80 per cent deductions cap for the petroleum resource rent tax, as specified by the member for Warringah's amendment. The AFR calculated that, at current prices, that option would have brought in $21.9 billion in 2023-24 alone. Instead, as the paper put it back at budget time: The big gas producers can go back to what they do best—exporting huge amounts of Australian gas and printing money … The government may wonder why it's on the back foot and losing support with the public. Well, here is one of the reasons: they're doing the gas giants' bidding rather than doing more to help hard pressed households put food on their tables, pay for their kids' education and keep a roof over their heads. In short, as I and several other Independent crossbenchers have been urging, the government should be looking at targeted initiatives as investment rather than merely a budget impost. For example, earlier this year I proposed lifting Commonwealth Rent Assistance by 40 per cent rather than 15 per cent. This measure had the support of the Grattan Institute and a number of eminent economists. They advised that it would not significantly add to inflation while easing cost-of-living pressures on low-income households. The cost over the forward estimates according to the PBO was not insubstantial—less than $5 billion—but that is affordable given the improved budget position and even more so with proportionate resource taxes. This would also reduce the downstream cost to the economy of the impact on the health and employment prospects of these hard pressed renters. As we saw during COVID, assistance to those who are struggling most eases a range of costs on the system and, in doing so, lifts all of us. There is other low-hanging fruit. For example, the take-up of rooftop solar in my electorate is lower than it should be. I'm investigating how we can incentivise solar batteries and other household improvements, electrification, insulation and double glazing because, as the climate change minister has acknowledged, we're still struggling to get to 43 per cent by 2030, and these measures would also reduce household expenses. Then there's mortgage stress. AMP estimates that the greatest risk is among the 62 per cent of outstanding home loans taken out between 2020 and mid-2022. Pollster Kos Samaras says that, by the middle of this year, over 1.1 million borrowers in just New South Wales and Victoria were experiencing negative cash flow. In other words, their income wasn't enough to make repayments and meet other household expenses. One idea worth a closer look is an idea dubbed 'HomeKeeper' by historian Chris Wallace. She suggests a program to allow the government to take a small equity stake in a property where the mortgage holder is suffering mortgage stress. The equity would then be held in a government housing trust until repaid on market terms. The assistance would go straight from the government to the bank, ensuring it didn't add to consumption and inflation. I plan to run the ruler over this idea and see whether it stacks up. One thing is for sure, without braver action and without taking some bigger steps, the widespread and growing alienation of voters from our democracy will worsen. I saw it in the United States under Donald Trump, and I'm seeing worrying signs of it right here now. I also campaigned during the election for an independent, well-resourced inquiry into our tax system. That was not just about stage 3 tax cuts, but if inflation is going to be higher for longer, as RBA governor Michele Bullock predicts, surely they need to be in the mix. Labor lost the support of aspirational voters in the election, and the signs are there from research by Kos Samaras and the latest Roy Morgan survey of stress among mortgage holders. The government surely wants to get out from under this. There is only so much I can do is an Independent, but, as we've just seen with the government's decision to split the closing loopholes legislation, good ideas and persistent advocacy can make a difference for the better, even without the balance of power. In this case it goes to the revenue available here that could be put to good use should be government decide to tap it properly. There is another important element to the member for Warringah's amendment. It says: … the Government must stop presenting omnibus bills of this nature to the House combining complex, disparate policy issues that require greater interrogation and consideration … We saw it with the closing loopholes legislation, and now here we see it again. It's an insult to the House and an insult to the voters we represent. Throwing everything, including the kitchen sink, into a bill is not good practice. There are elements to this bill to provide some, but not much, more protection for whistleblowers, through extending protection for eligible individuals who report to the Tax Practitioners Board and reversing the burden of proof for certain protection claims. It is part of the government's response to the PwC tax leak scandal. The government deserves a small hand clap for this action. These reforms are needed, but, coupled as they are with the damp squid reform to the PRRT, I will not be voting for this bill. I note that we still don't have the broader protections for whistleblowers foreshadowed by the Attorney-General at the time the legislation passed through the parliament to establish the National Anti-Corruption Commission. In 2019, Labor went to the election promising a whistleblower protection authority. Mysteriously, despite rising public concern about corruption, rorts and pork barrelling, that promise disappeared from Labor's platform for the last election. Without a whistleblower protection authority and assistance for those with the courage to call out corruption, whistleblowers will remain a threatened species, as we've seen so recently with the appalling treatment meted out to David McBride. As I said, this is a small step in the right direction, but, again, if the government wants to regain the initiative it should go the whole hog on pork barrelling: establish a whistleblower protection authority or, at the very least, a properly resourced and funded commissioner to the NACC with specific responsibility for whistleblowers and whistleblowing. For the reasons outlined in this speech, I will not be supporting this bill. 10:23 Ms CHANEY 300006 Curtin The biggest issue in the Treasury Laws Amendment (Tax Accountability and Fairness) Bill 2023 is that it rams together two important but unrelated issues: addressing the PwC tax scandal and increasing the petroleum resource rent tax. It's hard to see the combination of these two unrelated issues in this bill as anything other than a blatant political wedge. Many on the crossbench want to see Australia earning better royalties from gas companies and think that this amendment to the PRRT is wholly inadequate. At the same time, many on the crossbench want to see greater transparency and accountability for tax advisers and consultants. My first concern is that, when unrelated issues are combined, the values of the electorate are not able to be expressed accurately in a simple vote. This is not fair, and it does not result in better legislation. That issue aside, I'll speak about PwC and the PRRT in turn. We learnt from the PwC tax scandal that the regulatory responses we have at our disposal to deal with misconduct by tax advisers are sorely inadequate. It's important that we hold people who offer financial and taxation advisory services to very high ethical and professional standards, and, where they fall short or where there's misconduct, we need to know any regulatory response will be appropriate and timely. This bill includes a suite of amendments to address the regulation of tax advisers and their conduct, and I'll comment on a couple of those. Firstly, on tax avoidance schemes: the existing legislation to deter tax advisers from promoting tax avoidance and tax evasion schemes is clearly no longer fit for purpose. Sophisticated financial advisers and tax promoters are always on the lookout for ways to outsmart and exploit the legislation. These amendments will allow the ATO to widen the net to apply these laws to a broader range of persons who are advisers and promoters and to entities, as well as to a broader range of schemes, and they significantly increase the civil penalty regime and the maximum penalties available. This is a good thing. Secondly, on the disclosure of alleged misconduct: in light of the PwC scandal, these reforms will also capture any tax adviser or practitioner who discloses or misuses confidential information. The proposed amendments that pierce the secrecy provisions are particularly welcome. Ordinarily, regulators at the ATO or Tax Practitioners Board would not be permitted to disclose details of serious misconduct that they're investigating. In cases that involve breaches of confidentiality of a government agency, there's currently a significant delay before the alleged breach is reported to the government and, consequently, an inevitable further delay in any appropriate interim regulatory response, by which time the public interest has likely not been served. These amendments now permit the ATO or Tax Practitioners Board to disclose suspected breaches direct to Treasury and/or to the appropriate professional disciplinary body and will give us some confidence that the regulatory or disciplinary response at an agency or ministerial level might be more appropriate and timelier. Thirdly, on whistleblowing: the amendments include better protection to eligible whistleblowers who wish to report and disclose alleged professional misconduct to the Tax Practitioners Board. Currently, disclosure of information to the ATO commissioner attracts whistleblower protections but disclosures made to the TPB do not. This makes no sense. It's an important part of maintaining integrity in our democracy that people who bear witness to wrongdoing feel comfortable and safe to speak out. I've spoken about this on numerous occasions, and I particularly welcome any amendment that recognises the valuable role whistleblowers can play in our democratic process, the personal cost to themselves in doing so and the appropriate protections we should be offering them, but I don't understand why the government has seen fit to prioritise this whistleblowing amendment when the pressing amendments to the public interest disclosure legislation remain outstanding. This represents a piecemeal approach to protecting whistleblowers, and I continue to call for a more holistic approach so that whistleblowers are protected no matter which agency they are speaking about. I also want to talk about what's missing in this PwC response. While these changes go part of the way to addressing the loss of trust in the government's use of consultants, they don't go far enough. A big part of the PwC scandal was public horror at the cosy relationship between consultants and the government. We heard some astounding numbers. Over the last 10 years, donations from the big four consulting companies have amounted to $4.3 million, and during that time the value of the contracts awarded to big four firms has quadrupled—and that's just the direct donations. There are also mutually beneficial arrangements, like PwC hosting the annual post-budget dinner for the government. Everyone wins in this arrangement, except, possibly, the taxpayers. PwC pays for a fancy dinner—a fairly modest in-kind donation in the scheme of things. PwC makes these tickets available to its clients, proving it has exclusive access to government ministers on budget night. Its clients buy tickets for thousands of dollars, which go straight to the political party in power at the time. This is not considered a donation because you get a dinner for it. So the politicians win, the consultants win and the big companies who use the consultants win—cash for access. This cosy relationship must also be addressed if the government wants to move on from the PwC scandal. Now to the PRRT: this Treasury bill also addresses amendments in relation to the petroleum resource rent tax, introducing a cap to the availability of deductible expenditure incurred per project per taxable year. The government says that this means the offshore LNG industry will pay more PRRT sooner than under the current PRRT regime. It's a start, but it's a very small change in the scheme of things. Clearly, the PRRT is currently failing to deliver a proper return to Australians. This is something I've talked about for some time. Australians should be entitled to get fair value for the resources that are extracted from our country. We have the weakest resource rent tax in the world. In 2022 two-thirds of the gas extracted in Western Australia was not taxed at all. It's worth drawing comparisons with Norway, which has a significant resources industry. Norwegians receive a bigger share of the profits from its oil and gas sector through a 22 per cent corporate tax rate as well as a 56 per cent special petroleum tax. Norway has taxed these profits at the combined rate of 78 per cent since 1996, with the result that Norway's state pension fund is worth $1.9 trillion, or $350,000 per citizen. By comparison, in Australia, we calculate our PRRT at a lower rate, which amounts to a total combined tax of 58 per cent, versus Norway's 78 per cent Oil and gas projects have significant upfront capital expenditure over many years, amounting to billions of dollars. This expenditure is carried forward as deductions against any revenue, so these projects don't make a profit for some time. The PRRT has been designed so that oil and gas companies don't have to pay anything for the oil and gas they're extracting until they've effectively paid off their capital costs. In the context of a warming planet, driven by the use of these fossil fuels, this doesn't make a lot of sense. This legislation creates a 90 per cent deductions cap, so fossil fuel companies have to pay at least 10 per cent of what they're supposed to. This is still extremely low. It was the lowest of the options considered and, unsurprisingly, the option preferred by the gas industry. There's also a seven-year exemption to the deductions cap, which encourages new fossil fuel development, contrary to our commitment to the Paris Agreement. Given the damage these fossil fuels— A division having been called in the House of Representatives— Sitting suspended from 10:32 to 10:50 10:50 Dr HAINES 282335 Indi I rise to speak on the Treasury Laws Amendment (Tax Accountability and Fairness) Bill 2023. To begin, I want to draw attention to the illogical and cynical way the government has constructed this bill. I say 'illogical and cynical' because in this bill the government bundles two fundamentally separate yet extremely important issues into a single piece of legislation. The first part is to close the regulatory tax loopholes that led to the PwC tax leak scandal. The second part includes important changes to the fossil fuel tax. This government, especially in the last couple of sitting weeks of this year, has demonstrated a continued pattern of rushing legislation, tacking important reforms onto totally unrelated bills and attempting to wedge members of parliament on nationally important issues. I know it is not unusual for Treasury laws amendment bills to often have many schedules, sometimes on widely disparate matters, but in this particular case it's clear the government is trying to wedge members, particularly the crossbench, who want to see improvements on integrity and whistleblower matters but who also see this poor excuse for a petroleum resource rent tax for what it truly is. This is not good legislating. This is playing political games, and members of the Australian public deserve much better from their government and from their elected representatives. I will be opposing this bill on its content, but I will also be opposing it on the principle of poor governance. I call on the government to separate this bill so that the parliament can scrutinise the two issues carefully on their individual merits. This is what conscientious legislators do, and, right now, this bill falls significantly short. I'll now address the four schedules of the bill that implement the government's response to the PwC tax leak scandal. This scandal was an outrageous breach of confidentiality by a government hired consultancy. PwC used their privileged access to confidential tax law reforms to help corporations avoid a law that they were consulted on. It was a breach of trust, and PwC showed a deep lack of integrity. The reforms in this bill are a step towards ensuring that tax advisers and their professional associations do not engage in this corrupt behaviour ever again. This bill does so by increasing the maximum penalties for those found guilty of promoting tax exploitation schemes and making sure the right people can be captured by these laws when they engage in misconduct. The bill improves the powers of the Tax Practitioners Board to investigate and regulate any wrongdoing. The reforms also ensure information about misconduct and breaches of confidence can be shared with Treasury so they can be responded to. The gaps in sharing information are a big reason why it took so long to identify the PwC breaches. Most importantly, this bill extends protections for tax whistleblowers. If someone wants to disclose information to the Tax Practitioners Board about misconduct and breaches of confidence, they will be protected. Whistleblowers will be able to seek professional assistance—for example, for psychologists—in making a disclosure, and we know this is important because of the personal and professional toll that disclosing wrongdoing can take. Getting help should not be criminalised. These amendments also protect whistleblowers from detrimental conduct relating to their disclosure of misconduct, like job loss. These amendments are all important steps in the right direction to make much-needed reforms to our whistleblower protection laws, but they do not go anywhere near far enough. This law introduces protections only for tax whistleblowers. Major gaps still remain for all other types of whistleblowers, in both the public sector and the private sector. In 2017 a parliamentary joint committee issued a report on whistleblower protections. They clearly recommended the following: Commonwealth public sector whistleblowing legislation remain in a single updated Act, redrafted in parallel with the private sector Act; Commonwealth private sector whistleblowing legislation (including tax) be brought together into a single Act; … This recommendation was clear and concise, and yet more than five years later the government is continuing this trend of promising strong whistleblower protection reforms but, in reality, just tinkering around the edges. They introduce some tax whistleblower protections while ignoring other gaping holes. The result is what the Human Rights Law Centre, Griffith University and Transparency International describe as 'a fragmented, duplicatory and inconsistent landscape of federal whistleblower protections'. The government—and by that I mean the Attorney-General, the Treasurer, the Minister for Financial Services and everyone whose portfolio deals with whistleblowers—must get on with it and introduce legislation that is comprehensive, consistent and holistic. They must also introduce legislation for a whistleblower protection authority—and I acknowledge that the Attorney-General has issued a discussion paper that's open for comment right now. Such an authority is imperative to ensure that whistleblowers can receive the right advice and support. These reforms are essential to restoring public trust across the private and public sectors, and I'm here to work with government on these comprehensive reforms. I sincerely hope that they take up this invitation. Now, with a slight feeling of whiplash, I must say, I want to address the other part of this bill. Schedule 5 of this bill amends the Petroleum Resource Rent Tax Act. The petroleum resource rent tax, or the PRRT, is a tax on the superprofits of offshore gas and oil projects. This bill places a cap on the use of deductible expenditure to reduce tax obligations under the Petroleum Resource Rent Tax Act. Reform of this tax is sorely needed, as most offshore gas projects are yet to pay any—yet to pay any!—petroleum resource rent tax. The objective of this tax is to return a share of the profits generated from our natural resources to all Australian citizens. To date, the PRRT has failed resolutely to deliver on this objective. Projects can reduce their PRRT obligations by deducting all expenses incurred in developing a project, such as the exploration expenses. These deductions can be carried forward indefinitely, and are indexed each year at extremely generous uplift rates. For the first 10 years of many projects, exploration expenses were able to be increased by the long-term bond rate plus 15 per cent. This means that over the first 10 years of a project, deduction credits could compound to five times the initial exploration expense. In total, projects have amassed around $280 billion in credits. These credits are currently being used to offset almost all PRRT obligations. In simple terms, the design of the current scheme means that billions of dollars worth of Australia's natural resources are being shipped overseas with next to no benefit to the Australian taxpayer. Even the Treasury review of the PRRT notes the absurdity of this situation, stating: … the accumulation of a large stock of carry forward deductions, compounded by uplifting, can defer the payment of PRRT indefinitely. This process of carrying forward and generously indexing initial capital expenditure contrasts steeply with the typical process for business deductions. There's no indexation of the initial capital costs for businesses. There are almost 15,700 small businesses across my electorate of Indi and not one of them—none of them!—benefit from such generous tax treatment, so why should LNG projects be treated so differently? With this bill, deductible expenditure is limited to the value of 90 per cent of PRRT-assessable receipts. This means that at least 10 per cent of a company's PRRT-assessable receipts in each financial year will be subject to the PRRT. This change would bring forward tax paid by projects subject to the PRRT. I welcome reforms that will increase the returns that Australians receive for the exploitation and export of our finite resources. But I will not be supporting this reform, because it simply does not go anywhere near far enough. The government states that this reform will increase government revenue in the short term by around $2.4 billion. Now, $2.4 billion shouldn't be sneezed at; no it shouldn't. But over the lifetime of these projects the government's proposed changes scarcely raise any additional revenue for Australians. Yes, you heard me right: these changes will hardly have any impact on the total tax revenue Australia receives from these projects. The deductions companies can't use in a given years due to the 90 per cent cap will just be rolled over to the next year and indexed and rolled over again and again until they can be used. This bill fails to reduce the generous compounded deductions projects can use to reduce or avoid PRRT, and it fails to deliver a better return for everyday Australians. These offshore gas resources we're talking about belong to all Australians, and we only get one opportunity to sell them. At the moment, we're giving away these resources for a fraction of their real value, and with this bill that's exactly what we're going to continue to do. It's not good enough. We need a fair return on our resources. We need more ambitious changes to the PRRT, especially so in the context of a cost-of-living crisis and a commitment to a transition in our energy system to achieve net zero emissions. More offshore gas projects won't help Australians suffering under higher bills. No, they won't. We have the most LNG export capacity in the world, yet this isn't helping Australian consumers at all. In fact, the ACCC clearly states that LNG projects have increased the cost of east coast gas prices. Despite record-high international and domestic gas prices we are still getting minimal return from the export of our finite natural resources. The super profits from gas exports should be funding hospitals, roads and schools right across the country. Imagine the public good we could do if we got this right. They should be supporting households and businesses to improve their energy efficiency and use renewables, instead, though, they are funding dividends for shareholders all over the world. This bill fails to reform the PRRT in the best interests of Australians. What a massive let-down. What a massive disappointment. Generally, I am not one to let the perfect be the enemy of the good; I'm not, but I'm not going to just settle for this one. These measures show a complete lack of vision and ambition for our country. They really do, and they let-down everyday Australians right now. I now move the amendment circulated in my name: That all words after "acknowledging the" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: "House does not decline to give the bill a second reading, it: (1) notes that the bill has two important, and distinctly unrelated purposes, being to: (a) implement a response to the PwC tax leaks scandal, which was an outrageous breach of confidentiality by a consultancy hired by Government; and (b) reform the Petroleum Resources Rent Tax, by establishing a cap on the use of deductions by offshore gas and oil projects; and (2) notes that the illogical merging of two unrelated, yet equally important issues into the same piece of legislation is not consistent with the principles of good governance; and (3) calls on the Government to separate out the provisions of the Petroleum Resources Rent Tax changes from the PwC response provisions, so that they may be considered, debated and voted on in isolation on their individual merits". The DEPUTY SPEAKER 176304 Is the amendment seconded? Ms Sharkie 265980 I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak. 11:03 Ms CHANEY 300006 Curtin I seek leave to continue my comments. Leave granted. Ms CHANEY 300006 Given the damage these fossil fuels do to the planet, even with this amendment, our PRRT structure is encouraging development of new fossil fuel projects at a bargain rate. We allow 90 per cent deductions. Deductions can be rolled over. We value the assets at the cheapest point of the supply chain, and we give a seven-year exception to the deduction cap. These are all choices that we're making about how much revenue we earn from our natural resources, which are finite and, in this case, damaging to the planet. To add insult to injury, since the Ukraine war, these fossil fuel companies have generated additional profits of about $40 billion over and above their expectations. Of this, only 1.5 per cent is collectable as PRRT. In summary, this change to the PRRT is disappointingly meek. You can't change tax regimes too often because it does have an impact on business certainly. This is a missed opportunity to actually get value for the limited resources that are being extracted that damage the planet and ultimately should be staying in the ground. I'll be supporting the amendments to split the bill, to address these two significant issues separately and to strengthen the PRRT changes so Australians get more value for gas in the limited time that it continues to be extracted. 11:05 Mr JONES A9B Whitlam Firstly, I thank those members who've contributed to this debate. I haven't had the opportunity to listen to all contributions, but I have had the benefit of listening to the last two speakers and to think deeply about the issues that they've raised in the course of this debate—more of that later. Schedule 1 of the bill, just to remind members, amends the Taxation Administration Act 1953 to expand the application of promoter penalty laws, to increase the maximum penalty amounts and to extend the time the Commissioner of Taxation has to bring civil penalty proceedings to the Federal Court of Australia for the promotion of tax exploitation schemes. As members would know, this measure improves the ability of the tax office to target tax promoters. It ensures promoters face material consequences for their actions, deterring them from promoting tax exploitation schemes and protecting their clients from the risk of tax shortfalls, penalties and interests. Schedule 2 extends the tax whistleblower protections in the Taxation Administration Act 1953 to whistleblowers who wish to disclose information to the Tax Practitioners Board, where they believe the information may assist that board to perform its functions and duties under the Tax Agent Services Act 2009. It also expands the scope of professional assistance available to whistleblowers in making a disclosure and aligns the burden-of-proof requirements with those contained within the Public Interest Disclosure Act 2013. Together, the amendments will ensure that whistleblowers can disclose potential misconduct to the Tax Practitioners Board, which will strengthen integrity within the regulatory frameworks and systems related to tax intermediaries. The related schedule 3 amends the Tax Agent Services Act 2009 to increase the information published on the Tax Practitioners Board's public register. It removes the 12-month time limit for certain information to remain on the register and extends the time frame that the Tax Practitioners Board has to conduct an investigation. It also better targets the Tax Practitioners Board's delegation powers. The measure enables the Tax Practitioners Board to conduct better investigations into potential misconduct by practitioners, and improves transparency in the tax profession by expanding the utility and functions of the important board which regulates these activities, the Tax Practitioners Board public register. Schedule 4 amends the secrecy provisions of the Taxation Administration Act 1953 and the Tax Agent Services Act 2009 to remove the limitations in the tax secrecy laws that were, obviously, a barrier to regulators acting in response to the PwC breach of confidence—something that has occupied this parliament's and this chamber's attention mightily over the last few months. This schedule allows taxation officers and Tax Practitioners Board officials to share protected information with Treasury about misconduct arising out of suspected breaches of confidence so that the Treasury can then take necessary action to respond to the breach properly and quickly. This schedule also allows the tax office and the practitioners board to refer misconduct to prescribed professional bodies, enabling them to perform their disciplinary functions. Taken together, these proposed amendments will enable any misconduct similar to the horrendous affair involved with PwC's breach of confidence to be reported and acted on in a timely way, and it will act as a deterrent to future misconduct by intermediaries engaging with the Commonwealth. I'll turn to schedule 5, which amends the Petroleum Resource Rent Tax Assessment Act 1987 to deliver a fairer return to the Australian community from their natural resources. These changes will mean the offshore liquefied natural gas industry pays more tax sooner, and it will provide industry and investors policy certainty to allow sufficient supply of domestic gas and will ensure Australia remains a reliable international energy supplier and, importantly, investment partner. The petroleum industry makes an important contribution to the economy, including through investment jobs and, critically, energy supply, as we manage our transition to a renewable economy. Its contribution to corporate and other taxes are critical, and the changes in this schedule will ensure that this continues. I note the comments that have been made in the course of the second reading debate about the packaging of this bill, and I want to say a few things about that. Treasury laws amendment bills routinely contain measures relating to different issues within the Treasury portfolio. I've observed, publicly and privately, that about a third of the legislation that moves its way through this parliament emanates from the Treasury portfolio. The approach of bundling these measures is common. It's efficient and it's something that has occurred for many, many years. To put it in context, this year alone, the parliament has dealt with 11 treasury laws amendment bills. Each of those bills, collectively, have contained a total of 58 schedules. If we were to deal with each of those schedules separately, parliament would deal with nothing else. And, of course, as much as I care about the bills that come forward from the Treasury portfolio, I have to yield to other colleagues who also have important parliamentary and reform measures to bring before this parliament. It's simply a matter of the efficient use of parliamentary time. In this instance, we have joined several measures related to the tax system and combined them. We'll continue looking for ways to support the parliament to make the process more efficient, saving both time and resources—but also carefully listening to the issues and concerns that are raised by all members of parliament, including members of the crossbench. In this instance, we're proceeding as we have moved the bill. Each of the measures in this bill relate to our taxation system and make a substantial improvement to it. With these comments, I commend the bill to the House. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 176304 The immediate question is that the amendment moved by the honourable member for Indi be agreed to. Question unresolved. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 176304 As it is necessary to resolve this question to enable further questions to be considered in relation to this bill, in accordance with standing order 195 the bill will be returned to the House for further consideration. Australian Human Rights Commission Amendment (Costs Protection) Bill 2023 9318

Australian Human Rights Commission Amendment (Costs Protection) Bill 2023

Second Reading 9318 11:14 Ms STANLEY 265990 Werriwa It's not by accident that many of our courts—and I'm thinking especially here of our higher courts—have Lady Justice at their entrance. She's depicted with scales in one hand, symbolising justice and the balance between the act and the consequence. She's also depicted blindfolded to represent impartiality—that is, justice should be applied without regard to wealth, power or status. Her presence is a powerful and tangible reminder that we are all meant to be equal under the law. Equal access to court and court proceedings is a fundamental right of our democracy. A favourite movie for most Australians is The Castle. With a typical Australian laconic sense of humour, it tells the story of a little guy taking on the big end of town. After all, 'it's not a house, it's a home.' In the movie, Darryl is fortunate to meet up with Lawrence Hammill QC, who, pro bono, takes up Darryl's case, and the rest is history. It's great entertainment, but it is just that: entertainment. Not everyone is as fortunate to get a mate like Lawrence, for, as much as we'd like to think we could have equal access to court proceedings, the truth is that most people can't. Lawyers, barristers and Queen's and King's counsels are expensive—often prohibitively so. Sadly, my electorate office is reminded of this every week when we refer constituents to Macarthur Legal Centre and other community legal centres in our area. The other prohibitive factor regarding instituting legal proceedings relates to the matter of costs. Sometimes legal proceedings are a matter of David versus Goliath—that is, the respondent is well resourced, and there is a significant power disparity between the respondent and the applicant. Such a disparity and imbalance can have the effect of deterring applicants from initiating legal proceedings because they are fearful that, if they do lose, they will face huge and often crippling costs against them. The Albanese government is committed to implementing all of the recommendations of the Respect@Work report. The report was released in March 2020 by the Human Rights Commission and made 55 recommendations directed at all levels of government and the private sector for policy and legislative reforms to prevent and address workplace sexual harassment. Recommendation 25 of the Respect@Work report recommends that a cost protection be enacted to guide a court in awarding costs between parties in discrimination proceedings. Recommendation 25 is the final one that requires Commonwealth legislative reform. The objective of the recommendation is clear. It aims to overcome the significant deterrent that the risk of adverse orders poses for applicants in such proceedings. The Respect@Work inquiry heard that the risk of adverse costs acts as a deterrent to applicants from considering pursuing their sexual harassment matters in federal court. The general practice means that, currently, applicants may be liable for their own costs as well as that of the other party if they're unsuccessful. This then creates an access-to-justice concern, particularly for vulnerable members of our community. The bill would amend the Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986 to insert a modified 'equal access' cost provision, which would apply consistently across federal anti-discrimination laws. This reform will alleviate the significant barrier to justice and the risk that adverse costs orders currently pose for applicants in federal unlawful-discrimination court proceedings and provide greater certainty to parties involved in such proceedings. The bill would prevent courts from ordering an applicant to pay the respondent's costs, except in certain circumstances. If an applicant is unsuccessful on all grounds, parties would generally bear their own costs. Further: The particular circumstances where the court may order that an applicant pay another party's costs are where it is satisfied that: the applicant instituted the proceedings vexatiously or without reasonable cause; or the applicant's unreasonable act or omission caused the other party to incur the costs; or all of the following apply: the other party is a respondent who was successful in the proceedings; the respondent does not have a significant power advantage over the applicant; the respondent does not have significant financial or other resources, relative to the applicant. Further, if the applicant is successful on one or more grounds, the court must order that the respondent pay the applicant's costs. The proviso here, though, is that, if the court is satisfied that the applicant's unreasonable act or omission caused the applicant to incur costs, the court is not required to order the respondent to pay the costs incurred as a result of that act or omission. The equal access model in this bill addresses the power and resources imbalances that are present in most unlawful-discrimination proceedings, but it has been modified to recognise that not all respondents in these matters are large corporations or well-resourced individuals—that is, the modified equal access model gets the balance right and strikes the appropriate balance between alleviating barriers to accessing justice for victims-survivors and the burden on respondents, while not impacting the applicant's access to legal representation. The Castle was a great movie. Justice was done and Darryl got to keep his castle. But the law of sexual discrimination is not The Castle and it's not entertainment. It is a scourge, and it needs to be eliminated. It also needs its day in court. It is vital we empower applicants to bring forward matters to our courts. I'm pleased to speak on the bill and commend the bill to the House. 11:20 Mr BUCHHOLZ 230531 Wright It gives me great pleasure to speak on this bill, because it's something that's very close to my heart. The presumption of innocence until proven guilty is one of the cornerstones of our legal system for us as legislators in this House. I took with great confidence the comments from the previous speaker, the member for Werriwa, on the Australian Human Rights Commission Amendment (Costs Protection) Bill 2023 when she referenced a wonderful piece of our broadcasting history, the movie The Castle, which is about the protection of the family home that goes right through to the High Court—where not everyone can afford to have representation. He took pro bono legal representation from a retired constitutional barrister, if my memory serves me right. Unfortunately, what I'm seeing at the moment, and where this piece of legislation is critical for the parliament, is more often at local government. We have situations where litigious acts are being brought against members of the public or co-members with absolutely no cost of recourse. In other words, one local government member may bring an action against another member for a slur or something sinister weeks or months before a by-election. You can look on the records throughout each of the states as to which councils are more litigious than others. If we had these cost protections in place to actually award some costs—at the moment the costs are all borne by third parties, such as local government, or there are no costs awarded—we would have a different level of motivation in bringing frivolous actions to the court. It's an expensive act. Communities shouldn't have to pay for this. As I said in my opening comments, we all enjoy the idea of 'innocent until proven guilty', although that may not always be the case in this place when we have the fourth estate. There are many situations where we're seeing cases unfold at the moment—you only have to be prompted by the headlines of each major paper, where actions will be pulled out into the media. Now that we have some speakers in the chamber, it has given me great pleasure to be able to make a contribution to a debate that I feel so strongly about. I don't know if I'm commending this bill to the House, but I will conclude my comments. 11:23 Ms THWAITES 282212 Jagajaga I thank the member for Wright for that contribution. I've spoken on several occasions in this place about the importance of safe workplaces across Australia: in this place for the staff who work here through right through to every workplace across our country. Everyone deserves to have a workplace that they are safe in and that is respectful. And if there is harassment or misconduct or other issues in that workplace, there need to be structures in place so that workers can raise their concerns if they wish to, and those concerns are addressed. This bill takes action on a crucial piece of this puzzle. The Australian Human Rights Commission Amendment (Costs Protection) Bill 2023 will implement recommendation 25 of the Respect@Work report, which is the final remaining recommendation that requires Commonwealth legislative reform. That recommendation was straightforward: Amend the Australian Human Rights Commission Act to insert a cost protection provision consistent with section 570 of the Fair Work Act … The report noted that the inclusion of a provision of this kind should ensure that costs may only be ordered against a party by the court if satisfied that the party instituted the proceedings vexatiously or without reasonable cause. In making this recommendation, the commission expressed its concerns about the negative impact on access to justice—particularly for vulnerable members of the community—that came from the current costs regime that's associated with pursuing sexual harassment matters. This is supported by parliamentary findings as well. The commission highlighted the work of a 2008 Senate inquiry that acknowledge concerns that people making complaints may be deterred from taking forward claims in the courts because of the risk that they would incur substantial costs for the respondent. The background to this recommendation comes from the significant body of work that the commission did in preparing its report, including Kate Jenkins, the former Sex Discrimination Commissioner. Ms Jenkins's time at the AHRC has now concluded, but I think she is still following closely and knows that the reforms that this parliament has seen in the last couple of years are due, in most ways, to the great work she did as Sex Discrimination Commissioner. Her willingness to be ambitious in recommending these necessary and overdue reforms is commendable, and the lives of Australians across our country will be better for it. I am proud that this government has delivered on the recommendations from the Respect@Work report, turning that report and its recommendations into a reality and improving conditions for Australians. This bill follows work that our government has undertaken from the start of our time in office to deliver on the recommendations of the Respect@Work report. Last year, in the early months of the government, we delivered the Anti-Discrimination and Human Rights Legislation Amendment (Respect at Work) Bill, which dealt with several matters that came from the Respect@Work report and its recommendations. I said at the time of that bill and I will say again: everyone deserves to feel safe and be safe in their workplace. It doesn't matter where in Australia you are, what kind of workplace you're in, the level of experience or seniority you have or how big your workplace is, you should be safe from harassment. There is no justification for harassment or other kinds of behaviour that have no place in Australian workplaces. We know that too many Australians have experienced workplace harassment—one in three, based on findings from the AHRC. Forty per cent of those are women and 25 per cent are men. In debate on the respect at work bill last year, I spoke about the stories women had shared with me about their experiences of harassment in the workplace. I want to once again thank all those people who shared with me some very difficult stories and experiences and those people who shared their experiences with the AHRC. Your courage in doing that has helped to inform this work and this very important legislative change. To a large degree, these are happening because of the bravery you've shown. One of the issues that have come up time and time again is the difficulty that workers have had in dealing with instances of harassment. The respect at work bill and this bill, together, aim to provide clarity on these issues to avoid more people feeling like they're lost or stuck in how they respond to workplace harassment. Of course it shouldn't happen, but when it does happen—let's be real—we need to have the right response mechanisms in place. One of the barriers that people identified was the difficulty of the frameworks that were meant to support people but weren't doing that work. They are hard to navigate. They're complex. They're more focused on reacting to the situation than preventing it from occurring in the first place, and that extends to what this bill is trying to deal with—the issue of structures making it seem so much more difficult to get a resolution on an issue and, because it seems so difficult, people giving up without seeking that remedy or resolution. We don't want people who have experienced sexual harassment facing the prospect of needing to pay the costs of a respondent in that harassment claim. It is a disincentive to people taking claims forward. As this government has already done with previous legislation, we want to remove barriers that in the past have left people stuck, with no way forward, after having experienced sexual harassment in the workplace. The respect at work report heard that the risk of adverse cost orders acts as a disincentive to applicants considering pursuing sexual harassment matters in the federal courts. In the current practice, costs generally follow the event, even while there is a broad judicial discretion to award cost in any matter as seen fit. That means that applicants may be liable for their own costs as well as those of the other party if they are unsuccessful. The risk of being ordered to pay the cost of other parties to the proceedings can deter victims-survivors of sexual harassment and other forms of discrimination from commencing legal proceedings, and, of course, there is often a power imbalance. Not always but often you have an individual going up against a large corporation with many more resources. So it does create access to justice concerns, particularly for more vulnerable members of our community and people without access to substantial resources. In response to this problem, the Respect@Work report recommended that a cost protection provision be inserted in the Australian Human Rights Commission Act to provide greater certainty for applicants. I've spoken here before about parliament doing this work to improve how workplaces across the country operate as well as to improve how we here in the parliament operate. We must, in many ways, be a model workplace. We haven't always been in the past, and we're not there yet, but we are taking some steps to make this workplace a better place as well. That's why this government has worked to deliver legislative change for Commonwealth parliamentary workplaces to ensure workers here in parliament and in connected workplaces right around Australia have structures in place to prevent harassment and, importantly, to provide support to people when harassment does occur. I want to acknowledge the work of the presiding officers and the relevant ministers for the changes that have happened here. We are on the right track, I think, to become more of that model workplace that we should be and we should aspire to. We've done some of the work; There's more to be done, and I do look forward to continuing to work with colleagues to make that happen. This bill would amend the Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986 to insert a modified equal access cost protection provision, which would apply consistently across federal antidiscrimination laws. The reform will alleviate the significant barrier to justice that I've explained—that is, the risk of adverse costs being awarded disincentivising people from taking a claim forward. The bill will prevent courts from ordering an applicant to pay the respondent's costs, except in certain circumstances. If an applicant is unsuccessful on all grounds, parties would generally bear their own costs. This bill picks up, as I said, on many of the recommendations from the Respect@Work report. The particular circumstances where the court may order that an applicant pay another party's costs are where it's satisfied that the applicant instituted the proceedings vexatiously or without reasonable cause, or the applicant's unreasonable act or omission caused the other party to incur the costs, or where all of the following apply: the other party is a respondent who was successful in the proceedings, the respondent does not have a significant power advantage over the applicant, and the respondent does not have significant financial or other resources relative to the applicant. If the applicant is successful on one or more grounds, the court must order that the respondent pay the applicant's cost. However, if the court is satisfied that the applicant's unreasonable act or omission caused the applicant to incur costs, the court is not required to order the respondent to pay the cost incurred as a result of that act or omission. As I said earlier, this model addresses the power imbalances and the resource disparities that are present in many unlawful discrimination proceedings. The equal access model has been modified to recognise that not all respondents in unlawful discrimination matters are large corporations or well-resourced individuals. These modifications mean that the equal access approach can be effectively applied across all antidiscrimination laws, without causing unintended consequences for one stream of complaints. These modifications are intended to reduce the burden on successful respondents that are not well resourced and not at a power advantage over the applicant, which could include individual respondents or small businesses. This approach to cost reform does differ from the 'hard cost neutrality' model that was recommended in the Respect@Work report and the 'soft cost neutrality' model supported by the Australian Human Rights Commission in its 2021 'Free and equal' position paper. There's a good reason for this, as I've just outlined. Where there are these differences in this approach that the government is taking with the bill, it is on the basis of wider consultation that we've done and taking into account the work of the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee in the other place. After all that consultation, the government considers that the modified equal access model strikes the appropriate balance between alleviating barriers to accessing justice for victims-survivors and the burden on respondents while not impacting applicants access to legal representation. The government has engaged with a range of stakeholders as we've been doing this work, including the ACTU, legal aid groups, the Australian Industry Group, the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry and many others—and, of course, the Australian Human Rights Commission itself. There are a variety of views, but I think that there is broad support for the place on which the government has landed in this reform and for the importance of these reforms. This bill is a big step forward in our government delivering on those recommendations from the Respect@Work report. It is part of us fulfilling our commitment to making sure we implement those recommendations in full. When our government says we will do something, we do follow through and we make it happen. We are ensuring that all workplaces in Australia can become model environments to support people to work safely and free from harassment. With the changes in this bill, we are ensuring that, if sexual harassment does still occur, there is a pathway through that is clear and does not obstruct people from trying to seek redress. I commend this bill to the House. 11:36 Ms STEGGALL 175696 Warringah I rise to speak on— A division having been called in the House of Representatives— Sitting suspended from 11:36 to 11:53 Ms STEGGALL 175696 I welcome the Australian Human Rights Commission Amendment (Costs Protection) Bill 2023. It aims to address recommendation 25 of the Respect@Work report and does so with some changes, which I welcome. That's because, when I looked at that recommendation in the Respect@Work report, and from my former life as a barrister, where the recommendation went sat a little uneasily with me in terms of changes from the usual cost orders. So I do welcome the approach the government has taken. The recommendations from the Respect@Work report was to insert a cost provision into the Australian Human Rights Commission Act to provide that a party to proceedings may only be ordered to pay the other party's costs in limited circumstances. I agree with that in principle. The issue of cost protection is one that has exercised my mind for some time now. I spoke about this issue last year when the Anti-Discrimination and Human Rights Legislation Amendment (Respect at Work) Bill was introduced. I was pleased to support that bill, which also included cost neutrality provisions to provide much-needed security to employees bringing a complaint of sexual harassment. Having come from the Family Court system and the family law system, with the norm being cost neutrality, I know it's an important aspect that can sometimes be difficult, depending on how parties conduct themselves in proceedings. So I'm pleased to see the government continue to seek methods for giving much-needed security and safety to applicants who may otherwise be reluctant to bring forward claims, for fear of being left with a burden of oppressive costs if their claims are ultimately not successful. It is expensive to bring on litigation, and, if unsuccessful, a claimant would in the ordinary course face bankruptcy and complete ruin for having had the courage to bring on their claim. The intention behind the changes this bill puts forward is to remove the risk to victims and survivors, who may, by seeking redress, open themselves up to the risk of having to pay the other party's cost should they be unsuccessful in their claim. It doesn't take much imagination to see how this would deter a vulnerable person from making a claim of sexual harassment or other form of discrimination in their workplace if there's the risk of having to pay the legal costs of your perceived attacker, or worse—for example, a large organisation with very deep pockets. The many and varied manifestations of sexual harassment and other forms of discrimination have fortunately become more widely discussed and reported on in recent times, particularly since the emergence of the Me Too movement. The previously underreported and debilitating effects of such behaviour have now entered the public consciousness to a degree that enables informed public dialogue and understanding, and this must continue. Disproportionately, victims are women or people forming part of the LGBTQI+ community or from minority ethnic groups. Their experience of society and, in particular, of the workforce is such that they are significantly more likely to feel marginalised, disempowered and not visible to or recognised or understood by others, making it all the more difficult to bring on allegations and claims. Therefore, although it's not always the case, it is far more likely that they perceive the justice system as being unable to understand the nuances of the very personal and traumatic circumstances which they have experienced and which may have led to the physical, financial and psychological trauma they have suffered. I've not even started to talk about the unpredictable influence of the often self-interested, headline-seeking media, and we have seen that at its worst in recent times. How does this work in practice right now? Potential claimants will be told by their lawyer that while a judge always has a discretion to make a customised legal cost order—to reflect what the judge considers to be fair in all circumstances—by far the most common situation is that costs will follow the event. In fact, it's the default position. This means that, when the applicant makes out their claim and wins, the respondent will pay the applicant's legal costs. Conversely, however, if the applicant fails to make out their case against the respondent, the applicant could be ordered to pay the respondent's legal cost. When an applicant is taking on, for example, a claim against a large corporation in relation to a workplace issue and discrimination, that is incredibly daunting and can lead to bankruptcy and complete ruin. There are many reasons why this might be a logical starting position in commercial disputes, and it is the norm that, if you bring on a case and you fail to make out the case, cost provisions should follow that course. However, for a psychologically affected and vulnerable victim or survivor of sexual harassment or other discriminatory behaviour in the workplace, they are already steeling themselves against an extended period of public scrutiny and testing through the adversarial court system. We have certainly seen this with recent allegations and events in this place. This may be one bridge too far, leading them to abandon the attempt to seek legal redress. That means we all pay a price, because the system and workplaces do not become safer and better. This was recognised by the Respect@Work report, which recommended introducing a cost protection provision. The provision proposed by the government, however, differs in a few aspects, and I must say I do support the differences the government has introduced. Firstly, under this bill, an applicant can only be ordered to pay the respondent's cost if the respondent is successful in the proceedings, so the applicant has failed to make out their case. Secondly, it can only occur if the respondent doesn't have substantial financial resources compared to the applicant. In my mind, this really covers where you have a smaller workplace, or you have an individual where you don't have an incredible difference in means between the two parties to proceedings. Obviously, for smaller businesses, if they are subject to a discrimination or a sexual harassment claim in their workplace, that can also be debilitating. So it's incredibly important we find a fair result in relation to this, a system that encourages and facilitates victims to bring forward the complaint but not a system that will disproportionately impact respondents as well. Thirdly, an applicant can only be ordered to pay the respondent's costs if the respondent doesn't have a significant power advantage over the applicant. That is clear when we're talking businesses and workplaces, so between an individual applicant and a workplace with many more resources available to them. These criteria are sensible and are probably fairly easy to establish before the court, whether the respondent was successful in the proceedings and whatever the respondent's financial situation is. I'm concerned that establishing the third criterion might be difficult in terms of whether or not there is a significant power advantage. That won't be an easy task, so I think it will be important to monitor how this legislation progresses in practice and to review it, if necessary, to ensure that it is striking the right balance in assisting victims being able to bring their case forward without that fear of cost but also that we don't have a detrimental and unfair system resulting. I thank the government and I welcome this bill with these amendments and the implementation of the Respect@Work recommendations. It's incredibly important that we continue to progress healthy, respectful and safe workplaces. The most important thing is that, as members in this place, we have a duty to keep emphasising this. As a member of the Parliamentary Leadership Taskforce tasked to implement the Set the standard report recommendations in relation to the Commonwealth and parliamentary workplaces, I certainly welcome these provisions and urge all members to continue engaging with PWSS and the resources available to us as employers to ensure safe workplaces. 12:02 Mr PERRETT HVP Moreton I rise to support the motion moved by my good friend the Attorney-General, the honourable member for Isaacs. At the last election, Australians voted for change. Australians voted to get wages moving again as opposed to the deliberately low wages that were a design principle orchestrated by those opposite—not all of those opposite but metaphorically opposite, I say to my electorate neighbour the member for Ryan. Australians voted for cheaper child care, cheaper medicine, energy bill relief and more good paying jobs for hardworking families. Most of all, Australians voted for a government that will make things fairer. We are here today again living up to that ideal and acting on our government's commitment to implementing all the recommendations of the Respect@Work report. In fact, as the Attorney-General has noted, the Australian Human Rights Commission Amendment (Costs Protection) Bill 2023 represents the final legislative reform required to fulfil the Albanese government's commitment to implement the recommendations of the Respect@Work report. The Albanese government is taking this matter seriously and is committed to enacting real reform in this space. We're not here for performative politics. We are dedicated to good governing and looking after all Australians. When those opposite are faced with tough choices, all they offer are empty words and hollow promises. We take action because that is what good governments do. That landmark Respect@Work report made 55 recommendations to federal, state and territory governments, to the private sector and to the community more broadly. All of the recommendations are driven by the same impetus: to put an end to sexual harassment and to make Australian workplaces safe for all. We know that sexual harassment is a serious and pervasive issue which demands a fundamental rethink of how our laws are shaped to prevent, protect and support individuals who experience sexual harassment. As we've seen in the Sydney Morning Herald article today, powerful people like Alan Jones can 'go the grope'—that's the quote from the article—with young men and then hide behind their power, their privilege and their lawyers, and then threaten victims speaking out by attacking their wallets. So particularly well done to all of the victims that had the courage to come forward, and to the legendary forensic journalist Kate McClymont. Of course, Mr Jones is entitled to the presumption of innocence—he's innocent until proven guilty—which is, I'm sure, the attitude he took to everyone that he spoke about in his radio show over the years. Recommendation 25 of the Respect@Work report suggests that the risk of adverse cost orders poses a significant deterrent for applicants in court proceedings, especially when there is a power disparity between the applicant and the respondent. When people feel wronged, it's important that they have the opportunity to take the matter further, without the large barriers to entry that our judicial system currently has. This recommendation suggests that a cost protection provision be enacted to guide a court in awarding costs in discrimination proceedings, and that's exactly what the legislation before us does. It amends the Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986 to insert such a provision that applies consistently across all federal antidiscrimination laws, making it fairer for all Australians to pursue justice in the federal courts. Without this legislation, victims of sexual harassment and other forms of discrimination will continue to feel marginalised by the very system that is actually designed to protect them. This disproportionately affects the more vulnerable people in our communities, such as people from the GLBTIQ community, First Nations communities and poorer-paid people, and it presents issues around equal access to justice—something that is a fundamental right of a healthy democracy. In many instances, applicants may be pursuing justice against a large corporation or a well-resourced individual, which already places the applicant at a power disparity in any court proceeding, let alone bearing the burden of potentially having to foot the legal bill for that corporation or individual, should they not be successful. That is not fair nor is it defensible in a country so dedicated to egalitarianism, especially at this time in our long history when we've dedicated ourselves to ending violence against women, tackling racism and rejecting the rise of anti-LGBTIQ+ sentiments—particularly the importation of those attacks from the United States. According to data from the Australian Bureau of Statistics Personal Safety survey, 92 per cent of women who experience sexual assault do not report it. How horrific is that statistic—92 per cent of women don't report sexual assault. Moreover, more than a quarter of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians aged 15 and older have experienced racial discrimination, and almost 50 per cent of complaints made to the Australian Human Rights Commission last year were made under the Disability Discrimination Act. We've got a long way to go when it comes to improving outcomes for victims of discrimination, and it starts at the kitchen counters and dinner tables of Australian households, and here in this building, the people's building. On Tuesday last week, I heard the member for Bradfield suggest that this bill has been brought forward to help trade unions and class action law firms make money. That's a shameful stance on a very serious issue that the member for Bradfield clearly doesn't quite comprehend. So let me spell it out for the member for Bradfield and shadow minister for industrial relations. According to the most recent National Community Attitudes towards Violence against Women survey, back in 2021, 34 per cent of people think that sexual assault allegations are used as a way to 'get back at men'. Seven per cent of people believe that only genuine victims report crimes immediately after they happen, and 21 per cent believe that if a woman sends an explicit image to her partner she is partially responsible if he then shares it without her permission. Most disturbingly, though, the survey found that 10 per cent of people think that when a woman says no she really means yes, and 10 per cent of people think that nonconsensual touching is acceptable because 'women are so sexual in public'. One in 10 people on the train think that. Seven per cent of people think that if a woman meets up with a man she has met on an online dating app she's partially responsible if he forces himself on her. This is horrific data. This is why we brought this bill to the floor. Statistics like these paint a tragic image of the realities that victims of sexual assault and other forms of discrimination experience, and we want to help them. That is who we are advocating for in this bill. Quite frankly, the void of empathy and compassion says we need to do more. We need to do more, and I'd ask the member for Bradfield to reconsider his framing of this legislation. I believe that as a country we can do better. We must do better, and I'm proud to be part of a government that not only takes the issue seriously but then brings legislation forward that takes real action to address it. A robust judicial system is critical to maintaining a healthy democracy. Ensuring that all people have equal access to the courts, regardless of their financial circumstances, is a fundamental pillar of the court's legitimacy. As an aside, I note that last week in this House we hosted a community legal centres forum—myself and the late great Peta Murphy—where we were making sure that as many communities as possible have access to justice, something that the member for Dunkley, even though she was sick, was still committed to. The top end of town should not be able to muscle victims out of the courtroom, and this government is making sure that that is no longer a possibility. This legislation makes it easier and fairer for people to seek justice in the federal courts and provides certainty for applicants that the court could not order them to pay for the respondent's legal costs except in certain circumstances. The Respect@Work report recommends a hard cost neutrality model that differs from a soft cost neutrality model supported by the Australian Human Rights Commission in the 2021 Free and equal: a reform agenda for federal discrimination laws position paper. As we saw in the article in the Sydney Morning Herald today—and I know from looking at redress in response to the royal commission into survivors of institutional abuse—a moment of assault can stay with someone for another 80 years. The assailant moves on with their life, but the ripples and the horror can stay with someone all of their life. For victim-survivors the risk of an adverse order for costs is a significant barrier to them accessing justice in federal unlawful discrimination court proceedings. Victim-survivors should not be deterred from commencing or running legal proceedings by the risk of an adverse cost order. Even washed-up media has-beens and serial gropers like Alan Jones know how to send a tough lawyer's letter, as we saw in the Sydney Morning Herald article today. The equal access model in this bill goes one step further in recognising that not all respondents are well resourced. This equal access model reduces the burden on successful respondents while also ensuring that victims of discrimination feel confident pursuing justice in the courts and not impacting applicants' access to legal representation. The particular circumstances in which a court may order the applicant to pay another party's fees are when the court is satisfied that the applicant deliberately filed for proceedings without reasonable cause or the applicant's unreasonable act or omission cause the respondent to incur a cost. So it still leaves that discretion to the judicial officer. Additionally, the court may order the applicant to pay another party's fees if the other party is a respondent in the proceedings and the respondent does not have significant power and financial advantage over the applicant. Put simply, this bill means that, if an applicant is successful on one or more grounds, the court must order that the respondent pay the applicant's cost. However, if the court is satisfied that the applicant has initiated proceedings vexatiously then the court is not required to order such a payment. So there's always that out under certain circumstances. Discrimination of any kind is an affront to our moral values as a people committed to a democratic way of life. When the Albanese government identifies issues it acts to rectify them. We will not sit on our hands. Governing is about doing what's right, and we'll always support victim-survivors in any way we can. This bill makes pursuing justice in discrimination proceedings fairer for applicants and respondents alike, while providing certainty to victim-survivors and encouraging them to report discrimination where it occurs. I commend the bill to the House. 12:14 Dr RYAN 297660 Kooyong I rise today to support the Australian Human Rights Commission Amendment (Costs Protection) Bill 2023. This bill amends the Australian Human Rights Commission Act to include costs protection provisions that will apply to unlawful discrimination proceedings commenced in federal courts. The landmark 2020 Jenkins report found that workplace sexual harassment is prevalent and pervasive. In response to the recommendations made in that report, the government introduced the Anti-Discrimination and Human Rights Legislation Amendment (Respect at Work) Bill 2022. Schedule 5 of that bill proposed a cost neutrality approach, sometimes referred to as a 'soft costs' neutrality model. This approach requires that litigants bear their own costs in a case unless the court considers it just to order otherwise. It was felt initially by the government that this balanced the need for certainty and the clear impacts that costs can have on applicants taking action in the courts against the unintended consequences of cost reform, such as impacting access to legal representation. At the time, though, the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee noted that there were differences in opinion about these cost provisions settings. Cost neutrality models carry certain risks which may well decrease a victim-survivor's willingness to progress a claim. The harm suffered by victims-survivors is recognised through the courts, primarily through compensation awards which, for sexual harassment and discrimination matters, have remained persistently low. Because the overall cost of proceedings is often exacerbated by the delay tactics adopted by well-resourced respondents and, typically, end up exceeding the assessed damages, cost neutrality models risk limiting access to justice significantly for people who have been discriminated against or harassed. Despite these concerns, the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee did recommend the soft costs neutrality model in the previous iteration of this bill. At that time, I sought to amend the cost provisions model. Recommendation 25 of the Jenkins report set out the absolutely paramount need to ensure that fear of adverse cost orders did not prevent victims-survivors of workplace sexual harassment from seeking access to justice. I was of the view then—and I believe now—that victims-survivors of workplace sexual harassment should be able to speak out and to receive justice without fear regarding adverse cost orders. Clearly, these can act as a strong disincentive to people who wish to consider pursuing sexual harassment matters in court. So last year I proposed an amendment in the House of Representatives, giving an alternative to that cost neutrality approach. The amendment proposed an equal access, or asymmetric, approach. Under this approach, each party bears its own costs, except when the applicant is successful. Where the applicant is successful—that is, where the court has found that the respondent has engaged in discriminatory conduct—then the respondent will be liable to pay the applicant's costs, as they should. This equal access cost model has a number of advantages. Firstly, it ensures that applicants are not dissuaded from bringing claims because of this fear of having to bear their opponents costs, should they not succeed. Secondly, it provides protection for respondents from vexatious claims, unreasonable acts or omissions. In such instances, applicants, reasonably, will be forced to bear the cost of their actions. Thirdly, this model allows for costs to be awarded against a respondent when an applicant's case is successful. And, finally, it avoids the unintended consequence of discouraging claims being brought both in class actions and individual proceedings where the amount of an award will be diminished significantly by the costs incurred in prosecuting the case. Adoption of this asymmetric model of costs provision mirrors that already in place domestically for whistleblowers via the Public Interest Disclosure Act 2013 and the Corporations Act 2001. In introducing this change to the usual cost rule for those laws, the parliament recognised that legal costs could be prohibitive to any person seeking compensation for damage, and that the risk of being ordered to pay the costs of other parties to proceedings could well deter whistleblowers from bringing matters to court. I would argue that complainants who litigate sexual harassment and discrimination cases are also acting in the public interest. They are also seeking to assert their rights, the preservation of which benefits us all. This case was well made in the study Damages and costs in sexual harassment litigation last year. It's also important to note that the equal access cost model can remediate, at least to some extent, the differentials in financial resources and power which might otherwise be apparent between victim-survivors and respondents. The power differential, in particular, is very often present in claims brought pursuant to the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 and other discrimination claims. The equal access model has obvious advantages in improving access to justice for victim-survivors, practically speaking, in levelling the playing field for legal action. My argument remains: you should not be excused for bearing costs when you have broken the law. This bill will act as an incentive to change workplace cultures that permit discriminatory treatment. This should apply not only to sexual discrimination cases but to other cases or instances of discrimination on the basis of race, of age, of physical capacity—in other words, other human rights cases. People and organisations found to have engaged in discrimination or harassment in breach of the law should have to pay the legal costs of the applicants seeking to hold them to account for their actions. The amendment I proposed last year in this place was not passed because it wasn't, at that time, supported by the Albanese government. Representatives of the Australian Greens and the Jacqui Lambie Network intended, at one point, to introduce similar provisions to mine in the Senate, but ultimately they did not need to. Under sustained pressure from the crossbench, the government chose to remove the cost provisions from this bill and to allow further consideration of this most important issue. In one submission to that review, the Law Council of Australia noted: … The 'cost neutrality' model (in any form) is no longer supported by a majority of practitioners in most jurisdictions. It also commented: The Law Institute of Victoria … submits that its members report that, given the costs of litigation, it is mainly high value claims or strategically litigated pro bono claims that are brought. It considered: … an equal access model would encourage more discrimination matters … in the public interest and would empower applicants from marginalised communities, vulnerable backgrounds and those with 'low value' claims. I thank the government for demonstrating an ability to pause and to listen to the voices of experts. These are important matters which affect the ability of our government to protect the vulnerable and to ensure access to justice for women subjected to sexual harassment in the workplace. When I was elected to this place last year, I pledged at that time to take action to address gender inequity and to protect women in the workplace, and I am proud that this bill has come back to this House in this form. I hope that it proceeds successfully through both this and the other place, and I commend the bill to the House. 12:22 Ms WATSON-BROWN 300127 Ryan The Greens welcome the introduction of the Australian Human Rights Commission Amendment (Costs Protection) Bill 2023, which would implement the government's revised response to recommendation 25 of the Respect@Work report. The modified equal access costs protection provision put forward in this bill is one the Greens and many advocates were calling for last year and will ensure that no-one is priced out of fighting sexual harassment in the workplace. Currently, each party bears their own costs, creating a risk that can deter people from making complaints. The decision to make a complaint against someone in your workplace will always be difficult. Costs should not be the determining factor about whether workers are prepared to call out bad behaviour and insist on a safe workplace. When Labor introduced the Respect@Work bill last year, they proposed an adapted version, where parties bear their own costs, but gave the court broader discretion to award costs where it's in the interests of justice. More than 100 experts, lawyers, victim-survivors, unions and advocates raised concerns that the adapted version would still act as a deterrent and, for some, make it worse. Many women would still fear that taking a complaint would be traumatic and financially risky. Without the ability to be awarded costs if successful, women would also not be able to attract the services of 'no win, no fee' lawyers. Stakeholders proposed an equal access model, which meant that, if an applicant is unsuccessful, each party would bear their own costs. However, if an applicant were successful, the respondent would be liable for the applicant's costs. Equal access cost protections, where workers can take action without fear of paying the other side's costs if they lose, already exist for whistleblowers. The Greens are happy to support changes that will see these same protections applied to workplace harassment. Without an equal access cost model in place, many workers, particularly women, weigh up the trauma and financial risk and decide to stay silent. Providing more options for victims of sexual harassment to make complaints doesn't change things if women cannot afford to make complaints. We know that young women are most at risk of harassment in the workplace, and we also know that there are significantly higher rates of harassment in the fast food, hospitality and retail industries, according to the 2018 national survey of sexual harassment. Many workers want the harassment to stop, but they don't want to be named as a victim. They want their workplace to be safe for them and for others, but they don't want to go through a court process and the emotional and financial toll that it takes. The equal access cost protection provision in this bill will help ease an applicant's financial concerns, but we need to see more holistic changes to eliminate harassment in the workplace, including in this one. The Greens are proud to have kept the pressure up to ensure that no-one is priced out of fighting for their rights at work, be it for sexual harassment or for any other type of discrimination. 12:26 Mr KEOGH 249147 Burt It's important to note that the Australian Human Rights Commission Amendment (Costs Protection) Bill 2023 is the result of significant public consultation on an appropriate cost protection model for unlawful discrimination proceedings. Firstly, there was the extensive consultation undertaken by the then Sex Discrimination Commissioner and the Australian Human Rights Commission in relation to the Respect@Work report. That report recommended a model based on the Fair Work Act, which we have since heard is not supported by stakeholders nor by the Australian Human Rights Commission, which has updated its position in subsequent reports—nor is that model supported by the opposition. The government undertook further public consultation earlier this year to determine which cost model was most appropriate. The consultation we conducted found significant support for an equal access cost model; however, the government has been conscious of the very legitimate considerations raised by employer representatives and by the Australian Human Rights Commission. Having regard to those considerations, this bill would introduce a modified equal access cost model. Crucially, this bill would implement the objectives of recommendation 25 of the Respect@Work report, which found that applicants are deterred from pursuing complaints of unlawful discrimination in court because of their potential exposure to an adverse cost order. This reform would help overcome the deterrent effect that the risk of such orders currently poses and, in doing so, alleviate a significant barrier to justice. It'd also provide certainty for all parties as to how costs would be awarded in discrimination cases. The bill is a vast improvement on the status quo. The bill will ensure that, when an applicant is successful on one or more grounds, the respondent would pay the applicant's costs. In respect to some of the comments made by the member for Bradfield—he raised concerns that the bill differed from the hard cost neutrality model as recommended, but, as referred to earlier, further consultation has recommended against the original recommendation. But we are still implementing the objectives of recommendation 25 of the Respect@Work report. The bill is the result of significant consultation on the appropriate cost protection model for unlawful discrimination proceedings. The government considers that the modified equal access cost protection provision of the bill reflects a considered and balanced approach that best achieves the policy objectives of recommendation 25 of the Respect@Work report. I commend the bill to the House. The DEPUTY SPEAKER C2T The question is that this bill be now read a second time. I will put that question for the end of the second reading debate. Question unresolved. The DEPUTY SPEAKER C2T As the question is unresolved, the bill will be reported to the main chamber. ADJOURNMENT 9327 ADJOURNMENT National Party of Australia 9327 12:31 Mr GEE 261393 Calare Last week I informed the parliament about a package recently sent via Australia Post to my home. The sender's address on the package appeared to be fictitious, and my family and I, including my children, were very shocked and concerned that our home was being targeted. In accordance with protocol, I notified the Australian Federal Police, and they in turn contacted Orange police, who investigated and found that the package had been sent using a fake name, address and signature and was paid for with cash. The CCTV at the post office revealed that the sender of the package was the chair of the Calare Federal Electorate Council of the New South Wales National Party, Janelle Culverson. She is a former Cabonne shire councillor, and, aside from the remaining state MPs, she is the most senior National Party member in the region. The package contained empty wine bottles bearing labels carrying an insulting message. When confronted by police, she admitted to sending it. This was no joke. The sending of the package and the steps taken to conceal her identity created fear, anxiety and stress for our whole family, including my children. Having such a package sent to your home creates awful worry that your house is being watched and that you and your family members may be in danger or at risk. It raises the fear of escalation because you don't know what else could be coming or what may happen next. Family members don't deserve to be brought into politics this way. They don't sign up for it and they should never be made to feel fear, worry and apprehension in their own homes. The National Party has asked for Ms Culverson's resignation from her position, but there's been nothing but silence from the Nationals ever since: no statements, no confirmation that the resignation has been forthcoming—nothing. If the home and family of a National Party MP had been targeted in this way by an opposing party, the Nationals would have been demanding an immediate apology, resignation and expulsion of that person from that party. Why the silence from the National Party now? This whole episode reflects very poorly on them, and it's little wonder that people continue to walk away from the National Party and all its nastiness. Their silence says so much about them and the way that their party now operates. I compare the National Party that I grew up with to what the National Party has become in 2023. It is truly a shadow of its former self. Middle East 9328 12:34 Mr JONES A9B Whitlam I wanted to take the opportunity before the House adjourns to place on the record the deep concern within my community—a deep concern which I share—for the ongoing conflict and loss of human life in Gaza. We all know that there is a long, complex and disputed history to this conflict. The present outbreak of war that is unfolding is creating unfathomable trauma and humanitarian disaster which is reverberating deeply through my community and through other communities around the country and right throughout the world. What happened in October this year was horrific—absolutely horrific and despicable. There's no excuse for what Hamas did. The killing of innocent people is never justified. The taking of hostages is never justified. While we've affirmed Israel's right to defend itself unequivocally, we have consistently emphasised that the way it defends itself absolutely matters. This includes ensuring the protection of hospitals, medical staff, patients, journalists, civilians, aid workers—hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of whom have lost their life in this horrific conflict. Australia continues to call for the protection of civilian life in Gaza. Women, children, civilians are not guilty or culpable for the horrific crimes of Hamas and should not be punished for those horrific crimes. There has been too much death and too many innocent lives lost on both sides, and the need for a just and enduring solution, a just and enduring peace between Israelis and the Palestinians, must be realised. I've supported this cause from my first year in this place and well before that. To realise that enduring peace, hostages must obviously be released. I understand this is a distressing time for many in my community and for many Australians. I've sought opportunities to communicate my thoughts and the views of the government directly to community leaders. Because of my duties here, I have not been able to attend every event that I would have liked to, but I want to reiterate my deeply felt concern of people within my community, concerns that I share. I come from a region that has got a strong multicultural community. We've lived together not just in harmony but with a deep understanding and mutual respect for each other's faiths and cultural backgrounds. I'm proud of the fact that multifaith communities, such as the Illawarra People for Peace, have come together from time to time over the years to stand up strong against attempts from within the community and beyond to divide us. It is one of the strengths of our community. We must not let this community divide us as well. We must maintain a respect for one another during this time. Hatred and violence are never the answer. We can't bomb our way to peace. I'm aware of calls for the end to the war. I wholeheartedly support and add my voice to this. Peace must prevail in the region through a two-state solution where Israelis and Palestinians live securely and peacefully within internationally recognised borders. There is no long-term solution to the hostility in the Middle East unless these things are realised. I respond to calls for Australia to do more in the humanitarian effort by pointing out that we are providing over $25 million in humanitarian assistance through trusted partners. This is meaningful and necessary. But what is more meaningful and necessary is an end to the hostilities and a negotiation for an enduring peace in the region—two states, Israelis and Palestinians living in peace side by side. Forestry Industry 9329 12:39 Mr CHESTER IPZ Gippsland I have risen many times in this place to raise my concerns about the Victorian government's politically motivated decision to ban the harvesting of native hardwood timber in the state of Victoria. This decision to introduce a ban from 2030 was made in 2019. Apart from the fact that this was a decision based purely on political science, not environmental science, what the Victorian government then did earlier this year was bring forward that ban to 1 January 2024, giving the industry less than seven months to adjust to the announcement. The social, economic, environmental and cultural impacts on a region like Gippsland, as a direct result of this appalling decision, are now being felt across my electorate of Gippsland. Deputy Speaker Wilkie, as you will understand, you have two choices when it comes to timber: you either use your own wood in a sustainable way or you use someone else's wood, because demand for timber is growing in our cities and will continue to grow. What Victoria is doing now is taking timber from other states—including your state of Tasmania and from New South Wales, Queensland and the Northern Territory—and taking timber from foreign countries with lower environmental protocols and shipping it to Victoria for use in the city areas. Those opposite, the Labor Party—particularly the Victorian Labor Party members—come into this place and demand action on climate emissions and demand action on environmental issues and then are happy to sit back and see timber shipped around the world, with higher emissions to deliver that timber to Victoria, and are happy to see timber taken from countries with lower environmental protocols but not happy to see a world-class and sustainable industry in their own state. The hypocrisy of Labor members, both state and federal, beggars belief until you understand that they are not the old Labor Party—this is a new Labor Party. The old Labor Party knew what they stood for. The old Labor Party stood up for blue-collar workers. The old Labor Party stood up for people who did an honest day's work and wanted to make sure that they got a fair day's pay as a result. This new Labor Party, particularly in Melbourne and other urban areas, is obsessed with Green preferences. They're obsessed with selling out blue-collar workers to secure Green preferences in those city areas. The blue-collar workers in Victoria and across the nation know it. You only need to track Labor's vote amongst blue-collar workers in the opinion polls, you only need to look at the La Trobe Valley, in my own electorate of Gippsland, which used to be a powerhouse for the Labor Party and for blue-collar workers voting Labor, and you only need to see the way that those voters have just abandoned the Labor Party to understand that the workers can see straight through this new Labor Party. They know they're being sold out for Green preferences, and they know their jobs are being sold out because they simply don't matter to the new Labor Party. The hypocrisy is something that really is sickening to watch for communities like mine. Keep in mind that Victoria has had a sustainable timber industry for decades. Victoria stopped the harvesting of old-growth forests a long time ago—and quite rightly so. All the high conservation value areas of forest in Victoria are already protected in reserve systems. What the industry was seeking to do was to continue an industry based on a regenerated model and a sustainable harvesting model, where the timber, which is being harvested today and has been harvested previously—probably 60 or 70 years ago—is then replanted for future generations to have the benefit of that timber. There is no-one in Victoria who doesn't support plantation timber as well, but we have to understand that plantation timber only fills part of the market. The softwood pine plantations fill part of the market. The hardwood timber from our native timber industry, harvested in a sustainable way, is a cornerstone of furniture making and high-value products in housing and, obviously, things like basketball court flooring. If we don't grow our own timber in Victoria, we will take it from other states and we will take it from overseas. The reason I continue to raise this issue here in the federal parliament of Australia is that it is a national issue. This is a security of supply chain issue. We saw during COVID just how fragile our supply chains were. We cannot rely on imports for critical products like those from our timber industry. Keep in mind that we have a trade deficit in wood products already in this state. What the Victoria Labor Party has done in banning the native hardwood timber industry is ensure that we continue to have a trade deficit and rely on foreign countries and other states to supply our timber products. The failure of those opposite to raise a single word of protest when this was introduced by Dan Andrews is only made worse by the change of leadership, with a new premier. They continue to go down this illogical and senseless path of destroying communities like Gippsland for the sake of Green preferences. (Time expired) South Australian Health and Medical Research Institute 9329 12:44 Mr GEORGANAS DZY Adelaide As the federal member for Adelaide, the health and wellbeing of every constituent remains one of my utmost priorities. A decade ago, a symbol of cutting-edge innovation emerged in my electorate: Adelaide saw the iconic 'cheese grater' opening its doors. It's affectionately known as the cheese grater because of the style and design of the building. What started in December 2009, following a review by Professor John Shine and Mr Alan Young AM, was the proposed development to create a top-notch research institute to boost South Australia's medical research. In response, the federal government's then Health and Hospital Fund gave a $200 million grant to build SAHMRI's headquarters. The SAHMRI in Adelaide has now become the biggest hub for health and medical research in the Southern Hemisphere, and it's ideally located right next to the Royal Adelaide Hospital and close to all the university—University of Adelaide and UniSA—research centres. Since then, SAHMRI has transformed healthcare innovation, and dedicated itself to pioneering research that transcends boundaries and enriches lives. Recently, I had the pleasure to visit and to meet with the SAHMRI Chair, the Hon. Hieu Van Le, the former governor of South Australia; Associate Professor Peter Psaltis; Executive Director Maria Makrides; and some of the other brilliant SAHMRI team that are there. From our meeting and interaction, it became evident that the institute's impact extends far and wide. This can be attributed to the commitment and hard work of every individual that's involved in SAHMRI. In these remarkable 10 years, SAHMRI has been a leader in the charge towards a healthier tomorrow. From advancing precision cancer medicine, to elevating women and children's health and delving into Aboriginal health equity, SAHMRI has tirelessly worked towards fostering healthier communities. This includes from groundbreaking heart research that redefines treatments through to unlocking the secrets of healthy ageing through innovative testing methods in the development of brain avatars. And it played an instrumental role in guiding health policy during the pandemic. SAHMRI's commitment goes beyond mere discovery; it's about translating research into solutions. Be it providing relief for millions plagued by all sorts of visceral pain or steering the course towards a cure for leukaemia, SAHMRI's impact resonates globally, offering hope to countless lives and families—not just here in Australia but throughout the world. The institute's work extends to revolutionising aged-care services and pushing the boundaries of radiopharmaceuticals and molecular imaging. The efforts put forth by SAHMRI include the first proton therapy unit, which is a big, big thing in health, and delivering the most advanced cancer treatments available. SAHMRI is a home to hope, innovation and unparalleled progress in health and medical research. This is all happening in my electorate of Adelaide. Approaching SAHMRI's 10th anniversary, I commend not just their achievements but also the resilience and dedication of the incredible team that makes up SAHMRI. Here's to celebrating a decade of impactful work at SAHMRI and also looking forward to the opportunities that will continue to improve global health, all originating from Adelaide's heart. It's just amazing to go down there and see some of the research and work that's being done. They work very closely, as I said, with South Australia's research institutes: the University of Adelaide, the University of South Australia, Flinders University and the Royal Adelaide Hospital, which is located conveniently right next door. That's why this site was picked—it's in the middle of Adelaide's health hub area. What we're seeing now is researchers and scientists from all over the globe coming to work at SAHMRI. We have some magnificent people who are doing cutting-edge research—the most spectacular scientific research that you could think of—including, as I said, everything from leukaemia cures to looking at how we age and how the brain affects aging et cetera. I was very pleased to visit and meet with them. I look forward to working with them for many, many more years and I congratulate them on their 10 years. I'm sure that they will continue doing great work for years to come. Valedictory 9330 12:49 Mr HOWARTH 247742 Petrie The Christmas season is often associated with gifts but, as the Christmas presents are wrapped and unwrapped amidst the hustle and bustle of carols and finding a car park at overcrowded shopping centres, may we remember the greatest gift of all, given to us and told through that simple, age-old story: the telling of the very first Christmas. The story of the birth of Jesus Christ is a story so familiar we almost know it by heart: the story of a baby born in a manger; the story of angels in a field that heralded the proclamation of peace on earth and goodwill to all; the story of a king who came to serve, save and grant love to all of mankind. It's a story that didn't just unfold 2,000 years ago but rings so poignantly true for our world today. Thank you to all the local Christian organisations in my electorate for donating thousands of hampers to those in need over this holiday period, and for organising Christmas carol services throughout the area as well. This generosity at Christmas, from Christian churches and other community groups, will make a big impact after a tough year, financially, for many people. It's important to note that many of them do this because they love other people, and that will have a massive impact. To all the MPs who work in this House, I want to thank you for your tireless work to serve your own communities throughout Australia. To my coalition colleagues, I'm also grateful for your support. To my staff, thank you for all the work that you do. Without you, none of what we are able to do for the people of Petrie would be possible. You keep the show going in Petrie when I'm down here, 17 weeks a year, representing the people in the electorate. I also want to especially mention my office manager, Salome Nel, who is going on maternity leave tomorrow to have her third daughter. The entire team, Salome, are so thrilled for you, and we cannot wait to meet your new daughter. To all the volunteers in the Petrie electorate, thank you for the impact that you've had throughout 2023, serving people in the area. Volunteering is so important and, on behalf of the people of Petrie, I want to thank you for volunteering. Also, to my family—to my wife, Louise, and my three sons William, Thomas and Samuel—I love you and I'm proud of everything that you have achieved this year, particularly with my eldest son finishing university and the other two doing well, as well. As we come to the final days of 2023, I want to take this opportunity to thank the people of Petrie for your support. This year I celebrated 10 years as your federal MP, and I hope I'm a little bit wiser than when I was first elected in delivering for you and the needs that we have in our community. To be your representative—to serve, to deliver and to partner with you—is, of course, a great privilege. I know this year has been tough, financially, for many people, but I truly wish you the best and I hope that this holiday period is filled with love, happiness and faith. As we celebrate the birth of our saviour this Christmas, may his peace and love surround you, regardless of whether you are from the Christian faith or no faith at all. I trust that all of us have a blessed 2024. Domestic and Family Violence 9331 12:53 Ms FERNANDO 299964 Holt As we move into the holiday season this year, I stand before you with a very heavy heart, compelled to address an issue that demands our collective attention: the crisis of violence against women. It is crucial that we confront the stark reality that violence against women and girls remains one of the most prevalent and terrible violations of human rights in this nation. Police across Australia respond, on average, to 720 incidents of domestic violence each day. This is one incident every two minutes. Unfortunately, over the Christmas festive season, these incidents spike by over 20 per cent. Christmas is meant to be the most wonderful time of the year, but we know that, for women and children experiencing domestic abuse, it is far from this. In fact, it can be quite a frightening and isolating time. The theme for this year's International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women was: 'UNITE! Invest to prevent violence against women and girls'. This is not just a call to action but a reminder that each of us bears a responsibility to contribute to the creation of a world that is free from the shackles of violence towards women. It is imperative to recognise that family and domestic violence do not discriminate. They transcend age, cultural background, occupation, education level, income bracket and location. This is not someone else's problem; it is an issue that touches us all, whether directly or indirectly. We cannot turn a blind eye to the fact that, on average, every 14 days a woman loses her life to domestic violence in our country. Behind each tragic incident are shattered families, grieving communities and a society that must grapple with the uncomfortable truth that we have not done enough. Last month's International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women was a symbolic occasion. It was a stark reminder of our duty as representatives of the people. We must strive to ensure that every Australian, regardless of gender, can live a life free from violence. This fundamental human right must be at the core of our legislative policy endeavours. The Albanese government, in collaboration with state and territory governments, has embarked on a comprehensive and ambitious journey with the National Plan to End Violence against Women and Children 2022-2032. This plan not only sets the goal to end violence within one generation but also focuses on prevention, early intervention, appropriate response and, critically, the support and healing of victims-survivors. We have committed substantial resources, $2.3 billion to be precise, to prioritise women's safety. This includes funding for prevention initiatives and education programs and support for organisations such as Our Watch, which plays a vital role in primary prevention efforts. One of my first votes in this chamber was for legislation that enshrined 10 paid days of family and domestic violence leave for all employees, including casuals. This landmark initiative aims to foster an environment where victims can access the support they need without fear of jeopardising their employment. Our efforts to fix the escaping violence payment, to secure funds for frontline services and to build a robust frontline workforce are important steps, yet we must recognise that these are not just the end but, rather, the beginning of a long journey towards eradicating the deeply rooted issue of violence against women. It is a journey that requires collaboration across party lines within communities and among individuals. We must foster a culture where silence is replaced by open conversation, where victim blaming is replaced by empathy and where the notion that violence is inevitable becomes a relic of the past. Let us stand united in our commitment to building a safer Australia across this festive season so that it may be a joyous time for everyone. Have a merry and safe Christmas everyone. Question agreed to. The DEPUTY SPEAKER C2T I take this opportunity to thank the clerks, the attendants, Hansard and other staff for their support this year. Federation Chamber adjourned at 1 2 : 5 9