2024-02-06 2 1 0 House of Reps 0 1

Tuesday, 6 February 2024

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

STATEMENTS ON INDULGENCE 1 STATEMENTS ON INDULGENCE His Majesty King Charles III 1 12:01 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler Earlier today, we received news that His Majesty King Charles III has been diagnosed with cancer. A cancer diagnosis is never easy, not for the person and not for their families. Australians know that His Majesty has always reached out to us when our country has needed him. He has always shown kindness and empathy for those doing it tough. His Majesty spent a formative period of his life here studying, as a very young man, and Australia has always had a special place in his affections. He knows that the feeling is very much mutual. I wrote to His Majesty this morning to let him know that all Australians are thinking of him and his family at this difficult time, and I'm sure that I speak on behalf of the entire chamber when I do so. We wish him well for a speedy recovery and we very much look forward to him being able to take up our invitation to make his first visit to Australia as King. 12:02 Ms BELL 282981 Moncrieff Can I associate the Coalition with the Prime Minister's remarks on our monarch, King Charles III. Our hearts go out to him, to his family, to the British people and to all those across the Commonwealth who care so deeply about the royal family. The monarch, only one year into his reign, is now struggling with this and so I do associate the Coalition with your remarks, Prime Minister. PARLIAMENTARY REPRESENTATION 1 PARLIAMENTARY REPRESENTATION Dunkley Electorate 1 Issue of Writ 1 12:02 The SPEAKER 53517 I inform the House that, on Monday 29 January 2024, I issued a writ for the election of a member to serve for the electoral division of Dunkley in the state of Victoria, to fill the vacancy caused by the death of Peta Jan Murphy. The dates in connection with the by-election are fixed as follows: close of rolls, Monday 5 February; close of nominations, Thursday 8 February; date of polling, Saturday 2 March; return of writ, on or before 8 May 2024. BILLS 1 BILLS Treasury Laws Amendment (Cost of Living Tax Cuts) Bill 2024 1

Treasury Laws Amendment (Cost of Living Tax Cuts) Bill 2024

First Reading 1 Second Reading 1 12:04 Dr CHALMERS 37998 Rankin I move: That this bill be now read a second time. I'm proud to introduce the Treasury Laws Amendment (Cost of Living Tax Cuts) Bill 2024. This bill implements the Albanese Labor government's cost-of-living tax cut for middle Australia. It means every Australian taxpayer will now get a tax cut, right up and down the income scale, and 84 per cent of taxpayers will get a bigger tax cut and more support. This means more tax relief for more workers, to help with the costs of living. It means the steel workers I met with in Launceston, the early educators in Carrum Downs, the healthcare workers in Meadowbrook, the plumbers and sprinkler fitters in Beenleigh. The truckies, the nurses, the police officers— Will all get a bigger tax cut. This is all about supporting the hard work of people who make our economy and our country strong. It's all about supporting people who work hard so that they can provide for their loved ones and get ahead. It's all about doing more than just acknowledging that people are under pressure. It's about doing something about it. It's about recognising that aspiration in this country is not, and should not, be limited to people who are already doing pretty well. Middle Australia is aspirational Australia—where people work hard to give their kids a better chance. And the best version of our country is one that provides more opportunities for more people, so there's reward for effort right up and down the income scale— In every suburb and in every town and in every part of our country. Our tax cuts are better for workers and families and communities right around Australia, and they are better for the economy as well. We found a better way to deliver cost-of-living relief and we've done it in a way that is better for bracket creep, better for labour supply, better for women, better for young people— And in a way that doesn't burden the budget or put additional inflationary pressures in our economy. These tax cuts build on our broader plan to ease cost-of-living pressures and they come on top of tens of billions of dollars in relief across child care, energy bills, rents and medicines which is already rolling out in our economy. These cost-of-living tax cuts for middle Australia mean every taxpayer will get a tax cut from 1 July. As I said, 84 per cent of Australian taxpayers will get a bigger tax cut because of the changes that we are seeking to legislate. The workers of our communities and our country need and deserve this extra help. The average worker will now get a tax cut of more than $1,500 a year. That's around $29 a week. And it's more than double what they were going to receive under the old plan. Someone earning $100,000 a year, gets a tax cut of around $42 a week, or $2,179 a year. For a family on an average household income—around $130,000—with one partner earning $80,000 and the other $50,000— Their combined tax cut will be over $2,600—which is about $50 a week, and $1,600 more than they would have gotten under the old plan. Nurses, teachers, and truckies are some of the most likely to benefit, with more than 95 per cent of those taxpayers getting a bigger tax cut. This is good for workers and it's good for our economy. This is not relief or reform; this is relief and reform. More relief for middle Australia and a better reform for our economy. We found a better way to give a tax cut to every taxpayer but with a bigger emphasis on middle Australia, by cutting two rates and lifting two thresholds. By reducing the lowest rate of income tax from 19 to 16 per cent— Lowering the second tax rate from 32½ to 30 per cent— And raising the thresholds of the 37 and 45 per cent tax rates to $135,000 and $190,000 respectively— We are reforming the tax system, providing cost-of-living relief across the board and returning bracket creep. And in fact, the 45 per cent threshold will be lifted on 1 July for the first time since Labor was last in office. And the average tax rate for the average worker will be lower under our plan compared to those opposite, for the next decade. Our tax plan delivers sustainable relief, and sustainable and substantial reform by: Maximising cost-of-living relief for middle Australia— Without adding to inflationary pressures— And delivering an economic dividend—by boosting the capacity of our economy. The Treasury advice makes these four things clear: First, we've found a better way to return more bracket creep to more people. Bracket creep hurts low- and middle-income earners the most as they experience the fastest growth in their average tax rate as their income increases. Our approach does more to reduce bracket creep for more taxpayers. As a result, over the next decade the average worker will pay $21,635 less in tax. Second, we've found a better way to increase incentives to work and boost labour supply. Treasury estimates our changes will increase labour supply by around 930,000 hours a week. This is more than double the labour supply impact of the plan from five years ago. Third, we've found a better way to do more for women. From 1 July, 5.8 million women—that is, 90 per cent of tax-paying women—will receive a bigger tax cut, helping parents returning to work, particularly young women with children, and delivering a bigger benefit to more than 90 per cent of taxpayers in high-demand occupations that have a significant percentage of women. Teachers, nurses, aged carers, disability support and early childhood educators will take home more pay because of our tax plan. So will younger Australians and so will Australians who live in the regions. More than 90 per cent of those under 35 are now getting a bigger tax cut because of these changes. All of this helps to build a larger, more inclusive and more dynamic labour force. And, fourth, we're doing it in a way that doesn't impact inflation or put extra strain on the budget. The Treasury advice, again, is really clear—our changes are broadly revenue neutral and won't add to inflation. Tax relief rolls out over the course of the year, not in a single payment, so its effect is staggered. It begins to flow from the middle of year, when inflation is expected to moderate further. The Treasury secretary and I both consulted the Reserve Bank ahead of these changes, and Governor Bullock confirmed our tax cuts don't have implications for their inflation forecasts. Our tax cuts are better for the cost of living, better for the workforce, better for bracket creep, better for women and young people and better for the economy. And they come with additional help via the lifting of the low-income Medicare levy thresholds, in the legislation that I will introduce shortly. That legislation will mean 1.2 million low-income earners get additional tax relief on top of the tax cuts that we are legislating here. The government didn't come to this decision to alter the old stage 3 tax cuts lightly. We knew that it would be politically contentious and contested to amend the tax changes which were legislated here five years ago, when the world was a very different place—before a once-in-100-years pandemic, persistent inflation, higher interest rates, two conflicts and all of the global uncertainty that we see today. All of this puts people under more sustained cost-of-living pressure. Listening to our communities, it became increasingly clear over the summer that we needed to have more cost-of-living relief and it needed to be broader, without adding to inflation. I think Australians understand that, when economic circumstances change, the right thing to do is to improve and align our economic policy as well. The tax changes contained in this bill are the right thing to do, for the right reasons and at the right time. In putting this before the parliament, we have put people before politics. We have found a better, more responsible way to ensure every Australian taxpayer gets a tax cut but the workers of middle Australia get a bigger tax cut to help ease the pressure that they are under. Our cost-of-living tax cuts build on our broader economic strategy: helping to ease cost-of-living pressures without adding to inflation, getting the budget in better nick so we can insulate ourselves against uncertainty and provide responsible relief, and investing in the capacity of our economy through skills, energy and housing. These are the central parts of our economic plan—to get wages moving again, to bring inflation under control and drive fairer prices for consumers if we can. They're part of our efforts to modernise the economy and maximise our advantages in this defining decade so that more people are beneficiaries, not victims, of the big changes underway in our economy and in our society. And, despite the weaker global conditions, persistent inflation and uncertainty around the world, we are making welcome progress. Inflation has come off substantially since its peaks in 2022, and our policies are helping, but we know that it's not mission accomplished on inflation, because people are still under pressure. Our labour market has been resilient—we've overseen the creation of 650,000 jobs, a record for a first-term government. We've seen two consecutive quarters, now, of real wages growth, with Treasury expecting annual real wages to grow this year. This is on the back of delivering the first surplus in 15 years, with a second one in prospect. That's a $100 billion fiscal turnaround from what we inherited, in one year alone. We've come a long way in less than two years, repairing the budget and investing in the capacity of our economy and our people. Inflation is slowing. Real wages are growing. And from 1 July we will see Labor's cost-of-living tax cuts flowing as well. This is the parliament's big chance to provide bigger tax cuts for more people to help with the cost of living. Honourable members should not stand in the way of that. Full details of the measure are contained in the explanatory memorandum. Debate adjourned. Treasury Laws Amendment (Cost of Living—Medicare Levy) Bill 2024 4

Treasury Laws Amendment (Cost of Living—Medicare Levy) Bill 2024

First Reading 4 Second Reading 4 12:16 Dr CHALMERS 37998 Rankin I move: That this bill be now read a second time. Today I also introduce the Treasury Laws Amendment (Cost of Living—Medicare Levy) Bill 2024. This is another way that the Albanese Labor government is providing more tax relief to Australians on modest incomes, to help with the costs of living. It means more help for more people via the tax system, by adjusting the Medicare levy low-income thresholds. It will ensure people on lower incomes continue to pay less or are exempt from the Medicare levy. It means 1.2 million Australians get to keep a bit more of what they earn. Most Australian residents pay the Medicare levy, charged at two per cent of their taxable income. We are increasing the low-income thresholds by 7.1 per cent for singles, families, seniors and pensioners in line with average annual growth in the consumer price index. This is not an automatic change; it's not indexation—it requires a government decision and this legislation. The increases contained in this bill mean that those with a taxable income of up to $26,000 will not be liable for the Medicare levy—that's an increase of almost $2,000. Seniors and pensioners will now be able to earn up to $41,089 before being liable for the Medicare levy. Couples and families will now be able to earn up to $43,846. Families who are eligible for the seniors and pensioners tax offset can now earn up to $57,198. And the thresholds for couples and families increases by $4,027 for each dependent child or student. These changes are about ensuring those on the lowest incomes, keep a bit more of their weekly pay packet—providing targeted relief to those that are doing it tough and helping to ease some of the pressures on Australian families, seniors and young people on modest incomes. This bill adds to the cost-of-living relief we are already rolling out for those who need it most. Our cost-of-living tax cuts for middle Australia that deliver a tax cut for every Australian taxpayer: the tens of billions of dollars in cost of living relief across childcare, energy bills and rents we are already rolling out, and the billions we have invested in strengthening Medicare. We've tripled the bulk billing incentive, supporting 11.6 million Australians to access a GP with no out-of-pocket costs. We've made medicines cheaper, saving Australians $250 million last year and with more savings to come this year. And we're establishing Medicare Urgent Care Clinics across the country to ease the pressure on emergency departments when care is needed. It is cost-of-living relief and health reform, hand in hand. Our changes to the low-income threshold for the Medicare levy for 2023-24, as I said, will benefit more than a million Australians. This is about doing what we responsibly can to help ease some of the pressure being felt by Australians right around the country—especially for those on lower incomes, younger people, seniors and women—and many of the Australians doing it toughest when it comes to managing cost-of-living pressures. Across our tax changes, the tens of billions in targeted cost-of-living relief and now these changes to the Medicare levy—we are determined to make a positive difference in people's lives; to help where we can. We are focused on getting the budget in better nick and inflation under control. As well as, not instead of, supporting Australians through tough times. Full details of the measures are contained in the explanatory memorandum. Debate adjourned. Customs Tariff Amendment (Incorporation of Proposals) Bill (No. 2) 2023, COAG Legislation Amendment Bill 2023, Australian Research Council Amendment (Review Response) Bill 2023, National Redress Scheme for Institutional Child Sexual Abuse Amendment Bill 2023, Modern Slavery Amendment (Australian Anti-Slavery Commissioner) Bill 2023 5

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

COAG Legislation Amendment Bill 2023

Australian Research Council Amendment (Review Response) Bill 2023

National Redress Scheme for Institutional Child Sexual Abuse Amendment Bill 2023

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

Reference to Federation Chamber 5 12:20 Mr BURKE DYW Watson I declare that, unless otherwise ordered, the Customs Tariff Amendment (Incorporation of Proposals) Bill (No. 2) 2023, the COAG Legislation Amendment Bill 2023, the Australian Research Council Amendment (Review Response) Bill 2023, the National Redress Scheme for Institutional Child Sexual Abuse Amendment Bill 2023 and the Modern Slavery Amendment (Australian Anti-Slavery Commissioner) Bill 2023 stand referred to the Federation Chamber for further consideration at the adjournment of the debate on the motion for the second reading of each bill. Australian Citizenship Amendment (Citizenship Repudiation) Bill 2023, Migration and Other Legislation Amendment (Bridging Visas, Serious Offenders and Other Measures) Bill 2023, Water Amendment (Restoring Our Rivers) Bill 2023, Economic Inclusion Advisory Committee Bill 2023, Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment (Prohibited Hate Symbols and Other Measures) Bill 2023, Interactive Gambling Amendment (Credit and Other Measures) Bill 2023, Identity Verification Services Bill 2023, Identity Verification Services (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2023, Infrastructure Australia Amendment (Independent Review) Bill 2023, Public Health (Tobacco and Other Products) Bill 2023, Public Health (Tobacco and Other Products) (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2023, Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes) Bill 2023, Nature Repair Bill 2023, Nature Repair (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2023 5

Australian Citizenship Amendment (Citizenship Repudiation) Bill 2023

Migration and Other Legislation Amendment (Bridging Visas, Serious Offenders and Other Measures) Bill 2023

Water Amendment (Restoring Our Rivers) Bill 2023

Economic Inclusion Advisory Committee Bill 2023

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

Interactive Gambling Amendment (Credit and Other Measures) Bill 2023

Identity Verification Services Bill 2023

Identity Verification Services (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2023

Infrastructure Australia Amendment (Independent Review) Bill 2023

Public Health (Tobacco and Other Products) Bill 2023

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

Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes) Bill 2023

Nature Repair Bill 2023

Nature Repair (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2023

Assent 5 COMMITTEES 6 COMMITTEES Intelligence and Security Joint Committee 6 Reference 6 12:21 The SPEAKER 53517 I have received a message from the Senate informing the House of the following resolution agreed to by the Senate. The message read as follows— That the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, in undertaking any inquiry into the amendments made by the Australian Citizenship Amendment (Citizenship Repudiation) Bill 2023, also consider any amendments to the bill which have been circulated in the Senate. Treaties Joint Committee 6 Report 6 12:21 Mr JOSH WILSON 265970 Fremantle On behalf of Joint Standing Committee on Treaties, I present the committee's report entitled Report 213: Amendments to the Annex of the Convention on Facilitation of International Maritime Traffic, 1965. Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e). Mr JOSH WILSON 265970 by leave—I'm pleased to make a statement on the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties report into the Amendments to the Annex of the Convention on Facilitation of International Maritime Traffic, 1965. Australia has been a signatory to the original convention since 27 June 1986, and the aim of the original treaty is to prevent unnecessary delays, aid cooperation between governments and secure uniformity to the highest practicable degree in maritime procedures and formalities. That's because timely, safe and efficient maritime transport for both passengers and freight is clearly in the best interests of all nations—certainly in the best interests of Australia. The annex to the original treaty is the focus of this treaty action and contains a set of standards and recommended practices. These focus on formalities, documentary requirements and procedures for the arrival, stay and departure of ships. The amendments to the annex cover topics such as the agreed definition of relevant terms and concepts, general provisions, illicit activities, the digitalisation of vessel reporting requirements, identification, treatment of stowaways, public health and the implementation of the agreement. In the course of our inquiry, the department of transport gave evidence in support of the treaty action, recognising that international cooperation is essential to simplify and reduce the formalities, documentary requirements and procedures that are necessary for the safe and efficient conduct of international voyages, needless to say that progress with respect to maritime transport arrangements is a matter of particular relevance to our island continent because 99 per cent of Australia's imports and exports are moved by sea. The amendments also support Australia in modernising its engagement with the maritime sector, in line with international digitisation standards, and they create greater opportunities to adopt new maritime technologies. The amendments entered into force for Australia on 1 January this year, 2024, in accordance with the acceptance provisions of the convention. Some of the issues raised during the committee's inquiry include: the timing of the referral to the JSCOT, which, I'm sorry to say, is bit of a perennial grumble; the work required to meet the amendment standards; the range of measures involved in updating a common approach to integrated freight management systems; digitisation and efficiency; privacy issues; standards for illicit activities; and, of course, the ever-present matter of overlapping state and federal responsibilities. The committee notes support for ratification from government and other stakeholders, including those across the maritime industry. In conclusion, the committee supports the amendments to the Annexe of the Convention on Facilitation of National Maritime Traffic 1965 and recommends that binding treaty action be taken. I take this opportunity to thank the deputy chair; all our fellow committee members on the JSCOT; and, as always, the secretariat for their work on this inquiry. On behalf of the committee, I commend the report to the House. DELEGATION REPORTS 6 DELEGATION REPORTS Australian Parliamentary Delegation to Sweden and United Kingdom 6 12:25 Ms STANLEY 265990 Werriwa I present the report of the Australian Parliamentary Delegation to Sweden and United Kingdom from 31 October to 9 November 2023, and ask leave of the House to make a short statement in connection with the report. Leave granted. Ms STANLEY 265990 I am very pleased to speak to the report of the Australian Parliamentary Delegation to the United Kingdom and Sweden which took place from 31 October to 9 November last year. It was a great privilege to act as leader for this delegation, and I thank the members for McPherson, Wright and Blair for their support, expertise and contributions during the delegation. The delegation worked well together, and brought a variety of interests and knowledge of issues, which proved to be valuable during our meetings and discussions. The delegation, held in early November, visited Stockholm in Sweden as well as England and Scotland. I would like to add my appreciation and thanks to Her Excellency, Ms Frances Sagala, Australian Ambassador to Sweden and His Excellency, the Honourable Stephen Smith, Australian High Commissioner to the United Kingdom, as well as all their staff for the valuable briefings and support they provided during the trip. The delegation aimed to strengthen the important parliamentary links with Sweden and the United Kingdom and to discuss issues of common interest and concern. Main topics of discussion included AUKUS; defence cooperation; the international response to Russia's invasion of Ukraine; the Israel-Hamas conflict; and trade and investment relationships, including the negotiations on the Australia EU free trade agreement. We held fruitful discussions with parliamentary counterparts, senior government officials, business leaders, policy analysts and academics. We also visited the parliaments of Sweden, Scotland and the United Kingdom. This report further details all the meetings the delegation held in each country and the various matters discussed. A highlight for the delegation was our visit to Operation Kudu and the Salisbury Plains, where a Australian Defence Force contingent is training Ukrainian defence recruits in United Kingdom. We received a briefing on the operation from the contingent commander, visited the training area to observe Ukrainian recruits undergoing weapons and tactical training, and we engaged with the Australian and Ukrainian soldiers. The delegation members recognised the professionalism, care and expertise of the Australian soldiers taking part in the training of the Ukrainian citizens, and we appreciate the conversations and hospitality that were shown to us during our visit. On behalf of the delegation, I would like to record our appreciation for the work that went into preparing such a successful trip, including the arrangements made by the staff of the International and Parliamentary Relations Office and briefings provided by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. I would also like to thank His Excellency, Mr Pontus Melander, Ambassador of Sweden to Australia, on the briefing he gave us, which provided insightful information before the delegation's arrival in Sweden. I would also like to record my thanks to Mr Peter Banson, Deputy Clerk of the House of Representatives, who accompanied the delegation to provide logistic and secretarial support and advice. His assistance was appreciated by us all. The delegation presented a valuable opportunity to strengthen bonds with the UK and Sweden, and we were pleased to be able to hold useful discussions and promote matters of importance to Australia. I commend the report to the House. BILLS 7 BILLS Customs Tariff Amendment (Incorporation of Proposals) Bill (No. 2) 2023 7

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

Second Reading 7 12:29 Mr HOGAN 218019 Page I rise to speak in support of the Customs Tariff Amendment (Incorporation of Proposals) Bill (No. 2) 2023, and the opposition will be supporting this bill as it goes through the House. This bill will amend the Customs Tariff Act 1995 to incorporate the measures contained in four customs tariff proposals that were moved in the 2023 winter and spring parliamentary sittings. The bill includes the following four measures. The first measure is the expansion in the scope of types of goods specified in the agreement between the government of Australia and the European Space Agency for a cooperative space vehicle tracking program. This will enable the duty-free entry of equipment, materials, supplies and other property that are for the European Space Agency, are for use in agreed activities under the agreement and are imported by persons employed or engaged by the European Space Agency. This will also enable the duty-free entry of personnel and of household goods imported by those persons. The European Space Agency is currently undertaking an expansion of their facility in WA to include a new 35-metre diameter deep-space antenna for communicating with various space science missions and the biomass calibration transponder to support the 2024 biomass mission, which aims to provide critical information about forests globally and improve our understanding of the role forests play in the carbon cycle. Goods for this project and future projects will be eligible for a free rate of customs duty if they were imported on or after 1 December 2022. The second measure extends the duration of the temporary duty reduction for Ukrainian goods for a further 12 months. This measure is aimed at assisting Ukraine's continued participation in international trade and supporting its efforts to uphold its territorial integrity in response to Russia's illegal invasion and is necessary for the protection of Australia's essential security interests. As a demonstration of Australia's ongoing support for the people of Ukraine, who have borne the terrible cost of Russia's brutal invasion of their country, the free rate of customs duty will apply to goods other than alcohol, tobacco, petroleum and fuel products that are the produce or manufacture of Ukraine to 3 July 2024. The third measure of this bill enables certain goods to be imported with a free rate of customs duty where goods were imported from 1 January 2022 and are prescribed in a by-law for a specified international sporting event. The first event prescribed was the 2023 FIFA Women's World Cup. The retrospective commencement date has the benefit of enabling those who imported such goods from 1 January 2022 to apply for a refund of the import duties they have paid. The fourth and final measure is the extension of the temporary additional duty for Russian and Belarusian goods for a further 24 months. The additional duty rate of 35 per cent will therefore continue to apply to goods that are the produce or manufacture of Russia or Belarus, in addition to the general rate of customs that applies to these goods. The additional duty applies to goods that are rented for home consumption between 25 April 2022 and 24 October 2025, other than those that are eligible for a schedule 4 concessional item or left for a direct shipment to Australia from a place of manufacture or warehouse prior to 25 April 2022. The measure is a direct response to Russia's illegal invasion of Ukraine that is supported by Belarus. The coalition supports this bill. Debate adjourned. Ordered that the resumption of the debate be made an order of the day for a later hour. COAG Legislation Amendment Bill 2023 8

COAG Legislation Amendment Bill 2023

Second Reading 8 12:33 Ms BELL 282981 Moncrieff The COAG Legislation Amendment Bill 2023 seeks to amend several Commonwealth acts to update references to COAG and ministerial councils to reflect the cessation of the Council of Australian Governments, known as COAG, in 2020. The Morrison government's establishment of the National Cabinet and the National Federation Reform Council to replace COAG on 13 March 2020 marked a pivotal achievement in the last government and indeed a core part of the nation's response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Under the Morrison government, the coalition realised that, if states and territories were to go their separate ways, Australia would significantly struggle with its response to COVID-19. Be it working together on social distancing restrictions—we all remember those—the vaccination rollout or the Morrison government's economic plan to keep the economy afloat and Australians employed, the National Cabinet played a core role to keep Australians safe and ensure that Australians were still able to put food on the table. Bringing the state and territory governments to the table with the Commonwealth to work together collaboratively played a necessary role in managing COVID-19 and supporting the Australian economy. The Morrison government's establishment of the National Cabinet will go down in history as a pivotal component of Australia's response to COVID-19 and an important vehicle to tackle future sophisticated problems facing the Australian public. The COAG Legislation Amendment Bill 2023 extracts schedules 1 and 2 of the coalition's COAG Legislation Amendment Bill 2021 but includes additional updates that aim to make the legislation fit for purpose by updating other bills that have been passed since the introduction of the coalition's bill. To ensure that this bill has no unintended consequences and that no items of legislation have been missed, the coalition will seek to refer the COAG Legislation Amendment Bill 2023 to the Senate Finance and Public Administration Committee for inquiry. Subject to the report of the Senate committee, the coalition will then consider its final position on the bill. Debate adjourned. Australian Research Council Amendment (Review Response) Bill 2023 8

Australian Research Council Amendment (Review Response) Bill 2023

Second Reading 8 12:36 Mr FLETCHER L6B Bradfield I rise to speak on the Australian Research Council Amendment (Review Response) Bill 2023. The bill amends the Australian Research Council Act to make changes to the governance, oversight and budgetary arrangements for the Australian Research Council. These changes follow a review which considered the role and purpose of the Australian Research Council within the university research system. The final report Trusting Australia's ability:review of the Australian Research Council Act 2001 was released in April last year and made 10 recommendations. This bill seeks to implement six of those recommendations. Firstly, the bill establishes an Australian Research Council Board as the accountable authority rather than the current executive management structure. The proposed board will have the authority to design and set grant guidelines as well as approve a wide range of grant funding decisions, rather than the minister for education, except on security, defence and international relations grounds. This will include grounds for discovery projects, linkage projects and the fellowship programs, which account for around 75 per cent of the Australian Research Council's expenditure. The coalition is concerned that, in removing ministerial discretion over the expenditure of hundreds of millions of dollars of taxpayers' funds on research and outsourcing these decisions to a board, the Albanese government is removing its accountability for such decisions to the parliament and ultimately to the Australian people under our democratic system of responsible government. The minister will retain the ability to approve grants for other designated research programs, including Australian Research Council centres of excellence, industrial transformation training centres and industrial transformation research hubs. Interestingly, these projects on an individual basis tend to be of the highest monetary value, so one needs to ask: if the Labor government believes in outsourcing research project decisions to the board of the Australian Research Council, why were these three research programs—the ARC centres of excellence, the industrial training centres and the industrial transformation research hubs—excluded? Is it, possibly, perhaps because the minister wishes to retain his discretion in relation to the projects that will provide the biggest ribbon-cutting or photo opportunities? The bill will also devolve the appointment process for the chief executive officer to the new board, rather than the appointment being made by the minister. In essence, authority and accountability will largely be shifted from the minister to the new Australian Research Council Board. While the new board arrangements will include First Nations representation and a representative from regional, rural and remote Australia, disappointingly, the provisions do not seek to include people with other relevant skills, such as those who are experts in public administration and governance, or who can advocate for the best use of public moneys. Additionally, many of the peak bodies in the higher education research sector, such as the Group of Eight and Universities Australia, have raised concerns that the board's composition will be insufficient to allow the board to operate effectively. For example: the Group of Eight had this to say: … the Bill requiring between three and five members—in addition to the Chair and Deputy Chair—there is a risk that the Board may not be large enough to reflect the diversity of backgrounds and expertise required. Curtin University had this to say: The current membership of chair, deputy chair and three to five members, could see a group of five people wield great power in the direction of the ARC and funding for research in Australia. It's important to note that this is not the first time these concerns have been raised, as there was a formal consultation process in the development of this bill. The Albanese government has ignored the concerns of stakeholders about the composition of the board and, indeed, the bill, refusing even to include the recommended review mechanism in 12 months to assess the board's effectiveness. A further concern raised by stakeholders in relation to the board is the financial cost. The explanatory memorandum states that the changes, primarily the new board arrangements, will cost $1.5 million, with this cost absorbed from within the Australian Research Council's existing annual budget. Universities Australia has expressed this concern repeatedly on behalf of its members. In its submission to the Senate inquiry into the bill, it said: … UA urges the Government to ensure adequate funding to allow the ARC to take on the additional responsibilities … The Group of Eight, in its submission to the same inquiry, said: The Financial Impact Statement indicates that establishing the ARC Board and restructuring the ARC's governance arrangements will cost approximately $1.5 million per annum. It is proposed that this be met through existing resourcing from within the ARC's current annual departmental budget. This is not acceptable. It will significantly impact the operation of the ARC given its current budget is already under pressure due to the scale and scope of its mission. On the surface, an annual cost of 1.5 million for the board may not seem significant but the sector is concerned that this will deplete funding available for research programs. Further, given the remit of the board, there's every possibility that the funding allocation will be insufficient and that the actual cost may exceed the estimated $1.5 million. The government has wilfully ignored the concerns of stakeholders in the development of this bill. The bill also changes the funding arrangements for the Australian Research Council from a capped special appropriation to an annual appropriation. This change will remove the need to update the capped funding amounts through legislative amendments each year. However, it will also remove the division of funding specified for different research programs. While this reduces the workload of the parliament, it also removes much of the certainty and transparency in the financial allocation to each research program. Most significantly, the bill removes the capacity for ministerial discretion or intervention in relation to grant-funding decisions. The ability for a minister to overturn a decision made by assessors derives from section 52(4) of the act, which, as presently worded, states that in deciding which proposals to approve: … the Minister may (but is not required to) rely solely on recommendations made by the ARC … That's to say, the CEO of the ARC. The government's decision to remove section 52(4) is in response to criticisms made of decisions by coalition ministers to reject recommendations made by the Australian Research Council for some grant decisions. But let's put this in context. Since 2005, just 32 funding decisions have been rejected. In the 2021-22 financial year, for example, there were nearly 600 discovery projects awarded—nearly 600. Just six of the recommendations made by the chief executive were rejected by the minister of the day—merely one per cent—and indeed, in monetary terms, the total value of the projects rejected stood at a mere 0.53 per cent of the total value of the projects recommended for funding. So that Australians can draw their own conclusions, let me just mention the titles of three of the projects which were rejected by the minister. These were projects which were seeking to have taxpayer funding. 'Spectacles, dress and second-wave feminism in the Philippines'—that was the first. 'Queer Tokyo: a cultural history' was the second. 'Beauty and ugliness as persuasive tools in changing China's gender norms'—that was the third. Those were just three of a relatively small number of projects where the minister of the day exercised the right in the statute to overturn a funding decision. But let's put this in context in another way. The coalition has always recognised and supported high-quality research. We have always supported researchers to undertake the cutting-edge, innovative research which advances our nation, meets Australia's priorities and supports our economy and our society. Our $2.2 billion investment in the university research commercialisation package was a key example of our support for the sector. We firmly believe that, by investing in research and the commercialisation of ideas from Australia's brilliant minds, we are, in turn, enhancing Australia's economic growth and future. In this regard, I think it's important that I alert the House to the fact that there is a discrepancy between the very big game talked by the Albanese government, when it comes to its support for research, and its actual performance. At the 2022 election, Labor campaigned on a promise to lift research expenditure to three per cent of GDP. They're now more than halfway through their term of government, and yet this Labor government is yet to deliver a single cent of the investment that was promised. Indeed, on the contrary, this Labor government has demonstrated its contempt for the research sector. In the 2023-24 MYEFO in December, more than $102 million was cut from research, $46.2 million was slashed from Australia's Economic Accelerator program and a further $56.3 million was clawed back by cancelling the Regional Research Collaboration Program. This, I am sorry to say, is the most rank hypocrisy from this Labor government. They are in here today spruiking their support for the research sector, while the reality is: they're wielding the fiscal axe on research spending. They have even failed to find the money to support the operation of the board, meaning that the single impact of this bill in relation to research funding is to deliver a cut: a funding cut of $1.5 million—money which was previously going to research and which is now going to support the operations of this board. This bill's focus on structural changes sees it neglecting the importance of fostering a culture of collaboration and communication between the government and the research community. Meaningful reform requires engagement and dialogue, and not just top-down structural alterations. The powers of the new ARC board and the lack of effective ministerial oversight of its operations should raise significant concerns in the minds of Australians about accountability and transparency in the allocation of public funds. The absence of ministerial oversight will hinder the government's ability to ensure that research projects align with national priorities and advance our nation and our national interest. The coalition will not be supporting this bill. Debate adjourned. National Redress Scheme for Institutional Child Sexual Abuse Amendment Bill 2023 10

National Redress Scheme for Institutional Child Sexual Abuse Amendment Bill 2023

Second Reading 10 12:51 Mr SUKKAR 242515 Deakin Whilst the coalition will ultimately support the National Redress Scheme for Institutional Child Sexual Abuse Amendment Bill 2023, we will be moving an amendment in the consideration in detail stage to omit part 2 of schedule 1 from the bill. I will go into this in a little more detail, but part 2 of schedule 1 makes changes to the special assessment process to specific classes of serious offences and removes the existing restrictions that apply to those people on applying under the redress scheme from jail. The National Redress Scheme, established under the former coalition government, continues to provide support to those who have suffered from institutionalised child sexual abuse. The scheme recognises the suffering survivors have experienced and accepts that these events occurred and that institutions must take responsibility for this abuse. The scheme is the most significant step in going part of the way to addressing the wrongs of the past and providing a just response to survivors. We also recognise that it's an important step, and has been an important step for many, towards healing. It also ensures governments and institutions take steps to safeguard against these crimes ever being repeated in the future. It's intended to provide a survivor with the means to access a sense of justice through financial redress and through other restorative supports. It is intended to be faster, simpler and less distressing for survivors and to provide governments and institutions with the means to deliver swift justice to those survivors. When the scheme was established under the former coalition government, there were some limitations—in my view, quite rightly—for people who have committed the most serious of crimes. For example, if a person is convicted of an offence which receives a custodial sentence of five years or more in jail, the operator, as defined under the act, may determine that the person is entitled to redress if providing redress to the person would not bring the scheme into disrepute or adversely affect public confidence in the scheme. When making this determination, at present, the operator takes into account any relevant information, such as advice given by the relevant Attorney-General and the nature of the offence for which that person has received the custodial sentence of five years or more. The coalition does not see any need to change this current arrangement. The National Redress Scheme for Institutional Child Sexual Abuse Amendment Bill 2023 yet again shows Labor's tendency to be lenient on crime by benefiting or proposing to benefit individuals with serious criminal convictions by essentially offering a fast-track redress process. Under this government's bill before us today, those who receive a jail sentence of five years or more would be eligible to apply for redress without having to go through the existing special assessment process. Under Labor, and this bill proposed, only those sentenced to five years or more for offences such as unlawful killing, sexual offences or terrorism—all cases where it's deemed that the scheme's integrity would be questioned—would have to go through the special assessment process. We have a proposal now from government to change the special assessment process for people who have been jailed for more than five years—and, let's be frank; in Australia, to be jailed for more than five years means we're talking, by definition, about extremely serious crimes. But they accept that for a certain class of crimes we shouldn't change that process—that certain class of crimes here being unlawful killing, sexual offences or terrorism. On one hand they accept that the special assessment process is important to be maintained for the integrity of the scheme—and for common decency, to be quite frank—for those classes of crimes, but let's open up the doors for everybody else. As I stated at the beginning, we will be moving amendments to give the government an opportunity to rethink that quite extraordinary decision. The reason it's quite extraordinary is if, as the government has accepted here, there are classes of serious offences that should require the existing processes, it doesn't necessarily preclude access to the scheme but it requires an additional assessment of that particular applicant, but there are a range of other offences here that will now not be subject to this special assessment process. The government is effectively saying a crime is not worthy of that. So unlawful killing, sexual offences or terrorism continue with the existing special assessment process, but for this list of crimes let's just open up the doors: extortion, distributing child abuse material, possession of child abuse material, accessing child abuse material, kidnapping, robbery, armed robbery, burglary, aggravated burglary, home invasion, aggravated home invasion, carjacking, aggravated carjacking, arson and arson causing death. That's just a list—it's not exhaustive, and there are many more. For crimes that ordinary Australians would consider to be extremely serious crimes the government is now saying 'Those people get access to the scheme, but as of right now we are going to suspend the special access process that puts integrity around this scheme for: extortion, distributing child abuse material, possession of child abuse material, accessing child abuse material, kidnapping, robbery, armed robbery, burglary, aggravated burglary, home invasion, aggravated home invasion, carjacking, aggravated carjacking, arson and arson causing death.' One of the key criticisms of survivors is timely access to justice—and there are other changes in this bill that will seek to try to assist that timely access to justice—but when that is one of the primary criticisms of this very worthy scheme from survivors who, quite understandably, want swift justice, I think it's galling that there will be people serving custodial sentences for crimes in the list that I have just outlined who will be necessarily given preferential treatment over others on a 'first in, best dressed' basis. When we set up the scheme, we said, 'Actually, for people who have been convicted of very, very serious crimes, that shouldn't be the case.' So here, we've got it boiled down to, I suppose, what we consider to be a serious crime. We know Labor's very lenient on crime. All you have to do is to look around at our state Labor governments and see the crime epidemic that's sweeping parts of our country and the inaction from Labor governments. But I agree with the government that, under the bill, unlawful killing, sexual offences and terrorism are really serious offences, and that people who have been found guilty of those offences, who have been sentenced to a jail period of five years or greater, should be subject to the special assessment process. So I'm shocked—utterly shocked—that the minister and the government do not agree with me that these are similarly serious crimes: extortion, distributing child abuse material, possession of child abuse material, kidnapping, robbery, armed robbery, burglary, aggravated burglary, home invasion, aggravated home invasion, carjacking, arson and arson causing death. To go back to my earlier point, to be jailed for five years or more for one of these offences means we're talking about really egregious conduct—evil, evil crimes. Now we have the Labor party saying: 'Let's open up the scheme to these people, unfettered, and, in the process, slow down the applications for everybody else,' when one of the most serious criticisms of the scheme to date has been about timely access to justice, compensation and other restorative measures. The government's bill also seeks to allow those in jail to apply for redress. So you've committed one of those offences—you've committed distribution of child abuse material, or extortion, kidnapping, burglary, carjacking or home invasion—and you're in jail, and now the government, under this bill, is proposing that you, in jail, should be able to apply for redress. We profoundly disagree. We think that the existing restrictions, which have worked well to date, maintain the integrity of and public confidence in this scheme. I see no compelling arguments for why people who have been found guilty of any of that litany of crimes should be getting access to the scheme equal to that of other, law-abiding, citizen-survivors, without the special process that currently exists. It baffles me that, of all the priorities, of all the things you could do to improve the scheme, this is one of the central components. I'll be very keen to hear from the minister an explanation as to why people who have been found guilty of perpetrating evil crimes against fellow citizens, fellow Australians, should somehow now be given swift access to this scheme and inevitably slow it down for everybody else. What do we agree on? Currently, there are no mechanisms to hold a non-participant institution accountable once a determination is made, even if the institution later joins the scheme. So, in response to recommendation 3.1 of the second year review, this bill introduces a new assessment process to address potential disadvantages faced by survivors when an institution joins the scheme after their application progresses. The interim response from the former coalition government acknowledged the recommendation but emphasised that it represents a pretty fundamental change to the scheme's principles. The coalition committed to further considering this recommendation at the time, in consultation with states, territories, survivors, institutions and other important stakeholders, and I suspect would have come to the same conclusion. We believe this is a commonsense measure and we'll be supporting it. With respect to the review of determinations: currently, the act does not allow applicants to submit further information when requesting a review of a decision. The review found this position limits procedural fairness, along with the risk of a redress offer being reduced to deter survivors from requesting a review. Addressing recommendation 5.1 of the second-year review, this bill will allow applicants to provide additional information when requesting a review while also providing a no-worse-off provision so that redress offers are not reduced on review—therefore removing that unfair downside risk for the applicant. At the time, while noting the relevant recommendation in its interim response—which addressed this issue in the second-year review—the former coalition government acknowledged the benefits of allowing survivors to provide further information and will therefore support this measure. The protected information framework ensures sensitive information gathered by the scheme is handled in an appropriate way. The second-year review recommendation 3.14 recommended the government review the scope and content of the protected information provisions in the act with specific regard to the protection of information provided by applicants and its permitted use by the scheme operator and institutions of that information, including the appropriateness of protections provided to institutions. This bill sets out new circumstances in which protected information may be shared lawfully. Changes include: increased transparency to applicants regarding the onboarding of an institution to the scheme, where that institution was named in the person's application to the scheme; and allowing an institution to share protected information within a group for the purposes of internal investigations and disciplinary procedures. The bill updates the protected information provisions to provide additional authorisations to support appropriate use and disclosure of protective information, including providing increased transparency to applicants about non-participating institutions. The bill also allows the operator to disclose relevant protected information to a public trustee to ascertain whether an applicant is subject to a financial management order; allows a person engaged by a participating institution to disclose protected information to another institution within the same participating group for the purposes of investigation and disciplinary procedures; and allows a person engaged by a participating institution to indicate to another institution within the same participating group that they have received a redress application. The coalition agrees to support these measures as well. With respect to the funder of last resort: in response to the review, the previous act extended funder-of-last-resort arrangements. We understand that these amendments address drafting inconsistencies with the original funder-of-last-resort provisions and the expanded funder-of-last-resort provisions in the National Redress Scheme for Institutional Child Sexual Abuse Amendment (Funders of Last Resort and Other Measures) Act 2021. The changes will ensure that a person's redress payment and an institution's redress liability are appropriately calculated, where the same institution is responsible under more than one funder-of-last-resort categories. In the end, it's a commonsense proposal from the government. These are necessary amendments, in part, that came out of the two-year review of the National Redress Scheme. We won't quibble over minor things that we perhaps would do slightly differently in government. We think, broadly speaking, that the acceptance of the recommendations that emanated from that review are sensible. We do, however, reiterate the points I made at the beginning. We believe that there's no justification, at all—no justification at all—for expanding this scheme to serious criminals in an unfettered way. Serious criminals who are simultaneously victims are entitled to access the scheme with appropriate safeguards, additional hurdles, quite rightly in place for the integrity of the scheme and of course with a prohibition against those who are currently in jail. We don't see any reason why that should change, and we equally don't understand why you would change the process to give more swift access to the scheme to people who are guilty of the sorts of evil, violent crimes that I described and who will necessarily slow down the applications of other law-abiding victim-survivors around the country. It's quite remarkable that you would create a set of amendments here to prioritise people who have been jailed for five years or more. Let's not forget that: jailed for five years or more. And every Australian out there who sits there shaking their head when they see some of the lenient sentences that our courts around the country give—to get five years in an Australian jail you have to had done something pretty bad. So why on earth would the Labor Party be now seeking to give those criminals equal access to the scheme without explaining the inherent inconsistency in their approach? They do agree that, for serious criminals, the existing processes should remain in place. They deem serious criminals to be those guilty of unlawful killing, sexual offences or terrorism, and I'm here to tell the minister that, whether it's by accident or it's deliberate, there is a much broader range of crimes that ordinary everyday Australians would consider serious and that should not be excised from the additional requirements under the scheme. The test here really is for the government and the minister to, when they're arguing for this particular change—and they'll have an opportunity when I move an amendment—remove this particular part from the bill. But it will be incumbent on them to explain why people guilty of the following crimes and jailed more than five years are not serious criminals: arson causing death, arson, aggravated carjacking, carjacking, aggravated home invasion, home invasion, burglary, aggravated burglary, robbery, armed robbery, kidnapping, accessing child abuse material, possession of child abuse material and distributing child abuse material. How on earth could the government now consider that criminals found guilty of that litany of crimes and jailed for more than five years should somehow be given equal access to this scheme as honest, decent, law-abiding victim-survivors? Now, if this is a mistake, an error on behalf of the minister or an oversight, I look forward to the government's support for our amendment to keep the existing provisions in place, which mean that those serious criminals have to make an additional application before getting access to the scheme and that, if you're currently in jail and serving your debt to society for the crime that you have committed against a fellow citizen, you do not get access to the scheme. That can occur once you have done your time, and they are the current rules under the redress scheme. If the minister has just botched this, overlooked it and not understood what was put in front of her, then we would look forward to working with the government to support the amendment that I'll move in consideration in detail. Otherwise, we support the bill and we won't stand in the way of the other worthy changes. Even if our amendment that we will move with respect to serious criminals is not supported by the government, we couldn't in good conscience stand in the way of the other worthy amendments emanating from the review that commenced under the former coalition government and would therefore not stand in the way of the bill. But we really appeal to the government to show some common sense here, at a time when there are communities around our country fearful of violent crime—crime that we have not seen in this country before. It is the sort of crime that we've seen on our TVs coming from the United States or parts of Europe but never considered in our own neighbourhoods in Australia. At a time when we are seeing those crimes, it's quite extraordinary that the government are now saying that they will give equal access to this Redress Scheme to people who are guilty of those crimes—indeed, people who are still paying the price for those crimes in jail—and, in the process, slow down the applications of those decent, law-abiding victims-survivors who are trying to get swift access to justice under the scheme. So we appeal to whatever shred of common sense is left in this government to support our amendment. But, in any event, we will not stand in the way of this bill and the worthy other changes and refinements to the scheme that the bill represents. Debate adjourned. Ordered that the resumption of the debate be made an order of the day for a later hour. Modern Slavery Amendment (Australian Anti-Slavery Commissioner) Bill 2023 14

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

Second Reading 14 13:16 Mr CHESTER IPZ Gippsland I rise to speak on the Modern Slavery Amendment (Australian Anti-Slavery Commissioner) Bill 2023. This bill establishes an Australian Anti-Slavery Commissioner as a statutory appointment in the Attorney-General's portfolio. It builds on the coalition's world-leading record of combating modern slavery. The term 'modern slavery' is an umbrella term. It's used to describe all human trafficking, slavery and slavery-like offences in our Criminal Code. It can refer to human trafficking, forced labour and servitude, debt bondage, forced marriage and the very worst forms of child labour, including the commercial sexual exploitation of children and the exploitation of children for illegal activities, such as drug trafficking. Modern slavery can occur in every industry and every sector, but, regardless of the circumstances, it has severe consequences for victims. Modern slavery practices distort global markets, undercut responsible businesses and pose significant risk to entities that find themselves inadvertently benefiting from slavery practices at some point in a supply chain. It's an egregious abuse of the dignity and the rights of the individual, and that is why the coalition has been fighting modern slavery for many years. It was a coalition government that first introduced slavery offences into Australia's Criminal Code, through the Criminal Code Amendment (Slavery and Sexual Servitude) Bill 1999. Prior to that point, the law on slavery and the slave trade had been governed by 19th-century imperial acts. Those acts employed archaic language and related to outdated circumstances and institutions that had either changed or long since fallen into disuse. It was a coalition government in 2018 that passed the Modern Slavery Act 2018. This was a transparency measure to shine a light on the slavery risks in international supply chains, and to help businesses better control their own risks and the business models of those who profit from the servitude of others. Consistently, it has been the coalition governments that have brought a coordinated and strategic approach to the fight against slavery and human trafficking. This coordinated approach started with the Australian government's 2004 action plan to eradicate trafficking in persons,which was released when John Howard was the Prime Minister. It was succeeded in 2015 by the National action plan to combat human trafficking and slavery 2015-19,which laid the foundation for our current framework. Most recently, we have been shown the way forward by the National action plan to combat modern slavery 2020-25, which was released by my colleague and friend the member for La Trobe. Australia has benefited from the coalition's multidecade-long fight against slavery and human trafficking, and Australia has also benefited from the coordinated, multipillar approach to modern slavery for which we've always advocated. It is worth reflecting on those other pillars in our strategy against modern slavery. They help to put this current bill into context. There are five national strategic priorities that provide the foundation to our fight against modern slavery. The first national strategic priority is about prevention. Doing things like addressing risks in global supply chains, and stopping forced marriage in Australia, help cut off modern slavery at the root. The second national strategic priority is rooted in the justice system and criminal law. It is to disrupt, investigate and prosecute modern slavery. Our national action plan is clear: where we encounter slavery, human trafficking and similar offences, perpetrators must be held to account by our police and investigative agencies. The third national strategic priority is about supporting and protecting survivors. This means supporting victims and survivors, who are predominantly women and girls. It also means working with civil society and businesses. The fourth national strategic priority is partnership. It means working with state and territory governments, victims, civil society and international partners. Modern slavery is a global problem that needs cross-border solutions. The fifth national strategic priority is research. We need a strong evidence base to support our response to these crimes. These five priorities, established in 2020 by the former coalition government, provide the framework that has consistently shaped the approach we have taken to modern slavery. One of our core achievements in the field, the Modern Slavery Act, aligns with these priorities not only by identifying slavery risks in global supply chains but also by building an evidence base about practices around the world. Similarly, on the coalition side, the calls we have made for Magnitsky-style solutions in response to forced labour and other abuses in the Xinjiang province align with actions taken by our like-minded peers. Australia should be collaborating with international partners to call out and address modern slavery issues, including by applying the coalition's Magnitsky-style sanctions to hold those responsible to account. In Australia, where we encounter slavery, human trafficking and similar offences, perpetrators are held to account by the police and investigative agencies who enforce our criminal laws. Yet, when these same offences are encountered overseas, including by the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, the Albanese Labor government has shied away from using existing tools that are already available to it. Despite the coalition offering the government bipartisan support to do so, this Labor government has refused to take concrete action in holding perpetrators in Xinjiang to account by joining with our international partners to impose Magnitsky-style sanctions. We should do so. As our work over many years has made clear, to fight effectively against modern slavery you need to coordinate your efforts across multiple fronts, and taking action in one area—for example, by establishing a new commissioner—does not alleviate the need for action on the other fronts. Whatever this bill does do, it does not take concrete steps to combat modern slavery on the international stage. By establishing an Australian Anti-Slavery Commissioner, this bill provides an enabling effect. The commissioner's functions, as set out in the legislation, generally relate to support, liaison, encouragement, consultation and advocacy. The commissioner would be influential in shaping responses to modern slavery, but, in many respects, the direct outcomes would be delivered by others. That is why we describe it as an enabling effect. For example, the commissioner will play a role in engaging closely with businesses in relation to slavery issues in international supply chains. However, the commissioner will not be responsible for administering the Modern Slavery Statements Register. Similarly, the commissioner could play a role in identifying slavery risks in Australia and overseas. However, they would not replace the police when it comes to investigating slavery offences; nor would the commissioner duplicate the functions of Australia's Ambassador to Counter Modern Slavery, People Smuggling and Human Trafficking. Importantly, however, this educative and enabling role has been welcomed by business and civil society. In keeping with our national strategic priority of collaboration, groups like the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry and the Business Council of Australia have welcomed the opportunity to work with the commissioner to further address slavery risks. This is a welcome signal from the business community. This bill has been referred to a Senate committee for inquiry, and we expect to see its report in the coming weeks. We will finalise our position on the bill following that report. One of the things we hope the committee looks at is whether this bill provides for the most appropriate use of resources. Establishing the commissioner will come at a cost of around $8 million over the forward estimates and around $2 million per year ongoing. Could these funds be better spent supporting the other parts of our National Action Plan to Combat Modern Slavery? For example, would we be better off investing that money to improve the investigative capacity of our law enforcement agencies? Would we see better results if we instead invested in practical measures to support businesses with complex international supply chains? I have no doubt that all sides of the chamber are in furious agreement on the outcome that modern slavery needs to be stopped wherever we encounter it, but that does not absolve us of the responsibility of asking hard questions about whether the Australian people are getting the best possible bang for their buck. In meantime, we on this side of the chamber will continue to argue for an effective, multipronged and coordinated response to modern slavery. I thank the House. Debate adjourned. Paid Parental Leave Amendment (More Support for Working Families) Bill 2023 15

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

Second Reading 15 13:27 Ms MASCARENHAS 298800 Swan In the House there are unicorn moments, and so sometimes members in this place have to do speeches over two separate days and sometimes two separate weeks, but I have the privileged opportunity to do a speech over two separate years! The thing that I would say about Labor's paid parental leave policy is that this is not a unicorn moment. It is deliberately designed to benefit families and it is absolutely intentional. It is a part of Labor's platform. One of the things that I would point out is that because of the number of women that we have within the federal Labor Party, we are intentional in the way that we think about policies and the way that they interact with working women. With the number of women that we have in the party, we recognise that there are working families that are trying to deal with the juggle. We make sure that we keep women in jobs longer, and paid parental leave absolutely helps with this. I echo the comments of the Minister for Social Services, the member for Kingston, who, in her second reading speech said: This bill is good for parents, good for children, good for employers and good for the economy. The nation will benefit from these changes. In my electorate of Swan, nearly 2,000 people received paid parental leave last year. That's 2,000 families and children in Swan that will benefit from greater choice, greater flexibility and greater security, which is helpful when balancing work and care. This is an example of real, tangible benefits helping families, and that is what you expect from an Albanese Labor government. I'm a working parent and therefore I know, like many other people in this place, what it's like to balance work and care. It's difficult and it's a constant juggle, and there are many parents in this place that understand that. What I would say is that the juggle is real. However, on a serious note, for many years it has been very difficult. It has been so overwhelming that for some people having to make a decision as to whether to care or work has become untenable. It can be financially, emotionally and physically draining. It's a choice that many parents have to face sometimes: whether to work or whether to care, whether to take time off or whether to not take time off. They are really struggling, and what our government is trying to do is unlock the potential and make it easier for working families. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 I am sorry to interrupt you again, but the debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour. The member will be given leave to continue their speech when the debate is resumed. STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS 16 STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS Cost Of Living 16 13:30 Mrs ANDREWS 230886 McPherson As everyone in this place is aware, it is our responsibility as members to listen to our communities, to listen to what people are saying so we can bring those concerns back here to the parliament, represent those particular views and fight for a solution. Over the last couple of months in particular, when I have met with people on the southern Gold Coast, the single biggest issue they have raised with me of concern is cost of living. Specifically, they are concerned about the cost to put a roof over their head, whether that be through purchase of a property—if they can find one—or a rental—if they can find one—or it is the general cost of living that comes through with food and grocery prices. Anecdotally, people have talked to me about how they have had to cut their costs. It hit home to me when I listened to one of our local coffee shop owners, who said that, yes, they were still getting similar numbers of customers coming through the store but those people who used to come in and buy coffee and lunch are now getting coffee and cake, and those who bought coffee and cake are coming in and just getting coffee. It is even at the point where people are starting to move away from the speciality milks and are starting to go back to buying dairy milk, which I am sure will be pleasing to many, but the issue is they are no longer willing, able, prepared, to pay the extra 50c, 70c or the dollar that that speciality milk costs them. This is something this parliament needs to take seriously. It is our responsibility to make sure we are dealing with cost of living. Phillip Island: Drownings 17 13:31 Ms FERNANDO 299964 Holt The recent incident that occurred at Phillip Island, which claimed the lives of Jagjeet Singh, Suhani Anand, Reema Sondhi and Kitri Bedi, has left the entire community in profound grief. Jagjeet, who recently graduated as an aged care nurse, had served the elderly since the depths of the pandemic. Suhani was studying to be a nurse, just like her brother. Kriti arrived six months ago, aspiring to be a psychologist. Reema Sondhi was on holidays visiting her brother, who resided in Clyde. Their sudden departure has left an irreplaceable void in our community. We weep not only for the lives lost but for the dreams unfulfilled and the potential unrealised. In our shared grief, may we find solace and strength in one another. I would also like to extend my heartfelt gratitude to the emergency services who responded to the incident and who work tirelessly every day. The memories of Jagjeet, Suhani, Kriti and Reema will forever remain in our hearts, and their legacies will endure through the love and unity of our community. May their souls rest in eternal peace. Bass Electorate: Australia Day Awards 17 13:33 Mrs ARCHER 282237 Bass It is a pleasure to stand here today, on the opening of parliament for 2024, to celebrate Professor Richard Scolyer, dual recipient of the 2024 Australian of the Year Award. Richard was born in Launceston in my electorate of Bass and attended Riverside High School before completing a bachelor of medical science at the University of Tasmania followed by a bachelor of medicine and a bachelor of surgery a few years later. Over the past 30-plus years, Professor Scolyer has established himself as a world-leading melanoma researcher and, together with his co-director of the Melanoma Institute of Australia and fellow Australian of the Year recipient, Georgina Long, they have saved thousands of lives through their research on sun-smart behaviour and skin cancer prevention. The work of Scolyer and Long, through an immunotherapy approach, has meant that in just a decade the probable fatal outcome of a melanoma diagnosis has now become a treatable and curable disease. However, the pair are calling for further investment in their field, saying melanoma must be treated as a national health priority. In the middle of last year Professor Scolyer was diagnosed with a stage-4 glioblastoma and has used the terminal diagnosis to pioneer a new treatment, becoming the world's first brain cancer patient to have a free surgery combination immunotherapy. Although it is early days, he is excited by some of the results produced, saying he is blown away as a doctor and pathologist and that it has left him with optimism. I will leave you with his powerful words: 'Think big, be bold, be courageous.' Live Animal Exports 17 13:34 Mr ZAPPIA HWB Makin The crisis surrounding the livestock carrier MV Bahijah once again highlights the uncontrollable and unpredictable risks associated with live animal exports. Around 15,000 sheep and 2,000 cattle that left Australia bound for the Middle East over a month ago have now been confined to cramped shipping pens for nearly five weeks, while solutions to the dilemma are still being negotiated. The proposal to re-export the sheep and cattle has been rejected by the independent regulator, leaving the livestock in continued limbo and adding to the suffering. The condition and death rates of the sheep and cattle are also unclear. The live sheep export sector has now been on notice for several years. It must transition out of live exports. Arguments that the sector is critical to Australian sheep farmers and to Middle Eastern countries that lack refrigeration are no longer convincing. The sector has been plagued by catastrophes, reviews and reforms for decades. The reality is that, once the animals leave Australia, we have no control over their fate. The Albanese government has made it clear that the export of live sheep will end in the next term of government, to allow for an orderly phase-out for both farmers and exporters. The latest issue with the MV Bahijah adds to the growing calls for an early end to the trade and for placing the welfare of animals ahead of the financial interests of exporters. Youth: Cost Of Living 18 13:36 Dr RYAN 297660 Kooyong We are really screwing it up for the next generation. Take an average 18-year-old today. If she enrols in university, it will cost her around $30,000. When I started uni, it was free. While at uni, she might pay 40 per cent of her income in rent. I paid half that. Say she finishes her degree and she wants to buy a house. Today, a house costs eight times the average national income. In the 1980s it was four times the average national income. That young person will be trying to save money while paying more for rent, groceries, transport and university than my generation. Maybe, despite the challenges, she does eventually get to buy a home. Then she gets to face bigger issues. Her generation will be facing a climate crisis that we have created and have failed to address, while paying off her tertiary education and also supporting an ageing population. Thinking that young people are lazy is lazy thinking. My generation isn't listening to young people. We are at serious risk of becoming the first generation in human history to leave the world worse off than we found it. All parents want their kids to have it better than they do. For our children and our grandchildren, we must build homes. We must give young people access to affordable education. We must make groceries and electricity cheaper. We must take real climate action. Politics shouldn't be about the next election—it should be about the next generation. Arts and Culture 18 13:37 Ms TEMPLEMAN 181810 Macquarie Many of us heard the glorious tones of a brass fanfare and a string quartet ringing through the marble foyer this morning, as talented musicians from the Australian Youth Orchestra and the Australian National Academy of Music helped us celebrate the beginning of the new parliamentary year. AYO and ANAM are members of the Arts8—the eight arts training organisations supported by the Australian government to nurture the next generation of creative talent. Other members include the Australian Film Television and Radio School, the National Institute of Dramatic Art—NIDA—the Australian Ballet School, the Flying Fruit Fly Circus, the NAISDA Dance College and the National Institute of Circus Arts. Last year, the Arts8 trained 1,694 artists and arts workers. They have produced some of Australia's most accomplished and internationally celebrated creatives, performers and arts workers. I'm proud that our national cultural policy provided new financial support to these institutions and affirmed the government's commitment to their ongoing sustainability. Australia needs Aussies skilled up to tell our stories. If we want a healthy, dynamic and innovative cultural sector, if we want a confident and distinctive Australian cultural identity, and if we want our finest creatives to be able to thrive in their own country, we need strong arts training institutions like these ones. North Sydney Electorate: Community Housing Forum 18 13:39 Ms TINK 300124 North Sydney When the people of North Sydney sent me to Canberra as their community independent, they did so because they believed our government would make better decisions if it could hear our true voice, rather than a voice distorted by political ideology. It's been a bold ambition which has required my community to stay engaged in our democracy on an ongoing basis. A shared commitment to this idea means my community is directly shaping government policy in this 47th Parliament. To date, this input has been gathered in a variety of ways, but recently we took a major next step when we successfully hosted our first Deliberative Democracy Forum to discuss the housing crisis. The North Sydney Community Housing Forum brought 30 randomly selected but demographically representative ordinary citizens together to discuss what the federal government should be doing about the housing crisis. I wasn't part of the discussion; rather, participants spent the day reviewing public submissions and speaking to independent experts to come to a consensus. Ultimately, my community decided they want me to fight to get Commonwealth infrastructure funding tied to the state's agreements to prioritise the development of medium-density affordable and social housing for essential workers and those in need around public transport hubs—a policy that I can definitely get behind. I look forward to fighting for this and to hosting further North Sydney deliberative democracy forums on important topics of policy. Dove, Mr Troy 18 13:40 Dr REID 300126 Robertson Today I rise to acknowledge and commend local Central Coast resident Troy Dove of Umina Beach on the mighty Peninsula for many years of service helping to strengthen his local community and Australia. Mr Dove is a tremendous, community minded individual who cares passionately for others. He is selfless and kind and goes above and beyond for anyone in need. While navigating his own life, Mr Dove organises and facilitates regular fundraising evenings to support fantastic not-for-profit organisations. These include Coast Shelter, WIRES Central Coast, the RSPCA and Fairhaven Services. Mr Dove has also been involved with large fundraising efforts to raise money to support national and local cancer support organisations—two very important causes. Mr Dove's dedication to helping his community extends further afield, where he often organises Clean Up Australia Day teams, volunteers his time with Central Coast Antiques and Collectables, and much more. He is a member of the Brisbane Water Rotary club, and Mr Dove can also be found supporting projects and activities the club is pursuing throughout the year. It is patently clear that Mr Dove is a charitable, altruistic and benevolent member of our Central Coast community and our Central Coast family, and I take this opportunity in the House of Representatives to say: thank you for all that you have done and continue to do for the Central Coast. Albanese Government 19 13:42 Ms BELL 282981 Moncrieff There is no word that describes the Australian Labor Party better than 'liars'. They lied about cheaper child care— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 Excuse me, member for Moncrieff: you know that word is unparliamentary, and I ask you to withdraw it. Ms BELL 282981 I withdraw. There is no word that describes the Australian Labor Party better than 'pork pies'. Mr Laxale 299174 That's two words. Ms BELL 282981 They lied about electricity prices, they lied about cheaper mortgages and they lied about stage 3 tax cuts, and now they have been found out lying about education and training data. On multiple occasions, ministers of the Albanese government have claimed that since May 2022 their policies have led to an increase of 123,000 educators and teachers in the early learning training pipeline. The only issue with those claims is that they're simply not true. FOI data provided to the opposition last week revealed that the 123,000 figure was not from May 2022 but was actually from 2021 higher education and 2022 VET data. Those 123,000 educators and teachers in the pipeline are thanks to the Morrison government's skills and training policies, not Labor's policies, which hadn't even been implemented in May 2022. When confronted, instead of owning up and accepting responsibility, one minister has pathetically tried to blame a missing dash in the Hansard for the error. All of this from a government who promised to be more transparent—it's disgraceful, and those ministers have misrepresented— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 The member for Spence. Spence Electorate: Australia Day Awards 19 13:43 Mr BURNELL 300129 Spence Like many other members here, I spent the greater part of the daylight hours on 26 January out in the electorate attending as many events as possible that are held each year on Australia Day. These events provide an opportunity for many eager people to take the final steps on their journeys to becoming Australian citizens. It is also an important opportunity for our community to acknowledge individuals and organisations whose peers and neighbours are nominated for making their local area a better place to live. Many of these individuals often see themselves as more ordinary than extraordinary. I am proud of all Australia Day award winners that were announced across the city of Playford, the city of Salisbury and the town of Gawler. Thank you for making our electorate of Spence a better place to live. While most—if not all—of these award recipients do not seek any form of praise for their efforts in their communities, I feel that makes them just a bit more deserving of it. I would also like to congratulate two very remarkable individuals from my electorate of Spence who were recipients of Australia Day honours. Congratulations to Spence's newest Medal of the Order of Australia recipients: David Cockshell OAM, who was awarded this honour in the civilian division, and Flight Sergeant Grant Reibel OAM, who received the auspicious honour in the military division. Southern 80 19 13:45 Mr BIRRELL 288713 Nicholls On the weekend of 10 and 11 February, in my electorate and the electorate of the member for Farrer, one of the most iconic events in the world of waterskiing—the Southern 80—will be held. It's an 80-kilometre waterskiing race along the Murray River near Echuca. Boats consisting of a driver, an observer and two skiers race along the course at breathtaking speeds in a competition of engineering, mechanics, courage, stamina and skill. The event brings huge numbers of tourists to the banks of the river, and the Echuca and Moama townships, communities that have felt an economic downturn as a result of the October 22 floods of the Murray and Campaspe rivers, will be very keen to see these people come and spend in their local businesses. As part of the publicity for the Southern 80, I agreed to sit in the observer's chair of a speedboat named Migraine. I had one of the more frightening experiences of my life as we reached speeds of 160 kilometres an hour along the river, only slightly slowing down for the corners. It's scary enough being in the observer's seat. I can only imagine what it's like at the end of a rope and on one ski! Good luck to all the competitors in the 2024 Southern 80. I'll be there; I wouldn't miss it for the world, and I wish you a safe and successful event. Bennelong Electorate: Racism 20 13:46 Mr LAXALE 299174 Bennelong Last week I was notified that horrific white supremacist recruitment material was dropped into letterboxes around my electorate of Bennelong. Bennelong is home to one of most culturally diverse communities in the country: 66 per cent of those living in Bennelong have at least one parent born overseas, and 54 per cent of those living in Bennelong were themselves born overseas. In the area where this flyer was dropped, Chinese Australians make up nearly half of the local population—48.8 per cent, to be exact. This deliberate choice to disseminate such hateful material within our diverse community was not just a random act; it was a targeted effort to intimidate our multicultural community. I say to those who dropped these flyers in Bennelong that we will not be intimidated by their racism. I say to them that our diversity makes our community stronger, safer and more prosperous. Not long ago, identifying yourself as a racist brought shame to you and your family. Seemingly it is now increasingly being worn by some as a badge of honour. That has to change, and for as long as I'm in this place I'll continue to call it out. Flynn Electorate: Rural and Regional Health Services 20 13:47 Mr BOYCE 299498 Flynn Last week I hosted GPs, health professionals and local community advocates for a regional roundtable about health in Gladstone. It was an important opportunity for local professionals to discuss regional health challenges as well as practical solutions and initiatives that can be implemented by both state and federal governments. Gladstone Hospital was downgraded from a level 4 hospital to a level 3 hospital in 2019. Since this decision was made, the wider Gladstone region has seen services deteriorate, including all specialists leaving town. We saw the Gladstone maternity ward bypass end in 2023, after nearly a year on bypass. From maternity bypasses to the lack of GP specialists, regional health has complex issues that need to be addressed. The Queensland government's plan to centralise health care to larger hospitals has added to the demise of basic health care in smaller regional communities. A good start to correct this course would be to upgrade Gladstone Hospital back to a level 4 facility. As the federal member for Flynn, I will continue to advocate for better regional health services and make sure our local communities are well represented. Reid Electorate: Public Transport 20 13:49 Ms SITOU 298121 Reid I've got great news for the residents of Drummoyne. As I've been out doorknocking across the Drummoyne community, one issue has kept coming up, time and time again: the need for more ferry services. You're waiting at the wharf for your ferry, but it whizzes past because it's full. It's an all-too-frequent occurrence and a daily frustration for so many commuters. I wrote to the New South Wales Minister for Transport, Jo Haylen, and requested an increase in ferry services. Before Christmas, Minister Haylen listened and added seven more ferry services every weekday and an extra 26 services on the weekend. Those temporary changes have now been made permanent. If you're a commuter or taking the family out on the weekend, your trip just got a little easier. What's more, eight of the trips that used to stop at Meadowbank and Barangaroo will go all the way to Sydney Olympic Park and Circular Quay. That means less waiting around and more time enjoying our beautiful city harbour. This all happened because the Drummoyne community spoke up. Thanks to those residents who raised this issue with me and thank you to the New South Wales Labor government for listening and providing additional public transport services. Wright Electorate: Natural Disasters 20 13:50 Mr BUCHHOLZ 230531 Wright This is my 14th year of service in this parliament. Unfortunately, it's about the 10th time I've got to my feet after returning from the break to share with the House natural disasters that have happened in my electorate, the first one being in 2010, with the Grantham floods, which very sadly took 35 lives. This year, we've had a series of floods and fires but also had a mini tornado go through the electorate. It took out parts of the Gold Coast, Jimboomba and Tamborine Mountain. This one's results were a little bit different. No two natural disasters are exactly the same, so, from an emergency services perspective, our responses are slightly different. Currently there is a review underway in this place about how we respond to emergency services, and, whilst we have an enormous amount of motivated people, mostly volunteers, that are out there ready, willing and able to respond, it was a travesty of justice that I had parts of my electorate—families—that were without power for 15 to 22 days. If you're on town water, that's no problem—you would just go to the tap—but, when you're in a regional area and you need a pressure pump to pump water up or you need water to pump through the toilet, it becomes problematic. I'll be submitting my thoughts to the review that's currently in the House. Member for Dickson 20 13:52 Ms LAWRENCE 299150 Hasluck Retail workers: they sell us what we want, they sell us what we need and they do it with a smile—all for a modest wage. I have worked in retail and I understand and have a place in my heart for the work done by the 1.4 million retail workers and their union right across Australia, which is why I was disgusted when I heard the Leader of the Opposition whipping up community outrage over plastic flags and stubby holders. The call to boycott and the accompanying tongue-lashing was irresponsible, created unsafe workplaces and further exposed the nastiness of the opposition leader. Apart from the absurdity of asking 23 million Woolworths shoppers to boycott their 1,250 stores, it put at risk more than 200,000 direct jobs and 20,000 products made by Australian farmers and businesses from across the country and around the world. Moreover, you cannot go out and whip up that kind of fervour and expect there to be no consequences. Woolies workers, already doing a tough job during the toughest part of the year, were called un-Australian. They were abused and yelled at following the reckless and dangerous words of the opposition leader—abused for simply turning up and doing their job to pay the rent and put food on the table. The politics of division has consequences, and the opposition leader should be ashamed. His party should hold him to account, otherwise this nation will. O'Donoghue, Dr Lowitja, AC, CBE, DSG 21 13:53 Mr HWS Grey RAMSEY (—) (): I rise to acknowledge an extraordinary Australian, Dr Lowitja O'Donoghue, who was born in my electorate of Grey and passed away 4 February at age 91. Dr O'Donoghue was a Yankunytjatjara woman who was born in Indulkana—in what is now the APY Lands—in northern South Australia, and was the youngest of five. She grew up in the care of missionaries at Colebrook children's home in Quorn, and, while this upbringing may have been less than ideal, she persevered and succeeded. Initially prevented from studying nursing because of her race, she was later accepted into the Royal Adelaide Hospital in 1954 and reached the position of charge sister. She spent many years working in remote Indigenous communities advocating for a better deal for Aboriginal people and was a strong campaigner in the '67 referendum. In 1990, Dr O'Donoghue was appointed the inaugural chairperson of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission. In what were probably ATSIC's most successful years—it prospered under her direction—she won broad admiration for her leadership, tenacity and integrity. Dr O'Donoghue was named a Member of the Order of Australia, Australian of the Year, Commander of the Order of the British Empire, Companion of the Order of Australia and received honorary doctorates from six universities. She won the Advance Australia Award, became a National Living Treasure in 1998 and was awarded a papal honour from Pope John Paul II. A fierce advocate for Indigenous communities, she was a compelling and reasonable voice which cut through where sometimes a more robust approach could struggle. Australia is in debt to her service. Workplace Relations 21 13:55 Mr RAE 300122 Hawke The targeting of union representatives in the workplace undermines the relationship between workers and employers, and leads to poorer safety and industrial outcomes for all parties. Union delegates protect and uphold the rights that we all hold dear, and they shouldn't be unfairly punished for it—rights like safety, fair pay and the right to industrial action when necessary. We must protect delegates from employers who seek to obstruct their rights to organise in the workplace. Mick Priest is a Sunbury local who worked for 15 years as a dedicated local bus driver. During this time, he has also been a proud TWU workplace leader, standing up for his colleagues every day. He has been an OH&S representative and a TWU delegate, where he recently contributed to EBA negotiations on behalf of his workplace. During the heavy rain in January, he came across a flooded road that lacked any signage warning drivers of the danger. With the safety of the community in mind, Mick parked his bus to take a photo to share in a community group. Following this good deed his employment was immediately terminated without warning. I am deeply concerned that a worker would be sacked for caring for our community. Mick has made it clear that he simply wants his job back so he can continue his dedicated service. My thanks to the mighty Transport Workers Union for their tireless support of Mick, and I welcome Mick in the gallery today. Prime Minister 21 13:56 Mr CHESTER IPZ Gippsland Before the last election, the Prime Minister told all Australians, 'My word is my bond'. In the past two weeks, we have seen exactly how much the Prime Minister's word is actually worth. When it comes to the legislated tax cuts, all members opposite know they won the last election based on a lie. It's not parliamentary to call another member a liar— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 It is not! It definitely is not, and I'm watching and listening! Mr CHESTER IPZ but there are many other words to describe the action of saying one thing before an election and doing something completely different afterwards. There are so many ways to describe such basic dishonesty: you can mislead, you can deceive, you can trick. You can misrepresent— Dr Chalmers 37998 You're voting for it! Mr CHESTER IPZ you can be loose with the truth, Jimbo! You can prevaricate; you can fib; or you can just tell an untruth. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 Excuse me, member for Gippsland! You're skating on thin ice, and if you're referring to other members in this speech then please use their correct titles. Mr CHESTER IPZ Interjections are disorderly; thanks to the Treasurer for his advice. Or you can distort the truth, tell a falsehood, engage in fabrication or practice the art of disinformation and distortion. You can even make a misstatement, or you can simply tell a whopper! It doesn't matter what spin the Labor Party machine tries to put on this deceit, the Prime Minister has told a whopper 100 times. All the weasel words and the spin-doctoring won't change a single fact that the Prime Minister has broken his word and that the Australian people simply can't trust any of their local Labor MPs, who misled their electorates in the lead-up to the 2022— (Time expired) Broadband 22 13:58 Ms COKER 263547 Corangamite Fast broadband isn't just a 'nice to have', it's absolutely crucial. At the last election, the Albanese government promised fast broadband and we have delivered it. Critically, we are fixing the connectivity challenges that affect Australians like Robert, who lives in my electorate of Corangamite. Robert told me that superfast broadband is the lifeline of his work, making it easy to send big files and chat with his team without any hiccups. But it's at Robert's home in Ocean Grove where it truly changes the game. He said, 'It's not just about quick internet, it's about enriching our life in every way.' Imagine being able to watch movies in crystal clear 4K, dive into your favourite TV shows or have smart home devices work flawlessly, all thanks to a rock solid, fast internet. Robert said that this high-speed connection is much more than a basic service; it's a conscious choice to blend efficiency with his work with pure enjoyment at home. He said, 'It turns our place into a haven of digital ease and fun.' It's all about welcoming a future where technology enhances every part of our lives, making online experiences smooth and enjoyable. These upgrades are possible because the Albanese government is investing $2.4 billion to expand full-fibre access to the home, an investment that's delivering a world-class connection to Australians like Robert, and which makes life better for 1.5 million Australian households. The SPEAKER 53517 In accordance with standing order 43, the time for members' statements has concluded. CONDOLENCES 22 CONDOLENCES O'Donoghue, Dr Lowitja, AC, CBE, DSG 22 Reference to Federation Chamber 25 14:21 Mr BURKE DYW Watson ():  I move: That the resumption of the debate on the Prime Minister's motion of condolence in connection with the death of Dr Lowitja O'Donoghue be referred to the Federation Chamber. Question agreed to. Wakelin, Barry Hugh OAM 25 14:21 The SPEAKER 53517 I inform the house of the death on 19 December 2023 of Barry Hugh Wakelin OAM, a member of this House for the division of Grey from 1993 to 2007. As a mark of respect to the memory of Barry Wakelin, I invite all present to rise in their places. Honourable members having stood in their places— The SPEAKER 53517 I thank the House. MINISTRY 25 MINISTRY Temporary Arrangements 25 14:22 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I inform the House that the Minister for Industry and Science will be absent from question time this week. The Minister for Climate Change and Energy will answer questions on his behalf. I wish the Minister for Industry and Science a speedy recovery. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 26 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Taxation 26 14:22 Mr DUTTON 00AKI Dickson My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister rule out changing the current tax treatment of the family home? Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The House will come to order. The Prime Minister hasn't said a word. I remind all members about interjecting before a minster even begins speaking. Dr Chalmers 37998 What about the tax changes before parliament? The SPEAKER 53517 To the Treasurer as well. 14:23 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler The Treasurer does make a point. We have just introduced very significant legislation before this parliament to give every Australian a tax cut. Every Australian taxpayer, whether or not they own their home, all 13.6 million of them. What do those opposite talk about? They've had two weeks to think about their first question and it has nothing to do with what we're doing and something to do with something that no-one will ever do. Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! Members on my left. Mr ALBANESE R36 They've had a fortnight to think of it because they have been all over the shop. The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Deakin will cease interjecting. Mr ALBANESE R36 When it became clear that we were going to have a position of supporting every taxpayer getting a tax cut, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition—because the leader went missing for a while—charged out there and she said, 'We will fight this legislation in the parliament'. She went on and said, 'We don't even know what it will look like.' She actually said that. There's no gap between the sentences— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The Prime Minister will pause. The Minister for Climate Change and the member for Page. The member for McNamara is warned. I don't care if it is his birthday; he is now warned. The Leader of the Opposition on a point of order. Mr Dutton 00AKI My question was: 'Will the Prime Minister rule out changing the current tax treatment of the family home?' It was a very simple, straightforward— The SPEAKER 53517 Resume your seat. I listened carefully to the Prime Minister's answer. He actually answered that part of the question directly. Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! Resume your seat. Members on my right. The member for Barker and the Leader of the Opposition will cease interjecting. The Prime Minister will pause a moment. The Leader of the Opposition. Government members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 The ministers on my right will cease interjecting, including the Minister for Home Affairs. It is only the first question. I will get the Prime Minister to return to the question. Mr ALBANESE R36 Yes, I have answered the question. Now I am adding to it, giving a bit of colour and movement. Last night I was there watching Nemesis, watching all the coalition of hatred along there, an hour and a half that explains in three parts why they were such a hopeless, divided government full of hate of each other. It was all played out. I was reminded that the Leader of the Opposition's big commitment to be made leader was that he would smile more. He was going to be like Little Miss Sunshine; instead, he gave us Jack Nicholson in The Shining—smashing through the walls—his clear hatred, full of negativity, full of abuse. Come on, if you were fair dinkum, you would vote against our measure and you would commit to roll it back, just like your deputy absolutely promised to. Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 There is far too much noise. The member for Holt shall resume her seat. The member for Lyons on a point of order. Mr Brian Mitchell 129164 The Deputy Leader made a disorderly remark, and I ask she withdraw it. The SPEAKER 53517 In defence of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, there was far too much noise for me to hear anything, but I remind all members I will be watching very carefully for any unparliamentary language and action will be taken. I give the call to the member for Holt. Taxation 27 14:28 Ms FERNANDO 299964 Holt My question is to the Prime Minister. How will Labor's new tax cuts provide cost-of-living relief and support the aspiration of every Australian taxpayer? 14:28 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I thank the member for Holt for her question and for her advocacy for people in the south-eastern suburbs of Melbourne. The legislation that's before this parliament will give a tax cut— The SPEAKER 53517 The Prime Minister will pause. The member for Deakin has interrupted three times during this answer. No-one else is interrupting. He is now warned. The Prime Minister has the call. Mr ALBANESE R36 Our legislation will give every taxpayer a tax cut, all 13.6 million of them. One of the great divides that we are seeing play out in Australian politics at the moment is the concept of aspiration. Those opposite think that, for people to aspire, they have to be someone who has been to the right school, had all the right background, been part of the elite and that they are the only people who aspire. In this nation, what I know as I go around is that every taxpayer in the electorate of Holt has aspiration, every single one—every cleaner, every supermarket worker, even those who work at Woolworths, those 200,000 that this bloke wants to lose their job. Every single worker in this country aspires to a better life for themselves and for their families. That's why, in an electorate like Holt, people have come from all over the world for a better opportunity for their kids, for the next generation. So we think that this is the right decision for the right time. It's not an easy decision. We knew that there would be pushback. We knew that those opposite in their heart of hearts would object to this so strongly, even though I'm not quite sure what their position is today on this. We knew they would object to it. But we knew that it was the right thing to do. I said at the National Press Club—for the benefit of the Leader of the Opposition, that's the little building down the road there—where I spoke before the last election— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The member for Barker will cease interjecting. Mr ALBANESE R36 I said that our core principles would be no-one left behind and no-one held back. That's why we wanted to make sure that those battlers who weren't going to get a single dollar under the existing frame of the Morrison tax cuts got a tax cut, got a break, because that's not just good for them; it's good for the economy as well. But we also wanted to acknowledge that you can't say that there are cost-of-living pressures out there on middle Australia and then not be prepared to do everything that you can to make a difference. We will make a difference, which is why these tax cuts should be supported. Taxation 27 14:32 Ms LEY 00AMN Farrer My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister rule out any changes to the current tax treatment of negative gearing? Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The Prime Minister has the call and will be heard in silence. 14:32 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I thank the Deputy Leader of the Opposition for her question. But it was hard to see across there because there's this big elephant in this room. It's in the form of the legislation that the Treasurer just introduced at 12 o'clock— The SPEAKER 53517 The Prime Minister will return to the question. Mr ALBANESE R36 legislation that will assist every taxpayer to get a tax cut. That is what we are focused on. The Leader of the Opposition— Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The Prime Minister will pause. He has had 30 seconds or so dealing with the preamble, and I did call him to order to the question. He was about to answer something—I'm not sure what it was—but I will take— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The Assistant Treasurer is warned. The Leader of the Opposition on a point of order? Mr Dutton 00AKI Mr Speaker, it was a very simple question. Can we get a straight answer from this man ever? The SPEAKER 53517 Resume your seat. I remind the Leader of the Opposition that he will get the call; he just needs to state the point of order, which was about relevance. An honourable member interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The Prime Minister has the call. Mr ALBANESE R36 I did see a slight curling of the corner there. I thought it was going to come out, that smile we were promised. He asked about negative gearing. I'll quote what one of his team has had to say about that—the member for Menzies. Those opposite like talking about each other, so why not add to it—Nemesis episode 4: the Dutton years? Senator Maria Kovacic: We should not be afraid to consider tax changes, whether they be capping— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The Prime Minister will pause. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition has already had one point of order on relevance, so she'll need to state the point of order when I give her the call, and she has the call now. Ms Ley 00AMN Mr Speaker, I seek your ruling: is the Prime Minister being relevant? The SPEAKER 53517 Well, the Prime Minister was—that's not a point of order. It's not a point of order! It's the first day back— Government members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! Members on my right. The Minister for Climate Change and Energy and the Minister for Home Affairs! I want to hear from the Prime Minister, and I'm making sure that his answer is being relevant. Mr ALBANESE R36 I resisted talking about negative gearing and the member opposite! But Senator Kovacic said this: We should not be afraid to consider tax changes, whether they be capping the number of properties that can be negatively geared … That was in her first speech. You know, that's where you go along and you think, 'What do you really believe in?' There it is, just there, from September 2023. And then the member for Menzies had this to say about negative gearing: Every lever must be on the table. I'll tell you what we're doing about housing: we're focusing on supply. That's what we're doing: focusing on supply. We had a tax change in the budget to encourage build to rent. That was the tax change that we had in the budget. I'm not sure if they noticed it, because they were just too busy opposing everything—which is what they do. Except, maybe—I'm not quite sure what their position is on these tax cuts, because they're asking questions about everything but. Economy 28 14:36 Ms LAWRENCE 299150 Hasluck My question is the Treasurer. What does today's decision on interest rates by the independent Reserve Bank mean for the economy? 14:37 Dr CHALMERS 37998 Rankin Thank you to the wonderful member for Hasluck for her question. But, more than that, I thank her for championing the 84,000 taxpayers in the electorate of Hasluck, including the 84 per cent of them who will get a bigger tax cut to help with the cost of living as a consequence of our changes. I know the member for Hasluck's community has been especially sensitive to the interest rate rises when they began before the last election, and I know that her community and communities right around Australia will particularly welcome the decision by the Reserve Bank today to keep interest rates on hold. The independent Reserve Bank kept interest rates on hold at 4.35 per cent today; this is a decision which will be welcomed right around the country. This will come as welcome relief for Australians who are already under the pump. As the Reserve Bank said in its statement released a few minutes ago, there are encouraging signs in our economy and inflation is moderating. But they recognise, as we do, that inflation is still too high in our economy. That's why this decision and the inflation figures that we saw last week show that we're making welcome and encouraging progress in this fight against inflation, and that our policies are helping to get inflation down, working in concert with the Reserve Bank. But it's not mission accomplished. We know that because people are still under pressure. Headline inflation is now at its lowest level in two years and monthly inflation has a three in front of it for the first time since December 2021. The ABS has once again shown that our cost-of-living plan is helping to directly reduce inflation. The ABS says that our cost-of-living policies took half a percentage point off inflation through the year to the December quarter. These were the cost-of-living policies that those opposite voted against when they voted for higher inflation in our economy. Whether it's electricity prices, or rent or cheaper early childhood education, our policies are taking some of the edge off these pressures. We are realistic about the challenges facing our economy—persistent, but moderating, inflation; higher rates; and global uncertainty—but we face them from a position of genuine economic strength. We know inflation is still our defining economic challenge but we are making encouraging progress, with 650,000 jobs created on our watch under this Prime Minister—a record for a first term. The budget is in much better nick, with the first surplus in 15 years and another in prospect. Real wages have grown for two consecutive quarters. And, from 1 July, every taxpayer in this country will receive a tax cut to help with the cost of living. Under this Albanese government, more people are working; they are earning more; and, because of our tax cuts, they will keep more of what they earn. The SPEAKER 53517 The Leader of the Nationals will cease interjecting. Dr CHALMERS 37998 This will help them service the mortgage, provide for their loved ones and get ahead. Small Business 29 14:40 Ms STEGGALL 175696 Warringah My question is to the Treasurer. Last year, the government voted against my amendments to the support for small business bill, extending the instant asset write-off and the Small Business Energy Incentive from 30 June 2024 to 30 June 2025. Given the financial year is fast coming to an end and the measures have not yet come into effect, will the government now commit to extending them for another year, or were the measures just window-dressing? 14:40 Dr CHALMERS 37998 Rankin Of course they weren't. But, in relation to the rest of the member for Warringah's question, we are enthusiastic supporters of the small-business people and communities of this country. That's why the measure in the member's own question goes to the kind of support that the wonderful Minister for Small Business, and our whole cabinet and our whole party, who are enthusiastic supporters of small business, give. The measure that the honourable member mentioned in her question has been an important way that we are supporting the small businesses of this country, but not the only way. We are also supporting the small businesses of this country with their cyber challenges. We are also supporting the local communities which keep small businesses in operation, by providing a tax cut for every Australian taxpayer, which will find its way into the shops and small businesses of your community and all of the— The SPEAKER 53517 Order. The Treasurer will pause. The member for Warringah on a point of order? Ms Steggall 175696 Relevance, Mr Speaker—it's simply a question of: will they now extend them or not? It's not about everything else. The SPEAKER 53517 The question did contain that in there, but there was some other information. I'm just going to ask the Treasurer to return to the question—to make sure he's directly relevant to the member's question. Dr CHALMERS 37998 Yes, no dramas, Mr Speaker. And, as I was getting to, when it comes to small business, we will always do what we can. We're not going to release, in the beginning of February, the May budget. The Minister for Small Business and all of the colleagues on this side are always looking for ways to support small business. Whether it's the things that the member for Warringah is proposing in good faith, or whether it is other measures, we'll always try and do what we can to support small businesses but also the communities which rely on a thriving, competitive, dynamic, innovative small-business sector. Taxation 29 14:42 Mr BURNELL 300129 Spence My question is to the Treasurer. How is the Albanese Labor government delivering a tax cut for every Australian taxpayer to help middle Australia with the cost of living, and what approaches were rejected? The SPEAKER 53517 I give the call— The SPEAKER 53517 The Treasurer will pause, and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition will withdraw that comment. Ms Ley 00AMN Mr Speaker, I withdraw. The SPEAKER 53517 I give the call to the Treasurer. 14:43 Dr CHALMERS 37998 Rankin Thank you to the member for Spence. He's asked more questions of me today than the shadow Treasurer has asked me in more than six months! The member for Spence is an absolute champion for every single one of the 74,000 taxpayers in his electorate who will get a tax cut from 1 July, including the 91 per cent of taxpayers in Spence who will get a bigger tax cut to help them deal with the cost-of-living pressures that they confront. I congratulate the member for Spence for being a champion of the working people of his community. I was proud to introduce the legislation today, because our legislation means a tax cut for every taxpayer, and a bigger tax cut for more workers, to help with the cost of living. Our tax cuts are better for middle Australia, better for women and young people, better for teachers and truckies and nurses, better for police officers, and better for the economy. This is all about relief and reform—more relief for middle Australia and a better reform for our economy. It's a better way to return bracket creep—better for labour supply and work incentives, better for women and better for young people, with no extra pressure on the budget and no additional pressure on inflation, which is moderating in welcome ways in our economy. We didn't take this decision lightly—to change our position on stage 3. We knew it would be contentious and we knew it would be contested. I want to pay tribute here to the Prime Minister of our country for the way that he leads our cabinet and our country and, most importantly, for the way that he delivers for middle Australia, for the way that he puts people before politics—an approach which is absolutely foreign to those opposite. This is all about giving people help with the cost of living, and the opposition don't like our changes because they would prefer wages to be lower and inflation to be higher, and they want tax cuts to be skewed to the highest incomes. Their position has been indefensible, unintelligible, incoherent and unsustainable, and we saw that again. Let me give you two examples of the approach we're rejecting. On the same day, the shadow Treasurer called my changes 'Marxism', and by the afternoon he was on 2GB saying he might vote for them. The opposition leader called for an election on a policy that he is now voting for. That would be a pretty strange election and a pretty strange debate. Imagine how angry he would get if this was about something he's voting against? The only clarity we get is from the member for Farrer. She was asked, 'Will they roll back our changes?', and she said, 'That is absolutely our position.' No matter what they say today, they are still out of touch, they still want to roll it back and they still have no alternatives. Government members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Members on my right, there is far too much noise. The minister for climate change and Minister for Home Affairs, there will be silence so I can hear from the member for Hume. He will not be interrupted. If anyone interrupts him, they will not remain in the House of Representatives. Taxation 30 14:46 Mr TAYLOR 231027 Hume ():  My question is to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer rule out any changes to the current tax treatment of negative gearing? The SPEAKER 53517 The Minister for Home Affairs is warned. The SPEAKER 53517 The Treasurer will cease interjecting. The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Page, no-one is to interrupt before a minister speaks. I don't know why that is so hard for anyone to understand. Get it! 14:47 Dr CHALMERS 37998 Rankin Saturday was a really important day. Saturday was the sixth-month anniversary of the last time the member for Hume asked me a question. Now that he has asked a question, we all know why. I say to the tactics committee on that side, it's probably not the worst call to deny him a question for more than six months. That's because the Prime Minister and I, in press conferences, have dealt with this question already. We know what this is all about. The position that they have taken is so incoherent, unintelligible and incomprehensible that they can't ask about the tax cuts which are before the parliament as of noon today. The SPEAKER 53517 The Treasurer will pause. The Manager of Opposition Business on a point of order. Mr Fletcher L6B We're asking for a straight answer to a very clear question: Will he rule out changes to the tax treatment of negative gearing? He needs to give a clear and simple answer, a straight point on relevance or he should sit down. The SPEAKER 53517 I think we'll deal with this matter now. The Treasurer will just resume his seat. I can appreciate when questions are asked that people would like a yes/no answer. As we begin this week and this parliamentary session, I can't make a minister answer a question 'yes' or 'no'. I want to make that clear to everyone. I can make sure they are directly relevant under the standing orders. I'll remind all members, if you wish to change the standing orders, that is up to the House to decide that. But, as they stand now—you may not like the answer; you may not agree with the answer—I simply can't ask a minister or a prime minister to answer a question 'yes' or 'no', as you would like. The Treasurer touched on his answer, in terms of his previous statement, so he is being relevant and he has the call. Dr CHALMERS 37998 It beggars belief that the guy who hasn't asked me a question in more than six months is chirping at me about relevance. What would the member for Hume know about relevance? I say this once again, for those opposite: I've dealt with this question publicly in the recent past, and the point that I make, once again, is that it's almost three o'clock on the day that we introduced legislation to give a bigger tax cut to more workers, to help with the cost of living, and they still haven't asked us a question, at ten to three, about the legislation that I introduced at noon today. We all know what's going on here. They want to ask us a question about all of the things that we haven't said we're doing, because they can't defend their position on the thing that we have said we're doing. Wages 31 14:50 Dr CHARLTON I8M Parramatta My question is to the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations. After a decade of low wages growth, how is the Albanese Labor government helping Australians earn more and keep more of what they earn? 14:50 Mr BURKE DYW Watson I thank the member for Parramatta for the question. There are 90,000 taxpayers in his electorate— Mr Pike 300120 And he's not one of them! Mr BURKE DYW and he's supporting a tax cut for every single one of them. The SPEAKER 53517 The minister will pause. The member for Bowman will leave the chamber under standing order 94(a). Mr BURKE DYW Australia has gone from— Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! Mr BURKE DYW the previous government's management of the economy to a government that has been determined to get wages moving. Every measure that we've had to get wages moving has been opposed by those opposite. They've opposed them right from the start. During the election campaign, the Prime Minister was asked the question of whether he would support a wage rise being backed at the Fair Work Commission. He had a one-word answer that will be very familiar to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition: 'Absolutely.' He would absolutely support those wage rises—the same word that was used by those opposite to say that they would oppose a tax cut for every Australian and would roll it back. Opposition members interjecting— Mr BURKE DYW Those opposite ask, 'How's it going?' with the wage rises for these workers. Let's start with some workers who the Leader of the Opposition will be familiar with. Let's start with workers at Woolworths. He'll know about Woolworths workers because he called for a boycott that, if successful—if any Australian had followed his advice—would have meant fewer jobs for those workers. Not only did he oppose their jobs and oppose their pay rise; he opposed their tax cut. Those checkout operators who irritated, so much, the Leader of the Opposition, in the life of this government, are now earning an extra $95 a week. Thanks to the action that this government has taken, not only do they now earn an extra $95 a week but they are also now up for a tax cut of an additional $920 a year. They will earn more and keep more of what they earn. To those opposite who say, 'Maybe they support the tax cut': if you support it, why are you so angry about it? Mr Sukkar 242515 Because you lied about it! Mr BURKE DYW It's pretty clear and it's there for all the public to see. The SPEAKER 53517 The minister will pause. The member for Deakin has been continually interjecting in this answer, and, as he's been on a warning, he will leave under standing order 94(a). Mr BURKE DYW It's pretty clear, and on display for all of Australia to see, that, from the moment this was announced, those opposite were angry about it. From the moment this was announced, those opposite didn't want it to happen. From the moment it was announced, those opposite had one simple principle: they did not want a tax cut for every Australian. Those pay rises have gone across the board—not just including award employees. Average weekly earnings, under this government, are up $68 per week, and an average full-time earner will receive a tax cut of more than $2,000 a year. More jobs; better wages; keep more of what you earn. Makarrata Commission 32 14:54 Mr FLETCHER L6B Bradfield My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister honour his promise to deliver treaty and truth-telling? 14:54 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I thank the underchallenged member for Bradfield and shadow minister for his question that is actually about the Uluru Statement from the Heart. On a day when these issues are very important, it is quite extraordinary that they're now going to go past three o'clock without asking a question about a $107 billion package that we have before this parliament. They're looking for anything else to talk about— The SPEAKER 53517 Order, the Leader of the Opposition will pause and cease interjecting. The Prime Minister will return to the question. Mr ALBANESE R36 We put the referendum to the Australian people for a Constitutional recognition of First Nations people through the method that they asked for in the Uluru Statement from the Heart, after a five-year consultation process leading up to 2017. That was— Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! There are far too many interjections. The House is now on a general warning. An honourable member: Will you tell the truth? The SPEAKER 53517 I don't know who made that interjection. I just ask all members to show some restraint and respect. I give the call to the Prime Minister. Mr ALBANESE R36 That was because we listened to what Indigenous Australians told not to this government but the former government in 2017. They were listened to by the former Minister for Indigenous Affairs, Ken Wyatt, a man of honour and a man of integrity, and someone who stood up for his beliefs. Both sides went to election after election committing to advance that cause. The referendum was put to the Australian people; it was not successful, and I respect that outcome. I got asked a range of times about Treaty—seriously, mate. Mr Tehan 210911 On a point of order. The SPEAKER 53517 Order, the Prime Minister will pause. Order! The Prime Minister was mentioning the word Treaty, which was in the question, so I will listen to the member's point of order and he will need to clearly state it—that means state what the point of order is, don't just say what you want to say. Mr Tehan 210911 It's on relevance. The question was about truth-telling— The SPEAKER 53517 Resume your seat. The question was about that, but it was also, 'Will he honour his promise to deliver Treaty and truth-telling?' If the Prime Minister is mentioning the word 'Treaty', and that is in the question, he really couldn't be any more relevant. I will listen to the Prime Minister's answer. At this stage he is being directly relevant and that is not a point of order. Mr ALBANESE R36 This question was asked last year on a number of occasions. I indicated the Commonwealth certainly is not in any negotiations on Treaty. Indeed, Treaty implies two sides negotiating and coming to an agreement. That's what occurs. Various state governments are undertaking that work. I note that the Liberal Party in various states has changed its position—in New South Wales I think that process is continuing but, it's occurring at the state level. (Time expired) Health Care 32 14:58 Ms CLAYDON 248181 Newcastle My question is to Minister for Health. How will health workers and their patients benefit from the government's tax cuts? How do Labor's tax cuts complement other actions the government has taken to make health care more affordable? Why is the government so determined to strengthen Medicare? 14:59 Mr BUTLER HWK Hindmarsh I thank the member for Newcastle for her question. There are more than 650,000 health workers in Australia—nurses, doctors, allied health workers and more—and they work hard every single day keeping us healthy. During the worst times in the pandemic, they worked hard to keep us safe, often at great personal risk to themselves. For that, they deserve our deep gratitude, but they deserve so much more as well. Our government wants Australia's hardworking health workers to earn more for what they do, and we want them to keep more of what they earn. That's why, on 1 July, Labor will deliver every single health worker in Australia a tax cut to help with the cost of living, not just to some of them but to every single one of the 650,000 health workers. A typical nurse earning $76,000 a year will receive a tax cut of $1,579, around double what they would have earned from the old plan of five years ago. Every single one of their patients will receive a tax cut as well, not just some of them but every single one of them, reinforcing our determination to build on the measures we rolled out over the course of last year to help middle Australia with the cost of living. Last year, general patients saved $240 million in medicine costs thanks to the biggest cut to the price of medicines in the 75-year history of the PBS, delivered by this government on 1 January last year. They'll save pretty much the same amount again this year just from that one single measure. In four weeks time, 100 more medicines will be added to the 60-day script list, saving Australian patients even more money at the pharmacist, as well as saving time and much more convenience. Our record investment from last year's budget, delivered by the Treasurer, in bulk-billing for GP visits is, again, already having an impact too. Everyone in this parliament knows that bulk-billing rates were in freefall when we were elected to government—no surprise, perhaps, after a decade of cuts and neglect to Medicare, kicked off by the Leader of the Opposition when he was health minister. Our first job was to stop the slide, and, since the announcement made by the Treasurer in May, we have seen the freefall in bulk-billing for GP visits start to arrest. I'm pleased to report that, in just the first two months of the incentive taking effect, we've already seen a turnaround in bulk-billing for GP visits, with 360,000 additional free visits to the doctor in just the first two months, with the large majority in regional Australia. That's what we're about—helping with the cost of living and a stronger economy and a stronger Medicare. (Time expired) Renewable Energy 33 15:02 Mr LITTLEPROUD 265585 Maranoa My question is to the Minister for Climate Change and Energy. Minister, multinational developers are being allowed to ride roughshod over communities under the government's reckless race to 82 per cent renewables by 2030. The government's own review found that 92 per cent of people affected are dissatisfied with their treatment. Will the minister finally listen to the concerns of communities and establish a proper community consultation and assessment process that protects regional communities against renewable projects? 15:03 Mr BOWEN DZS McMahon The honourable member refers to the Dyer review of community engagement, which we commissioned for better community engagement about renewable energy rollout in regional Australia. After nine years of inaction by those opposite, we came in and said, 'Community engagement in regional Australia should be improved.' I commissioned Andrew Dyer to write the report. Last Friday, at Grabben Gullen, I released the report with representatives of the National Farmers Federation and Farmers for Climate Action. The chief executive of the National Farmers Federation, at the press conference where we released the report, said this report is a great thing. He said, 'This report is a great thing.' Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! Mr BOWEN DZS We on this side of the House want to see regional Australians benefit from renewable energy. We want to see renewable energy in the best interests of all Australians. What we won't be doing is pausing or having a moratorium— The SPEAKER 53517 Order, the minister for regional development! Mr BOWEN DZS as the deputy leader, or the Leader of the National Party, has asked for, because the last decade was pause enough. We saw another example of that last night on the television. I'm not normally one for horror movies, but last night's viewing was pretty compelling. We saw last night the National Energy Guarantee—remember that, one of their 22 energy policies? The same people who killed that are still here sitting in the opposition. We, on this side of House— Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The minister will pause. There's far too much noise. The Leader of the Nationals on a point of order? Mr Littleproud 265585 On relevance: I asked the minister quite clearly and calmly whether he would put in place a proper consultation assessment process to protect regional communities. He didn't get to any of that. He had a report, but he's not acting on it. That's the problem we've got out the front— The SPEAKER 53517 Resume your seat. We don't need the extra commentary at the end of points of order. I will just ask everyone to take the temperature down, including the minister. He has the call. Mr BOWEN DZS I released the report. I announced we had accepted all nine recommendations in principle, and we will now work with states and territories and local government and communities to implement those recommendations. We also released, on coming to office, new guidelines for better community engagement. I asked the Australian Energy Market Commission to improve the rulemaking for better consultation with regional communities. These are the things we have done which they didn't do. I can see that the Leader of the National Party has been on a bit of a journey. When he was in government, the Leader of the National Party said, 'Renewable energy—I think it's a good thing.' Then in June last year he said, 'We think there's a place for renewables, on our rooftops and wind towers, but it should be offshore, not near the Great Barrier Reef.' He has supported offshore renewable energy provided it's not near the Great Barrier Reef, where none of our offshore wind zones are. None of our offshore wind zones are near the Great Barrier Reef. Then in August he called renewable energy 'a virus'. He called it a virus! Now he says solar should be the only source of renewable energy. He has been on quite a journey has the Leader of the National Party. Consistency is not his strong point, nor is delivering better outcomes for regional Australia, which we are committed to doing. Taxation: Women's Economic Security 34 15:06 Dr ANANDA-RAJAH 290544 Higgins My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Women. How are the Albanese Labor government's tax cuts better for Australian women? 15:07 Ms CATHERINE KING 00AMR Ballarat I thank very much the member for Higgins for her question, because, of course, on 1 July we will deliver a tax cut for every Australian taxpayer to help with the cost of living. That includes every single taxpayer in the member for Higgins's electorate. Our plan will see Australian women taxpayers on average receive a tax cut of $1,649 from 1 July. These tax cuts are good for Australian women. The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The member for Barker is warned. Ms CATHERINE KING 00AMR And it will see a bigger tax cut for 90 per cent of Australian women taxpayers, who will receive an additional average tax cut of $707. That is 5.8 million women receiving a bigger tax cut. That equates to a boost of 630,000 additional hours per week worked by women. We know that women work hard across our economy and we want to ensure that they keep more of their hard-earned money to meet the daily challenges and cost-of-living pressures that they face. These changes are deliberately designed to ensure that those in middle Australia get to keep more of the money that they earn without, of course, adding to inflationary pressures. Women's economic equality is a core priority for this government. The Leader of the Opposition, frankly, and the Liberals and the Nationals, have made it clear that they really do not want these tax cuts for middle Australia. When you look at their faces today, it's almost like they've been sucking on a lemon. When asked if the opposition would roll back Labor's tax cuts, we saw the Deputy Leader of the Opposition saying: 'Well, of course, that's our position. That is absolutely our position.' What have you got against 90 per cent of Australian women taxpayers getting a bigger tax cut? What is wrong with that? We want to make sure that Australian women have every opportunity to earn money and to keep more of that money. We know that on the side of the House we have been absolutely focused on women's equality, making sure that we deliver for the women of this nation. We're working to close the gender pay gap and close those earning gaps for women in this country—something that those opposite absolutely failed to address. We will always work hard for women, and soon the Minister for Women will release a national gender equality strategy to guide these continued efforts. Taxation 34 15:09 Dr HAINES 282335 Indi ():  My question is to the Prime Minister. Today the government introduced the tax cuts bill. Many in my regional electorate of Indi will benefit from that. But there are 25,000 people who have incomes below the tax-free threshold, and these tax cuts won't put more money back in their pockets. There are also 20,000 people on the age pension and thousands more on other payments, like JobSeeker, who are struggling with fixed incomes. What new action will you now take to address cost-of-living pressures for these people? 15:10 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler ():  I thank the member for Indi for her question. We had a meeting earlier today and talked about the tax cuts that were introduced by the Treasurer at 12 o'clock. Indeed, the people of regional Australia in particular will benefit from Labor's tax cuts that will help to deal with the cost of living. In Indi, some 87 per cent of taxpayers will get even more. But 100 per cent of taxpayers will get a tax cut. One of the things about the Treasury analysis that we released spoke about was bracket creep, particularly for those people on low incomes. According to the Treasury, in the documentation that we released, they said: By reducing the first tax rate from 19 to 16 per cent, the redesign produces a smaller increase in average tax rates … for the first seven income deciles over the next 10 years. In other words, it reduces bracket creep more for these groups compared with … Stage 3 and a no change scenario. The SPEAKER 53517 Order. The Prime Minister will pause. Member for Hume, this is not a free for all. You can't just keep interrupting even when I say cease interrupting. You'll leave the chamber under 94(a). The member for Hume then left the chamber. The SPEAKER 53517 You've had a pretty good go. The Prime Minister has the call and will be heard in silence. Mr ALBANESE R36 Thanks, Mr Speaker. Disappointingly, I'm sure he was going to ask a question about our tax package next, Mr Speaker. I'm sure it was going to come. What we have been trying to address is the cost-of-living pressures, including on the people that the member for Indi raises. They were particularly beneficiaries of our rental increase, the largest increase in some 30 years. They benefited from the increase in JobSeeker and other payments that we introduced as part of our last budget. They benefited, certainly, from the cheaper medicines policy, where Australians benefited to the tune of $250 million last year—and that was, of course, disproportionally towards low-income earners and particularly older Australians who are on those regular pharmaceuticals, whether it be for heart treatment or diabetes or other treatments. In addition to that, the government will continue to consider, as we've said, in the lead-up to the May budget what further measures we can put in place. The parenting payment difference, of course, benefited 57,000 largely single mums as a result of the changes we've put in place. We'll continue to examine what we can do, but these tax cuts are particularly aimed at middle Australia. We make no apologies for that. They are aimed at middle Australia to provide them with the relief— (Time expired) Taxation 35 15:13 Mr KHALIL 101351 Wills ():  My question is to the Minister for Education. How will the Albanese Labor government's tax cuts benefit workers in the education system? 15:14 Mr CLARE HWL Blaxland ():  I thank my friend the legendary member for Wills for his question. Honourable members interjecting— Mr CLARE HWL Do you like that? You're not too bad, either. In the member for Wills' electorate, 78,000 taxpayers will get a tax cut on 1 July, and that includes childcare workers. A childcare worker on, say, $40,000 a year will get a $654 tax cut. Under the Liberal Party they would have got zero. A maintenance worker at the local primary school on $50,000 will get a tax cut of $929 a year. An admin worker at the local high school, doing a job like my mum did for 30 years, on 70 grand will get a tax cut of $1,429 a year. A teacher—and I hope all of us in this place agree there's no more important job than teaching—on $80,000 a year will get a tax cut of $1,679 a year, double what they would have got under those opposite. They're just some of the 13 million Australians who'll get a tax cut on 1 July—every taxpayer getting a tax cut. What does it mean for childcare workers or teachers? Mr Speaker, let me give you an example. A high school teacher in Sydney said: 'These tax changes mean I'll see more of what I work hard to earn in my bank account. As someone in their 20s, I'll probably put that towards a house deposit.' A childcare worker in Perth said: 'I'm looking forward to approximately 800 bucks this year, which will help me with car insurance as well as schoolbooks and everything. It's a big improvement.' For the average Aussie worker it means a tax cut of about 21 grand over the next decade. That's real money. That's real help. Today we've got the opposition leader saying that it would be better if we didn't make these changes. Understand what that means, Mr Speaker. It means the opposition are saying it would be better if childcare workers didn't get a bigger tax cut; that it would be better if teachers didn't get a bigger tax cut; that a childcare worker on 40 grand a year—under their model—shouldn't get a tax cut at all. These are the people who care for our kids, who teach our kids, who are teaching the next generation of Aussies, and those opposite are saying it would be better if they didn't get a bigger tax cut. It tells you everything you need to know about the modern Liberal Party. They don't think that people on low incomes should get an extra buck an hour, they don't think childcare workers should get a bigger tax cut and they don't think teachers should get a bigger tax cut. They don't think 11 million Australians deserve a bigger tax cut. (Time expired) Mr Albanese R36 Given there are no more questions, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper. QUESTIONS TO THE SPEAKER 36 QUESTIONS TO THE SPEAKER Questions in Writing 36 15:17 Mr FLETCHER L6B Bradfield Mr Speaker, in accordance with standing order 105(b), I want to draw your attention to 12 overdue questions which have been lodged with the Minister representing the Minister for Finance—that is, the Treasurer. I don't know what he's been doing over the summer break but he clearly hasn't been working on my questions. On 6 December I asked the responsible minister several questions about the performance of the Digital Transformation Agency. More than 60 days have passed and the responsible minister has not answered my questions. I ask that you write to the Treasurer to seek his explanation as to why he has chosen not to answer my questions in writing within 60 days. 15:18 The SPEAKER 53517 I shall write to the minister, as the standing order provides. DOCUMENTS 36 DOCUMENTS Commonwealth Ombudsman 36 Presentation 36 15:18 The SPEAKER 53517 I present quarterly reports by the Commonwealth Ombudsman, under section 712F(6) of the Fair Work Act 2009, for the periods 1 January to 31 March 2023 and 1 April to 30 June 2023. AUDITOR-GENERAL'S REPORTS 36 AUDITOR-GENERAL'S REPORTS Report Nos 8 to 12 of 2023-24 36 15:18 The SPEAKER 53517 I present the Auditor-General's reports Nos 8 to 12 for 2023-24. Details of the reports will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings. Documents made parliamentary papers. MOTIONS 36 MOTIONS Live Animal Exports 36 15:18 Mr WILKIE C2T Clark I seek leave to move the following motion: That the House: (1) notes that: (a) approximately 15,000 sheep and cattle onboard the MV Bahijah have endured inhumane conditions at sea for more than 30 days since being loaded in Fremantle for export to Jordan; (b) the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry has rejected an application to re-export the livestock for what would have been another month or more at sea; (c) the Department is now waiting on the private exporter to decide how to proceed, resulting in uncertainty and the prolonged suffering of these animals; and (d) the longer the animals remain on board the greater the risk of illness, disease and death; and (2) calls on the Government to: (a) intervene immediately to ensure the welfare of the livestock on the MV Bahijah by bringing the animals onshore and into quarantine; (b) suspend all live animal exports through the Red Sea until the current conflict in the region is over and the risk to crew and animals subsides; and (c) finally commit to a timeline for the phase out of live sheep exports and legislate an end date immediately. Leave not granted. Mr WILKIE C2T I move: That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the Member for Clark from moving the following motion—That the House: (1) notes that: (a) approximately 15,000 sheep and cattle onboard the MV Bahijah have endured inhumane conditions at sea for more than 30 days since being loaded in Fremantle for export to Jordan; (b) the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry has rejected an application to re-export the livestock for what would have been another month or more at sea; (c) the Department is now waiting on the private exporter to decide how to proceed, resulting in uncertainty and the prolonged suffering of these animals; and (d) the longer the animals remain on board the greater the risk of illness, disease and death; and (2) calls on the Government to: (a) intervene immediately to ensure the welfare of the livestock on the MV Bahijah by bringing the animals onshore and into quarantine; (b) suspend all live animal exports through the Red Sea until the current conflict in the region is over and the risk to crew and animals subsides; and (c) finally commit to a timeline for the phase out of live sheep exports and legislate an end date immediately. There is an urgent need to address this crisis, and this parliament cannot wait one moment longer to do just that. Here we have approximately 15,000 animals, mostly sheep, although it also includes about 2½ thousand head of cattle, who have already been afloat for some 30 days in the stifling heat of WA, and they've travelled across the equator and back to the stifling heat of WA. The conditions on this vessel are already well known to all of us, and it beggars belief that we even have to have a debate about doing something urgently about the conditions on this vessel. We've seen all this before. We've seen the footage. Remember the footage from the Awassi Express with the sheep just literally drowning in their own filth? Well, spare a thought for the 15,000 animals, mostly sheep, on the vessel off WA right now. For a start, the vessel is stationary, so there's no movement of air across the decks. We can only speculate how stiflingly hot it is and how much panting is going on by those long-suffering animals to try and keep their body temperature down. Yes, there have been vets go out to the vessel, and, yes, the vets have said the deaths have been limited, but what about the 15,000 live animals and the terrible conditions in which they are right now? Yes, the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry has denied permission for the vessel to set sail again via the Cape of Good Hope and up through the Mediterranean into Israel, where the sheep and cattle might be offloaded and taken on the road journey across and into Jordan, but, bizarrely, the department is still leaving the next steps up to the exporter. I don't care if that's somehow in the legislation and that's somehow the process to let the exporter make the decision about the next step. If that's what the legislation requires, the government should start acting like the government, come in here this afternoon and change the law, because what is needed right now is urgent, political intervention. If that requires changing any regulations or any laws of the land then it must be done. It demands urgent political intervention. This isn't just about the conditions on the Bahijah; it's about the state of the live animal export industry more broadly. We know it is systemically cruel, and it's not just about a few high-profile episodes like the Awassi Express and now the Bahijah. You look back over the last 10 or 15 years, and it's been expose after expose, whistleblower after whistleblower. What about all those episodes many people have probably already forgotten about? What about the load of Australian sheep that were offloaded in Pakistan and then we saw the images of the live sheep literally being bulldozed, thrown into pits and buried alive? That's the face of this industry. That's the reality of it. It's not like the Bahijah, the Awassi Express or even those sheep being buried alive in Pakistan was a one-off case. The fact is the conditions on every one of these vessels are absolutely intolerable. This is something that is systemically cruel, and the only way to end the cruelty is to end the trade and to process those animals within Australia. There's an idea that we've got to keep labouring away with this cruelty on an industrial scale because it's such an important industry, adding so much value to our country and employing so many workers, but that's nonsense. It's complete and patent nonsense. The fact is that live sheep export constitutes about 0.1 per cent of Australia's agricultural output. I'll say that again: the live sheep export industry is one-tenth of one per cent of the value of Australia's agricultural production. It's that tiny. Even in WA, where people are so blind to the cruelty, blindly supporting an indefensible industry, the live sheep export trade is worth—wait for it—one per cent of WA's agricultural output. That's all: one per cent. To put that in perspective, Australia's agricultural output is about $80 billion a year, and the live sheep export trade is about $85 million a year. To the degree that it employs workers, of course I have sympathy for those workers, but no job can justify cruelty on an industrial scale. I'll say that again: no job can justify cruelty on an industrial scale. Mark my words: there'd be a darn sight more workers employed if we processed those animals within Australia and then we exported a premium, value-added product—frozen and chilled meat. It's not like overseas markets won't buy the product when it's been processed. In fact, annually, we export about $4.5 billion of processed lamb and mutton and $85 million of live sheep. Much of that processed lamb and mutton goes to the Middle East, to the exact same markets where we're sending shiploads of long-suffering animals. The government must stop talking about winding up the live sheep export trade, especially to the Middle East. I give the government credit: at least they're talking about it. This mob over here won't even have a conversation about it. But it's no good talking about it if that's all you do. Let's stop the discussion. Let's have a time line. Let's legislate the time line. Let's give certainty to the export industry or to those people currently involved in the export industry, and to the farmers, so they can start planning and implementing the change necessary for life after live exports. Opposition members interjecting— Mr WILKIE C2T For the people over here who have interjected constantly for the last 8½ minutes, I'll quote a fella called Alexander von Humboldt. Opposition members interjecting— Mr C2T I'm saying this to all of you who have been interjecting for the last nine minutes. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 You need to direct your comments through the chair. Mr WILKIE C2T Deputy Speaker, I apologise. The quote reads: Cruelty to animals is one of the most significant vices of a low and ignoble people. Wherever one notices them, they constitute a sign of ignorance and brutality which cannot be painted over even by all the evidence of wealth and luxury. In other words, it is inexcusable that anyone would come in here and, in good conscience, try to defend an indefensible industry. This industry will end one day, mark my words! It's the people in this place who have fought tooth and nail to stop the ban of the trade who have given false hope to the farmers and who have stood in the way of reform and implementing a proper, well-funded transition plan. They are the people letting the farmers of this country down, as well as the animals. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 Is there a seconder for this motion? 15:30 Ms TINK 300124 North Sydney Yes, there is, I second the motion, and I rise to support the member for Clark's motion calling on the government to: (a) intervene immediately to ensure the welfare of the livestock on the MV Bahijah by bringing the animals onshore and into quarantine; (b) suspend all live animal exports through the Red Sea until the current conflict in the region is over and the risk to crew and animals subsides; and (c) finally commit to a timeline for the phase out of live sheep exports and legislate an end date immediately. Not only does my community of North Sydney care very passionately about this really distressing issue but, as someone who grew up on farms in regional and rural New South Wales, I know that there are many people in the bush who would be unhappy to see this situation we are currently in. The mistreatment of any animal is abhorrent, and farmers themselves are the first advocates for good treatment of livestock. All animals deserve to be treated humanely. Urgent action is needed to end the current ordeal of these animals—the animals on this ship now—and to end the cruelty and suffering of the live export trade in general. These animals have been through enough. They have been stranded on this vessel since 5 January—that's almost a month, colleagues. Sheep don't belong on boats on the water for that long—on a stationary vessel. They are packed together with other animals in their thousands in extremely hot and humid conditions, and this must stop. I want to point out that I acknowledge there have been vets out to the vessel and that there are vets on the vessel, but I would ask my colleagues to acknowledge that animals do not do best on a stationary boat on the water. This is not something we should be fighting over; this case is exceptional and we should be working as a government to bring these animals to shore. While I welcome the department of agriculture's decision to reject the exporter's application to re-export the animals stranded on board the vessel, I remain concerned that the exporter will apply for another re-export application while these animals continue to suffer. The government can and must act to reduce and alleviate animal suffering, and to ensure the best possible outcome for these animals. They must also act to ensure that this doesn't happen again, by delivering on their promised phase-out of live sheep exports and stopping ocean traffic through the Red Sea at this point in time. Australia's live export industry has demonstrated time and time again its willingness to condemn animals to extreme risk of suffering and death in the name of profits, and we have an opportunity to counter this right now. In 2019 the Labor Party committed to phasing out live sheep exports over five years but, since coming to power, the government has done nothing and we're yet to see a commitment to the time line. While late last year the government expanded the functions of the Inspector-General of Live Animal Exports to include increased oversight, accountability and transparency for animal welfare of exported livestock, I see no evidence of that role at work here. How can we allow this cruelty to continue whilst failing to deliver on promises? I join the member for Clark in calling on the government to ensure the welfare of the livestock on board the MV Bahijah and to stop allowing live export ships to travel through the tumultuous Red Sea whilst conflict continues. We must hold the government to account to deliver on their promise to phase out live sheep exports. 15:34 Mr JOSH WILSON 265970 Fremantle I'm very glad to make a contribution to this debate, which is prompted by the latest animal welfare crisis brought to us by the live sheep animal export trade. I thank the member for Clark for bringing it forward. I acknowledge the consistency of his interest in animal welfare. The motion goes to two matters. It goes to the crisis involving the MV Bahijah, which still sits off the coast of Fremantle, and it goes to the challenge of managing the end of what has been for a long time a marginal, unnecessary and inherently harmful trade: the live sheep export industry. Right now, as the member for Clark has noted, there are more than 10,000—12,000 or 13,000—sheep and some few thousand cattle on board the MV Bahijah, approved to travel to Jordan via the Red Sea. The exporters themselves made a decision that it wasn't viable and that the contingency plan that they had in place wasn't viable either. As a result of that they were forced to come back to Western Australia. Those animals have been on that vessel now for 33 days, and they were on that vessel in heatwave conditions last week. In a few days time, apparently, Perth will experience 40-degree temperatures again, on Friday, Saturday and Sunday. And the longest live sheep voyage to the Middle East in calendar year 2022 was for 23 days. The length of confinement on board these vessels is a matter of animal welfare, and every sensible person in every part of this House knows that we have rules for how long animals can be confined in lots of circumstances—like how long they can be confined on trucks—and, rightly, we ascribe animal welfare impacts to the confinement of animals on metal ships at sea. Sometimes they're forced to stand in their own waste and they're always forced to endure the motion of ship and the other impacts, including heat stress. People over there talk about mortality and people on the other side talk about whether or not animals put on weight. I tell you what: human beings on death row put on weight, so you're not going to tell me that a living creature, provided with a huge amount of food, which is putting on weight is the only measure of whether or not that animal is suffering. You're not going to tell me that animals that have spent their entire lives and their existence as a species on land enjoy being on stinking metal ships for weeks at a time. They do not. All the evidence about heat stress and other measures of animal welfare show that animals suffer in those conditions. These animals have been on that ship for 33 days; that's already 10 days longer than the longest voyage in 2022. The proposition from the exporters was that they would be re-exported for a voyage that would probably take another 33 days. That would have made it the longest voyage of its kind in Australian history. On previous occasions when voyages of that duration have been attempted, we have seen animal welfare atrocities. That's the nature of this trade. So it's very welcome that the independent regulator has made the decision not to approve the re-export of those animals. The best course of action now is for them to come off the ship as soon as possible—for them to come off the ship and no longer suffer from those conditions. The second issue that the member for Clark raised is about the sensible, long-awaited transition out of the trade altogether. To pick up on what the member for North Sydney said: it's just not fair, or true, to say that the government has done nothing. We committed to the phasing out of this trade. That should have been done responsibly a long time ago by the former government. We're committed to doing it. Within weeks of the election, the minister for agriculture came to Western Australia and began the proper process to transition out. He began the meetings and he established the independent panel. The independent panel did its proper consultative work and they have now provided a report to the minister. Of course, in due course we expect that the minister will come forward with both a plan and a timetable to properly and responsibly transition out of a trade that is marginal, unnecessary and has always been inherently harmful. Nobody on that side can say that it hasn't been harmful, when they themselves put a moratorium in place to stop the trade during the course of the northern summer. Their own McCarthy review said that every time ships went during that period, unacceptable animal heat stress occurred. So they implemented the summer moratorium. Until they implemented the summer moratorium, of course, for year after year after year Australian animals had been subject to confinement and unacceptable heat stress—this was as determined by the review and the response was what they implemented. All of this rubbish about mortality and animals putting on weight—they know, and farmers know, it is rubbish. Those animals suffer and their suffering is intolerable. The Australian community won't accept it. In Western Australia, 70 per cent of people in metropolitan areas and 69 per cent in rural and regional areas want to see the trade come to an end. And it's marginal. People have trouble with the word 'marginal'. How else would you describe an industry that has declined by more than 90 per cent from its peak? How else would you describe that industry? It is worth less than one per cent of WA agricultural exports, as the member for Clark said, less than 0.1 per cent of Australia's agricultural exports as a whole and less than two per cent of sheep meat exports. It is not necessary. All the fearmongering about what would happen through the decline and ultimately the end of this trade has failed to come true. Between 2013 and 2023, that 10-year period alone, when the industry declined by more than 75 per cent, the sheep flock in Western Australia remained exactly the same at 14 million sheep. There was no decline in the Western Australian sheep flock when the live sheep trade declined by three-quarters. Wool production out of Western Australia in that same period, measure it in 2013, measure it in 2023. It did not decline at all over that period despite a 75 per cent decline in the live sheep export trade. All of this 'the roof is going to fall in', all of this 'it is an essential trade; we can never see this trade disappear' has failed to manifest in any of the ways in which people who support the industry claimed that it would. There has been no diminution in the size of the Western Australian sheep flock, no diminution in the quantity of wool exported and no noticeable difference economically in jobs or other broader economic impacts to the Western Australian sheep industry. In fact, in 2021, Western Australian wheat-sheep farms were noted as the most profitable farms of their kind on the globe, and that was after this industry had already diminished by up to 85 per cent. So we are doing the responsible thing by managing out of an industry that is virtually defunct, that has produced animal welfare harm and, in some cases, acute animal welfare disasters, over and over again. Unfortunately, for the previous nine years, despite all those facts staring those opposite in the face, they did nothing. In fact, they made it worse. They reduced animal welfare regulation, they turned a blind eye and they were an apologist for some of the exporters and their outcomes, but not everyone on the other side, though. The deputy Liberal leader, the member for Farrer in 2018 brought a private member's bill to end the live sheep trade. It was supported by the member for La Trobe and by the then member for Corangamite, who is now Senator Henderson in the other place. At that time, the deputy leader of the Liberal Party said that the live sheep trade is 'a trade in terminal decline'. The member for Farrer said the live sheep trade is 'an operating model built on the suffering of animals'. The deputy leader said, 'I think this trade in sheep is a shame and a stain on our international reputation.' And the current deputy leader of the Liberal Party, the member for Farrer, said, 'One thing I've learned after 17 years in parliament is when you believe you need to do something, you must do it and never take a backward step.' Well, we know that this is a marginal, unnecessary and inherently harmful trade. All Australians know that. All of the scientific and economic evidence shows that. We change our practices in this country in respect of our high-quality, high-output and high-value agricultural sector as we learn and as we improve. There have been other aspects of primary production of enormous value to this country that have changed and improved over time, and we can pick many of them. We don't get eggs from battery hens anymore because we recognise that that was intolerably cruel. We don't need the live sheep trade. We are managing the end of that trade but we're doing it in a responsible way. I hear what the member for Clarke is calling for. I want those animals to come of the MV Bahijah tomorrow. That is for the exporter to determine in consultation with the independent regulator, quite properly. I want to see the sensible end of the live sheep export trade as soon as possible. That is what we committed to, that is what the Albanese Labor government is delivering, and that is what the minister for agriculture is working on. 15:44 Mr RICK WILSON 198084 O'Connor I'll begin my response to the member for Clark's motion by quoting from the industry body, the Australian Livestock Exporters Council: Further to our statement of 1 February, we continue to be genuinely disappointed that activist groups, in particular the RSPCA, and some politicians spread misinformation and untruths about conditions onboard the vessel. In many instances, it was deliberately misleading, and we would expect much better from groups such as the RSPCA and our elected parliamentarians. I'll put on the record the conditions on that particular vessel. Yes, the vessel left Fremantle on 5 January. It sailed for 10 days, until the owners of the vessel deemed it unsafe to continue through the Red Sea. The vessel was turned around and returned to Fremantle, where it has been parked in Gage Roads, out near Rottnest, for the last seven days. The members talked about the intolerable heat. Well, the member for Fremantle would know that many people transit through Fremantle on their way to Rottnest on those very warm days— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 The time allotted for this debate has expired. The SPEAKER 53517 The question is the motion moved by the member for Clark be agreed to.  

The House divided. [15:50]
(The Speaker—Hon. Milton Dick)

13 AYES Bandt, A. P. Bates, S. J. Chandler-Mather, M. Daniel, Z. Haines, H. M. Ryan, M. M. Scamps, S. A. (Teller) Sharkie, R. C. C. Spender, A. M. Steggall, Z. Tink, K. J. Watson-Brown, E. Wilkie, A. D. 36 NOES Burnell, M. P. Byrnes, A. J. Caldwell, C. M. Chesters, L. M. Claydon, S. C. Coleman, D. B. Conroy, P. M. Dreyfus, M. A. Elliot, M. J. Fernando, C. Fletcher, P. W. Gillespie, D. A. Goodenough, I. R. Hill, J. C. Jones, S. P. Joyce, B. T. G. Katter, R. C. Marino, N. B. McBain, K. L. McKenzie, Z. A. Miller-Frost, L. J. Mulino, D. O'Brien, E. L. Pasin, A. Pearce, G. B. Perrett, G. D. Price, M. L. Rae, S. T. Ramsey, R. E. (Teller) Repacholi, D. P. Ryan, J. C. Sitou, S. Smith, D. P. B. Stanley, A. M. (Teller) Webster, A. E. Wilson, R. J. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE 41 MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE Renewable Energy 41 15:55 The SPEAKER 53517 I have received a letter from the honourable member for Fairfax proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: This Government's failure to consider the impact of renewable energy projects on communities. I call upon those honourable members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places. More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places— 15:55 Mr TED O'BRIEN 138932 Fairfax Today, on the first day in the parliamentary year, hundreds of Australians descend on Parliament House to protest the treatment of their communities by the Albanese government in their reckless rollout of an 82 per cent renewables grid. Here we have a matter of public importance, a very important procedure of the parliament set aside to host this very debate, yet there's one person missing from this chamber right now. One chamber, one minister—and that minister is missing. The very minister who is responsible has gone AWOL from this very debate. It matters not how profound the contributions might be from either side of the chamber today. What speaks loudest is the minister's absence from this chamber. On the very day that regional communities have come to parliament to say, 'The minister is not listening,' the minister decides he will not even pay the courtesy to the parliament, let alone the Australian people, of attending the debate for which he is responsible! This tells you everything about the business model of the Labor Party: deception and deflection. Now, we already know their deception. It's not just their broken promise on the stage 3 tax cuts. In the portfolio of climate and energy, there is not a promise they make that they cannot break. There is not a community that they're not prepared to hurt in the process. If you look at their promise of 43 per cent emissions reduction by 2030, after years under the coalition, where emissions were coming down, right now, under this Labor government, emissions are actually going up. They have no chance of achieving their 2030 emissions target—Buckley's chance! But will they come forward and come clean to the Australian people? Of course not. What about their promise of a $275 reduction in household power bills? Everybody knows that is untrue. In some parts of Australia prices have gone up by $1,000 since they came to office, but to this day they refuse to stand at this dispatch box and concede they told an untruth. They still pretend they're going to achieve it. How about the EVs? Sales of EVs by 2030 will represent 89 per cent of all sales in Australia. Their own department says, in fact, it's going to be 27 per cent. Have they conceded? No, they have not. It is all about deception. But one of their greatest deceptions is the idea of an 82 per cent renewables grid by 2030. It fails on every count. It fails due to economics. It fails due to engineering. It fails due to social impact. It fails due to environmental impact. And how have they gone to date? An unmitigated failure. Under this government that boasts so much about its renewables-only plan, investment in renewables has dropped. It's down by 40 per cent—absolute disaster! You had the market operator, in its draft integrated system plan released only in December, doing sensitivity analyses. On supply chain constraints alone, drags, at 82, are already down to the early 60 per cents. You've got the Clean Energy Council saying, as a result of the September quarter of deal closures in renewables, that it's running at one-tenth of Labor's plan. They've come into government, and, with all their talk about emissions going down, they're going up; with all the talk about 82 per cent renewables, they're failing. On our side of the parliament, we've got no problem with renewables. Indeed, look at our track record in government. But the objective is to have the optimum level of renewables, not the maximum level. We believe in an all-of-the-above approach, not a renewables-only approach. But what happens, especially with this absent minister, with his ideological zealotry, when he knows his targets have fallen short? Desperation kicks in. And that is what we are seeing now. He is prepared to display reckless indifference towards regional communities because he is desperate and he knows he will not reach that target. Now, that is why he is prepared to ensure, as to baseload power, 90 per cent exits the grid by 2034; it's why he's trying to kill off gas—to effectively bring Australia's energy security to a point where there's no choice but to take his 82 per cent renewables. It's why he's introduced a capacity investment scheme with a blank cheque and won't tell us how much it's going to cost—to make sure renewables go through. It's also why—and this is the biggest hit of the lot—he is steamrolling regional communities. Let's take just one example only. Let's take the Hunter offshore wind zone. Here we have a community that was meant to be consulted about a potential zone. That community has made it very clear: its residents, by majority, didn't even know there was a consultation on. They had made that clear after it came out that a consultation had come and gone. I went there; I spoke to them; I had public forums. The minister has refused to have public forums there. They didn't even know it was on. The union movement was co-opted, encouraged, to make positive submissions into the process. So don't worry about the residents who live there! Don't worry about the business owners whose entire incomes are based on that region! Get the union members to send in positive submissions! There were stories of senior citizens being told they could not submit their written submissions because they were written; stories of basic, normal questions by the community not being answered. When I was in Norah Head listening to the community on some of this, and doing a fair bit of media, the minister came out and publicly announced that he was going to commission a community engagement review. I have to say: I supported his move. It was a concession on his part; maybe this community engagement review was going to fix the problem that he was recognising. But within only a week—one week later—he'd declared that zone. So think about this. The minister comes out and says, 'I concede the community engagement process is broken,' and then goes on and declares a zone on the basis of that very broken community engagement process. And he expects that community to be patting him on the back? And talking about AWOL, by the way, where is the member for Dobell in this chamber? Where is the member for Paterson? They're all back in the minister's office, hiding away, full of deception and deflection on this very debate. There are members of their community in this gallery today, and those members are not prepared to come in this chamber and debate. That is why, for that offshore wind farm zone, we have said to the government they should rescind that declaration and they should fix that community engagement process before reopening for public consultation. The minister stood in question time just today and said his community engagement review is done and is great. He only mentioned one stakeholder who was apparently there at his announcement, and that was the National Farmers Federation. I'll finish with the National Farmers Federation's media release on that review. It leads, '92 per cent of people dissatisfied with community engagement on renewables.' It goes on to say: The National Farmers' Federation … has raised red flags the report's recommendations doesn't even touch the sides in addressing the problems being felt across Australia. Don't blame the commissioner, who had to draft it. Blame the minister, whose terms of reference made it crystal clear that the objective was to ensure a rapid, accelerated rollout of renewables, not to put communities at the centre, which is precisely what he should be doing. 16:06 Mr CONROY 249127 Shortland It's with real pleasure I take this MPI. Before the member for Fairfax scurries off, I want to make an offer to him. He was at Norah Head, and I'm happy to drive him from here to my electorate to talk about offshore wind and so he can explain to my constituents why he's opposed to 3,000 good paying jobs building those wind farms, why he's opposed to the 1,500 ongoing jobs operating those wind farms and why he's opposed to the Tomago aluminium smelter that needs that cheap, clean energy to keep going. While he's there, he might want to talk about his plans to put not one but two nuclear power stations on the shores of Lake Macquarie, which is his real ideological obsession. Fair dinkum, guys—no-one can talk more about ideological obsession than this guy, a guy who is obsessed about nuclear power. This is the truth about what is going on: those opposite stand opposed to 3,000 jobs in my community. They stand opposed to cheaper and cleaner energy in my electorate, and they will be condemned not just by history but by the electors in my community. Come anytime you want, member for Fairfax. I'll even buy you a coffee—maybe a beer—so that you can talk to people about this. The truth is that the Albanese government knows that poor community engagement from transmission and renewables development does threaten the rollout of cheaper, cleaner and more reliable energy, and that's why it's taken strong action to fix a problem those opposite created when they were in power. For 9½ long years they were happy to rollout renewable infrastructure, but did they do any community engagement? No, not in the least. That's why we're taking strong action. That's why Commissioner Andrew Dyer has released a strong report, and we've accepted, in principle, all nine recommendations to address community needs. In fact, the CEO of the National Farmers Federation, when asked about the report, said, 'This report is a great thing.' We recognise that regional communities do deserve and should be consulted about renewable energy infrastructure. I'm a proud representative of a regional area, and our communities do want to be engaged and consulted. That's what this government is doing, and the consultation around the Hunter offshore wind zone is an example of that. We saw a comprehensive consultation process with 40,000 letterbox drops; seven community drop-in sessions, all over the coast; and over 1,900 public submissions. The result of that consultation was support for the zone but a reduction in the zone from 2,800 square kilometres to 1,800 square kilometres. My electorate has the longest stretch of coastline of the Hunter offshore wind zone, and that consultation moved the closest point in my electorate from 10 kilometres offshore to 30 kilometres offshore—and I welcome that. But my constituents are strongly committed to renewable energy and offshore wind because it delivers cheaper and cleaner energy and a stackload of jobs. I can honestly say, hand on heart, I have not had a single constituent contact me after the final declared zone was released, because my community's concerns were addressed. The truth is that we need this power if we are to invest in cleaner and cheaper power. The hypocrisy of those opposite is manifest, because what did they do when they were in government? That is the real test of political parties: what do they do in government? The now shadow Treasurer, the member for Hume, when he was a minister, said of transmission lines: 'The development of interconnectors and transmission is critical to bringing new generation capacity into the energy system, while shoring up reliability and affordability across state borders,' and 'We are backing every transmission project in this country, every single one of them.' What did he say about offshore wind? He said: 'Enabling the development of an offshore electricity sector will deliver significant local benefits to all Australians,' and 'International experience shows that offshore electricity sectors coexist with other offshore sectors and activities, such as fishing and shipping industries.' Those are the words of the member for Hume, the now shadow Treasurer. And what did their energy spokesperson, the now departed member for Fairfax, say about offshore wind on 25 October 2022? He said, 'Offshore energy infrastructure has the potential to create significant investment and job creation opportunities, as well as to contribute to Australia's future energy security,' and 'the coalition supports the ongoing development of Australia's offshore wind industry.' That's what their spokesperson said this term. But the truth is that they are hopelessly split on this. Only today we had the member for New England, the brains trust of the National Party, who said that wind turbines are 'filth.' This is his party's commitment to renewable energy. The truth is it's not about whether it's the right zone or not; they are opposed to renewable energy—full stop; they're opposed to action on climate change—full stop; they're opposed to cheaper electricity—full stop; they're opposed to thousands of jobs in the Hunter—full stop. Then we had Senator Nampijinpa Price, who said, 'Nothing angered me more than the sight of wind turbines.' This is the real position of those opposite, because what do they actually want to see? What do they want to see instead of cheaper, cleaner energy? What do they want to see instead of the 3,000 construction jobs that will be created and the 1,500 ongoing jobs? What do they want to see? They want to see nuclear power stations from shore to shore. That's their true position. The truth is that if they get into power what we'll see in the Hunter and Central Coast, according to independent analysis, is nuclear power stations at Lake Munmorah, nuclear power stations at Vales Point and nuclear power stations at Tuggerah, Eraring and Bayswater. The Switkowski report made it very clear that there are four criteria for nuclear power station location: proximity to existing electricity infrastructure; proximity to load centres; proximity to transport infrastructure; and access to large quantities of water. The truth is that you can't have a domestic nuclear power industry in this country without putting them on the shores of Lake Macquarie, the shores of Lake Munmorah, the shores of Tuggerah Lake, and up the valley at Bayswater. That is the truth of what they're arguing for. They're arguing for nuclear power stations in my community. If you want to talk about social license, come up to my community and talk about nuclear power, because you will get the response you deserve up there. That's what the National Party and their fellow travellers in the LNP in Queensland, who really run the opposition, will get. Not only do they lack a social license, not only will people be lining up to say, 'No, not in my community'; they should also explain the prohibitive cost of this, because that's what kills nuclear power. According to the latest CSIRO report, when the levelised costs are included, which take into account the need for more storage and transmission development for wind and solar, wind and solar are $112 per megawatt hour, and nuclear power is north of $500 per megawatt hour. So what they're arguing for is power that is 4½ times the cost of cheap renewable energy, which is made completely reliable with transmission and storage. The member for New England, the brains trust of the opposition, also talked about the English example. I'm glad he brought up Hinkley Point C. Hinkley Point C is a power station that was promised to be built with the equivalent of A$34 billion. Guess where the costs are now: not $35 billion or $36 billion but $89 billion, more than doubling in price since 2015. If you want to argue for more expensive power, go to the National Party. If you want to argue for fewer jobs in regional areas, go to the National Party. If you want to argue for decimating manufacturing, go to the National Party, who are running the opposition, which is a fact-free zone. All they do is listen to Sky News After Dark, another fact-free zone. Any independent expert will tell you that nothing they say is based in fact, and I'm very happy for the next election to be a referendum on renewable power versus nuclear power. I'll be on the side of cheaper power. I'll be on the side of cleaner power. I'll be on the side of re-industrialising the manufacturing sector on cheaper power, while those opposite are arguing for expensive, unreliable power that lacks a social licence. 16:15 Mr JOYCE e5d New England I want to tell you about the consultation process. Last year I got home and there was a black plastic bag—a possibly decomposing plastic bag—on my front gate, telling me that we were going to have a one-kilometre-wide transmission zone going over our house. But it wasn't just my house; it was also the other houses in the valley, and this was the process of consultation. Then we had the sneaky process where they took people down into halls; EnergyCo had everybody sitting in different corners, and you weren't allowed to talk to each other. We had these swindling overseas multinational wind companies, saying: 'We'll do you a deal, but you've got to keep the confidentiality clause. You can't tell anybody what you're doing, and we're going to put a caveat on your title once you do it.' This is the process that's happening. Then we had the sneakiness of Minister Bowen, the minister for this, who's giving these overseas companies a deed-rate return but won't tell the parliament what it is. We hear that it could be around 15 to 18 per cent. They borrow the money at four per cent and they pocket the difference, whether they produce power or not. It is an absolute swindle, and who pays for it at the end? The taxpayer. What's happening to our power price? The price is going through the roof, the reliability is going through the floor and the money is going overseas. The money's going overseas. We hear about the virtue of these renewables, yet who's responsible for the decommissioning and the rehabilitation when they get to the end of their life on the land? Has that problem been fixed up? Who's going to deal with these rusting pieces of filth on people's places? That's what they will be: rusting, decomposing pieces of filth, like they are in other parts of the world. Well, the farmer is responsible for the decommissioning. If those opposite believed it was virtuous they would underwrite the decommissioning, but of course they don't. Do the overseas companies, the multinationals, underwrite the decommissioning? No, they don't. This is all part of the swindle that's happening to us. I want to give credit to the people who turned up today. The movement has started. The movement is growing, and we're going to go all the way with this. We're going to go all the way. I'd also like to acknowledge that it's not a National Party thing. There were Greens there today. There were people who are supporters of the Labor Party there today. You should've come out. There were a lot of Labor Party supporters, and they don't like being dismissed. Overwhelmingly they said the same thing: 'We can't see our local member.' Whether it's in Shortland, Paterson, Whitlam, Gilmore, Dobell or Eden-Monaro, these local members won't see their own constituents. And I can tell the member for Shortland that that ain't working for him. We see this furphy of the 3,000 jobs. Where are these jobs? Where are they? I can tell you the towns that are put under threat, whether it's Cessnock, Kurri Kurri, Singleton, Biloela, Gunnedah or Muswellbrook, where there are workers. Where's this renewable town? Where's this town where all the renewable jobs are? They're fly-in fly-out contractors. A lot of them come in from overseas. You're also ripping off your own union members. You are ripping them off. Actually, when you look at it, the vast majority of you have never done a job. You haven't done any labouring in your life. There's not a labourer amongst the Labor Party. They've said, 'You want have an election based around this.' Yes, I do—you got that one right. You've got that one absolutely right, because, when I went to Port Stephens and there were 3,000 people there, I got a sense that I wouldn't mind having an election on this issue. I've got a real sense of comfort about that. It was the same in the Illawarra, and when they're turning up here and at Martin Place. You are so conceited that you don't realise what's before you. Now, Minister Conroy said he hadn't had one person contact his office. I'm sorry about that, so I'm going to help him out. Minister Conroy's phone number—and listen to this—is (02) 49479546. You should write that down, and I say to you, give him a bell. Give him a call. Ring him up because he's so lonely. He hasn't heard from you but, by gosh, he's going to hear from you now. 16:20 Mr BURNS 278522 Macnamara I think we can all take a deep breath after that. I do enjoy speaking after the member for New England. He gives it his all, and that's credible. It's always interesting with the member for New England. One thing I will say about the National Party is that they do enjoy making it harder for the Liberals to win seats, don't they? They do enjoy making it really difficult for the Liberal Party to win seats, because at the last election, with the contributions we've seen from the National Party, we saw a lot of Liberal Party members lose their seats. Mr Joyce e5d We won every seat. Mr BURNS 278522 The Nationals kept their seats, as the member for New England rightly points out. But the member for New England made it very difficult for campaigning in Higgins, Bennelong, Reid, Goldstein, Kooyong, North Sydney, Mackellar, Wentworth and all the other seats they no longer hold, because of the attitudes of he and his friends in the National Party. They are going down this ridiculous path of having an ideological war against the cheapest form of energy. They are against the cheapest form of energy because that is what the National Party stands for. They are ideologically opposed to renewables; it is in their DNA. The member for New England has fought against renewables his entire career and, to give him credit, he's consistent. He has fought against renewables his entire career, and that's what the National Party are all about. But the Liberal Party is disintegrating because, obviously, there are people in Australia who understand that renewables are the cheapest form of energy. Our energy grid is changing as the coal-fired power stations come out of the grid. We're not going to replace them with the most expensive form of energy. We're going to replace them with a cheaper form of energy so that Australians in a cost-of-living crisis can actually have some cheaper form of energy. Now, as the new energy comes on to the grid, that's a process that needs to be managed respectfully and appropriately. But we are absolutely proud of the fact that, over the next 10 years, we are going to transform our grid into a renewable energy grid, because it is going to be better and cheaper for Australians. We have a coastline that is larger than any other country in the world and we have a desert the size of the Sahara. It is insane that, for the last 10 years, the previous government was fighting renewable energy every single step of the way. You have to ask yourself: if these people opposite are so hell-bent on stopping renewable energy and stopping the new cheaper forms of energy, what are they going to do instead? You only have to listen to them when they tell us exactly what they want to do—it's nuclear energy. Time and time again, we've gone through this tiresome debate about how long it would take to build a large-scale reactor. Well, fine, they've now ruled out the fact that they're not going to build a large-scale reactor; they want to build a small modular reactor. The only problem is: give me one example in the world where there is a modular reactor that is ready to go—being built, that hasn't pushed out time lines—that's actually being rolled out around the world. The amount of energy that you're going to need to power our country via small modular reactors is the equivalent of around 80 small modular reactors. So when are you going to tell the Australian people where these 80 modular reactors are going to go? Are they going to go in all the Liberal seats that you've lost because you keep up this insane ranting about renewable energy? Or are they going to go in the National seats that you haven't been honest about? Where are those nuclear energy power plants going to go? Mr Joyce e5d As opposed to thousands and thousands of wind towers. Why don't you put the wind towers in your seats? Mr BURNS 278522 And are you going to be honest about how much it's going to cost Australians? Mr BURNS 278522 The member for New England wants to build a nuclear reactor in my seat. Well— Mr Joyce e5d No, put a wind tower in your seat. Mr BURNS 278522 please come and build a nuclear power plant in my seat or say that you're going to. You can have a press conference outside my office and you can do it as loud as you want, because people in my seat, people in Macnamara, understand that renewable energy is the cheapest form of energy. We are going to transition towards renewable energy. I would be proud if the member for New England came to Macnamara. In fact, please come to Macnamara and tell us all about your plans for whatever it is that you want to build. We are clear about the fact that renewable energy is the cheapest form of energy. We're clear about the fact that nuclear power is not going to power Australia. It would be diabolically expensive for Australians. It would be hundreds and hundreds of billions of dollars that would add power prices to Australian families. Instead, we're going to get on with the job of building renewable energy, solar and wind, backed up by firming engines, because it's the cheapest form of energy, and that's what we're going to build. 16:25 Ms LANDRY 249764 Capricornia Today I draw your attention to this government's lack of concern for those across regional Australia, who are being directly impacted by the ideological net zero targets. The goal of achieving 82 per cent renewable energy to power our nation by 2030 is significantly affecting regional communities on an unprecedented scale. This target is causing substantial harm to the lives of thousands of residents in rural and regional Australia, as they bear witness to the extensive destruction of our native flora and fauna habitats. To truly understand how much of our prime agricultural land and untouched remnant vegetation is at stake, let me put this into perspective for those sitting opposite: one seven-megawatt wind turbine must be erected every 18 hours and 22,000 solar panels must be installed every single day until 2030. This is on top of the 23,000 kilometres of transmission lines scarring our countryside to connect each project. Where are these industrial-scale renewable projects going to go? Certainly not in inner-city Melbourne or off the coast of Bondi Beach. According to projections from Net Zero Australia, it is estimated that, by 2050, the energy required to replace Australia's fossil fuel exports, in addition to domestic consumption, will require solar farms equivalent in size to five Tasmanias. The current climate and energy plan put forth by Labor has proven to be ineffective, resulting in adverse consequences for everyday Australians. Despite their promise of a $275 reduction in their household power bills, Australians now find themselves paying up to $1,000 more annually. This has led to Australia having some of the highest energy bills in the world, placing an undue financial burden on households. Despite assurances of a more reliable grid, reports from the Australian Energy Market Operator indicate significant risks of blackouts in the future. The disconnect between promises and the actual state of energy infrastructure raises concerns about the reliability and sustainability of Australia's energy systems. The potential for blackouts poses not only an inconvenience but also potential economic and social repercussions, emphasising the urgency for effective and comprehensive energy policies. Labor's energy solutions and net-zero target policies are tearing apart regional communities at the seams. I want to paint a picture for you of just one project that is tearing the lives apart of the regional community of Eungella. Just 80 kilometres west of Mackay and perched high above the rich plains of the Pioneer Valley lies the townships of Eungella and Netherdale. This mist-shrouded and forest-clad mountain refuge is one of Queensland's most ecologically diverse parks, with 860 plant species and a wonderful variety of wildlife. Nevertheless, the former Premier of Queensland surprised residents in Eungella and Netherdale in 2022 by revealing the state Labor government's intention to establish the centrepiece of their renewable initiative, referred to as the 'jewel in the crown'. Their plan is to create the world's largest pumped hydro scheme in one of Australia's most ecologically diverse regions and force families from their homes. This $12 billion pie-in-the-sky scheme, known as Pioneer-Burdekin pumped hydro, involves the construction of three dams, two at the top of the mountain and a third reservoir at the bottom, with a 65-metre-high wall. A hair-raising 937 hectares of land, or 1,753 football fields, will be flooded for the three reservoirs, also taking out the town of Netherdale and countless other farms and homes. I have visited farmers and locals of Eungella and Netherdale, and the impact this is having on the community is heartbreaking. Families who have resided on the properties there for generations are being forced off the land. Hundreds more throughout the community of Eungella will be indirectly impacted by the loss of essential infrastructure, like Eungella Primary School, due to the drastic decline in population. The Pioneer-Burdekin pumped hydro project is bringing the community of Eungella and the Pioneer Valley to its knees. This project is creating substantial impact on locals in Eungella and Netherdale. The residents are experiencing enormous emotional and psychological impacts as they live in a state of uncertainty and are hindered from making decisions about their future. Anxiety prevails, with looming questions about the potential requisition of their homes, the potential fragmentation of their community and the fate of the land once envisioned as a lasting legacy for future generations. I call on this government to pause their relentless march to their net zero targets and to undertake an inquiry into the impact these renewable energy projects have on regional communities. Save our platypus; save our koalas; save our land. 16:30 Ms PAYNE 144732 Canberra Here we are in 2024 and the Liberals and Nationals are trying to find yet another new angle to their climate denial. It is unbelievable that at this point in history we are still having these discussions and that there are still people in the Australian parliament saying things like 'ideological net zero targets'. What a disgrace! In fact, renewable energy is the only way to ensure that the nation remains standing after a decade of backpedalling and denial by the coalition on climate change. Today's matter of public importance is, 'This Government's failure to consider the impact of renewable energy projects on communities', yet the impacts of failing to build renewable energy capability in Australia will have a significantly more harmful effect on Australian communities. The previous government ensured that Australia remains far behind the rest of the world in developing our renewable energy capability. We've had hundreds of people outside parliament today campaigning against renewable energy, and they were supported by the members opposite. This constant refusal by members opposite to see the detrimental effects of climate change will have the biggest impact on Australian communities. The Albanese Labor government has been working with communities to ensure that they are engaged in our renewable energy work. Particularly, the regions stand to benefit the most from our renewable energy transformation, and we are excited to address community expectations about energy projects. The Minister for Climate Change and Energy released the Community engagement review by the Australian Energy Infrastructure Commissioner. This review is evidence of our government's work to ensure that the voices of regional communities have been heard and to ensure that they receive real benefits from the renewable energy transition. The government accepted, in principle, all the recommendations made in the report, which included streamlining and ensuring transparency in approval processes; keeping communities informed of energy transformation goals, benefits and needs; and improving complaints handling. Regional communities and renewable energy can coexist successfully. This is just another false dichotomy peddled by those opposite. Research indicates that regional people believe renewable energy projects will be the biggest opportunity for their local regions over the next two decades. Further, the impacts of climate change were considered to be the biggest threat to farming in regional areas over the next two decades, and farmers know this. Renewable energy projects will help protect regional areas and ensure that they are able to remain the backbone of Australia. Climate change and its effects is the biggest concern for many Australians, particularly younger Australians. I am fortunate to have one of the youngest electorates in the country; an electorate filled with young people who are fighting every day for their future and making Australia the country that they want it to be. Yet it is young people who will live for decades with the decisions that we make in this place and who are experiencing never-before-seen levels of climate anxiety that are affecting their day-to-day lives. As one mother of teenagers in my electorate put it to me, they feel that the adults have let them down. I remember learning about climate change, which we then called the greenhouse effect, when I was in primary school. I cannot believe that here we are, in 2024, still having these discussions in this parliament, nor that there would still be people denying the existence of climate change—this existential crisis facing us—or that people are still sticking their heads in the sand on this. I am proud to be standing here as part of a government that is taking this seriously, that is investing in renewable energy and that is addressing this head on. The Albanese Labor government is committed to ensuring that this planet is safe and well into the future by reversing the damage and setbacks perpetrated by the previous government. We want to ensure that the Earth is livable for future generations, for our children and our grandchildren. We are working to make renewable energy cheaper and more accessible while taking concrete steps to improve the climate. I am proud that, here in the ACT, the ACT government has achieved 100 per cent renewable energy and last year announced that they will futureproof the ACT's energy supply by creating a large-scale battery storage facility. This will prevent future blackouts in the ACT and will be completed in 2025. The ACT government proves that renewable energy has only positive impacts on local communities. The Albanese Labor government has also, just this week, announced another policy that is going to need more renewable energy than before. The New Vehicle Efficiency Standard will bring more electric vehicles to Australia while also ensuring that petrol cars are fuel efficient and cheaper to run. Australia and Russia are the only two countries without these standards. It is time we joined the world and it is time those opposite caught up. 16:36 Dr WEBSTER 281688 Mallee I would respond to the member for Canberra. I don't see any wind towers within Canberra at this point in time. I'm sure that you would welcome them here. I would also remind the member for Canberra that Australia's contribution to omissions is one per cent; in fact, it's less than that. The key enabler of renewable energy projects are transmission lines. I was proud to support Mallee residents visiting Canberra today who met with members from both sides of the House and the Senate to make their voices heard on the VNI West transmission project in my electorate. As the member for Mallee, it's my job to ensure that my community is seen and heard and listened to. I am very, very concerned that this Labor government is simply not interested in listening to farmers and regional communities. These custodians of the land, and I'm referring to the farmers, are threatened by the Albanese government's race to a political target of 82 per cent renewable generation by 2030. At federal and state levels, Labor have enabled renewable energy providers to abandon any social license—and they ought to be ashamed—and run roughshod over farmers in my electorate of Mallee and beyond. Farmers and landholders are giving that clear feedback to my electorate office and they have given it to the Australian Energy Infrastructure Commissioner, Andrew Dyer. The VNI West project runs through Mallee and people's homes, and a classic example is Matthew McLoughlan from Charlton. The VNI West threatens his farm and his family home. Imagine if his home was in suburban Melbourne or Sydney or Canberra. In fact, his family's home is historically significant. The 125-year-old mudbrick home was also the childhood home of World War I hero and former Victorian Senator Harold Edward 'Pompey' Elliott. Matt has been raising the agricultural impacts and heritage impacts of the VNI West proposal, but the proponent, Transmission Company Victoria, TCV, has given him jargonistic answers and tokenistic consultation. This is a picture that I would say is happening across Mallee and not just Mallee. Matt's family are in despair, and they are not the only ones in Mallee who will have to abandon their family home. The Australian Energy Market Operator, AEMO, and TCV, in AEMO's unique Victorian arrangement, have been emboldened by the Albanese Labor government and energy minister, Chris Bowen. Their actions are in lockstep with the government's Rewiring the Nation plan. This morning, I supported a delegation of Mallee farmers meeting Minister Bowen, including Kanya's Marcia McIntyre, Ben Duxson, Glenden Watts, Gerald Feeny and Alex Matthews from the Southern Wimmera Renewables Research Association. Many of these Mallee locals drove for about eight hours to get to Canberra. That is how passionate they are about this topic. The Australian Energy Infrastructure Commissioner, Andrew Dyer, reviewed community engagement efforts by transmission and energy project proponents in regional communities. Farmers and farming communities have very strong bulldust detectors. In effect, Mallee residents and other regional communities nationwide have collectively told Commissioner Dyer they feel like they have been buried in bulldust. Here are some statistics from the report: 92 per cent of respondents were dissatisfied with the level of engagement; 85 per cent were dissatisfied with the developer's explanations in response to their questions; 89 per cent of respondents said they received information irrelevant to the concerns they raised; and 93 per cent of respondents did not see their concerns satisfactorily answered. Abysmal community consultation and a ham-fisted handling of social licence is why farmers in Mallee started protesting, with my support, in St Arnaud; in Horsham, when the Prime Minister visited; on the steps of state parliament in Melbourne; and today a number were in the crowd outside Parliament House here. Many landholders involved in the wind turbine negotiations do not realise it can cost up to $600,000 to decommission each turbine, and they will be holding that bill. 16:41 Ms SITOU 298121 Reid I appreciate the contributions from those opposite, and I appreciate the opportunity to talk about the communities that we get to represent. Unlike those opposite, we have a very clear and simple view when it comes to climate change: we believe it's real, we believe it is having a devastating impact on communities and we believe we need to address climate change by moving towards more renewable energy. We also believe that if we manage the transition well we'll be able to create new, clean energy jobs. That's what we believe on this side of the House. It's a belief backed by science, backed by the international community and backed by business and industry. What do those opposite believe? Do they believe in the science of climate change? Not sure. Do they believe the businesses yelling out for investment certainty? Doubtful. Do they believe in renewable energy? Only nuclear, it seems—and the member for Cook seems to have a greater affinity for lumps of coal. Those opposite have a dysfunctional relationship with renewable energy. It's so dysfunctional, you could almost make a documentary out of it—and the ABC did just that on Monday night on the infamous NEG: the National Energy Guarantee. In the words of former treasurer Josh Frydenberg, it was a policy designed by experts, backed by business, supported by states and by modelling. It would show that energy prices could come down, create a more sustainable grid and a smaller carbon footprint. And yet those opposite couldn't back it. Why? As we were reminded by the former Liberal prime minister Malcolm Turnbull, they saw an attempt to reduce emissions as surrendering to the climate gods. They fought long and hard to wreck any action to address climate change, and to deny this country the opportunity to take advantage of the extraordinary natural advantages this country has. The final instalment of Nemesis will air next Monday, and the focus will be on our coal-loving, Hawaii-vacationing former prime minister. I hope the documentary focuses on a key moment in the Morrison government, when they utterly and completely let down communities in rural and regional Australia. It was during the 2019-2020 bushfires. The former prime minister was on vacation and made his infamous statement about not holding a hose. But, worse still, he refused to listen to advice from Greg Mullins, former commissioner of fire and rescue NSW. Greg Mullins said of those devastating bushfires that raged for months and months: … this disaster is a weather-driven event, not a fuel-driven one, underpinned by years of drying and warming. Climate change is the driver of increasing extreme weather. He directed his frustration at the former prime minister: … together with 22 former fire and emergency service chiefs from every state and territory I had tried from April 2019 to warn the prime minister about what veteran firefighters, climate scientists and meteorologists all identified as a looming bushfire disaster. We were ignored and trivialised … It seems the former Prime Minister not only couldn't hold a hose, he couldn't take a simple meeting, and it was a damning indictment of the Morrison government from the former fire commissioner. There has been an appalling failure in national leadership from Canberra. I thank the members opposite for raising this matter of public importance because it is important we consider the impact climate change has on communities right across Australia. To the communities on the Mid North Coast of New South Wales, the Hunter region, Wollondilly, Blue Mountains, the Hawkesbury, East Gippsland and other communities so badly devastated by those bushfires, I say that we will never forget the impact those fires had on your lives. That's why we are acting to address climate change. That's why we have set a target of 82 per cent renewable energy by 2030. 16:46 Dr GILLESPIE 72184 Lyne This is a really important MPI. I want to reject a lot of those assertions. Eighty-two per cent is totally unrealistic. There is no country in the world, unless you're somewhere that has oodles of lakes like Canada, that can do renewables to 82 per cent. Here are the basic physics—to get it off my chest—so you understand: grids run on alternating current, and renewables, unless they're synchronist generators, generate direct current. They have to synthesise it into alternating current and it's very unstable with big machines. If you can prove to me that this hypothetical world exists and you can find an engineer who says it will, you're doing well, because we can't. At today's rally against too many renewables, people came from around the country. I have people here today whose livelihoods, their own town's industry, are at risk. I met people from Port Stephens who I have met at huge rallies in Port Stephens and in Hawks Nest but there were also people affected by the Illawarra offshore wind farm which, like the Port Stephens, Hunter and wild coast proposal, will destroy the commercial fishing industry. It will destroy the blue water economy. The 1,400 square kilometre area of the Illawarra occupies half the fishing grounds of the South Coast fishing fleet. That's both for eating fish and for eastern rock lobster. It is the same with Port Stephens. It's a billion-dollar economy based around commercial fishing and blue water tourism. Both these areas are pristine—so much for saving the environment. This is going to impact RAMSAR-protected islands and birds—kestrels and other sea birds. Some 40,000 giant whales pass through these offshore wind farms. There are a lot of electromagnetic fields—the mapping, the sounds—and there are 6,000 commercial ships going in and out of the Port of Newcastle and Port Stephens. The risk during storms and tempests for these massive 267 metre high wind turbines that are anchored by wires to cement blocks will be Pasha Bulka times 300 in each area—that's how many wind turbines there are. It will clash with the East Coast current and divert it because there will be so much turbulence. The economic concerns of these areas are valid. If you're in these places that mums and dads own looking out to sea, the views will be destroyed. The Australian Property Institute has conservatively estimated that all these houses will decrease in value, as will all these jobs and industries that exist in these areas opposite them. You've got the same environmental vandalism happening in Queensland. There are going to be 600,000 hectares in Queensland, along the Great Dividing Range, destroyed by these onshore wind farms that are popping up all over the place, with all these cowboy carpetbaggers who sign things up and get them approved by the local council without even councillors knowing. There are ridiculous leave passes for all the environmental checks and balances for these wind farms. It's the same in New South Wales, except they get a leave pass higher up the chain of government. People on the other side are obsessed with talking about really expensive nuclear projects, but they never talk about the best-case-managed nuclear projects, like the one in the Emirates. We all know about Hinkley C; it's an example of how you don't do it; that's why people don't do it the way they've done it. But in the Emirates they have 5,600 megawatts—almost the same as the baseload of New South Wales—built and delivered and operating in the Emirates for US$22 billion. They started building it just as I came into parliament, in 2013, and, in the space of 10 years, they have built exactly what we need in New South Wales. It's cheap if you do it well. 16:51 Ms COKER 263547 Corangamite I begin by thanking the member for Fairfax for putting forward this matter of public importance, and I'd like to take this opportunity to remind the member that, for too long, Australia has lagged behind the rest of the world in seizing the economic and environmental opportunities that come with cleaner and more affordable energy. We know that, in the global race for new energy jobs and investments, we've found ourselves falling behind, after a decade of policy drift, funding neglect and climate change denial. We've fallen behind in securing the benefits that come from renewable energy—benefits including cheaper energy bills, and savings for Australian households; lower emissions and cleaner air quality; new jobs and manufacturing opportunities; and, importantly, reducing the impacts of climate change: floods, fires, sea-level rise and rising community anxiety. Who remembers the former PM, the member for Cook, whose response to bushfire disaster was: 'I don't hold a hose'? But times are changing. We now have a government, the Albanese government, which is seizing the opportunity of renewable energy. And we have strong support from our communities, who know that this cannot come soon enough. The Albanese government recognises that the key to economic prosperity and to securing the future health of our planet rests with the transition to renewable energy. That's why, on coming to government, we set ambitious targets for emissions reduction and renewable energy. As our Minister for Climate Change and Energy has made clear, we've made a good start, but the job is far from over. On this side of the House, we recognise that much of the potential of renewable energy exists in our regions—like my electorate of Corangamite, where there is much open space and where there is capacity for wind, hydro, solar and hydrogen. Corangamite, which includes the Surf Coast, Golden Plains, the Bellarine Peninsula and parts of Geelong, has a strong manufacturing history. When you add a dynamic university like Deakin, a TAFE like Gordon TAFE, and industry that is already on the renewables journey, we are well placed for rapid success. And there are many other regions across Australia just like mine. Our government recognises this, and so do our local communities. They recognise that the transition to renewables will bring with it new jobs, cheaper energy prices and even more cost-of-living relief, that will work alongside our proposed tax cuts for all Australians—tax cuts that will put more money in the pockets of every Australian taxpayer. It's with the support of community that we've been able to pursue an ambitious renewable energy agenda over the last year. But they want to see this done right. That's why the Albanese government has accepted, and is acting on, all nine recommendations of the Dyer review, in principle. The review has looked at how we can best help local landholders and regional communities to receive real benefits from the renewable energy transformation. These nine recommendations cover a number of themes: improving the way project sites are selected, increasing early local collaboration; revising planning and approval processes to be more transparent and streamlined when it comes to community feedback; motivating developers to ensure best-practice engagement; improving complaints handling; keeping communities better informed on energy transformation goals, benefits and needs; and equitably sharing the benefits of the transformation. Our government will now work to implement these recommendations, working alongside states and territories, local communities and landholders. In the past 12 months we've also announced a critical expansion in the Capacity Investment Scheme to deliver the long-term reliable, affordable and low-emissions energy system. We've also established the National Reconstruction Fund, with targeted investment of $3 billion in renewables and low-emissions technologies. We're achieving so much, but there's so much more to do. In the area of research and development, we're investing so that more people and more companies can make more things in Australia. There's so much potential, and our task is ready and waiting to get going. We have the continued support of the community and industry, and in this way we will become a visionary renewable powerhouse. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 249710 This discussion is now concluded. COMMITTEES 50 COMMITTEES Trade and Investment Growth Joint Committee 50 Report 50 16:56 Mr GEORGANAS DZY Adelaide On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on Trade and Investment Growth, I present the committee's interim report, incorporating a dissenting report, entitled Inquiry into the Australian government's approach to negotiating trade and investment agreements. Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e). Mr GEORGANAS DZY by leave—This inquiry into the Australian government's approach to negotiating trade and investment agreements was referred by the minister. We've received 54 written submissions from businesses, industry groups, unions, industry associations, government agencies, community groups and different academics. We've conducted six public hearings so far, which have been held across Canberra and Melbourne. Australia is a trading nation with a strong record of participation in the global rules-based trading system and an extensive architecture of bilateral and regional trade and investment agreements. Australia's agreements reduce barriers to international trade and investments, creating well-paid and secure jobs, improving Australia's economic resilience and contributing to the economic growth and increased living standards for Australians. Australia's approach to negotiating trade and investment agreements, led by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, has served this nation quite well over many decades. This current inquiry is examining how Australia can strengthen its approach to build on our success and ensure the greatest benefits for all Australians. Throughout the inquiry to date the committee has heard about the immense benefits of Australia's participation in international trade, the need to consider how the benefits are shared across the community and the potential effects of agreements on a wide range of stakeholders. While Australia's approach to negotiating trade agreements has served us well thus far, as agreements become more complex it's important to ensure the level of transparency, accountability and oversight in the process is commensurate to the potential impact of agreements on stakeholders, the public, policy and law making. The committee has been particularly drawn to evidence outlining how more transparent consultation and engagement processes can be done better to better understand the impact of agreements on stakeholders and to utilise their insight and expertise, which can assist to avoid unintended consequences and improve the negotiating outcomes. The five recommendations made in this interim report focus on strengthening Australia's approach to negotiating trade and investment agreements by improving transparency, accountability and oversight. These measures, we heard, will contribute to better trade negotiation outcomes for Australia and ensure that agreements are of the greatest benefit to the community. These recommendations included establishing a tripartite trade advisory committee across business, industry groups, trade unions and civil society to achieve a better balance between transparency and confidentiality in negotiations and to enable in-depth and informed feedback to government. No. 2 recommends codifying the practice of publishing information outlining negotiation aims and objectives for all future trade and investment agreement negotiations. No. 3 is to consider adopting a practice in the negotiation of agreements to provide transparency and information to stakeholders and the public equivalent to the information provided by the other party. The report recommends ensuring relevant committees have oversight of the development of trade and investment agreements through regular briefings on the status of progress of agreements, and undertaking independent periodic reviews of particular agreements to ensure that they are operating as intended and achieving the expected benefits. In closing, I thank all the industry groups, businesses, unions, government agencies, community groups and the many academics who provided written submissions and appeared at the public hearings for this inquiry. I also thank the committee secretariat for the very hard work that they have done, and my fellow committee members and the deputy chair—the member for Wright—for their participation and valuable contributions during this inquiry. The committee will continue to explore the extensive evidence received during the inquiry to date and we will provide the final report in due course. I commend the interim report to the House. 17:01 Ms LAWRENCE 299150 Hasluck by leave—I am pleased to be a member of the Joint Standing Committee on Trade and Investment Growth, and to have been engaged in the hearings and deliberations thus far for the inquiry into the Australian government's approach to negotiating trade and investment agreements. This interim report includes a number of useful recommendations, which I will touch on briefly. As we know, we are a trading nation and committed to fair rules of international trade. We have agreements with many countries, and these are generally the outcomes of efforts on the parts of successive governments. The legislation and procedures we put in place to govern the construction of trade agreements need to recognise the fact, and be designed to last across the—sometimes many—terms and different governments that these negotiations often require. The recommendations include: a tripartite trade advisory council that includes representations from unions, business and relevant community organisations; codification of the way in which we publish the aims and objectives of trade negotiations; increased transparency; and regular briefings to relevant parliamentary committees. It is important to note that these recommendations really do no more than borrow what we have seen work in other countries. I note that many of the union submissions to the inquiry, such as those from the AWU and the ETU, highlight government procurement and the importance of ensuring that free trade is pursued not for the purposes of simply allowing greater profits for business but as a larger and broader goal of serving the national interest across many facets of our cultural, economic and social lives. I commend the unions for their approach and for advocating not just for a greater, more codified engagement of unions in trade negotiation processes prior to the completion of agreements but also for being inclusive of other organisations being involved in the same way, naming both business and community interests. I take seriously the caution expressed by some organisations in their submissions that the US model has allowed the predominance of business interest. We seek balance for all relevant voices to be heard. The recommendation for regular reviews of trade agreements is important in the context of the points I have covered here. We need to be able to hear from those working at the coalface—business, union and community groups—as to the effects, both good and bad, that have followed on from a trade agreement taken as a whole and also in relation to particular provisions. I agree with the submission by the CPSU that industrial and safety standards, human rights and environmental standards are an important aspect of future trade agreements, and they should also be included in reviewing past trade agreements. As my colleague the member for Fenner has said in relation to policy evaluation, 'We need to bring enough modesty to the task to acknowledge that answers which sound right may not always work in the real world.' Policy review is a healthy process, and this applies to the agreements we strike with other countries, especially as conditions change and standards develop and improve. Recommendation 5 of this interim report seeks to establish independent and regular reviews of existing agreements, and it is odd that such a requirement does not already exist. Even prospective trade agreements must serve our national interests, and every trade agreement that is already in place must continue to serve our national interest. If upon review we find that an agreement isn't performing in the way we intended then that agreement will need to be revisited. I thank my fellow committee members, particularly the chair, the member for Adelaide, for his work and leadership. As usual, the secretariat supported the committee in their efficient fashion, and I thank the inquiry secretary, Mr Adrian Daniel, and his team. Regional Development, Infrastructure and Transport Committee 52 Report 52 17:05 Mr GOSLING 245392 Solomon On behalf of the Standing Committee on Regional Development, Infrastructure and Transport, I present the committee's report, incorporating a dissenting report, entitled the Inquiry into the implications of severe weather events on the national regional, rural, and remote road network, together with the minutes of proceedings. Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e). Mr GOSLING 245392 by leave—From the outset I thank you, Deputy Speaker Chesters, for your valuable contribution in our committee and to this report; my friend here, the member for Makin, for his membership and valuable contribution; and also the member for Indi for her valuable contributions. I am very proud to table my first report as chair of this committee, and, as chair of the Standing Committee on Regional Development, Infrastructure and Transport, it gives me great pleasure to present the work of the committee in the form of this report into the implications of severe weather events on the national regional and rural and remote road network. Severe weather events, including torrential downpours and floods, searing temperatures and dangerous bushfires have taken a dramatic toll on our nation and our roads in recent years. Around Christmas, freak storms killed nine people around the country, leaving 50,000 without power on the Gold Coast. Just recently, South-East Queensland was hit by flash flooding in parts of Brisbane, with roads cut on the Sunshine Coast. An additional 23,000 residents of North Queensland were without power due to Tropical Cyclone Kirrily. One recent study found that 18.1 million Australians were affected by floods in 2022. That's 93 per cent of all people in New South Wales and 97 per cent of Queenslanders. This was the largest impact of any natural disaster going back to the mid-2010s. On top of the human cost, flooding and other disasters have a devastating impact on our roads. Flooding destroyed $3.8 billion worth of roads in 2022, ruining 10,000 kilometres in New South Wales alone, and 19,000 kilometres of roads in the 2010 Queensland floods. In the Northern Territory, a place I am proud to represent, 600 kilometres of the Stuart Highway and the train line were recently cut due to damage to the road surface caused by heavy rains and flooding for two weeks. Many of our supermarket shelves in Darwin were empty. The committee's inquiry explored how improved road engineering and construction standards and innovative construction materials could strengthen the resilience of our road network against future severe climate events. Members of our committee heard from federal, state, territory and local government people, as well as engineers, scientists, academics and peak bodies, including in 17 public hearings and three site inspections. We heard that our national road network is in disrepair. Maintenance has fallen alarmingly behind schedule. Our road network simply cannot sustain repeated severe weather impacts. We cannot keep patching up our road assets time and time again until the next flood, the next wet season, the next bushfire. Our road infrastructure investments must maximise value for money. We heard that most of our roads were constructed 30 to 50 years ago to outdated design standards and conditions. Australia's road network is at a critical juncture. Our design and construction standards must lift resilience on strategic freight routes to support connectivity and supply chain resilience. We need to expand our use of innovative and recycled road materials to build resilience and reduce our carbon footprint. We can't climate-proof our entire road network, obviously—it is too massive—but we can mitigate the risks. It's what Australians need to remain connected, to be safe on the roads and to access essential services and goods. We must shift our focus to resilient infrastructure, resilient roads. Our committee made 25 recommendations, including but not limited to: collaboration across governments to develop road asset infrastructure resilience guidelines, planning and investment frameworks, addressing road asset data gaps; a review of local government funding allocation to support asset maintenance works under the Australian government's Infrastructure Investment Program; consideration of the local government Financial Assistance Grant program road component funding; an assessment of betterment access and claims approvals under the Disaster Recovery Funding Arrangements, DRFA; and embedding resilience design and construction procurement requirements under the new Federation Funding Agreements on transport infrastructure. Our committee noted that the Australian government has announced its intention of doubling the Roads to Recovery Program funding over the next four years. The additional investment is an important step in building our roads back smarter and better. I commend this report to the House. 17:11 Dr HAINES 282335 Indi by leave—As a member of the Standing Committee on Regional Development, Infrastructure and Transport, I also rise to speak on this important report. Everywhere I travel across my electorate of Indi, people talk to me about the state of our local roads, and with good reason. Local roads in regional and rural Victoria are in desperate need of repair. Rural and regional people deserve to drive on safe, well-maintained roads—roads that are built to withstand severe weather events and natural disasters. Flooding events over the past summer and in October 2022 have left Indi's roads potholed and washed away. In some places, temporary bridges and closed lanes have been in place for almost a year following such damage. Significant damage following floods and other disasters is not just restricted to my electorate of Indi. This is a problem that regional Australians all over the country understand. They drive on these roads every day to get to school, to work, to look after their mum and dad, and to take their kids to sport on the weekends. More than 75 per cent of Australia's road network is owned or maintained by local governments, but with small ratepayer bases, inflation increasing the cost of repairs and materials, scarcity of the necessary workforce and minimal funding opportunities for state and Commonwealth government support, regional councils are struggling to fund the ongoing roadworks needed to keep our communities safe and connected. When I meet with the nine local governments in Indi, they consistently tell me that current funding arrangements for roads, including Commonwealth funding arrangements, are inadequate. Too frequently they only just cover damage caused by natural disasters, with no capacity to build back better. As a member of the Standing Committee on Regional Development, Infrastructure and Transport, I welcomed this inquiry. I knew then, and I know now, that this work is absolutely vital for improving the day-to-day lives of people in my electorate—improving roads that will have an impact every time people get in their cars. I thank my committee colleagues—particularly the committee chair, the member for Solomon; and the deputy chair, the member for Barker—for their engagement, interest and understanding of the issues facing regional communities like mine, and for their hard work in putting together this comprehensive report. Thank you also to the secretariat for their guidance, hard work and logistical support. The 12-month inquiry saw the committee travel across the country to hear from local governments, engineers, emergency management organisations, climate scientists and weather experts. Thank you to everyone that gave evidence and made written submissions. I brought the committee to Indi, holding a hearing in Wodonga on 17 July last year, to ensure the voices and perspectives of my constituents were heard directly. It's important that local people have a say in the planning of how we build resilience and recover from natural disasters. Indi local councils, including the City of Wodonga, the Rural City of Wangaratta, Murrindindi Shire Council, Strathbogie Shire Council, Mansfield Shire Council, Towong Shire Council, Indigo Shire Council and Benalla Rural City made submissions to the inquiry and gave evidence at the hearing, which the committee found incredibly compelling. I thank them for their contributions. All members of this committee have worked so hard to ensure that the key issues raised by witnesses were given due consideration. As a regional Independent MP, I'm proud to have been a member of this committee and to have helped produce such a comprehensive report on a big and critical issue for regional Australia. The report made 26 recommendations, including recommendations that the Commonwealth: establish consultation with local governments to consider road infrastructure priorities at the local level; review the financial assistance grants for roads funding and funding for road maintenance works under the Infrastructure Investment Program; and provide greater flexibility for betterment funding for resilient infrastructure builds through disaster recovery funding arrangements following natural disasters. I back these recommendations, and I call on the government now to implement them in full. Severe weather events in regional areas, floods, fires and storms, aren't going away. One-in-100-year events are certainly not one in 100 years anymore. This is such a critical report to build resilience in these changing times, and we must not let this report sit on the shelf and gather dust. This must result in action that addresses the problems that we are driving over every single day. I will continue to work collaboratively with the minister and the department to see this report acted upon for the benefit of my communities and for all regional Australians, who rely so heavily on the safety and accessibility of country roads. 17:17 Mr GOSLING 245392 Solomon I want to thank the member for Indi for her contribution, and I thank the secretariat staff—in particular Joel Bateman, Leeann Galloway and Paul Zinkel. And I thank the member for Wright for his good company on a delegation to do with the important work of this committee. By leave—I move: That the House take note of the report. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 249710 The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting day. Reference to Federation Chamber 54 17:17 Mr GOSLING 245392 Solomon I move: That the order of the day be referred to the Federation Chamber for debate. Question agreed to. BILLS 54 BILLS Australian Human Rights Commission Amendment (Costs Protection) Bill 2023 54

Australian Human Rights Commission Amendment (Costs Protection) Bill 2023

Report from Federation Chamber 54 17:18 The SPEAKER 53517 The question is that this bill be now read a second time.  

The House divided. [17:22]
(The Speaker—Hon. Milton Dick)

88 AYES Aly, A. Ananda-Rajah, M. Bandt, A. P. Bates, S. J. Bowen, C. E. Burke, A. S. Burnell, M. P. Burney, L. J. Burns, J. Butler, M. C. Byrnes, A. J. Chalmers, J. E. Chandler-Mather, M. Chaney, K. E. Charlton, A. H. G. Chesters, L. M. Clare, J. D. Claydon, S. C. Coker, E. A. Collins, J. M. Conroy, P. M. Daniel, Z. Doyle, M. J. J. 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. 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. Lim, S. B. C. Marles, R. D. Mascarenhas, Z. F. A. McBain, K. L. McBride, E. M. Miller-Frost, L. J. Mitchell, B. K. Mitchell, R. G. Mulino, D. Neumann, S. K. O'Connor, B. P. J. O'Neil, C. E. Payne, A. E. Perrett, G. D. Phillips, F. E. Plibersek, T. J. Rae, S. T. Reid, G. J. Repacholi, D. P. Rishworth, A. L. Roberts, T. G. Rowland, M. A. Ryan, J. C. Ryan, M. M. Scamps, S. A. Scrymgour, M. R. Sharkie, R. C. C. Shorten, W. R. Sitou, S. Smith, D. P. B. (Teller) Spender, A. M. Stanley, A. M. (Teller) Steggall, Z. Templeman, S. R. Thistlethwaite, M. J. Thwaites, K. L. Tink, K. J. Vamvakinou, M. Watson-Brown, E. Watts, T. G. Wells, A. S. Wilkie, A. D. Wilson, J. H. Zappia, A. 54 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. Gillespie, D. A. Goodenough, I. R. Hamilton, G. R. Hastie, A. W. Hawke, A. G. Hogan, K. J. Howarth, L. R. Joyce, B. T. G. Katter, R. C. Landry, M. L. Leeser, J. Littleproud, D. Marino, N. B. McCormack, M. F. McIntosh, M. I. McKenzie, Z. A. O'Brien, E. L. O'Brien, L. S. Pasin, A. Pearce, G. B. Pike, H. J. Pitt, K. J. Price, M. L. Ramsey, R. E. (Teller) Stevens, J. Sukkar, M. S. Taylor, A. J. Tehan, D. T. Thompson, P. van Manen, A. J. Vasta, R. X. Violi, A. A. Wallace, A. B. Ware, J. L. Webster, A. E. Willcox, A. J. Wilson, R. J. Wolahan, K. Wood, J. P. Young, T. J. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Debate adjourned.

 Paid Parental Leave Amendment (More Support for Working Families) Bill 2023 55

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

Second Reading 55 17:28 Ms MASCARENHAS 298800 Swan Earlier today in the House, I talked about unicorn times in parliament. Sometimes in this place we have the opportunity to do speeches over separate days, weeks, months and even years. Occasionally, you get to do your speech during three separate sessions, which is my lucky moment today. The thing that I would say is that this policy on paid parental leave is not a unicorn moment; this is deliberate design by the federal Labor party. It's deliberate design. This is because we recognise that working families need more help and support, and we need to make sure that there are more choices available for working families, and that's exactly what this policy does. One of the things I recognise with working families is that previously people needed to think about different arrangements to work out 'Do I care, or do I work?' Particularly when there's a new child in the family, this is a really challenging time. One of the things we want to do is give families more choice to work out what's the right option for them. For some people who have been in Australia for multiple generations, they have access to things like family members to help support them working. But not everybody has access to that. The thing that we want to do is provide people with more choices, and we should make sure that our systems help facilitate the balance for all parents and children. What this does is it leads to better outcomes for families, better outcomes for parents, better outcomes for children, but also better outcomes for the whole economy. Working should not be a barrier to parenting, and similarly parenting should not be a barrier to working. What this bill does is it helps break down those barriers. It extends paid parental leave by increasing the scheme to 26 weeks by 2026. These reforms are another example of the Albanese Labor government delivering on its commitment to improving the lives for Australian families. The government is committed to providing each parent four weeks or reserved leave from 2026 when the scheme is fully implemented. This is a policy that will encourage shared care. It is a strong signal that both parents play an important role in caring for their children. These changes will benefit mums, benefit dads and benefit kids. One of the things that we recognise is that absent fathers are challenging and make it difficult for children, and they can actually cause long-term relationship problems. It's really important that we give fathers and male carers the opportunity to be present during those early stages of a child's life. It's an important time where we see bonding happen, and it is also a really fascinating stage because children grow up so quickly. That's why this bill also introduces concurrent leave, and so from 2026 both parents can take four weeks of leave at the same time if they choose to do so. When I had my second child I ended up having a caesarean and needed care for a six-week period. I was lucky enough for my husband to have carers leave during that time. It was a really special time, and the thing I'd love to do is to not do this by chance or choice but give this opportunity to all families. It's about choice. It's about flexibility. It's about autonomy. It's also a really challenging time, as well, when someone's learning how to feed their baby, change their nappies, and it is so much easier if you've got two parents who can run the show. What it also means is that families can choose how they arrange care for what is best for them and their circumstances. It means increasing flexibility for families and supporting both parents to take time off work together. Earlier in this House, I talked about other government measures that are addressing gender inequality and economic disadvantage. These are complex issues, and that's why we have an integrated and holistic approach across government to achieve the change. This is about a government that consults and listens; it's not a top-down approach but one that's bottom up. It's an approach that feeds insight and expertise into decision-making processes. That's what works. We know it, and that's how we make better decisions. Reforms introduced by this bill reflect the advice from the Women's Economic Equality Taskforce. The taskforce report identified that Australia relies on women to carry the greater share of unpaid work in homes and families. It also identifies the participation of women in the labour force and workplace is typically worse than their male counterparts. Why is this the case? The report highlights several reasons, from disparity in paid working hours to the undervaluation of traditional feminised work, discrimination, disrespect and insecure work. It's a system that traps women in cycles of poverty. Withdrawing from the workforce stunts women's careers, their earning capacity and their future security. Periods of unpaid work also mean no superannuation contribution. This leaves older women seriously vulnerable. Women's economic inequality is an issue raised through the Jobs and Skills Summit and the employment white paper. Feedback that had been provided to the government during this process was that more support for families to balance their care was needed and, as a response, the changes that are introduced in this bill better address the needs of working Australian families. The changes provide greater security as they adjust to life as a parent, whether it be for the first time or welcoming a new addition to their family. The government has listened, and that's why it has been supported by advocates and representatives from the social services sector. The CEO of the Australian Council of Social Services, Dr Cassandra Goldie, welcomed the changes. She said: We're pleased that single parents will be able to access 20 weeks of Paid Parental Leave. This is long overdue … Businesses, unions and economists have also all agreed that providing more choice and flexibility and supporting working families is great for the economy. The reason for this is that boosting productivity by boosting women's participation in the workforce is great for the economy. That's why it's important that we have a scheme that complements other parental leave programs offered by more and more employers each year. When the paid parental leave scheme was first introduced by the Gillard Labor government in 2011, it was groundbreaking. It was a critical milestone for women, because, until then, many women had not had access to any paid parental leave. It was a progressive step for gender equality. For working families, the 2011 reforms made an enormous difference to their lives. This is what Labor does. It advances the lives of working families and advances gender equality. The reforms to the scheme that will be enacted by this bill will add an additional two weeks of payment each year from 1 July 2024, increasing the overall length of the scheme by an additional six weeks by July 2026. Each year, 180,000 families will benefit from this policy. It's a massive $1.2 billion investment towards making the lives of working families better. It's making it better for parents, making it better for children and making it better for the economy. That's what we're here to do. It was Labor that created Medicare. It was Labor that created the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. It was Labor that created the National Disability Insurance Scheme. And now we're making changes to reform and improve the scheme that was neglected for a decade by the opposition. The Liberal Party prefer to distract, divide and demean rather than to govern—or, as Turnbull said of Dutton, they destroy. The Liberal Party prefer to scapegoat and demean vulnerable people, as they did with robodebt. Instead of supporting Australian families, they made things harder. Under a Labor government, we have policies, as we see, coming out of this bill, that create a better Australia, a better future for our children, by supporting the health and wellbeing of parents, by fostering an environment that will provide choice, flexibility and autonomy, not an environment based on fear and division. While the Liberals are doing that, Labor's getting on with the job. We're back in 2024 with a packed legislative agenda to keep Australia safe, create a better environment for all families and create a sense of belonging for all Australians. 17:38 Ms CHANEY 300006 Curtin Like so many of my colleagues, I rise to support the Paid Parental Leave Amendment (More Support for Working Families) Bill 2023. The measures introduced are intended to bring more equity and flexibility to parental care roles, to increase workforce participation for women and to enhance the health and development of parents and children. I welcomed these changes when they were announced as part of the October 2022-23 budget, and I welcome them again today. This bill creates a pathway to increase paid parental leave to 26 weeks by 2026. 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. It also extends the eligibility for paid parental leave to include surrogacy arrangements. All these things are good things. Adequate paid parental leave is essential if we want to support children and carers to get their best start in life and parenting. The month after a baby is born is pretty overwhelming. Paid parental leave gives essential time for birth parents to recover, bond with their baby and learn the new skills needed to parent, but adequate and fair paid parental leave is also essential if we want to give birth parents the best opportunity to continue to be part of our workforce and part of our economy. That means ensuring that partners also have an equitable share of paid parental leave. Chief Executive Women is an organisation that represents women leaders from corporate, public service, academic and not-for-profit sectors. In their submission on the bill, they said: Paid Parental Leave (PPL) is not a form of welfare. It is a critical lever to enable parent's, particularly women's, workforce participation. It connects parents to the workplace and allows businesses to attract and retain exceptional talent. The long and the short of it is: we need more partners taking more parental leave if we want more equity in the home and in the workplace. We need more dads doing more of the early primary-caring role. 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—only 12 per cent. A major factor, if not the major factor, for the gender pay gap is the unequal division of unpaid caring labour, which includes caring for children. The Australian Institute of Family Studies produced a report which shows that the average number of hours worked by fathers doesn't change significantly after the birth of a child but the number of hours a mother works falls by around two-thirds on average. This is one of the major drivers of the motherhood penalty, which is the 55 per cent reduction in women's earnings once they become mothers. This is not good for an equal society, not good for the economy and, really, not good for mums or for dads. This is consistent with my own personal experience. I'd been earning a similar income to my husband before our first child. My employer offered decent maternity leave, but his only offered a week. So I took extended time off, returned to work part time and watched my earnings stagnate while his continued to grow. It made sense at the time, financially, but it had longer term consequences for me. Even though we had every intention of sharing the care of our children equally, structural differences embedded traditional gender roles. The Parenthood, an organisation that represents more than 80,000 parents, carers and supporters nationally, has rightly said: Ensuring that some paid parental leave is specifically available to dads represents a big step towards a more gender equal society where work and care can be more equitably shared. This bill goes a small way to try to rectify this issue. In this bill, the reserved period for partners has been extended from 10 days to 20 days, which means that dads spend more time with babies. The likelihood that fathers will share care when their child is three years old is significantly higher if the father shared care in the first nine months after birth. Research by the Grattan Institute shows that shared paid parental leave boosts mothers' earnings and boosts our entire national GDP. Its modelling suggests that increasing the entitlement to 26 weeks, shared between parents, would cost the government some $600 million per year but would add $900 million to GDP per year as well as boost mothers' lifetime earnings by $30,000. Equity Economics has estimated that the cumulative impact of proposed changes to expand paid parental leave could increase GDP by 4.1 per cent, or some $166 billion, by 2050. If Australia could lift female participation in the workforce to that of men, it would increase GDP by 8.7 per cent, or some $353 billion, by 2050. As many have said before me, I think that we can aim to do better—that we can make future changes to ensure paid parental leave is more equally divided between parents. I hope that this is only the first step and that there will be many more towards that end. But increased engagement by partners, or men, taking paid parental leave is not just about economic gain. Engaged fatherhood is linked to positive outcomes for children, such as higher school achievement, higher self-esteem, fewer behavioural problems and increased stress tolerance. The organisations that have worked in this space for many years have innovative and forward-thinking ideas about how we can reduce the motherhood penalty. The Business Council of Australia says that a future paid parental leave system should embed design features that promote a more equitable distribution of care in the longer term. They want to see a system that enables and incentivises both parents to share responsibilities for caring, which will help shift traditional cultural and gender norms and see more women participating in the workforce and able to advance in their professions. The Parenthood advocates for a phased approach towards a 52-week paid parental leave scheme paid at a replacement wage rate equally shared between parents. I have also seen suggestions from KPMG for an equality supplement, where bonus paid parental leave weeks are provided if it can be shown that the responsibility for care is shared more equally. The Australian Centre for Future Work recommends extending the 'use it or lose it' component of paid parental leave to eight weeks and bringing parental leave pay up to a full replacement wage level or to the average wage. So many organisations advocate for paid parental leave to include superannuation so that the primary caregiver is not disadvantaged in retirement. These are some great ideas, some important ideas, that should be considered carefully as the paid parental leave framework continues to evolve. I love this quote from the Productivity Commission: If untapped women's workforce participation was a massive iron ore deposit, we would have governments falling over themselves to give subsidies to get it out of the ground. In conclusion, I support this bill for the positive impact it will have children, families and women's workforce participation. I look forward to seeing more reform in this space and to seeing Australia working towards the paid parental leave standards we see in countries such as Sweden and Norway. I'm glad that, as a society, we're starting to recognise the inequality in parental leave and the long-term impact that extended leave can have not only on women and men but on our economy. I hope our sons and daughters and grandchildren will only know a reality where parents share the caregiving load and where all adults who wish to participate fully in the workforce can do so. 17:47 Mr GORMAN 74519 Perth I think when we come to this debate about ensuring that more Australians can get more benefit out of the huge changes that have happened since Labor introduced the universal paid parental leave scheme for Australia, you start by reflecting on your own experiences of benefitting from previous parliaments that made the right choice. For me and my wife, Jess, we welcomed our son Leo into our world in 2017. I was very fortunate. I was then working for a branch of the Australian Labor Party in what continues to be its most successful era. I was fortunate enough with the support of then Premier McGowan and the party president, Carol Smith, to be able to stop and have time on paid parental leave with my son. At the same time, my wife was working at Fortescue Metals. She was, with the support of then CEO Nev Power and Elizabeth Gaines, able to take time, again, to have that moment that you only get once in your children's lifetime to be with your family. I really appreciate the normalisation that has happened in this country over the last 15 years. Paid parental leave is something that every parent should seek to take and, indeed, that we seek to support every working parent to take. I did the same again when our daughter Ruby was born at the end of 2020. I was able with the support of the new Prime Minister to take some time off from this place—something that many people now do—to again, be there with my wife, our then three-year-old and our little new baby Ruby, who is now, thanks to the wonders of early childhood education and much love from me, Jess and her grandparents in both Brisbane and Perth, a very feisty, confident three-year-old. I share all of that because we are still on the journey of normalising that parents—men and women—should take paid parental leave and that we in this place should take further steps to support it, which is what we seek to do today, recognising that paid parental leave is about having more time with family. It's time that you only get once and it's an opportunity to bond with your children, to be there for your partner and for parents to support one another. So it is great that we celebrate the evolution that Australia has been on when it comes to paid parental leave and continue to invest in that with the Paid Parental Leave Amendment (More Support for Working Families) Bill 2023. I'll start with the history of the Paid Parental Leave scheme. It was obviously introduced in 2011, and every year about 180,000 families rely on that support, which is a very good thing. Since that time, there have been a lot of plans put to this place—and I'll get to that later—but what we are debating today is the biggest investment in paid parental leave since the commencement of the Commonwealth scheme back in 2011. This is a $1.2 billion investment, and it's a $1.2 billion investment in families, which is something that we should all be proud of. It's investing in those next generations of Australians who will learn more and be able to spend more time with the parents that we always hope they will grow up to love—that's not a guarantee; that's on the parents to ensure that is how it turns out. But it is a massive investment because we're doing something really big. We're expanding paid parental leave to 26 weeks, increasing the total number of weeks that parents can access by two weeks each year until we get to 1 July 2026. So, with the support of this chamber and the other place, we'll get up to 22 weeks this year, 24 weeks next year and 26 weeks in 2026. It's something that will also assist employers who can plan for a half year, or, where families choose to stretch it out over one entire 12-month period, it gives that support as well and also gives more flexibility. I think many people who've engaged with the scheme as it currently stands have recognised that there could be more flexibility in the scheme, and we seek to do that. I think even what is described as a minor technical amendment will make a huge difference to some families, ensuring access for fathers and partners who do not meet the work test requirements only because their child was born prematurely. We've fixed that. It's a small thing, but something that makes a huge difference, particularly for families when they're going through something like an unexpected early arrival, often with children who need extra support and partners who need extra support. Again, I'm pleased that we'll do that for those few families who need that support, in addition to expanding it for the 180,000 families across Australia who rely on this scheme each year. I also think it's worth noting that this is just one part of the government's plan to help Australians with the cost of living and help families with their household budgets. We've talked a lot in this place today—and it's good to be back in the parliament—about how you support middle Australia, how you support working families and how you make sure that people get a tax cut and get the support they need. If you think about what we're doing here with 26 weeks of extra paid parental leave and if you look at the modelling from when we released the details around the tax cuts for middle Australia, one of the examples that was used in some of the documents put forward was of Matthew and Alice, who have two kids and are working full time. Matthew's a truck driver, and Alice is a primary school teacher. In 2024-25, Matthew will expect to earn $80,000, and Alice will expect to earn $90,000. That family will get a tax cut of $3,608, supporting their household's budgets. Should they choose to have another child, they'll now have access to 22, 24 or 26 weeks of paid parental leave. We know that many people now very carefully plan their budgets in the years before they choose to have children. If you think about someone who might be thinking about, in 2026, once this scheme is fully up and running, putting away that little bit of extra money to make sure they're ready for the arrival of a new bundle of joy—let's take someone who works at Woolworths. Not only, thanks to this government, have we not seen 200,000 Woolworths workers lose their job, but let's take the example of someone who works at Woolworths on $75,000 a year. That's an annual tax cut of $1,554 under the middle Australia tax plan, combined with the knowledge that, when we get to 2026, should they be fortunate enough to be able to have the child that they wish to have, they'll have 26 weeks of paid parental leave, plus the partner pay. That's the other piece that we continue to expand in this. If I think about what that means when you're trying to make all of those household budgets fit together, it makes a huge difference. I've got to say: I've had strong support from my electorate for the changes we're making to paid parental leave. Equally, I've had strong support from people writing to me in my electorate, supporting the changes that are being made for a fairer tax cut for working families. I think that it's also important noting for the House that this plan that we put forward comes at the end of a thorough policy development process. It was the Albanese government that established the Women's Economic Equality Taskforce to prioritise advice to government on issues facing women in the Australian economy. We asked the taskforce to look at the available evidence to see what was needed on the Paid Parental Leave scheme and whether or not it needed to be expanded. This reflects the consultations that that taskforce had to not only expand economic equality in Australia but also expand the support provided by government to families in those precious early months. I also note that there was a parliamentary consultation on this; the Community Affairs Legislation Committee examined the first tranche of this legislation. Again, there was strong support in the submissions received. If I think about going home to Perth and whether I will be happy on how I voted on this bill that's before us: last financial year, 1,635 parents in the Perth electorate received paid parental leave. It will be good to be able to say to them, if they choose to have another child, that they'll get more support should this pass. It'll be good to be able to say to them that, because we've seen how much of a benefit it has in our local communities all across the country, we're expanding the scheme. Too often we've seen people come forward with proposals to cut things back, and I can only contrast what we are seeking to do with the last time we saw someone trying to make a big change to paid parental leave policies. I note that we've seen a lot of commentary in the last few days from those in the coalition around what they think of one another. Some in the chamber right now had a starring role, and I congratulate them on that, but it did make me go back and look at the debate. Internally, at the time, there were those who now sit on the opposition benches trying to tear down not just Tony Abbott but his— Mr Hastie 260805 I'll just remind the minister of relevance. The DEPUTY SPEAKER E0D I'll bring the minister back to— Mr 74519 I was about to quote from ABigger Picture, a book written by Malcolm Turnbull, a former prime minister who served in this place. He said: Meanwhile, Abbott's paid parental leave policy was languishing in the Senate; apart from Tony, not one member of the cabinet wanted it to pass. Not one—and we know that there was one person who was in that cabinet who still is in parliament today, and that is, of course, the Leader of the Opposition. There were policies promoted and promised to the Australian people by those opposite when they came to power in 2013, and I can confirm, having gone back and looked at the factual records, that the Leader of the Opposition, who was obviously trying to undo his own leaders' policy proposals at the time, does have a starring role in Our plan: real solutions for all Australians. I appreciate the ABC. I think they do a fantastic job. I think many in this building enjoyed the contributions they made last night to the national political discourse, but I did think they probably were a little bit soft when it came to the history of the paid parental leave saga that happened when those opposite were last in government. But, obviously, where you had people—including the current Leader of the Opposition—not supporting the paid parental leave proposals, you also had the then Prime Minister—and it does get confusing because there were so many—delivering a 'thinly veiled rebuke of Peter Dutton over the former health minister's handling of the GP co-payment'. So it's all happy families on that side. This piece of legislation is just one part of our plan for further closing of the gender pay gap and further investment in making sure that we do have gender equality in this country. I want to note the achievements of the Minister for Women, who has very proudly and rightly noted that the national gender pay gap, under this government, is at the lowest level on record, something of which I hope everyone who has contributed to that can be proud. In my final two minutes, I want to reflect on someone who enabled me to be in this place today, Pamela Day, who passed away on 5 December 2023. Pam was a well-known fixture of the Bassendean community. She campaigned in all three of the elections in which I have stood. I could not be here to vote for fairer paid parental leave if it weren't for Pam Day. She did countless days on various prepolls and she was one of the thousands of women who have campaigned across their lives for gender equality, equal pay and paid parental leave. Pam was born all the way back on 4 March 1931. She grew up on a farm. She married her, now also late, partner, who was in the Air Force. They travelled around and they had a shared commitment to service. When he was out serving in the Australian Air Force, she was out on the ground campaigning, advocating for and supporting so many different causes. In her professional career, Pam was a nurse and a social trainer, helping her fellow Western Australians wherever she could. It was no wonder that she campaigned for things she truly believed in, like paid parental leave. She campaigned for issues that were important to her, like voluntary assisted dying, the Uluru statement and, indeed, the sorts of measures we've been talking about today, like cheaper child care and paid parental leave, to make sure that we have more fairness for working women in this country. I know that Stephen Smith would be appreciative, if he weren't in the employ of the government right now and unable to talk about such things, of the support that he received from Pam. I know Alannah MacTiernan and Tim Hammond also appreciate support from Pam, and I know myself and the member for Hasluck appreciate her support to be here and to vote for this piece of legislation. Vale, Pam Day. 18:02 Ms WARE 300123 Hughes I was in the chamber to hear the member for Perth's speech, and I would just remind him that, on various occasions, the ABC has applied an equal blowtorch to those on the other side of this chamber. Other than that, I will leave that commentary to the ABC. I rise to speak on the Paid Parental Leave Amendment (More Support for Working Families) Bill 2023. I am always very happy to rise to support and speak about measures that will improve the lives of Australian women, Australian mums and Australian families overall. Therefore, I do support this bill, which builds on the existing Paid Parental Leave scheme that has been implemented since 2011. It will expand paid parental leave by an additional six weeks of government paid leave, overall increasing the scheme to six months by 2026. However, there is one impact of this scheme—and that's the administration of it only—where there is a disproportionate burden placed on small business. I think that needs to be acknowledged and I note that the coalition has moved some amendments to support small business. That change applies only to administrative support. Overall, the fundamental principles behind this legislation are, of course, supported by the coalition. As a preliminary point, the benefits of a government paid parental leave scheme are well known. As I said, the scheme has been in place since 2011, and numerous studies have shown that paid parental leave provides invaluable assistance to Australians—Australian parents, Australian workers, Australian employers and the Australian economy overall. Without doubt, paid parental leave is one of the most important economic measures that governments can adopt to support Australian women. When Australian women do well, their families do well, the economy does well and our country does well. The coalition, therefore, remains committed to supporting Australian women's participation in the workplace. At its highest level, the clear benefit of paid parental leave is to increase female workforce participation. However, the benefits for mothers cannot be overstated. These include assisting with bonding with a newborn baby, breastfeeding and recovery from childbirth. Studies have also shown it can assist with lowering postnatal depression rates and improving new mums' mental health. Paid parental leave can also lower infant mortality. Paid parental leave ensures that women are not disadvantaged in their employment by their intrinsic role in childbearing. It supports economic security for women throughout their lives. It supports the health and welfare of mothers as well as their newborn children. It assists Australian parents to manage their work and parental responsibilities so that the needs of children and families may be met in the context of a modern Australian society. It also supports dads and partners, which is also very important. This amended scheme will go some way to ensuring that working women do not unwillingly delay or avoid having children because of the financial ramifications that will occur or because of difficulties that they may experience if they take a career break. The scheme particularly supports first-time mums by assisting childbirth recovery and perinatal and postnatal health challenges, including premature birth. Most importantly, paid parental leave supports fundamental Liberal Party principles that the role of government is to facilitate an environment to enable Australians to have choice and to make decisions that are right for their individual circumstances. It helps Australian women decide when they will have children. The drawback to this scheme at present is administrative in nature only. The scheme disproportionately and adversely impacts smaller businesses—and by that I mean businesses of 20 or fewer employees. It imposes an additional red-tape burden on small businesses by making them the pay clerk for the government's Paid Parental Leave scheme. Small businesses—those with under 20 employees—do not have a human resource department, and they are drowning in red tape, ill-equipped to administer these payments. At present, there is a situation where Services Australia administers these payments in circumstances. Therefore, the coalition proposes amendments that enable small businesses to allow Services Australia to pay those instalments direct to the employee. It will still be possible for small businesses to have an opt-in provision, where they can pay those payments themselves. These amendments have been proposed following consultation with various stakeholder employer groups, including the Motor Trades Association of Australia, the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, and the National Electrical and Communications Association. Small businesses reported to these organisations that when administering the payment they had an increased administrative burden and an increase to their payroll processing time. The Australian Small Business and Family Enterprise Ombudsman, as part of the consultation process, stated: For many small and family businesses, the costs associated with administering the scheme are magnified as they do not have the existing organisational capability or internal expertise to implement complex processes. Look at just how many payments there are currently under Australia's Paid Parental Leave scheme: in 2022-23 there were over 170,000 parental leave pay claims and more than 88,000 dad and partner pay claims. In 2021-22, of the more than 31,000 employers that provided paid parental leave to their employees, 38 per cent were small businesses. That means around 15,000 small businesses were administering this scheme in one year. At present, the Paid Parental Leave scheme includes a mandatory employer role, which requires employers to pay government-funded paid leave payments to eligible long-term employees. However, employers are only required to provide parental leave pay that is taken by their employees in a continuous block of at least 40 consecutive weekdays at the beginning of their entitlement. Services Australia provides any parental leave pay dates taken outside of that block. Therefore, Services Australia—one of our largest government agencies—already has the processes, staff and resources in place to administer this scheme. In those circumstances, it is strongly recommended that the process payment of paid parental leave move from burdening small business to the appropriate government department. This would be compatible with strengthening and insuring the scheme into the future. I've spoken in this place on paid parental leave on a number of other occasions. On all occasions, I had asked the government to consider, in any future amendments to this scheme, that superannuation guarantee payments be placed on parental leave pay. Disappointingly, this has not been included in this legislation, and I say that this is a missed opportunity for the Albanese Labor government. It's a missed opportunity in bridging the disparity between the superannuation balances of Australian men and women, where women—even in 2024—still lag substantially behind our male counterparts. Working Australian women should not be financially disadvantaged for their choice to have children and for their innate role in childbearing. Furthermore, as a mother of twins, I would also draw to the government's attention recent submissions made by the Multiple Birth Association around the cost of raising multiples and the need, in many cases, for more flexible arrangements with periods of parental leave. These two issues, however, are not before this place at present. They are not for this current legislation, disappointingly—particularly in relation to superannuation. However, both of these are major issues for women and families across this country, whether they are parents of multiple births or they are seeking to have superannuation paid on their paid parental leave. To conclude, this is a good bill overall. Paid parental leave is vital for Australian mums and vital for Australian dads. It is integral for women's workforce participation, for mothers' physical and mental health and for giving fathers the opportunity to be more fully involved in their children's early care. We need to support Australian families, but we also need to support Australian small businesses—many of which are family businesses. For all the reasons I have mentioned, I commend this bill to the House. 18:13 Mr REPACHOLI 298840 Hunter I rise to contribute to the debate on the Paid Parental Leave Amendment (More Support for Working Families) Bill 2023. Times are tough for many in Australia right now. This is the case for people in all sorts of situations, but it is especially tough for working families. When we were first elected, we made a commitment to create a better future for all. We said there would be no-one left back and no-one left behind. Soon after being elected, we followed through on this commitment by helping families who may be struggling, through implementing the first part of our paid parental leave reform. Paid parental leave reform was so high on our list of priorities that it formed the centrepiece of our first budget, where we invested half a billion dollars to expand the scheme to six months by 2026. This shows exactly how committed this government is to improving the lives of working families, supporting better outcomes for children and advancing women's economic equality. Today, we are getting on with the job of creating a better future and helping working families even more by implementing the second part of this reform, which will further help to make the scheme more accessible, flexible and gender equitable. There are a lot of people in the Hunter doing it tough, but, because of our changes to paid parental leave earlier in the year, more than 2,000 people are better off. As of July this year, 2,155 parents will be receiving paid parental leave in my electorate. I am the proud father of two daughters. I have been through the early stages of parenting twice. I know what it's like to bring home a new baby and to have to adjust. It can be tough. I'll be honest: my wife did most of the work, and she did a great job. Thank you, Alex; I really appreciate what you do. But it can be tough. That's why it is good that over 2,000 people in my electorate are able to get a little bit of extra help at a time when they need it more than ever. I have great news for the parents in my electorate and across Australia. We are doing our bit to ease their pressures even more by increasing the total number of weeks of paid parental leave by two weeks each year, starting on 1 July 2024 and eventually increasing it up to a total of 26 weeks on 1 July 2026. We are also increasing the number of weeks reserved for each parent to use on a use-it-or-lose-it basis, up to four weeks as of 2026, and doubling the number of weeks parents can take concurrently, so that it will be four weeks in 2025. Currently, families are allowed to take 20 weeks of paid parental leave. This number will increase to 22 next year, 24 in 2025 and 26 weeks in the year 2026. That is an additional six weeks that parents will be able to spend with their newborn child without the added pressures of returning to work and without the stress of not having a secure income. This will make a huge difference to so many parents and, most importantly, will give our youngest Australians valuable extra time with their parents before their parents go back to work. The increase to the number of concurrent weeks that will be able to be taken will also be a massive help for parents. Parenting isn't easy, and having two around to help definitely makes a big difference. Right now, parents can take two weeks of concurrent paid parental leave, but, as of 2025, this will double, meaning that parents will be able to have four weeks of concurrent leave. Mothers should not be expected to do all the hard work of caring for a newborn child themselves. It is great that this bill opens the door to make it easier for dads to do their bit. When fathers take a greater caring role from the start, it benefits mums, dads and their kids. Fathers should be able to take on a greater caring role, knowing that they have the financial support that will come with the increased amount of paid parental leave that will become available to them due to the changes we are making with this bill. When my daughters were born, my wife was amazing—but this doesn't mean she should be left to do all the hard work of caring for a newborn by herself. The changes in this bill send a very clear message. This message is that treating parenting as an equal partnership supports gender equality. This bill also sends a message that this government values men as carers too. We want to see that reinforced in workplaces and in our communities. This is a message that I support, and I am glad to see this outlook now being reflected in our paid parental leave system. These changes will make a huge difference to the lives of so many parents and families, with over 180,000 families expected to access the Paid Parental Leave scheme this year. The changes will commence on 1 July 2024 and apply to births or adoptions from that date. These changes are a result of our government seeking advice and listening. The 26-week scheme comes after we sought advice from the Women's Economic Equality Taskforce, or WEET. The WEET recommended reserving four weeks for each parent on a use-it-or-lose-it basis and allowing parents to take up to four weeks leave all at the same time. This bill reflects exactly what this advice was. We in the Labor Party are proud to be members of the party that first introduced paid parental leave in 2011. Today I'm proud to be able to stand here as a member of a government that is delivering the largest investment in the scheme since it was introduced in 2011 by expanding the scheme to 26 weeks. We also know that there are times that parents miss out on being able to access this scheme for technical reasons which are completely out of their control. We want to fix these issues and make the system fairer and more accessible to all. That is why it is important that this bill also includes a minor technical amendment to ensure access for fathers and partners who do not meet the work test requirements but would have done if their child had not been prematurely born. This provision is nothing new, as it is already in place for mothers, so it just makes sense that this provision should equally be applied to and used by fathers as well. Everyone is on board with what we are trying to achieve by introducing this bill. Business, unions, experts and economists all understand that one of the best ways to boost productivity and participation is to provide more choice and more support for families as well as creating more opportunities for women. Increasing the amount of paid parental leave available and making changes to the way in which it can be taken does exactly this. It boosts productivity, helps families by providing more support and gives more opportunities for women to participate in the workforce because having a child should not come at the cost of a secure income. This bill is really simple. To summarise this bill, it is aimed at helping working families by expanding paid parental leave. It expands the paid parental leave scheme in three ways. It increases the length of the payment from 20 weeks to 26 weeks. It increases the period of reserved leave for each parent from two to four weeks. It doubles the period in which parents can take paid parental leave at the same time from two weeks to four weeks. These changes give more families access to the payment, give parents more flexibility in how they take their leave and encourage parents to share the care. The bill improves the lives of working families, supports better outcomes for children and advances women's economic equality. It is also about creating a balance. Our changes help to strike an important balance of increasing support to mums, encouraging dads to take leave and providing families flexibility in how they structure their care arrangements. This bill helps to deliver a better future, and I know it will be well received by the working families in my electorate of Hunter. It is good for young citizens, good for mums, good for dads and good for the economy. For all these reasons, I commend this bill to the House. 18:22 Mr McCORMACK 219646 Riverina Of course I support the member for Deakin and his amendment to the Paid Parental Leave Amendment (More Support for Working Families) Bill 2023. Certainly I know the coalition has thought long and hard about this, as we do about every bill. That is why the member for Deakin's amendment needs to be adopted. I know that we all want to support working families. We do. Families are the backbone and the building blocks of our nation. Whether it's in a small business, a medium business or a large business, we want people to have the ability to work, to look after their children, to contribute to the economy—it all works in cycle; it all works in tandem. Whilst the coalition will support this bill, more needs to be done to make sure that small businesses aren't burdened by exhaustive red tape. I do earnestly and honestly worry about the impositions placed on small business by this government—the industrial relations impositions and the difficulty of trading in what already are difficult times. The ability to not only attract new customers but retain the customers you have is an age-old question for small business. Cutting through some of that red tape is so important. We used to have red tape days when we were in government. To be fair, they indeed reduced some of the onerous, unnecessary responsibility on small businesses particularly, who are already under a mountain of pressure and bureaucracy just to keep their doors open. The coalition calls on the Labor government to amend this bill to ensure paid parental leave payments are paid directly to the employee. To start a business in the present day is a challenging task. There was a story in the Daily Telegraph just last week about 80 businesses failing every week, and many of those were in the construction sector. This is a huge burden to bear, particularly as we have a housing crisis. This is such an onerous responsibility on builders, who are weighed down by federal law, weighed down by state law and weighed down by local councils. This story in the Telegraph, headed 'It's a big business bust', mentioned that more than 80 New South Wales businesses are failing every week. In the very first paragraph, it said that this was a jump of nearly 40 per cent in a year. Paid parental leave is important. Making sure workers are paid the right amount for their labours is absolutely necessary—no question—but, when you have businesses failing at the rate that John Rolfe's article indicates, it is a concern. I approached a businessman in my electorate, a home builder by the name of Wayne Carter, and he indicated his concern. He said that a heavy percentage of where the building industry is on its knees—they're my words, not his—has been 'caused by the government-backed fringe requirements to increases to BASIX levels along with changes to the National Construction Code, adding extra costs to a build'. We've had many discussions in the past, and red tape is one of those things which he has mentioned regularly and consistently when talking about how difficult it is to keep the doors open. Already established businesses have a better chance to adapt, as changes to them are incremental, but when you start a business the years and years of red tape built up and built in often proves to be an insurmountable obstacle. It crushes innovation and it prevents what could potentially be great businesses from ever having a chance to evolve. Government should be seeking to ensure it is as easy as possible for our best and brightest to start businesses. Young people, not-so-young people, metropolitan people, remote people, city people—it doesn't matter. We need to provide the building blocks, the foundation, the starting point—call it what you like—to encourage businesses to take out that first loan, to try to attract that first customer. That is so vital. The Motor Trades Association of Australia, a peak body for many small and medium-sized businesses in the car trade, held a survey on the matter of red tape stifling competition in the market. Interestingly, this survey found that 96.1 per cent of respondents would prefer Services Australia to pay paid parental leave directly. If we want to support families and aspiring parents, we must also address what many would argue is an even bigger issue, and that is the affordability and availability of child care. I talk about this in relation to child care because it is a huge issue in regional, rural and remote electorates. It's one thing to have affordable child care—fantastic—but it also needs to be available child care. Unless you have that childcare centre in a rural area, it doesn't matter how cheap, how inexpensive, it is. They have to conform to all the necessary regulations, naturally, but availability is a massive issue. According to an ACCC report, childcare fees outpaced inflation with increases of between 20 and 32 per cent. For families on low incomes, the news gets even worse, with the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission finding that the lowest-income households spend up to 21 per cent of their household income on child care. So when you think that is nearly a quarter and then you put on top of that rent or, indeed, paying off a home mortgage and then you put on top of that grocery bills, in rural, regional and particularly remote Australia, you put on top of that the price of fuel going up and up and up—I don't see it coming down anytime soon. I had a letter from a constituent just yesterday complaining about the high price of fuel in West Wyalong—It all amounts to more and more and more pressure on the household budget, and that is particularly so in regional Australia. In regional Australia, I know the member for Page, the shadow minister for trade at the table and the member for Wide Bay understand all too well because we are in touch with our constituents. They tell us about the difficulty of finding childcare places. They tell us about the difficulty of cost of living, and that is not to say there were not pressures when we were in government, but we addressed them. The cost-of-living has gone through the roof under those opposite, who, to my way of thinking, are not doing enough to address these issues. And it is not just my way of thinking; it is Mr and Mrs Average. It is people who regularly send me emails, regularly stop me in the street, regularly see me at all sorts of social and sporting events. I know they are seeing the member for Page because we talk. I know they are telling the member for Wide Bay because we talk about these things regularly, because we care and we do care. We care about child care. We care about paid parental leave. We care about the rising costs that people are trying as best they can to meet and to combat. According to the Care 4 Kids website, the average daily childcare rate in Wagga Wagga is $133 before subsidies. In Parkes, the average is even higher—$151. That said, there are many families—innumerable, you could almost argue—who can't even get their child or children into child care because there are simply no places. I talked earlier about availability. Affordability is just as important in this particular debate when you, as I said, factor in Labor's cost-of-living crisis, and it is Labor's because it is on Labor's watch. It is Labor's responsibility to address the cost-of-living crisis and they are not; they are talking about everything but. We are seeing childcare costs and the cost of paying off a home or even getting into the market getting out of reach of so many. You can understand why some couples, sadly, are hesitant to even start families because they want the best for their child, as any parent would and should, but they are delaying it and that also creates difficulties later on. They simply can't afford it in the present dire circumstances. More needs to be done to support Australian families who are raising kids to ensure we remain a society built upon strong families and not to discourage those aspiring to have children. We can look across the globe to see what can happen if we don't support families enough. In some countries, the birth rate is well below replacement and that is a concern. It is a concern for Western civilisation. Indeed, in Japan, things have become so desperate that families are being offered a million yen to move out of Tokyo in order to reverse population decline and to enjoy a more comfortable life in rural municipalities. I have to say that there's nothing wrong with living in rural municipalities. We found that during COVID, when many people chose to leave the big bright city lights and move to regional Australia where there were more freedoms. It was a safer place to live when the global pandemic was at its worse. Indeed, it was open. People could move about freely without being largely kept to their local government areas, which was the case in Sydney and other capital cities. They're still suffering PTSD from the lockdowns in Melbourne, quite frankly. And Western Australia just shut itself off from the rest of the country. But we addressed the global pandemic very, very well. I pay credit to the then Prime Minister and member for Cook, Scott Morrison, and the then Treasurer and former member for Kooyong, Josh Frydenberg, for what they did to keep this country safe and people in jobs and even alive in those terrible times. As I say, paid parental leave is important. It's a necessary and good part of modern living, to the point where parents can go out and work—and not just women. It is a whole new world in which we live, and we want to encourage women and men to be able to have a good work-life balance and to be paid paid parental leave. But we also want to make sure that we encourage businesses to be able to afford to offer every right workplace condition in this day and age. What we don't want to see is businesses particularly not employing women as a result of any onerous thing that is put in place, because we want to encourage women in the workforce. I was proud of the fact that, while we were in government, the incentives we put in place led to a number of women in employment, and that is fantastic. There was a record number of jobs for women who were mothers and men who were fathers. We want to support this paid parental leave amendment bill. We want to support the provisions within it, but I very much support the amendments put forward by the member for Deakin. 18:37 Dr GARLAND 295588 Chisholm I'm proud to be part of a Labor government with a strong history of improving the lives of Australian families, and I'm proud to rise in support of this bill, the Paid Parental Leave Amendment (More Support for Working Families) Bill 2023. It has always been Labor governments that have implemented the critical and nation-building reforms that this country has relied upon. From Medicare, the 40th birthday of which we have just celebrated, to the National Disability Insurance Scheme, the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, the single mothers benefit and the child support system, it has been Labor that has put these important reforms into play in Australia. It was a Labor government, of course, the Gillard government, that introduced paid parental leave in this country. As the Minister for Social Services has already stated, when paid parental leave was introduced in 2011, it was a major milestone for Australian families. For many parents, the 18-week payment, fully funded by the government, was the very first time they could access any paid parental leave. This provided a material advancement in workplace and economic equality for women—a change that was so important, given that we know that it was and still is women who carry a disproportionate share of unpaid care—and this has long-term consequences for their economic security. We know, too, that paid parental leave is essential and good for families. It's not only good for women and families; it also plays an important part in the broader economy and in our communities. We know that, by investing in paid parental leave, there are enormous benefits for our economy. We heard this on many occasions throughout our Jobs and Skills Summit, which we held upon our election in 2022. We heard loud and clear that gender equality and economic reform go hand in hand, and, more than just hearing that, we listened to what we heard. We know that one of the best ways to improve productivity is to provide more choice and more support for families, and that includes more opportunities for women. This was roundly supported at the Jobs and Skills Summit by business, unions, experts and economists. This is why paid parental leave featured so prominently in our very first budget. As the Prime Minister said, 'A parental leave system that empowers the full and equal participation of women will be good for business, good for families and good for our economy.' In practical terms, the Paid Parental Leave Amendment (More Support for Working Families) Bill 2023 increases the current scheme to six months by 2026. This bill also makes minor and technical amendments relating to the eligibility for paid parental leave, including in relation to those who claim paid parental leave in exceptional circumstances and to the application of the work test for fathers and partners when a child is born prematurely. This bill implements in full our commitment from the 2022-23 budget and represents a total investment of $1.2 billion over five years. I'm really proud to stand in this place and support legislation that delivers the largest expansion of paid parental leave since the conception of this scheme. This means that, from 2026-27, the government's total investment in paid parental leave will be approximately $4.4 billion a year and, through this amendment, 180,000 families who receive the payment each year will benefit from a more generous scheme. It's a scheme that supports maternal health and wellbeing, encourages both parents to take leave and gives parents and families flexibility. In addition to helping families better balance work and caring responsibilities, this bill also supports participation and productivity over the longer term by providing a dividend for the Australian economy. As mentioned earlier, there are many who can see the benefit of these reforms; it's not just our government. This includes employer groups, such as the Business Council of Australia, who said that the expansion does not just help make a fairer society but is also a major economic reform leading to greater workforce participation and productivity. Unions also agree. The Australian Council of Trade Unions have said the increase to 26 weeks is 'a great step forward for Australian parents, particularly working women', and is a stark contrast to the policies and attitudes to women that we saw under the previous government. The Parenthood, a leading parent advocacy group, are on the record as stating that this is a significant improvement after no meaningful change to the policy during the last wasted decade. It's important to note, too, that under the current rules a working family can access up to 20 weeks of government funded paid parental leave and, to encourage shared care, two weeks are reserved for each parent on a 'use it or lose it' basis, leaving 16 weeks for parents to share however they choose. Now, starting on 1 July of this year, the bill will expand the scheme by two weeks each year until it reaches 26 weeks—so a full six months—in 2026. This will mean that, by 1 July 2026, the scheme will be 26 weeks long, with four weeks now reserved for each parent on a 'use it or lose it' basis. That then leaves 18 weeks that parents can choose to share care however they wish. For example, in a fifty-fifty shared arrangement, that would allow both parents to utilise up to 13 weeks each. Importantly, single parents will have access to the full 26-week entitlement. Coupled parents will also be able to take up to four weeks of paid parental leave at the same time. Currently, parents may take up to two weeks together, but we know that enabling parents to take parental leave together has really positive effects for maternal recovery and bonding as a family. This provides the birth parent with extra support as they recover, and it's also a factor in reducing parental stress. I note the minister's appreciation for the Women's Economic Equality Taskforce, who provided important advice to the government on the optimal model for the 26-week scheme. The setting in this bill reflects that important advice from the taskforce. This amendment strikes an important balance of increasing support for families while also providing flexibility in how they structure their care arrangements to suit their families. We know that's what families want—they want support, but they also want flexibility. Additionally, supporting maternal health and recovery from childbirth is an important objective of this government's Paid Parental Leave scheme. The bill strengthens this objective by extending the length of the scheme, which we know has long-term health and wellbeing benefits for children and their parents. Another key objective of the scheme is encouraging fathers and partners to take leave, which, in turn, helps balance work and family life and promotes greater gender equality. The evidence is clear that when dads take a more active role in looking after kids and participating in home life, mums feel more supported to return to work. This is great for the family. As I mentioned before, it's also great for our communities and for the economy. When dads take a greater caring role earlier in the parenting journey, evidence shows that there is a more even distribution of household responsibilities, which persists through a child's life. The changes in this bill send a clear message that the government supports shared care, and we want to see that reinforced in workplaces and in our communities. We are doing a lot to break down gender stereotypes, as a government, for better outcomes for everyone in our communities. This is part of that work. While the Commonwealth provides critical support through the taxpayer funded Paid Parental Leave scheme, employers also have a really important role to play here. We know that data collected by the Workplace Gender Equality Agency shows that the proportion of businesses providing their own paid parental leave scheme has increased over the last decade. Ultimately, the Commonwealth payment is a minimum entitlement designed to complement employer provided leave. Whilst it's encouraging to see an increase of reporting employers who offered employer funded paid parental leave, from 48 per cent in 2013-14 to 62 per cent in 2021-22, we know that there is, of course, more to do. This is a positive trend demonstrating an appetite from employers who see themselves as playing a really significant role in our communities, alongside government. I'm really pleased to be part of a government that's leading the way with these important reforms. It is in all of our interests—it's in the national interest—for paid parental leave to continue to be recognised and celebrated as not only a great social policy but also a valuable workplace investment. We know that the material benefits for parents, employers and the broader economy are so significant, and an investment in paid parental leave is an investment in our communities and an investment in the future. It's essential that our Paid Parental Leave scheme supports modern Australian families. I echo the comments of the Minister for Social Services when stating that Australian families deserve a paid parental scheme that is flexible, that is fair and that has social and economic benefits for both parents and children at its heart. This bill provides just that. Paid parental leave, like so many other major reforms in this country, is a proud Labor legacy. I know how much this will mean to my community and I'm proud to be part of a government that will always seek to strengthen, protect and support our communities. I commend this bill to the House. 18:48 Mr BANDT M3C Melbourne The Greens welcome the extension of the Paid Parental Leave scheme. Increasing the availability of leave to 26 weeks is a positive step in ensuring that parents are adequately supported in those crucial first few months of parenthood. Parents should have access to a minimum of 26 weeks of paid leave to allow recovery from birth, maximising options to establish breastfeeding and allowing parents to spend time with their infants. Extended leave provides the best chance of a good start for children in the early years and healthy patterns of shared care. But parents shouldn't have to wait another two years to get the 26 weeks that are accepted as an international minimum standard. There's no reason to delay the implementation of good policy. This bill presents a critical opportunity to move towards best practice, and should start with an immediate increase of 26 weeks paid leave and include a pathway to 52 weeks of paid leave by 2030. Australia has one of the weakest parental leave schemes globally. The experience in other countries puts beyond doubt that more equitable parental leave, coupled with free child care, improves women's workforce participation and helps shape the long-term sharing of care work. The reintroduction of 'use it or lose it' provisions in this bill to encourage shared parenting is a welcome change. We have seen time and again in Scandinavian countries how this provision causes a huge jump in the number of dads taking leave. And that fairer sharing of care has then been sustained for more than a decade. But Labor can, and must, do more than make the PPL scheme fairer. and immediately. We've fallen behind other countries in the rate of pay and how leave is allocated between parents. Continuing to pay parental leave at the minimum wage forces difficult decisions about who can afford to take leave and for how long. For some people, full-time minimum wage is an increase on their previous earnings. But for many parents the minimum wage is well below their normal wage. The Greens support full wage replacement, including incentivising employers to top up the government's scheme. Last year the government's own Women's Economic Equality Taskforce recommended expanding paid parental leave to 52 weeks; to pay superannuation on PPL; and, eventually, to pay PPL at replacement wage. That was the government's own taskforce. The Greens will continue to push Labor to implement the taskforce's advice and, particularly, to pay super on PPL. That's a way of helping to prevent women retiring into poverty. It is time out of the workforce and taking on more unpaid labour that contributes to the gender pay gap and the super gap. By failing to pay super on parental leave, the government is increasing the risk that more women will retire into poverty. Women deserve fairer paid parental leave; it improves their economic security, reduces the gender pay gap and increases the likelihood of mothers returning to work. Fairer paid parental leave is a no-brainer that benefits everyone: parents, children and the economy. 18:52 Ms PAYNE 144732 Canberra This morning in parliament we marked the 40th anniversary of Medicare. Minister Mark Butler talked about remembering what it was like before Medicare was introduced and how it is important to reflect on how critically important some government reforms have been in changing the lives of Australians. Clearly, before Medicare a lot of people didn't have the access that they then gained to health care. Healthcare costs were actually the leading cause of bankruptcy, which is just shocking to hear now. But it was the result of an action of government, a Labor government, and it was a really critically important social reform. Paid parental leave is another of these. It's a very proud Labor legacy and a gamechanger for Australian parents. I think it's really important that we reflect on that—that before this was introduced under the Gillard government, not that long ago, many, many women had no access to leave when they had a baby. If they didn't get it from their employer, which was not the majority in any sense—particularly for casual and low-paid workers—they had nothing. This government scheme was a gamechanger in allowing mothers to have that time to bond with their babies and to recover from birth and pregnancy. It was a very, very important reform of the Gillard government and by Jenny Macklin, the social services minister at the time. This amendment builds on that. Here in 2024 under the Albanese Labor government, we are building on our paid parental leave scheme. That's why I'm very happy to rise this evening to speak on this landmark Paid Parental Leave Amendment (More Support for Working Families) Bill 2023. This bill has far-reaching implications for the lives of Australian parents and the Australian economy. The amendments proposed in this bill mark the most significant expansion of paid parental leave since its inception under the Gillard government. By 2026, claimants will be entitled to 26 weeks of paid parental leave, with 20 days reserved for the partners of the claimant within the same time line. Concurrent leave periods will increase to four weeks, providing families with unprecedented flexibility and choice, which is another really key element of these changes. The eligibility criteria, which for some has been a source of confusion and limitation, will be addressed. This reform is in direct response to the clear and sensible advice from the Women's Economic Equality Taskforce and other stakeholders. Businesses, unions and economists have all voiced their support and emphasised the need for flexibility and choice for families at this really special and vitally important time in their lives. In 2009, when the Productivity Commission first released the report on which the scheme was based, the aims were clear: to identify the economic, productivity and social costs of providing paid parental leave, to explore employer provision and to assess models accounting for various factors. It was a response to the fact that, excluding the USA, Australia was the only OECD country without a national paid parental leave scheme. When it was introduced, it changed the lives of Australian families. Today we are building on this and taking the recommendations of that same report as a guide. The paid parental leave amendment bill 2023 is a step towards ensuring that paid parental leave entitlements are accessible to all working parents, regardless of gender. This $1.2 billion investment into the wellbeing of working families will provide much-needed relief for around 180,000 families, improving outcomes for children and advancing gender equality. Currently, of the 179,000 recipients of the paid parental leave in Australia, a staggering 99 per cent are women. That is unsurprising for obvious reasons. But these changes aim to enable both mums and dads—both parents, both genders—to access more leave at the really important time of welcoming a new baby into the family. The bill encourages both parents to take this up, and that is important not just for supporting families but for changing attitudes more broadly in our society and economy. These changes are an investment in our nation's economic prosperity. Business leaders, including Bran Black of the Business Council of Australia, estimate that such flexibility can potentially unlock an additional $128 billion annually. This is not just about family support; it's about redefining societal expectations, encouraging men to play a more active role in parenting, and fostering true gender equality. The evidence is clear that, when fathers take parental leave, society does better. Fathers taking paid parental leave means there is a higher chance of the gender equality gap closing, and fathers, mothers and babies benefit. It has long been my personal belief that, to truly address gender inequality in the workplace, it has to become normal for both parents to take time out and work part time when they have children. It has to become normal that this is not something that just women do—that it's something that both men and women do as a normal part of life and career. I think this is a really important step in encouraging that. It is no surprise that it is a Labor government introducing these reforms, because it is only Labor governments that actually stand up for Australian women. As I've already said, it was a Labor government that introduced this landmark scheme in the first place. It was a Labor government that introduced no-fault divorce. It was a Labor government that appointed the first ever Minister for Women, the late Susan Ryan. It was a Labor government that started the practice of releasing a women's budget statement, and we have proudly picked that up again this time in government. It was a Labor government that established the first ever National Plan to Reduce Violence against Women and their Children, and it's this Labor government that centres gender equality as a key economic issue. In this parliament's first sitting week, we introduced legislation to publish the gender pay gaps of large Australian companies. We have already legislated cheaper child care, and we have made gender equality an object of the Fair Work Act. It was this government that introduced paid family and domestic violence leave, again as a very early priority in coming to government. We have funded and are implementing all 55 recommendations of the Respect@Work report. We've introduced the new National Plan to End Violence Against Women and Children 2022-2032, and we are reintroducing gender-responsive budgeting. We established the Women's Economic Equality Taskforce that is working on a strategy to achieve gender equality. Our government was elected on a platform of gender equality, and we've worked tirelessly to bring this issue back to the forefront. Since our government's election, Australia has already risen from 50th to 26th in the World Economic Forum's Global gender gap report, and this bill continues that progress. One of the core values of Labor is equality, and equality is what Labor governments will always seek to achieve. These important changes to the Paid Parental Leave scheme are part of a broader agenda for families by supporting them to have choice, supporting their decisions about family and work and investing in making our economy stronger. I commend the bill to the House. 19:01 Dr RYAN 297660 Kooyong I'm pleased to speak in support of the Paid Parental Leave Amendment (More Support for Working Families) Bill 2023 today. About 180,000 Australian families access paid parental leave every year, and it's important that both parents can spend time with their children in those crucial first years of life. Australia's paid parental leave allowances are now amongst the least generous in the First World. For instance, the average length of paid parental leave in the OECD is 55 weeks. In Australia, it's currently only 20 weeks. Australian men or supporting partners currently receive only two weeks of paid parental leave. The PPL scheme currently provides support payments for up to 18 weeks. It is primarily aimed towards mothers, with dad and partner pay providing only up to two weeks of payment to fathers and partners. A recent Grattan Institute report highlighted the fact that we have one of the least generous paid parental leave schemes in the First World. Paid parental leave is something that we clearly need to get right. Australian research has shown that increasing shared paid parental leave allowances increases mothers' earnings across their lifetime and also increases national productivity. I'd like to acknowledge the important steps of the recent work in that direction by both this government and the Women's Economic Equality Taskforce. At the last federal election, many Australians expressed, at the time that they voted, their deep and real frustration with the treatment of women in this country. I applaud and thank them for doing so. I ask them to continue to do so and I assure them that, with this and similar legislation, this parliament will continue to work towards greater gender equity in both the workplace and the home. This amendment improves several aspects of the current provisions of legislated paid parental leave. Firstly, over the next three years, it expands the total leave entitlement for partnered parents to 26 weeks—up from the current 20. It also increases the amount of reserve weeks—that is, the leave that can be taken only by the second parent—from two to four, and it does the same for concurrent leave. These improvements are all worthwhile, but they are not as generous as they could be. A 2022 KPMG report found that the gendered impact of years not working due to career interruptions, part-time employment and unpaid care together account for 33 per cent of the gender pay gap. The impact of this pay gap accumulates over a lifetime. It means that women retire with less savings than men and that they're more likely to live in poverty in their old age. Recently, the Workplace Gender Equality Agency reported on the many indirect forms of discrimination that limit women's earning capacity. These include conscious and unconscious discrimination and bias in both hiring and pay decisions and in career progression and promotions. Women in female dominated industries tend to have jobs attracting lower wages. They often have a lack of workplace flexibility to accommodate caring and other responsibilities. But the other challenges include the high rates of part-time work for women, women's greater time out of the workforce with caring responsibilities which impact their career progression and opportunities, and women's disproportionate share of unpaid care and domestic work. So, what are the issues with this current legislation? Firstly, it continues to offer minimal support for fathers to enter the PPL scheme. The effect of limiting men's access to the PPL scheme is an inevitable perpetuation of the notion of women as primary carers and the men as breadwinners. We think things have improved in this country, but the primary rate of care undertaken by the male partner is less than two per cent. This is in stark contrast to countries like Sweden and Iceland, where the male partner is the primary carer of children in 40 per cent of cases. This disparity costs women and it costs children but it costs men too. It costs us all. The government needs to now own some of that cost as well. When fathers are more involved and more engaged in the care of their children, they have greater life satisfaction. My husband has told me this as I have left the kids with him yet again this week. I am pleased to see that this bill replaces the previous parental and dad and partner leave pay with a single 20-week scheme, with two weeks reserved for each parent on a 'use it or lose it' basis. It is also appropriate that many limitations of the current regime have been lifted or modified. The current eligibility criteria restrict access for non-birth parents. They restrict parents' choices in how they structure leave days in the transition back to work, and these eligibility criteria disadvantages the families where the mother is the primary income earner. This bill shifts to a gender-neutral framework, removing the concept of primary birth parent and secondary claimants. It enables leave to be taken in a variety of smaller periods, even a single day, as well as blocks of time that can be interspersed with periods of work. Both parents can take the same period of leave for up to 10 days, and the bill includes a new $350,000 family income limit under which claimants, including single parents, can qualify if they do not meet the individual income tests. Our understanding of the importance of shared care is growing. Patterns of care established in the first year of life for a child persist. The underutilisation of parental leave from fathers entrenches gender differences. The gap between how mothers and fathers work, care and earn after a baby is born is more pronounced in Australia than in comparable nations. The Australian Institute of Family Studies has found that the average number of hours worked by fathers does not change significantly after the birth of a child, while the number of hours worked by mothers generally falls by about two-thirds. Research by the Grattan Institute has shown that, on average, female parents do approximately two hours more unpaid care work per day than male parents, while male parents do two hours more paid work; hence, the so-called motherhood penalty—the 55 per cent reduction in women's earnings once they become mothers. There is no doubt that we need to support all policies that encourage both parents to take leave, and there are important aspects of this bill which recognise the value of and encourage shared care. Every man who takes paid parental leave makes it easier for those who follow. This improvement on paid parental leave should be just a step on our path. The WEET report recommended PPL entitlement be extended to 52 weeks. The AIST noted our leave entitlements are very limited compared to other OECD countries. Women are left at a significant disadvantage, as families will always inevitably restructure their work and household duties to favour that partner with the higher income, which is typically the man, and current tax and childcare policies decentivise full workforce participation. At present, paid parental leave is the only paid leave which does not attract compulsory superannuation; although many employers voluntarily make superannuation contributions. I strongly encourage the government, as I have before, and as many of my crossbench colleagues have on many occasions, to further increase the number of weeks of paid parental leave it offers to families, to increase access to better funded child care, and to acknowledge the importance of paid parental leave by heeding another recommendation of the WEET report that legislation be enacted to ensure that superannuation is paid on all forms of paid parental leave. More than 99 per cent of parents accessing the government's current paid parental leave schemes are women. Inevitably, women are most impacted by the superannuation gap. By taking time out of the workforce to care for their kids, women are penalised with less financial security on retirement. Industry Super has reported that 1.45 million women in Australia have missed out on $1.6 billion in super over the last 10 years because super is not currently included on the Commonwealth Paid Parental Leave scheme. Women retire with about one-third less super than men—on average, $67,000 less. They're overrepresented on the pension, and women aged over 55 are the fastest growing cohort at risk of homelessness. The Australian Public Service Commission has also recommended that, to help reduce the gender pay gap and to improve women's long-term economic equality, the employer component of superannuation should be paid on all forms of paid or unpaid pregnancy and parental leave regardless of the superannuation scheme type or the contribution method. The AIST made the interesting observation that, consistent with the government's intentions to move towards a wellbeing budget model, it would be apposite of the government to address inequality and financial disadvantage created or facilitated by structural policy issues like this. In that sense, government policies that entrench gender roles and which ignore the contribution of women to the workplace and the economy need urgent attention. Policies that financially disadvantage women by limiting their earning capacity due to caring duties following childbirth further exacerbate the gender super gap. As the WEET said, in 2023, if we eliminate negative gender biases from our system, we could unlock $120 billion that's lost each year to inequality. We face numerous key economic challenges in the next decade. These include decarbonising our industries, adjusting to the economic impact of climate change, managing an ageing workforce and dealing with increasing intergenerational inequity, geopolitical challenges, the rise of artificial intelligence and other technological advances. This is the ideal time to unlock the value of women's full economic participation. Apart from the economics, it's only just and only fair to give women an equal voice in our society. So I encourage the government to enact legislation requiring superannuation on paid parental leave as soon as possible. And, as the WEET suggests, I would encourage all employers who offer paid parental leave to do the same. In the words of the taskforce chair, Sam Mostyn: Women want the same opportunities as Australian men, to better utilise their education and their skills and not be held back by having to take the burden of care, often unpaid or underpaid. And they want the persistent barriers that hold women back removed very purposefully, until we get on with the job of building a fairer economy for all. I commend this bill to the House and look forward to further progress in this very important area. 19:13 Mr KHALIL 101351 Wills Of all the duties a government has towards the people that it represents—and there are a lot of duties and obligations that it has—one that's very important is the obligation to look after working families. Those who take part in the labour force while also raising children face what at times can seem to be an impossible balancing act. I know this for a fact, and I'm sure many members on both sides understand the juggling act that parents raising children have to struggle with. Giving adequate attention to both our professional lives, which can be very busy and time consuming, and our family lives, trying to have a rewarding career and having the privilege of raising children should not be, in my view, mutually exclusive, although it tends to be that way for so many parents. Our party, the Australian Labor Party, has long sought, through some of the policies that we've put in place over many different governments over decades, to ensure that that is the case—that you can actually try and work through those challenges as best as possible. That's why Labor governments in the past have a history, of implementing Paid Parental Leave schemes. It's why we made paid parental leave reform a centrepiece of our first budget—the first budget of the Albanese Labor government—where we invested half a billion dollars to expand the scheme to six months by 2026. For those who are keeping track, and I'm sure there are many parents who are, this was the single largest investment in PPL—or the Paid Parental Leave scheme—since Labor established it in 2011. It benefited more than 180,000 families each year. But we are not done yet. This government is going to build on the current scheme to make sure it is serving the public even better than before. We do this because we know that maintaining and improving paid parental leave benefits our entire country in a number of ways. For one, it bolsters our economy by ensuring increased workforce participation and labour productivity. It also helps advance gender equality, ensuring that women are able to be provided the same professional opportunities as men. It's also a driver of things that are hard to quantify—like the joy and contentment that a parent feels when they know they can spend some precious, intimate time in those formative moments in their child's life, and can do so in relative peace. They're not pressured by the fact that they have to worry about the money coming in and keeping a roof over their head, and these are really important elements which are not so tangible. As a whole, the improvements that are being proposed today are some of many examples of the Albanese Labor government's commitment to helping working families. It's about supporting childhood development. It's about ensuring economic equality for women. Most members of this chamber need only look around their electorate in order to see why we need to keep building on the Paid Parental Leave scheme. In my own electorate of Wills in the northern suburbs of Melbourne, I hear constantly from constituents who work hard to provide for their families. They desperately wish they could have more quality time with their families. Further still, I know a lot of people in my electorate who have already done the hard, rewarding work of raising children and they're always under that pressure and stress to put food on the table. Work means they can't be around their kids when they're young in those formative years. There are a number of those who already benefit from a generous Paid Parental Leave scheme. I want to see that expanded and made more widely available so that future generations can enjoy the same comfort that people who are benefiting from the scheme do now. Those voices are a few of the tens of thousands in my electorate alone whose lives are impacted by paid parental leave. According to the 2021 census, the electorate of Wills has roughly 23,000 families who are raising children. Across the entire nation, that rises into the millions. For many of those families and those who will have children in the future, we can ensure that their lives are made just that much more stable and secure. By enacting these changes we are not just ensuring that these constituents are heard but also making life better for all Australians in the process. With respect to the bill, exactly what are we proposing? As I mentioned earlier, these changes build on the existing improvements made by the Albanese Labor government. More specifically, they represent the implementation of the second half of our paid parental leave reforms that we announced in our 2022-23 October budget. The first half of these reforms, as you might recall, started on 1 July last year, and gave more families access to paid leave, granting parents greater flexibility and encouraging them to share child care. Today, we build upon that commitment by making the program even better for working families. We are expanding it to 26 weeks—six weeks up from the previous 20 weeks. This is a change that even the Leader of the Opposition described as reasonable—thank you, Leader of the Opposition. The bill will also increase the period reserved for each parent from two to four weeks, while also doubling the period where parents can take 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 reaching 26 weeks in 2026. Currently, up to 18 weeks are available for one parent—these are usually taken by the mother, with two weeks currently reserved for the dad or the partner. The increase to 26 weeks means mums can access up to 22 weeks of paid parental leave—an additional month compared to the current scheme. It also doubles the period reserved for dad or partner from two to four weeks. At the same time, single parents will also have access to the full 26 weeks. The changes will commence from 1 July this year, and will apply to birth or adoptions from that date. Crucially, this expansion provides additional support to mums after childbirth, supporting their and their child's wellbeing, while also encouraging dads and partners to take more leave, which is very important. When fathers and partners take a greater caring role from the start, it benefits everyone, the entire family—mums, dads and the kids. The changes in this bill send a message that treating parenting as an equal partnership supports gender equality. The government values men as carers too, and we want to see that reinforced in workplaces and our communities more broadly. Together, our changes strike an important balance in increasing support to mums, encouraging dads to take leave and providing families flexibility in how they structure their care arrangements. This amendment ensures sufficient financial supports are in place for new families, because Australians should not be disadvantaged by having to take time off work to care for new members of their family. Having children should not be a stressful time, it should be a joyful one—although we know there are some stresses and tensions involved. But the beginning of life should be enjoyed and cherished. There is plenty of stress awaiting parents when their kids hit their teen years—some of us would attest to that, as we know! The improvement of paid parental leave under the Albanese Labor government is but one of many, many instances of this government going into bat for working families. I am very proud, really proud, of the part that has been played by this government, which is willing to make real substantive changes to make the lives of our constituents better every day. Families all across the country will be able to benefit from the changes that are before us today. All told, over 180,000 families are forecast to make use of these improvements when they go into effect next year—that's a fantastic result. As complex as policy-making can sometimes be, all of this, at its core, is really quite simple. Guaranteeing paid time off for parents to spend with their children is good for parents, it's good for kids, it's good for our economy and for our society. So let's pass the bill. 19:22 Ms DANIEL 008CH Goldstein The second recommendation of the Women's Economic Equality Taskforce states in big, bold print: The Australian Government must invest in policies and programs that recognise the economic importance and value of care work in Australia and help families to better share caring responsibilities. For many families, the household division of caring responsibilities starts the moment a child is born. This triggers a pattern of unequal care and work during prime working years for both parents, with the responsibility of care falling more heavily on women. This results in women's participation in the workforce sitting well below that of men. To quote the Business Council of Australia: Increasing the workforce participation of women is one of our nation's biggest economic and social opportunities. It is an opportunity, and it's one we cannot squander by tinkering around the edges. We have done too much of that in the past. As leaders, we need to grasp this opportunity now and make the right decisions that remove the structural barriers for women who want to participate fully in the paid workforce. This will make Australia not only a fairer country but a stronger one, because increasing women's participation is good for the economy. To achieve this ambition, we need to shift the dial; what we need is systems change. In their 2021 report, Back of the pack: how Australia's parenting policies are failing women & our economy, Equity Economics reported that Australian women fall behind in the labour market when they have children and never catch up. They estimated that as a result women retire with 47 per cent less in superannuation savings than men. Their modelling found that if an average Australian woman had the same workplace participation patterns after having children as an average Swedish woman, she would earn an additional $696,000 over her working life and retire with an additional $180,000 in superannuation. One lever that can drive women's workforce participation is a fair and equitable paid parental leave system. The burden and joy of caring for young children should be more evenly shared between mothers and fathers, enabling more women to participate consistently in the workforce during their career. Quite seriously, I am sick to death of repeating elements of this speech over and over again in this chamber, but I will continue to do so because half of our potential economic advantage is locked up and we need to unlock it. The Paid Parental Leave Amendment (More Support for Working Families) Bill 2023 is another small step towards a fairer system, and I commend the government for building on the changes to paid parental leave that came into effect on 1 July last year. The key measures of this bill include extending the scheme by two weeks each year from July 2024 to reach 26 weeks by 2026—currently, a working family can access up to 20 weeks of paid parental—and extending the reserved period for each parent on a 'use it or lose it' basis by one week each year from July 2025 to reach four weeks by 2026 to encourage shared care. Currently, two weeks are reserved for each parent on a 'use it or lose it' basis. Coupled parents will also be able to take up to four weeks of PPL at the same time from 2025. Currently, parents may take up to two weeks together. The 'use it or lose it' element is a critical piece and will help foster a culture where men's role in caregiving becomes accepted and encouraged. The importance of this cannot be overstated. We know from international experience that the key to men taking parental leave is a 'use it or lose it' component for an extended period—that is, more than two weeks. In Denmark, 'use it or lose it' provisions saw a significant increase in men's uptake of parental leave, and men were subsequently more likely to continue shared care of their children throughout the early years. The use of parental leave by fathers in Australia is very low by global standards. Fathers in Australia take less than 20 per cent of the parental leave their international peers take, and, because caring patterns are established in the first year of a child's life, that entrenches stereotypical gender roles. According to the World Economic Forum's Global gender gap report 2020, the gap between how mothers and fathers work, care and earn after a baby is more pronounced in Australia than in comparable nations. We should be encouraging men to take up parental leave to normalise flexible work and shared care responsibilities and to strengthen women's workplace participation and financial security. But it's not only good for women; it's healthy for men. When fathers take parental leave, they, their children and their partners benefit from stronger relationships. This is why I would have liked to have seen a more ambitious non-transferable six-week 'use it or lose it' provision when paid parental leave entitlements grow to 26 weeks by 2026 to incentivise men to access the scheme. The evidence is clear. Accessible and well-funded paid parental leave is crucial if we want people to stay connected to the workforce, but it's also vital to support the health and wellbeing of women, men and children and to improve wider gender equality outcomes. We need to talk about paid parental leave from an investment model, not a deficit model. We need to be bolder. I would like to finish where I started, with the Women's Economic Equality Taskforce ten-year plan. Getting to 26 weeks of paid parental leave by 2026 is only one piece of the plan. As the WEET report outlines, 52 weeks of paid parental leave is where we need to be, and this should be phased in and achieved by 2030. Payments should be at replacement pay level to incentivise men to use it. We need to also legislate the payment of superannuation on all forms of paid parental leave. We also need to legislate to establish and invest in universal, high-quality and affordable early childhood education and care. We need to abolish the childcare subsidy activity test, and, more broadly, we need to elevate the status of care work and attract a diverse and skilled workforce by valuing and adequately compensating care workers. Only when we have all these reforms will we unleash the full capacity and contribution of women to the Australian economy. The evidence is clear, and the case for change is powerful. According to Deloitte Access Economics, removing the persistent and pervasive barriers to women's full and equal participation in economic activity will add $128 billion to the Australian economy. As has been said before, if that were a minerals deposit, everyone would be rushing to get it out of the ground. As Sam Mostyn, the chair of the Women's Economic Equality Taskforce says, women 'are tired of waiting for action to feel safe and valued and have equal access to economic prosperity'. Women's economic equality is one of my key platforms, and I will continue to repeat myself on this issue in this chamber. This bill is another step in the right direction. ADJOURNMENT 74 ADJOURNMENT Lobbyists 74 19:30 Dr RYAN 297660 Kooyong Lobbyists have too much power in parliament. I don't think the general public truly understands how bad this problem is. There are 15 lobbyists for every politician in this place, representing everything from the fossil fuel industry and the banks to big tobacco and big pharma. Those vested interests wouldn't spend millions of dollars on lobbyists if it didn't work. I've seen lobbyists ply their trade firsthand over the last two years. Here's how it works. When the lobbyists get to Parliament House, they get special passes which give them full access to the building. They can, and they do, roam the corridors, meeting with MPs at will. Often, the lobbyists are former politicians themselves, who have been hired because of the connections that they have with the major parties. Our laws shouldn't be bought. They shouldn't be written for vested interests. They should be made in the public interest. The reality is that the major parties won't act to improve trust in politics until we force them to. That's why I launched a national grassroots campaign last year to pass the 'clean up politics act', to stop lobbyists undermining democracy in Australia—and it is working. The campaign is supported by peak integrity bodies and industry groups. Most importantly, it has garnered significant support from the people of Kooyong and other electorates around Australia. People are sick of being taken for a ride by political processes, subverted in favour of those with an inside track to our politicians. We have now secured a Senate inquiry into lobbying, because thousands of people around Australia stood up and demanded that the government finally regulate lobbying. The more than 8,000 people who have signed my 'clean up politics act' petition have moved us one step closer towards stopping that revolving door, so that former politicians can't move straight from politics into a cushy lobbying job. But this is only happening because people around the country are standing up and demanding integrity in politics. They've moved us one step closer to expanding the lobbying register so that it covers all lobbyists, not just a small fraction of the thousands of people walking the halls of this place and influencing the decisions we make here. We've also moved one step closer to opening up ministerial diaries, so that we can see who our ministers are meeting with and why. This 'clean up politics act' is our chance to stand up for integrity, democracy and transparency. I thank you all for your support so far. The major parties might not want to regulate lobbyists, but if thousands more Australians keep advocating for this, we will win. One of the major problems for the major parties is that they have to keep making the lobbying reform case for us. They're doing it every day. We don't have to work at it; the major political parties are laying it all out for us. Just last week, the member for Cook told us that he was resigning from parliament. The former Prime Minister is moving immediately into a job with one of the largest investors in the $368 billion AUKUS defence pact. That should not be allowed. No politician should make decisions at the top levels of government—in some cases in as many as five ministries—and then go straight into helping a private organisation profit from those decisions. And yet it happens all the time. Every single Australian energy minister since 2001 has gone to work in the fossil fuel industry soon after leaving parliament. No-one is under any illusion as to why these former politicians are hired as lobbyists. It's because they give vested interests a big foot in the door. Vested interests are desperate to influence laws to help them improve their profits, not our country. My 'clean up politics act' will shut that revolving door. It will prevent former ministers and their senior staff from becoming lobbyists for up to three years after leaving parliament. The 'clean up politics act' has never been more urgent, and yet the Liberal Party and the Labor Party refuse to even discuss it. The fact that they won't debate it says enough, in and of itself. Hunter Electorate: Australia Day Honours 75 19:34 Mr REPACHOLI 298840 Hunter Compassion, dedication, courage, kindness, stability and service. These words sum up the values embodied by the six Hunter recipients of the Australia Day Honours for 2024. These qualities are what makes Australia special, creating a culture where people help each other and volunteer. Today I extend my heartfelt congratulations to all who have been honoured with distinctions in the Order of Australia, the pinnacle of recognition of our nation's most capable and selfless citizens. Councillor De-Anne Douglas OAM, a councillor on the Muswellbrook council and the CEO of Wanaruah Land Council, received an OAM for service to her community of Muswellbrook. De-Anne is a tireless worker for her community, having served as vice president at the Muswellbrook Chamber of Commerce from 2004 to 2018; coordinator of the Muswellbrook Christmas food and toy appeal since 2000, and the founder of the Muswellbrook community carols in 1999. She also worked as a senior manager of the Muswellbrook PCYC for 15 years, was nominated employee of the year in 2007 in 2019, and took out the New South Wales club of the year in 2015. I want to thank De-Anne for her exceptional contribution to the community, for the inspiration she has shown and for the legacy one person can create in a community. The life of Kylie Facer OAM changed after the birth of her first child, Anika, seven years ago. Anika suffered seizures following her birth and was taken from Newcastle Private to the John Hunter Hospital neonatal intensive care unit, where tests showed she had suffered a stroke. Her parents were told that she had suffered severe brain damage and to basically take her home as there was no rehab or treatment suitable for a child of her age. Fortunately, they were connected to the Cerebral Palsy Alliance and that changed their lives, with Anika receiving early intervention and therapies. The complete lack of resources for families like hers prompted Kylie to seek out others in a similar situation, which led her to Dee Banks, whose daughter also suffered a stroke. Together, they founded Little Stroke Warriors in 2017. This organisation links families from across Australia and New Zealand who have babies and children who had strokes to connect with each other and share resources and knowledge. Congratulations to Kylie, who was recognised for her outstanding service to community health with an OAM. Ellena Morris OAM is known as a living legend in Cessnock. She was awarded an OAM for service to swimming and to people with a disability. She has a list of achievements that is longer than my arm. She has been the head aquatics coach for the Australian Special Olympics team since 2000, the head of delegation since 2004 and a national swimming classifier since 1994. Ellena has been the founding coach and secretary of the Coalfields United Amateur Swimming Club since 1994 and a swim teacher for over 45 years. Thank you, Ellena, for your amazing contribution to our community and for all the kids you have taught, including my girls, Zoe and Asher. The Hunter produces the world's best wines, and there is no bigger name in the Hunter than John 'Jay' Tulloch OAM. Jay is a third-generation vigneron who has been producing wine since 1962. He has served as a committee member of the Hunter Valley Wine and Tourism Association for more than 20 years and has been president for four years. Jay also served as a committee member for the Hunter Valley Wine Show for 22 years and was awarded the living legend award at the Hunter Valley Living Legends and Wine Industry Awards in 2009. He was awarded an OAM for his service to enology. Thank you, Jay, for your dedication to the Hunter and to the wine industry. The late Dr Annette Pantle OAO was awarded an AM for her service to medical administration to professional organisations. Annette was an inspiring leader instrumental in managing risks to patients and public safety in medical practice. Her career in medical leadership and executive roles spanned many organisations and boards. Congratulations to Annette and her family for this award and for recognition of her incredible career. The final recipient is Simon Geraghty PSM, who was awarded the Public Service Medal for his 'outstanding public service in the development of technology platforms providing vital services and access to government services'. Simon was integral in establishing the technology platform that supported the centralised child protection hotline. Congratulations to Simon. And congratulations to all of those award winners. We love what you do from the Hunter. Thank you. (Time expired) Albanese Government 75 19:40 Mr CALDWELL 306489 Fadden It's great to be back in this place, where we intend to hold this terrible Labor government to account for what it is failing to deliver for the Australian people each and every day. We return to parliament after what has been a tough Christmas and new year, certainly for many people in my community, and I'm not just talking about the Christmas Day tornado. Although it's traditionally a happy time of year, it was simply not so for many people enduring hardship during this cost-of-living crisis. The price of the Christmas ham was up. The toys for the kids were more expensive. Petrol in the car: up, again. And then the electricity bill rolled in—up, even more. Net disposable income has fallen by almost $8,000 since Labor came into office. That's a whopping $153 per week worse off. Now, over the last couple of weeks, this Labor government has been trying to fix an inflation problem with a taxation lever—two separate economic issues. Quite frankly, I wouldn't trust them to get either issue right, let alone both of them at the same time. So let me say something about inflation. The Treasurer continues to use words like 'moderate' and 'under control', but the economic reality is that inflation is a rising and compounding burden. Let's not kid ourselves. Labor have done serious and permanent damage to the household budgets of millions of Australians. In about 145 days time, the government is going to offer an additional $15 a week to many Australians, which, quite frankly, they will happily take. But you know what? Australians are rightly sceptical of this Prime Minister and this government, because they know that Labor will give with one hand and take twice as much with the other. Australians are absolutely staggered that the Prime Minister looked them in the eye—and we now know, in cahoots with the Treasurer—misled them on no less than 100 occasions. Up until very recently, the Prime Minister continued to cover his tracks. He said on Seven News on 11 November 2022: 'My word is my bond,' and, 'We said during the election campaign that we would maintain the position that had already been legislated. I've always been a man of my word, and I believe that, when you go to an election and you make commitments, you should stick to them.' Let's put it bluntly: the Prime Minister has let down a whole cohort of Australians who mistakenly took him at his word. In fact, some have suggested that the Prime Minister lied his way into the Lodge by playing a straight bat to tax, taking away the election scrutiny, saying that it wouldn't change, when, all along, that was never going to be the case. After years of waiting, those aspirational Australians amongst us thought they were going to receive their extra tax cut—patiently waiting, after stage 1 and stage 2 had already delivered significant benefits to low- and middle-income earners—only to have it snatched away. The coalition is committed to lower and simpler taxes. We will make decisions on taxation, as we did with the original reform agenda, that will last beyond this week's news cycle for a government showing desperation in the Dunkley by-election. When we take a commitment to the next election, Australians will know that we will keep our word. Now, at some point in the next, maybe, 18 months, we will hear the Prime Minister or the Treasurer or some other minister say, 'Oh, we'll take that to the next election.' But, sadly for millions of Australians, that now means nothing. My constituents in Fadden certainly won't forget, because almost 10,000 hardworking taxpayers will be worse off, come 1 July, than they would have been if the Prime Minister had simply kept his word. People who judged the Prime Minister at his word prior to that last election now know that his next promise that's broken may in fact cut very, very deep. So what will it be? Negative gearing, franking credits, death taxes or the family home? They say that there are two certainties in life: death and taxes. But the real certainty for Australians is that Labor will tax you to death. The SPEAKER 53517 Before I call the member for Fremantle— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The member for Petrie will cease interjecting. I just remind the member for Fadden not to use unparliamentary language in his speeches. Australian Regional Leadership Initiative 76 19:45 Mr JOSH WILSON 265970 Fremantle In January I had the privilege of travelling with parliamentary colleagues to Indonesia as part of the Australian Regional Leadership Initiative. The purpose of the ARLI program, which is delivered by Save the Children and funded by the Gates foundation, is to enable Australian parliamentarians to see a range of development assistance projects in action. Those projects are inevitably life-saving and life changing. They are also both a defining theme and a binding thread of our bilateral and regional relationships. Needless to say, there's no more important relationship in our region than the bond of friendship and cooperation that exists between us and Indonesia. The development partnership we share has enormous benefits that flow in both directions, and it dovetails with our work in trade, diplomacy and defence. As I will always say, there should be no question about the profound and far-reaching positive impact of Australia's aid program. There should be no question about our commitment to saving lives and reducing disadvantage as an expression of our national character and our values, and I'll always argue that development assistance is absolutely the best dollar-for-dollar investment in regional peace and security. I don't want this to be a partisan speech, but, at a time when the ABC Nemesis program has reminded us all of the 2014 budget, it should be remembered that, while some of the madly punitive aspects of that plan were mercifully resisted, the sharp and self-defeating cuts to Australia's aid program were delivered in full. Nearly $8 billion was cut over the first five years, the largest cuts of this kind in Australia's history, and to this day we're still repairing the regional and institutional damage that occurred. But, being temperamentally inclined to dwell on the positive, let me talk a little bit about some of the projects we were able to see in action. In Jakarta, we had the privilege of meeting with the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Indonesia and we heard about the new initiative to form an association of women judges and magistrates as part of efforts to drive greater female participation in Indonesia's judiciary. In Lombok, we visited a village that is involved with the drought anticipatory action program and a madrassa that has incorporated more effective and differentiated teaching methods through the INOVASI program. In Desa Sukarara, we saw the transformative community-mapping exercise that was occurring under Oxfam's Indonesian Women in Leadership project and met the amazingly joyous and grateful recipients of cataract procedures through the Fred Hollows Foundation. I can tell you we all had an eye-cleansing moment when we saw local grandmother Bu Iye embrace and refuse to let go of Nola Marino. In Bali, we met children who had received life-saving treatment through a rabies prevention and response program, and we visited the crisis management centre of the provincial disaster agency, whose equipment and procedures have been improved through the Australia-Indonesia Partnership in Disaster Risk Management. I want to acknowledge the effort, teamwork, collegiality and good humour that characterised our visit across three of Indonesia's remarkable islands. Indonesia is an archipelago of more than 16,000 islands. We only got to visit three, but they were remarkable, and we did that in the course of a packed five-day program. My fellow ARLI participants included Senators Marielle Smith, Bridget McKenzie and David Shoebridge and my colleagues in this place the members for Forrest and Cowper. As has always been my experience on similar delegations, the six of us from around the country and from different parties worked together to learn as much as we could to provide a common perspective on Australia's friendship with Indonesia and to emphasise our shared gratitude for the hospitality we received. The member for Forrest and Senators McKenzie and Smith did some particularly good work engaging with local women leaders when you consider how important it is that our development assistance program as a whole rightly includes an overlying focus on gender equality and the rights of women and girls. I want to thank the excellent folk from the Australian embassy in Jakarta, especially Sophie Roden and Madeleine Moss, who accompanied us for some of the way. I pay special tribute to the Save the Children team—Mat Tinkler, Sarah Carter, Marion Stanton and board member Justin Hanney—for the outstanding variety and quality of the program. We got to do so much, so smoothly in such a short time and in good spirit. But most of all I want to thank the project delivery folk, Indonesians and Australians alike, who do such incredible work—work that is creative, challenging ever-changing and, by turns, uplifting and heartbreaking, as will always be the case when human beings seek to help their fellow sisters and brothers to deal with health crises or natural disasters and to overcome injustice and disadvantage. Those challenges are everywhere. We face them too. The only way to overcome those challenges is through commitment, compassion and cooperation. Road Safety 77 19:50 Mr CHESTER IPZ Gippsland Against the backdrop of increasing road fatalities and trauma, it's just too easy for governments to point the finger at drivers when they should be building safer roads. Last year 1,253 people died on our roads in Australia, which is our worst result in five years, and Victoria hit a 15-year high of 296. The ripple effect throughout the community of a single life lost is felt by families, friends and the first responders who attend the often horrific scenes. We should be appalled by this entirely preventable loss of life and we should be demanding action from all levels of government to work in partnership with the experts and with road users to minimise deaths and injuries. In 2018, two of Australia's most respected road trauma experts, Jeremy Woolley and John Crozier, tabled their recommendations following an independent inquiry into the National Road Safety Strategy. As minister for transport at the time I was determined to provide a national focus on saving lives on our roads, and I asked them to identify the key factors for and provide advice on how we could move towards a safe road transport system which minimises harm to all users, particularly our most vulnerable pedestrians and cyclists. Sadly, five years later, virtually none of their recommendations have been fully implemented, and we have lost our status as one of the world leaders in reducing road trauma. If there were an Olympics for road safety, Australia would not win a medal in 2024. Even if we just implemented their first recommendation, to create strong national leadership by appointing a cabinet minister with specific multiagency responsibility to address the hidden epidemic of road trauma, including its impact on the health system, we would be in a better position than we are today. At least then we would have a minister who could actually be held responsible for the terrible results across Australia in 2023. In the absence of a responsible minister, road safety gets lost in the transport portfolio, and it's too easy for governments of all political stripes to just blame the drivers and focus on enforcement and education campaigns, when a more holistic response is required to address road safety in the nation. Despite being warned that, if we continue on the same pathway, 12,000 Australians would die and road trauma would cost more than $300 billion over the next decade, state and federal ministers have failed to take responsibility for their own failures. Ministers routinely and lazily blame the behaviour of motorists when their governments are also failing to provide a safe road environment, particularly in regional Australia, where a disproportionate amount of trauma occurs. Governments won't even share data on the standard of their road networks, despite repeated requests from the Australian Automobile Association, our nation's peak organisation representing motoring clubs. The AAA correctly points out that, by making federal road funding contingent upon state provision of state-related data, the Commonwealth would then be able to hold the premiers to account. Data transparency would help to save lives. It would curb billions of dollars in waste. It would target funding towards safety outcomes and would deliver the funding integrity that road users want. We are all expected to make sure our cars are roadworthy, but governments are failing to work together to provide car-worthy roads. Regional Victorians are enduring potholes, landslips and crumbling road shoulders, which all contribute to crashes and are a direct result of a lack of maintenance. There's an obsession with spending billions of dollars—and I'm talking about billions of dollars in the infrastructure budget—to save just a few minutes for commuters in the city, when we could be saving lives in our regional areas for a fraction of that cost. There have been ongoing cuts to regional road funding and a failure to maintain road services or invest more in life-saving road treatment outside the city right across my state. Even when the previous federal government put money on the table, we couldn't get the city focused Labor government in Victoria to actually undertake road safety projects, even when the Commonwealth was prepared to pay 80 per cent of the cost. Across regional Victoria, there are high-risk sections of highways and arterial roads which have been the scenes of dozens of crashes, and nothing has been done to address the root cause, which is the condition of the road environment. Too often, a drug-free, sober driver can make one mistake and the poor road environment contributes to their death or life-changing injuries. It is well accepted that road safety is all about a combination of factors, including safer vehicles, safer cars, safer speeds, good driver behaviour and the condition of the road environment. As motorists, we have to take responsibility for our actions on the roads, but we can't do it alone. Reducing road trauma requires national leadership and a willingness to admit that governments must do more in partnership with all road users to save lives and eliminate injuries. I thank the House. Manufacturing Industry 78 19:55 Ms VAMVAKINOU 00AMT Calwell I rise to speak on the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Resources' recently tabled report of its inquiry into developing advanced manufacturing in Australia. As a member of the committee, I was especially pleased to participate in this very important inquiry and I want to thank the member for McEwen for his role as committee chair and for his support of the committee's purpose. I also want to thank the Minister for Industry and Science for tasking our committee with its significant terms of reference. The findings of the committee have very strong relevance and resonance in my electorate of Calwell, with the development of advanced manufacturing in Australia particularly important for job creation in my electorate. With a loss of industry. with the likes of Ford and the associated supply chains, the revival of manufacturing is critical to ensuring that people in my electorate are positioned to meet the needs of today and tomorrow. The report makes 10 sound and firm recommendations, designed to support manufacturers' access to suitable investment capital; to improve R&D commercialisation and industry research collaboration; as well as to address workforce and skill shortages. The committee supports the view that government should review policy options, including local preferential procurement strategies, to encourage and give confidence to Australian industry to invest in local manufacturing. A focus on local preferential procurement strategies, alongside industry confidence measures to encourage investment, building on the Buy Australian Plan, must drive tangible and enduring benefits to local jobs and local industry. The committee recommended that the government commits to establishing a series of significant government owned advanced manufacturing common user facilities in strategic locations as innovation precincts across Australia. This would allow for the scaling up of successful industry and capability development programs for Australian manufacturers. In light of its rounded approach to the manufacturing process across the entire value chain, the report makes clear the need for the fabrication of a structural base of renewable energy technologies as an addition to just the components. This is particularly important to our local capability. As such, adoption would include in the case of wind towers, for example, the manufacture of blades, towers, bases and internal turbine components. In an era when countries around the world are scrambling in their bid for business and influence, new and emerging technologies, and the skills which drive advanced manufacturing, play a key role in an enormous global market that offers finance, jobs and opportunities to key sectors of our economy. Australia must be at the forefront of the rapidly-changing global economic landscape, where economic growth is directly connected to our capacity to match technologies with our workforce. I want to pay tribute to industry and unions, which appeared before the committee and provided evidence helping to inform the work of the committee not as separate or competing interests but collaboratively as a force multiplier for the upward mobility of both workers and industry. This is what a sound, well-rounded sovereign manufacturing capability in Australia requires; it is what must drive advanced manufacturing here in Australia. If we are to bury our heads in the dichotomy of the past about advanced manufacturing and the defeatist and archaic attitude that resigns us to job losses, it will be very harmful to Australia's economic prospects. Not only is it not an inevitability, like some unwritten law, but it is, in fact, within our capacity to compete internationally and to drive economic growth. This is very much about an Australia with job creation across the manufacturing sector, not job losses and industrial transfers away from Australia. What we need to reinforce is that advanced manufacturing is not merely about the machinery involved in the production process in factories; across Australia, advanced manufacturing serves as the basis on which we develop a highly skilled workforce that is at the centre of our nation's capacity to sustain a productive and innovative economy. This is the transformative role of shaping the upskill and reskill settings to meet our critical workforce needs. Through these we can build innovation in new and emerging technologies, we can build Australia's research and development capacity, and we can avoid the divergence of economic fortunes in society. I look forward to seeing the recommendations contained in the report being accepted and adopted by the government—to them being made certain on the ground, both in policy and reality, and being translated into jobs and opportunities for workers and our economy within a sovereign, smart and sustainable manufacturing base in Australia. House adjourned at 20:00 NOTICES 79 NOTICES Presentation 79

Tuesday, 6 February 2024

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

 

CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS 84 CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS Urquhart, Professor Donna 84 16:00 Ms DANIEL 008CH Goldstein ():  On 14 January this year, ultramarathon runner, scientist and mother Donna Urquhart crossed the finish line in Antarctica to set a world record for the longest run in a polar region. She ran an average of 50 kilometres per day over 28 days to reach 1,402 kilometres, eclipsing Pat Farmer's achievement of 1,200 kilometres. Her mission began during the pandemic in 2021, when she asked herself: 'What is possible for humans? What is possible for women? Can we run in a polar region and, if so, how far?' Over the following two years, a team of 15 volunteers developed, including a local physio, Anthony Lance, and they worked incredibly hard to help Donna set foot in Antarctica and to prepare her to face the real dangers of running in a polar region. At the core of this preparation were the training approaches they pioneered, from training on a treadmill in a refrigerated shipping container at minus 10 for four hours at a time, to running in an industrial wind tunnel at wind speeds of up to 100 kilometres per hour. But nothing fully prepares you for running an ultramarathon each day in the coldest, windiest and driest desert on earth. On arrival, Donna was overwhelmed by the enormity of the challenge and the hostile conditions, bitterly cold temperatures of below minus 20 degrees Celsius, howling winds of up to 80 kays per hour and poor visibility. She was afraid, and her confidence wavered. But the transformation over the next 10 days was profound. As she said to me: You don't need to know you can do it. You need to try. I put myself out there—and moved through the fear, the doubt, the pain, the resistance. Donna's next mission is to address the alarmingly high dropout rate of girls in community sport. Research supports the fact that very few differences exist between the participation patterns and attitudes of boys and girls under the age of 12. However, as girls mature there are social and cultural considerations that impact upon their decision to participate in sport during adolescence. Recent Australian Sports Commission data shows that only 32 per cent of girls aged 15-plus play sport at least once per week. There are many reasons why girls stop: lack of confidence, body image issues, social stereotyping, sexism, harassment, lack of female role models and a lack of access to appropriate and affordable facilities. This is why I'm fighting for better facilities at sporting clubs in Goldstein, including the Sandringham Football Club. Girls should have the same opportunities, pathways and facilities as boys in sport—full stop! I'll finish with these words from Donna: At 'Run Antarctica', we believe that sport has the power to change lives. That's why we're on a mission to empower young girls and women to love and discover what's possible for them in sport. I'm proud to call Donna a Goldstein constituent. Isaacs Electorate: Chelsea Community Church of Christ 84 16:03 Mr DREYFUS HWG Isaacs ():  Today, I want to share the remarkable story of Chelsea Community Church of Christ in my electorate of Isaacs. On 17 March this year, the Chelsea Community Church of Christ will celebrate its 100th year of serving the community—a significant milestone. Leading the church is Reverend Judi Turnham. We've known each other for 16 years, starting when we first met following my election to the seat of Isaacs in 2007. Over this time, I've witnessed Reverend Judi's leadership and pastoral care change many people's lives through her openhearted embrace of those most in need. The dedication and commitment shown by Reverend Judi's team in serving the community is exceptional. The church works to support our community in many ways, and I'd like to mention a few here. The first is the church's hot breakfast service. While most of us still sleep, volunteers arrive at the church before dawn every Wednesday to prepare a hot breakfast for around 100 people. I'm told that putting food on plates in this way takes an extraordinary amount of time and effort; however, the selflessness of many church volunteers who make it possible know how important it is. The church also offers what they call Your Pantry. The service started in 2015, and it is a lifeline for people who are experiencing financial hardship or struggling to put food on the table. The service operates with the principles of dignity, privacy and confidentiality. People can choose from a selection of groceries in private, without being judged or made to feel less than others. Reverend Judi Turnham and the church are deeply committed to providing a lifeline in the community. I recall a story that the Reverend told me about a 55-year-old homeless person who found their way to the steps of the church. He was without hope and, sadly, contemplating ending his life. Without judgement, Reverend Judi and her team placed practical and spiritual pastoral care around him, and continued to provide support for over five years. I'm told he is now helping others in the community, a shining example of the triumph of hope over despair. The Chelsea Community Church of Christ is a shining testament to the power of compassion, unity and community service. Under the remarkable leadership of Reverend Judi Turnham and the team around her, the church has touched many people's lives, offering hope, support and a sense of belonging. Thank you, Reverend Judi and your team, for your work to make our community even better. Australia Day Honours and Awards 85 16:06 Mr LLEW O'BRIEN 265991 Wide Bay Wide Bay is fortunate to have so many amazing people who give their time, energy and skills to help others every day without expectation of praise or recognition. Our national honours and awards system acknowledges and celebrates these inspiring Australians for their extraordinary contributions to the community and the significant role they play in making our nation such a wonderful place to live. Several Wide Bay residents were recognised in the 2024 Australia Day honours list, and I congratulate them on receiving this well-earned award and thank them for their remarkable achievements and their contributions to local communities and our great nation. Mr Paul Marden of Pomona received an Australian Fire Service Medal for his many years of service training and supporting auxiliary firefighters, his outstanding leadership capabilities and the impact he has had on enhancing the region's operational capability. Dr Brian Hoepper of Peregian Beach was a recipient of a Medal of the Order of Australia for his service to education, through his work with many educational bodies. Dr Christine McConnell of Noosaville received a Medal of the Order of Australia for her dedication to medicine in regional and remote communities and Antarctica. Mr Morgan Parker of Sunshine Beach was awarded a Medal of the Order of Australia for his service to business. Mrs Bernadette O'Neill of Gympie was awarded a Medal of the Order of Australia for her service to local rugby leg clubs and the community. Ms Julia Davison of Noosa Heads was appointed a Member of the Order of Australia for her significant service to children, to youth and to the community. And Ms Bronwyn Edinger of Tewantin was made a Member of the Order of Australia for her contribution towards advancing the performing arts. I say thank you not only to these incredible Australians but also to all the unsung heroes and selfless volunteers in Wide Bay who work to support community, service, veterans, church, educational, sporting and recreational groups. You make a real and positive difference to the lives of individuals, organisations and animals in need. You are the glue that holds our community together, and without you and all the wonderful work you do Wide Bay and our nation would just not be the same. Thank you, again. Bendigo Electorate: Flooding 85 16:09 Ms CHESTERS 249710 Bendigo Over the break my electorate was impacted again by flooding. It's the second time my electorate has been impacted by flooding in 18 months. The rain started on Christmas Eve and stopped for a brief period. We then had severe storms over New years and then on 7 and 8 January we had the big downpours which triggered flooding again in the northern part of my electorate. These were volumes of rain—for example, 160 millimetres in Redesdale in less than 24 hours—that were unheard of in our part of the world. We received in less than 24 hours what the area would usually receive over three months. There were big dumps of rain on Goornong, Huntly and Heathcote, areas where our water infrastructure just isn't built to handle that volume of rain coming down. Our climate is changing and it is having a big impact on my area because of our inability to manage this volume of water. Unfortunately, we saw the same people who were impacted in the 2022 floods impacted again. I want to give a shout-out to the amazing SES and CFA volunteers who helped community members. This rain happened over the Christmas to new year period. It happened overnight. People found themselves cut off and isolated. In my electorate, once you get outside Greater Bendigo, there are highways between the towns. Towns were again isolated and cut off. I know that lots of regional members experienced this, but for my electorate it's quite new. It is quite new to be isolated in the way that we were for the second time in 18 months. Unfortunately, as I said, the same homes went under. It's estimated that at least 200 homes had water over the floorboards. What is quite tragic for these people is that some of them hadn't settled their insurance claims from the last floods. They say their saving grace is that they didn't lose the kids' Christmas presents because they weren't living there. Whilst the recovery effort is underway, it has been clunky. I truly believe that at local, state and federal government levels we need to work better together to get support to people right now, when they need it. We also need to work better on the recovery and resilience plan. One of the biggest frustrations for people on the night of the big downpour was not knowing where they could go that was safe. We need to make sure that everybody has a plan so that, whether you're preparing for a bushfire or whether you're preparing for a flood, you know to go where it's safe. I really want to say to my community: we're here with you and we'll continue to stand with you to get through this tough period. We know it has been tough, and we'll continue to work to see you rebuild and build back better. Durack Electorate: Community Organisations 86 16:12 Ms PRICE 249308 Durack It's great to be back, but I think we can all safely say that we've enjoyed the welcome break, in being able to spend more time in our electorates and be reminded of the good-natured character of so many Australians. We know that, with the rising cost of living, this Christmas wasn't easy for a lot of Australian families, but we also know that there are a lot of people out there who are doing their bit to assist fellow Australians, and they do it gladly. Today I want to pay tribute to a handful of people who are doing their bit to help their fellow Australians. I'll firstly give a shout-out to May and the team at Geraldton headspace, who I recently had the pleasure of catching up with. We all know that youth in the regions are particularly at risk of suffering poor mental health, so this makes it all the more important that they have someone to talk to about their mental health challenges. I had the pleasure of officially opening Geraldton headspace back in 2016 and I'm so thrilled that it has gone from strength to strength. Headspace is a terrific service for our young people, and I've been pleased to see that in the last 12 months we've created three new headspaces in Durack. I was also lucky to join in the Gingin shire Australia Day celebrations, where we celebrated some wonderful local leaders with the community citizen awards and we also welcomed two new citizens, Georgia and Yi-Wen. All of my colleagues know that one of the absolute favourite things we do is to join people in our electorates at citizenship ceremonies, so it was a thrill to join with the Gingin shire community. Special mention goes to Sylvia Kelly, who I also caught up with at the Gingin event. She is a local legend who's involved with what's called the Gingin Care Group. Among other services, they provide transport to locals for medical appointments in the city. This is such an important service for our locals, particularly our elderly members of the community, who otherwise, I believe, would struggle to get to the city for their medical appointments. Well done to Sylvia and her wonderful caring group of volunteers! I'd also like to pay tribute to the Morangup Progress Association, the Shire of Toodyay and advocates like Frank Vinton, a local student, for bringing the newly renovated half basketball court to life. This local project was supported by the fantastic Stronger Communities Program, which we know was a great program that supported local organisations to develop beautiful, wonderful projects that were so important to the community. It was fantastic to open the court and to shoot some hoops with everyone else. We all had a good time. I was a bit rusty, but I think we all had a good time nonetheless. This is a great example of a local community coming together and making sure that a local project happened. I give a particular shout-out to all our first responders. Many of you are volunteers. We've all had a tough summer. Thank you so much. We are very grateful to all of you. Eden-Monaro Electorate 86 16:15 Ms McBAIN 281988 Eden-Monaro I had the immense pleasure of opening the Narooma mountain bike trails last week. What an incredible new asset they are going to be to the South Coast. We're talking about world-class trails that bring people from across the country to our region, a key driver of our visitor economy and something that we know will only grow. This is an additional 55 new kilometres of single-lane mountain bike trails added to the existing 30 kilometres of trails in the Bodalla State Forest, at Dalmeny. I'm incredibly proud to say that these new trails were made possible by a $4.1 million injection of support from the Australian and New South Wales governments. They form part of more than 250 kilometres of new trails in Narooma, Eden and Mogo and add to the already phenomenal network of mountain bike trails right across Eden-Monaro. The Queanbeyan Bowls Club is marking its 90th birthday this Saturday. Ninety years is an incredibly long time to be in operation, and it's a credit to all the members who have been part of transforming that club over the years. The club's greens were laid during the Great Depression, in 1934, and the club recently installed two synthetic bowling greens to attract new members. It stands out as one of the longest-serving bowls clubs across the region. The club has over 100 active members, including social members. It's an inclusive and social place for so many in our community to meet. It has a very proud pennant record—men and women who have achieved numerous feats at district, zone and state level and even some Australian titles, achievements that we can all be incredibly proud of. Congratulations to all involved in the club and a big happy birthday for this weekend. I want to give a shout-out to some talented Eden-Monaro locals who have been hitting the big time lately. First up, at the 2024 Winter Youth Olympics, Abbey Wilson, from the Snowy Mountains, won bronze in the snowboard cross mixed team event, and 17-year-old Lottie Lodge, from Jindabyne, took home a silver in the dual moguls event. Massive congratulations to Dalmeny snowboarding superstar Valentino Guseli, for a silver medal at the world cup in Switzerland, and to Pambula local and mogul champion Cooper Woods, who also won a silver medal at the world cup. They are very talented athletes, still doing really well in the Northern Hemisphere season. Eden-Monaro locals have been busy taking out awards at the Tamworth Country Music Festival too. Huge congrats to Jindabyne's Brad Cox, who took home three Golden Guitar awards; Snowy Valley's Fanny Lumsden, who had the 2024 alternative country album of the year, Hey Dawn; and the Bega Valley's Cory Legge, who took out the award for the most popular musician or instrumentalist. We're all incredibly proud of your achievements. I have one last shout-out, to Axl Arens, a Bega Valley superstar who, in conjunction with the Wanderer Festival at Pambula Beach last year, raised over $3,000 for headspace. This is nearly $6,000 of money he has raised for headspace— (Time expired) Ceduna: Pensions and Benefits 87 16:18 Mr RAMSEY HWS Grey It gives me no pleasure to be here today raising the issue, once again, of Ceduna. It's a beautiful town in the far west of my electorate, with a population of about 3,200, 25 per cent of whom are Indigenous. It also services a number of outlying remote Indigenous communities—Oak Valley and Yalata, in particular. It is a strong community, which has in the past addressed its challenges head-on and made Ceduna the wonderful place that it has been. Following a South Australian coroner's inquest after six untimely alcohol-related deaths in Ceduna, the previous government worked hand in hand with the Far West Aboriginal Communities Leaders Group to introduce the cashless debit card. The cashless debit card had a few bugs at first, and it was resisted by many, but it was easy to see, over a period of time, the improvement that it made to this community. But, if the improvements of the cashless debit card were steady, the fall-off, the collapse, of social order following its abolition by this government 16 months ago has been like a fall off a cliff. At the moment I am getting inundated with contacts from people in Ceduna who cannot stand the fact that businesses are being broken into regularly, cars are being stolen and trashed, windows are being smashed. I know a gentleman who has had people attempt eight times to break into his house, and twice they were successful. Another person's house has been broken into at least three times, and they've had alcohol, money and all those things taken from their house. People are sick of it. They're worried. They're scared. Tourists are beginning to avoid the community. If someone complains, it's quite likely their car will be targeted and trashed. It is just simply inadmissible behaviour. I want to recount a story. A gentleman called me up on Sunday morning. He said: 'I've got to tell you this. It can't go on.' He's been in the area working with Indigenous people for the last 16 years and has a lot of trust in community. He went down to the roadhouse to buy a newspaper and he talked to a couple of young Indigenous blokes on the way in. He knew them. He said g'day and had a bit of a joke. While he was in there buying his paper, he said the face of the woman behind the checkout froze. He turned around and saw that these young fellas were helping themselves to merchandise. They filled up their pockets and walked out of the store laughing. He chased them and challenged them. They laughed at him. He came back inside and was told that this is happening every day. He said it can't go on. The police feel powerless. In fact, in Ceduna if the police decide to arrest someone and put them in a cell, someone has to go off duty to guard the cells. In fact, they don't feel supported by the courts when they do arrest. The government and the minister need to come back to the community, unannounced, and meet with those people who are being affected by this appalling behaviour. Mental Health 87 16:21 Ms COKER 263547 Corangamite Summer is when we all come together with our family, friends and community to celebrate the year past and to look forward to the year ahead. But, for some, summer can be a time of isolation. Sadly, it is a time when suicide rates peak, a time that can be particularly upsetting when others are out and about playing beach cricket, surfing with friends or enjoying a barbecue with family by the beach. That's why there is no better time to reflect on the importance of mental health support for community members who may feel cut off or detached and to celebrate the local community organisations who go above and beyond to help others out. Organisations like headspace, men's sheds, community houses and our many sporting and arts groups do so much to bring people together. Men's sheds play a key role in this space across the nation, particularly in my electorate of Corangamite. The Albanese government recognises this, and that's why we've supported 89 sheds with a share in more than $500,000 to continue to support health and wellbeing. I was delighted to visit the Ocean Grove and Barwin Valley men's sheds, both of which have received grant funding from the Albanese government to continue their support of the health and wellbeing of men. The Barwon Valley Woodwrights received $3,100 for a bandsaw, drill press and benchtop, while Ocean Grove & District Men's Shed received $2,250 towards first aid training. Federal grants like these are helping men and boys find mateship and social support to help them stay mentally and physically healthy. Through these investments, men's sheds are creating more than just bookshelves and benchtop; they're creating a place where men can come together to share stories and talk about problems. So I encourage all men's sheds to submit for funding. Applications close on 23 February, and grants for defibrillators close on 22 March. Like men's sheds, local sporting clubs play a key role in this area as well, so I'd like to congratulate all our local clubs. Whether you have won a game or are pushing for a premiership, like the Barwon Heads Cricket Club, you all play a key role in bringing together our community and supporting all those who are struggling with mental health. So, to you, our amazing men's sheds and all the other fantastic groups across my region, like the surf life saving clubs and others, thank you. You give so much of your time to bring our communities together. I look forward to supporting you over the coming year. Defence Procurement 88 16:24 Mr STEVENS 176304 Sturt Unfortunately this week we have seen another development of great uncertainty around the surface shipbuilding program in my home state of South Australia. I'm sure members are aware that there is a commitment, which we expect to be honoured by this government, to build nine new Hunter class frigates in my home state of South Australia at the Osborne shipyard. I've followed this project very closely for a long time. I was there in 2015 when the competitive evaluation process was outlined and the commitment given that future frigates would be built in Adelaide. In the wake of the decision to select the BAE Type 26 in 2018 I had the chance to visit the Govan shipyards and see where BAE are making the Type 26 in the UK, much like what we hope will occur in my home state of South Australia but are concerned for. Indeed, I was at the steel cutting for the first blocks to go through the yard at the assembly hall out there at the Osborne South yard in 2020. So it is with heightened concern that just this week we've seen the Labor Premier of South Australia travel to Canberra and indicate that there might be a risk to this program continuing. Now, even more frighteningly, the Labor Premier has said that the commitment needs to be for at least six vessels built in Adelaide. It didn't take much for him to knock out three vessels, billions of dollars and thousands of jobs for many years at the mere utterance of that sentence. Nonetheless, even that commitment couldn't be secured this week. Of course, we've had this concept of the surface ship review, which some reports indicate could see the whole program scrapped. There's been no denial of that from the defence minister and no confirmation of that program going ahead. It's frightening for people who rely on this opportunity into the future. That's thousands of direct jobs and thousands of indirect jobs in Adelaide underpinning the industrial capability of not only shipbuilding but also a whole range of other industries. We are even told that the surface fleet review might not be released on time this month, in February. This is getting to be absolutely ridiculous. The government has that report, and thousands of jobs are on the line. If they've got a plan to scrap that program or scale it back, they should come clean. I hope that's not the case, and if it's not the case then give us that certainty and those guarantees because in Adelaide we're sick of people playing games with these things. That's all we've got from this minister and this government and it's just not good enough for the workers involved. Newcastle Electorate: Medicare 88 16:27 Ms CLAYDON 248181 Newcastle I want to give a very big happy 40th birthday shout-out to Medicare today. After a decade of Liberal government cuts and neglect we now have a government that fully understands the value of investing in universal health care, and the results are showing. On 1 November the Albanese government tripled the bulk-billing incentives for GPs, making trips to the doctor cheaper for children, pensioners and concession card holders. That change has resulted in an increase of 2.7 per cent in the bulk-billing rates in Newcastle. That means 1,300 more bulk billed visits since November and a saving of $61,000 to Novacastrians. It's helping people like Matthew of Carrington, who wrote to me saying: Sharon, I want to thank you and the government for tripling the bulkbilling. My health was failing because I couldn't afford to pay to see a GP. Just found a wonderful doctor who not only bulkbills but is very caring and getting my health back on track. By the government increasing bulkbilling I can now be able to visit the doctor on a more regular basis. Another constituent, who's a pensioner, told me of her relief at being bulk billed at her last visit to the GP. When she found out it was because Labor had tripled the bulk-billing incentive, she said: This is such wonderful news as I feel like I can now go to the doctor more often and not put it off. These are great stories to hear. Sadly, they're still not commonplace. Our incentives are very carefully targeted to the most vulnerable cohorts in our community, yet I know many people remain struggling to get access to a bulk-billing doctor in Newcastle. Everyone should have access to affordable quality primary health care. That's what Labor stands for. The former government's successive cuts and neglect of Medicare have left our GP system in a state of crisis, particularly in Newcastle. It means that rates, for the first time in 10 years, have stopped the downward spiral. They're stabilising, and we've seen an upward trajectory, but the base that we start from is very low. I really encourage Newcastle's GPs to take up this financial incentive and consequently pass on critical savings to their patients by providing bulk-billing services to those in need. I also ask Novocastrians to stay in touch with me and my office so we can help track those changes and I can hear firsthand the difference that you are seeing in your health as a result of GPs taking up these incentives to do bulk-billing. We still have lots of work to do, but the recent uptick in the bulk-billing rates is very heartening. As I said, for the first time in 10 years it has put a stop to the downward spiral, but there is more to do. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 230886 In accordance with standing order 193, the time for members' constituency statements has concluded. BILLS 89 BILLS Customs Tariff Amendment (Incorporation of Proposals) Bill (No. 2) 2023 89

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

Second Reading 89 16:30 Mr McCORMACK 219646 Riverina There are several elements to this bill, and I appreciate the fact that the Deputy Manager of Opposition Business, the member for Page, who is also shadow minister for trade and tourism, has spoken on this legislation and the fact that the coalition is supportive, for any number of reasons, which I will outline and go through. As I say, there are a number of aspects to the Customs Tariff Amendment (Incorporation of Proposals) Bill (No. 2) 2023. The first measure is the expansion in the scope of the types of goods specified in the agreement between the government of Australia and European Space Agency for a cooperative space vehicle tracking program. Space, some might argue, is the final frontier, although there are large areas of our oceans we've yet to explore. But ask any child at school studying science and they will say that they are very excited by space and the prospect of further exploration. I want to give a bit of a shout-out to John Sarkissian at the radio telescope at Parkes—the dish—and the work that he does. This is important. Indeed, aspects of this bill will allow the duty-free entry of equipment, material, supplies and other property that are for the European Space Agency, are for use in agreed activities under the agreement and are imported by persons employed or engaged by the European Space Agency. It's vital that we have good links and good associations with European Space Agency, and I commend the Morrison government for the work that we did in implementing a national space program centred on Adelaide. All the work that we did in that regard and the funding and the investment that we made was so very important. This particular aspect of the bill will also enable the duty-free entry of personal and household goods imported by those persons I mentioned before. The European Space Agency is currently undertaking an expansion of their facility in Western Australia to include a new 35-metre diameter deep space antenna for communicating with various space science missions and a biomass calibration transponder to support the 2024 biomass mission, which aims to provide critical information about forests globally and improve our understanding of the role forests play in the carbon cycle, because it's not just investigating and exploring space, the final frontier; it's also how that will help us determine how the universe evolved and, indeed—perhaps even more importantly than where we came from in the past—where we are going in the future. Things such as forests, the carbon cycle, the environment, weather patterns—all of those—are aided and assisted by having the right technology and the right investment in space programs. Parkes is front and centre of that, as is Western Australia, with that particular facility there, and Adelaide, with the National Space Program that we have developed there. The second measure extends the duration of the temporary duty reduction for Ukrainian goods for an additional year. This measure is aimed at assisting Ukraine's continued participation in global trade. It supports Ukraine's endeavours to uphold its territorial integrity in response to Russia's illegal and immoral invasion, and it is necessary for the protection of Australia's essential security interests. I'm sure that Vladimir Putin thought he could just roll into Ukraine, like Hitler did in Poland in September 1939, and win in a matter of hours if not days. What do you know? The Ukrainian people have to be admired for their courage, resistance and resilience and for thwarting that immoral and illegal invasion. As a demonstration of Australia's ongoing support for the people of Ukraine, who have borne a terrible toll from Russia's invasion of their country, their free rate of customs duty will continue to apply to goods other than alcohol, tobacco, petroleum and fuel products that are the produce or manufacture of Ukraine until 3 July. The coalition wholeheartedly supports Ukraine's defence against the Russian invasion, and I know the government does, too. Last year, the coalition wrote to the foreign minister, Senator Wong, and the defence minister, the Deputy Prime Minister, the member for Corio, requesting that the government provide further support to Ukraine in addition to the $285 million of support delivered by the former government. I do appreciate—and I mean this genuinely, earnestly and sincerely—the efforts that the government has gone to in supporting Ukraine's efforts. I do. But there is more to be done. While it's a little aside from this particular bill, we do need to be upfront and certain about why we are holding back helicopters and why we haven't given enough Bushmasters to Ukraine's efforts. We need to do that, because we need to make every effort to help Ukraine repel this invasion. So far, Australia's aid to Ukraine is about $910 million. To be honest, that is an investment in world peace and democracy. We've committed to delivering 120 Bushmasters. The Bushmaster is a homegrown, homemade armoured personnel carrier that has provably saved numerous Australian and Ukrainian lives in conflicts past. It's built in Bendigo, so I'm sure the member for Bendigo would endorse my remarks. The third measure in this bill enables certain goods to be imported with a free rate of customs duty where goods are imported from 1 January 2022 and are prescribed by by-law for a specified international sporting gathering or event. The first event prescribed was the 2023 FIFA Women's World Cup. You would have thought, with the celebrations and euphoria surrounding that, that the Matildas would have won it, but they didn't. Imagine had they won it! And I wish they had. But it united Australia. Sport does that. It's got the great capacity and ability to unite Australians when other events or other people—such as politicians—cannot. Good luck to the Matildas. Just last Friday, the seventh football season of the Southern NSW Women's League began in earnest in Wagga Wagga. I am very pleased that the sports minister actually is endorsing the competition, and I thank her for that. She knows as well as I do that women's Australian rules is the fastest-growing sport in Australia. There are so many involved. There are 650 women and girls in and around Wagga Wagga alone in the youth and senior women's competitions, let alone in the schools competition. I thank Marc Geppert from AFL Riverina for the efforts he's gone to for that. But we get back to the bill. The retrospective commencement date has the benefit of enabling those who imported such goods from New Year's Day 2022 to apply for a refund of the import duties they have paid. As I say, sporting events are important. I'm very disappointed the Commonwealth Games in 2026 have been cancelled by Victoria, but that's a disappointment for Melbourne and Victoria. I know it was going to be held in regional Victoria, but well done to Melbourne for hosting another successful Australian Open, and congratulations to Jayne Hrdlicka. That tournament and her comments thereafter were all class. The fourth measure in the bill is the extension of the temporary additional duty for Russian and Belarusian goods for a further 24 months. The additional rate of 35 per cent will therefore continue to apply to goods which are the produce of or manufactured in Russia or Belarus, in addition to the general rate of customs duty that applies to these goods. Now, we know that it is important that this apply. We know that it is vital that a message is sent to clearly enunciate Australia's position on this. It's not just the coalition's position; it is the Labor government's position as well. That's why we're supporting this. I think we are as one in ensuring that a clear and unequivocal message is sent, and underlined, from Canberra and from Australia that this needs to be so. The additional duty applies to goods for home consumption entering between 25 April 2022 and 24 October next year, other than those that are eligible for a schedule 4 concessional item or that left for direct shipment to Australia from a place of manufacture or warehouse prior to Anzac Day 2022. This measure is a direct response to Russia's illegal invasion of Ukraine, which was supported by Belarus. I say again that, as a parliament, we are as one in saying that this invasion is wrong and that this invasion needs to be thwarted. I know I am not alone in supporting the marvellous leadership of Zelenskyy and in supporting the people of Ukraine for their efforts thus far and for what they will do in the future to ensure that right wins over wrong. It was the coalition that, in government, announced on 31 March 2022, prior to the election, that Australia would join like-minded countries in temporarily removing what was called most-favoured-nation tariff treatment and imposing an additional duty on goods from Russia and Belarus. Ordinarily, goods from Russia and Belarus would be subject to the general rate of customs duty—most commonly five per cent or, indeed, free. Instead, most goods that are the produce of manufacture in Russia and Belarus are subject to a temporary rate of customs duty of 35 per cent, in addition to the general rate of customs duty that would ordinarily have applied to these goods. The temporarily removal of MFN treatment and most-favoured-nation status and the imposition of additional duty was a response to the invasion. Too many innocent lives have been lost in Ukraine. Too much blood has been shed. The bombing of maternity hospitals and other places which should be of sanctuary and safety in Ukraine is beyond belief. Unless Australia and other like-minded nations stand up, then the world gives in to bullies, and we have way too many bullies in the world at the moment. They need to be stood up to. They need to be repelled. This timely and appropriate legislation helps with that. It assists with that, and I commend it to the House. 16:44 Ms O'NEIL 140590 Hotham I thank the member for Riverina for what was, broadly, a typically very thoughtful and sensible contribution. I really want to thank him for making the time to speak in this debate and also for sharing with the House a little bit about the unique implications this has for his own community. Of course, Parkes dish belongs right in the heart of Riverina, and he's the proud custodian of what is an enormously important piece of infrastructure for our country. Thank you to the member for Riverina, and thank you to all the members who made the time to speak on what is an important bill before the House today. The Customs Tariff Amendment (Incorporation of Proposals) Bill (No. 2) 2023 will amend the Customs Tariff Act 1995 to incorporate the amendments in four customs tariff proposals that were moved in the House of Representatives in 2023. I'll very briefly go through the changes for the House. The first is that the amendments contained in the bill will alter table item 9 of schedule 4 to provide a free rate of customs duty to goods that are covered by the agreement between the government of Australia and the European Space Agency for a cooperative space vehicle tracking program. As a result, materials, equipment and supplies that will be used in certain projects and in personal and household goods of persons employed or engaged by the European Space Agency will be eligible for concessional treatment on import. The second change relates to something I know everyone in this parliament was enthusiastic to get behind, and that is concessional rates for things related to the 2023 FIFA Women's World Cup. These amendments insert a new table item 59 into schedule 4 to provide a free rate of customs duty to goods for use in connection with an international sporting event to which the Australian government has agreed to provide a customs duty concession. This has allowed specified goods for sporting events such as the 2023 FIFA Women's World Cup to access concessional treatments when imported. The final two changes are very important for this parliament. We have stood as one parliament very unified in our disgust, frankly, at the illegal and immoral invasion of Ukraine, a great democracy of the world, by Russia. There are ways we can use customs and tariffs to demonstrate and support Ukraine and also to show our distaste for the actions of Russia. This bill will ensure that we reduce the rate of customs duty for Ukrainian goods as they are imported to Australia. Under this extension, goods other than fuel, tobacco, alcohol and petroleum products will be eligible for a free rate of customs duty. The bill also extends for 24 months the 35 per cent additional customs duty on goods that are the product or manufacture of Russia or Belarus in direct response to the continuation of Russia's illegal, immoral and unprovoked invasion of Ukraine with the support of Belarus. In summary, this is a really important bill that helps us engage in the world of space, supports Ukraine, penalises Russia and Belarus and supports an international sporting event that was hugely enlivening and supportive of women's sport around our country. I'm really pleased to commend the bill to the House. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. Ordered that this bill be reported to the House without amendment. COAG Legislation Amendment Bill 2023 91

COAG Legislation Amendment Bill 2023

Second Reading 91 16:48 Mr STEVENS 176304 Sturt Indeed, the COAG Legislation Amendment Bill 2023 was brought before the last parliament largely by the previous government. Maybe everyone recalls that the bill didn't pass the parliament and that the opposition at the time had an issue with it regarding the FOI exemptions to the National Cabinet process. We now find the new government bringing almost the exact same bill back, but, indeed, this bill doesn't have the protections for deliberations by National Cabinet from that process. What is said in opposition must be honoured in government, indeed. We hold that view, at least on this side of the House, in all matters. The government is seen to be honouring something that perhaps, now they're in government, they might regret having set such an unnecessarily significant precedent for while in opposition. I do believe very strongly that cabinet processes and indeed the National Cabinet should benefit from that frank ability to communicate without absolutely everything that goes before cabinet being subject to public disclosure. It's fundamental to the Westminster system, to be honest. The National Cabinet is almost exclusively a Labor gathering now, so I don't necessarily indicate an issue with them honouring what they said in the last term in that regard. Nonetheless, that is the position that is advanced in this bill and the only difference in this bill from the bill that came before the last parliament. I just want to add something quickly and briefly on our federation. Frankly, because we're talking about the way our governments work together, this is an opportunity. I think most people would agree that, if anyone in another country want to understand how our federation works and what levels of government does what, the last thing they should do is read the Australian Constitution. If you did that and you saw what the responsibilities of the federal government and the state governments are, it would bear no resemblance to the reality of what happens. That's because, effectively, as a Commonwealth government, we have enormous revenue-raising capabilities and, slowly but surely, over the decades, it has become the reality that areas that used to be the exclusive responsibility of states now very much are partnerships between the federal government and state governments. I'm not criticising that; I'm just pointing it out. There is perhaps an efficiency question around the way in which the federal government and state governments deliver services together and whether that is or isn't ideal. It wasn't until the early 1960s, for example, that there was a federal education minister. I think John Gorton, in the Menzies government, was the first education minister. It was certainly that government that stepped in in a significant way to the Commonwealth funding private school education, which I strongly support us doing. If you look at the early cabinets of federal government, they were small and they didn't have anywhere near the sorts of portfolios that we now have. Again, without criticising, I'd like to make the point that there are enormous non-party political, non-partisan opportunities for reform. Having worked in state government and federal government, I certainly would be a willing and eager supporter of ways to make the way we deliver government a little cleaner and a little more efficient. Certainly, governments need to talk to each other and work together on a whole range of things, and this bill is essentially about a new framework for that and about making some small changes to facilitate it around other legislation et cetera. I'd just briefly make the point that I think we should consider federation reform as something that is a significant opportunity and something that is possibly a way in which both sides of politics could work together. It so happens that the Labor Party—good luck to them!—are in government almost everywhere at the moment, and I wish that wasn't the case and hope it not to be the case at every opportunity we have to change governments from red to blue at state and federal elections. The reality is that over the decades about 50 per cent of the time one side will be in government and, likewise, 50 per cent of the time the other, no matter what jurisdiction you're in, if our democracy is functioning as well as it should. Having our different levels of government working in a more efficient way and perhaps reconsidering some of the duplication that we have is, I think, worthy of reform. It won't happen through partisan political fights, and I'm not advocating for that or seeking that, but I do think we should reflect on opportunities that are there for us to have some agreement around whether or not parts of how the federal government interacts with state and territory governments could be more efficient and reflect on the way in which major reforms could achieve significant impact in efficient service delivery, which we all surely want to see. With those comments, I just reconfirm the position of the opposition. We're looking for this to go to a Senate inquiry to reflect on some elements of the bill. We have no issue with it passing through this chamber and may not, depending on the outcome of a Senate inquiry, have any issues or any changes to suggest. With that, I commend the second reading to the House. 16:54 Mr GORMAN 74519 Perth In summing up this debate, I want to thank members who chose to contribute to this very important discussion about the future of our federation. As I do, I note the sentiments of the opposition speaker before me, who did very wisely note that some of these things don't need partisanship. Indeed, they need us all to vote together. In that spirit, I hope that those opposite will vote for and support this bill, just as they did when they were in government. In summary, the COAG Legislation Amendment Bill 2023 seeks to update outdated references to the Council of Australian Governments, which is loved and known in Canberra and beyond as COAG in various acts and pieces of legislation. It does so to reflect the new and practical reality of the architecture for federal-state relations. Australia federated for a better future for our people, and the federal system has been the backbone to critical services such as education, health care and environmental protection. Over our history, as many have noted, COAG has changed. It was key for intergovernmental cooperation for 28 years, then on 13 March 2020 National Cabinet was established, initially in response to the need for enhanced collaboration between the Commonwealth and the states on the COVID-19 pandemic. Now, this bill seeks to prepare the federation for the future. It reflects the cessation of COAG in legislation as recommended by the 2020 Review of COAG Councils and Ministerial Forums led by Mr Peter Conran AM. It will also avoid future amendments to legislation as names of various ministerial forums change. The bill will rename the COAG Reform Fund as the Federation Reform Fund and reflect this updated title in other legislation where it occurs. The bill replaces references to COAG with the more general term 'First Ministers' Council' where it does occur in legislation. That ensures that the decisions of first ministers will stand, regardless of the forum or the nature of its name. This bill also reflects the establishment of a new architecture of federal-state relations by updating the language around ministerial councils and forums. This bill will insert a new definition of 'ministerial council' to ensure consistency across legislation. This will avoid the need for further legislative amendments if the names of the ministerial forums change. Following this bill's passage through the Commonwealth parliament, states and territories will look to adopt necessary measures through their own legislation. This bill backs the federation and ensures we are best placed to meet our shared challenges for the future. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. Ordered that this bill be reported to the House without amendment. BILLS 93 BILLS Australian Research Council Amendment (Review Response) Bill 2023 93

Australian Research Council Amendment (Review Response) Bill 2023

Second Reading 93 16:57 Ms MILLER-FROST 296272 Boothby I rise today to speak to the Australian Research Council Amendment (Review Response) Bill 2023. Research is such an important part of our modern society, contributing to our quality of life and our way of life. Imagine our industrial sector without research into product development. Imagine agriculture without research into cropping techniques, the food industry, the wine industry, the defence industry, modern manufacturing and social services. Research can make our lives better. It can make our economy better. It's a fundamental tool driving our modern society, and it can be a competitive advantage against other countries. The Australian Research Council, or the ARC, was established in 2001 out of previous Commonwealth government grant schemes. Its purpose is to grow knowledge and innovation for the benefit of the Australian community through funding the highest quality research; assessing the quality, engagement and impact of research; and providing advice on research matters. The ARC supports the highest quality fundamental and applied research and research training, and it encourages national competition across all disciplines outside of clinical and other medical research. It is a central pillar in Australia's research landscape, administering the National Competitive Grants Program, the NCGP, and assessing the quality, engagement and impact of the research. The ARC safeguards research integrity and provides advice and support to the Australian government on research matters. It also facilitates partnerships between researchers, industry, government, community organisations and the international community. It provides research funding on a competitive grants basis to individuals, research teams and large-scale centres through two broad arms: the Discovery Program, which supports individuals and small teams, and the Linkage Program, which creates links between universities, industry and other partners. It also delivers Excellence in Research for Australia, which assesses research quality within Australia's higher education institutions. ERA provides a national stocktake, by research discipline, against international benchmarks and it administers engagement and impact assessment, which evaluates the engagement of researchers with end users and shows how universities are translating their research into economic, social, environmental, cultural and other public good. The ARC will invest over $895 million in research in 2023-24 to the most dynamic researchers in Australia, a significant component of Australia's investment in research and development. I recently opened the ARC Training Centre for Biofilm Research and Innovation at Flinders University, in Adelaide. This is an excellent example of the type of research and industry collaboration that the ARC encourages, with five universities and 11 industry partners involved in the research on biofouling. Biofouling is when organisms—from single-cell organisms through algae to barnacles—attach themselves to submerged parts of a vessel or equipment. Once biofilms are established, they are almost impossible to eradicate, impacting a ship's hull, drag and manoeuvrability, reducing energy efficiency of vessels and increasing fuel consumption. The ARC biofilm training centre will train, mentor and foster close partnerships between highly qualified professionals and engineers in an interdisciplinary model, to find innovative biofouling control solutions. It is expected to attract 14 PhD students, 40 researchers, four research fellows and six research assistants. Of course, an important part of research is research translation—application to real-world processes. Among the most significant outcomes will be a generation of industry-focused researchers critical for growing Australia's defence industry capability, which will make Australia a world leader in sustainment of maritime platforms and maintenance. This is just one example of the sort of research the ARC supports. Other recent research centres around the country include topics as diverse as those of the ARC Training Centre for Optimal Ageing, the ARC Research Hub in Intelligent Robotic Systems for Real-Time Asset Management and the ARC Research Hub for Advanced Manufacturing with 2D Materials. Topics of smaller grants have included biases embedded in leadership selection processes that keep the glass ceiling intact; how extreme weather events are affecting Australians' residential choices; infrastructure planning, disaster management and strengthening the Australian community's resilience; and creating a greater awareness of disability and increasing the capacity to combat ableism and discrimination for emerging disabled writers. ARC grants are a prestigious and effective way for the federal government to fund a diverse range of research outcomes, including partnerships with industry and, importantly, research translation. Ultimately, it aims to make a better Australia. The ARC Act has not been reviewed since it was established in 2001 and does not reflect the range of functions now being undertaken or provide the framework required to support the evolution of the agency. In August 2022 the Minister for Education appointed Professor Margaret Sheil AO, Professor Susan Dodds and Professor Mark Hutchinson to conduct the first comprehensive review of the ARC Act. The ARC review's final report was released in April 2023. The Australian government announced its response to the ARC review recommendations in August 2023 and agreed, or agreed in principle, to all 10 recommendations to enhance the ARC's role, purpose, oversight and budgetary arrangements so that it may continue to best support Australia's dynamic research landscape. The bill has strong support from the sector, which was also strongly supportive of the ARC review final report and the government's response. The purpose of the Australian Research Council Amendment (Review Response) Bill 2023 is to amend the ARC Act to enhance the ARC's role, to better support Australia's dynamic research landscape. The bill refreshes the ARC's enabling legislation, providing a renewed focus on the integrity of decision-making processes and the outcomes from publicly funded research. A modernised role of the ARC will be reflected in the objects of the ARC Act so that it will clearly define the important role and place the ARC has in supporting Australia's research community and landscape, as opposed to the current legislation that only highlights grants processing. An Australian Research Council board, appointed by the minister, will be established as the accountable authority of the ARC, enabling the independence and integrity of the agency and its decision-making processes and providing clear and empowered governance over the ARC. The board's functions will be to appoint the chief executive officer, consistent with policy for the meritorious appointment of statutory officeholders; to establish and appoint members to board committees, including the College of Experts; to approve funding for research projects; and to provide advice to the government on ARC's policies, priorities and strategies. Importantly, the board will approve research grants under the National Competitive Grants Program. This is one of the critical changes recommended by the ARC review. Under the existing act, these decisions are made by the minister. Over time this has allowed for political interference to seep into what should be an independent, peer reviewed process aimed at expanding our nation's knowledge base. The membership of the board will reflect the diversity of the general community. It will include persons with professional credibility and significant standing in one or more fields of research or in the management of research, an Indigenous person and a person who represents regional, rural and remote Australians. The bill intends that an annual appropriation replace special appropriation arrangements for the ARC's administered funding, consistent with recommendation from the ARC review for a more durable and flexible arrangement. Indexation based on the consumer price index will be applied as part of the annual appropriation on 1 July each financial year. The Minister for Finance has also agreed to an indexation floor to protect against CPI fluctuations below zero per cent that is consistent with the arrangements in sections 198.10(1) and 198.10(2) of the Higher Education Support Act 2003. The minister will retain the right to direct the ARC not to fund or to terminate funding for research grants, based on national security concerns, including those identified by the National Intelligence Community agencies. If the minister exercises the termination power, the minister may also require repayment of an amount of funding, if appropriate. If the minister intervenes to not fund or to terminate a grant, the minister will table a statement in each house of the parliament within 15 sitting days of a decision detailing the day on which the minister made the decision and a description of the research program to which the decision relates. The minister will also report the exercise of the national security powers to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security and offer a private briefing to the committee. The ARC annual report, prepared by the board, will also specify the number of times the powers have been exercised by the minister. The role of the ARC is an important one to keep Australia at the forefront of research in scientific, social and industrial knowledge, and it is important that it remains fit for purpose. This bill supports that aim, and I commend the bill to the House. 17:08 Dr RYAN 297660 Kooyong I also rise to speak to the Australian Research Council Amendment (Review Response) Bill 2023. Spending by our federal government should comply with the Commonwealth Grants Rules and Guidelines. It should be effective, efficient, economical and ethical. The government should plan all spending programs based on its identified aims. It should determine the size and purpose of the grants to be expended, issue guidelines to potential applicants, arrange independent evaluation of submissions, disburse those funds, critically assess the effectiveness of the expenditure and report back to the taxpayer. All government programs must be critically reviewed at regular intervals, given the increasing evidence of decayed Public Service processes and systemic political interference in their actions in this country in recent decades. Last year the ANAO released a scathing indictment of both the Morrison government and the Commonwealth Department of Health and Aged Care's implementation of the Community Health and Hospitals Program. In administering that scheme, more than a billion dollars was allocated from what was essentially a slush fund, from which the health minister handed out grants without any competitive processes or Public Service advice. These were precious health dollars which largely went to marginal electorates rather than those which need it the most: the rural and remote communities. These were dollars which might well have saved Australian lives had they been better spent. In recent years, other health department programs have been similarly subverted. Concerns have long been expressed around allocations from the Medical Research Future Fund. By 2020, 65 per cent of the funds allocated from that fund by the health minister—65 per cent of MRFF spending—were noncompetitive. Sadly, we've also had concerns about the administration of the Australian Research Council in recent years. The federal government is a major funder of basic research in Australia. It issues about $830 million in grants every year via the ARC. There are a variety of grants for researchers at different stages of their careers as well as grants for specific research projects. Researchers put a huge amount of effort into applying for these grants. Independent experts at the ARC assess all applications, and they make funding recommendations to the federal education minister for approval. It's a tough process. It's very competitive. Only about one in six applications is successful. And it's always worth us remembering that ARC funding can make the difference between researchers and their employees—their team members and lab members—keeping or losing their jobs. In some institutions, receipt of funds from groups such as the ARC are a hard barrier to promotion. The need to be successful in grant applications has compounded gender disparity at a professorial level in many research disciplines in this country. Unfortunately, as the education minister himself has said, the ARC has been bedevilled by political interference in the last decade. From 2018 to 2019, Senator Simon Birmingham, then the Minister For Education And Training, vetoed 11 research grants recommended by the ARC. In 2020, the member for Wannon vetoed five. On Christmas Eve 2021, the then acting education minister, Stuart Robert, vetoed six projects on the grounds that they did not demonstrate value for taxpayers' money nor contributed to the national interest—a description one might easily apply to that minister himself! Each of those six rejected projects was in the humanities. Four were in literary studies. This shameful interference in the academic process was not only disrespectful to academics who submitted applications based on their career-long professional interests; it was also utterly disrespectful of the generosity and the expertise of the scholars who gave their time to assess those applications. I know that the minister's decision was condemned by numerous prestigious national and international bodies. That is embarrassing for us as a country. This political intervention flies in the face of the research principle of academic autonomy. In some cases, the Morrison government deliberately acted to silence competing voices, such as those of students looking to study the extent and impact of climate change. We also saw the Morrison government use grant announcements for political PR. They trickled out announcements via media releases over weeks or months to increase the ability of the local minister and MPs to render political capital from them. Research training centres at the University of Melbourne and Monash University—neither being supporters of or employing my own research—were announced not by their local MPs, who were not members of the government; instead, those big funding allocations were announced by Morrison government MPs from nearby electorates. This was all about political capital for the former government and not about science or academic progress. This behaviour costs all Australians. Researchers have suffered from the stress of waiting for the results of grant applications, which, in many instances, have been delayed. They've missed opportunities to apply for other grants. In some cases, they have picked up and left the institution, the field or even the country because of their frustration and disgust with the process. Members of review panels have quit and also removed themselves from the process. Subversion of the ARC grant process has made it harder for universities to recruit and retain staff. It has damaged our international reputation. This is obviously bad for our universities but it's also bad for those businesses which attempt to engage in research with our universities. And so in 2022 the incoming Minister for Education commissioned an independent review of the ARC. This was the first comprehensive assessment of the ARC and its enabling legislation since its inception in 2001. The review ultimately made 10 recommendations, including those to amend the act to provide greater clarity of the ARC's purpose and functions, to strengthen governance and accountability arrangements by establishing a board for the ARC, and to reduce the legislative burden and increase accounting flexibility for the funding of research programs. In response, the Albanese government has produced this bill, the Australian Research Council Amendment (Review Response) Bill 2023, which implements six of the review's 10 recommendations. Legislative reform is not needed to implement the outstanding recommendations. I commend the government for amending the objects of the act and the role and mission of the ARC, with a stronger focus on its impact and purpose. It makes sense to establish a board to ensure the independence and integrity of the ARC and its decision-making processes. The bills also ensures that parliamentary scrutiny will be reserved for funding guidelines, which the minister will be responsible for. This has been designed specifically as a safeguard against the politicisation of research grant decisions. The bill also amends the current funding arrangements to ensure greater flexibility for the future. Specifically, capped special appropriation for research funding has been replaced with a provision for annual appropriation, which will reduce the administrative burden of annually updating capped funding amounts via legislative amendments. Board decisions must be made in accordance with the funding rules made by the minister and after considering advice following expert and peer review processes. I do note, though, that the minister retains the power to approve nationally significant investments for projects which he or she feels will drive research infrastructure, training and collaboration. Mr Deputy Speaker, this legislation is not perfect. Members of the board will be appointed by the Minister for Education. While the legislation suggests that they should comprise an appropriate mix of skills based appointees with sector experience and appropriate industry and governance experience, I note that there are no stipulations as to their qualifications. So essentially this is still a situation where the minister has carte blanche regarding the membership of the ARC board, which will be advising him on some pretty important issues. I would suggest that at least some of those representatives should have ex-officio positions. Obvious examples would include the Chief Scientist and a senior representative from the NHMRC. It's not clear from this legislation whether or not board members will be excluded from office should they hold current ARC or other federal grants. I'm not convinced that conflicts of interest have been adequately addressed in this legislation other than via ministerial discretion. Finally, and possibly most importantly, we still await a definitive position from the government regarding the review's recommendation 10, which concerned the evaluation of excellence and impact. The independent review addressed the risks associated with replacing Excellence in Research for Australia, ERA, which is Australia's national research quality assessment, and its companion assessment, the engagement and impact measure, or EI, with a metrics based method. Metrics based approaches to assessing excellence and impact in research, I can tell you, Mr Deputy Speaker, can be inherently flawed or biased, can be gamed, and don't work well. A division having been called in the House of Representatives— Sitting suspended from 17:19 to 17:31 17:31 Dr RYAN 297660 Kooyong As I was saying, metrics based approaches to research to evaluate excellence and impact can be inherently flawed or biased. The government has signalled that the ERA and EI initiatives will not continue in their current form, and it's now asked the Australian Universities Accord Panel to advise on how best to measure impact and engagement in university research. That advice was given by the Universities Accord Panel to the government at the end of last year, but it has not informed this legislation. It's absolutely crucial that the ARC gets this right, but we don't, at this point, have an answer to what the government is considering. Our research grants system is under great strain. It needs systemic reform. Our basic science and medical researchers are world-class, but they have, for too long, been subjected to funding allocated on a political and a personal basis in many instances, rather than on need and on merit. We need systemic change to our Commonwealth Grant Scheme. The vast majority of grants should be developed and administered by departments, with ministerial involvement really being limited to approval of the purpose and the size of the scheme. The minister should retain some discretionary ability to fund grants only in very special cases. The grounds for that appropriation should be clear and all spending should be subjected to regular and independent review. We need to run our Australian research in a way that's consistent with the UK and it's Haldane principle—that is, once funding parameters, rules and assessment procedures are set, the decision as to which research represents the best mixture of originality, significance, feasibility and benefit should be left where it belongs, in the hands of the experts. We must remember and respect that not all research will have commercial implications, at least not at first. I would suggest that all government research programs worth more than $100 million should be subjected to parliamentary oversight. This should be from their inception and while they are underway, not in retrospect. Our public service departments need the resources required to do their jobs themselves, not by outsourcing to external consultants. And they need appropriate governance frameworks to protect them from political manipulation. Our research system is unhealthy. We deserve better. I commend the government for presenting this bill and I look forward to engaging with it on the ongoing reform of governance in all sectors of basic science and medical research. 17:33 Dr GARLAND 295588 Chisholm The subject matter in the Australian Research Council Amendment (Review Response) Bill 2023 is very important to me. Indeed, it was in my first speech that I spoke of the importance of academic integrity and freedom, so I'm really delighted to be standing today in support this legislation. As someone who has had an association for quite a long time with the university sector—as a student, as a researcher and academic, and now as a federal representative with multiple campuses in my electorate—I know how significant this legislation is. It's one that I'm interested in and that my community is interested in. We've heard from previous speakers the work that our government is doing to reform the higher education and research sector. Indeed, this is something I've been arguing for for a long time, including in my first speech in this place. Throughout the process of reform and review, I've undertaken surveys in my electorate in relation to higher education and research. I've held mobile offices in the community in relation specifically to higher education and research. The feedback I've received has very strongly supported the strengthening of research in this country, particularly the importance of academic integrity and the need to strengthen and protect the way governance see freedom and freedom in academia. We have a very fine higher education and research system in this country. Australian research has made an enormous contribution to the world. This bill ensures that as a nation we take necessary steps to invest in future research so we are at the forefront of new discoveries and innovations. Through amending the Australian Research Council Act 2001 and making changes to the Australian Research Council's purpose, oversight and funding arrangements, we are modernising the Australian Research Council and also strengthening it. The changes in this bill mean that the Australian Research Council can continue to be the catalyst for the productivity and innovation that Australia needs now and into the future. The amendments in the bill are in response to the final report, the Trusting Australia's Ability: Review of the Australian Research Council Act 2001, which made 10 recommendations, including to amend the Australian Research Council Act to provide greater clarity of the Australian Research Council purpose and functions, strengthen governance and accountability arrangements by establishing an Australian Research Council board and reduce legislative burden and increase accounting flexibility to fund research programs. The Australian Research Council plays a unique role and significant role in this country. It supports basic and applied research across all disciplines except medical research, and no other agency does. This financial year alone will see $895 million in research administered by the Australian Research Council, supporting more than 5,900 new and ongoing grants. And, of course, we know that the Australian Research Council does not just fund research; it also acts as a very important safeguard on research integrity as well as providing advice and support to the Australian government on research matters. There are economic benefits that flow too. We know, for example, that for each dollar of national competitive grants program funding administered through the Australian Research Council there are $3 of economic benefit. This is really quite remarkable, given that we as a nation account for only 0.3 per cent of the world's population but contribute about 10 times what would normally be expected when looking at our population size alone. This return on investment goes a long way to enhancing our reputation as leaders in research on the world stage. Over the last two decades, the Australian Research Council has supported the work of some truly outstanding Australians with some exceptional and world-changing ideas. From bringing the internet to Australia to getting quantum computing off the ground and driving the uptake of rooftop solar, the Australian Research Council has supported these projects. It's true to say that over the same period that the legislation that underpins the Australian Research Council has been in operation it has not been comprehensively reviewed. So legislation has not kept up to pace with the times. As the Minister for Education has stated in relation to this important area of legislation, the Australian Research Council has in recent times appallingly been subject to political interference and ministerial delays. This is something I feel particularly strongly about. The former coalition government were known to interfere on at least six occasions to upend the independent peer review process, something that, as a researcher myself, I find to be absolutely disgusting behaviour. I know people and I've worked with people in some of the most highly regarded institutions in this country who were impacted by the political interference by the previous government despite well-respected, well-credentialled peer reviewers recommending projects, which is a secondary insult to the research community—to show such disrespect to those peer reviewers who are the experts in their field. Interference such as what we saw from the previous government is, frankly, an international embarrassment. Not only does it make it harder for universities to recruit and train staff, but it also damages the good standing of our world-class universities—reputations that have taken decades and so much work from dedicated academics to build. I'm really proud that our Labor government takes our responsibility seriously when it comes to protecting the integrity of the Australian university and research ecosystem. I will always stand up for the Australian university sector. Our commitment has been demonstrated in many ways. It was demonstrated when the Minister for Education announced that this Labor government would undertake the first comprehensive review of the Australian Research Council Act. The minister tasked the review panel with terms of reference that were broad in nature, looking to what needs to be done to make sure that the Australian Research Council is both fit for today's research context and prepared for the future. The panel consulted widely. This included consultation with researchers, universities and other higher education providers, traditional owners, research organisations, industry groups, peak bodies and governments. The review concluded in April of last year and made 10 recommendations, with the Minister for Education announcing in August that our Labor government has agreed, or agreed in principle, to all of them. Some of the review panel's conclusions included that there was a need to strengthen the Australian Research Council governance arrangements and bolster its independence. This means not only getting the politics out of research funding decisions but also ensuring the end of those dark days of ministers vetoing things that they don't like. The Minister for Education had previously instructed the Australian Research Council to commence work to implement three of these important recommendations. These included that we help universities attract and retain talented academics through meaningful fellowships and promoting academic careers in research, that we advance the support for Indigenous Australian academics through better consultation and additional fellowships and that we encourage more consultation between the Australian Research Council and stakeholders in the academic and research community. Six of the 10 recommendations require legislative amendments, which are addressed in this bill which will amend the Australian Research Council Act. The establishment of an Australian Research Council board as the accountable authority of the Research Council will also be facilitated through this bill. The board will be responsible for the approving of research grant programs under the National Competitive Grants Program, which is one of the essential changes that were recommended by the review. The current act, as previously mentioned, has given rise to reprehensible political interference and ministerial delays when it comes to the approval of grants. Thousands of grants and every decision previously were at the discretion of the minister, and there were some pretty appalling consequences of that for the research community in this country. I'm really pleased that our government knows that that is appalling and should not be the case. Our nation's best researchers deserve to have their work assessed through an independent expert peer-review process that provides them with the confidence that their research will be assessed on merit and not treated as some political plaything. Our government wants to send a loud and clear message to Australia's best and brightest that this government supports clear and transparent research selection processes based on research excellence. On a practical level, the Minister for Education will be responsible for setting the funding rules that the board must follow when making grant decisions. Importantly, this will be a disallowable legislative instrument and a safeguard against future ministers seeking to circumvent the Australian Research Council board without the oversight of parliament. There will also be some provisions within the legislation for the minister to retain funding decisions as they relate to the approval of nationally significant investments. Importantly, this discretion will not be used for individual research grants in and of themselves, but rather for investment in research as it relates to infrastructure, training, collaboration and helping to move the needle on our nation's broader research efforts. This might include projects similar in nature to the Australian Research Council centres for excellence and industrial transformation research hubs. Naturally, there are also provisions within the bill for the minister to instruct the Australian Research Council board to not approve a grant or to terminate funding altogether based on national security grounds. If this occurs, the bill stipulates that the minister must notify the parliament and the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security. The number of times that this occurs will be reported in the Australian Research Council's annual report, demonstrating very clearly our commitment to transparent and accountable process here. This bill will also change the funding arrangement from that of a special appropriation arrangement to an annual appropriation arrangement. Doing so will provide both funding visibility and confidence for researchers and the university sector. The bill will also strengthen research integrity measures to support the Australian Research Council functions, reflecting another important recommendation of the review panel. Organisations will be required to enter into funding arrangements with the CEO to receive financial assistance, and the CEO is able to terminate an agreement if the organisation breaches a term or condition. Additionally, the board and the minister may terminate funding approval for breach of an agreement. If an organisation's agreement or approval is terminated there will be powers for recovery of grant amounts, including the ability to set off a debt to the Commonwealth. These measures are appropriate and provide the integrity mechanisms that will allow the Australian Research Council to ensure that Commonwealth funding is being spent as intended. These important and much-needed changes to the Australian Research Council Act are going to be supported, I think, by most fair and reasonable people in this building. I would really question why people would not want to see academic integrity placed at the heart of Australia's research ecosystem. The response from the sector and key stakeholders have been overwhelmingly positive. There is support from groups such as Innovative Research Universities and the Australasian Council of Deans of Arts, Social Sciences and Humanities, and the bill has also received support from Universities Australia, the peak body for universities in this country. Researchers know that, when it comes to supporting Australian research, it's only a Labor government that has their best interests at heart and actually treats them with the respect that researchers deserve. It's only a Labor government that will not meddle and run political interference with their life's hard work and expertise through calculated ministerial interventions and vetoes. It's only a Labor government that will act in a supportive and transparent way when it comes to elevating Australian research and, in doing so, will help position our researchers at the forefront of discovery and innovation. I'm really proud of the researchers that live and work in my community. I'm proud of the people that I've worked with through my own research career. I'm proud of this bill before us today, which ensures that academic integrity and freedom and a strong research community remain the bedrock of higher education and research in this country. 17:47 Ms WATSON-BROWN 300127 Ryan I'm speaking today about the Australian Research Council Amendment (Review Response) Bill 2023. While I understand the conversation about integrity, and that's absolutely critical, what I'm going to focus on this afternoon is underfunding. This bill does not address the urgent issue of chronic underfunding of our research professionals and institutions. We're talking about the crucial investment that Australia urgently needs to make in this space to ensure a good future and keep our economy competitive. We cannot afford to fall behind the rest of the world. Last year, the Labor government actually cut spending on research and development to the lowest level in three decades. They actually admitted it. Sadly, for many of us, that doesn't come as a shock. In my own electorate of Ryan, home of the University of Queensland, the hardworking people in higher education have been worn down and undermined for years by ever-reducing funding for important research, research for the betterment of Australia. It's an ongoing tragedy that what used to be a field of imagination, of creativity, of discovery has become a cruel and competitive race for funding, causing demoralisation, burnout and, let's face it, brain drain. How is this good for the future of Australia? I have a little local boast here: Laureate Professor Peter Doherty, the recipient of the Nobel Prize for medicine, was a student at Indooroopilly State High School in Ryan, and a teacher and researcher at UQ. That important work that Professor Doherty did is currently translating into new cancer treatments. Where is the support for future Peter Dohertys now? Come on, Australia. Come on, Labor. The rest of the world is moving forward, and we are being left behind here. The status quo is just not going to cut it as we face the exquisite compounding challenges of our time. It's time for common sense to prevail. We need fresh technology, new developments and innovative ideas to meet these challenges. If we don't support and fund essential research and innovation, we're going to be floundering in the dark ages while the rest of the world moves on and, frankly, steals our best minds. A recent review of the ARC funding revealed that many projects were turned down as 'poor value for money'. Just over 400 grants were approved in 2023. What a convenient excuse—'poor value for money'. Applications fell by 25 per cent this year because researchers know that it's just not worth their time. I'll tell you what's a truly bad deal: a whopping $11.1 billion in offsets for fossil fuel companies. And what have we gained for this colossal investment of Australian taxpayer dollars? Record floods, extreme heatwaves, devastating bushfires. We're paying a pretty hefty price for climate crises, and we're just pouring fuel on the fire. We need to focus our investment in the right place. This government is sacrificing our kids' futures to instead invest in and prioritise the interests of those puppeteers of our government—the Woodsides, the Santoses, the Chevrons. We all saw that recent data. These corporations are bankrolling the major parties to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars, and they in return are benefiting in the billions. To add insult to injury, these are companies that have to be bailed out by the government, with our money, to stay competitive. That's shameful, and I believe it's economically irrational. I think our struggling communities have had enough. What about using our hard-earned dollars to invest in a healthy future, rather than killing it? They want to talk about value for money, but let me ask this: is it a good deal when students are shelling out more than ever to attend university? Over 50 per cent of people in their 40s are grappling with enormous HECS debts still, in their 40s. Labor want Australia to remain totally controlled by these big multinational mining corporations. That's the message they send when they hand over $11.1 billion in fossil fuel subsidies each year but peanuts—less than a billion—to publicly funded research. Hear me out. The only way for Australia to create new industries, to bring manufacturing back onshore and to break the stranglehold that mining corporations have on our economy is to massively increase our investment in research. Compared to other developed economies, Australia spends an absolutely tiny amount on research, and we've ended up with a distorted economy, dangerously reliant on the resources sector. These big mining corporations rip our resources out of the ground, send them overseas—they send the wealth overseas as well, to overseas shareholders—and they hardly employ anyone. But our economy and our political class are desperately reliant upon them. There is a way out of this, and it is to actually fund research and development publicly at a mass scale, build a high-tech manufacturing base and new jobs in emerging industries. Instead, Australia has been going backwards under both Labor and the LNP. Why would they change that status quo, when the two parties are happy to keep taking millions from their donors in the resources sector and happy to keep opening new coal and gas mines that make the climate crisis worse? But government isn't just holding back researchers; it's dragging the whole country backwards. Australia needs to support high-quality research that isn't directed by the agendas of massive, and often destructive, for-profit corporations. We shouldn't have to outsource innovation to private companies who sell our own breakthroughs back to us for an astronomical price, the same ones who overwork and underpay the brilliant minds behind these discoveries. Just take a look at Norway as a case in point. They've actually got it figured out. They make big fossil fuel companies pay their fair share, and education is free, from primary school to university. Australia used to have something like that—free university education. I wouldn't be surprised if half the people in the chamber got their degrees for free. I certainly did, and I'm forever grateful and want that for every Australian. An honourable member: I haven't got a degree. I left school at 14! Ms WATSON-BROWN 300127 That's fine—a degree in life! Year after year the government chips away at research funding and jacks up university costs. The government effectively tells students—the very ones trying to learn, improve and contribute to Australia—that they don't matter. Not a single city in Australia is affordable for someone on youth allowance. They're saddled with tens of thousands of dollars of student debt. Even those lucky enough to get full-time work and start paying off their student debt see their balances barely move due to indexation, and when students graduate from degrees in science and research fields, what opportunities are there for them in their field? Why would any intelligent person pursue a career in research when these roles are now notoriously insecure and underpaid? Why would anyone want their livelihood to be subject to the whims of the ARC, with their tiny budget? Why would anyone want to take the begging bowl and spend hundreds of hours on endless grant applications that have only a very small chance of success? This is not the approach to encourage innovation and a sophisticated economy. Ultimately, this is what keeps Australia reliant on the resources industry. The major parties and their donors are, of course, happy to keep it that way. That status quo suits them and they see no reason for drastic change. It's time, however, to prioritise our future and the future of our children and grandchildren, invest in education and make Australia a place where everyone can thrive, not just the privileged few. It's time to invest in research that serves the public interest, not the pockets of profit driven giants. 17:56 Ms BYRNES 299145 Cunningham I rise to speak on the Australian Research Council Amendment (Review Response) Bill 2023. This bill was introduced after the completion of a formal review and extensive community consultation. The Australian Research Council had not been reviewed since it was established in 2001. This bill seeks to address the shortcomings which exist within the existing Research Council funding process. The Australian Research Council review's final report was released on 20 April 2023. It has not taken the Albanese Labor government long to act upon its recommendations. The Australian Research Council provides advice and support to the Australian government on research matters. It is a central pillar in Australia's research landscape. It also builds partnerships between researchers, industry, government, community organisations and the international community. It is important that the Research Council fund projects of merit. This bill was designed to address this issue. A modernised role for the Research Council is also reflected by changes to the object of the act so that this clearly defines the important role and place the Australian Research Council has in supporting Australia's research community and landscape. By contrast, the current legislation only talks about grants processing. The Albanese government is committed to backing our universities and providing targeted research grants to ensure the continuation of real research as a vital part of our tertiary institutions. I am proud to be part of a government that has made available $895 million in non-medical research grants for 2023-24. This government is also committed to principles of accountability in public expenditure. It is important to ensure that the best projects receive assistance. One of the principal objectives of this bill is to ensure the integrity of all future grants processes and ensure the public's faith in government funding. To facilitate this, decisions on funding approvals have been devolved from the minister, as is currently the case, to the Australian Research Council board. The Australian Research Council board is to comprise a CEO and up to six other members who will provide a combination of skills, experience and perspective reflecting the areas of Research Council funding. The minister will appoint the Research Council board, who will, in turn, appoint the CEO, consistent with a policy of meritorious appointment for statutory officers. The next phase is to establish and appoint members to board committees, including the College of Experts. This body has the role of approving funding on research projects and providing advice to government. This should help to ensure that the best projects are funded and bring to an end the days of ministerial intervention in the grants process. While it will still be open for ministers to direct the board to not approve a grant or to terminate funding based on national security concerns, parliament will be notified of such decisions within 15 days of the decision to terminate a grant being made, and there will need to be good reasons for this to have been done. The minister will also report the exercise of the national security powers to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security and offer a private briefing on the reasons. The members of the board will reflect the diversity of the general community and include people of professional credibility and significant standing in one or more fields of research. It is important that we have transparency and that public trust is restored to our research and grants programs. These reforms are part of this vital process. The public needs to be confident that the best projects have been funded and that public moneys have not been wasted. The recent impact assessment of Australian Research Council funded research has found that every dollar invested in the ARC National Competitive Grants Program generates more than $3 in economic output. Our universities have done great work with Australian Research Council grants. The objective of this bill is to ensure that grant moneys are well spent. Grants provided through the Australian Research Council have been a direct benefit to the electorate of Cunningham. The University of Wollongong is a fabulous university, and I would like to personally thank the vice-chancellor, Patricia Davidson, for her dynamic leadership of this fine institution. Over the last five years, the University of Wollongong has been awarded more than $71 million through the Australian Research Council. These grants have been used to fund the ARC Training Centre in Energy Technologies for Future Grids, which is looking to address issues currently limiting the growth of renewable energy through innovations that facilitate widespread integration into electricity grids, while maintaining grid stability. It will address the complex and challenging issues currently limiting the growth of renewable energy through innovations that facilitate widespread integrations of the resources into the grid. The ARC Training Centre for Innovative Composites for the Future of Sustainable Mining Equipment is another one that has been funded. It will train industry focused researchers in advanced manufacturing and in how to use new-generation mining equipment and sustainable mining technology. These grants also fund the ARC's Steel Research Hub, which develops new higher-value products and more advanced manufacturing processes to build a stronger and more competitive local industry backed by world-leading research. These grants also fund the ARC Centre of Excellence for Australian Biodiversity and Heritage, which looks to bring First Nations culture to a wider audience. Of course, Australian Research Council grants are not the only assistance that the Commonwealth provides for universities. I secured investment of $10 million for the Energy Futures Skills Centre, which is a project to train the energy workforce of the future. This will also be located at the University of Wollongong. The University of Wollongong have also received an investment of more than $1 million to study finding ways to keep Australia's grid secure through the renewable energy transformation. There is also $1.04 million in ARENA grant funding which will support the University of Wollongong's harmonics study to develop a methodology that will help energy grids accommodate various energy outputs, such as wind and solar generation. This is vital work, and it places our University of Wollongong and our TAFE at the forefront of the transition to renewable energy. The Albanese Labor government has provided funding to grow additional places in STEM courses across universities to help Australia acquire the skilled workforce required to meet the challenges of tomorrow. The University of Wollongong has been allocated an additional 425 places in STEM related courses, designed to attract more students to train in engineering, mathematics, chemistry and physics, which is in addition to our government's funding of an additional 936 university places to train more teachers, nurses and engineers. This is part of an injection of funding of more than $29 million to train Australians under-represented at universities in areas of skills need. The University of Wollongong was chosen because it has a strong record of working with industry, government, universities and other partners, such as ANSTO, to deliver solutions. Our university has acquired a reputation for excellence in higher education over the 70 years of its existence. The fact that it has received ARC grants and all other grants as part of competitive processes is indicative of the high regard in which our local university is held within the Australian research community. These grants show that its capacity for innovation has not diminished with the passage of time and that it continues to undertake research of great value. Previously, special appropriation arrangements were made for grants provided through the Australian Research Council. Such vital research undertaken by universities such as ours should not be based on such insecure funding. This bill makes provision for an annual appropriation of funds, which should provide a secure base for the Research Council's work. What is more, this annual appropriation is to be CPI indexed to ensure that the real value of funds provided to the Australian Research Council is retained. 18:05 Ms STEGGALL 175696 Warringah I rise to speak on the Australian Research Council Amendment (Review Response) Bill 2023. I will be supporting this bill. It enacts the recommendations made by the review of the Australian Research Council, the report of which was handed to the government last year. The review is arguably one of the most critical analyses of the ARC since it was first established in 2001 and recommends some fundamental changes. First of all—for everybody—what does the ARC itself do? The Australian Research Council is a statutory Commonwealth agency under the ARC Act. Its fundamental purpose since it was established has been to grow knowledge and innovation in the national interest and for the Australian community. This kind of innovation aims to underpin positive environmental, social and economic outcomes, exactly what is needed as we face the climate crisis and transition to a net zero economy. The ARC does this by advising the government on research matters as well as administering the national competitive grants program and the Excellence in Research for Australia and Engagement and Impact Assessment frameworks. The ARC runs various funding schemes, under the banner of linkage programs, which encourage research collaborations between researchers and a range of different styles of organisations, including private enterprise, community organisations and other research agencies. The ARC also supports industrial transformation research hubs. These engage researchers to investigate new technologies and economic, commercial and social transformations. The ARC brokers crucial partnerships between government, business and academia, international institutions and community organisations, with over 9,000 domestic and international partnerships over the last two decades. An economic impact study commissioned by Universities Australia found that, for every dollar spent on university research and development over the past three decades, Australia's GDP grew by around $5 in present value terms. Put simply, the ARC plays a key role in Australia's research and innovation success, helping achieve greater national benefit for Australia. However, it is right that we take stock of the ARC and ensure that it is well positioned to further advance research in the years and decades ahead, hence the review commissioned by the government. I know that the government agreed to all of the review's recommendations in principle. Some of these recommendations require legislative amendments, and they are addressed in this bill to amend the ARC Act. At the core of these recommendations is the most important aspect of the reform this bill does. It removes the minister as decision-maker for who and what will be funded. Essentially, it removes political interference. This bill also establishes an ARC board. This was recommended by the review as a key way to strengthen the independence, governance and integrity of the ARC. Under the proposed legislation, the board will be appointed by the minister. There are criteria to ensure that those appointed to the board are suitably qualified and have the appropriate background for such an appointment, and at least one member must be a First Nations person. The board will appoint the ARC's chief executive officer and approve the appointment of members to board committees, including the College of Experts. The board will approve research grants under the National Competitive Grants Program, and this is at the crux of the change in this bill—currently these decisions are made by the minister. So it's incredibly important that we take away political interference, but we must be mindful that this board be fit for purpose with the appropriate skills as well as that it has good diversity, gender equity and First Nations representation. This bill is important because the political interference that has dogged ARC grants funding in the past needs to end. We saw it under the previous coalition government, where time and again ministers would veto applications in relation to certain research projects based on their own views and preferences. This isn't how you unleash innovation. This isn't how scientific discoveries are made, so I welcome the change and commend the government for its commitment to implementing the review changes in full. As I noted previously while speaking on the ARC, we're quite lucky to have various innovation and research hubs in Warringah that support this vision of a new economy, from the Lakeba Future Hub to SEVENmile Venture Lab. They're incubating the next iteration of products, services and businesses, and Warringah's workforce is supporting the new innovative economy. In fact, 23.9 per cent of people in my electorate are engaged in professional, scientific and technical services. They are in fact the leading employer in the electorate. So, noting the importance of what the ARC helps deliver in innovation, I also take the opportunity to call for greater investment in Australia's research and innovation. Australia is falling further and further behind the rest of the world when it comes to innovation. We were once ranked 17th in the world, according to the Global Innovation Index. In 2023, we ranked 24th. The spend from the Australian government has consistently declined relative to the economy for more than a decade, dropping from the OECD average of 2.24 per cent of GDP in 2008 to now sit at 1.68 per cent of GDP. It is too low. We simply will not be part of the technologies and the innovation of the future unless we make sure we are investing into R&D and innovation. A key driver in this drop in focus on innovation is the drop of government spending when it comes to R&D, which slumped to its lowest-ever share of GDP at 0.49 per cent in 2022-23. So whilst I welcome this bill, it's clear we need to take political interference out of allocation of research and grants. We need to make sure that these projects get up because they are scientific, because they bring something new. They cannot just be pandering to the political ideology of those that are in power at the time. We have to have an open mind to these problems of the future. We also need to focus on innovation and R&D, so I call on the government: we must lift that percentage of spending in relation to the GDP. If not, we will continue to fall further and further behind other OECD countries. I know that this is important for so many people in Warringah, because many of them work in this sector. I support this bill and the changes it makes to the ARC structure. It will help set up the ARC for future success and, therefore, Australia's success in scientific research, discovery and innovation. We have a long history, we have amazing technologies that have come out of Australia—the cochlear ear implant, solar panels—but we lost them, so we have to do better when it comes to research, innovation and then transitioning those ideas and those discoveries to being able to actually stay in Australia and benefit Australia. So I commend the government, but I urge them to do more. Question unresolved. The DEPUTY SPEAKER C2T 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. National Redress Scheme for Institutional Child Sexual Abuse Amendment Bill 2023 103

National Redress Scheme for Institutional Child Sexual Abuse Amendment Bill 2023

Second Reading 103 18:16 Mr PERRETT HVP Moreton At the core of the National Redress Scheme is the wellbeing of survivors. They are at the centre of its design and the legal process surrounding compensation. The National Redress Scheme will undergo amendments to support greater access to redress, increase the choices available to survivors and ensure fairer and more consistent outcomes that acknowledge the enduring impact of child sexual abuse. The National Redress Scheme for Institutional Child Sexual Abuse Amendment Bill 2023 shows the commitment by all governments to improve access to redress and the survivor experience. The bill will benefit survivors and contribute to improving the national redress scheme for institutional child sexual abuse. It is especially important that the scheme provides a more survivor focused and trauma informed experience that is responsive to survivors of institutional child sexual abuse and prevents retraumatisation of survivors. The meaning of trauma informed care is quite clear. Trauma informed care is an organisation and system level initiative to understand trauma, such that all staff undertake their tasks and interactions with survivors with an understanding of the impacts of trauma and strategies to minimise the possibility of retraumatising clients. Applying for redress can be an extremely traumatising process because, by coming forward and putting their experiences into words, survivors must relive the event over and over again. Their trauma does not end because the event has passed and because they have healed. My wife, who was a frontline child protection worker and then a lawyer for knowmore, the CLC set up for survivors, talked about interviewing an 80-year-old about the trauma inflicted on her as a five-year-old and how, as the woman spoke, my wife only saw the child in front of her. On top of this, survivors have to deal with sceptics who do not believe them when they speak up or defence lawyers who frame them as money hungry. This can leave damaging effects that make it easier for survivors to go about their lives carrying an unspoken yet pervasive trauma. We need to do better by our survivors. To an outside observer it might seem like a survivor is high functioning and that because of this they don't need help, they've moved on and put the abuse in the past. But those closest can see the lasting effects of a failed system. The victim blaming culture must end. We must listen to survivors' stories with sensitivity, with patience, with empathy and with respect. If people are interested in the topic of how victims respond to abuse, I highly recommend the article 'Peace in the home' by Sarah Krasnostein. The 1 November 2023 Monthly article deals with three Melbourne women, Nicole, Hadassa and Elisheva, and how they responded to their evil, cowardly abuser. These brave young women came forward as adults in Australia to protect innocent children they didn't know in Israel. That is pure courage—the best antidote to pure evil. I should strike out that term 'innocent children'. There is no such thing as a guilty child; there are merely children. Packages of innocence, our hope distilled—but I digress. Krasnostein's article explores the landmines associated with suggesting that there is a commonsense approach to responding to abuse: The law has long had a binary understanding of emotion and intellect, privileging, in most instances, the truth claims of the latter and thereby losing the information to be gained by valuing the former. Also misguided is the law's placement of emotion and common sense at opposing poles. Common sense … cannot be conflated with intellect. It comes from a world where the fields of psychiatry and psychology never happened. Proud of its ignorance, limited by both its own unexamined experience and low tolerance for discomfort, common sense is riddled with unbridled emotion: biases, bigotry, blame-shifting, denials, defensiveness, projection. All the personal material we take out like the rubbish, left to mingle in the collective field for so long it becomes mistaken for simply the way things are. Remember, most abuse occurs in the home and is perpetrated by someone who a child loves—someone close to them. Statistically, it won't be an opportunistic faceless stranger striking like lightning from a blue sky. Instead it is more likely that the abuser is a trusted figure who has groomed the child. Often it is a person the child relies on for survival or, as the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse showed, some person who inveigled themselves into a position of trust. To paraphrase my wife, when it comes to paedophiles and vulnerable children, they are like flies to faeces. In 2017 the royal commission released a research paper on grooming. Factors that increase a child's vulnerability to sexual abuse include social isolation, low self-esteem, domestic violence and a history of emotional, physical or sexual abuse. Our courts are based on the notion of innocence until proven guilty and proven beyond reasonable doubt. As a solicitor I know that these are principles that have served the common law jurisdictions well. However, sadly they're stacked against child victims, especially when it comes to testifying against someone who was close to them. Convincing all the members of a jury is a further hurdle, and, in the case of Nicole, Dassi and Elly, throwing in a small, closed, patriarchal, almost antediluvian, socioreligious community just adds to the size of the legal hurdles. The memory of trauma is not linear. However, our courts demand cold, dry empirical facts presented logically and that the evidence be error free. At the time a person they love and trust is perpetrating evil on a child, the child's brain does not simply press record. The video recording is corrupted by emotion, the brain's protective defences. The wiring can become scrambled, especially when a good defence lawyer is up the complainant's ribs while they're on the stand in later years. I have no problem with defence lawyers at all; some of my best friends are defence lawyers. I've mentioned Peter Russo, a state MP that I work with. However, I'm merely passing comment on our legal system. If the complainant is close in age to when the event happened, then they are too young and vulnerable. Alternatively, if the person in the box has the protection of age—maturity, wisdom, experience, perhaps a tougher skin—then they are much further in time away from the incident. Memory fades, especially the protected pigeonholes that victims construct just to cope and to survive. The person might remember the shame and embarrassment of the real moment in time but not the colour of the curtains, the configuration of the room or the clothes the person was wearing. If the defence proves the curtains were a different colour or that the room didn't have an alcove, the intense shame and embarrassment that is real forever is legally discarded. Thus justice further attenuates the complainant's shame and embarrassment. The problem of shame is a wicked problem indeed. Krasnostein's insightful article touches on this in some detail: Shame tells us that what happened didn't happen. Or that it wasn't that bad. Or, if it was, that we are to blame. Shame … is concrete in its understanding, small in its repertoire. It seizes any imperfection as proof of universal discredit. Most victims of developmental trauma, relational trauma or sexual assault live with that voice every moment of every day. It takes an extremely strong person … to endure this style of cross-examination. All survivors, irrespective of their background and experiences, deserve to be heard and deserve to be afforded a trauma informed experience. The bill will improve the process for applicants with serious criminal convictions and allows incarcerated survivors to apply for redress. We must focus on improving integrity, fairness and access to redress. The Albanese government has supported a recommendation that survivors should be provided with end-to-end support by experienced, culturally appropriate and trauma informed professionals. That is recommendation 3.5. Ongoing initiatives include more frequent and meaningful communication with survivors, particularly at the points of entry to and exit from the redress scheme and through regular updates while their application is processed. We need to ensure that survivors can apply for redress in a trauma informed way that minimises that retraumatisation I mentioned earlier. A trauma informed framework has been developed and is being applied across the entirety of the scheme's operations, including training, recruitment and communications, as per recommendation 6.1. As the minister explained when introducing this bill, the review made 38 recommendations to increase access to redress and improve the scheme's operation, making it more trauma informed, efficient and, ultimately, more survivor focused. Of the recommendations, 29 were supported in full, five in part and four were not supported. This bill will fulfil the work of the review and improve the scheme and the experiences of survivors for its remaining life. A number of recommendations have already been implemented, including advanced payments, changing to the date for indexation of relevant prior payments, removing the requirement for a witness statutory declaration, introducing payment instalments and extending funder-of-last-resort provisions. This bill continues the government's work in improving the scheme and gives effect to the remaining changes outlined in the government's final response to the review, which was released on 4 May last year. In line with the scheme's governance arrangements, all states and territories, as partners in the scheme, have agreed to the amendments in this bill. That is incredibly encouraging and must be a relief to all survivors. The fact that agreement exists demonstrates the national commitment of everyone involved to work towards the healing of trauma for survivors. The establishment of the scheme was a significant achievement, which has been described as requiring unprecedented cooperation between Commonwealth, state and territory governments and the institutions. The referral of state and territory powers to the Commonwealth is not something that happens frequently, easily or without careful consideration. This demonstrated the shared preparedness to take responsibility for past abuse and to commit to child safe practices, contribute to the healing of survivors by acknowledging that the abuse should not have occurred and that, more importantly, it should not occur again. The National Redress Scheme acknowledges that many children were sexually abused in Australian institutions. It recognises the suffering endured because of this abuse and holds institutions accountable for that abuse. In 2018, I spoke in parliament about the impact of child sexual abuse at the time the National Redress Scheme was introduced. We know that for survivors the impact of child sexual abuse is devastating. That is an understatement, I know, but there are limited words in the English language to really convey the impact this abuse has on a survivor. As you know, for a long, long, long time this abuse was not talked about. Survivors, in many cases, were shamed into silence. We have not developed language strong enough to really convey the trauma felt by survivors. Sexual abuse is life changing, life limiting, and, sadly, can even be life ending. It is especially important to look beyond the shattered husks of lives, gutted before they'd even truly begun. When a child is being abused at school they won't want to go to school; that is something that is not too hard to understand. But if they are forced to avoid school, it means that their education has been stolen from them, along with their childhood. Without an education, and suffering from extreme trauma as adolescents, victims of child sexual abuse are vulnerable. Their capacity to work can be reduced. It means that as adolescents they may well be vulnerable to criminal activity. We have to acknowledge, with much sympathy and understanding, the path that survivors have been led down. Where survivors have been led into crime and convicted, they have taken responsibility. They've paid their debt to society just like everyone else who's convicted of a crime. The former government sought to place restrictions on the redress being accessed by survivors who have a criminal history. At the time I spoke about this because I believed it was wrong and deeply unfair. I still believe that survivors who have been led into criminality should not be denied access to redress because there is clear evidence that people with a history of childhood sexual abuse and trauma are more likely to be incarcerated later in life. Denying this group of survivors access to redress will not only deny them the ability to rebuild their lives; it is likely to cause recidivism. Denying this group of survivors access to redress is cruel, shortsighted and unfair. I said at the time that whatever has happened— The DEPUTY SPEAKER C2T The member for Moreton will resume their seat. It being 6.30 pm, the debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 192B. The debate is adjourned, and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. The member for Moreton will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed on a future day. GRIEVANCE DEBATE 105 GRIEVANCE DEBATE Defence 105 18:30 Mr KATTER HX4 Kennedy Greg Sheridan, in an excellent article this week or last week, outlined the real defence dangers to Australia. We have an alignment now of Russia, China and North Korea—a mad dog country; it can only be described that way—and Iran, which a very dangerous country indeed. There are nearly a hundred million people living there. If you put Russia, China, Iran and North Korea together and have a look at what is on the other side, the Ukraine has proved that the Europeans really have no force now whatsoever. They are irrelevant in a power equation. That leaves the United States by itself, and the insult to the Americans by the refusal of the current ALP government to provide a ship will be a day of shame that will live in the memory of this country for a very long time. Those of us who read our history books know that this country was two weeks away from being invaded, and they'd given the whole of Australia, except for a narrow coastal belt—it was never the Brisbane line; it was all of Australia outside of Brisbane, Sydney and Melbourne—to the enemy. As a generational resident of that area, it means a lot. The current administration of the military in this country spent $40,000 million of taxpayers' money to buy 15 machine guns. That would be in keeping with a fellow, who every time there is a complaint made against a soldier who was at war—heaven only knows what pressures are upon them that they have committed some atrocity—immediately sells them to the wolves. He is a disgrace, an absolute disgrace. He does not have the confidence of any soldier in this country. I don't mean the upper brass, because half of them would be grovelling for promotions. Forty thousand million dollars was spent to buy 15 pieces of ordinance—15 machine-guns. It was spent on patrol boats with no ordinance capacity whatsoever outside of a machine gun, and it was spent on drones that carry no ordinance not only to not protect themselves but also to deliver no payload against an enemy. That's $40,000 million dollars gone. I have made the point in the parliament that my platoon of 32 men that I had responsibility for had 15 machine guns, and I can assure you it did not cost the taxpayers any more than about $20,000. We spent $40,000 million to get 15 machine-guns, and the bloke is still there. Peter Dutton can't scream about this. He extended the bloke's contract for two years. After criticising him, he then extended the contract for two years. If you're going to defend the country you have a first line, and that is missiles. In our day and age, that is missiles, and we've got no missiles. Effectively, we have no missiles. If they break through that, you have an army. We haven't even got a division. In warfare, it's all about divisions. History books will only talk about divisions. We haven't got a division. We haven't got one division. So much for the Army. The artillery capacity—which it turns out Ukraine is all about artillery not missiles. Missiles are too expensive, so they have been throwing artillery shells at each other. And, of course, Russia has China, Iran and North Korea backing them, and Ukrainians have the Europeans. Well, what a joke that is; Europeans—not worth two bob! If you had the line of missiles that we need, if you had millions of artillery shells and if you had every boy in this country given a rifle and trained how to use it—and that rifle will be in the school armoury and later on in the town armoury—there would be five million or six million rivals in this country. If you picked a fight with us, you would be looking at fighting five million or six million guerillas. If you read your history books, there is no doubt that you require 23 troops for every guerilla fighter. And whether it was Napoleon in Spain or the Americans in Vietnam or the Russians in Afghanistan, that's a pretty accurate figure, 23 to one. So, if you've got five million or six million potential guerillas, not even China is going to win that one. Not even China! I come from a family that goes way back, and, of course, I'm dark and come from Cloncurry—as we say, a 'Murray from the Curry'. I identify very much with the First Australians, and I desperately wanted Tubba Tre on our coin instead of some little twerp from England. That's utterly irrelevant and demonstrates again that we are not grown-up as a country. If we've got a foreign person on our coin, and he's a monarch—either you believe all people are born free and equal or you don't. But you can't believe all people are free and equal when you've got a monarch on your coin. And you can't believe we're a grown-up country if we have a foreigner on our coin. Now, I am saying: do you want Ralph Honner, the leader of the 39th Battalion, who, more than anyone else, saved this nation from invasion on Kokoda? The 39th Battalion: 750 men when they were relieved, but only 130 were able to stand up on a parade, which was better than my battalion. We only had 28 walk out unassisted; that's all that was left of the battalion I was in, in later years—the 49th Battalion. I've got a family that lost one of our sons in the First World War, lost another son in the Second World War II. We had cousins fighting in Crete, Libya, Singapore, Milne Bay, the islands, Aitapeand Kokoda—everywhere. I know people, particularly people like the Sikhs, come in, and after 10 minutes they are flag-waving Australians. They are proud to be Australians and they will stand up and fight for this country, let there be no doubt about it. We need more of those people in this country. But we need missiles; we need armed drones. That's our first line of defence, and they will break through that but they'll take immense pain. If it is a proper defence perimeter, they will take a hell of a lot of pain breaking through it. And then there's the five million or six million guerrilla fighters waiting for them. They're not going to do it unless they're completely stupid and insane. But at the present moment Greg Sheridan is right. If you look at Russia, China, those mad countries Iran and North Korea, who have absolutely no sense of responsibility, and if you have a look at Europe, which is just a pathetic joke, and the situation, as the saying goes, if you want peace, your security depends on being prepared. Being an ex-boy scout, I know you have to be prepared. This country is anything but prepared, and it is a disgrace to the Liberal Party. I would be ashamed to have my name associated with that political party, and I'd even more ashamed to have my name associated with the Labor Party. And remember that people write history books. People write history books, and when they write those history books people will spit upon your memory—that you left this country in the state that it's in. Quite apart from that, we have no exports. You have destroyed every single export that this country had. All we've got left is iron ore, coal and gas. You gave the gas away, so it's gone. We get 600 million, but the quote target is 29,000 million for the same amount of gas. So forget about the gas. It's gone. You gave it away. And you're going to close down coal, and that leaves you iron ore—one single source of income from overseas. What have you done to my country? The DEPUTY SPEAKER C2T Before I go to the next speaker, I'll just make an observation to the member for Kennedy. I may have misheard you, but, at one point during your contribution, you made a comment about a 'twerp', and it could have been taken to be a reference to the sovereign. It would assist the House if you could withdraw that comment. Mr KATTER HX4 I'm shocked and horrified that I would have made that reference! I'm sure you misheard that. The DEPUTY SPEAKER C2T So is that withdrawn? Mr KATTER HX4 Yes. The DEPUTY SPEAKER C2T I thank the member for Kennedy for his cooperation. 18:40 Mr BURNELL 300129 Spence Yesterday afternoon, I alongside many from this place joined together at the Australian War Memorial for a last post ceremony. First occurring 10 years ago, it serves a dual function both to mark the commencement of the new sitting year of our parliament and also for members and senators present to reflect on the price paid for the freedoms we enjoy as Australians and on those who fought for Australia and our democracy. Given our role as elected representatives within our democratic system, I feel that we must ensure that the duty and sacrifice of those who have defended and served our nation retain a place at the forefront of our minds. I am proud to serve as the co-chair of the Parliamentary Friends of Veterans, and I note my fellow co-chair on the other side of the room, the member for Menzies. It is a group that helps promote and connect many veteran groups and initiatives with members and senators from all parts of the country, from government through to opposition and the crossbench. This couples with the fact that, from within this place and out in my electorate of Spence, I represent roughly 6,000 veterans and Australian Defence Force personnel. This number puts Spence first amongst South Australian electorates and 16th out of all electorates nationwide. Many of the currently serving ADF personnel in my electorate of Spence are stationed at RAAF Base Edinburgh, where I had the privilege of joining the Assistant Minister for Defence recently to send off around 90 ADF members from 7 RAR, who would soon travel to the UK to assist with the training of the Armed Forces of Ukraine as part of Operation Kudu. I know that, back in November last year when the Deputy Prime Minister visited the base along with me, the efforts of 7 RAR were a particular point of pride. Their work as part of this operation is one of vital importance in maintaining our global rules based order and helping to equip Ukraine's armed forces with the training necessary to defend their homeland from Russia's illegal war of aggression. RAAF Base Edinburgh is also home to personnel who engage in operations ranging from maritime surveillance and reconnaissance through to cyber operations with 462 Squadron. With such cutting-edge technology and vehicles being operated from the base, it is little wonder that DSTG has called Adelaide's northern suburbs 'home' since before the base was constructed, let alone officially opened. I am honoured to represent an electorate that so many Defence personnel can call 'home' along with their families. That's why many schools in Spence don't just teach students who are part of our Defence families; they play an active role in supporting their wellbeing. Many schools in Spence take great pride in this fact and are part of the Defence School Mentor Program. Through employing a defence school mentor and facilitating a number of programs and initiatives, these schools are better equipped to help students from defence families thrive with their ongoing education and transitioning into and out of their respective school communities and to help mitigate some of the challenges uniquely faced by children in defence families. I am pleased to say that, out of the 19 South Australian schools that are part of this program, 11 of them are in Spence. This includes schools such as Gawler & District College B—12 and Hewett Primary School, which I have had the pleasure of visiting to see some of the work they do in this space. These efforts to support our kids go hand in hand with the Malinauskas Labor government in SA, who have taken steps to put systems in place to make it easier for parents to identify themselves as being current or former serving members of the ADF, meaning that schools can provide them with the supports they need upon enrolment. This is an initiative that was championed by organisations such as Lidia Hall's Resolute Ready and Hayley Boswell's Defence Kidz. These are two individuals dedicated to assisting defence personnel, veterans and their families. I've had the pleasure of hosting both of them at my electorate office and my office here over the past year. I always have a lot of time for people who are dedicated to improving the lives of those out there who dedicate themselves to making life just that little bit easier for ADF members past and present. That is particularly why, from my earliest days as Labor's candidate for Spence, I began fighting for the establishment of a veterans wellness hub within the electorate. All the way back in March 2022 I stood alongside the member for Blair, the then shadow minister for veterans affairs, where we made the commitment to invest in the health and wellbeing of veterans residing in Spence and surrounding areas through the building of one of these hubs. Since my election to this place, and the election of the Albanese Labor government, my resolve to make this a reality has only intensified. Throughout this time I've held several meetings with the veteran community in Spence and with a number of other stakeholders, to listen to their feedback about what a veteran and family wellbeing hub should be and how it can best serve the thousands of men and women who have served their country with distinction. This culminated in the Minister for Veterans' Affairs flying out to Spence on no less than three occasions as part of delivering on our promise. It is my longstanding hope that this hub will provide invaluable support to veterans and their families through a number of programs, ranging from support groups to assistance with transitioning to civilian life and civilian employment. In Spence I'm glad to see that veterans are not alone in that journey dealing with difficulties of transitioning from active service to being a civilian. Spence is home to many businesses that pride themselves as veteran employers. Many of these businesses are owned and operated by veterans, and have a workforce composed mostly of veterans. Many of these companies operate within our defence industry or in areas adjacent to it. This further underscores the importance of the defence industry in Spence and in South Australia, an industry that makes a significant contribution to employment and economic activity in my electorate and state. It also makes a significant contribution towards building Australia's sovereign capabilities and contributes towards projects that help Australia to defend itself and its interests abroad. The scaling up of Australia's defence industry in recent years has provided much needed economic activity and jobs, particularly in areas that suffered the impact of the closure of the automotive manufacturing industry. This is particularly true in Adelaide's north, being the former home of the General Motors Holden manufacturing plant. It's closure in 2017 saw many knock-on effects, with thousands of workers losing their jobs both at Holden and at companies that relied on Holden for a large portion of their business, such as components manufacturers. Well within the past decade, 2017 is far from being relegated to ancient history by any means. The thought of having a thriving manufacturing industry that we could all be proud of again seemed like a mere pipedream. In the years that followed, the former Holden manufacturing plant was reborn into Lionsgate Business Park, in no small part due to the fantastic work that Paschal Sommers did to make Lionsgate a hub for industry growth in the north. Success stories such as this, especially ones that follow such a spiritual and economic loss of a company like Holden, are a large part of why I was delighted to have been able to show the Minister for Industry and Science through Lionsgate. With tenants such as Epicurean Food Group and Select Plastics, it proves that the north is not just open for business but also supports a diverse range of industries. This is also true of another tenant at Lionsgate, Levett Engineering, who is a proud part of the defence industry, not just at Lionsgate but also a proud member of the Edinburgh Industry Alliance. Having defence industry on a GMH plant is not historically unusual by any means. Prior to being located in Elizabeth, the GMH plant in Woodville, along with many other plants across the state and the nation, was repurposed to produce guns, tanks and military aircraft parts during the Second World War. It is fitting to see defence manufacturing return to a former Holden plant. Beyond Lionsgate, South Australia is home to a vibrant and growing defence industry, an industry that currently accounts for 3.8 per cent of gross state product. It accounts for roughly two per cent of all jobs and has hundreds of companies that form part of this sector, including seven out of the world's top 10 defence companies. It reminds me that quite often South Australia really does punch above its weight on a number of fronts. This is especially true of our defence industry. Recently I had the chance to meet with around 80 of these companies as part of a showcase at the Indo-Pacific maritime expo in Sydney late last year, led by South Australia's deputy premier and defence industry minister, Susan Close. It was an event that saw the largest number of exhibitors from across Australia in its history. It was only appropriate that South Australia's best and brightest from our defence industry would fit right in amongst them. In my electorate of Spence, the growth of the defence industry is not just a matter of economic development; it's a matter of pride and identity. Our contributions in this sector are a testament to our community's resilience, innovation and commitment to the nation. And this was clearly on display at the expo. The jobs of tomorrow are not just on the distant horizon. Through many long-term projects in our defence industry pipeline, we are poised to reap the benefits. The strategic importance of South Australia within our national defence landscape is clear. With defence infrastructure present within our state, along with universities and vocational education providers on the ground ready to train and develop a skilled workforce locally, the economic benefits of a thriving defence industry are pivotal in ensuring that South Australia continues to be known as Australia's defence state not just in the years to come but in the decades ahead. And, I must say, that is a title certainly worth defending. Gordon, Dr Ash, Menzies Electorate: Chinese New Year 109 18:50 Mr WOLAHAN 235654 Menzies A few days ago we saw the horrific news of a grandmother killed, murdered, in front of her granddaughter. The alleged perpetrator is a teenager. For many in my electorate, in Victoria and in Melbourne, this brought back an eery comparison to an alleged murder that happened in my electorate three weeks ago, when a young doctor, Dr Ash Gordon, was murdered defending his home. I want to speak about Ash Gordon, because too often focus is on the crime and the horror of it and what needs to be done next, and that must happen, but we must never forget the gaping wound that has been left in the families of two wonderful people. Dr Ash Gordon was only in his early 30s when he was killed. His whole life was ahead of him, and he was just starting. He grew up in Hazelwood North. He studied medicine at the Monash School of Rural Health. He became a GP at Box Hill Superclinic, just outside my electorate. He didn't just satisfy himself as a doctor there; he had a flair for small business as well, so he opened a cosmetics clinic in Richmond. His funeral was held recently, and I've read many of the eulogies given for him by his family and by his friends. It was devastating to hear. His friends described him as a hard-working, compassionate larrikin. A woman who was diagnosed with advanced melanoma after giving birth said he saved her life. Glenn Gordon, his father, said: You were achieving so much. I boasted constantly that my son is a doctor. We were incredibly proud of everything you achieved in your time here. We will speak your name often and keep your memory alive. And that's so important—to speak people's names. Ash Gordon. Ash Gordon. His name should be in our Hansard and should be in our hearts. He was someone who didn't just strive to better himself; he strived to better our community and to serve others. His sister Natalie Gordon said: Ash's energy was like none other. He had the ability to lift the mood in the room with his infectious laugh. He wasn't just a respected doctor with a heart of gold; he was described as a true gentleman—intelligent, honest and compassionate. He cared deeply for his patients, his family and his friends. He was also extremely brave. Too often we have seen break-ins, particularly in my community. I've had many people come to me and say they have noticed an increase in property crime and violent property crime. Any violent crime doesn't just end there; it leads to other consequences, like this. When he found out that his house, his home, had been broken into, his sense of justice and his courage for not letting people get away with that meant that he chased them down. A court will decide what exactly happened and the appropriate punishment, but we mustn't forget that this happened in 2024 in suburban Melbourne. A young doctor had his home invaded, and he paid the price with his life. Dr Ash Gordon, you were loved. You served our community. You will be deeply missed by your family and friends, and your name will not be forgotten. Mr Deputy Speaker, every year at lunar new year we recognise a particular animal. This one it's a fictitious one—although my son might correct me on that—the year of the dragon. The year of the dragon symbolises strength, courage and prosperity. I really enjoy this time of the year in the Chinese community in my electorate. It's a significant community, 27 per cent of my electorate, and I particularly enjoy this time with them because it's about family and community and about celebrating each other and showing gratitude for what they have in the lives they have built for each other. It's a time to get together to show unity and friendship and to work hand in hand to create a special future. The year of the dragon is a particularly auspicious year. It's actually a particular type of dragon, the wood dragon, and was last seen in 1965. The year begins on 10 February and concludes on 28 January 2024. There are many symbols associated with the year of the wood dragon: power, nobility, honour and luck. It's associated with other attributes, but two that stand out for me are courage and protection. I just spoke about the courage that Ash Gordon showed in protecting his community, his family and his friends. That's very important. Ash lived in Doncaster, and Doncaster is an area, for those who know Melbourne well, that is often considered the head of the dragon. Doncaster means a lot to the Chinese community, as does Box Hill and, indeed, the whole of my electorate. I want to acknowledge, in particular, members of the community who take the time to look after each other. They organise events and dinners. Those of us who organise events like that know it's hard work. You've got to chase people up, make the bookings, promote the event and invite people to come along—people like me, which I'm very grateful for. I'll just single out some who have held events recently. One that is actually coming up will probably be the biggest lunar new year event in our community. The Asian Business Association of Whitehorse will be holding its lunar new year event, and it is an event without peer. Over a hundred thousand people from the community gather for that event, and I look forward to being there all day and celebrating it in Box Hill. I want to single out Bihong Wang, the president, and Vice President Richard Shi. You are not only people who serve that association and your community but excellent advocates. I appreciate your feedback to me about many issues, including an issue that affects many small businesses, many of your members: crime. It is an issue that has particularly affected our community lately. Other groups are the Chinese Fellowship of Victoria, whose president is Philip Chui. I see Philip everywhere. He is someone who helps co-ordinate Chinese schools and all of the volunteers on the weekends. He runs contests for singing and art and he also promotes the Victorian education sector overseas—amongst many other things. He does that with a wonderful group of people who I had the pleasure of having dinner with the other night, including Michael and so many others. I really appreciate, and thank you for, your service to our community. To the Chinese Senior Citizens Club of Manningham and the president, my friend Selina Leung: you have your annual lunar new year event, and I'm really proud to be sponsoring it, as I do every year. You are a victim of your own success, because you're such a large community that there's not enough space to hold everyone at these events. So I'm very proud to help sponsor your lunar new year event in the largest facility that we have in Manningham. I want to acknowledge the Global Federation of Chinese Business Women, in particular its president, Lily Wang, and its vice president, Tina Curtain. I also want to acknowledge the Melbourne Taiwanese Chamber of Commerce and thank Vincent Liu, my good friend, and Andrew Shen. Your work in the vibrant Taiwanese community is greatly appreciated by me. I acknowledge all of the volunteers who help and support all of the leaders in the communities, but I single out the schools. There are several Chinese-speaking schools in my electorate. I had the great honour of visiting those last year and presented awards at graduation ceremonies. What I noticed, behind the scenes of the teaching, was family members making lunches and dinners, as well as doing all of the logistics and taxi drop-offs and pick-ups. And well done to the students. It's hard enough for me to get my kids to go to school Monday to Friday, but you do it an extra day a week, and that's admirable and one of the reasons we have some of the best schools in the country in the seat of Menzies. Finally, in terms of the arts, I want to acknowledge the International Sunny Arts Ensemble Association and Jennifer Wang. What you achieved in the Besen Centre last week was just amazing. All of the performers did a fantastic job. Congratulations to everyone and happy lunar New Year. Cost of Living 110 19:00 Dr ANANDA-RAJAH 290544 Higgins We are in a fight against inflation. When we came to government, inflation was 6.1 per cent. It peaked at nearly eight per cent in December 2022 and is moderating, with just over four per cent reported in December last year. This is welcome relief for millions of Australians. Why? Because inflation is an indirect tax which erodes your purchasing power. Inflation triggers that feared blunt weapon wielded by the Reserve Bank called 'interest rates', which inflicts widespread pain. The effects of inflation are felt most amongst low- and middle-income earners but also mortgage holders, renters, pensioners and small business owners. Businesses rethink their plans for expansion when interest rates go up, and that hurts jobs. No-one is immune, which is why we are treating inflation as public enemy No. 1. The medicine we've prescribed for the Australian economy seems to be working. Inflation is coming down; the job market is good; we have record levels of female workforce participation, at 62 per cent; the number of women in full-time work has gone up 5.3 per cent under our government; and we have the lowest gender pay gap in Commonwealth history, with work to do. We have also delivered the first budget surplus in 15 years, with another in prospect. Nevertheless, people have run down their savings in this pro-inflationary environment and are calling for further relief, which is why Labor's tax cut for every Australian is going to be essential. One of the reasons I stand here and not on the other side of the political spectrum is Medicare. Medicare is arguably our most important safety net. It recently turned 40. Happy birthday, Medicare! It is a proud Labor legacy that was introduced in 1984 by the Hawke government, but of course was preceded by Medibank. But Medicare is an aging patient and needs a shot in the arm. That's why we have tripled the bulk-billing incentive to arrest the decline in bulk-billing. A survey by a private group called Cleanbill showed that Higgins has the lowest bulk-billing rates in Victoria, with patients paying on average at least $50 out of pocket to see a doctor. That's a real disincentive for health-seeking behaviour when household budgets are under pressure. Since we tripled the bulk-billing incentive, Higgins residents have benefited from an estimated 1,359 additional bulk-billed visits and have saved an estimated just over $65,000 in the first two months. Nationally, bulk-billing rates have increased 2.1 per cent, equivalent to a staggering 360,000 additional presentations to the doctor that are now bulk-billed. That's the shot in the arm. The Prahran urgent care clinic, opposite the Alfred, where I previously worked, has been set up for non-life-threatening problems. The 58 urgent care clinics around the country that we are rolling out have gone gangbusters. From June last year, when they opened, to January this year, they have seen 130,000 visits. They are open seven days a week. Some, like the one in Prahran, which is open from 8 am to 10 pm seven days a week, have extended hours. They offer walk-ins, which means you don't need an appointment, and of course they are bulk-billed. When I visited, there were people sitting in the waiting room—babies, children and adults—waiting to be seen by a community GP. The Prahran urgent care clinic has been an absolute standout, and it also benefits from being closely located to the Alfred, where diagnostic tests such as X-rays and pathology can be done with a simple walk across the road. In a further advantage, these two centres are linked with the same electronic system, which means the doctors at the urgent care clinic can simply look up your results for anything that has been performed at the Alfred. There's no barrier to access. It delivers high-quality, affordable and convenient care. The largest group of patients at these urgent care clinics have been children, with around one-third being under 15 years. And the range of problems is diverse: from bites, lacerations, minor trauma and sporting accidents to STIs, which are sexually transmitted infections, and viral infections. There is no need to languish in an overcrowded emergency department. And the best part of all is that all you need is your Medicare card. With eight in 10 Australians having at least one long-term health condition, a chronic disease, including just over 38,000 people in Higgins, the move to 60-day prescriptions has been enthusiastically embraced by patients. We have had over 13,000 60-day scripts dispensed to Higgins residents from September to the end of December last year—halving the cost of these meds, providing convenience to patients and potentially improving their compliance. Again, this stops people from deteriorating and then ending up in hospital, in that emergency department I'm so familiar with. By keeping people out of hospital, the medical lever has become the economic one. For young Australians thinking of a career or those Australians considering a career change, TAFE is like choose your own adventure for skills. Following our removal of cost barriers for TAFE, Australians have taken up fee-free TAFE with gusto. Because our last allotment of 300,000 places was exhausted, we have released another 300,000 places this year. We've expanded the priority apprenticeships by adding another 19 in demand occupations like irrigation technician. You might want to work in the regions—why not? It's a great place to live and to raise a family. You might want to be a furniture maker, using your hands and engaging your creativity and imagination. You might want to be a nursing support worker—incredibly important in that care economy that's growing with time. Or you might want to be a sound technician if you like music or the creative arts. Fee-free TAFE has been a real success story, and colleges like Holmesglen TAFE in Chadstone are wonderful places to train, with happy, engaged learners getting hands-on experience. We want to help apprentices succeed, which is why we have provided interest-free loans of nearly $25,000 to 38,000 trainees across 60 in demand courses. These loans now include, for the first time, trainees in nontrade occupations such as child care, aged care and disability. If trainees successfully complete their training, we will shave 20 per cent off the amount they have to pay us back. That is absolutely awesome, especially when young people are under financial pressure and apprenticeship completion rates are woefully inadequate. One area we would like to see greater uptake in are our energy apprenticeships. We are throwing billions at energy, but companies are desperate for workers in wind turbine installation and maintenance; rooftop solar; battery installation transmission; and novel generation, like geothermal and green hydrogen. These projects are already on foot. They are well underway, but they really do need those skilled workers to oxygenate them. There are 10,000 places available and only 1,800 have been taken up. When it comes to the trades, we really want women to apply. I thought politics was the last bastion when it came to women, but it turns out that women in hi-vis really do break new ground. For essential workers, like aspiring teachers, we have generous scholarships of up to $40,000 over four years for undergraduates and $20,000 over two years for postgrads. For doctors keen on the rural experience—I've had that, and it was fantastic—we are waiving HECS fees the further out you go. Regional and remote work is a gift in health care. Broaden your horizons. Those communities will welcome you with open arms and you will have far more autonomy in the regions than you would ever have in a big city hospital. The 4,400 working families in Higgins have for too long been hit with hefty childcare fees. We pumped $5 billion into child care in our first budget, which has shaved 14 per cent per hour from child care, reducing out-of-pocket costs by 11 per cent. That is welcome for families in Higgins. This will bring some relief to parents who pay, in Higgins, the highest childcare fees in Victoria, according to the Mitchell Institute. But parents don't just want cheaper child care; they want quality, because those first five years are foundational to a productive life, which is why we are leading major reviews into the sector with input from the Productivity Commission and the competition watchdog, the ACCC. Housing is fundamental, and, like Medicare and energy, it was neglected by those opposite. They washed their hands of housing. Supply plummeted, the population grew and household occupancy fell, intensifying rental demand. In 2021, 42 per cent of people in Higgins were renting, paying a median of $420 a week across the electorate. It would be more now. The 15 per cent increase in Commonwealth Rent Assistance, the highest in 30 years, will help—like it helped Graham, who I met outside Melbourne Central. As a pensioner, he lived with his son, but he appealed to me and my office, and we were able to get him Commonwealth Rent Assistance, which he greatly appreciated. Youth Justice 112 19:10 Mr WOOD E0F La Trobe Many years ago, when I was in the Victorian police forces as a sergeant in what's called the Melbourne CBD, the shopkeepers came to me because they were getting sick and tired of youth crime and wanted us to do something about it. So I established a youth activities program. These were young people basically about to go to youth detention. Some had actually finished a prison term and were getting another sentence. The magistrate gave them the opportunity to go on my youth activities program or go to youth detention. An interesting thing was done in conjunction with the Preston Youth Justice Office. After six months, I said, 'Where have all the young people gone?' They said, 'They've all got jobs.' Once you put young people out of harm's way and give them the opportunity, they can do exceptionally well. I led an inquiry a number of years ago, in 2017. It was under the Joint Standing Committee on Migration, and the report of the inquiry was called No one teaches you to become an Australian. This was after the gang attacks in Melbourne. A legend in Melbourne by the name of Les Twentyman appeared before the committee as part of the inquiry. He has his own foundation. He said: 'You know what? If you put more money into youth workers and youth programs, you'll get more young people out of gangs.' That's more young people whose lives we can save. I thought, 'What a fantastic idea.' When appointed as Assistant Minister for Home Affairs, I pursued this and came up with a program called the Safer Communities Fund, which was for high-risk youth and targeted at those between 12 and 24 years old. I made sure it was very much focused on either keeping young people in school if they were on the verge of leaving or, if they had left, trying to get them back into programs where they could get training, education and a job. The other, harder ones were those who had been incarcerated and were coming out. It was about providing guidance so they didn't go down the same path. This is very similar to programs they run in the US. Initially, we committed $20 million to the program under the former coalition government. We had over 400 applicants and realised that wasn't enough funding, so, to the credit of the former Treasurer and Prime Minister, we upped the funding to $120 million and funded 133 organisations, including $29.7 million which went to Indigenous youth initiatives. The one thing we made sure occurred after speaking to so many groups was this. They said, 'there's no use putting funding in place for just 12 months; we need it for three years. So we made sure it was for three years for services for the youth at risk, who were becoming involved with the criminal justice system. This was the eligibility criteria. The programs increased youth engagement with local communities by building resilience and et cetera. We did engagement with sporting and recreation clubs, including bus hires and everything else like that. We had also budgeted in the October 2022-23 budget, and Labor redirected $50 million under round 7 of the community fund. That was really disheartening not only for me but also for all those organisations which had done so well. A really sad and disgraceful thing is about to occur. In April this year all the funding stops. So I wrote to 133 recipients of funding from the Safer Communities Fund from all over Australia. There were only two interventions that I was involved in. One was actually in Queensland. I think it was the Queensland African Communities Council. The other was the Hope Australia Soccer Academy. Again, this is very much targeted at assisting African youth. What did the Labor Party do? They raised all this in Senate estimates: why would you intervene? The simple reason I intervened is that there's no other way these groups would actually get funding. We assisted two groups, but I have here the letters responding back to me from other groups who all have missed out. Jessie Braun from Fusion Australia in the Swan electorate in Perth wrote: To date, the Life Skills program has reached 176 individual students since July 2022 and seen young people improve their self-awareness, relationships with peers, resilience and ability to problem-solve and manage confidence. For those 176 youngsters, there will be no more funding in the future under Labor. Annie Shirley from Junction Support Services in the Indi electorate wrote: We are disappointed the Safer Communities Fund will not continue as we have utilised the current funding to run an early intervention crime prevention program for young people. It's called Diverge. She continued: Our Diverge Program is due to end in April 2024— That's a common theme. The Diverge program has been highly successful. Working with police and Wodonga TAFE et cetera, it is precisely what we want to occur in the education sector. Tamsyn Hall from Wesley Mission Queensland wrote about the It's a Wrap program in the Moncrieff electorate: Since beginning in June 2022, It's a Wrap has assisted approximately 286 young people. Overall, the program has been highly successful and pivotal in supporting the needs of young people at a time when it is needed most. Again, she says that the funding is about to be cut. Catriona Kucks from BABI Youth and Family Service in the Bonner electorate also talked about the funding being cut this year. She wrote: This will lead up to 30 young people a day unsupported and potentially unaccounted for in the Wynnum area Tues-Fri every week. Christopher John from the Resolve coaching initiative in the Rankin electorate—I believe that's the Treasurer's electorate—says that they are seeking funding from a number of sources to cover the gap. He writes: Since it began in June 2022, Resolve has provided intensive coaching for 85 young people and had more than 1,300 contacts … Again, the funding stops in April. Julianne Sanders from SHINE for Kids in Parramatta wrote: The grant has enabled SHINE for Kids to provide mentoring support to young people with a parent in prison who are at risk of entering the justice system in Townsville, Western Sydney, and Frankston. Gerry Blackwell from the Youth Development Foundation in the Dickson electorate writes: The overwhelming positive feedback from schools, providers and family members speak volumes about the program's effectiveness and the value it brings to the community. Again, that funding will stop in April. Samantha King from Youth Up Front in the Mackellar electorate writes: Through the implementation, countless lives have been positively impacted, providing valuable support and opportunities to those who have need it the most. However, recent discussions have indicated a cessation of funding … We know about that, unfortunately. This news has left many parents, school personnel and local and state government concerned about the far-reaching consequences … Jessica Bishop from Migrant Information Centre in the Chisholm electorate in eastern Melbourne wrote: The project facilitated 27 group programs with 594 total participants. MIC found that refugee and migrant youth tend not to participate in recreational activities or receive support when offered by mainstream services such as councils … Again, this funding will be cut. Teale Blessington from Netball Queensland's Diamond Spirit program in the Moreton electorate writes: Our greatest challenge has been the time-sensitive nature of the funding. Netball Queensland's capacity to deliver the program … She writes that its allocation of resources will be limited in the future, whilst they have not been able to attract further funding past April 2024. As I was saying, a lot of these electorates are obviously Labor held electorates, so, overall, this program targets the most vulnerable in Australia. I didn't care what electorate it was; it was all about helping young people. Christine Marley from Fearless Toward Success in the Blair electorate wrote: At the end of April 24 and without further funding post-April 2024, we will no longer be able to support recidivist youth achieve their self-directed goals … Nor will they have organisations such as this to help. Again, we've seen gang violence in Melbourne and Queensland and right across Australia. In Ipswich, Vyleen White, 70, was, sadly, murdered, stabbed to death in front of her granddaughter. Obviously we've got a police investigation underway, but I think it's fair to say that there were a number of young people involved in that horrendous crime. The whole thing we need to do is early intervention. For Labor members not to stand up to the Prime Minister and the Treasurer—they should bow their heads in shame, because this is an outstanding program which helps young people and stops them going down the wrong path, where they end up in jail and destroy their lives and destroy the lives of other people. It's absolutely disgraceful that this program has been cut. The great news is that the election of a coalition government in the future would result in this program being funded, because we realise how important it is to support young people and make sure they don't go down the wrong path. Unfortunately, Labor hasn't got the same view. Medicare 114 19:20 Ms MASCARENHAS 298800 Swan This is a bit of a love letter to Medicare. I note that this month is the 40th anniversary of Medicare. There have been some positive times for Medicare and some really challenging times. I'm a kid of the eighties, and I don't really know a world without Medicare, but there was a time when we didn't have Medicare in Australia. During that time, it was really challenging for Australians to have access to health care. Back in the seventies, three out of five families did not have access to private health insurance, because they simply could not afford it. There was no such thing as bulk-billing, because there was no Medicare, so it was hard for Australians to get access to affordable health care. If people wanted to go to the doctor, they had to pay for the visit in full. When they couldn't afford it, they simply did not go. I just can't imagine that world. But the Hawke Labor government believed in the concept of universal health care. In just 10 months after Hawke's remarkable election victory, Medicare was in place—just 10 months. Prime Minister Hawke said that Medicare was cheaper, simpler and fairer. He said that Medicare would mean that nine out of 10 Australians would pay less for their health needs. When it began, 92 per cent of the population signed up. As a kid of the eighties in Kambalda, the country town where I grew up, I wasn't very sick, so I didn't go to the doctors very often, but occasionally, once a year or so, I'd have a swollen eye, and I'd go to the nursing post. It was great that my parents felt confident and comfortable to access the health care that I needed and that there were not barriers in place. An interesting thing I learned today from one of my doctor colleagues—we have multiple doctors within the Labor caucus—was that he started up his clinic on 1 February 1984, which was the beginning of Medicare. He did that because he believed in accessible health care. The reason why Dr Freelander went to medical school was that he wanted to make sure Australians had access to health care. When that policy changed, he happily set up a new clinic, which was super exciting. In the electorate of Swan, I had the exciting opportunity of being invited to the Cannington Medical Centre, where I got to visit Cat Rippon and Madison Savage, who run an amazing clinic. There are 22 doctors and 12 nurses in this clinic, and they do so much work there. It's a super passionate team. They have a treatment room and radiology and are co-located with a dentist and a pharmacist. They do so much amazing work. Cat Rippon, who trained as a nurse, is so passionate about the Australian healthcare system that they made biscuits to celebrate the 40th anniversary of Medicare. I was dressed in gold and she was dressed in green, and we got to celebrate how amazing Medicare is. I think it's also important to recognise and reflect that not everyone wanted Medicare. The Liberals have a long history of hating on Medicare. Howard was one of the original haters and described Medicare as one of the greatest failures of the Hawke government. I find that so bizarre. As opposition leader, John Howard said in 1987 that the government should have taken a knife to Medicare. Of course, when he did take over he froze the rates for Medicare payments to GPs, and that led to a massive decline in the number of GPs offering bulk-billed services. But that's not all that happened. We had Abbott, who wanted to introduce co-payments, and we had Turnbull, who wanted to privatise the payment system of Medicare and who set up the Medicare privatisation taskforce. I know that we're going over old blood, but, as Bob Hawke said, 'Everybody knows you don't set up a Medicare privatisation taskforce unless you aim to privatise Medicare.' The truth is that Medicare is a really important part of what it means to be Australian. When people choose to call Australia their home, they do it for multiple reasons, but I see it as about having a better future, with access to good health care, a good education system and secure work, and these are all things that federal Labor fundamentally believes in. The centrepiece of our May 2022 budget was the doubling of the GP rebate, because we wanted to make sure that general practices, which are at the forefront of our medical system, were functioning. Between October and December we saw an additional 360,000 bulk-billed visits, and in my electorate of Swan there were an additional 1,500 bulk-billed appointments. This demonstrates that people who need health care are getting access to it. We've also seen the creation of Medicare urgent clinics. So far, 58 urgent healthcare clinics have opened across the country. I see that as an important part of making sure we have a well-functioning healthcare system. When Medicare was launched, in 1984, there were around 2,300 items on the Medicare Benefits Schedule; today there are around 6,000. It's funny, because I feel like I have a Sliding Doors moment in my life. My dad's six brothers and sisters migrated to California. He was the only one who came to Australia. One of my cousins who's based in the US had a leaky heart valve. It wasn't something she had control over. She didn't contract this condition; she was born with it. When she was in her 20s she had emergency heart surgery. There's that moment when you ask: 'Holy cow, what is wrong with me? What do I need to do?' But there is also the question, 'Can I afford this health care?' She is now older and has to live with this condition. She does not have access to the same health care that other people have, because it's very expensive, and I feel really sad that they're the circumstances of the country that she has grown up in. But I know that if I was in the same circumstance, if I had been born with a leaky heart valve, the Australian Medicare system would look after me. I am really grateful that we have this amazing universal healthcare system, but I also remember having debates with some of my American friends, who were, like, 'What is this healthcare system?!' From their perspective they saw it as a form of communism, but in my mind it's just about humanity. It's about humanity and about us looking after other humans. So I would say that Medicare is a really important part of Australia. It has changed the way that we look at health care in our system. I think that everyone having access universal health care makes us a better nation. Forty years later, Labor is continuing to work on strengthening the healthcare system. I remember, four weeks after my daughter was born, my mum complaining about my dad because he was walking with a limp. She said, 'I'm annoyed at the way your father's walking,' and took him to the GP, who said that he needed to have a brain scan. He went and had a brain scan, and it turned out that dad had bleeding on the brain, which they hadn't realised. Dad ended up having emergency brain surgery the next day, and I remember the surgeon giving me a call and my asking, 'What are the risks of this brain surgery?' He was, like, 'There is a possibility that your dad might die,' and I was, like, 'Can I speak to him before you perform surgery on him?' Dad survived the operation, but I realised that if I had been in another country in that moment when he was dealing with these very full-on instances there would have been part of me asking: 'Can I afford this? What does this mean for my family? Do I need to mortgage the house? How long will I need to do this?' So I am grateful for the Medicare system, and I look forward to all sides of this chamber continuing to protect Medicare because it's Australia's jewel in the crown and something that should be strengthened and protected. Medicare rocks! The DEPUTY SPEAKER 230886 The time for the grievance debate has expired. The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 192(b). The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. Federation Chamber adjourned at 19:31