﻿
<hansard noNamespaceSchemaLocation="../../hansard.xsd" version="2.2">
  <session.header>
    <date>2024-02-07</date>
    <parliament.no>2</parliament.no>
    <session.no>1</session.no>
    <period.no>0</period.no>
    <chamber>House of Reps</chamber>
    <page.no>0</page.no>
    <proof>1</proof>
  </session.header>
  <chamber.xscript>
    <business.start>
      <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:WX="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
        <p class="HPS-SODJobDate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
          <span class="HPS-SODJobDate">
            <span style="font-weight:bold;" />
            <a href="Chamber" type="">Wednesday, 7 February 2024</a>
          </span>
        </p>
        <p class="HPS-Normal" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
          <span class="HPS-Normal">
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">The SPEAKER (</span>
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">Hon.</span>
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">
            </span>
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">Milton Dick</span>
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">) </span>took the chair at 09:00, made an acknowledgement of country and read prayers.</span>
        </p>
      </body>
    </business.start>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>COMMITTEES</title>
        <page.no>1</page.no>
        <type>COMMITTEES</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Selection Committee</title>
          <page.no>1</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Report</title>
            <page.no>1</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:01</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I present report No. 21 of the Selection Committee, relating to the consideration of committee and delegation business and private members' business on Monday 12 February 2024. The report will be printed in the <inline font-style="italic">Hansard </inline>for today, and the committee's determinations will appear on tomorrow's <inline font-style="italic">Notice Paper</inline>. Copies of the report have been placed on the table.</para>
<para class="italic"> <inline font-style="italic">The report read as follows—</inline></para>
<quote><para class="block">Report relating to the consideration of committee and delegation business and of private Members' business</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">1. The Committee met in private session on Tuesday, 6 February 2024.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">2. The Committee deliberated on items of committee and delegation business that had been notified, private Members' business items listed on the Notice Paper and notices lodged on Tuesday, 6 February 2024, and determined the order of precedence and times on Monday, 12 February 2024, as follows:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Items for House of Representatives Chamber (10.10 am to 12 noon)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">COMMITTEE AND DELEGATION BUSINESS</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Presentation and statements</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">1 AUSTRALIAN PARLIAMENTARY DELEGATION</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Report of the Parliamentary Delegation to the 44th ASEAN Inter-Parliamentary Assembly (AIPA) hosted by the Republic of Indonesia</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">The Committee </inline> <inline font-style="italic">determined that statements on the report may be made</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">all statements to conclude by 10.20 am.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Ms Mascarenhas</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Next Member speaking</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 2 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">2 Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Annual Report of Committee Activities 2022-2023</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that statements on the report may be made</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">all statements to conclude by 10.25 am.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Mr Khalil</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 1 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Notices</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">1 MS CHANEY: To present a Bill for an Act to amend the <inline font-style="italic">Criminal Code Act 1995</inline>, and for related purposes. (<inline font-style="italic">Criminal Code Amendment </inline><inline font-style="italic">(Telecommunications Offences for Suicide Related Material</inline><inline font-style="italic">—</inline><inline font-style="italic">Exception for Lawful Voluntary Assisted Dying) Bill 2024</inline>)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Presenter may speak to the second reading for a period not exceeding 10 minutes</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">pursuant to standing order 41. Debate must be adjourned pursuant to standing order 142.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">2 MR GEE: To present a Bill for an Act to prohibit the purchase of residential property by foreign entities, and for related purposes. (<inline font-style="italic">Prohibition on the Purchase of Residential Property by Foreign Entities Bill 2024</inline>)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Presenter may speak to the second reading for a period not exceeding 10 minutes</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">pursuant to standing order 41. Debate must be adjourned pursuant to standing order 142.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">3 MR CHANDLER-MATHER: To move:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) notes that since the House of Representatives' resolution of 16 October 2023 concerning Israel and Gaza, which supported the State of Israel's looming invasion of Gaza by stating that the House 'stands with Israel', the following have occurred:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) an appalling and increasing toll of deaths and injuries caused by the State of Israel's bombing and invasion of Gaza;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) a growing humanitarian catastrophe caused by the State of Israel's blockade, bombing and invasion of Gaza; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) the State of Israel is the subject of recent International Court of Justice orders in South Africa's case regarding the prevention of genocide;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) does not support the State of Israel's continued invasion of Gaza, and calls for an immediate and permanent ceasefire; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) calls on the Government to end its support for the State of Israel's invasion of Gaza.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">(Notice given 6 February 2024.)</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Time allotted</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">20 minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Mr Chandler-Mather</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Other Members</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes each.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 4 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">4 MR VAN MANEN: To move:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) notes that before the election, the:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) Government promised a $275 reduction in people's power bills; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) Prime Minister promised 'cheaper mortgages', and promised that families would be 'better off', yet in just 18 months:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) food has gone up more than 9 per cent;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) housing has gone up more than 12 per cent;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(iii) electricity has gone up more than 23 per cent;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(iv) gas has gone up more than 29 per cent;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(v) after 12 interest rate rises, interest rates are at their highest level since 2011, meaning a family with a $750,000 mortgage now needs to pay an extra $24,000 per year; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(vi) rents are experiencing the highest increase since 2009;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) acknowledges that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) this Government's economic and energy policies are making inflation worse with Australia's inflation still higher than almost every major advanced economy; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) higher inflation means higher interest rates which contributes to higher rents; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) recognises that in the past year, household disposable incomes fell by 5 per cent, more than any developed country.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">(Notice given 6 February 2024.)</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Time allotted</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">25 minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Mr van Manen</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Other Members</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes each.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 5 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">5 MR BURNELL: To move:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) acknowledges that cost of living pressures, including the cost of groceries, are putting Australians under the pump;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) notes that to ensure that Australian consumers and suppliers are getting a fair deal, the Government has:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) directed the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission to conduct a pricing inquiry into the competitiveness of retail prices and allegations of price gouging in the supermarket sector;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) commenced an independent review of the Food and Grocery Code led by Dr Craig Emerson, which will examine whether the code is effective in ensuring Australian suppliers and farmers are getting a fair go; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) partnered with consumer advocacy group CHOICE to regularly provide shoppers with better information on the comparative costs of grocery goods at different retailers; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) recognises these measures are further examples of the Government ensuring everyone is doing their bit when it comes to easing the cost of living crisis.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">(Notice given 6 </inline> <inline font-style="italic">February 2024.)</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Time allotted</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">remaining private Members' business time prior to 12 noon.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Mr Burnell</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Other Members</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes each.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 6 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that </inline> <inline font-style="italic">consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Items for Federation Chamber (11 am to 1.30 pm)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Notices</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">1 MS STEGGALL: To move:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) notes that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) domestic and intimate partner violence is a national crisis and whilst impacting all genders, the casualties are overwhelmingly women;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) on average in Australia, one woman per week is murdered by her current or former partner;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) as of 4 February 2024, six women have been allegedly murdered by their male partner in Australia;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) in the year 2021-22, 5,606 women were hospitalised due to family and domestic violence, an average of 15 women per day;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(e) the number of Australian women killed by their partners each year has not changed significantly in over 30 years;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(f) women often experience multiple incidents of violence across their lifetime; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(g) the men who abuse, violate and murder women are not so-called 'good blokes' and any such notion must be called out each and every time a woman faces violence at the hands of a male partner or male they know; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) calls on the Government to:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) urgently convene a crisis National Cabinet meeting of federal, state and territory ministers to:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) ensure the National Plan to End Violence against Women and Children 2022-2032 is bringing about the required action and policies to prevent violence against women and children across Australia;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) commission, a review of all state criminal sentencing provisions and the use of character references for domestic violence and gender-based abuse to ensure they are fit-for-purpose in holding perpetrators of violence against women to account;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(iii) increase the capacity of specialist services to assist women fleeing domestic violence to stay alive, such crisis support, appropriate accommodation, leave advice and advocacy and income support and ensure they are properly funded;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(iv) fully fund proven programs that save lives, such as 'Staying Home Leaving Violence', which been shown by research to be an effective contributor to the long-term safety and housing stability of women and children who have left a violent and abusive relationship; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(v) agree on further concrete, measurable and streamlined efforts at all levels of government based on sound evidence to bring down the horrific number of cases of domestic violence against women and children from this year.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">(Notice given 6 February 2024.)</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Time allotted</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">20 minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Ms Steggall</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Other Members</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes each.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 4 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">2 DR REID: To move:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">That this House acknowledges the Government's commitment and actions to build a better and fairer education system from early education right through to university, by:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) delivering cheaper child care which is making early education and care more affordable for 1.2 million Australian families;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) tackling the teacher shortage through the National Teacher Workforce Action Plan;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) delivering $275.2 million to schools to improve school infrastructure through the Schools Upgrade Fund;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) providing $203.7 million in funding to support student wellbeing across every school in the country through the Student Wellbeing Boost;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(5) working with state and territory governments to get all schools on a path to full and fair funding; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(6) setting the higher education system up for the future through the Universities Accord, and implementing the priority actions of the accord interim report, which delivers:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) an additional 20 new regional university study hubs and 14 suburban university study hubs;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) demand driven places for First Nations students from metropolitan areas;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) the removal of the unfair 50 per cent pass rule; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) university governance reforms.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">(Notice given 14 November 2023.)</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Time allotted</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">20 minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Dr Reid</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Other Members</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes each.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 4 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">3 MS BELL: To move:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) notes that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the Government misled the Australian Parliament and Australian people when they falsely claimed that since May 2022 there were 123,000 early childhood educators and teachers in the pipeline;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the Department of Education advised Government Ministers time and again that it was factually incorrect to claim that figure was from May 2022;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) the 123,000 figure was actually from 2021 higher education and 2022 vocational education and training data, meaning the record figures were as a result of the previous Government's policies; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) during the previous Government's time in office, record investments into skills and training were delivered which helped hundreds of thousands of Australians to skill-up and enter the workforce;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) calls on the:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) Government Ministers who misled the Australian Parliament to front-up and apologise; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) Government to admit their claimed record in the training and education pipeline of educators was in fact thanks to the previous Government's strong training and skills policies.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">(Notice given 6 February 2024.)</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Time allotted</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">30 minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Ms </inline> <inline font-style="italic">Bell</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Other Members</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes each.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 6 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">4 MR RAE: To move:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) acknowledges that through the passage of its 'closing loopholes' legislation, the Government has closed loopholes used by some employers to undercut wages, conditions and safety for Australian workers, including by:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) stopping companies using labour hire as a means of underpaying their workers;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) making it a criminal offence for employers to deliberately steal their workers' wages;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) closing the loophole in which large businesses could claim small business exemptions during insolvency;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) introducing a new criminal offence of industrial manslaughter;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(e) ensuring better support for first responders with post-traumatic stress disorder;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(f) protecting workers subjected to family and domestic violence from discrimination at work; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(g) expanding the functions of the Asbestos Safety and Eradication Agency to include silica;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) recognises that many Australian families are doing it tough dealing with the cost of living, and that getting wages moving again is a key part of addressing the cost of living;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) notes that the Opposition has voted against legislation to get wages moving 36 times in this term of Parliament; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) calls on the Opposition to support the remaining elements of the 'closing loopholes' legislation, including minimum standards for gig workers, reforms to the road transport industry and a better deal for casual workers who want to become permanent.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">(Notice given 6 February 2024.)</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Time allotted</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">30 minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Mr Rae</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Other Members</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes each.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 6 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">5 MR HOGAN: To move:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) acknowledges the Order of Australia is the highest national honour awarded to Australian citizens for outstanding contributions to our country or humanity at large;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) notes that since being established by Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II in 1975, there have been over 40,000 recipients of awards in the Order of Australia;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) recognises and celebrates the 1,042 Australia Day 2024 awards recipients, including 739 awards in the General Division of the Order of Australia for meritorious, distinguished and conspicuous service;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) further acknowledges community members recognised through Australia Day 2024 Local Citizen of the Year Awards; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(5) congratulates all the recipients of awards on Australia Day 2024.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">(Notice given 6 February 2024.)</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Time allotted</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">30 minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Mr Hogan</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Other Members</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes each.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 6 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">6 MR LAXALE: To move:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) acknowledges:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the work the Government has undertaken to support Australia's multicultural communities, including:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) launching the Multicultural Framework Review;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) supporting a cohesive and inclusive multicultural society;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(iii) investing $20 million in the Adult Migrant English Program;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(iv) extending the Community Language Schools grant program to pre-schoolers;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(v) committing $7.5 million to fund the Australian Human Rights Commission to complete its National Anti-Racism Framework;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(vi) reducing citizenship processing times by 42 per cent to the lowest level in six years; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(vii) clearing the visa backlogs for nearly 1 million people left behind by the Liberal Party and slashing wait time;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) that Australia is proudly one of the world's most vibrant and successful multicultural societies; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) the positive contribution that migration has made to our country, culture and economy; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) condemns the:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) Liberal and National parties for their neglect of the immigration system, as outlined in the Nixon Review; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) comments from a former Prime Minister on 2 November 2023, when he stated that he 'always had trouble' with the concept of multiculturalism.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">(Notice given 15 November 2023.)</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Time allotted</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">remaining private </inline> <inline font-style="italic">Members' business time prior to 1.30 pm.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Mr Laxale</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Other Members</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes each.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 4 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a </inline> <inline font-style="italic">future day.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Items for Federation Chamber (4.45 pm to 7.30 pm)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Notices — continued</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">7 MS MASCARENHAS: To move:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) notes that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) financial abuse is a form of domestic and family violence;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) financial abuse has a serious impact on victims and survivors;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) the rates of the misuse of financial products to cause harm has risen since the expansion of online financial services; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) there is a need to build evidence of the different types of financial abuse;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) condemns the:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) use of bank accounts to perpetrate abuse;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) use of money to control victims of economic abuse; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) exploitation or sabotage of a person's finances to undermine their financial security and limit their ability to be independent and self-sufficient;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) acknowledges the:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) reforms by the finance sector in response to customers experiencing domestic and family violence;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) reforms by the major banks to amend the terms and conditions of a range of products to address financial abuse; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) amendments to the industry code of conduct that raise the standard of acceptable customer behaviour;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) affirms that action on financial and economic abuse requires a coordinated response by banks, regulators, government, and consumer advocates; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(5) commends the Government for its commitment to combat financial abuse.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">(Notice given 17 October 2023.)</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Time allotted</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">30 minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Ms Mascarenhas</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Other Members</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes each.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 6 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">8 MR BIRRELL: To move:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) notes that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) Jobs and Skills Australia Acting Commissioner, David Turvey, has said overseas agricultural labourers could be included under a new visa for lower-paid employees to fill workforce deficits; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the agriculture sector was in contention for the lowest-tier visa, announced after the Government's review of the migration system;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) condemns the Government for its treatment of the agriculture sector including:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) scrapping the previous Government's agriculture visa designed specifically to address labour shortages; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) failing to address the labour shortfall estimated at 172,000 workers, putting a handbrake on production and profitability of agricultural businesses; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) calls on the Government to introduce a specific agriculture visa to address the serious gaps in the agriculture workforce.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">(Notice given 6 February 2024.)</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Time allotted</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">40 minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Mr Birrell</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>4<inline font-style="italic"> minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Other Members</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes each.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 8 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that consideration of this matter </inline> <inline font-style="italic">should continue on a future day.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">9 MR LIM: To move:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) recognises the commendable efforts of the Government in addressing the status of women and promoting pay equality;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) applauds the initiatives the Government has taken to improve conditions for working women, supporting their safety and economic equality;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) acknowledges that women still experience economic inequality, including a national gender pay gap of 13 per cent and an average of 47 per cent less super for women compared to men, equating to an $85,000 difference for the average superannuation fund;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) highlights the:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) disproportionate impact on working mothers who currently predominantly take parental leave and experience a significant gap in superannuation contributions during this period; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) Government's significant expansion of paid parental leave which increases the scheme to 26 weeks by July 2026, and provides each parent four weeks of reserved leave from July 2026 when the full scheme is implemented in order to encourage shared care and send a strong signal that both parents play a role in caring for their children; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(5) supports the continued efforts by the Government to close the gender pay gap and support women's economic equality over their lifetime.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">(Notice given 14 September 2023.)</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Time allotted</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">30 minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Mr Lim</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Other Members</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes each.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 6 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that consideration of this matter </inline> <inline font-style="italic">should continue on a future day.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">10 MR VIOLI: To move:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) notes that the:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) Digital Economy Strategy 2030 delivered on the former Government's commitment to grow Australia's future as a modern and leading digital economy, including building on regulation as required; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) absence of a minister for the digital economy under this Government has resulted in a slow and unclear development of policy concerning artificial intelligence (AI);</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) expresses its concern that the lack of clarity on an AI policy framework is damaging to Australian businesses which need certainty to grow and innovate on the global stage; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) calls on the Government to:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) recognise the opportunities AI presents and implement a strategy that allows the Australian economy to reap the rewards of emerging technologies; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) appoint a minister for the digital economy to ensure our nation remains globally competitive in what is an increasingly digital world.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">(Notice given 14 November 2023.)</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Time </inline> <inline font-style="italic">allotted</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">30 minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Mr Violi</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Other Members</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes each.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 6 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">11 MS ROBERTS: To move:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) notes that currently no public schools in Australia, except for public schools in the Australian Capital Territory, are at the full and fair funding level;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) recognises the Government's commitment to make Australia's education system better and fairer by working with all states and territories to ensure every school is on a path to 100 per cent of its fair funding level;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) acknowledges the Western Australian Government on being the first state to sign a statement of intent to ensure every school in Western Australia receives full and fair funding;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) commends the Government and Western Australian Government on agreeing to support disadvantaged students first by prioritising the most disadvantaged schools to achieve their full and fair funding level; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(5) further notes the importance of tying funding to reforms that will close the education gap.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">(Notice given 6 February 2024.)</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Time allotted</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">remaining private Members' business time prior to 7.30 pm.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Ms Roberts</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Other Members</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes each.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 7 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">THE HON D. M. DICK MP</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Speaker of the House of Representatives</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">7 February 2024</para></quote>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>DOCUMENTS</title>
        <page.no>8</page.no>
        <type>DOCUMENTS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Parliamentary Leadership Taskforce</title>
          <page.no>8</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:01</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Today, on the second anniversary of the adoption of the <inline font-style="italic">Set the </inline><inline font-style="italic">s</inline><inline font-style="italic">tandard</inline> report, I acknowledge that an unacceptably high rate of people, particularly women, in Commonwealth parliamentary workplaces have experienced bullying, sexual harassment or actual or attempted sexual assault whilst at work. This misconduct is unacceptable, and I acknowledge the grave impact it has or continues to have on previous and current staff. For two years, the Parliamentary Leadership Taskforce has led the implementation of the set the standard reforms. The parliament thanks the taskforce for their continuous work and leadership.</para>
<para>Today we recommit the parliament to positive change and acknowledge achievements to date, including: the establishment of the Parliamentary Workplace Support Service as a statutory body, offering independent and confidential support to everyone in Commonwealth parliamentary workplaces; reforms to modernise the members of parliament act to ensure employees are protected from discrimination, as well as refreshed professional development and improved management practices; the undertaking of reviews to further enhance inclusivity and dignity through access to Commonwealth parliamentary workplaces; the endorsement of clear and consistent codes of conduct, with consultations on the proposed Independent Parliamentary Standards Commission, expected to commence shortly; the support of the health and wellbeing of parliamentarians and staff, with enhanced wellbeing services; the improvement of work health and safety with a new framework to manage shared risks; and additional professional development opportunities to support leaders at all levels, particularly induction programs and training on safe and respectful workplaces.</para>
<para>While significant progress has been made, the journey towards truly respectful and inclusive parliamentary workplaces is ongoing. Cultural change will only come with the goodwill of parliamentarians, and we must remain committed to building a workplace reflecting the nation's values and expectations, ensuring the safety and wellbeing of everyone who works in and supports the Parliament of Australia.</para>
<para>I now present the Parliamentary Leadership Taskforce <inline font-style="italic">2023 </inline><inline font-style="italic">A</inline><inline font-style="italic">nnual report</inline><inline font-style="italic">: </inline><inline font-style="italic">update o</inline><inline font-style="italic">n </inline><inline font-style="italic">the implementation of recommendations from the </inline><inline font-style="italic">s</inline><inline font-style="italic">et the </inline><inline font-style="italic">s</inline><inline font-style="italic">tandard report</inline>.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:04</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ALBANESE</name>
    <name.id>R36</name.id>
    <electorate>Grayndler</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you very much, Mr Speaker, for your important words today and for the commitment that you show to this work every single day. Two years ago, this parliament acknowledged a hard truth: too many people who worked in this building, particularly women, were not being treated with respect and did not feel safe. It was not just a matter of individual behaviour; it was also a question of institutional culture. We made a commitment—all of us—to change that, and to change it for the better. We vowed to a set a higher, safer and more respectful standard. These regular updates to both chambers are designed to keep our efforts on track, to make sure we are accountable for our progress. There were 28 recommendations adopted by the former government with our bipartisan support. Thirteen of those recommendations have been fully implemented, and work is underway on the remainder.</para>
<para>On 1 October last year we established the statutory Parliamentary Workplace Support Service. This is an independent agency that provides human resources support to parliamentarians and staff. It's the first time a statutory body like this has existed. The government has also delivered legislation to implement recommendations from a review of the Members of Parliament (Staff) Act 1984. That reform modernised the employment framework for parliamentarians and their staff. A key priority for all of us in the year ahead is the establishment of the Independent Parliamentary Standards Commission. Our goal is to work across the parliament to have that organisation up and running by 1 October this year. We saw last year, in the passing of the parliamentary workplace support bills, the valuable role of the Parliamentary Leadership Taskforce and all the members and senators who serve on it. I thank all of them for the commitment and the constructive approach they've brought to their role, and I look forward to their cooperation in delivering this next set of reforms.</para>
<para>Throughout my time in this place, I have always had a deep respect and a genuine affection for this parliament and its traditions. That's why I want to see the culture here continue to change and improve—for the sake of this place and for the sake of the country all of us are here to serve. The more that parliament looks like modern Australia, the better. It's better for the culture and better for our democracy. This is a very special place to work for all of us. It's a great honour to be able to sit in this chamber or in the other place. Everyone here—the attendants, the clerks, the tabling officers, the cleaners, the security guards—are making a contribution to the nation. The parliament is a unique workplace, of course, but it must be a safe workplace. The culture here will never be normal or typical, but it can and must be respectful. That's a task for all of us. Setting the standard matters, and so does upholding it. Let us dedicate ourselves to that in the parliamentary year ahead. I thank the House.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:07</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr DUTTON</name>
    <name.id>00AKI</name.id>
    <electorate>Dickson</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you very much, Mr Speaker, for tabling the second annual report of the Parliamentary Leadership Taskforce. It's an important occasion to reflect on how we've reached this point. In March 2021 the former coalition government, with the support of the then Labor opposition and the crossbenchers, established an independent review into Commonwealth parliamentary workplaces. The review was led by Kate Jenkins, the former Sex Discrimination Commissioner. Ms Jenkins's report, entitled <inline font-style="italic">Set the </inline><inline font-style="italic">s</inline><inline font-style="italic">tandard</inline>, was published in November 2021 and contained 28 recommendations. One of these recommendations called for the formation of the Parliamentary Leadership Taskforce, comprised of parliamentarians across the political spectrum and an independent chair. The taskforce first met in February 2022, and in the same month the presiding officers delivered a joint statement of acknowledgement on behalf of the taskforce. That statement recognised the unacceptable history of workplace bullying, sexual harassment and sexual assault in Commonwealth parliamentary workplaces. The statement was also a pledge that all members of parliament would commit, both personally and collectively, to bring about necessary change: through our words and our deeds, we would set a standard to be emulated in workplaces across the nation.</para>
<para>Whether we are an elected parliamentarian, a political adviser or a public servant, we all serve the public, and our service is a privilege. The Australian public's confidence and trust in this parliament and in the bureaucracy are directly connected to the conduct of all of those who have the privilege to serve their fellow Australians. Australians demand and expect of us higher standards, and we should offer nothing less in return. The Parliamentary Leadership Taskforce's annual report provides an update on the implementation of the recommendations of the <inline font-style="italic">Set the </inline><inline font-style="italic">standard</inline> report. I commend Dr Vivienne Thom for her work as the taskforce's independent chair, and I also acknowledge the previous chair, Dr Kerri Hartland. I'd also like to thank the members of the taskforce: the members for Farrer, Newcastle and Warringah, and senators Perin Davey, Jane Hume, Don Farrell, Katy Gallagher and Larissa Waters.</para>
<para>Good progress has been made since the last annual report. The number of recommendations fully implemented has increased from six to 13. The first six recommendations are partially implemented, eight are in progress and one is pending. Out of the seven recommendations which have been fully implemented since the last annual report—that is, Nos 8, 10, 11, 14, 15, 16 and 25—we have seen initiatives to promote respect and inclusion within political parties and parliamentary departments, the employment of new management practices and training materials to support performance, as well as new guidance provided for employee termination, and new health and safety obligations implemented. The coalition is proud of the large body of work which was completed when we were in government, in particular the establishment of an independent and confidential complaints mechanism and 24-hour support services for current and former parliamentarians and staff.</para>
<para>Noting, however, that there are several recommendations in progress, I welcome the extension of the Parliamentary Leadership Taskforce's term until 1 October this year. The coalition believes that recommendation 22, the establishment of an independent parliamentary standards commission, must be given priority, given its responsibility for enforcing the behaviour standards and codes.</para>
<para>But, today, on the tabling of this annual report, and on behalf of the coalition, I thank all of those who have contributed to the insights, work and initiatives which have come from the Jenkins review and the Parliamentary Leadership Taskforce. This has been critically important work over several years and there is more to do, but I'm confident that we will see the positive effects of this work in the decades ahead. We must ensure that we don't just set the standard but continue in our personal and collective efforts to maintain and elevate the standard.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:12</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr LITTLEPROUD</name>
    <name.id>265585</name.id>
    <electorate>Maranoa</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>On behalf of the Nationals, I thank the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition for their statements. Seizing this opportunity to build a more respectful, more equal and more safe professional culture inside Parliament House, and across all parliamentary workplaces, is a priority that unites us all. Every Australian should belong in a workplace where they feel protected, where they feel supported, and where their contributions are valued.</para>
<para>With the tabling of the second annual report by the Parliamentary Leadership Taskforce, I want to reaffirm to all members of this chamber the Nationals' ongoing commitment to work with a constructive, meaningful and bipartisan spirit to help address the challenges that were laid out by former Sex Discrimination Commissioner Kate Jenkins's <inline font-style="italic">Set the </inline><inline font-style="italic">s</inline><inline font-style="italic">tandard</inline> report. In fact, the title of this report demonstrates its importance, because having this opportunity to serve and work in Parliament House, to actually make a positive contribution to the communities that we are elected to represent and to set the direction of our nation, is an immense honour. It's a workplace which is the heart of Australia's democracy where we should be setting the standard of how we interact and treat one another. This should be a building where promoting equality, welcoming diversity and encouraging mutual respect is absolutely paramount, which is why Kate Jenkins's review was so confronting.</para>
<para>Over a period of seven months in 2021, the commissioner and her team interviewed 490 people, received 302 written submissions and heard from more than 1,700 women and men. The report covered and identified reports of sexual assault and harassment, challenges around gender inequality and diversity, and issues around mental health. It highlighted that, as political leaders, we needed to do better, to lead the way and to help secure real and positive change in this workplace.</para>
<para>In total, 28 recommendations from the <inline font-style="italic">Set the </inline><inline font-style="italic">s</inline><inline font-style="italic">tandard</inline> report were put forward, and these have led to the creation of a 24-hour support service for staff, training and education programs, and leadership initiatives. Recommendation 2 was establishing the Parliamentary Leadership Taskforce, led by an independent chair and consisting of broad parliamentary membership. This taskforce has made a real difference in addressing the review's recommendations and, as it hands down its second annual report, I want to acknowledge the taskforce for its successful advocacy and ongoing efforts to make this parliament a better place to work. The Nationals take these matters extremely seriously, and our party is grateful to have a strong voice in the taskforce, through my deputy leader, Senator Perin Davey, who has made a tremendous contribution.</para>
<para>Efforts to empower and support gender equality and to strengthen diversity were the heart of the Jenkins review, and it's on that note that I'm pleased to share with the House some of the achievements that the National Party has achieved when it comes to these priorities. We are firmly committed to fostering a bright political atmosphere that encourages more women to participate in our movement across every level, and I'm thrilled to say that we are making progress. Right now in our federal parliamentary team I'm proud to recognise that four of our seven Nationals shadow cabinet ministers are women. Importantly, Senator Perin Davey and Senator Bridget McKenzie continue to drive our party forward as members of the federal leadership team. In the other chamber, four of our six senators are women. Today the federal management committee of the Nationals has seven women in the 16 voting positions, which include the positions of federal president, treasurer and secretary. Also, since last year's task force report was handed down, I can advise that nearly 60 per cent of our party's international professional development opportunities have been completed by women. All of these are strong benchmarks that will set our party up for the future.</para>
<para>As the dedicated voice of the nine million Australians who live in regional, rural and remote Australia, the Nationals are determined to do everything we can to ensure that our parliamentary and grassroots memberships effectually encapsulate the social and geographical diversity of our nation. With backgrounds spanning from agriculture to manufacturing, from journalism to small business, from education to accountancy and from law enforcement to health, I'm proud of the different perspectives and experiences that our federal parliamentary team bring to the parliament, but of course there's still more to do. Our federal management committee is continuing to work in partnership with the state divisions to develop a more systemic and comprehensive approach to candidate identification and development. One of the key goals and KPIs underpinning this is to ensure that our party reflects the incredible diversity of the communities that the Nationals represent.</para>
<para>I want to conclude my remarks by once again thanking the parliamentary leadership task force for their second annual report on the progress of the <inline font-style="italic">Set the standard</inline> recommendations. I acknowledge all of the members of the task force for their commitment, professionalism and hard work. It's important work that is already making a huge difference in promoting and securing genuine change—change that will make our parliamentary workplace more safe, more tolerant and more respectful.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:16</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BANDT</name>
    <name.id>M3C</name.id>
    <electorate>Melbourne</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>():  I want to again speak to the important matter of the implementation of the recommendations from the former Sex Discrimination Commissioner's <inline font-style="italic">Set the </inline><inline font-style="italic">s</inline><inline font-style="italic">tandard</inline><inline font-style="italic">: report on the Independent Review into Commonwealth Parliamentary Workplaces</inline>. The recommendations were intended to be fully implemented within 12 months. Here we are three years later. Progress has been made, but it does need to be quicker.</para>
<para>An independent trauma informed Parliamentary Workplace Support Service to support staff and MPs dealing with harassment and abuse has been established, and it's a huge step forward. I thank the government for their ongoing support of the PWSS, but without enforcement powers it's unable to solve the problems that it's been set up to tackle. According to recommendation 22 of the <inline font-style="italic">Set the </inline><inline font-style="italic">s</inline><inline font-style="italic">tandard</inline> report, 'both of the houses of parliament should establish, within 12 months, an Independent Parliamentary Standards Commission' to enforce codes of conduct. It was expected in October 2023; it's now blown out to October 2024, and this is the second extension. Without this body, bad behaviour can continue to go unchecked. Without real prospects that an MP will be sanctioned, staff may continue to be reluctant to come forward, because consequences matter. We appreciate that the work to set up the IPSC is complex, but it's also very important, and it's been too slow. Members of parliament have significant powers to shape the lives of our communities, and, given that responsibility, we need a mechanism which holds them to account.</para>
<para><inline font-style="italic">S</inline> <inline font-style="italic">et the standard</inline> recommended that the IPSC should have the power to operate a fair, independent, confidential and transparent system to receive disclosures as well as handle complaints about misconduct; to make findings about misconduct; to make recommendations on sanctions; and to apply sanctions for a breach of the code of conduct. Without genuine consequences, there's little to deter the bad behaviour that we see time and time again. We'll continue to push for real accountability and transparency so that the IPSC can effectively hold people to account.</para>
<para>While the work to establish the IPSC is being undertaken, it's a responsibility of every MP to act consistently with the commitments they made when endorsing the codes and for all parties to act quickly in response to any complaints. We know that for First Nations people, people of colour and people with disability the harassment and disrespect experienced in this place or online when working in parliamentary roles is even worse. Sexism, racism, ableism and discrimination on the basis of sexuality, identity or preference persist and are even more damaging and dangerous when they intersect. Increasing diversity in this place is critical, but that cannot happen without measures to make this a safe workplace for a more diverse range of people. When female MPs are still being subject to sexist, intimidatory behaviour, you can only imagine how much worse it is for staff. Indeed, the <inline font-style="italic">Set the </inline><inline font-style="italic">standard </inline>report showed that more than half of those surveyed had experienced at least one incident of bullying, sexual harassment or actual or attempted sexual assault.</para>
<para>We have to be better: every single one of us, every single day. Staff, current and former, and affected survivors must be involved in these reforms in a meaningful way, and must feel supported to tell us when we're not doing enough. For those who have suffered and those who are still suffering, we intend to support you—to ensure that you are considered and your rights upheld. A robust, independent and confidential complaints process must be established, and it must be one which people can trust. It's time for parliament to set the standard.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:20</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms STEGGALL</name>
    <name.id>175696</name.id>
    <electorate>Warringah</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I would like to thank the chair, Vivienne Thom, and members of the taskforce for the work that we have been undertaking. The annual statement into the progress towards the implementation of <inline font-style="italic">Set </inline><inline font-style="italic">the </inline><inline font-style="italic">standard: </inline><inline font-style="italic">r</inline><inline font-style="italic">eport on the </inline><inline font-style="italic">i</inline><inline font-style="italic">ndependent </inline><inline font-style="italic">r</inline><inline font-style="italic">eview into Commonwealth </inline><inline font-style="italic">p</inline><inline font-style="italic">arliamentary </inline><inline font-style="italic">w</inline><inline font-style="italic">orkplaces</inline> is important, because I think it's too often in this place that we might lose track of that progress. We also need to be reminded of the need and urgency in implementing all of those recommendations of the <inline font-style="italic">Set the standard</inline> report.</para>
<para>As I said last year in speaking to the annual statement, it's an important milestone and one that we cannot be complacent about. Progress is being made, as others have mentioned, but we are behind in key areas. Of the 28 recommendations, 13 have now been implemented, six have been partially implemented, eight are in progress and one is pending. We need to make greater progress in diversity, equality and inclusion among those elected as parliamentarians and MOP(S) Act employees. Our measurement and public reporting also need further work. Research consistently shows that greater diversity in the workplace means increased productivity, creativity and innovation, alongside enhanced problem-solving skills. We work at the heart of Australian democracy and it's essential that our workforce represents the diverse country we serve as parliamentarians.</para>
<para>Professionalising management practice and professional development for MOP(S) Act employees continues to be implemented, and is welcome. It's essential that those employed under the (MOP)S Act are managed appropriately by MPs, senators and their officers, and have access to proper professional development programs to ensure that they can upskill and develop their craft, whether it be chief of staff, policy advisers, in electorate offices and the many, many others. All of these roles are vital in supporting parliamentarians to do their jobs.</para>
<para>Separately, the Independent Parliamentary Standards Commission remains a work in progress and will be established this calendar year, I hope, with the goodwill of the taskforce. It's incredibly important because, as has been mentioned, that independent complaints mechanism and the enforcement of consequences really are important steps. The commission will be charged with enforcing the behaviour standards and the codes of conduct that all here have agreed to comply with, and it will complement the Parliamentary Workplace Support Service, which is responsible to support our safe and respectful Commonwealth parliamentary workplaces. I would like to thank the hardworking staff within the PWSS for the work they're doing in assisting (MOP)S Act employees. But I do note they are still quite frequently understaffed; there is a small team to deal with a lot of parliamentarians and a lot of staff, so ensuring there are proper ratios and proper staff capability is an important part of it.</para>
<para>Finally, we can't talk about implementing the <inline font-style="italic">Set the </inline><inline font-style="italic">standard</inline> report and complying with it without noticing and pointing out that fundamental change to make this a more respectful, safe and inclusive work environment requires leadership from the top, from our most visible leaders on both sides and from all of us as members of parliament. It's especially true in how we conduct ourselves as parliamentarians and, in particular, how we conduct ourselves in this place. One of the most visible times for this place is during question time, and I don't think a single member in this place would not be contacted by members of their communities who are quite horrified at the conduct that occurs here. Too often political pointscoring or seeking political advantage takes precedence over respectful conduct. That is important in the context of <inline font-style="italic">Set the </inline><inline font-style="italic">standard</inline>, because our staff and employees take note and take the lead from us—from leaders in this place. If we indicate that aggressive conduct or bullying conduct is acceptable, that is taken to be acceptable by staff and that goes on down the chain. People in positions of power can end up in situations where conduct can be unacceptable.</para>
<para>I often hear from constituents and other Australians who are disappointed and ashamed by some of the conduct of this place. I think if we are going to improve the standard for our staff, it must start with us. A good example, I would say, ironically, is the schedule we have for today: the government has extended the sitting till 10 pm. This is to honour that this is a place of debate, which is a good thing. But be mindful of what this means for staff, who may well have come into this place at six or seven this morning: that's a 15- to 16-hour day if they're staying here till 10 pm. Every decision in terms of the sitting of this place has an impact on staff, so if we're going to talk about setting standards and a more respectful workplace it must be in this way as well.</para>
<para>I commend my fellow members of the parliamentary taskforce. I know we have more work to do, and I thank them. We are behind schedule, but we will get there. I thank the members in this place for staying committed to implementing the recommendations in full.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>BUSINESS</title>
        <page.no>12</page.no>
        <type>BUSINESS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Rearrangement</title>
          <page.no>12</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:26</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BURKE</name>
    <name.id>DYW</name.id>
    <electorate>Watson</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>It is with great pleasure that I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) the House invite the Honourable James Marape MP, Prime Minister of Papua New Guinea, to attend and address the House on Thursday, 8 February 2024;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) unless otherwise ordered, at the sitting of the House on 8 February:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the House shall meet, at the ringing of the bells, at no earlier than 9.45 am and the proceedings shall be welcoming remarks by the Prime Minister and Leader of the Opposition and an address by the Prime Minister of Papua New Guinea;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) at the conclusion of the address by the Prime Minister of Papua New Guinea the House shall suspend until the ringing of the bells, when business shall proceed in accordance with standing order 34;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) the provisions of standing order 257(c) relating to good order shall apply to the area of Members' seats as well as the galleries for the period set out at (3); and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) the Federation Chamber shall not meet;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) a message be sent to the Senate inviting Senators to attend the House as guests for the welcoming remarks by the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition and address by the Prime Minister of Papua New Guinea; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) any variation to the arrangement be made only by an action by the Speaker or by a motion moved by a Minister.</para></quote>
<para>It's an honour to invite the Hon. James Marape, Prime Minister of Papua New Guinea, to address us here in this chamber tomorrow morning. Papua New Guinea is Australia's closest neighbour, with just four kilometres separating us across the Torres Strait. Our two nations share a uniquely close history, perhaps best demonstrated by those brave Papua New Guineans who fought alongside Australian soldiers in World War II in defence of the freedom of both nations. This invitation reciprocates the honour granted to our Prime Minister, who addressed Papua New Guinea's parliament in January last year—the first foreign head of government to do so.</para>
<para>Our contemporary relationship with Papua New Guinea is multifaceted and Prime Minister Marape's visit will be an important opportunity to deepen it. Papua New Guinea, as the largest Pacific country, is a leader in the Pacific region. Most recently, Australia and Papua New Guinea worked together to deliver security for the Pacific Games in Solomon Islands. We work closely together in the Pacific Islands Forum because we both recognise that a strong regional architecture is important to our collective interests.</para>
<para>We are neighbours, and Papua New Guinea has helped us as good neighbours do. Many communities across Australia will remain forever grateful for the assistance from Papua New Guinea Defence Force personnel in recovering from the Black Summer bushfires of 2020. We are friends, sharing close cultural links and common values, including a love of sport—in particular rugby league. As the patron of the Canterbury Bulldogs, this is particularly important to me! The co-patron, I should say, with the Leader of the National Party.</para>
<para>The context of this invitation to Prime Minister Marape is the historic bilateral security agreement our two nations signed in December. This agreement was a profound commitment to support each other's security because as such close neighbours our security is intertwined. The agreement also enhances our ability to jointly contribute to the region's security and it builds on decades of police and defence cooperation. Australia's investments in Papua New Guinea, in our largest development program, are supporting Papua New Guinea's health, education and economic reform priorities, as well as critical infrastructure such as sport and digital connectivity.</para>
<para>I very much look forward to Prime Minister Marape's address and hope that his visit further deepens the partnership between our two nations.</para>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Consideration of Legislation</title>
          <page.no>13</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:29</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BURKE</name>
    <name.id>DYW</name.id>
    <electorate>Watson</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the following from occurring in relation to proceedings on the Treasury Laws Amendment (Cost of Living Tax Cuts) Bill 2024 and Treasury Laws Amendment (Cost of Living—Medicare Levy) Bill 2024:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) on Wednesday, 7 February when the order of the day relating to the second reading debate on the Treasury Laws Amendment (Cost of Living Tax Cuts) Bill 2024 is called on following the conclusion of the matter of public importance, a cognate debate taking place with the Treasury Laws Amendment (Cost of Living—Medicare Levy) Bill 2024, and continuing without interruption until no further Members rise to speak, or the commencement of the adjournment debate at 7.30 pm;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) notwithstanding standing order 31, if the second reading debate has not concluded earlier, at 8 pm the adjournment debate being interrupted and the bills being called on for further consideration, with the second reading debate continuing until:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) no further Members rise to speak; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) 10 pm;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">at which point, debate being adjourned and the House immediately adjourning until Thursday, 8 February at no earlier than 9.45 am;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) any variation to this arrangement being made only on a motion moved by a Minister.</para></quote>
<para>In supporting the motion, I advise members of the normal arrangements. This is being done to try to make sure that everybody who wants to speak on this tax bill—and the list already includes 50 people, and I expect it will continue to go up—can do so without the debate being curtailed in any way and without having to reduce people's speaking times. As the list grows, I wouldn't be surprised if we had some additional nights next week as well, but I'll keep an eye on the list to make sure we can manage the debate in a way that allows everybody to speak.</para>
<para>We obviously have minimal government business time tomorrow because of the address from Prime Minister Marape. I also remind members that the 6.30 rule, as usual, applies here, so for those who are not speaking there is no reasonable requirement for all of their staff to continue to be here beyond 6.30 unless the member gives a particular direction.</para>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>BILLS</title>
        <page.no>14</page.no>
        <type>BILLS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Crimes Amendment (Strengthening the Criminal Justice Response to Sexual Violence) Bill 2024</title>
          <page.no>14</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r7135" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Crimes Amendment (Strengthening the Criminal Justice Response to Sexual Violence) Bill 2024</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>First Reading</title>
            <page.no>14</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo></subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>14</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:31</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr DREYFUS</name>
    <name.id>HWG</name.id>
    <electorate>Isaacs</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That this bill be now read a second time.</para></quote>
<para>Sexual assault can have devastating, cumulative and long-lasting effects on the lives of victims and survivors, their families and communities. I recognise this and thank victims and survivors for their advocacy for law reform in this space.</para>
<para>The Australian government is deeply committed to improving criminal justice responses to sexual assault. This means ensuring the criminal justice system supports vulnerable people at all stages of the criminal justice process.</para>
<para>The Crimes Amendment (Strengthening the Criminal Justice Response to Sexual Violence) Bill 2024 amends the Crimes Act 1914 to strengthen protections for vulnerable persons involved in Commonwealth criminal proceedings.</para>
<para>This builds on the extensive work of the Australian government throughout this parliamentary term in leading a national discussion on strengthening criminal justice responses to sexual assault.</para>
<para>In the 2023-24 budget, the Australian government announced that it is investing $14.7 million to strengthen the way the criminal justice system responds to sexual assault to prevent further harm to victims and survivors. This includes an Australian Law Reform Commission inquiry into justice responses to sexual violence; a lived experience expert advisory group to support that inquiry; and a ministerial-level national roundtable to drive nationwide, cross-sector collaboration and inform the terms of that inquiry.</para>
<para>That work is now well underway. Last August, with my colleagues, the member for Kingston, as the Minister for Social Services, and Senator Gallagher, as the Minister for Women, I convened the ministerial national roundtable, and the Australian Law Reform Commission inquiry has now commenced. Imminent Australian lawyers Marcia Neave AO and Judge Liesl Kudelka will conduct this inquiry. I expect the ALRC inquiry to conclude early next year.</para>
<para>This bill implements several outstanding recommendations regarding the prerecording of evidence from the 2017 final report of the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse.</para>
<para>The bill also supports victims and survivors by:</para>
<list>expanding the scope of existing offences to which additional protections apply;</list>
<list>addressing barriers that may deter witnesses from giving evidence; and</list>
<list>ensuring that victims and survivors can speak out about their experiences should they wish to do so.</list>
<para>The bill expands the range of offences covered by existing protections for vulnerable persons in Commonwealth criminal proceedings, including crimes against humanity, war crimes and drug offences. It ensures adult complainants are able to access vulnerable witness protections for offences that occurred while they were children, recognising that it may take many years for victims and survivors to disclose their abuse. These amendments reflect the broad range of offences impacting vulnerable people.</para>
<para>The bill introduces a range of measures to address the admissibility of evidence concerning vulnerable people. Evidence about a vulnerable person's reputation with respect to their sexual activities will be made inadmissible. Greater restrictions are also placed on sexual experience evidence, making it inadmissible except in limited circumstances and where the court grants leave. This type of evidence is ordinarily too far removed from evidence of the alleged crime for its admission to be in the interests of justice, and can retraumatise vulnerable persons by victim blaming. A court will therefore need to be satisfied that sexual experience evidence is substantially relevant to the proceedings, and to consider whether its probative value outweighs any distress, humiliation or embarrassment to the vulnerable person.</para>
<para>The bill addresses barriers that may deter vulnerable witnesses from giving evidence. The new measures allow for a vulnerable person to give evidence by way of video or audio recording, and for evidence to be recorded for use at subsequent proceedings. Importantly, witnesses will not be required to see the defendant when giving recorded evidence, and it will be an offence to intentionally copy, damage, alter, possess or supply recordings of the evidence. This aims to reduce the risk of retraumatising victims and survivors and will enable vulnerable persons to give evidence in a safe, controlled format.</para>
<para>Due process for defendants is retained as defendants will be provided with the opportunity to observe the evidence recording hearing (as they would be during an ordinary hearing) and will have access to relevant evidence recordings.</para>
<para>The bill supports the voices of victims and survivors by ensuring they are empowered to speak out, if they choose to do so. The bill makes it clear that the current restriction on publishing material that identifies another person as a child witness, child complainant or vulnerable adult complainant in a proceeding does not apply to a person who publishes material that identifies themselves. The bill will also remove the requirement for the proceedings to be finalised before such a publication may occur, and clarifies the law that there is no restriction on identifying a vulnerable person who is deceased.</para>
<para>Not only do these amendments ensure victims and survivors are able and supported to speak out should they wish to do so, but they also present an opportunity for the public to gain a better understanding of sexual violence from the perspective of victims and survivors. Most importantly, these changes give victims and survivors back their voice, as well as the agency and power to control their own stories and experiences. Limiting this provision to victims and survivors balances providing a legal mechanism to support them to speak out while preserving the ability for victims and survivors to maintain their privacy. This safeguard ensures that the choice is that of the individual, and that they are empowered, but not obliged, to tell their story.</para>
<para>These reforms will progress the work of the government under the National Strategy to Prevent and Respond to Child Sexual Abuse 2021-2030 and the Standing Council of Attorneys-General's work plan to strengthen criminal justice responses to sexual assault.</para>
<para>This bill is an important step towards creating better outcomes for vulnerable persons in Commonwealth criminal proceedings through strengthened protections and enhanced safeguards. The amendments aim to minimise the risk of retraumatisation, and provide greater assurance that vulnerable persons will be treated with appropriate sensitivity when appearing as witnesses or complainants in criminal proceedings. I commend the bill to the House.</para>
<para>Debate adjourned.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Administrative Review Tribunal (Consequential and Transitional Provisions No. 2) Bill 2024</title>
          <page.no>15</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r7137" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Administrative Review Tribunal (Consequential and Transitional Provisions No. 2) Bill 2024</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>First Reading</title>
            <page.no>15</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo></subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>15</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:40</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr</name>
    <name.id>HWG</name.id>
    <electorate>Isaacs</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>DREYFUS (—) (): I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That this bill be now read a second time.</para></quote>
<para>The Administrative Review Tribunal (Consequential and Transitional Provisions No.2) Bill 2024 forms part of the package of bills that would abolish the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and establish the Administrative Review Tribunal.</para>
<para>It supports the establishment of the new tribunal, which will be created by the Administrative Review Tribunal Bill 2023—a bill I introduced into the House on 7 December 2023. Together with the Administrative Review Tribunal (Consequential and Transitional Amendments No.1) Bill 2023, which I also introduced on 7 December 2023, this bill would also make the consequential and transitional amendments needed to effectively implement the reform.</para>
<para>Consequential bill No. 2 makes consequential amendments to 110 Commonwealth acts to ensure continuity for the tribunal and its users. Decisions under these acts collectively amount to approximately seven per cent of the AAT's jurisdiction by caseload.</para>
<para>Consequential amendments</para>
<para>The consequential amendments include amendments to a number of Commonwealth acts requiring state and territory consultation.</para>
<para>The changes in the bill are predominantly technical amendments that will ensure consistent terminology, concepts, structure and other policy settings. The changes also ensure that the new tribunal has the same jurisdiction as the AAT and that various provisions operate in substantively the same way as they operate in the AAT.</para>
<para>Consequential bill No. 2 would make changes to harmonise and streamline provisions where appropriate. It would also implement changes to the review pathway for preventive detention orders, and allow external merits review of decisions not to provide evidence of a person's Australian citizenship, under the Australian Citizenship Act 2007.</para>
<para>Standardising processes</para>
<para>Where possible, consequential bill 2 would repeal special procedures in other acts, so that the default provisions in the ART bill would apply.</para>
<para>The use of standard procedures in the tribunal would better support users, with increased similarity and predictability in how their matters progress through the tribunal. It would reduce complexity within the tribunal, which means there will be more scope to use shared technology, forms, staff and member resources, and create greater efficiencies than is currently possible within the AAT.</para>
<para>In circumstances where the tribunal's proposed standard powers and procedures need to respond to the unique features of a particular caseload, consequential bill No. 2 would make the necessary amendments to other acts to preserve existing arrangements.</para>
<para>We have the benefit of nearly 50 years of experience since the AAT was established, and over eight years since it was amalgamated with multiple other tribunals in 2015. We also have the benefit of extensive consultation over the last year on what does, and what does not, work within the current system.</para>
<para>Preventative Detention Orders</para>
<para>Consequential bill No. 2 would remove the administrative review pathway for preventive detention order decisions, and leave this entirely to the courts.</para>
<para>Importantly, the remedies currently available to an affected individual through the administrative review mechanism are also available, and would continue to be available, through judicial review.</para>
<para>Among other things, these changes address the risk that sections 105.51(5) and (7) of the Criminal Code could be construed as vesting federal judicial power in a body other than a court, contrary to chapter III of the Constitution. They do this by ensuring that the power to award compensation to a person for false imprisonment is only exercised by the courts.</para>
<para>Merits review for evidence of Australian citizenship</para>
<para>The bill would confer jurisdiction on the new tribunal to review a decision to refuse to provide a person with evidence of their Australian citizenship under the Australian Citizenship Act 2007.</para>
<para>Allowing the new tribunal to review those types of decisions would be consistent with the review pathways available for other citizenship and migration related decisions. It would provide applicants with an accessible independent review process. This is a simple change we can make to ensure that people affected by these decisions have an effective administrative review pathway in the tribunal.</para>
<para>State and t erritory consultation requirements</para>
<para>Finally, consequential bill No. 2 would also make minor amendments to 14 Commonwealth acts which contain requirements for the Commonwealth to consult with, or seek the agreement of, the states and territories before introducing amendments into parliament. These requirements arise from intergovernmental agreements. The Commonwealth has satisfied these requirements and appreciates the cooperation from the states and territories.</para>
<para>The creation of the tribunal may require the states and territories to make consequential amendments to their own legislation. The Commonwealth has worked closely with the states and territories to assist them to identify and progress any amendments that may be required.</para>
<para>Conclusion</para>
<para>In conclusion, consequential bill No. 2 makes technical and essential consequential amendments to legislation across the Commonwealth, ensuring a smooth transition to the new tribunal. The bill completes the package of legislation that is required to establish a new and much improved Administrative Review Tribunal—the most important reform of the federal system of administrative review for decades.</para>
<para>I commend the bill to the House.</para>
<para>Debate adjourned.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>National Vocational Education and Training Regulator Amendment (Strengthening Quality and Integrity in Vocational Education and Training No. 1) Bill 2024</title>
          <page.no>16</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r7138" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">National Vocational Education and Training Regulator Amendment (Strengthening Quality and Integrity in Vocational Education and Training No. 1) Bill 2024</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>First Reading</title>
            <page.no>16</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo></subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>17</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:47</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr O'CONNOR</name>
    <name.id>00AN3</name.id>
    <electorate>Gorton</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That this bill be now read a second time.</para></quote>
<para>Today I'm introducing the National Vocational Education and Training Regulator Amendment (Strengthening Quality and Integrity in Vocational Education and Training No. 1) Bill 2024<inline font-style="italic">.</inline></para>
<para>This bill amends the National Vocational Education and Training Regulator Act 2011, hereafter mentioned as the act, to support the integrity and quality of Australia's vocational education and training sector. It does this by strengthening and clarifying the powers of the national VET regulator, the Australian Skills Quality Authority, namely ASQA.</para>
<para>The bill empowers ASQA to take decisive action against the minority of non-genuine or unscrupulous registered training organisations. The bill targets those organisations that use their business operations as a veil of legitimacy for fraudulent activity, or to circumvent the regulatory requirements for the delivery and assessment of vocational education and training. The bill will enable ASQA to take swift action to deter and remove non-genuine or unscrupulous RTOs, and to apply greater scrutiny to new RTOs seeking to enter the VET sector.</para>
<para>The bill also provides for increases to penalties that ASQA is able to seek against RTOs for serious breaches of the act. The penalty units in the act have not been increased since the act commenced in 2011, and these changes are in the view of the government long overdue. This is designed to ensure that penalties in relation to unscrupulous or non-genuine conduct outweigh any financial gain to be had from that conduct.</para>
<para>The government is committed to supporting a high performing, reputable and trustworthy VET sector. The government recognises that this sector is critical to skilling Australians, creating career opportunities and pathways to secure work, as well as delivering the skills needed to drive the economy. This is demonstrated in the landmark, $30 billion, five-year National Skills Agreement between the government and state and territory governments that will provide the skills needed for a modern economy.</para>
<para>The bill represents the next step in the government's work to protect students and build the integrity and quality of our VET sector. It follows the government's $37.8 million investment to support ASQA's processes, as provided for in the 2023-24 Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook. This investment provides for an integrity unit within ASQA, significant upgrades to ASQA's digital and data systems, and the establishment of a tip-off line to detect and address unacceptable and egregious behaviour by RTOs.</para>
<para>Working with state and territory ministers, the government has also strengthened the fit and proper person requirements under the act, to apply increased scrutiny on those in management positions within RTOs. This change expanded the list of matters ASQA can consider when determining if a person is fit and proper, including a new power to consider conduct that suggests a deliberate pattern of unethical behaviour.</para>
<para>These changes are being made in parallel with work underway to revise the Standards for Registered Training Organisations. New RTO standards are being designed to drive integrity across the sector. These reforms will emphasise quality rather than baseline compliance and will make it more difficult for non-genuine or poor-quality providers to comply with the new standards.</para>
<para>The amendments in the bill respond to integrity and quality issues highlighted in a number of reviews dating back to 2018. These reviews made recommendations to ensure students from Australia and overseas who choose to access our VET sector can be confident in the high standard of education and training delivered. These recommendations include those made in the 2023 <inline font-style="italic">R</inline><inline font-style="italic">apid review into the exploitation of </inline><inline font-style="italic">A</inline><inline font-style="italic">ustralia's visa system</inline>, conducted by Christine Nixon AO, APM (known as the Nixon review), as well as those in the 2018 review entitled <inline font-style="italic">All eyes on quality</inline><inline font-style="italic">: </inline><inline font-style="italic">review </inline><inline font-style="italic">of the National Vocational Education and Training Regulator Act 2011</inline><inline font-style="italic">,</inline> conducted by Professor Valerie Braithwaite (known as the Braithwaite review).</para>
<para>The bill has also been informed by the 2023 report of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, entitled, '<inline font-style="italic">Quality and </inline><inline font-style="italic">i</inline><inline font-style="italic">ntegrity—the </inline><inline font-style="italic">q</inline><inline font-style="italic">uest for </inline><inline font-style="italic">s</inline><inline font-style="italic">ustainable </inline><inline font-style="italic">g</inline><inline font-style="italic">rowth': </inline><inline font-style="italic">i</inline><inline font-style="italic">nterim </inline><inline font-style="italic">r</inline><inline font-style="italic">eport into </inline><inline font-style="italic">i</inline><inline font-style="italic">nternational </inline><inline font-style="italic">e</inline><inline font-style="italic">ducation</inline>.</para>
<para>The bill also incorporates changes from the lapsed Regulator Performance Omnibus Bill 2022, to improve regulator efficiency and remove areas of legal uncertainty for regulated entities.</para>
<para>I turn now to the measures in the bill.</para>
<para>First, the bill enables the automatic lapsing of an RTO's registration where it has not delivered training and/or assessment for a period of 12 months, as recommended by the Braithwaite review. These provisions will apply to any RTO that has not delivered training and/or assessment for 12 consecutive months. This targets the integrity risks posed by dormant RTOs that are not demonstrating a genuine commitment to education and training delivery. For example, dormant RTOs that use their registration purely for on-selling purposes will be subject to an automatic lapsing of their registration, by force of law, where they have not delivered training and/or assessment for 12 months.</para>
<para>To ensure procedural fairness, RTOs will be able to seek an extension from ASQA in instances where the RTO has a legitimate, reasonable justification for the non-delivery of training or assessment. These extensions are for a maximum of 12 months and will only be granted where the reason the RTO has not provided training or assessments is demonstrably outside its control. Such limited circumstances could include, for example, natural disasters such as fire, flood, or pandemic events.</para>
<para>This measure applies to RTOs that have not delivered training and/or assessments for 12 consecutive months from 1 January 2023, in order to apply to dormant providers currently in the sector. For these RTOs, their registration will lapse on 1 July 2024 (or after 90 days following the day after royal assent, whichever is later). Those RTOs will be able to apply to ASQA for an extension 60 days before their registration lapses to demonstrate a legitimate, reasonable justification for the non-delivery of training or assessment.</para>
<para>Second, the bill will prevent an RTO from adding new courses to its scope of registration in the first two years of registration to manage quality risks to students, addressing a Braithwaite review recommendation. This will ensure newly registered RTOs are required to focus on delivering quality training and/or assessment in the segment of the market for which they were originally approved. It will also provide ASQA with the opportunity to assess a new RTO's operations over a reasonable period, to ensure a new RTO has a sound understanding of the educational integrity and commitment required to operate in the sector, prior to expanding its course offerings.</para>
<para>Third, the bill expands the period within which the regulator can conduct an internal review of decisions. This ensures ASQA can give due consideration to complex or high-risk review decisions.</para>
<para>Fourth, the bill gives ASQA greater discretion in terms of how it prioritises, considers, and makes decisions in relation to applications for initial registration of an RTO. This ensures registration applications can be prioritised, such as where reputable applicants propose to deliver courses in areas of skills shortage or where there is community need. It will also enable ASQA to decide simple applications quickly and efficiently, while applying appropriate scrutiny to complex or high-risk applications.</para>
<para>Fifth, this bill empowers the minister responsible for VET to determine a specified period where the regulator is not required to, or must not, process or accept initial applications for RTO registration. This determination must be made in consultation with ASQA and with the agreement of state and territory skills ministers.</para>
<para>This determination could be used by the minister where ASQA identifies a trend in applications by non-genuine or unscrupulous providers seeking to enter the VET sector, for reasons other than a genuine commitment to delivering quality training. The determination could also be used where ASQA has received a considerable influx of applications, and the number of applications means that granting them would have a deleterious effect on the integrity, health and quality of the VET sector. The determination may apply to one or more classes of applications. This will permit ASQA to target specific cohorts of RTO applicants that pose a risk to the sector, without disrupting the acceptance and processing of other applications for registration.</para>
<para>Sixth, the bill improves student protection by expanding offence and civil penalty provisions to cover a broader range of false or misleading representations by RTOs about their operations. This clarifies that ASQA will be able to consider broader activities that relate to a non-genuine or unscrupulous RTO's business operations, including where it publishes false and misleading descriptions about its training, or misleading images of delivery locations, premises, and facilities. It would also prohibit the publication of false testimonials. These provisions will remove impediments to ASQA taking decisive action in response to RTOs that seek to mislead students with false representations and false advertising.</para>
<para>Applying tougher penalties to egregious RTO behaviour is imperative to support integrity in the VET sector, and to deter those that currently see penalties as a risk worth taking, or a 'cost of doing business'. The bill increases the maximum penalty for many of the offence and civil penalty provisions in the act five-fold. Currently, maximum penalties for affected offences under the act range from $9,390 to $187,800. These amendments mean those penalties will now range from $46,950 to $939,000 under current penalty unit values. These increases are focused on the offences and civil contraventions which threaten VET integrity, student protection and are otherwise indicative of practices that may be associated with non-genuine or unscrupulous providers.</para>
<para>Finally, the bill supports effective regulation through a number of technical and administrative changes.</para>
<para>Measures previously introduced in the lapsed Performance Regulator Omnibus Bill 2022 further support efficient regulation by clarifying the use of personal information contained in audit reports, aligning registration requirements with similar requirements under the Education Services for Overseas Students Act 2000 (the ESOS Act) and clarifying review processes to better align with the internal review process in the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency (TEQSA) Act 2011. This will ensure streamlined interactions for entities regulated by both TEQSA and ASQA under the ESOS Act.</para>
<para>The measures in the bill, combined with the steps already taken, demonstrate the government's commitment to lifting integrity and delivering quality outcomes for those who access our VET sector.</para>
<para>The bill supports the majority of providers—those who are genuine, who are doing the right thing, providing excellent education and training, and are in the business of doing it for the right reasons. They, along with students, industry and the whole Australian community, will benefit from the removal of non-genuine and unscrupulous providers, who undermine integrity and trust in the VET sector.</para>
<para>A well-regulated and trusted VET sector will strengthen Australia's ability to ensure our skills and training workforce needs are met now and into the future.</para>
<para>I commend the bill to the chamber.</para>
<para>Debate adjourned.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Foreign Acquisitions and Takeovers Fees Imposition Amendment Bill 2024</title>
          <page.no>19</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r7139" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Foreign Acquisitions and Takeovers Fees Imposition Amendment Bill 2024</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>First Reading</title>
            <page.no>19</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo></subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>19</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:02</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms COLLINS</name>
    <name.id>HWM</name.id>
    <electorate>Franklin</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That this bill be read a second time.</para></quote>
<para>This bill implements the measures announced by the government in the 2023-24 Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook to triple foreign investment fees for established dwellings and to double vacancy fees.</para>
<para>The higher fees for established dwelling applications will encourage foreign buyers to invest in new housing developments.</para>
<para>This creates additional housing stock and supports economic growth.</para>
<para>The increased vacancy fees will encourage foreign investors to make their unoccupied properties available to renters, providing more homes for Australians who need them.</para>
<para>To facilitate these fee increases, schedule 1 to the bill will amend the Foreign Acquisitions and Takeovers Fees Imposition Act 2015 to increase the maximum fee that can be imposed by the Foreign Acquisitions and Takeovers Fees Imposition Regulations 2020 to $7 million, and will align the indexation process for all fee amounts in Australia's foreign investment framework.</para>
<para>Schedule 2 to the bill amends the Foreign Acquisitions and Takeovers Fees Imposition Regulations 2020 to triple foreign investment application fees for established dwellings and to double vacancy fees for foreign investors who have purchased residential dwellings (new and established) since 9 May 2017.</para>
<para>Higher fees for the purchase of established homes, and increased penalties for those that leave properties vacant, will help ensure foreign investment in residential property is in our national interest.</para>
<para>These changes are part of the Albanese government's broad and ambitious agenda to improve housing affordability and supply.</para>
<para>This agenda includes an ambitious national target to build 1.2 million well-located homes over five years from 1 July 2024.</para>
<para>This target will be supported by $3 billion through the new homes bonus to states and territories that exceed the original target of building one million homes over five years from 1 July 2024 under the National Housing Accord.</para>
<para>It will also be supported by $500 million in the Housing Support program to help local and state governments kickstart housing supply by funding things like connecting essential services, amenities to support new housing development, or building planning capability.</para>
<para>The National Housing Accord also includes federal funding to deliver 10,000 affordable homes over five years, to be matched by up to another 10,000 by the states and territories.</para>
<para>The National Housing Accord is also supported by the $10 billion Housing Australia Future Fund, the single biggest investment in social and affordable rental housing by a federal government in more than a decade.</para>
<para>Applications are now open for this funding.</para>
<para>The Albanese government's $2 billion Social Housing Accelerator is helping to deliver around 4,000 new social homes across Australia. With this money already with the states and territories, they're getting work underway.</para>
<para>Up to $575 million has already been unlocked from the National Housing Infrastructure Facility, with homes under construction across the country.</para>
<para>We're also investing an additional $1 billion in the National Housing Infrastructure Facility this financial year to support yet more social homes.</para>
<para>In last year's budget, we committed an additional $2 billion in financing for more social and affordable rental homes through Housing Australia.</para>
<para>We're introducing new incentives to boost the supply of rental homes by changing arrangements for investments in build to rent accommodation.</para>
<para>We've increased the maximum rate of Commonwealth rent assistance by 15 per cent, the largest increase in more than 30 years, and this is already making a real difference, as the Consumer Price Index data shows.</para>
<para>We have improved and expanded the Home Guarantee Scheme, including with the introduction of a new regional first home buyer guarantee and by changing the eligibility of the scheme to help more Australians into home ownership.</para>
<para>People who were locked out under the former government can now get the support they need to get a home.</para>
<para>In fact, since the election of our government, more than 93,000 people across the country have been helped into home ownership through the new, improved scheme.</para>
<para>Last year, the government introduced legislation to assist even more Australians through Help to Buy, which will bring home ownership back into reach for 40,000 Australian households.</para>
<para>We've committed to a one-year extension of the National Housing and Homelessness Agreement, which will provide approximately $1.7 billion. This includes a $67.5 million boost to homelessness funding. National Cabinet has agreed to A Better Deal for Renters to harmonise and strengthen renters' rights across the country.</para>
<para>We're also working with states and territories on the development of a new national housing and homelessness plan.</para>
<para>Together, these initiatives represent the most significant housing reforms in a generation, after a decade of little action from the former government.</para>
<para>With the introduction of these measures today, we add to these reforms, to ensure more Australians have a safe, affordable place to call home.</para>
<para>Full details of the measure are contained in the explanatory memorandum.</para>
<para>Debate adjourned.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Treasury Laws Amendment (Foreign Investment) Bill 2024</title>
          <page.no>20</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r7142" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Treasury Laws Amendment (Foreign Investment) Bill 2024</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>First Reading</title>
            <page.no>20</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo></subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>20</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:07</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms COLLINS</name>
    <name.id>HWM</name.id>
    <electorate>Franklin</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That this bill be now read a second time.</para></quote>
<para>This bill amends the International Tax Agreements Act 1953 to clarify the interaction between foreign investment fees, similar state and territory property taxes, and Australia's double tax agreements. This change ensures that the foreign investment fees and similar imposts prevail so that they can continue to be imposed on foreign nationals who purchase Australian property. This change will have a retrospective effect.</para>
<para>Full details of the measure are contained in the explanatory memorandum.</para>
<para>Debate adjourned.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Passenger Movement Charge Amendment Bill 2024</title>
          <page.no>20</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r7136" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Passenger Movement Charge Amendment Bill 2024</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>First Reading</title>
            <page.no>20</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo></subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>21</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:09</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms O'NEIL</name>
    <name.id>140590</name.id>
    <electorate>Hotham</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That this bill be now read a second time.</para></quote>
<para>The Passenger Movement Charge Amendment Bill 2024 gives effect to a measure announced by the government as part of the 2023-24 budget. This bill will amend the Passenger Movement Charge Act 1978 to increase the passenger movement charge from $60 to $70 from 1 July 2024.</para>
<para>The passenger movement charge is imposed on persons departing Australia for another country and is usually collected by the carrier, such as an airline, at the time that a ticket is sold, and that amount is remitted by the carrier to the Department of Home Affairs.</para>
<para>Border revenue collection measures, such as the collection of the passenger movement charge, play an important role in advancing Australia's economic interests and helping to fund our critical border protection services, such as customs, immigration and biosecurity. I'd like the parliament to note that this increase from $60 to $70 is the first time the passenger movement charge has been increased since 2017—quite a long period.</para>
<para>All Australians benefit from a strong border, including our important tourism industry, and that is why we've already acted to improve the traveller experience at our border. We continue to invest in improving the performance of our airports and the passenger experience through our international airports and cruise ship terminals.</para>
<para>We are also investing as a government in a range of initiatives that help support the Australian tourism and travel industry, a really important part of Australia's economy. The initiatives include programs to revive international travel, upskill workers, ensure quality tourism products and deliver infrastructure upgrades. Through Tourism Australia's Come and Say G'day campaign, we are driving demand for visitation to Australia. Those policies are clearly having some impact, because we are seeing very steady increases to international visits to Australia, and the outlook for tourism and our travel industry is really positive after what have been a very difficult few years while our borders were shut.</para>
<para>This increase of $10 to the passenger movement charge is broadly in line with the increase in inflation since 2017. It will see an additional $520 million generated in revenue over the next three years. This is one of several measures our government announced in the 2023-24 budget as part of our economic and fiscal strategy to make the economy and budget stronger, more resilient and more sustainable over the medium term.</para>
<para>This considered increase to the passenger movement charge will bolster the government's capacity to invest in the protection of our international border, which includes recent investments in some of the things I mentioned before, like our biosecurity system and the important and expanding work of the Australian Border Force, an organisation I'm very proud to represent in this parliament.</para>
<para>This increase to the passenger movement charge will apply to persons departing Australia from 1 July 2024 with a ticket purchased from that time. This is a considered and responsible measure that will contribute to the continued economic prosperity of our great country.</para>
<para>Debate adjourned.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2023-2024</title>
          <page.no>21</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r7143" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2023-2024</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>First Reading</title>
            <page.no>21</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo></subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>21</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:13</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr JONES</name>
    <name.id>A9B</name.id>
    <electorate>Whitlam</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That this bill be now read a second time.</para></quote>
<para>Today, the government introduces the 2023-24 Additional Estimates Appropriation Bills. These bills are:</para>
<list>Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2023-2024;</list>
<list>Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2023-2024; and</list>
<list>Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 2) 2023-2024.</list>
<para>These bills underpin the government's expenditure decisions made since the 2023-24 budget that relate to the 2023-24 financial year, including decisions made in the 2023-24 Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook (MYEFO).</para>
<para>The 2023 MYEFO continued the government's responsible economic and fiscal management, which has helped deliver the first budget surplus in 15 years and helped ease inflationary pressures at their peak.</para>
<para>The fiscal position has further improved in the MYEFO with lower deficits and gross debt now forecast across the forward estimates compared to the 2023-24 budget. This is great news, indeed.</para>
<para>Appropriation Bill (No. 3) seeks approval for appropriations of approximately $8.7 billion from the Consolidated Revenue Fund. This would ensure that there is sufficient funding available to cover estimate variations for existing programs—for example, changes in costs for demand driven programs. The bill would also provide funding for the 2023-24 financial year costs of measures announced since the 2023-24 budget.</para>
<para>Specifically, the bill provides funding to support the following significant items.</para>
<para>The Department of Defence will receive close to $2 billion. This primarily reflects a reclassification of $1.6 billion from capital to operating funding reflecting updated expenditure requirements, $213 million for operations undertaken in 2021-22 and 2022-23, and $174 million for changes in foreign exchange rates.</para>
<para>The Social Services portfolio will receive over $1.4 billion, with the majority of the funding for the National Disability Insurance Agency to provide reasonable and necessary supports for National Disability Insurance Scheme participants.</para>
<para>The Department of Health and Aged Care will receive approximately $1.1 billion. This includes $537 million to support older Australians in receiving appropriate care, and $99 million for the community pharmacy sector's transition to maximum dispensing quantity changes and delivery of COVID-19 vaccines.</para>
<para>The Department of Employment and Workplace Relations will receive approximately $807 million, which includes over $650 million to support employers who have engaged apprentices and trainees.</para>
<para>I'm pleased to say that the Department of Home Affairs will receive close to $696 million to safeguard national security interests and critically to improve cybersecurity and security of critical infrastructure assets.</para>
<para>I'm very pleased that Services Australia will receive close to $344 million, including $232 million for additional frontline and service delivery staff to help reduce claim backlogs and support more timely access to government services. I take this opportunity to thank all of those staff of Centrelink, the Child Support Agency and Medicare for the great work that they do in supporting Australians and representing the government in delivering those critical services. I take note of the great work that Centrelink staff did in relation to the recent cyclone events in Cairns and North Queensland. They were on the ground quickly, supporting people in affected regions. This is just an example of the sort of work for which additional estimates appropriations are needed.</para>
<para>The Department of Industry, Science and Resources will receive approximately $338 million, including for the decommissioning of the Northern Endeavour floating oil production and offtake facility and the implementation of the Modern Manufacturing Initiative.</para>
<para>The Australian Signals Directorate will receive over $257 million to deliver on the government's foreign signals intelligence and cybersecurity objectives.</para>
<para>The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade will receive over $230 million, including $207 million for costs incurred on the national interest account managed by Export Finance Australia.</para>
<para>Finally, the Department of the Treasury will receive approximately $213 million, which includes around $175 million for Housing Australia.</para>
<para>Full details of the proposed expenditure are set out in the schedule to the bill, the explanatory memorandum, and the portfolio additional estimates statements which are tabled in parliament today.</para>
<para>With those comments, I commend the bill to the chamber.</para>
<para>Debate adjourned.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2023-2024</title>
          <page.no>22</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r7144" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2023-2024</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>First Reading</title>
            <page.no>22</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo></subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>22</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:20</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr JONES</name>
    <name.id>A9B</name.id>
    <electorate>Whitlam</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That this bill be now read a second time.</para></quote>
<para>Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2023-2024 seeks to appropriate $2.3 billion from the Consolidated Revenue Fund. This funding will support the following significant items.</para>
<para>The Department of the Treasury will receive $825 million for Housing Australia to support social housing providers as part of the $1 billion invested in the national housing infrastructure fund.</para>
<para>The Department of Finance will receive around $441 million to finance the purchase of Commonwealth fleet vehicles.</para>
<para>The Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications and the Arts will receive over $266 million, including funding to continue to support delivery of the Western Sydney International Airport project.</para>
<para>The Department of Defence will receive over $189 million, primarily to reflect updated estimates for foreign exchange exposure.</para>
<para>The Department of Health and Aged Care will receive just over $160 million, including to support aged care services and to replenish COVID-19 supplies within the National Medical Stockpile.</para>
<para>The Australian Signals Directorate will receive over $127 million to support the delivery of the government's foreign signals intelligence and cybersecurity objectives and for the updated estimates for foreign exchange exposure.</para>
<para>Full details of the proposed expenditure are set out in the schedule to the bill, the explanatory memorandum, and the portfolio additional estimates statements which are tabled in parliament today.</para>
<para>I commend this bill to the chamber.</para>
<para>Debate adjourned.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 2) 2023-2024</title>
          <page.no>23</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r7145" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 2) 2023-2024</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>First Reading</title>
            <page.no>23</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo></subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>23</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:23</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr JONES</name>
    <name.id>A9B</name.id>
    <electorate>Whitlam</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That this bill be now read a second time.</para></quote>
<para>The Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 2) 2023-2024 provides additional appropriations for the operations of parliamentary departments, specifically the Department of Parliamentary Services and the Department of the House of Representatives, for the remainder of 2023-24. I'm sure all members of this House will agree that this is an important purpose.</para>
<para>The bill seeks approval for appropriations from the Consolidated Revenue Fund of $10.3 million.</para>
<para>The Department of Parliamentary Services will receive $10 million to fund important ICT upgrades and capital works in the West Block.</para>
<para>The Department of the House of Representatives will receive $273,000 to strengthen engagement with the parliaments of the Pacific island nations. Again, that's critical work.</para>
<para>Full details of the proposed expenditure are set out in the schedule to the bill, the explanatory memorandum, and the portfolio additional estimates statements tabled in the parliament today.</para>
<para>I commend this bill to the chamber.</para>
<para>Debate adjourned.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>COMMITTEES</title>
        <page.no>23</page.no>
        <type>COMMITTEES</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>National Anti-Corruption Commission Joint Committee</title>
          <page.no>23</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Membership</title>
            <page.no>23</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:25</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I have received advice from Chief Government Whip that she has nominated Ms Thwaites to be a member of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the National Anti-Corruption Commission in place of Mr Hill.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:25</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms BURNEY</name>
    <name.id>8GH</name.id>
    <electorate>Barton</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That Mr Hill be discharged from the Parliamentary Joint National Anti-Corruption Commission and that, in his place, Ms Thwaites be appointed a member of the committee.</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>MOTIONS</title>
        <page.no>24</page.no>
        <type>MOTIONS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Middle East</title>
          <page.no>24</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:26</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BANDT</name>
    <name.id>M3C</name.id>
    <electorate>Melbourne</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the Member for Melbourne from moving the following motion immediately—That the House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) notes that since the House resolution of 16 October 2023 concerning Israel and Gaza, which supported the State of Israel's looming invasion of Gaza by stating that the House 'stands with Israel', the following have occurred:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) an appalling and increasing toll of deaths and injuries caused by the State of Israel's bombing and invasion of Gaza;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) a growing humanitarian catastrophe caused by the State of Israel's blockade, bombing and invasion of Gaza; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) the State of Israel is the subject of recent International Court of Justice orders in South Africa's case regarding the prevention of genocide; and therefore</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) does not support the State of Israel's continued invasion of Gaza and calls for an immediate and permanent ceasefire; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) calls on the Australian Government to end its support for the State of Israel's invasion of Gaza.</para></quote>
<para>Parliament must stop backing stop backing the invasion of Gaza. Labor must stop backing the invasion of Gaza and help stop a genocide. Nothing could be more urgent than helping to stop slaughter. In Gaza, about 250 civilians are killed every day, 600 are wounded and about 4,000 homes of civilians are being destroyed. Every day matters. Twenty-seven thousand people have been killed, many of them children. Meanwhile, the standing position of this parliament and this government is to back the invasion. As the International Court of Justice has noted, 'Gaza has become a place of death and despair. Tens of thousands of people, mostly women and children, have been killed or injured. Families are sleeping in the open as temperatures plummet. Areas where civilians were told to relocate for their safety have come under bombardment. Medical facilities are under relentless attack. The few hospitals that are partially functional are overwhelmed with trauma cases, critically short of all supplies, and inundated by desperate people seeking safety. A public health disaster is unfolding. Infectious diseases are spreading in overcrowded shelters as sewers spill over. Some 180 Palestinian women are giving birth daily amidst this chaos. People are facing the highest levels of food insecurity ever recorded. Famine is around the corner. For children in particular, the past 12 weeks have been traumatic: No food. No water. No school. Nothing but the terrifying sounds of war, day in and day out. Gaza has simply become uninhabitable. Its people are witnessing daily threats to their very existence—while the world watches on.</para>
<para>The International Court of Justice went on to say that there has been the largest displacement of the Palestinian people since 1948. It is vital that we act today—that standing and sessional orders be suspended and that this parliament reverses its position in support of the invasion, because people are dying and the situation is getting worse by the hour. As the International Court of Justice went on to note:</para>
<quote><para class="block">We are facing a severe risk of collapse of the humanitarian system.</para></quote>
<para>They noted:</para>
<quote><para class="block">… that 15 per cent of the women giving birth in the Gaza Strip are likely to experience complications, and indicates that maternal and newborn death rates are expected to increase due to the lack of access to medical care.</para></quote>
<para>Every moment matters.</para>
<para>When the Labor Party brought a motion to parliament, on the eve of a looming invasion, to say that they backed the invasion, we opposed it. We opposed it because—and we made the point at the time—when you sanction an invasion of an area half the size of Canberra, where 2.2 million people, 40 per cent of whom are under 15, are walled in with nowhere to go, then you unleash a humanitarian catastrophe. Sadly, that is what we have seen day after day.</para>
<para>And if the facts aren't enough for Labor to change its mind, then listen to the International Court of Justice because they have concluded that there is a plausible case of genocide here. Why is it that they have concluded that? They based their decision, in part, on statements from the Israeli government itself, the ones who are conducting the invasion, including statements from the defence minister who said: 'I have released all restraints. We are fighting human animals … we will eliminate everything.' The president of Israel went on to say, and this is in the International Court of Justice decision:</para>
<quote><para class="block">It's an entire nation out there that is responsible. It's not true this rhetoric about civilians not aware, not involved. It is absolutely not true.</para></quote>
<para>That is then why the Israeli Minister of Energy and Infrastructure also went on to say:</para>
<quote><para class="block">All the civilian population in Gaza is ordered to leave immediately … They will not receive a drop of water or a single battery until they leave the world.</para></quote>
<para>This is why the International Court of Justice are taking this extremely significant step now to place orders on the Israeli war cabinet not to take acts that could amount to a genocide.</para>
<para>What the world does now matters. What the parliament does now matters. What Labor does now matters. International pressure is what will bring about compliance with the International Court of Justice's decision; it's what will stop the invasion and it's what will lead us to a permanent ceasefire. When the International Court of Justice has put a government under orders to stop a genocide, this parliament cannot keep backing that state's invasion. This parliament must, at that time, act. We need the full and immediate release of hostages, and we all condemn the attacks on civilians. But we also need a full and permanent ceasefire and we need an end to the occupation, because that is how the people of Palestine and Israel will be entitled to live in justice, peace and security in the lasting way that everyone is entitled to, not only as a matter of morality but as a matter of international law.</para>
<para>But this vote is about whether or not the parliament continues to back the invasion. This is an opportunity for every parliamentarian who has watched the slaughter unfold, who has listened to the International Court of Justice deliver its deliberation and who has seen, in response to the International Court of Justice, one of the ministers of government of Israel tweeting 'Hauge schmague' in response to the decision. Other ministers, after the International Court of Justice decision, attended a conference that talked about the full displacement of all Palestinians out of Gaza. And Prime Minister Netanyahu said 'Well, everyone's entitled to their opinion.'</para>
<para>The facts are clear. And if you don't want to listen to the facts, then listen to the International Court of Justice. If that is not persuasive, then ask yourself, 'How is it fair that children are being slaughtered in their thousands, because of a so-called right to self-defence?' This has moved beyond self-defence. This is now a slaughter. Around the world, other countries are changing their position. We have seen the majority of the world's countries call for a permanent ceasefire, a full and permanent ceasefire. This parliament must now add itself to that list of countries that doesn't put conditions on it, that doesn't have weasel words but that says, 'Enough of the slaughter.' We want to see Palestinians and Israelis living in equal justice, peace and security. We must have a full and permanent ceasefire and we must have an end to the invasion. This is an opportunity for everyone in this House to say, 'Enough is enough', declare where they stand, and stand for peace and justice and an end to the slaughter.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:36</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms WATSON-BROWN</name>
    <name.id>300127</name.id>
    <electorate>Ryan</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I second the motion. Before I finish speaking this morning, another child in Gaza will have been killed. That is the urgency of this motion, why it must be passed as soon as possible and why we need to suspend standing orders to do so. This parliament must, must, rescind its of the ongoing genocidal invasion of Gaza. Israel's actions, which this parliament has endorsed without our support, have led to the death of thousands upon thousands of innocent children, of teachers, of nurses, of journalists, of pregnant mothers and babies, almost 28,000 people in total. Over a million are displaced from their homes and are starving in unimaginably appalling conditions in camps that are also flooding, with one toilet for every 500 people and one shower for every 2,000 people.</para>
<para>I'll quote from a recent <inline font-style="italic">Guardian</inline> article:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Babies are born on the ground in the wilderness, umbilical cords cut with whatever sharp object there is to hand, and tins filled with hot water keep the newborn warm. C-sections, painful in the aftermath even when drugs are plentiful, are being performed without any anaesthesia at all, by surgeons who do not have any water to wash their hands, let alone sterilise them, and no antibiotics for any resulting infections.</para></quote>
<para>There are humanitarian agencies there trying, against all the odds, to prevent the deaths and improve the conditions on the ground, and one of the largest has just had their funding suspended by this government. The government responded with sickening speed to these allegations, apparently without evidence, and deprived two million Palestinians of help that they desperately need yet, despite the mountains of evidence, including what was presented to the ICJ—the explicit genocidal language used by Israeli officials repeatedly and proudly—Labor has not withdrawn support for Israel nor called for a permanent ceasefire, nor supported South Africa's heroic actions in the International Court of Justice, nor committed to ending military exports to Israel. What possible explanation could there be for this? Does this government just not value Palestinian lives?</para>
<para>In the Senate yesterday, the foreign minister had the gall, the nerve, to say that the government has taken a constructive approach to this conflict. What a sick joke. The needs of the people in Gaza, the need for basic supplies to stay alive, for a roof over their head, has not suspended in Gaza. This government must restore funding to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency and uphold Australia's obligation under international law to prevent genocide. This again is why this motion is so urgent, and it needs to be considered immediately.</para>
<para>The only way we will stop this carnage and stop the horror is through international pressure. Australia has a big role to play and a huge responsibility. Labor is sitting on its hands while this genocide unfolds and Labor will be judged harshly by history for this cowardice.</para>
<para>As I speak today, as parliament continues to sit today, more Palestinians in Gaza, around half of whom are children, will be killed. This is the urgency of this situation. This parliament must correct this mistake. It must not continue to support Israel's genocidal actions in Gaza.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:40</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr WATTS</name>
    <name.id>193430</name.id>
    <electorate>Gellibrand</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>In the wake of Hamas's appalling terrorist attacks of 7 October, the Albanese government has taken a principled and consistent approach to the conflict in the Middle East and the way it rebounds in our community at home. We've had five priorities in this conflict: to keep our country united; to assist Australians abroad; to work with countries that have influence in the region to help protect and support civilians; to help prevent this conflict from spreading in the region; and to reinforce the need for a just and enduring peace. We understand that Australia is not a central player in this conflict, but we do have a respected voice and we've used it with countries who have influence in the region to pursue our objectives.</para>
<para>Both the foreign minister and I have travelled to the region to advance our principled position with parties in Israel, in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, in Jordan, in Qatar and in Egypt. We've directly engaged government officials, UN aid agencies, community and civil groups, and NGOs to try to further and realise our objectives.</para>
<para>From the outset of this conflict we've been consistent in the way that we've used our voice in saying that Israel does have a right to defend itself against these appalling terrorist attacks but that the way that Israel exercises that right matters and that Israel must respect international law. We've been consistent in calling on Israel to honour its commitment to uphold international law and protect innocent lives and to conduct its military operations lawfully. We've consistently set out our view that international humanitarian law requires the application of principles of distinction, proportionality and precaution in military operations, that international law requires that states distinguish between lawful military targets and civilians, that international law requires that a state's use of force must always be proportionate and that international law means that, in conducting military operations, states must exercise constant care and take all feasible precautions to protect civilians and civilian infrastructure from harm.</para>
<para>We've said that we understand that Hamas has buried into civilian infrastructure, but that does not obviate the requirement to observe international law. As a strong demonstration of our commitment to international law and respect for international institutions, we've been clear in responding to the International Court of Justice's interim decision on the conflict. We've made plain our expectation that Israel act in accordance with the ICJ's ruling, including to enable the provision of basic services and humanitarian assistance.</para>
<para>The world has witnessed a harrowing number of civilian deaths in this conflict, including children. We have reports from the UN that 400,000 Palestinians in Gaza are starving and that a million are at risk of starvation. There are an estimated 1.7 million people in Gaza internally displaced, and there are increasingly few safe places for Palestinians to go. This must not continue.</para>
<para>The motion before the House is absolutely correct in citing the appalling death toll of this conflict and the increasing scale of humanitarian suffering, but we cannot forget, as this motion does, that more than 130 hostages are still being held by Hamas, nor can we forget the murder, the rapes and the sexual abuse of 7 October conducted by Hamas, as this motion does. The Australian government has consistently called for the immediate return of all hostages held by Hamas and the end of Hamas rocket attacks on Israel.</para>
<para>The unimaginable human suffering being experienced in the region is why Australia is part of the international diplomatic efforts supporting an immediate humanitarian ceasefire to enable increased aid to flow and hostages to be released. That's why we joined with 152 other countries at the United Nations to vote for a humanitarian ceasefire as a critical, urgent step on the path to a permanent ceasefire. Like any ceasefire, it can't be one-sided. We've made it clear that such a ceasefire would require Hamas to return hostages, to stop using Palestinians as human shields and to cease rocket attacks on Israel.</para>
<para>In the meantime, Australia has continued to work with international partners to ensure that desperately needed food, fuel, sanitation and medical supplies reach those in need in Gaza. We've consistently worked with countries who have influence in the region to call for safe, unimpeded and sustained humanitarian access, and we've committed $46.5 million in humanitarian assistance to the region since the 7 October attacks. Of this total amount, $6 million of our humanitarian response funding was allocated to UNRWA, with the remainder being provided to other major trusted humanitarian organisations, including the Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement, UNICEF, the UN Population Fund and the UN Office for Project Services. This is on top of the more than $30 million in annual development assistance that Australia provides to Palestinians, including $20.6 million in core funding for UNRWA, which was dispersed in 2023—twice the amount committed by the previous government.</para>
<para>We need to recognise two things with respect to UNRWA. First, it does vital life-saving work, and no organisation has the mandate or logistical infrastructure to provide the services it does. Second, we also need to recognise that the recent allegations against its staff are grave and need to be urgently investigated. Australia welcomed UNRWA's swift response to those allegations, including terminating staff and launching an investigation, as well as its recent announcement that former French foreign minister Colonna will chair a full independent review of UNRWA. We're now working with a number of countries in the same position as us. We want to provide urgent humanitarian aid to people in Gaza, and collectively we're making clear to UNRWA that it needs to demonstrate strong, transparent and accountable leadership for the international community to move forward together.</para>
<para>Importantly, through this conflict the Albanese government has always highlighted the need for an enduring negotiated settlement to this conflict where Israelis and Palestinians can live side by side within recognised borders and with peace and security, and this has never been so urgent. This is why I've called out obstacles to peace, including the settlement activity in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. We've called out increasing settler violence in the Occupied Palestinian Territories and the need to hold those responsible accountable. We've made clear there can be no enduring Israeli presence after the conflict and no diminution of territory in Gaza. We've made it clear that we support Palestinian aspirations for statehood as part of a negotiated settlement because neither side will be able to realise their aspirations to live in peace and prosperity without the other side's being realised.</para>
<para>We've taken a principled and consistent approach throughout this conflict, and regrettably this stands in stark contrast to the approach of the Greens and the opposition. All too often those opposite have shown that their priority on this issue is not good-faith engagement—on one of the most complex emotive issues around the globe. Instead it's to play domestic politics, to seek to divide our community for political gain, to never let the truth get in the way of a campaigning opportunity, to use more and more extreme rhetoric designed to inflame opinions and demand that the government does the same, and to perpetuate misinformation to stoke outrage.</para>
<para>Time and time again, this government has had to clean up misinformation spread by the Greens and the opposition. I reiterate what the government has already made very clear: Australia has not provided weapons to Israel since the conflict began or for the last five years. Australia has a stringent export control framework which is designed to ensure our military and dual-use items are used responsibly outside of Australia. Similarly, the foreign minister has been accused of breaching Australian law over UNRWA funding—the kind of ridiculous claim that has become all too characteristic of this Leader of the Opposition.</para>
<para>This kind of misinformation has consequences for our community. It spurs people into more and more extreme rhetoric and to take more and more extreme action. In my own home town we've seen places of worship disrupted on the basis of misinformation and the disturbing targeting of people on the basis of their religion and family associations. The Albanese government won't play politics with this issue. We understand the importance of taking a principled approach to this conflict, not just because it's the best way to navigate this incredibly serious and complex issue in the Middle East but also because it's the best way to maintain social cohesion at home.</para>
<para>As leaders in this place, we need to recognise the complex and conflicting feelings of Australians on these issues and we need to encourage Australians to engage with each other with empathy, not contempt; to be curious about different perspectives of fellow Australians, not judgemental; and to recognise the complex feelings of the overwhelming majority of Australians on these difficult issues. Everyone deserves better than motions like this in this place that seek to divide rather than unite, that seek to find difference rather than common ground and that play domestic politics rather than look for solutions. Israelis deserve better, Palestinians deserve better and Australians deserve better.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:49</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr DUTTON</name>
    <name.id>00AKI</name.id>
    <electorate>Dickson</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>This is a disgraceful motion moved by the Greens political party, and it needs to be pointed out for the record that this motion is not only one sided; it ignores what actually caused this war. It fails to even mention Hamas, a listed terrorist organisation. It fails to mention the fact that there are still hostages held, including children. It fails to mention the fact that Hamas, its leaders, its operatives and its supporters in Hezbollah, Iran, Yemen and elsewhere continue to call for repeats of the 7 October attacks. It shows the antisemitic approach of the Greens political party. It is an appalling situation, and where is the Prime Minister? Why is the Prime Minister not here condemning this motion?</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>DZY</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. The member for Melbourne.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Bandt</name>
    <name.id>M3C</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>That is an unparliamentary term and it should be withdrawn.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>DZY</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The Leader of the Opposition in continuation.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr DUTTON</name>
    <name.id>00AKI</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The fact is that the Prime Minister of our country should be standing here and showing strength of leadership in support of the Jewish community here in Australia against this appalling motion, and yet at the next election the Prime Minister will take the Greens preferences. There will be a deal between the Labor Party and the Greens party to swap preferences to win the election.</para>
<para>Now, we need to point out that the Greens—and they're not ashamed of it—have shown antisemitic conduct at a state level and here in the federal parliament on a daily basis. It hasn't been called out by the Labor Party, because the Labor Party's trying to walk both sides of the street. I can assure the Australian public that our coalition will stand shoulder to shoulder with people of the Jewish community in this country to make sure that we stand up against the attacks, to recognise that people are living in fear and to recognise the reality that there are further security services, this very day, being applied to Jewish schools, to places of worship and to other places of gathering.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>DZY</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The time allotted for this debate has expired.</para>
<para class="italic"> <inline font-style="italic">A division having been called and the bells being rung—</inline></para>
<para>Honourable members interjecting—</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! I ask members to cease interjecting while the division is in progress.</para>
<para>Honourable members interjecting—</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I asked members to cease interjecting while the division is in progress. The question is that the motion moved by the member for Melbourne be agreed to.</para>
<para> </para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<division>
          <division.header>
            <body>
              <p class="HPS-DivisionPreamble">The House divided. [10:56] <br />(The Speaker—Hon. Milton Dick) </p>
            </body>
          </division.header>
          <division.data>
            <ayes>
              <num.votes>6</num.votes>
              <title>AYES</title>
              <names>
                <name>Bandt, A. P. (Teller)</name>
                <name>Bates, S. J. (Teller)</name>
                <name>Chandler-Mather, M.</name>
                <name>Haines, H. M.</name>
                <name>Watson-Brown, E.</name>
                <name>Wilkie, A. D.</name>
              </names>
            </ayes>
            <noes>
              <num.votes>91</num.votes>
              <title>NOES</title>
              <names>
                <name>Ananda-Rajah, M.</name>
                <name>Andrews, K. L.</name>
                <name>Archer, B. K.</name>
                <name>Bell, A. M.</name>
                <name>Birrell, S. J.</name>
                <name>Boyce, C. E.</name>
                <name>Broadbent, R. E.</name>
                <name>Buchholz, S.</name>
                <name>Burnell, M. P.</name>
                <name>Burney, L. J.</name>
                <name>Burns, J.</name>
                <name>Byrnes, A. J.</name>
                <name>Caldwell, C. M.</name>
                <name>Chester, D. J.</name>
                <name>Chesters, L. M.</name>
                <name>Coker, E. A.</name>
                <name>Coleman, D. B.</name>
                <name>Conaghan, P. J.</name>
                <name>Daniel, Z.</name>
                <name>Dreyfus, M. A.</name>
                <name>Dutton, P. C.</name>
                <name>Elliot, M. J.</name>
                <name>Fernando, C.</name>
                <name>Fletcher, P. W.</name>
                <name>Freelander, M. R. (Teller)</name>
                <name>Garland, C. M. L.</name>
                <name>Gee, A. R.</name>
                <name>Georganas, S.</name>
                <name>Gillespie, D. A.</name>
                <name>Goodenough, I. R. </name>
                <name>Gorman, P.</name>
                <name>Gosling, L. J.</name>
                <name>Hamilton, G. R.</name>
                <name>Hastie, A. W.</name>
                <name>Hawke, A. G.</name>
                <name>Hogan, K. J.</name>
                <name>Howarth, L. R.</name>
                <name>Joyce, B. T. G.</name>
                <name>Katter, R. C.</name>
                <name>Landry, M. L.</name>
                <name>Lawrence, T. N.</name>
                <name>Laxale, J. A. A.</name>
                <name>Le, D.</name>
                <name>Leeser, J.</name>
                <name>Lim, S. B. C.</name>
                <name>Littleproud, D.</name>
                <name>Marino, N. B.</name>
                <name>Mascarenhas, Z. F. A.</name>
                <name>McCormack, M. F.</name>
                <name>McIntosh, M. I.</name>
                <name>McKenzie, Z. A.</name>
                <name>Miller-Frost, L. J.</name>
                <name>Mitchell, B. K.</name>
                <name>Mulino, D.</name>
                <name>Neumann, S. K.</name>
                <name>O'Brien, L. S.</name>
                <name>Pasin, A.</name>
                <name>Payne, A. E.</name>
                <name>Pearce, G. B.</name>
                <name>Pike, H. J.</name>
                <name>Pitt, K. J.</name>
                <name>Price, M. L.</name>
                <name>Rae, S. T.</name>
                <name>Ramsey, R. E.</name>
                <name>Reid, G. J.</name>
                <name>Repacholi, D. P.</name>
                <name>Scamps, S. A.</name>
                <name>Scrymgour, M. R.</name>
                <name>Sharkie, R. C. C.</name>
                <name>Sitou, S.</name>
                <name>Smith, D. P. B. (Teller)</name>
                <name>Spender, A. M.</name>
                <name>Stevens, J.</name>
                <name>Sukkar, M. S.</name>
                <name>Taylor, A. J.</name>
                <name>Tehan, D. T.</name>
                <name>Thompson, P.</name>
                <name>Tink, K. J.</name>
                <name>van Manen, A. J.</name>
                <name>Vasta, R. X.</name>
                <name>Violi, A. A.</name>
                <name>Ware, J. L.</name>
                <name>Watts, T. G.</name>
                <name>Webster, A. E.</name>
                <name>Wells, A. S.</name>
                <name>Willcox, A. J.</name>
                <name>Wilson, J. H.</name>
                <name>Wilson, R. J.</name>
                <name>Wolahan, K.</name>
                <name>Wood, J. P.</name>
                <name>Young, T. J.</name>
              </names>
            </noes>
            <pairs>
              <num.votes>0</num.votes>
              <title>PAIRS</title>
              <names />
            </pairs>
          </division.data>
          <division.result>
            <body>
              <p class="HPS-DivisionFooter">Question negatived.</p>
            </body>
          </division.result>
        </division><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:03</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr KATTER</name>
    <name.id>HX4</name.id>
    <electorate>Kennedy</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move for a suspension of standing orders to debate the matter raised by the leader of the Greens. I obviously disagree with his point of view, of course. I move for a suspension of standing orders to bring forward that debate immediately.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The member is moving the motion. Is it in writing?</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr KATTER</name>
    <name.id>HX4</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>No, I haven't had time to put it in writing. We Cloncurry boys don't read or write too good either.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I can appreciate the member's passion and I can appreciate his interest in this issue, but, under the standing orders, all motions must be in writing. If the member wishes to move a suspension, he can do so by handwriting. Otherwise, we may have to move on to other items of business.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>COMMITTEES</title>
        <page.no>29</page.no>
        <type>COMMITTEES</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>National Anti-Corruption Commission Joint Committee</title>
          <page.no>29</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Report</title>
            <page.no>29</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:05</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr HAINES</name>
    <name.id>282335</name.id>
    <electorate>Indi</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>On behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the National Anti-Corruption Commission, I present the committee's report on the proposed recommendation for appointment of a deputy commissioner of the National Anti-Corruption Commission.</para>
<para>Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e).</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>MOTIONS</title>
        <page.no>29</page.no>
        <type>MOTIONS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Middle East</title>
          <page.no>29</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:05</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr KATTER</name>
    <name.id>HX4</name.id>
    <electorate>Kennedy</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move that so much of standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevented the House of Representatives from debating immediately the motion moved by the member for Melbourne.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:06</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I will just have to have a copy of the motion so I can make sure about the standing orders if it is the same. For the benefit of the House, the same motion cannot be debated one after the other. It has to be a new motion.</para>
<para>I understand what the member for Kennedy is trying to do here in trying have his say on this important issue. Under the standing orders, the way that it would have to work would be a specific separate motion not on the same topic or the same issue. It would have to be a slightly different or a quite different motion; otherwise, we would be here all day just dealing with the same issue over and over again and that would be disruptive to the House. So unless there is a more substantive motion dealing with the issue in broader terms or with the wider context, I will have to rule this motion out of order.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:07</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr KATTER</name>
    <name.id>HX4</name.id>
    <electorate>Kennedy</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I changed the wording to the issue of the Gaza invasion. Would the suspension of standing orders to debate the issue of the Gaza invasion be acceptable?</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I am just checking with the Clerk regarding the original motion. Member for Kennedy, if you wish to suspend standing orders you need to explain why, what the reason is to interrupt the House, which is a fairly serious consequence for disrupting the order of the House and the business of the House.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr KATTER</name>
    <name.id>HX4</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I just want to make the observation that Greg Sheridan wrote a magnificent article in <inline font-style="italic">The </inline><inline font-style="italic">Australia</inline><inline font-style="italic">n</inline> yesterday saying the whole of the world is watching Gaza and it should be debated in this House. But for this group of people to get away with the vilification of the people who were attacked brutally and don't have the ability to answer it, that is wrong and it should not happen. This parliament should be allowed to speak. There are people of Jewish faith in the ALP who are deeply offended by what took place here. There are people of Jewish faith there that are deeply offended, and every decent Australian is disgusted with the behaviour of the people behind me.</para>
<para>Now, we should be allowed to have our say, and I think that it's important for our nation to stand proud on this issue. That is why I think it's imperative that we be allowed to debate this matter.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Look, I'm just not going to allow this to continue. The member for Kennedy has had his say now, under indulgence. The House has decided on this issue about whether or not we will debate it, so there's no point having that argument again because we've just dealt with that issue. I would suggest to the member for Kennedy that there are other forms in the House if he wishes to lodge a private member's motion where this debate could occur, and I'd encourage him to do so.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr KATTER</name>
    <name.id>HX4</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Mr Speaker, I would be your greatest admirer in this place, undoubtedly, but I must dissent from your ruling. I move a motion of dissent from your ruling on this matter, officially and formally.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>That is the member's right to do so. I shall need that motion in writing.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr KATTER</name>
    <name.id>HX4</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I do not wish to waste the time of the parliament. I'm discussing it here with the Leader of the Opposition, and they are going to take an initiative which I will, of course, very strongly back. But I think it's a suspension of democracy if this House is not allowed to debate this matter. To allow this mob to have their say without anyone on the other side being allowed to speak, that's very undemocratic and I will very strongly back the opposition—not on other things but on this manner.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I understand. Are you withdrawing the dissent motion?</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr KATTER</name>
    <name.id>HX4</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I withdraw the dissent motion, on the basis that something is coming forward from the opposition and I will back that. Thank you for your indulgence.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>BILLS</title>
        <page.no>30</page.no>
        <type>BILLS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Customs Tariff Amendment (Incorporation of Proposals) Bill (No. 2) 2023</title>
          <page.no>30</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r7118" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Customs Tariff Amendment (Incorporation of Proposals) Bill (No. 2) 2023</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Report from Federation Chamber</title>
            <page.no>30</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo></subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Third Reading</title>
            <page.no>30</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:13</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr JONES</name>
    <name.id>A9B</name.id>
    <electorate>Whitlam</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That this bill be now read a third time.</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
<para>Bill read a third time.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>COAG Legislation Amendment Bill 2023</title>
          <page.no>30</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r7131" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">COAG Legislation Amendment Bill 2023</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Report from Federation Chamber</title>
            <page.no>30</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo></subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Third Reading</title>
            <page.no>30</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:14</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr JONES</name>
    <name.id>A9B</name.id>
    <electorate>Whitlam</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That this bill be now read a third time.</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
<para>Bill read a third time.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Australian Research Council Amendment (Review Response) Bill 2023</title>
          <page.no>30</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r7130" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Australian Research Council Amendment (Review Response) Bill 2023</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Report from Federation Chamber</title>
            <page.no>30</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:16</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I understand it is the wish of the House to consider the bill immediately. The unresolved question is that this bill be now read a second time. The question before the House is that this bill be now read a second time, and I give the call to the Minister for Education.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:16</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr CLARE</name>
    <name.id>HWL</name.id>
    <electorate>Blaxland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank members for their contributions to this debate. Those contributions are important because the Australian Research Council Amendment (Review Response) Bill is an important bill. As a country, we do three per cent of global research—three per cent from a country that accounts for only 0.3 per cent of the world's population. We punch well above our weight in research and innovation, and the Australian Research Council plays a critical role in that. The reforms in this bill will set up the ARC for the future. It will modernise its governance, something that hasn't happened in over two decades since the ARC was created, and it will bolster its independence. It will get political interference out of grant funding decisions.</para>
<para>The bill implements the recommendations of the ARC review led by Professor Margaret Sheil AO. I want to again acknowledge and thank Professor Sheil, together with her fellow panellists, Professor Susan Dodds and Professor Mark Hutchinson, for their tireless efforts in delivering this review. Their terms of reference were broad and their consultation and engagement with the sector was even broader. I hope that they are gratified by the positive feedback that their review and this bill has received. Universities Australia said that the measures in the bill 'put strong governance, peer review and genuine transparency back at the core of the ARC' and that 'these are game-changing steps to create a stronger, more stable environment for researchers to continue preparing Australia for the opportunities and challenges ahead.' Science and Technology Australia described the review's work as a 'thoughtful blueprint for modernisation' and said of the bill that 'these changes will restore confidence in research funding, strengthen certainty for Australia's outstanding researchers and prevent ministerial meddling in complex research funding decisions.'</para>
<para>I also welcome the report from the Senate inquiry into this bill, which recommended its passage and noted the strong broad sector support for its measures. There are some suggestions in that report which we will consider as the bill moves to the Senate.</para>
<para>I also thank the members for Kooyong and Warringah for their contributions commending the government for introducing this bill. Their speeches underlined the importance of Australian research not only to them but to the communities they represent. I also want to thank the member for Mackellar for her engagement on the bill, and I understand she will be moving an amendment concerning the appointment of the ARC Board. The government will not be in a position to support that amendment. The provisions concerning the ARC Board were drafted to reflect the recommendations of the independent ARC review.</para>
<para>I also note the contribution from the member for Bradfield, in which he confirmed that the opposition will not support the bill. That is disappointing but not surprising. The member for Bradfield derided the removal of what he described as the 'capacity for ministerial intervention' in relation to grant funding decisions. That is exactly what this bill is intended to do. It's what the independent ARC review recommended—to end the days of political interference upending the independent peer review process and to stop the minister of the day from being free to spike research projects on a whim. But it is clear that the opposition still think that the ARC should be a political plaything for future liberal ministers.</para>
<para>Well, that ends with this bill. It is an important reform, and I am pleased that this government is delivering on it in a bill that will set up the ARC to spur innovation and catalyse productivity in the years ahead. Once again, I thank members for their contribution, and I commend the bill to the House.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The question is the bill be read a second time.</para>
<para> </para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<division>
            <division.header>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionPreamble">The House divided. [11:24] <br />(The Speaker—Hon. Milton Dick) </p>
              </body>
            </division.header>
            <division.data>
              <ayes>
                <num.votes>89</num.votes>
                <title>AYES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Albanese, A. N.</name>
                  <name>Aly, A.</name>
                  <name>Ananda-Rajah, M.</name>
                  <name>Bandt, A. P.</name>
                  <name>Bates, S. J.</name>
                  <name>Bowen, C. E.</name>
                  <name>Burke, A. S.</name>
                  <name>Burnell, M. P.</name>
                  <name>Burney, L. J.</name>
                  <name>Burns, J.</name>
                  <name>Butler, M. C.</name>
                  <name>Byrnes, A. J.</name>
                  <name>Chalmers, J. E.</name>
                  <name>Chandler-Mather, M.</name>
                  <name>Chaney, K. E.</name>
                  <name>Charlton, A. H. G.</name>
                  <name>Chesters, L. M.</name>
                  <name>Clare, J. D.</name>
                  <name>Claydon, S. C.</name>
                  <name>Coker, E. A.</name>
                  <name>Collins, J. M.</name>
                  <name>Conroy, P. M.</name>
                  <name>Daniel, Z.</name>
                  <name>Doyle, M. J. J.</name>
                  <name>Dreyfus, M. A.</name>
                  <name>Elliot, M. J.</name>
                  <name>Fernando, C.</name>
                  <name>Freelander, M. R.</name>
                  <name>Garland, C. M. L.</name>
                  <name>Gee, A. R.</name>
                  <name>Georganas, S.</name>
                  <name>Giles, A. J.</name>
                  <name>Gorman, P.</name>
                  <name>Gosling, L. J.</name>
                  <name>Haines, H. M.</name>
                  <name>Hill, J. C.</name>
                  <name>Jones, S. P.</name>
                  <name>Katter, R. C.</name>
                  <name>Kearney, G. M.</name>
                  <name>Keogh, M. J.</name>
                  <name>Khalil, P.</name>
                  <name>King, C. F.</name>
                  <name>King, M. M. H.</name>
                  <name>Lawrence, T. N.</name>
                  <name>Laxale, J. A. A.</name>
                  <name>Le, D.</name>
                  <name>Leigh, A. K.</name>
                  <name>Lim, S. B. C.</name>
                  <name>Marles, R. D.</name>
                  <name>Mascarenhas, Z. F. A.</name>
                  <name>McBain, K. L.</name>
                  <name>McBride, E. M.</name>
                  <name>Miller-Frost, L. J.</name>
                  <name>Mitchell, B. K.</name>
                  <name>Mitchell, R. G.</name>
                  <name>Mulino, D.</name>
                  <name>Neumann, S. K.</name>
                  <name>O'Connor, B. P. J.</name>
                  <name>O'Neil, C. E.</name>
                  <name>Payne, A. E.</name>
                  <name>Perrett, G. D.</name>
                  <name>Phillips, F. E.</name>
                  <name>Plibersek, T. J.</name>
                  <name>Rae, S. T.</name>
                  <name>Reid, G. J.</name>
                  <name>Repacholi, D. P.</name>
                  <name>Rishworth, A. L.</name>
                  <name>Roberts, T. G.</name>
                  <name>Rowland, M. A.</name>
                  <name>Ryan, J. C.</name>
                  <name>Ryan, M. M.</name>
                  <name>Scamps, S. A.</name>
                  <name>Scrymgour, M. R.</name>
                  <name>Sitou, S.</name>
                  <name>Smith, D. P. B. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Spender, A. M.</name>
                  <name>Stanley, A. M. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Steggall, Z.</name>
                  <name>Templeman, S. R.</name>
                  <name>Thistlethwaite, M. J.</name>
                  <name>Thwaites, K. L.</name>
                  <name>Tink, K. J.</name>
                  <name>Vamvakinou, M.</name>
                  <name>Watson-Brown, E.</name>
                  <name>Watts, T. G.</name>
                  <name>Wells, A. S.</name>
                  <name>Wilkie, A. D.</name>
                  <name>Wilson, J. H.</name>
                  <name>Zappia, A.</name>
                </names>
              </ayes>
              <noes>
                <num.votes>50</num.votes>
                <title>NOES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Andrews, K. L.</name>
                  <name>Archer, B. K.</name>
                  <name>Bell, A. M.</name>
                  <name>Birrell, S. J.</name>
                  <name>Boyce, C. E.</name>
                  <name>Buchholz, S.</name>
                  <name>Caldwell, C. M.</name>
                  <name>Chester, D. J.</name>
                  <name>Coleman, D. B.</name>
                  <name>Conaghan, P. J.</name>
                  <name>Coulton, M. M. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Entsch, W. G.</name>
                  <name>Fletcher, P. W.</name>
                  <name>Gillespie, D. A.</name>
                  <name>Goodenough, I. R. </name>
                  <name>Hamilton, G. R.</name>
                  <name>Hastie, A. W.</name>
                  <name>Hawke, A. G.</name>
                  <name>Hogan, K. J.</name>
                  <name>Howarth, L. R.</name>
                  <name>Joyce, B. T. G.</name>
                  <name>Landry, M. L.</name>
                  <name>Leeser, J.</name>
                  <name>Littleproud, D.</name>
                  <name>Marino, N. B.</name>
                  <name>McCormack, M. F.</name>
                  <name>McIntosh, M. I.</name>
                  <name>McKenzie, Z. A.</name>
                  <name>O'Brien, E. L.</name>
                  <name>O'Brien, L. S.</name>
                  <name>Pasin, A.</name>
                  <name>Pearce, G. B.</name>
                  <name>Pike, H. J.</name>
                  <name>Pitt, K. J.</name>
                  <name>Price, M. L.</name>
                  <name>Ramsey, R. E. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Stevens, J.</name>
                  <name>Sukkar, M. S.</name>
                  <name>Tehan, D. T.</name>
                  <name>Thompson, P.</name>
                  <name>van Manen, A. J.</name>
                  <name>Vasta, R. X.</name>
                  <name>Violi, A. A.</name>
                  <name>Ware, J. L.</name>
                  <name>Webster, A. E.</name>
                  <name>Willcox, A. J.</name>
                  <name>Wilson, R. J.</name>
                  <name>Wolahan, K.</name>
                  <name>Wood, J. P.</name>
                  <name>Young, T. J.</name>
                </names>
              </noes>
              <pairs>
                <num.votes>0</num.votes>
                <title>PAIRS</title>
                <names />
              </pairs>
            </division.data>
            <division.result>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionFooter">Question agreed to.<br />Bill read a second time.<br />Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.</p>
              </body>
            </division.result>
          </division></subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Third Reading</title>
            <page.no>32</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:30</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr CLARE</name>
    <name.id>HWL</name.id>
    <electorate>Blaxland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That this bill be now read a third time.</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
<para>Bill read a third time.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Migration Amendment (Strengthening Employer Compliance) Bill 2023</title>
          <page.no>32</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Consideration of Senate Message</title>
            <page.no>32</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:32</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr GILES</name>
    <name.id>243609</name.id>
    <electorate>Scullin</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That the amendments be agreed to.</para></quote>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:32</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr TEHAN</name>
    <name.id>210911</name.id>
    <electorate>Wannon</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'll be brief. There are 25 amendments listed on the government sheet, including a number of minor technical amendments. Each of the recommendations made by Senator Scarr in the Senate committee inquiry have been addressed. I want to thank Senator Scarr and the committee for their process and the way that they were able to look at the Migration Amendment (Strengthening Employer Compliance) Bill 2023 and work together to make sure that we got good amendments in place that I think have improved the bill. This was work which was begun by the coalition; obviously the government has also taken it up. We've had a good committee process, and we now have amendments which even improve the bill further, and I'd like to thank all those involved in that process. It's a very good example of when government and opposition work together well we get a good bill.</para>
<para>There is just one thing that I would ask of the government—and it was part of some of the discussions we had—and that is we need to make sure that there's a proper educational process. Given that the bill will come into effect on 1 July, our hope is that the Department of Home Affairs and immigration will be able to roll out an educational campaign so everyone is fully aware of it, given that we now have a short time frame until it comes into law. I would just ask that that could be kept front of mind by the government. I think it's really important, given these changes, that especially employer groups now understand what these new obligations are.</para>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Paid Parental Leave Amendment (More Support for Working Families) Bill 2023</title>
          <page.no>37</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r7102" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Paid Parental Leave Amendment (More Support for Working Families) Bill 2023</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>37</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:35</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr ANANDA-RAJAH</name>
    <name.id>290544</name.id>
    <electorate>Higgins</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>There is a generation of young men who do not wish to follow in their fathers' footsteps. They've seen the trade-off of long hours against time spent with family; they've seen the neglect of relationships and the impacts on their partners. They want family and—rather than or—work.</para>
<para>When it comes to raising a child, decisions made in the earliest time of a child's life lock in patterns of parenting for years to come. An Australian woman does more caring, and twice as much housework, even a decade after the birth of the first child. In other words, having children worsens the gender division of work at home, which persists for years to come, serving neither the mum nor the dad's relationship. A survey of 842 men conducted by the Australian recruitment agency Hays in 2019 indicated that 80 per cent of men believe that shared parental leave and child-rearing responsibility would help break down unconscious bias and improve gender diversity.</para>
<para>Australian businesses are stepping up because they've put two and two together. They've realised that equal PPL schemes are good for their bottom line because they help to retain talent. And we are in a war for talent. In this war, every age matters. PWC reported a reduction in the proportion its staff who resign while on paid parental leave from 6.4 per cent in 2017, before the more flexible option was introduced, to 3.3 per cent in 2021. Deloitte introduced similar leave entitlements for mothers and fathers in 2015, and saw an increase in the uptake of parental leave among fathers from 20 per cent to 40 per cent.</para>
<para>I have caught a glimpse of this new generation of fathers. They have stood shoulder to shoulder with their partners in campaigning for the protection of child care in Higgins. The early childhood education centres in Carnegie and Murrumbeena will close in March. These beloved centres have been a pillar of our community since the 1990s. Small in size, they have seen at least a generation of children passing through their doors. One of the children who passed through those doors is now a doctor. The educators have been there for decades—some, as long as 26 years. Such tenure is unheard of in the early childhood education sector. They are caring, professional and dearly loved by the parents and children they service. Every child feels accepted, including many children with chronic conditions like epilepsy and autism.</para>
<para>Now, as the closure of these centres looms, the parents are understandably disappointed, after campaigning hard to have this decision overturned. Theirs was a parent-led campaign, with a petition, garnering over 7,000 signatures; a rally outside the town hall; and coverage in the media. The parents pleaded with Glen Eira council to slow down the process, rethink their decision and invest in, rather than divest from, what were clearly community assets. If the centres were lithium mines, nobody would be countenancing shutting them down.</para>
<para>These parents championed this cause, on top of their day jobs as teachers, lawyers, doctors, nurses, business owners and public administrators. Why? Because early childhood education delivered by community is a highly-trusted source and has care standards above the national average. Community based child care accounts for 42 per cent of the childcare sector, according to a report by CELA and other organisations, positioned competitively against 49 per cent private for-profit providers.</para>
<para>While affordable, accessible early learning and care is a linchpin for working families, it is not enough in our pursuit of gender parity. According to Treasury, women reduce their hours of paid work by 35 per cent over the first five years following the birth of their children. Part-time becomes permanent part-time, with all its flow-on impacts to individuals and the economy. We need to do more. It was for this reason that the Gillard Labor government introduced paid parental leave in 2011, and it is the Albanese Labor government that has picked up the baton dropped under those opposite.</para>
<para>The Libs presided over spiralling childcare costs and turned a blind eye to a stagnant, moribund gender pay gap. They watched as Australia languished on the World Economic Forum's Global Gender Gap Index, falling to 43rd place. In just over a year, Australia has climbed 17 places on that index—the largest increase since the index began in 2006. In just over a year, we have made the gender pay gap the lowest in Commonwealth history, at 13 per cent, down from 14.1 per cent in August of last year. But we have more to do. In just over a year, we now have a record-high participation rate for women, at nearly 63 per cent in May of last year. With 53 per cent of women in our ranks, the highest in Commonwealth history, the Albanese government unapologetically drives a hard agenda when it comes to supporting women. But we need to do more.</para>
<para>Why is reform to PPL, paid parental leave, important? It's because stereotypical gender norms, that lock in men as breadwinners and women as homemakers who are also tethered to part-time work, start in those early weeks when baby comes home. Part-time work is fine, if it is a real choice. But too many women who seek to return to full-time work find themselves denied career progression. To put it bluntly, less pay means fewer assets, less super and greater vulnerability in the face of those curveballs in life, like relationship breakdown, bereavement or job loss. This is one of the reasons the gender pay gap is so pernicious.</para>
<para>Approximately 180,000 parents in Australia, and 960 in Higgins, will benefit from this scheme. Our bill will expand access to the scheme and provide more flexibility for families. The value of getting new fathers to spend more time with their babies in the early years cannot be overstated. The bill expands paid parental leave from 20 to 26 weeks, increasing the period reserved for each parent from two to four weeks, and doubling the period that parents can take leave simultaneously from two to four weeks. These reforms will provide much-needed support to mums after childbirth, encouraging dads and partners to spend more time with their children in those formative years.</para>
<para>We also acknowledge that there are calls to expand the scheme even further, but we need to see that cultural shift occur in corporate Australia—for it to become acceptable for working fathers to take much longer periods of time in order to be there in that early period after baby comes home.</para>
<para>This bill strikes the balance between supporting mums and encouraging dads to take leave and providing families with flexibility in structuring their care arrangements. The bill sends a clear message: parenting is an equal partnership and should be treated as such. We would like corporate Australia to take heed. It's good for parents, it's good for bubs, it's good for employers and it's good for the economy. This is exactly the kind of critical infrastructure we need to support and champion in Australia. I commend this bill to the House.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:43</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr STEVENS</name>
    <name.id>176304</name.id>
    <electorate>Sturt</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to speak in favour of the second reading of the Paid Parental Leave Amendment (More Support for Working Families) Bill 2023. As our lead speaker, Mr Sukkar, has pointed out, we, the coalition, have an amendment here because we have some small business concerns, but obviously, in principle, we strongly support an expansion of paid parental leave. In fact, it's worth noting that we attempted to introduce a 26-week paid parental leave scheme—a scheme that we took to the 2010 and 2013 elections. We, of course, won the 2013 election, but we weren't in a position to implement that paid parental leave scheme, which would have gone up to $150,000 of paid leave for the 26-week period. That, of course, was vehemently opposed by those opposite—including by the Greens, not in the chamber at the moment. So we're pleased to see this development and we're pleased to support it in principle.</para>
<para>Obviously, the coalition is very much a party that wants to look for all sorts of opportunities to make it easier to get the work-life balance right, to support people starting or expanding families and to have as limited an impact as possible on the careers and incomes of the average household because of that.</para>
<para>It's certainly a different world to decades gone by, when we had very stereotyped attitudes and, therefore, very stereotyped policies when it came to the way in which families were expected—virtually required, because of the systems and attitudes of the past—to structure the family unit in a very specific way. I'm very grateful that those days, those years and those decades, if not centuries—even millennia—are well and truly behind us and that we're now in a modern era where we strongly support parents having the decision-making process well in their hands to start a family or expand a family and also to support their career and have the legislated protections and entitlements that they should have to fairly and reasonably expect to not have to sacrifice one for the other.</para>
<para>Obviously, an increase to 26 weeks simply improves even further the support that should be in place. It has clearly got the flexibility that it should have amongst parents et cetera, and people make their own individual decisions when they have children about how they wish to balance and/or structure their leave from the workforce. We know that there are other very important provisions in the Fair Work Act and in our industrial relations system to guarantee leave rights when it comes to leave for maternity purposes and for parental purposes—we now use that more appropriate term. Increasing to 26 weeks is an extension of the important support that should be in place.</para>
<para>But we do have concerns about the burden that the government—not the people accessing the leave—mandates upon business, particularly small business, and that is the crux of what we are seeking to have addressed through the amendments to this legislation that we foreshadowed. As it stands, there is a burden, a requirement, on business to administer a scheme that very much should be administered by the government department, much like any other government payment system is administered. We hear these concepts or arguments that a connection is maintained between an employer and an employee if the employer has the burden of administering the government's payment of the paid parental leave instead of the government. I think this is a complete nonsense.</para>
<para>Firstly, I think that, in the modern world, there are very good enduring connections between an employer and employee, remembering, of course, that this is a circumstance where someone is taking leave from a role that they will be returning to. So there are very simple, straightforward and obvious connections that are maintained between an employer and an employee. The connection that we're told is vitally important here is an administrative, processing and transactional requirement of a business to put money into someone's bank account. The suggestion that that is some kind of enhanced connection and interaction between their employer and them, as an employee, while they are on leave is patently ridiculous.</para>
<para>But what we also know and what we hear from many of the industry groups that represent small business—because we think it's small business that need to have this burden lifted from them and removed from them—is that large companies with big payroll departments are fine. They probably don't really need any dramatic additional resources to undertake the processing of paid parental leave transactions when they've got a payroll department and a complex payroll system. These are not overly consequential additional payroll department burdens for a large company with all that capacity that's largely in place to administer a scheme like this without undue additional burden.</para>
<para>But smaller businesses, businesses of less than 20 employees, would absolutely have to—and we hear very good examples from the consultation very directly that they indeed do, beyond question—have all these additional burdens on what can be very small resourcing towards payroll. If you're a small business with a few employees, you don't have any form of permanent, full-time payroll capability. These days we all know that software systems can provide a lot of assistance, but nonetheless, when it comes to payroll and the obligations on a business, there's a risk of significant penalties if they don't get it right—things like making sure they're paying the appropriate amount of super under the superannuation guarantee. Of course, when businesses have a legal burden on them that they need to comply with, they make sure that they do, but they also incur a cost in doing so. In the case of paid parental leave, we have an enormous government department with responsibility for the scheme. Why can't we have that department administering and transacting the scheme directly with the person receiving the government entitlement, rather than involving the small business that the person works for, putting the burden on them to administer the scheme?</para>
<para>It's very difficult to do business. There's a lot of stress and a lot of risk. We on this side of the House champion the people that go out there and take a risk to start a business. We have nothing against people who have jobs, which includes everyone in this chamber, but we particularly love the people who create new jobs in our economy. We want those news jobs to be coming from new businesses. We want to support the creation of new businesses and we want to support small businesses becoming medium-sized businesses or big businesses. We want a big, thriving private sector, and we want to make it as easy as possible for people to run their businesses.</para>
<para>As a parliament, we have an opportunity to do something to achieve a worthy goal that we should all have: helping people who are out there taking a risk to grow our economy and paying the taxes that governments like ours spend. Supporting these amendments is something we could do to make a positive change, reducing an administrative burden on businesses so they have one less thing to worry about. The arguments against that seem pretty weak, compared to the argument for it, which is helping businesses focus on running and growing their business for our economy.</para>
<para>We urge the government to look favourably upon these sensible suggestions. If they're not comfortable with relying solely on our arguments and word, they can simply look at the industry groups that represent the small businesses that are calling for this. Take them at face value and start saying, 'We want to help businesses and take an unnecessary burden of government off them wherever we have the opportunity to do so.' It's not an overly significant request for businesses to ask the government to administer its own scheme. That's not an unreasonable ask of the small-business community, given the enormity that is the Commonwealth Government of Australia.</para>
<para>We hope that the government will look favourably upon the amendments. I certainly support them. I would like to see this bill pass through the House expeditiously—hopefully in amended form—because it's a very important opportunity to support people. As I've outlined, we support the Paid Parental Leave scheme but there's a way to make it better, and I commend that improved version to the House.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:53</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mrs ELLIOT</name>
    <name.id>DZW</name.id>
    <electorate>Richmond</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm very pleased today to be speaking in support of the Paid Parental Leave Amendment (More Support for Working Families) Bill 2023, a piece of legislation that is of utmost importance to our nation. This bill represents not just important reform but a really transformative change that holds immense significance for families, particularly women. Of course, it's also vitally important for the overall health of our economy.</para>
<para>The Albanese government understands the significance of this reform, and we're committed to championing the wellbeing of parents and their children while striving for gender equality and focusing on economic growth. Paid parental leave is the absolute basis upon which we build a healthier, more nurturing environment for parents and their children. It's important because it provides much-needed support to new parents during a really crucial and often difficult phase of life and really fosters a strong and healthy start for our children as well. It can be a very challenging time, and we should all be there to provide support for those new parents. As a government, there's a lot that we can do, and paid parental leave is vitally important in that.</para>
<para>This is not merely a social policy that's good for families but also an economic one, contributing significantly to the stability of families and the efficiency of our workforce. And it is, importantly, a key instrument for achieving gender equality—a goal that unites us all. All of us—governments, businesses, unions, community and economists—recognise its profound importance.</para>
<para>When implemented correctly, paid parental leave can be a win-win, not only fostering individual wellbeing and family wellbeing but contributing to the greater economic good, because it offers support for working parents, reduces turnover in the workplace and results in a more engaged and productive workforce. Moreover and so importantly, it empowers women to maintain their careers and economic independence, bridging so many gender disparities.</para>
<para>Businesses, unions, experts and economists all understand that one of the most effective ways to boost productivity and participation is providing more choices and more support for families, alongside greater opportunities for women. Our commitment to this cause was evidenced in our first budget, where we invested half a billion dollars to extend the scheme to six months by 2026. This monumental investment represents the most substantial commitment to paid parental leave since we introduced the scheme in 2011, benefitting over 180,000 families every year. This reflects the Albanese government's unwavering commitment to improving the lives of working families, ensuring better outcomes for children and furthering women's economic equality.</para>
<para>The paid parental leave bill that we're debating today is, of course, the second phase of the government's reforms, building on the changes we initiated last year. These initial reforms, which came into effect on 1 July, expanded access to the payment, providing parents with greater flexibility in how they take their leave, and encouraged shared caregiving responsibilities. It's so important to do that, recognising different working environments and family environments as well. These changes were designed as the building blocks for the comprehensive 26-week expansion outlined in this bill.</para>
<para>This bill is a really significant leap forward in the evolution of our paid parental leave scheme, as it increases the length of the payment from 20 weeks to 26 weeks. Furthermore, it extends the period reserved for each parent from two weeks to four weeks and doubles the period during which parents can take leave at the same time, from two weeks to four weeks. Implementation will commence on 1 July 2024, and two additional weeks of leave will be added each year until we reach the full 26-week period in 2026.</para>
<para>The significance of this expansion cannot be overstated. It provides mothers with up to 22 weeks of paid parental leave—an additional month compared to the current scheme. That extra time is so invaluable for mothers to recover after childbirth and establish those strong bonds with their newborns. Furthermore, it doubles the period reserved for fathers or partners, encouraging them to take a more active role in parenting. Whether you're a mother or a father caring for your child, gender should not affect your access to parental leave payments.</para>
<para>This bill also sends a resounding message that parenting is an equal partnership, and it actively supports gender equality. This government values men as caregivers just as much as women. We understand that, we want this to be reinforced in both workplaces and communities and we see that so often in our communities and our families—but there needs to be legislation like this to encourage people to take it up.</para>
<para>The bill also ensures that single parents are not left behind. They, too, will have access to the full 26 weeks of paid parental leave. Moreover, the bill introduces flexibility by increasing the number of weeks during which parents can take paid parental leave at the same time.</para>
<para>When we announced our paid parental leave reform in the 2022-23 October budget, we, of course, sought the guidance of and listened to the Women's Economic Equality Taskforce to determine the best model for the 26 weeks—one that would really work to advance women's economic equality. The task force recommended reserving four weeks for each parent on a 'use it or lose it' basis and allowing parents to take up to four weeks of leave at the same time, which is a great option as well. We wholeheartedly embrace this advice, as it represents a well-balanced approach that increases support for mothers, encourages fathers to take leave and provides families with the flexibility to structure their care arrangements to their unique needs.</para>
<para>As a result of these reforms, from 2026-27 the government's total investment in paid parental leave will be around $4.4 billion a year. It is a massive investment in a plan that will be so important for families. The government payment is a minimum entitlement designed to complement employer provided leave as well. Of course, we were all really pleased to hear the data that was collected by the Workplace Gender Equality Agency, which reported that in 2021-22, 62 per cent of employers offered employer funded paid parental leave. This is a very positive trend, as in 2013-14 that same figure was only at 48 per cent. Seeing that increase in employer contributions means that employers are recognising the value and the worth to their employees and to the economic productivity of their business as well. Data such as this is indicative of a society that has evolved greatly and a business community that sees itself as having a role alongside government in providing that paid parental leave. I concur with the comments by Minister Rishworth in saying that we want to continue to see this trend grow, and I thank all those employers who have seen paid parental as a workplace investment that returns better benefits for parents, employees and the economy.</para>
<para>In summary, the changes that are outlined in this bill strike a critical balance between providing more support to mothers, encouraging fathers and partners to take an active role in parenting and offering families the flexibility they need to structure their care arrangements effectively depending upon their family circumstances, their particular occupations and their working environments. They will be able to do that effectively. We know that for so many people they were unable to continue to work in the past because that capacity was not there, that financial support wasn't there, that flexibility wasn't there. But that's what we are saying with this bill in terms of providing that.</para>
<para>It's so essential that our Paid Parental Leave scheme aligns with the needs and dynamics of modern Australian families and embodies a policy that's flexible and fair and that promotes positive health, social and economic outcomes for both parents and their children. When children are born is wonderful time, and to have access to that leave to be able to do all the necessary bonding, to have that time and to not be rushed will reap huge benefits.</para>
<para>This bill is a foundation support for parents and children. It's good for employers and a catalyst for economic growth. The Albanese government is always proud to provide the support that Australian families need and deserve, to strengthen our economy and to promote gender equality. We have seen that same belief in terms of our tax cuts for every taxpayer throughout Australia. We are always looking at measures that will help Australian families, and, as our tax cuts will do a great job, so too will this paid parental leave be at the heart of providing that support to Australian families.</para>
<para>We, as Labor governments, have a proud history of improving the lives of Australian families, whether it be from Medicare and the National Disability Insurance Scheme to no-fault divorce, the single mother's benefit and the child support system. It was Labor who first introduced the maternity allowance in the early 1900s. Despite many efforts from those opposite to dismantle the support for Australian families, it's Labor who introduced the Paid Parental Leave scheme that we know now.</para>
<para>I also acknowledge those many people who have advocated for paid parental leave for years and years. So many different groups and organisations and unions were advocating for this for years. We listened and we delivered it in 2011, and we extended it and we're expanding it again. As I said, it's been wonderful to see the changing attitudes in the community, and business as well, recognising the value and the worth of it. Now, here we, Labor, are again, continuing to bring forth reforms to improve the lives for all Australian families.</para>
<para>I'm really proud to be a part of a Labor government who have been, and always will be, on the side of Australian families. This bill, along with our many, many other measures—including, as I mentioned earlier, our tax cuts—are making a huge difference to Australian families. All of these measures are designed to improve the lives of Australian families, and we're very proud of them. I certainly commend the bill to the House.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:05</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr VIOLI</name>
    <name.id>300147</name.id>
    <electorate>Casey</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>This is an important bill that I rise to speak on, the Paid Parental Leave Amendment (More Support for Working Families) Bill 2023. Paid parental leave is something that is really important and crucial for many families.</para>
<para>Like many in this House, I had the opportunity to benefit from paid parental leave, and that time at home with my children when they were born was very important and special for my wife and me. It's been a few years now since I was at home. They're growing up too quickly. But, just before Christmas, I was lucky enough to welcome a niece into the world, young Lotti, to my sister Michaela; my brother-in-law, Hugh; and young Noah. To see them together; get the memories of those early days, weeks and months together; and see Hugh be able to take advantage of paid parental leave and be at home to support my sister and spend time with his children is another reminder of how valuable this leave is to families and how important it is in a modern society. No doubt, the world had changed a lot for the better in this regard, and there's more that we need to do to ensure that paid parental leave meets the needs of a modern Australia.</para>
<para>As many have said, it was introduced in 2011, so it's been around for quite a long time now. These reforms to the act will move paid parental leave away from the previous 12-week period of paid parental leave, six weeks of flexible paid parental leave and two weeks of dad and partner pay.</para>
<para>I've shared a little bit about my experience, but it's a reality for many Australians. The ABS showed that, in 2022-23, there were 171,280 parental leave pay claims and 88,645 dad and partner pay claims. So it's making a significant impact for many people.</para>
<para>In March 2023, the scheme was amended to combine the PLP and the DAPP, forming a single payment of 20 weeks that can be shared between parents to give maximum flexibility. The notion of primary, secondary and tertiary claimants was also removed, and it allowed fathers and partners to claim parental leave pay without requiring birth mothers to make a claim. It's increased flexibility and it has led families into a better situation. They were changes that the coalition supported, and it's an example of how, yes, there is a robust nature in this House, but there are many policies that we agree on, and this was another one that the coalition supported and agreed on. I'm proud to be part of a team that did support that to allow flexibility to those that needed it.</para>
<para>The coalition also have a strong record in this space. In March of 2022, as part of the women's budget statement, the coalition underlined its commitment to paid parental leave by announcing enhanced paid parental leave. The enhanced leave was an investment of $346.1 million over five years to expand paid parental leave, giving working families full choice and control over how they use their 20 weeks. As I said, that's why the coalition is supporting this bill, because, on the face of it, it's very similar to our longstanding paid parental leave policy.</para>
<para>The amendments in this bill are the second tranche of PPL reforms by the government and are extending the scheme by two weeks each year to reach 26 weeks by 2026. However, we will be moving a second reading amendment calling on the government to amend the Paid Parental Leave Act to require the secretary, as defined by the act, to pay paid parental leave instalments directly to employees of small businesses, except in cases where a small business opts to pay PLP instalments directly to the employee. This is a really important amendment and something that is going to benefit the employees who receive the payments, making sure they get paid the right amount on time, as well as employers who have to make these payments.</para>
<para>The reason we need this to happen through Services Australia is we need to recognise the reality of many small businesses in our country. I want to share one story from my career. I worked at a fantastic company called Yarra Valley Snack Foods. I was there for seven or eight years, and we grew from 7-11 employees when I started to more than 130 when I left the company—it was rapid growth. But the reality was the owners, Andrew and Christine, ran that business themselves at the start and as it grew. Christine was looking after payroll and many of the administrative roles that were required. She had no expertise or training in payroll, in HR, in finance or in making sure that these rules that came through from this House to small businesses were applied correctly. She was using her wit and her intelligence; she was reading and she was doing everything she could to make sure that she was getting the changes right. No doubt there was times she might not have understood the legislation or might have inadvertently made a mistake. That's the reality for small-business owners—they're the managers, they're the owners, they're the HR department and they're the finance department. In our organisation, the owner was also the warehouse manager on the forklift. They're juggling multiple hats and multiple responsibilities, so if we can make it easier for small businesses to apply these rules and changes and laws, it will be easier and it will ensure employees get what they need and get the money they need in a timely manner.</para>
<para>Now, the Paid Parental Leave scheme includes a mandatory employer role which requires employers to pay the government-funded parental leave pay to eligible long-term employees. Employers are required to provide only the PLP taken by their employees in a continuous block at the beginning of their entitlement, and Services Australia provides any PLP days taken outside of this block. The purpose of the employer role is to maintain the connection between employees on parental leave and their employers, which is crucial. But Services Australia provides the PLP payments to employers in advance of them providing the payments to their employee in accordance with the employee's normal pay cycle.</para>
<para>These changes to the Paid Parental Leave scheme disproportionately adversely impact small businesses, as I have explained previously regarding my time at Yarra Valley Snack Foods. They impose an additional red-tape burden on small businesses by making them the pay clerk for the government's Paid Parental Leave scheme. The government has long claimed that the purpose of the employer role is to maintain the connection between the employees on parental leave and their employers. The government has provided little evidence to support these claims in practice where the small business needs to pay this money, and not Services Australia. In 2021-22, there were 31,377 employers that provided PLP to their employees—38 per cent were small businesses, defined as having fewer than 20 employees. Small businesses with no human resource department to rely on and drowning in red tape are ill-equipped to administer these payments.</para>
<para>As noted by the Australian Small Business and Family Enterprise Ombudsman:</para>
<quote><para class="block">… in addition to their usual record-keeping requirements, employers that have employees receiving the Australian Government-funded parental leave pay must keep the following records:</para></quote>
<list>the amount of parental leave pay funding received by the employer for each employee and the period it covers</list>
<list>the date each payment of parental leave pay was made to the employee</list>
<list>the period each payment covers</list>
<list>the gross amount of the payment</list>
<list>the net amount paid and the amount of income tax withheld (including other payments, if any were made)</list>
<list>a statement identifying the payment as parental leave pay under the Australian Government parental leave pay scheme and</list>
<list>the amount of any deductions made from each payment.</list>
<para>These are seven requirements on husbands and wives and many small business owners with no experience in HR or finance. Records must be kept for seven years, with records readily accessible by a person exercising powers under part 4-2 of the act, with the employer providing the employee prescribed information under part 4 section 32 of the rules.</para>
<para>A survey conducted by the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry has found 88.02 per cent of small businesses overwhelmingly believe that PPL should be administered by Services Australia, with small businesses that have previously administered the payments nearly unanimous in their view that, if given the choice, they would prefer the payments to be administered by Services Australia rather than by the employer. ACCI's research also found that 90.7 per cent of small businesses who administered the payments reported an increased administrative burden and an increase to their payroll processing time. ACCI also found many small business employers administering leave payments reported no benefit to their relationships with their employees, because doing so does not actually involve or require proper communication.</para>
<para>As I said, this is not just about small business and trying to take red tape away from them, which is crucial and provides efficiency for them. It's also about making sure that the employees who need the money at that time receive it. I would hate for a small business to inadvertently not pay their employee and create a situation where young parents are put under more stress and more financial stress because of an inadvertent mistake by someone that doesn't have HR or finance training and is just trying to do their best.</para>
<para>Perversely, it creates the situation where the relationship between the employer and the employee could actually be severed, because, in a time of high stress as a new parent, that employee could take out an innocent mistake on their employer, and we all know, as new parents with not much sleep, that any little thing can add to your stress. So that's why it's important that we have Services Australia as an organisation supporting small businesses and supporting new mothers and fathers to receive their paid parental leave. I hope that the government will look at the amendment calling on these changes, as I said, to avoid some of these potential consequences.</para>
<para>But, as we talk about paid parental leave, I also want to talk about the Multiple Birth Association, which is a significant organisation. Many parents have multiple births, and I recently met with Sarah Lavis, the president of the Eastern Area Multiple Birth Association, along with several local parents, to discuss paid parental leave for multiple-birth families. Multiple births can put significant financial pressure on families, due to the additional costs associated with multiples and the challenges of incurring many child-specific costs concurrently. Studies have shown that the cost of having twins is nearly five times higher than the cost of having a singleton, and the cost of triplets is around 13 times higher than for a singleton.</para>
<para>The most recent reforms to PPL treat individuals the same way, regardless of whether families have multiples or singletons and regardless of prematurity. The parents of a singleton receive the same term of PPL as the parents of twins or triplets, who are also often born prematurely. Premature babies are frequently in NICU for an extended period of time, and many weeks of PPL can be used up during that time, with much less leave remaining, once babies are at home, for parents to be able to care for their newborns. Further consideration of the specific needs of families with multiples is necessary, to give parents of multiples the time needed to invest in the care that is vital during these crucial early stages.</para>
<para>Now, I wrote to the Minister for Finance about this issue almost six months ago and I'm still waiting for a response, but I hope that the minister does look at this, because it is an opportunity to further enhance the paid parental leave system. I'm very lucky to have, in my office, a parent of twins, so I see and hear from her about some of the challenges, but also the wonderful joy, of having twins. We should be looking to support these parents who are going through a very busy and stressful time financially and emotionally to make sure that they have every opportunity to bond with their children.</para>
<para>As I said, there is much in this bill that is good. It reflects the coalition policy and that is why we will support it. But I urge the government to look to support small businesses to keep that connection between employees and employers strong and to look at what else could be done to support parents with multiple births.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:20</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms WELLS</name>
    <name.id>264121</name.id>
    <electorate>Lilley</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The Albanese government knows that Australians are doing it tough and we are laser-focused on delivering cost-of-living relief to support working families. Since coming to government, we have implemented a raft of measures to help Australians make ends meet including cheaper child care, electricity bill relief, increased rent assistance, more Medicare bulk-billing, cheaper medicines and, of course, our $11.3 billion investment in a wage rise for aged-care workers.</para>
<para>We have also made important reforms to the Paid Parental Leave Scheme to improve and expand the scheme to make it more equitable for parents and to encourage shared care. Under the previous coalition government, birth mothers who earned more than $151,351 per year did not qualify for 18 weeks of paid parental leave. However, if their partner earned more than $150,000 threshold and the birth mother earned less than that, they did qualify for the payment. The policy reinforced outdated gender roles and reflected an outdated view of the world where the man was the breadwinner and the woman's income was secondary to any household budget.</para>
<para>A Lilley constituent, Emma, from Geebung, wrote to me prior to the election about her family's situation and how unfair the coalition policy was for working mothers who were the main income earner. Emma said that she was the primary income earner in her family, bringing home approximately $160,000 per year, and her husband earned about $70,000 per year. Under the old regime, Emma would not have qualified for paid parental leave due to her income exceeding the $150,000 cap. But if Emma and her husband's salaries were reversed and she was the lower income earner then she would have qualified for the payment—same family income but, because the woman earned more, the family did not qualify for paid parental leave. Emma said, 'I think this policy is outdated and unfairly impacts families where the mother is the breadwinner for the family. I am appreciative of having a paid parental leave scheme in our country; however, I think we could improve on it in the name of equality.'</para>
<para>Well I heard you, Emma, and the Albanese Labor government heard you as well. We know that paid parental leave is vital for the health and wellbeing of parents and their children. We know investing in paid parental leave benefits our entire economy and we know that, done right, paid parental leave can balance gender equality. Businesses, unions, experts and economists all understand one of the best ways to boost productivity and participation is to provide more choice and more support for families, and more opportunity for women. That is why paid parental leave reform was the centrepiece of our first budget, where we invested half a billion dollars to expand the scheme to six months by 2026. This is the largest investment in paid parental leave since Labor established the scheme in 2011, benefiting over 180,000 families per year. Some 2,030 of those families live in my electorate of Lilley and have taken advantage of the paid parental leave improvements so far. It reflects the Albanese government's commitment to improve the lives of working families, support better outcomes for children and advance women's economic equality.</para>
<para>This bill implements the second tranche of the government's paid parental leave reform announced in our 2022-23 October budget. It follows the first tranche we legislated at the start of the year to modernise the scheme to reflect how Australian families and their needs have changed over the last decade. These changes, which commenced on 1 July, give more families access to the payment, give parents more flexibility in how they take leave and they encourage parents to share care. Already these changes are making a big impact on Lilley constituents, like Melissa and Matthew of Taigum. Melissa is a doctor who returned to work earlier than she had planned and was able to transfer the remaining paid parental leave to her husband, Matthew. The family has been able to choose how they care for their new baby in a way that suits their needs, thanks to a policy that allows dads to play an active role in infant care.</para>
<para>These previous changes have laid a strong foundation for our expansion of paid parental leave to 26 weeks, which is the focus of this bill. This bill expands paid parental leave by increasing the length of the payment, from 20 to 26 weeks; increasing the period reserved for each parent, from two to four weeks; and doubling the period where parents can take paid parental leave at the same time, from two to four weeks. Starting on 1 July 2024, two additional weeks of leave will be added each year, until reaching 26 weeks in 2026. Currently, up to 18 weeks are available for one parent, which is usually taken by the mother, with two weeks reserved for the dad or partner. The increase to 26 weeks means mums can access up to 22 weeks of PPL—an additional month, compared to the current scheme—and it also doubles the period reserved for the dad or partner from two to four weeks. Crucially, this expansion provides additional support to mums after childbirth, supporting their wellbeing and their child's wellbeing while also encouraging dads and partners to take more leave.</para>
<para>When fathers take a greater caring role from the start, it benefits mums, dads and their kids. The changes in this bill send a clear message that treating parents as an equal partnership supports greater equality. The government values men as carers, too, and we want to see that reinforced in workplaces and in communities. Single parents will have access to the full 26 weeks. The bill also provides flexibility by increasing the number of weeks where parents can take paid parental leave at the same time. When we announced our paid parental leave reform in the 2022-23 October budget, we tasked the Women's Economic Equality Taskforce with providing advice on the best model for 26 weeks to advance women's economic equality. The taskforce recommended reserving four weeks for each parent on a 'use it or lose it' basis and allowing parents to take up to four weeks leave at the same time, and we have adopted that advice in our bill.</para>
<para>The Scandinavians have led the way in promoting shared parental leave. In 1995 Sweden introduced a 'daddy quota', which is a part of the parental leave period exclusively reserved for fathers. If the father doesn't take his allotted period of leave, the family loses it. Thanks to the daddy quota, nine out of 10 Swedish fathers now take the leave. Norway has seen similar success, with about three-quarters of fathers taking the amount stipulated in the quota, while one in five take a few weeks more than the quota. It promotes gender equality, it reduces the impact that a period of extended leave can have on the mother's career, and it enables fathers to play a more prominent role in the early parts of their child's life. Together, our changes strike an important balance: increasing support to mums, encouraging dads to take leave, and providing families with flexibility in how they structure their care arrangements.</para>
<para>It is critical that our Paid Parental Leave scheme supports modern Australian families. We need a scheme that is flexible and fair and drives positive health, social and economic outcomes for both parents and their children, and this bill does just that. Crucially, it gives families access to more paid parental leave, provides parents with flexibility in how they can take that leave, and encourages them to share care to support gender equality. This bill is good for parents, good for kids, good for employers and good for our economy. I thank the House.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:29</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr SCAMPS</name>
    <name.id>299623</name.id>
    <electorate>Mackellar</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise today in support of the government's amendments to our nation's Paid Parental Leave scheme through the Paid Parental Leave Amendment (More Support for Working Families) Bill. I fully support and thank the government for their commitment to improving the lives of working families, providing Australian children a good start in life and advancing gender equality.</para>
<para>This bill is to be applauded as it is another step towards a more equitable future. Not only does it increase the number of parental leave weeks a primary carer is able to take but it also increases the number of weeks their partner can take and the number of weeks that can be taken together. This not only is a good outcome for the baby and parents but also will go some way to diminishing the persistent stigma associated with men taking parental leave.</para>
<para>In 2021, women took 88 per cent of primary parental leave. In other words, 88 per cent of the time it was the woman who stayed at home after the birth of a child, and, while parental leave is vital for the health and wellbeing of mum and baby, it is nevertheless a very significant disruption to a woman's career and, therefore, can impact her lifelong financial security. The time away from work is long, is usually taken more than once and is usually at a critical time in the development of a woman's career. Such a disruption leaves women more vulnerable to financial stress or homelessness in later life.</para>
<para>I think it is important to use this opportunity to talk about other significant disruptions that women face throughout their careers. Most of these disruptions are unique to women and have ongoing and compounding effects on their careers, their participation in the workforce and their stability and independence in retirement. Some of the issues I'm going to mention are issues which are not talked about often in this place or, for that matter, anywhere, but they should not be taboo as they are issues which, to one degree or another, affect the lives, health and financial stability of 51 per cent of the population at some stage in their lives and, indeed, also impact the productivity of our nation. If we don't talk about these issues, the management of them will not improve and the outcomes for women will not improve.</para>
<para>We've discussed the disruption to women's careers that having children entails, but let's not forget the nine months of pregnancy prior to giving birth and all the difficulties that that can often entail. Inevitably, pregnancy involves time away from work at the very least for medical appointments and often to deal with debilitating pregnancy related conditions such as hyperemesis—which is otherwise known as terrible, severe morning sickness, with dehydration—gestational diabetes, pre-eclampsia, anaemia or prenatal depression. That's not to mention the more frequent and mundane impacts like simple tiredness or exhaustion. The tiredness of early pregnancy is like nothing I have ever experienced before or since. Then comes childbirth and parental leave, which, as described, is likely to involve the biggest disruption to a woman's career.</para>
<para>There are also many other medical conditions that can impact women's daily lives for decades. One such example is the descriptively named heavy menstrual bleeding. Around one-quarter of women aged between 30 and 50 suffer from heavy menstrual bleeding. This is bleeding that lasts around seven days or more—quite often more—and results in heavy blood loss of as much as 400 millimetres every month. Let's be clear about what this means. Twenty-five per cent of women suffer from significant blood loss seven days out of every 28, sometimes for decades. That's a quarter of women for a quarter of every month. The blood loss can be so significant that they become severely iron deficient, developing symptoms of fatigue, irritability, dizziness, confusion, depression, headaches and brain fog.</para>
<para>Then there are the 10 per cent of women who suffer from endometriosis, a disease in which tissue similar to the lining of the uterus grows outside the uterus. Endometriosis can cause severe pelvic pain and heavy bleeding and can make it difficult to conceive. These symptoms can start as early as a woman's very first period and last until menopause. The average length of time it takes to diagnose endometriosis is seven years and sometimes significantly longer. As you can imagine, this disease can result in the need to take large amounts of time off work, and, concerningly, a recent study undertaken by Western Sydney University found that one in six women who suffer from endometriosis have lost their jobs as a result of the symptoms they experience.</para>
<para>And then women move into the next phase of their lives: menopause. The menopause transition can begin in a woman's early 40s, or even earlier, so not long after the child-bearing years. It usually lasts about seven years, but can last as long as 14 years. Most people associate menopause with hot flushes, but hot flushes are only one of 34 uncomfortable or even distressing physical and psychological symptoms. The severity of symptoms varies, obviously, but 25 per cent of all women suffer severe symptoms. This can compound things at the time of life when women are experiencing the double whammy of caring duties for both children and parents. It all compounds.</para>
<para>The culture of silence on the issue of menopause is causing women to retire prematurely. In a recent article in the <inline font-style="italic">Sydney Morning Herald</inline>, the CEO of Menopause Friendly Australia, Grace Molloy, wrote:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Women retire 7.4 years earlier than men, often at the height of their careers and often when menopause hits. Women intend to retire at 64, but on average leave work at 52.</para></quote>
<para>That's my age. She continued:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That's one year after the average age of menopause.</para></quote>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>265979</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>You don't look that old!</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Dr SCAMPS</name>
    <name.id>299623</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Ha! She went on:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Almost half of women who retire before 55 cite their health as the reason they stopped work. Ignoring menopause in the workplace is not working.</para></quote>
<para>Research and modelling done by the Australia Institute on superannuation trustees in 2022 estimated that even if just 10 per cent of women retired early because of menopausal symptoms, it would equate to a loss of earnings and super of more than $17 billion. If that figure jumped to 20 per cent, the economic loss would grow to more than $35 billion.</para>
<para>And then there are the caring responsibilities in addition to child care, which are often taken on by women—more by women than men. There's the unpaid work associated with caring for disabled, injured, unwell or elderly relatives. Currently, 12.3 per cent of all women in Australia identify as a carer, and women represent 72 per cent of all primary carers. These medical issues, both separately and together, have a huge impact on women's financial stability over the course of their lives. The poor level of paid parental leave to date has been at the core of financial instability and inequality for women. The superannuation gender gap is also well documented. It's a result not only of the gender pay gap but also, as has been described, because women are more likely to have breaks in employment and are more likely to have work in casual and part-time roles. Disturbingly, the average superannuation payout for women is one-third the payout for men. On average, it's $37,00 for women, compared with men on $110,000. The result of all these factors is that many women are living their final years in poverty. A report in February this year by Anglicare described older women as the 'invisible homeless'.</para>
<para>The next policy step, if we're serious about equality in this country, must be for superannuation to be paid on paid parental leave as well. The disruptions to women's lives and careers are numerous and lengthy. Apart from emotional and wellbeing impacts, these disruptions, either separately or compounded, can be devastating for a woman's financial, job and housing security. The 2016 census showed that older women were the fastest-growing group to experience homelessness in Australia, and that was an increase of 31 per cent on the 2011 numbers.</para>
<para>All of these disruptions in women's lives matter; all of these disruptions to women's lives entrench disadvantage; and all of these disruptions to women's lives can be ameliorated with policies such as this one. So I commend these amendments and this bill to the House.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:39</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms TEMPLEMAN</name>
    <name.id>181810</name.id>
    <electorate>Macquarie</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Sometimes in this place, there's a beautiful synchronicity. I was looking back at the last tranche of paid parental leave that I spoke on, which happens to have been a year ago—on the same day that we marked International Women's Day with the UN in this place. Here we are, 12 months on, doing exactly what we said we'd do: introducing and debating our next tranche of paid parental leave improvements with this Paid Parental Leave Amendment (More Support for Working Families) Bill 2023.</para>
<para>These improvements are about a lot of different things, like modernising this scheme so that it really meets the needs of 21st century families. It's doing something that empowers women and provides them with more support than they've ever had in caring for a newborn, but it supports both parents, whether they are a mum and a dad or they're any other combination. Whether a child is their natural child or a child is adopted, we're recognising that these are the sorts of families who have been overlooked as changes have been made but not to this particular policy area until we came along. So I'm very proud to be here, 12 months on, to talk about our next tranche.</para>
<para>I think it's worth remembering what the first changes were that we made under the paid parental leave amendment, which were to expand the maximum entitlement of parental leave pay from 18 weeks to 20 weeks by absorbing the dad and partner pay which had previously provided up to two weeks of pay to eligible working fathers or partners. That first tranche also replaced the requirement for the birth parent to claim parental leave pay first with gender-neutral claiming to make it easier for the partner to claim and both parents to share the entitlement. We also removed the requirement for 12 weeks of parental leave pay to be taken in one continuous block, to increase the flexibility of how claimants receive parental leave pay. As someone who spent all the early years of my children's life running a small business, I know that flexibility is absolutely essential for mums who are small-business operators to be able to go in and out of work so they can keep their business going, in a lot of cases, and not have to walk away from the primary care that they might want to provide. There have been a whole lot of people who've benefited enormously from that.</para>
<para>A year ago we also introduced the reserve 'use it or lose it' period of two weeks of parental leave pay for each parent, and we allowed eligible claimants to take up to two weeks of parental leave pay concurrently in relation to the same child so both parents could be together, with genuinely shared parenting able to happen, at a time when both parents can, if it's their first child, get used to a very different and new situation. Importantly, we expanded the scheme eligibility by introducing the family income limit, which can apply if a person doesn't meet the individual income limit. I think that recognises that you can't always assume that, perhaps in a male-female relationship, the mum is going to be the lower income earner. All those things start to recognise the realities of life and the things that we as a government should be looking to support.</para>
<para>This next tranche of changes is really important. It was emphasised to me, just this week, after an email from a constituent where we assisted in getting some of the leave entitlements sorted, and she summed it up beautifully by saying, 'I just want to spend my whole maternity leave enjoying and witnessing the milestones of my son before I go back to work.' This next tranche of changes is going to make that even more possible. So let's talk about this latest round of changes. They are absolutely critical for families. They're critical for women, and that means they're critical for the economy. We know this, and I think that's worth saying to people who may not be in their child-bearing years, may not have their own children or might about to be grandparents and who might go, 'What's in it for me?' But this is good for the whole economy. We also know that, when it's done right, paid parental leave can really advance gender equality. That's something that has been on people's minds in this place for many years, and this is tangible stuff. It's one of many things we have done to assist with gender equality.</para>
<para>It is worth saying that business, unions, experts of all sorts and economists all understand that one of the best ways to boost productivity and participation in the workforce is to provide more choice and support for families and more opportunity for women. That's why this has been a central part of our policy agenda since our very first budget, where there was that half a billion dollars to expand the scheme to six months by 2026. This is the largest investment in paid parental leave since Labor established the Paid Parental Leave scheme in 2011, and it will benefit around 180 families each year. In Macquarie, when I look at the figures, the number of people who will benefit from this and from our changes for cheaper child care runs into the thousands. I think it's around 6,000-plus who will be supported by this.</para>
<para>This change to paid parental leave is the natural successor to our first tranche of changes, and it lays a strong pathway forward. The length of the payment will increase over time from 20 to 26 weeks. There's an increase in the period reserved for each parent, from two weeks to four weeks, and there's a doubling of the period where parents can take paid parental leave at the same time, from two weeks to four weeks. So, starting on 1 July 2024, two extra weeks of leave will be added every year until we reach 26 weeks of paid parental leave in 2026.</para>
<para>Right now, up to 18 weeks are available for one parent. It's usually taken by the mother, with two weeks reserved for the dad or the partner. The increase to 26 weeks means that mums can access up to 22 weeks of paid parental leave, so that's an additional month compared to the current scheme. My recollection of the very first year of a child is that every week makes a difference. It might not always make a difference for the better in the way you are sleeping, but your ability to think and understand how to coexist with this new child changes and evolves. Probably, in reality, every day makes a difference. So that extra month that we're going to achieve is really significant.</para>
<para>It also doubles that period reserved for the dad or the partner from two weeks to four weeks, and I encourage dads and non-birth partners to make the most of that opportunity. It might not be fun. It might have its own elements. Sometimes there's something to be said for being able to escape to work. But it is such a crucial time, and that extra support can make all the difference for the whole family. Crucially this expansion provides additional support to mums after childbirth—that is really what it comes down to—and it allows the partner to do that as well. It supports them, and it supports their child's wellbeing.</para>
<para>The changes in this bill send a very clear message that when you treat partners as equals, where each has a role and an equally important one, it supports gender equality. We really value men as carers and we want to see that reinforced in workplaces and throughout our communities. I also want to stress that single parents will have access to the full 26 weeks, and that's one of the key parts of this tranche of changes.</para>
<para>When we announced our paid parental leave reform back in the 2022-23 October budget—so this is going back to not last year but the year before—we tasked the Women's Economic Equality Taskforce with providing some advice on the best model for 26 weeks that would advance women's economic equality. That's where the recommendation of four weeks for each parent on a 'use it or lose it' basis and allowing parents to take the four weeks at the same time came from. That advice is adopted in this bill.</para>
<para>I think we've got a really powerful package here. I come from a time when I wasn't entitled to a single day of paid parental leave. I hadn't been back in the country very long after working overseas for several years, so I didn't have any employer entitlement, which was the only option. That was all you had if you were lucky and you had the right employer. By the time I had my second child, I had my own business, and in theory I paid myself, but actually I needed to keep working to keep paying the mortgage and put food on the table. And, of course, my husband had no entitlement because the dads just didn't get that. I look at this and think, 'Wow, what a different environment we've created for this next generation.' I'm always distressed when I hear some women of my generation saying, 'Oh, we did without it, and I don't think anyone really needs it,' because, my goodness, it is so needed when we think about how we're trying to support families with this very early start.</para>
<para>We also know we need to support families as mum goes back into the workforce. That remains a continuing challenge, in spite of our cheaper child care. We know that it is still very challenging to find child care that suits families' working needs and is available when parents need it. I look at this scheme and think, 'This is a giant leap that we have made,' but there is much more to do. Back in 2011, when we introduced this, it was an absolute joy to see it. Now, I can see we've got this to an incredible point, but we will continue working on the issues that not only inhibit women's economic involvement but, more than that, inhibit their ability to be the best parents that they can be. We recognise that there is a lot more to do in this place.</para>
<para>I have never seen us as a government who say, 'Do you know what? Job done—we don't have to worry anymore.' There's a desire to say, 'We made that better, but what else can we make better?' I know my constituents will certainly keep telling me the areas where we need to do better. I certainly recognise that we need to ensure there are suitable childcare places and to look at what we can do to have a role in that. A lot of it is, quite frankly, where the market and the private sector are failing, but we really need to keep working on that.</para>
<para>But I hope that anyone who's due to have a child from 1 July onwards, when this legislation comes into force, assuming that it passes—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Hill</name>
    <name.id>86256</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Hold tight!</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms TEMPLEMAN</name>
    <name.id>181810</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Yes, hang on till the 1st. I'm lucky because my children were always very overdue.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Hill</name>
    <name.id>86256</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>You could have another one.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms TEMPLEMAN</name>
    <name.id>181810</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>For some of you due in June, you might just make it.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Hill</name>
    <name.id>86256</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The Deputy Speaker could deliver it for you!</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms</name>
    <name.id>181810</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>We know that this is life changing for some families, and I am very pleased and very proud to be part of a government who are putting women and families at the heart of our thinking, not just because it's the right thing to do from a social perspective but because we know this will help drive our economy.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>265979</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the eternally young member for Macquarie, but I do suspect having another child is off the agenda!</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:53</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr HILL</name>
    <name.id>86256</name.id>
    <electorate>Bruce</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Of course, when you're not in the chair there, Deputy Speaker, you have many other lives. You're a renowned paediatrician yourself and know firsthand the importance of paid parental leave for families and the importance of parents being able to bond with their newborns in those critical first months of life. Member for Macquarie, my dear friend, if you chose to have another baby now, you'd get full support from the chamber—I'm sure the Deputy Speaker would help you deliver said baby. You'd probably be all over the global newspapers; you'd be even more famous!</para>
<para>The Paid Parental Leave Amendment (More Support for Working Families) Bill 2023 is so important. It's a new law that will expand Australia's paid parental leave scheme to 26 weeks. It is the largest single investment in the scheme since the Gillard Labor government introduced it back in 2011. It benefits over 180,000 Australian families every year.</para>
<para>Of course, if we want to do the time line, there was promised to be a much larger expansion of the scheme by Tony Abbott, who then abandoned that funded expansion with his nasty secret budget cuts. Do you remember 'no cuts to health, no cuts to education'? Well, I am really pleased that it is a Labor government, again, now expanding the scheme. Crucially, the expansion will support both parents by increasing paid parental leave for mothers by four weeks, by doubling the time reserved for non-birthing parents—usually fathers, but not always—from two to four weeks on a 'use it or lose it' basis.</para>
<para>Paid parental leave is imperative for the health of Australian families and children. The more time parents can spend with their newborns and young children, the better. It is so critical in those first months of life. But it is crucial not just for Australian families, for that relationship and for the development of children but it is critical for women's equality and for our economy. This is an economic reform, and that is not always understood with the government's agenda of cheaper child care and of expanding paid parental leave. They are not just nice-to-haves, they are not just cost-of-living reforms—they do that, too—but they are economic reforms.</para>
<para>Business, unions and experts know that if we want to advance productivity, if we want to get productivity moving again after a decade of sluggish or, in some years, negative productivity growth under those opposite in that wasted decade of division and decay and dysfunction, if we want to get more women able to—if they choose to—participating in the paid labour force then we have to provide more support to families. Crucially, we have to provide more opportunities for women to access greater paid parental leave, as I said, cheaper child care and tax cuts for all taxpayers, not just a select few. It is all part of an agenda. It is a cost-of-living agenda but also an economic reform agenda.</para>
<para>The government's position is clear. We took to the election to expand the Paid Parental Leave Scheme, a clear commitment being delivered. But it is, of course, useful to reflect on those opposite and on the coalition's position. They have claimed to endorse this legislation. Good on them. We will see how they vote. They have claimed to endorse it, which is interesting given their history. It was Scott Morrison, the member for Cook, who, in 2015 when he was social services minister, before he knifed good old Malcolm—do you remember that? We saw that on TV on Monday night on <inline font-style="italic">Nemesis</inline>; third episode coming soon—before he was the Treasurer—he had a little pathway there, didn't he?—he tried to scale back paid parental leave. Let's be very clear. It is nice they say they're going to vote for the government's legislation, but the history of this in Australia is absolutely crystal clear.</para>
<para>It was the Gillard Labor government that introduced paid parental leave. It was Tony Abbott who went to an election and lied when he said, 'I am going to expand it,' and then abandoned it after 'no cuts to health, no cuts to education.' He just abandoned it. He didn't reform it, didn't scale it back, didn't adjust it, didn't front up to the National Press Club and explain what had changed; he just abandoned it. Then, when the coalition were elected, Scott Morrison, as social services minister, tried to cut it back. Worse, he insulted women who accessed the scheme. He labelled women who use both the government leave scheme and their employers scheme as 'rorters and frauds,' which was a bit awkward when the then assistant Treasurer, Josh Frydenberg, was forced to acknowledge that his own wife had accessed both schemes after giving birth to their daughter.</para>
<para>But then when the Human Rights Commission warned Scott Morrison, then social services minister, his proposed cuts to paid parental leave could be in breach of Australia's international obligations, he labelled that concern a First World problem. Well I say, on that point, I will agree with the member for Cook. This is a First World problem. Australia is a First World country. I would hope there is no member in here that would disagree with the proposition that we are a First World country and we want to continue to develop and improve as a First World country. And this kind of scheme, expanding paid parental leave, as many other countries have done, as many other countries in the world are way ahead of us in doing, is part of remaining a quality First World country. So, on that, I'll agree with the member for Cook.</para>
<para>It is so important, and I'll quote again the study of the University of Sydney that was prepared for the Women's Economic Equality Taskforce and that really drives home the point that this is an economic reform. They modelled the direct impact of the introduction of a 26-week paid parental leave scheme on women's labour-force participation. They said, 'The Grattan Institute shows an increase in national GDP of $900 million a year.' So, if you want to see the economy boosted and want to give more options for women who choose to participate in the labour force, you'd vote for the Paid Parental Leave scheme and you'd vote for Labor's tax cuts for all taxpayers, which also, as the Treasury showed, incentivise low-income workers, particularly women, to pick up a few more hours. We would also see with this bill an increase of $30,000 to the average mother's lifetime earnings.</para>
<para>So the very final point that I do want to make and emphasise is that the change in this bill to up the leave available to, usually, fathers—or the non-birthing parent—on a 'use it or lose it' basis will mean that four weeks cannot be transferred to the birthing parent. So four weeks out of the 26 will be 'use it or lose it'. If you want to access that taxpayer support, the father, in most cases, needs to also take a bit of time off to spend with the child. That's a terrific reform. It results in men increasing their contribution to unpaid care in the home and over time changes gender norms. But, despite the support that's available even at the moment—a couple of weeks—there's just one in 20 Australian fathers that takes paid parental leave. That's one of the lowest amongst all of the developed countries in the world, all of the OECD countries, and dramatically below the OECD average.</para>
<para>Like the member for Macquarie's children, my daughter was born last millennium. She was actually here in Canberra over the last few days, and she went off back to work at 5.30 this morning. You're not going to see her in here sitting on my knee because she's now 27. So, when she was born, I didn't have the option of this support. I did live for some years as a single parent, and we have a very close relationship, but I know firsthand, like so many that have gone before, the benefit that this this scheme would have provided. It would have made things a lot easier in those critical first six months and year to have that bonding time, which, as we know—it's another topic for another day—and, certainly, as Deputy Speaker Freelander, a leading paediatrician, knows is so important to a young person's life outcomes. So I commend the bill to the House.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:02</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BURNELL</name>
    <name.id>300129</name.id>
    <electorate>Spence</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to speak in favour of a critical Labor reform—paid parental leave—and namely the second phase of the Albanese Labor government's reforms in this space—the Paid Parental Leave Amendment (More Support for Working Families) Bill 2023. Last year, the Albanese Labor government passed the first phase of our paid parental leave reforms with the Paid Parental Leave Amendment (Improvements for Families and Gender Equality) Bill 2022. Upon its implementation, it was not just foreshadowed; it formed part of a key commitment made by this government as part of the 2022-23 budget.</para>
<para>Policies like this, big reforms, are in Labor's DNA. They echo through our history with initiatives like Medicare, the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme and the National Disability Insurance Scheme and with, most notably, the introduction of paid parental leave in 2011 under the Gillard Labor government. In 2011, the introduction of Australia's first paid parental leave scheme marked a significant milestone in our history, demonstrating our dedication to supporting working families. Prior to this, many families were unable to access any form of paid parental leave whatsoever. However, as societal needs develop and evolve, even some of the great reforms must adapt and keep pace with them.</para>
<para>This bill doesn't just expand on the Albanese Labor government's recent reforms of paid parental leave; it continues to build on the legacy of the Gillard government's initial vision. The current paid parental leave framework, groundbreaking at its introduction, now faces the challenge of meeting complex demands of modern family life.</para>
<para>I commend the work of my South Australian colleague the Minister for Social Services in building upon the policy legacy of her predecessor, Jenny Macklin, the former member for Jagajaga and the minister who introduced the Paid Parental Leave Bill 2010 in this place.</para>
<para>The bill's inclusive design recognises the diversity of modern Australian families, ensuring that all structures can be afforded the same level of support. As it was at the inception of paid parental leave, it is imperative that a mechanism exists to support working families across Australia as they grapple with the difficult choices in trying to balance careers and parenthood. This policy has benefited many parents and their children since 2011, with real and lasting positive impacts. In the past financial year alone, in my electorate of Spence nearly 1,200 people accessed paid parental leave and, roughly, another 800 accessed dad and partner pay. Just in 2022 alone, Spence had the joyous occasions of welcoming roughly 3,700 newborns into the electorate. The new measures in this bill would have made a material difference to the parents of Spence's newest arrivals in 2022, but I'm sure many of them share the same outlook as myself and the member for Boothby—we are thankful that Labor governments have come along to make paid parental leave more accessible and equitable, despite not being able to enjoy those benefits ourselves.</para>
<para>We are, like all members on this side of the House, proud to be part of the Albanese Labor government, that is putting families first, putting babies first and, by both circumstance and design, improving outcomes in gender equality and productivity whilst doing so. Unlike many in the opposition and the wider commentariat, we don't just throw the word 'productivity' around as a clarion call to slow or curtail any measures that come close to improving conditions for workers. We listen to the experts from all sides of the political spectrum and from all professional backgrounds. This was certainly the case with PPL, with our government working in recommendations by the Women's Economic Equality Taskforce, a taskforce brought into existence, as with many good things, from our government's Jobs and Skills Summit. This is taskforce which contains those who would ordinarily disagree with our side of politics. Many on the taskforce are extremely eminent women across their fields who would ordinarily disagree with each other on many subjects, but not this one. They know the difference that access to paid parental leave can make for women and for our economy. It's policy that makes a tangible difference to the lives of many young families who are experiencing the joys of introducing their newborns to the world and forming that close bond that only parents know all too well.</para>
<para>These reforms soon became so ingrained in our consciousness, it's difficult to remember a time prior to their introduction and implementation. But many parents can remember the days before paid parental leave, especially when they weren't fortunate enough to work for an employer with a scheme of their own in place. Being the parent of a newborn without access to either a government or employer based scheme is a lived experience that I had to share as a young parent of a newborn back in 2004. Back then, choices were fairly limited, unless somehow you had the financial capacity to take a period of unpaid leave. That's a luxury not many Australians had back then. I know that I sure didn't and, listening to a couple of the contributions made by other members earlier in this debate, it wasn't a luxury they were able to access either. Not having that luxury back then robbed many parents of time with their infants and, in many instances, of the opportunity for caring responsibilities to be shared more evenly. That's not to mention that it allows for those first weeks to include ones that are shared together as a family. These are precious formative experiences, not just for newborns but for parents, too. These are experiences that no parent should be forced to put a price tag on and a price that no society should force parents to have to factor in—whether they will be able to spend time with their child during some of their first moments on this earth.</para>
<para>Prior to the inception of paid parental leave, society indeed did put a price tag on these tender experiences for many parents, causing parents to contemplate the opportunity cost between their ability to earn a wage during the time they would otherwise spend with their newborn baby. Parents are stuck between the proverbial rock and hard place, caught between sharing moments together, sharing parental caring responsibilities as a young family, and having the ability to put food on the table. It's thanks to Labor governments past for introducing such a reform so that parents needn't face such an impossible choice in the future.</para>
<para>Today, we are building on this great Labor reform with this paid parental leave amendment bill. This bill is a step forward in supporting Australian families. It extends paid parental leave to 26 weeks—a considerable increase from where it stands currently. This change is methodically planned, adding two weeks each year from 2024 and reaching 26 weeks by July 2026. This bill is more than just legislative reform. It represents the Albanese Labor government's commitment to improve outcomes for working families across Australia, recognising that strong families form the bedrock of a prosperous society in whatever shape they might take. The extension of paid parental leave and the increase in reserved weeks for each parent are steps towards a more supportive and inclusive society. The bill will also increase the period of time reserved for each parent from two to four weeks on a 'use it or lose it' basis. It doubles the period where parents can access paid parental leave concurrently from two to four weeks.</para>
<para>This bill is about more than extending time off. It's about nurturing the Australian family unit. By increasing parental leave from 20 to 26 weeks, we're providing a stronger foundation for parents and newborns. This additional financial support allows families to focus on their children's early development without additional stresses and financial constraints. Importantly, this bill is a deliberate and strategic move towards improving on gender equality. By extending reserved periods and increasing concurrent leave, we are fostering an environment where both parents are actively involved in their children's upbringing. Investing in paid parental leave is about boosting the overall health and wellbeing of society. It recognises that strong, healthy families are essential to our nation's prosperity. The Albanese Labor government recognises the important contributions families make to our country at home and in the workforce. This is evidenced by the paid parental leave reforms that formed a key part of our first budget. Through this bill, our government will deliver a $1.2 billion investment across five years. This represents the largest investment into paid parental leave since the Gillard government introduced the scheme back in 2011.</para>
<para>In speaking of the history of paid parental leave, I would also like to touch on some remarks made on this bill by the member for Deakin last year and earlier in this debate. I hope that I can be forgiven for not having the historical context of this matter as I, unlike the member for Deakin, was not a member of this place when the Liberal Party was apparently the champion of women's rights. I may have missed that lesson in contemporary history. He talked about the coalition's paid parental leave policy that they took to the 2013 election which, as we all know, brought them into government and into this parliament, in the case of the member for Deakin. It marked the start of almost a decade of Liberal-National government. They were successful at not just the 2013 election but the 2016 election and the 2019 election—nearly an entire decade. The member for Deakin claims their policy on paid parental leave was intrinsically tied to their mandate to govern, yet here we are. It must be the fact that I wasn't here, but I am feeling a logical disconnect here amongst all of the whining, passive aggression and self-aggrandisement that oozed out of the member for Deakin's speech that day. He even called what we are doing now a 'huge hypocrisy'. How is it that the Liberal and National Party government across nine years and two elections put a policy up which never eventuated? They were after all in government. I don't think it was due to their sudden realisation that they needed to appear to be the trademarked responsible economic managers. No, I don't think so at all. It couldn't be down to the practical realities of passing legislation. That is, after all, what governments are meant to do even though they were a government that lost floor votes in this place in majority government. They couldn't put it past them.</para>
<para>This was a government that wore its priorities on its sleeves. They even went to a double dissolution election to fight for them. They did it over the antiworker, union-busting Registered Organisations Commission and the ABCC. Why wouldn't they have done the same over this policy? How can a majority government over three whole terms in office not manage to accomplish a legislative outcome that they paid good money to print pamphlets about? It's frankly a bit rich to hear those words coming from someone who was there at the coalface as it was happening. We know where the priorities of the former government were, and it sure wasn't on furthering the status of women, though the former government's first minister for women, Tony Abbott, may strongly disagree with me there. Quite possibly, that government's first Treasurer, Joe Hockey, might disagree with me there too—the very same Treasurer who, on Mothers Day, said it was 'basically fraud' for women to utilise both their employer's and the government's paid parental leave schemes. What a stellar record they had! I'm surprised the member for Deakin felt that those things should be omitted from his second reading amendment.</para>
<para>Nevertheless, despite the passive-aggressive road the member for Deakin has travelled on behalf of the opposition by way of his contribution to this debate, thankfully he reached a Damascene moment of clarity by the end of his contribution and announced that the opposition would be supporting this legislation. For that much I am glad. I'm glad that both sides of this place can reach a consensus that paid parental leave and the measures introduced in this bill are good policy with wideranging benefits for families and for our economy. I'm glad because we can join together with businesses, unions, economists and stakeholder groups alongside a vast array of academics who broadly agree that the measures being introduced by this bill will boost productivity whilst encouraging and increasing workforce participation. This policy has received support from stakeholders ranging from the Business Council of Australia and the Australian Industry Group all the way through to the ACTU.</para>
<para>This level of concurrence is no mean feat to accomplish at the best of times, but it speaks to the Albanese government's approach to consensus building and to the foundational good behind paid parental leave, which this bill builds upon. By coming together to pass the Paid Parental Leave Amendment (More Support for Working Families) Bill, we can start seeing the benefits as soon as 1 July this year and all the way through to 2026, when all periodic increases are to have been implemented. We can continue to build upon a great Labor reform, one that is already being utilised by over 180,000 families across Australia each year. This is legislation that shifts the dial towards assisting families whilst they spend the formative weeks with their newborns. Improving gender equality and workforce productivity isn't just a fair representation of the Albanese Labor government's commitment to supporting working families and bringing about a fairer, more equitable, more prosperous and more productive Australia; it is also the reason why this bill deserves our support. I commend the bill to the House.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:17</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms ROBERTS</name>
    <name.id>157125</name.id>
    <electorate>Pearce</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Twelve years ago marked a pivotal moment in our nation's history, a moment that brought about transformative change for countless working families. It was the introduction of paid parental leave, an historic reform that has undeniably reshaped lives across our nation. For many parents, this initiative represented a significant milestone, offering them the opportunity to access paid parental leave for the very first time, with a generous 18-week payment fully funded by the government. It wasn't just a monetary provision; it was a fundamental shift in the landscape of workplace and economic equality, especially for women, who for too long bore the brunt of unpaid care responsibilities and faced long-term consequences to their economic security. I was one of those women. I feel quite emotional about that. With a very sick husband who was battling cancer, I had to work full time to financially support and look after our new baby in the early nineties and help my husband. Fortunately my parents travelled from England to help look after the baby when I was at work.</para>
<para>Primarily this reform is about balancing gender equality, breaking down barriers that have hindered women's progress in the workforce. However, the importance of this initiative extends far beyond gender concerns. It is about supporting families, promoting the health and wellbeing of parents and their children, and contributing to the broader economic fabric of our society. In 2009, the Women and Work Research Group from the Faculty of Economics and Business at the University of Sydney released a report entitled, <inline font-style="italic">Paid maternity, paternity and parental leave for Australia</inline>. It described the three generations of parental leave policies, broadly identified as follows. The first generation dates back to the 1970s, when the focus was maternity leave and job protection, in response to increases in female workplace participation.</para>
<para>The second generation of policies provided specific paternity leave periods and extended parental leave in order to address the gendered nature of leave-taking and to encourage the role of fathers in parenting. The third, and most recent, generation of parental leave has incorporated flexibility and return-to-work arrangements as a further way of easing work-family tensions and facilitating both women's and men's workforce transitions. The research indicated very clearly that public policies are very influential in affecting the labour market, the parenting behaviours of employees and the attitudes of employers. For example: mothers respond directly to either the shortening or lengthening of periods of paid maternity leave by taking commensurately shorter or longer periods of leave. In terms of breastfeeding, there's a clear and established link between the length of paid leave and the length of time a mother breastfeeds. Employment and breastfeeding are in competition, and when a woman returns to work, either breastfeeding rates drop off—if women are unable to return to part-time rather than full-time—or it continues no longer. I also was that mother; I had to take some trips to the ladies to express milk for my baby so that my mother could feed the baby when I was at work on the next day, and the next day and the next day during the days that I was at work.</para>
<para>The designation of paid paternity leave for fathers on a 'use it or lose it' basis has seen fathers in other countries take longer periods of paternity leave and participate in the rearing of their children. Employers who were initially reluctant found that these policies had a positive effect, and that they assisted in better planning work and improving employee relationships. Investing in paid parental leave is a strategic, critical move for our economy. This was evident in the outcomes of the very successful Jobs and Skills Summit in September 2022, when increasing paid parental leave emerged as a frequent and essential proposal.</para>
<para>The extension of Australia's paid parental leave program signifies more than just an increase in financial support; it's about providing every family with a new baby with the gift of choice, enhancing security and support. The extension of paid parental leave will help to boost productivity, bolster the economy and afford parents the precious time they need to bond with their newborn babies. Think back to the days when you first brought your newborn home: a mix of joy and anxiety, and definitely some sleepless nights! For many it was a lonely experience, however, especially for women who were dealing with hormonal changes, lack of sleep, feeling out of control and with a lack of support. Paid parental leave injects flexibility and peace of mind into those delicate periods, allowing parents to plan their leave, manage their financial commitments and alleviate the financial stress associated with staying at home with a baby. The parent-child relationship is unique, and research tells us that early paternal involvement benefits relationships with both the parents and the baby. Being a parent is immensely rewarding, as we all know, but it is also one of life's most challenging roles. Paid parental leave provides the flexibility to navigate the challenges of parenthood while ensuring that much-needed support is in place.</para>
<para>The bill before us is a continuation of our commitment to family values and the wellbeing of our citizens. It helps to ensure that female employment, careers and businesses are secure, and that productivity is enhanced, leading to better outcomes for families across the nation. It proposes amendments to the paid parental leave program from 2010, extending the scheme by increasing the maximum number of flexible leave days each year by two weeks from 1 July 2024 until it reaches 26 weeks by 1 July 2026. Article 3 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child requires legislative bodies to consider the best interests of the child as a primary consideration. This principle applies to all actions concerning children, and requires active measures to promote their survival, growth and wellbeing, as well as measures to support and assist parents and others who have day-to-day responsibilities for ensuring recognition of those rights. By reducing the constraints faced by both men and women as they juggle their professional and family responsibilities, this bill helps to create a fairer society, enhances workforce participation and boosts productivity. It goes beyond gender equality. It is about fostering a community where families can thrive.</para>
<para>During my time as Mayor of the City of Wanneroo, we had an average of eight babies born each day. So it is no surprise that, in my electorate of Pearce and across the nation, families will welcome the benefits of the amended bill and this more generous scheme.</para>
<para>This is a monumental step forward, not only supporting maternal health and wellbeing, but also encouraging both parents to take leave and giving families the flexibility to choose how they share care responsibilities. I said at the very outset that, for me, this spoke volumes in terms of gender equity, but it's not just about that—it's about helping to make a fairer society and to boost workforce participation and productivity.</para>
<para>By 1 July 2026, the scheme will be for a 26-week period, with four weeks reserved for each parent on a 'use it or lose it' basis, leaving 18 weeks that parents can choose to share however they wish. Single parents will have access to the full 26-week entitlement, and coupled parents will also be able to take up to four weeks of paid parental leave at the same time, instead of the two weeks currently allowed. Extending the reserved period for couples will complement the increase to the maximum parental leave pay entitlement. It will continue to encourage fathers and partners to take a greater share of caring responsibilities, by increasing the time fathers and partners can take off work around the time of a child's birth or adoption.</para>
<para>Increasing the number of days that may be taken concurrently by parents and carers will continue to assist parents to share caring responsibilities and will provide fathers and partners an opportunity to also care for birth parents, to support their health, while ensuring parents are encouraged to return to work. Limits on the number of days that may be taken concurrently will prompt fathers and partners to take on independent care of the child, which, research has demonstrated, helps to develop patterns of care that persist throughout a child's life. By supporting and encouraging families to share caring responsibilities more equally, we believe it will help women's workforce participation, help to close the gender pay gap, and help to address the economic penalty faced by so many women in the past.</para>
<para>This amendment will help women who are self-employed or who run small businesses who cannot afford to be off work for an extended period of time. They will be able to tailor their leave to fit their personal circumstances. The flexible leave arrangements will also help support women with a more gradual return to work.</para>
<para>I have also noted that the government payment is a minimum entitlement designed to complement employer-provided leave. The minister advised that data collected by the Workplace Gender Equality Agency shows the proportion of businesses providing their own paid parental leave has increased over the last decade. In 2021-22, 62 per cent of reporting employers offered employer-funded paid parental leave, up from 48 per cent in 2013-14. This indicates a change in social policy and indicates the value placed on this as an investment that returns benefits for parents, employers and the economy.</para>
<para>The bill is a step forward towards a more inclusive and compassionate society, one where every parent, regardless of gender, can experience the joys and challenges of parenthood—and there are many. The bill helps support women so that they do not have to choose between a family and a career. I agree with the minister, who stated that this bill is good for parents, good for children, good for employers and good for the economy.</para>
<para>Coming from the electorate of Pearce, which is one of the fastest growing areas in Australia, with a median age of 32 and a significant increase in young families, I welcome this bill and amendment. I know it will help parents during a very special and important time in their lives, especially when nearly 42 per cent of the Pearce community is from overseas, so many don't have family or close connections here. They are absolutely reliant upon the paid parental leave, in which they can form their relationship with and look after and nurture their baby. They deserve that support, they need that support and that support will be provided by this bill. I am very proud to commend the bill to the House.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>265979</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>It being 1.30 pm, the debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS</title>
        <page.no>55</page.no>
        <type>STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Showcase WA Expo</title>
          <page.no>55</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:29</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr GOODENOUGH</name>
    <name.id>74046</name.id>
    <electorate>Moore</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The Showcase WA Expo held in August last year was a resounding success, with more than 1,000 attendees filling the great hall of parliament to experience and taste the best of Western Australian industry and agriculture. Exhibitors included major WA corporations Perth Airport, Chevron, Rio Tinto, Woodside, INPEX, Pilbara Minerals, Perdaman and Albemarle. The WA state government supported the expo through the Department of Jobs, Tourism, Science and Innovation.</para>
<para>Local WA manufacturers, educational institutions, mining companies and agricultural producers exhibited their products and services for an Australia-wide audience. The event provided the opportunity for members and senators, staff, diplomats from around the world, and the media to experience and taste many of the products that WA produces. I am pleased to serve as the co-chair of the Parliamentary Friends of Western Australia and co-convenor of the Showcase WA Expo, along with Senator Louise Pratt. We have received expressions of interest from exhibitors for another expo this year. To this end, we will write to the presiding officers to secure a potential date for another highly anticipated Showcase WA Expo.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Holt Electorate: Tamil Festival Australia</title>
          <page.no>55</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:31</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms FERNANDO</name>
    <name.id>299964</name.id>
    <electorate>Holt</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I had the pleasure of recently attending the Tamil Festival Australia 2024. The festival, held in commemoration of Thai Pongal and Tamil Heritage Month, was a vibrant and culturally-rich event that left a lasting impression on me. Witnessing families coming together to express gratitude to the forces of the universe through the preparation of Pongal was truly heartwarming.</para>
<para>The sense of unity and pride at this event was just amazing. It was evident that the festival served as a symbol of Tamil identity in Victoria and, indeed, across the world, showcasing rich traditions and values that have been passed down for generations. I was deeply honoured to be a part of this grand celebration and to have the opportunity to engage with members of the Tamil community, many of whom live in my electorate of Holt. I extend my heartfelt appreciation to the organisers, particularly Casey Tamil Manram for their hard work and dedication, and to all the volunteers as well. I look forward to continuing to support and celebrate the rich diversity of our community in the years to come.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Hyde, Ms Janette, OAM</title>
          <page.no>55</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:32</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr CONAGHAN</name>
    <name.id>279991</name.id>
    <electorate>Cowper</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>If you've lived in Port Macquarie for more than five seconds, you're highly likely to have met our wonderful Janette Hyde. This tenacious lady is involved in some way in more community and local business projects than I could possibly mention in 90 seconds, but Janette's passion is tourism to the greater Port Macquarie region. Every business on the Mid North Coast, large and small, is some way impacted by our annual tourist number, and having moving there in 1975 and starting her own takeaway deli at the time, Janette has experienced that firsthand. Since arriving in town, however, Janette has set out to establish or grow major events in the area while helping to promote our wonderful family-owned and -run businesses, and as the town has grown from 10,000 when she first arrived to over 50,000 now, we see her dedication and what that has resulted in today.</para>
<para>From her 34 years of involvement as a community facilitator of New South Wales touch football, being a driving force in the chamber of commerce for close to 20 years, to being the President of the Greater Port Macquarie Tourism Association for the past decade, Janette has lived and breathed her beloved Port Macquarie. So the recent bestowment of those three letters—OAM—to her name is a fitting and well-deserved addition to that plethora of titles. Congratulations, Janette. Well done. We love you.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Jagajaga Electorate: Community Events</title>
          <page.no>55</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:34</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms THWAITES</name>
    <name.id>282212</name.id>
    <electorate>Jagajaga</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Over the past few weeks I have been really pleased to join community groups and people in Jagajaga taking full advantage of summer to get out and about and be active. Last Saturday, I joined the member for Eltham, Vicki Ward and hundreds of other people at the QWere St festival in Montmorency. This was a fabulous event showing our community's inclusivity and our support for the LGBTQI+ community. I want to say thanks to Banyule council, all the store holders, the wonderful performers and the Montmorency Traders Association, in particular Anna and Yvette, for all of their work putting this great event together.</para>
<para>Last week, I visited the Diamond Valley Athletic Club in Greensborough, down at Willinda Park, and the club members were training hard and gearing up for the power play competition, which was on last weekend. I am pleased to report that their preparation was worth it. The club topped the day, and they're now leading the competition with only a few more rounds to go. I would like to think it was my pep talk at training that really spurred them on to victory. A huge congratulations to all the people that were involved in that.</para>
<para>I'm really pleased that I've also been able to support the club with a recent volunteer grant. Thank you to some of the club's long-serving volunteers, Lyn and Max, who gave me such a warm welcome when I visited. They've done so much to build a club that doesn't just get excellent results but is also inclusive of young people in our community. We are really fortunate in Jagajaga to have all these people striving to make our community a really inclusive place.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Labor Government</title>
          <page.no>56</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:35</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr CHANDLER-MATHER</name>
    <name.id>300121</name.id>
    <electorate>Griffith</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The political and economic system is stacked against everyday people. Here are a few reasons why. Labor will make more money charging interest on your HECS or student debt than they will off their new taxes on oil and gas corporations. While house prices, rents and mortgages continue to skyrocket, they are handing out hundreds of billions of dollars in tax concessions to property investors and landlords.</para>
<para>Labor continues to support Israel as it carries out a genocide in Gaza, refusing to even call for a permanent and immediate ceasefire, and pausing aid funding for Palestine.</para>
<para>People are being crushed under the weight of bills, whether it be groceries, rents, mortgages or healthcare costs, meanwhile corporate profits continue to soar. It is easy to lose hope in that situation, but the thing is that's exactly what the political establishment wants you to do. They want you to turn away from the horrors in Gaza and lose hope that we can help win peace together. They want you to believe it's impossible to scrap student debt and make uni free again, even though so many of the politicians in this place got uni for free themselves. They want you to believe that we can't tax the super profits of big corporations and use that money to give people the things they need to live a good life—a good affordable home, free health care and education. They want you to feel powerless and like you can't change anything yourselves, but here's the thing.</para>
<para>We know the power of collective organising. We know the power of everyday working people coming together and fighting for a better future, and it's time we showed the political establishment what that looks like.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Chisholm Electorate: Community Events</title>
          <page.no>56</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:37</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr GARLAND</name>
    <name.id>295588</name.id>
    <electorate>Chisholm</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Australia's strength lays in the amazing mosaic of cultures that contribute to our communities, and I'm so lucky to represent one of the most diverse electorates in the country—Chisholm. I've been able to attend some really amazing events over the last little while and I wanted to share that with the House today.</para>
<para>It was wonderful to recently welcome new citizens at a special Australia Day ceremony at Monash council, and I want to thank our newest Australians for choosing to make both Australia and Chisholm their home. It's fantastic to have so many people join our beautiful, vibrant community. Congratulations to all new citizens and welcome.</para>
<para>Last month, I also had the pleasure to celebrate Thai Pongal at the Tamil festival of 2024. There was dancing and music. It was a truly special celebration, and I am so honoured to have been invited and included in the festivities. Thank you to the organisers and volunteers for a wonderful day, the delicious pongal and the generous hospitality.</para>
<para>Right now, of course, preparations are well underway to mark the year of the dragon and lunar new year celebrations, and I've already attended some incredible local festivities in my electorate. Lunar new year is an occasion for family, friends and festivities, a time to celebrate and to spend time with those we love. The lunar new year has become a colourful and important part of our Chisholm calendar, and I hope the year of the dragon brings good health, prosperity and boundless happiness to all who celebrate.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Fowler Electorate: Lunar New Year</title>
          <page.no>56</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:38</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms LE</name>
    <name.id>295676</name.id>
    <electorate>Fowler</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I, too, stand to acknowledge the upcoming lunar new year festival in my community in Fowler, and it's great to hear that the member for Chisholm is also celebrating this very significant cultural event. The lunar new year is significant to communities in my electorate for those of Vietnamese, Chinese and Korean heritage. This year, as the member of Chisholm said, is the year of the wood dragon, which is an auspicious sign for those marking the lunar new year.</para>
<para>As we welcome the lunar new year, I want to dispel the misconception is solely a Chinese celebration. It's not just 'Chinese new year'. It's, in fact, a communal celebration that intertwines the diverse fabrics of our community. I want to acknowledge my local council, Fairfield City Council and Liverpool City Council, who will be putting on amazing and fantastic lunar new year celebrations, as usual, in the coming weeks, which they do annually. These significant celebrations draw thousands of locals and visitors, infusing our local economy with renewed vibrancy. Organisations such as the Australian Chinese Buddhist Society, the Vietnamese Community in Australia NSW Chapter, the Phuoc Hue Temple and many more will be preparing to welcome the year of the dragon in the coming weeks.</para>
<para>I really encourage and welcome any visit to my community from members here in the House. Fowler is a living testament to the beauty of unity and diversity, and each cultural celebration is a new chapter of our shared story.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Pearce Electorate: Schools</title>
          <page.no>57</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:40</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms ROBERTS</name>
    <name.id>157125</name.id>
    <electorate>Pearce</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Another school year has begun, and I'd like to give a huge shoutout to all the schools in my electorate of Pearce. To all the principals, teachers, staff and volunteers right around Australia, you do an amazing job, and the effort you put in to ensure that our children to receive the best possible educational outcome is very much appreciated.</para>
<para>To the students, from the youngest just starting out to the seniors in their last year of secondary education, we wish you well. A special message to the year 12s is to take care of themselves this year. Plan to study. The effort you put in early will pay dividends, but also remember to take time out to relax and enjoy the year.</para>
<para>To the parents, I remember what it's like to drop off your youngest for their very first day at school—a real bag of mixed emotions. Your support for your children and their local school can make a difference and is, once again, very much appreciated.</para>
<para>The Albanese Labor government just last week welcomed the Western Australian state government's decision to work with us to fully fund public schools in WA. What a way to commence the year! Every student deserves quality education no matter where they live or their circumstances. We can provide, now, a fairer system and improve excellence in our schools by supporting the wellbeing of students and teachers. I firmly believe the increased funding will help achieve real improvements in our schools. I wish all communities the very best for the 2024 school year. I hope it is very successful and that the students settle in beautifully for this year.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Parkes Electorate: Australia Day Awards</title>
          <page.no>57</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:42</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr COULTON</name>
    <name.id>HWN</name.id>
    <electorate>Parkes</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>On Australia Day, some outstanding citizens from the Parkes electorate were honoured with an Order of Australia medal.</para>
<para>I'd like to recognise Mrs Ruth Sandow from Milparinka in the far west of New South Wales not only for the work she's done for the Milparinka community but also for her role over many years with the Royal Flying Doctor Service; Mrs Ellen Stanmore, who has been actively involved in the Dubbo community, particularly with the support group in Dubbo for the Royal Flying Doctor Service; my good friend Councillor Vic Bartley from Bourke, a Vietnam veteran, an Indigenous elder and a great role model for the community of Bourke; Mrs Anne Bell Knight from Gunnedah for her service to the arts, largely through the Eisteddfod and other organisations in Gunnedah; Sue-Ellen Lovett, a blind equestrienne who's competed at international level completely visually impaired, a great role model there; Dr Robert North, for his services to medicine and to the community of Dubbo—over his period of time, we have certainly seen a great dedication from him—and Coonabarabran's Rod Coombes, who's one of the mainstays of the VRA there. He received the Emergency Service Medal.</para>
<para>He's not a constituent, but I also want to mention Senator John Williams AM.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Stars Foundation, Clontarf Foundation</title>
          <page.no>57</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:43</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr GOSLING</name>
    <name.id>245392</name.id>
    <electorate>Solomon</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The Stars Foundation supports Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander girls and young women to attend and remain engaged at school, complete year 12 and move into work or further study. The program's focus is on the Australian government's Close the Gap targets: school attendance, completion of year 12 and successful transition into sustainable employment or study. Stars delivers 21 programs to more than 1,300 students in the Northern Territory. I'm very pleased that average attendance in 2023 last year was 76 per cent and impressively 92 per cent of Territory Stars students graduated last year. I had the honour to attend the graduation ceremonies in my electorate of Solomon at the end of last year and met the students and their incredible mentors and support teams.</para>
<para>Likewise, the Clontarf Foundation works with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander boys and young men. A record 106 young men completed year 12, which is 21 more than last year. That's a terrific outcome. Of the 85 young men who graduated in 2022, 87 per cent went on to engage in some form of work or further study last year. So I just want to thank all of the fantastic teams at Stars and Clontarf who are mentoring and bringing up better opportunities for this next generation of young leaders.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Black Saturday Bushfires</title>
          <page.no>57</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:45</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr VIOLI</name>
    <name.id>300147</name.id>
    <electorate>Casey</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Today is the 15th anniversary of the Black Saturday bushfires on 7 February 2009. It's a day we remember the 173 lives lost on that day. But we also remember the lives lost in the months and years afterwards as a direct impact of the challenges they experienced on that day. We remember the communities devastated, including mine, and the 2,029 houses that were lost, many never to be rebuilt. We pay thanks to the emergency services, the CFA, the SES, Victoria Police, the ambulance, who were there on that day and the weeks and months afterwards to help us rebuild from the devastating fires. We thank the community groups from all across Victoria and from across Casey who came together to support each other to make sure we could get through as a community and come back stronger.</para>
<para>As a survivor of the Black Saturday bushfires, I have spoken in this House about my experience. I know that for myself and for many other survivors it's a tough day. We go back 15 years in time instantly. So I pay tribute to those survivors that will be struggling today and that will have memories and trauma of that day. Stay strong, reach out to your friends and loved ones. You're not alone. We pause, we reflect, and we continue to live in honour of those that lost their lives on that day.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Child Care</title>
          <page.no>58</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:46</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr LIM</name>
    <name.id>300130</name.id>
    <electorate>Tangney</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Recently I had the privilege of visiting Goodstart early childhood centre in Myaree, where I had a chance to engage with a young parent, who was brimming with joy and gratitude due to the groundbreaking cheaper child care policy driven by our Labor government. The cheaper child care policy is not merely a program; it is a lifeline for hard-working parents striving to provide a better life for their children while navigating the challenges of our economy. It has been heartwarming to witness firsthand how this policy has enabled parents to re-enter the workforce knowing that quality child care is not a financial burden but an accessible support system. In these times of economic uncertainty, when the cost of the living weighs heavily on the shoulders of many families, this policy gives hope.</para>
<para>However, it isn't just about affordable child care. It is about empowering parents to achieve their professional and personal goals while ensuring their children receive the best care and education. Our government is dedicated to building a brighter future for all Australians, one where parents can work, children can thrive, and families can prosper.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Banking And Financial Services</title>
          <page.no>58</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:48</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr HAMILTON</name>
    <name.id>291387</name.id>
    <electorate>Groom</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I am quite angry at the hypocrisy of the NAB, particularly their closure of the Pittsworth branch. If you go to Pittsworth, there's a sign on the wall of the bank saying 'NAB, we think local'. If that sign read 'NAB—it's all about profits' or 'NAB—we couldn't give a stuff about locals' I wouldn't have a reason to be so angry. I've spoken to businesses and locals all up and down the street. The response they received from NAB when they ask 'What do we do now? What does this closure mean for us?' has been absolutely disgusting.</para>
<para>Simple issues, like how do small businesses get their float to enable cash transactions to continue, NAB had no answer for. They're happy to walk away. They no longer think locally on that. They direct their customers to use the ATM, then they don't include those statistics in the number of people who come to the bank. They pretend that people aren't coming to them. You can stand there and watch them, day in and day out. Then they have the gall to say they're going to keep the ATM open. They don't own the premises that the ATM is on, so they can't make that promise to the community. They do not think local. The difference between the offers they've made to staff for determination and what they've said they've made is extraordinary, and I'll say more on that later on. But, worst of all, their entire solution is just to drive to Toowoomba—just drive to Toowoomba! Take the money that's in Pittsworth, drive to Toowoomba and do your banking there. While you're there, you'll probably spend at the grocery store. Just watch our local community go further and further down the sink!</para>
<para>I'm glad to see that they have a new CEO. I hope their next CEO actually has the guts to say what's on the wall.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Australian Passport Office</title>
          <page.no>58</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:50</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr REID</name>
    <name.id>300126</name.id>
    <electorate>Robertson</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>There are words to define the LNP opposition now, and in their time in government: words like 'mismanagement', 'botched' and 'swirling misery'. It's right across the spectrum of policy, whether it be environment and letting our precious flora and fauna perish; or health, introducing a GP or an ED tax—effectively ending universal health care in Australia; or energy, with no plan and no investment; or in foreign affairs and trade, decimating our foreign relationships and our diplomatic corps. But what I want to touch on today is processing passports.</para>
<para>The Liberal National Party hindered and, in some cases stopped, people's ability to travel because of their mismanagement of the Australian Passport Office and passport systems and processing. This isn't just about travel for holidays; this is also about travel where people can go overseas to work and contribute to the global economy, or to visit loved ones for a reunion or to be with those who might be unwell. Under the former government, and just following its rule, passport wait times blew out to over 50 days in the electorate of Robertson. Even worse, the former government was warned as early as 2020 that there would be a surge in demand and they failed to prepare—like they do time and time again. It is shameful!</para>
<para>The government accepts all recommendations made by the ANAO report today, and has already taken steps to fix the problems and mismanagement that the former government made in our passport system.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Lyne Electorate</title>
          <page.no>59</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:51</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr GILLESPIE</name>
    <name.id>72184</name.id>
    <electorate>Lyne</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Congratulations are in order for Trevor and Edna Brooker of Dungog, who will celebrate their 75th wedding anniversary on 12 February. Trevor and Edna were married at the Congregational Church in West Maitland—Trevor as a 25-year-old bricklayer and Edna as a 21-year-old worker in the textile industry. Trevor celebrated his 100th birthday on 5 December last year, and Trevor and Edna still live at home, unaided and with very little outside assistance at all. Congratulations, Trevor and Edna.</para>
<para>I'll give a shout out and congratulations to John Quinn of Forster, who has retired as the general manager of GLAICA House. For 20 years, Quinnie has championed quality aged care for the community of Forster-Tuncurry and the Manning. He will continue to serve as president of the Forster Surf Life Saving Club, and I look forward to catching up with Quinnie on completion of the new clubhouse, and to see him with his new hip replacement!</para>
<para>I would like to acknowledge the artistic achievements of Lake Cathie local, Gwen Roberts. One of Gwen's artworks has been selected as a finalist for the third consecutive year in the prestigious ModPortrait 2023 exhibition organised by the European Museum of Modern Art in Barcelona, Spain. Gwen, your selected drawing is simply brilliant, and I commend you on this significant honour and achievement.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Hunter Electorate: PCYC Singleton</title>
          <page.no>59</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:53</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr REPACHOLI</name>
    <name.id>298840</name.id>
    <electorate>Hunter</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I've said before and I'll say it again: we do it the best in the Hunter—and once again we have the awards to show for it.</para>
<para>PCYC Singleton was recently named New South Wales PCYC Club of the Year. Club manager, David Andrews, and his team—Vera, Jenna, Nicholas and Lachlan—do an incredible job in the local community. Winning this award is no mean feat. The Singleton club is a small club in comparison to the other 60 clubs around the state, but they punch well above their weight. The success of this club can be credited to one thing: the incredible staff and volunteers who work to deliver a range of programs at a very high standard. The club offers a range of programs which aim to give young people practical, real-life skills that they can apply to work, family and their community. These are programs such as driver education—a vital program in a community like Singleton—which helps learner drivers get 20 hours in their logbooks and the knowledge they need to reduce road risks, prevent accidents and become safer drivers.</para>
<para>The club also offers a range of sporting activities, such as basketball, an Active Kids program, a youth disability program, tennis, boxing and martial arts. Congratulations to Dave his team on another award—well done! And to all the PCYCs around New South Wales and Australia: thank you for all the work you do in helping to keep young people active, engaged and off the streets.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Communications Legislation Amendment (Combatting Misinformation And Disinformation) Bill 2023</title>
          <page.no>59</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:54</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr COLEMAN</name>
    <name.id>241067</name.id>
    <electorate>Banks</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Labor's misinformation law is an absolute disgrace. It's a law that will be an attack on the free speech of ordinary Australians, with the government going into digital platforms and saying, 'This can be said, and this cannot be said.' It is wrong in a democracy to do that. We know the law exempts the government, so anything the government says cannot be misinformation, but criticisms of the government can be misinformation. We know it exempts comedians and academics but not people expressing religious beliefs.</para>
<para>There are some things that we didn't know about the legislation and only actually discovered through a recent freedom of information request. Remarkably, the minister forgot to tell Australians that in regard to the powers in this bill, which all of the documents released by the government say relate to the regulator, the minister actually has a personal power to order investigations into allegations of misinformation. So we have a minister who is able to say, 'Go and investigate this person because I believe that they have been involved in misinformation.' That is an outrage. This is the letter to the Prime Minister where the minister makes that request. And the response from the representative of the Prime Minister is, 'I agree to your request for additional policy approval.' It is a disgrace, and this bill must not be allowed to proceed.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Road Safety</title>
          <page.no>59</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:56</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr DAVID SMITH</name>
    <name.id>276714</name.id>
    <electorate>Bean</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>There were 231 truck crash deaths, including 54 drivers. This is a consequence of unviable and deadly contracts that demonstrate a clear link between low pay and poor safety outcomes. Since 2017, 15 delivery riders and a rideshare driver have also died on our roads, with the number likely to be higher but for underreporting.</para>
<para>This week I again met with representatives across the transport sector calling for change, and they provided firsthand accounts of their experiences across the sector. Nabin Adhikari, a delivery driver here in Canberra, told of being paid well under the minimum wage and being forced to work upwards of 80 hours a week to make ends meet. He and other drivers also shared the pressure they felt to take risks while driving to make the deliveries fast enough to avoid being deactivated from delivery platforms.</para>
<para>Workers in both the trucking industry and the gig economy shared their concern that their job depended on them taking unnecessary risks. It is this pressure that has driven the rise in deaths on our roads. No workers in any industry should feel the need to compromise their wellbeing and safety to keep their job. This parliament can ensure that those loopholes that have created this danger are closed.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Prime Minister</title>
          <page.no>60</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:57</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr FLETCHER</name>
    <name.id>L6B</name.id>
    <electorate>Bradfield</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>On 26 July 2021 the now Prime Minister said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">An Albanese Labor Government will deliver the same legislated tax relief to more than 9 million Australians as the Morrison Government.</para></quote>
<para>On 29 May 2022 he said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">We said on the stage 3 tax cuts, that they had been legislated … people are entitled to operate on the basis of that certainty.</para></quote>
<para>On 23 June 2022 he said, about the stage 3 tax cuts:</para>
<quote><para class="block">… they are legislated, and one of the things that people have a right to believe, is that when a politician makes a commitment before an election, they keep it and I intend to do just that.</para></quote>
<para>On 18 August 2023 the Prime Minister said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">We have not changed our position on the stage three tax cuts. I've been very clear about that.</para></quote>
<para>On 23 January 2024 the Prime Minister said, about the stage 3 tax cuts, 'My word is my bond,' and, 'We said during the election campaign that we would maintain the position that had already been legislated.' In fact, on over 100 occasions the Prime Minister and his colleagues committed to keep the stage 3 tax cuts, and then less than two weeks ago we saw one of the most breathtakingly cynical acts in Australian political history—the promise was simply dumped. The Australian people now know you cannot trust a word this man says.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Climate Change</title>
          <page.no>60</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:59</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr LAXALE</name>
    <name.id>299174</name.id>
    <electorate>Bennelong</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>There's a bit of blockbuster television the moment, and what an insight it has been into the bin fire that was the former government. On Monday, as we watched <inline font-style="italic">Nemesis</inline>, we were all reminded about their stance against climate action. As I sat down here on the next day, I realised that many of the same people who fed their climate chaos were sitting there in that same room. Yesterday, the Leader of the Nationals, supported by a member of the Liberal Party, doubled-down on their climate insanity. They called for an end to renewable energy rollouts across regional Australia. Incredibly, they also declared that a country of 7.69 million square kilometres was small! They implied that we could not handle any more cheap, reliable, emissions-free energy. A former Liberal Prime Minister put it better than I could when he said that the Liberal Party has just proven itself incapable of dealing with the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. The consequence is, without question, that we are paying higher prices for electricity and having higher emissions.</para>
<para>The continued anticlimate rhetoric from the Liberals and Nationals is not only out of touch but dangerous. Let this week serve a reminder to all Australians that the Liberals are not capable of taking action on climate change and, for as long as they play politics with it, that they don't deserve to be in government.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>In accordance with standing order 43, the time for members' statements has concluded.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>MINISTRY</title>
        <page.no>60</page.no>
        <type>MINISTRY</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Temporary Arrangements</title>
          <page.no>60</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:00</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ALBANESE</name>
    <name.id>R36</name.id>
    <electorate>Grayndler</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I inform the House that the Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme and Minister for Government Services will be absent from question time for the rest of this week. The Minister for Social Services will answer questions on his behalf.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE</title>
        <page.no>60</page.no>
        <type>QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Cost of Living</title>
          <page.no>60</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:01</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr DUTTON</name>
    <name.id>00AKI</name.id>
    <electorate>Dickson</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Prime Minister. Under this government, Australians are paying on average $8,000 a year in additional costs. People with a mortgage are paying $24,000 a year—they're worse off. Energy costs are up by $1,000, and food prices are up nearly 10 per cent. Prime Minister, isn't every Australian worse off as a result of your broken promises and bad decisions?</para>
<para class="italic"> <inline font-style="italic">Government members interjecting—</inline></para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! Before the Prime Minister—I'll just ask him to pause. Ministers, the home affairs minister and the Treasurer, that was far too much noise. I couldn't hear the question, and the Leader of the Opposition will state his question again. I need to hear the question, so that means: don't interrupt.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr McCormack</name>
    <name.id>219646</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Silence!</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I don't need any assistance from the member from Riverina but appreciate the sentiment. I give the call to the honourable the Leader of the Opposition.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr DUTTON</name>
    <name.id>00AKI</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>With much pleasure, Mr Speaker. Thank you very much. My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, under your government, Australians are, on average, $8,000 a year worse off. People with mortgages are $24,000 a year worse off, energy costs are up $1,000, and food prices under your watch are nearly 10 per cent higher. Prime Minister, isn't every Australian worse off as a result of your broken promises and bad, bad decisions?</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:02</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ALBANESE</name>
    <name.id>R36</name.id>
    <electorate>Grayndler</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thought I was going to get a question about our cost-of-living tax cuts, but I got a much more general invitation into the difference that this government has made. When we came to office, inflation peaked, as a quarter, in March 2022, at 2.1 per cent—in one quarter. The latest annual inflation figure, of course, is 4.1 per cent. One of the reasons why that has occurred is by producing the first budget surplus in 15 years, turning a $78 billion deficit into a $22 billion surplus.</para>
<para>Of course, when it comes to cost of living, wages matter. Outside of the pandemic, the biggest drop in real wages this century occurred in—guess which quarter?—March 2022, down 1.4 per cent in one quarter. Now we have the fastest wage growth in 15 years, with real wages rising for two consecutive quarters in a row.</para>
<para>On jobs, we inherited a sluggish labour market. Employment growth has doubled, with around 650,000 jobs created on our watch and a record number of women in jobs and working full time. Productivity growth on our predecessor's was the worst in 40 years. Productivity rose in the September quarter by 0.9 per cent. In construction, it was 4.4 per cent. Business investment declined under them to the lowest level since the early 2000s. Business investment has grown in every quarter under Labor, up 12 per cent in real terms. Of course, under them, they had tax policy that would have seen Australians who are the lowest paid get not a single dollar. Now every Australian will get a tax cut. Eighty-four per cent of them will get a higher tax cut under us.</para>
<para>If they really thought their system was better, they'd be voting against it and promising to role it back. Unless they do that—and who knows? They change their position every day. It's still possible. Now they're voting for it.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The Prime Minister's time has concluded. When the House comes to order—the member for Page, the Leader of the Nationals and the member for Hume were making too much noise during that answer—we'll hear from the member for Solomon.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Taxation</title>
          <page.no>61</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:06</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr GOSLING</name>
    <name.id>245392</name.id>
    <electorate>Solomon</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister. How will Labor's new tax cuts provide cost-of-living relief to members of the Australian Defence Force, to public servants in the Department of Defence and also to workers in our great Australian defence industries?</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! Member for Fisher, I hadn't even called the Deputy Prime Minister and you were interjecting. That's a warning for everyone else in the chamber not to interject before a minister answers or when a question is being asked. I give the call to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Defence.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:06</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr MARLES</name>
    <name.id>HWQ</name.id>
    <electorate>Corio</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the member for his question and acknowledge his service and his commitment to Australia's Defence Force and his tireless advocacy on behalf of Australia's defence families.</para>
<para>Every member of the Australian Defence Force, every public servant in the Department of Defence, every person working in Australia's defence industry will receive a tax cut under Labor's tax plan. What that means is that those people who are serving our nation through their involvement in Australia's defence establishment will now be able to take home more of what they earn through a tax cut which is deeply deserved. For example, an Air Force sergeant working at RAAF Base Amberley on Australia's Super Hornets will now have a tax cut of more than $2,400. A sub-lieutenant doing antiwarfare training at HMAS <inline font-style="italic">Watson</inline> in Sydney will have a tax cut of more than $2,000. In the member's own electorate, a captain in 1 Brigade in Darwin will have a tax cut of $2,880. And, here, a defence civilian working at Defence's call centre at Cooma—not so far from here—will receive a tax cut of $1,463, which is more than twice the tax cut that person would have received under the policy of those opposite.</para>
<para>Since coming to power, we've been completely focused on cost-of-living pressures, which have been persistent. But the most important step that we can take is to fight on behalf of Australia's working families for a tax cut.</para>
<para>Opposition members interjecting—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! Members on my left will cease interjecting.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr MARLES</name>
    <name.id>HWQ</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Now, clearly, the Prime Minister has taken a difficult decision in bringing forward this tax package with the Treasurer and the finance minister. But, for all that is said by those opposite, if we judge them by what they do and not by what they say, it is clear that they agree the Prime Minister has made the right call, because, if they didn't, the only honest and credible position they could take would be to oppose this legislation in this parliament and do what the Deputy Leader of the Opposition said—that is, role this package back.</para>
<para>The Liberals in power were a high-taxing government—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! The Deputy Prime Minister will resume his seat. I will hear from the member from Canning.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Hastie</name>
    <name.id>260805</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>On relevance, Speaker: that was a Dixer in the purest sense, and there was no reference at all to the opposition. It was a question saying, 'Tell us how good you are.'</para>
<para>Government members interjecting—</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! I'll deal with the point of order.</para>
<para>Government members interjecting—</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Members on my right will cease interjecting immediately.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Dr Chalmers</name>
    <name.id>37998</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Take it into the monkey pod!</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The Treasurer will cease interjecting.</para>
<para>Government members interjecting—</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! Members on my right will cease interjecting or be warned. The Deputy Prime Minister was not asked about alternative approaches. He was asked about tax policy, and he was not asked about the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. I'll bring him back to the question.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr MARLES</name>
    <name.id>HWQ</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>They are now evidently a shell of an opposition. But the government which is actually delivering real tax relief for Australians, which has delivered a budget surplus and which is supporting Australia's Defence Force and our national security—that government is the Albanese Labor government.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Hogan</name>
    <name.id>218019</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>What a tough guy!</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! The member for Page is warned. How many times have I got to tell you?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Prime Minister</title>
          <page.no>62</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:10</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms LEY</name>
    <name.id>00AMN</name.id>
    <electorate>Farrer</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Prime Minister. Before the election, the Prime Minister promised a $275 reduction in energy prices, no changes to super taxes, no changes to franking credits, cheaper mortgages and no changes to bipartisan tax policy. The Prime Minister has broken every one of these promises. The Prime Minister claimed his word is his bond. Isn't it now clear, Prime Minister, Australians cannot trust a word you say?</para>
<para>Honourable members interjecting—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! Members on my right will cease interjecting. The Minister for Home Affairs will cease interjecting. The member for Barker will join the minister in not interjecting.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Watts</name>
    <name.id>193430</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>That was Shakespearean.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Whoever made that comment will cease. The deputy was heard in silence; the Prime Minister will be given the same courtesy.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:11</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ALBANESE</name>
    <name.id>R36</name.id>
    <electorate>Grayndler</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm asked by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, of all people, about tax policy and about consistency—the person who stood up before we had even announced our new tax policy and said: 'We will fight this legislation in the parliament. We don't even know what it will look like. We'll fight them on the beaches.' It was Churchillian. They'll fight it on the beaches until the tide changes. Then their commitments just got washed away in a week. She said, 'When this legislation hits the parliament, we will fight it, we will fight it all the way. I'm digging in along with my colleagues and our leader, Peter Dutton, to fight this fight.' They weren't just fighting it; they were fighting this fight 'really, really hard'—not just hard but really, really hard.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The Prime Minister will pause and the minister for the environment will cease interjecting so I can hear from the manager on a point of order.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Fletcher</name>
    <name.id>L6B</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Mr Speaker, the question was about a promise of a $275 reduction in energy prices, no changes to super taxes and no—</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Resume your seat. I remind the manager, who should know of all people, that, when you get the call—I know it's the second day back—you've got to state the point of order. Obviously, that was about relevance, and he was getting to that point, but you simply can't get up and restate the question. You'll get the call. Just simply state the point of order, and you can make your point. If that happens again, people will not get the call. I'm not having question time like that. The Prime Minister was asked a fairly broad question, and I'm just going to ask him to return to the question. He's entitled to make some commentary or to quote, but I can't hear what he's saying. So, if everyone can just not make as much noise, question time will go a lot smoother.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ALBANESE</name>
    <name.id>R36</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I was asked about tax policy and about consistency, and the Leader of the Opposition, of course, was asked on the <inline font-style="italic">Today</inline> show if we walked away from the principles of stage 3. Absolutely not. The deputy leader was asked, 'Will you roll back whatever changes are made?' She said, 'Well, this is our position—this is absolutely our position!' Absolutely! The same figures and the same term I used when supporting working Australians getting a dollar an hour increase.</para>
<para>But today, of course, we have a different position again. In spite of the fact they were really, really going to fight it—they were going to fight this fight—what we saw yesterday was a different position again. The deputy leader was asked how they were going to pay for new changes, and she said this, 'You wouldn't expect me to pull out one ingredient or one part of tax reform, so I'm not going to do that. I'm not going to play the,"Yes, this is good; no, this is bad"—the rule in, rule out. I'm not going to do that.' She actually said that! She actually said that.</para>
<para>What we know from Senator Hume—it pays to look at their shadow ministry—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The member for Barker is warned!</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ALBANESE</name>
    <name.id>R36</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>She said this:</para>
<quote><para class="block">We know that Labor did not cause the war in Ukraine, which has fed into high energy prices. We know that they didn't cause COVID, which induced the supply chain problems that we're seeing right around the world. The things that cause inflation are not of Labor's making.</para></quote>
<para>That's what Senator Hume said. She then went on to say:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The Australian people look to their government to help them through a crisis.</para></quote>
<para>That is what we are doing through our tax changes. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I will just remind the House that we have the members for Page, Barker and Fisher on warnings.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Taxation</title>
          <page.no>63</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:16</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms SITOU</name>
    <name.id>298121</name.id>
    <electorate>Reid</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Prime Minister. How are Australians responding to Labor's plans to give every taxpayer a tax cut?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:16</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ALBANESE</name>
    <name.id>R36</name.id>
    <electorate>Grayndler</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Australians have responded very positively to the government's determination to make a difference for low- and middle-income workers who need further support with cost-of-living pressures. And that is what the government has done. We have a tax package that provides taxpayer relief for every single Australian taxpayer, all 13.6 million of them—not just some, every one of them, including those who earn up to $45,000 a year. But we know as well that, overwhelmingly, middle Australia are the big beneficiaries of our tax package.</para>
<para>On the <inline font-style="italic">S</inline><inline font-style="italic">unrise</inline> program, Leanne Andrews, a working mum from Toowoomba, in the electorate of Groom, said this: 'We will save money. When the original decision about stage 3 was made it was a different climate. So I do think it's fair to share it across the middle-income and low-income earners.' Tony from Bunya, in the electorate of Dickson, said this: 'We totally support your tax changes. Thank you for being strong enough to make this decision.' Lynette of Glenorchy in Tasmania said: 'Thank you for the tax cuts. It will make a huge difference to the average Australian. Please tell the opposition to take a good look at how the average person lives.' Robyn, of Wynnum West, in Bonner, said: 'I want to thank you for redesigning the tax cuts. It was absolutely the right thing to do. It shows fairness to Australia and helps people struggling financially. Thank you so much for standing up for what is right and fair.' Joan, from Cunningham, 'While I will not receive any tax cuts myself, as I am retired, I am grateful that we now have people in government who are genuinely concerned for those in our society who do it tough.'</para>
<para>These tax cuts are aimed squarely at middle Australia, providing support for those hardworking Australians who need this support. But we're also making sure that people aren't left behind, like under the previous system—making sure that every single Australian gets a tax cut. Eighty-four per cent of Australians will get more than they were going to get. Ninety per cent of women will get more than what they were going to get and 98 per cent of young people between the ages of 18 and 24 will get more than what they were going to get. This is good policy, done for the right reasons. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>DISTINGUISHED VISITORS</title>
        <page.no>64</page.no>
        <type>DISTINGUISHED VISITORS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>ASEAN-Australia Special Summit</title>
          <page.no>64</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:19</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm pleased to inform the House that present in the gallery today is a group of international journalists who are visiting as part of the outcome of the ASEAN-Australia Special Summit. On behalf of the House I give a warm welcome to you all.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE</title>
        <page.no>64</page.no>
        <type>QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Housing</title>
          <page.no>64</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:20</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BANDT</name>
    <name.id>M3C</name.id>
    <electorate>Melbourne</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Prime Minister. Under Labor's housing and rental crisis, average rents have gone up nearly $100 a week and mortgages $200, while Labor spends billions of dollars a year pushing house prices out of reach of first-home buyers with tax handouts that overwhelmingly benefit the wealthy. You said Labor has changed on tax cuts because of economic pressures. Will you now also act on unfair negative gearing and capital gains tax handouts to help fix Labor's housing crisis, or do people have to win a lottery to get a home under Labor's plan?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:20</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ALBANESE</name>
    <name.id>R36</name.id>
    <electorate>Grayndler</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the member for Melbourne for his question, which goes to Labor's position on housing. We have consistently said, including to the Greens political party, that the key to the solution for housing in this country is housing supply. That is why our measures have been comprehensive and across the board. When it comes to tax changes, we made tax changes in the budget for our build-to-rent scheme that will result in between 150,000 and 250,000 additional private sector dwellings being built. In addition to that, of course, we have our considerable support for social housing, our Social Housing Accelerator we announced and delivered to states and territories last June of $2 billion, which has already resulted in $500 million of investment in the honourable member's home state of Victoria, including substantial refurbishment of public housing that was dilapidated and falling apart and unoccupied in sections of the member's own electorate. We have been prepared to take this strong action, which is so important.</para>
<para>In addition to that, we have our housing agreement with state and territory governments that will see a target of 1.2 million homes being built over the next decade, including with an incentive scheme like the old national competition payment scheme to encourage higher and medium density housing where appropriate in our urban communities. And I look forward to the Greens political party councillors at my local council, as I do, supporting higher density in areas such as along Parramatta Road in Sydney. Because that is how you fix it—higher densities around transport corridors, around areas like Parramatta Road in Sydney, that has been dilapidated, that has been subject to increased crime because there simply isn't people around those communities at night. I'd be shocked if Greens councillors actually vote for medium density or affordable housing, but I look forward to it.</para>
<para>They're the sorts of measures that we want in place to make a big difference. I also look forward to the Greens senators and members voting for our Help to Buy scheme, which will include—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The member for Deakin is warned.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ALBANESE</name>
    <name.id>R36</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>to provide an incentive for people to be able to get into private homeownership, which the member says is his objective.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>As a result of continual interjections, on a warning, the member for Fisher will leave the chamber.</para>
<para class="italic"> <inline font-style="italic">The member for Fisher then left the chamber.</inline></para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Cost Of Living</title>
          <page.no>64</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:24</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mrs PHILLIPS</name>
    <name.id>147140</name.id>
    <electorate>Gilmore</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Treasurer. How will the Albanese Labor government's tax cuts provide cost of living relief for middle Australia, and what are the alternatives?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:24</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr CHALMERS</name>
    <name.id>37998</name.id>
    <electorate>Rankin</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thanks to the terrific member for Gilmore for her question. 64,000 taxpayers in Gilmore will get a tax cut. Eighty-seven per cent of them will get a bigger tax cut than before.</para>
<para>The last couple of weeks made two things really clear. From this Prime Minister, middle Australia gets a bigger tax cut; from that opposition leader, all they get is the usual slapstick negativity. Our tax cuts are all about providing more relief for more people to help with the cost of living. Every taxpayer gets a tax cut, and 84 per cent of them get a bigger tax cut. Ninety per cent of tax-paying women, 90 per cent of taxpayers under 35 and 90 per cent of taxpayers in the regions will all get a bigger tax cut.</para>
<para>Those opposite spent the best part of a couple of weeks lurching and searching for an excuse to dud those workers. They called for an election. They equated bigger tax cuts with Marxism. They said they'd fight us every step of the way. The Leader of the Opposition wanted to boycott Woolies and then he wanted to boycott middle Australia as well. But after all their posturing and all their politicking and puffing themselves up, up goes the little white flag. If they really believe the changes we're making are wrong, they'd vote against them and they'd roll them back—as the deputy leader said they would. Instead, to justify this humiliating capitulation, they say they're going to resurrect the old stage 3 tax cuts. The best they can come up with, in 2024, is to try and breathe life into the member for Cook's tax policy from five years ago.</para>
<para>There is a theme here. Last week, the shadow Treasurer accused me of having no plan to take this country back to what it was like during the Morrison government. I want to make it clear to the House that I took this as a compliment! When the rest of Australia watches the <inline font-style="italic">Nemesis</inline> documentary on the ABC, they see a cautionary tale. But when the member for Hume settles down in his pjs with a little hot chocky in an old 'back in black' mug to watch that documentary, he sees some kind of golden era.</para>
<para>Opposition members interjecting—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! Members on my right will cease interjecting immediately. I will hear from the Manager of Opposition Business.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr</name>
    <name.id>L6B</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>On relevance, Speaker. The Treasurer is a serial offender and he's at it again. He ought to desist in the grubby personal attacks and stick to the question.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The Treasurer will cease interjecting. I'll hear from the Leader of the House on the point of order.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Burke</name>
    <name.id>DYW</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>On the point of order, Speaker. In terms of language that's allowed to be used in answers to questions, the precedents are clear. I did a search of the previous government, and the word 'thug' was used 15 times in question time by one particular minister—who is now Leader of the Opposition. These comments are clearly in order.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Resume your seat!</para>
<para>Honourable members interjecting—</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>No, I'll deal with this matter. The Treasurer will resume his seat.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The Minister for Home Affairs has been continually interjecting during question time. She is warned. If she interjects one more time, she will not be here in the chamber.</para>
<para>The Treasurer was asked about alternatives, not alternative personalities or people. So I'm going to ask him to return to the question, and he can refer to alternative policies and not alternative personalities. He has the call.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Dr CHALMERS</name>
    <name.id>37998</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The alternative on their watch was higher inflation in a quarterly sense. Wages were lower, and the waste and rorts were feeding huge deficits in the budget. The tax cuts were skewed to people already on the highest incomes. The point I'm making is that they haven't learned and they haven't changed. If anything, they're more divided and more divisive than they've ever been.</para>
<para>That's why I say to the people of Australia watching that documentary on the ABC: if you thought the Abbott, Turnbull and Morrison governments in the <inline font-style="italic">Nemesis</inline> doco were bad, we now know from this tax debacle on that side of the House that the dregs of those governments are even worse.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Albanese Government</title>
          <page.no>65</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:29</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr TAYLOR</name>
    <name.id>231027</name.id>
    <electorate>Hume</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Prime Minister. On 11 December last year, Treasury was instructed to undertake work that included changes to the stage 3 tax cuts. After that date, the Prime Minister and the Treasurer then repeated 12 times that they hadn't changed their position on the stage 3 tax cuts. Indeed, the Prime Minister said, 'We're not reconsidering that position.' Prime Minister, after repeatedly misleading Australians, how can anyone trust you or your government?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:29</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ALBANESE</name>
    <name.id>R36</name.id>
    <electorate>Grayndler</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The shadow Treasurer, I assume, knows that he's completely wrong in his assessment of what the Treasury official said occurred on 11 December. She made it very clear that she is a good public servant and that Treasury initiated that work. We have made no apologies, though—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The member for Gippsland is warned.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ALBANESE</name>
    <name.id>R36</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>for the fact that I, on <inline font-style="italic">7.30</inline> on 21 December, on 3 January and on other occasions, said we were working on ways in which we could provide further support for low- and middle-income Australians. That's what we do. That's what we do, and we have been doing that through a range of measures since we came to office because of (1) the pressure people are under and (2) the mess we inherited.</para>
<para>We had a range of measures that we have rolled out—cheaper child care, cheaper medicines, our energy price relief plan, our fee-free TAFE plan. All of these measures are in place. What we did—and this would be unrecognisable to those opposite—is run a proper cabinet government. We received Treasury advice on the weekend prior to the ERC meeting held on the Monday of two weeks ago. We then had cabinet on Tuesday, and that is where we changed our position as a proper cabinet government.</para>
<para>I'm just the Prime Minister; I'm not also the Treasurer or the health minister or the industry minister or the energy minister. We don't have a cabinet committee of one. What we have is proper processes: an ERC, a cabinet, a ministry, and a proper caucus process as well. Our united, proper process that we go through stands in stark contrast to what we've seen in <inline font-style="italic">Nemesis</inline>—in stark contrast with a mob who hate each other, who have completely dysfunctional relationships. They're all still there! They're all appearing one by one, and I look forward to next Monday night.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order. The Prime Minister will pause. The Manager of Opposition Business, on a point of order.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Fletcher</name>
    <name.id>L6B</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Again on relevance, Mr Speaker. The policy parameters of this question are very tight, and he needs to stick to the substance of the question.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>In his last nine seconds, I'll ask the Prime Minister to be relevant to the question.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ALBANESE</name>
    <name.id>R36</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The member for Bradfield, of course, is under preselection siege, as is the member for Lindsay. If you want to see your enemies, don't look over here; look behind you.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Taxation</title>
          <page.no>66</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:33</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr REPACHOLI</name>
    <name.id>298840</name.id>
    <electorate>Hunter</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government. How are the Albanese Labor government's tax cuts helping with the cost of living for regional Australians?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:33</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms CATHERINE KING</name>
    <name.id>00AMR</name.id>
    <electorate>Ballarat</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank very much the member for Hunter for his question. As a regional Australian, he knows just how important these tax cuts are for those of us who live in the regions. In fact, as the Treasurer just mentioned, 90 per cent of regional taxpayers will be getting a bigger tax cut under the Albanese Labor government's tax plan. That is a very good thing.</para>
<para>On 1 July we will be delivering a tax cut for every Australian taxpayer to help with the cost of living, and this will significantly benefit those who live in the regions. In fact, in the Hunter, 73,000 taxpayers will receive an average tax cut of over $1,500.</para>
<para>My colleagues and I who live in the regions—we love them—and in remote Australia have been listening to what our communities have been telling us about the cost of living, and we recognise that people are doing it tough. But we're responding to that pressure by delivering a bigger tax cut for middle Australia to help Australians with that cost-of-living pressure, here and now.</para>
<para>Our approach will overwhelmingly support those in the regions. Under this government, with our tax plan, regional Australians will keep more of what they earn. Eighty-six per cent of taxpayers in western New South Wales and the Hunter will get a bigger tax cut under Labor's plan starting on 1 July. Eighty-seven per cent of taxpayers in Far North Queensland and regional Victoria will get a bigger tax cut under Labor's plan. The person on an average income of $73,000 will get a tax cut of $1,504—$804 more than they would have been going to receive under the Liberal Party's and the National Party's plan.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The member for Petrie is warned.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms CATHERINE KING</name>
    <name.id>00AMR</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The person earning $40,000 will get a tax cut of $654—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! The minister will pause. The member for Petrie I think can leave the chamber, as he knows, when you're on a warning, that is definitely not the time to start interjecting.</para>
<para class="italic"> <inline font-style="italic">The member for Petrie then left the chamber.</inline></para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The minister has the call and will be heard in silence.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms CATHERINE KING</name>
    <name.id>00AMR</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>As I was saying, those earning $40,000 will get a tax cut of $654—frankly, compared to absolutely nothing under the Liberals and Nationals. These vitally important nurses, teachers, retail assistants—including those important workers who work in Woolworths, that the Leader of the Opposition so righteously wanted to somehow say should be boycotted and, therefore, lose their jobs—and our labourers, our truckies and our agriculture workers in regional Australia are some of the most likely to benefit from that.</para>
<para>We recognise the contribution of our workers to our nation and to their communities, providing our food, getting our goods to market, and goods to our doors, supporting a good-quality life in our regions, and increasing the availability of affordable housing. We know that, in Gippsland, 61,000 taxpayers will get a tax cut, including 86 per cent who'll be getting a bigger tax cut. In New England, 62,000 taxpayers are getting a tax cut, including 82 per cent getting a higher tax cut. In Leichhardt, 79,000 taxpayers are getting a tax cut, and 87 per cent getting a bigger tax cut. These tax cuts are good for regional Australians, and it's only a Labor government that's delivering them. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Prime Minister</title>
          <page.no>67</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:37</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr WOLAHAN</name>
    <name.id>235654</name.id>
    <electorate>Menzies</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Prime Minister: On Monday evening on ABC's <inline font-style="italic">7.30</inline>, the Treasurer confirmed the timing of the government's decision to break its promise on stage 3 was purely political, and, 'We didn't want to wait, frankly, until after the Dunkley by-election.' The Prime Minister claimed his word is his bond. Isn't it now clear Australians can't trust a word he says?</para>
<para>Opposition members interjecting—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order, members on my left.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The Treasurer will cease interjecting.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>And the member for Wannon will cease interjecting.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The member for Hume: cease interjecting. The Prime Minister has the call. He'll be heard in silence.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:38</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ALBANESE</name>
    <name.id>R36</name.id>
    <electorate>Grayndler</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I can confirm to the member for Menzies that I was watching the ABC on Monday night. And they all were too! They were all watching it! They were all watching it, one by one, because most of them were on it! Most of them were on it, in a competition of who could show the most hatred for their colleagues. It was just extraordinary: one after the other, all out there, using all sorts of colourful language about each other.</para>
<para>I'm asked about tax policy and what people think about tax policy as well. Well, those opposite have described it—our policy to give tax cuts to every Australian—in the following terms: 'an egregious error', 'a betrayal', 'treachery', 'trickery', 'absolutely shameful', 'class warfare', 'war on aspiration', 'lifetime tax on aspiration', 'divisive', 'regressive', 'morally bankrupt', 'handful of dollars', 'inflationary', 'a big tax grab' and 'Marxist economics'. It was going to 'obliterate opportunity', 'crush confidence' and 'undermine the strength of the economy'. They said all that before they declared they were going to vote for it. You can't be taken seriously unless you—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The member for Casey is warned.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ALBANESE</name>
    <name.id>R36</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>say that the decision that this government has made is wrong and, therefore, the original position should have remained in place. If you do that, you will vote against this legislation and you will commit, as the Deputy Leader of the Opposition did, to roll it back. Unless you do that, you're not fair dinkum; it's all about politics, it's all just wind.</para>
<para>We on this side of the House recognised that when economic circumstances changed we were in a position—as Senator Hume called upon us to do—to help people through. That is precisely what we have done in a way that will also—as the Reserve Bank Governor confirmed yesterday—be consistent with the need to continue to put that pressure on inflation in order to continue to see it go down, as we have been doing. We have undertaken this measure because it was the right decision done for the right reasons at the right time.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Taxation</title>
          <page.no>68</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:41</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr</name>
    <name.id>299174</name.id>
    <electorate>Bennelong</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>LAXALE () (): My question is to the Minister for Early Childhood Education. How will the Albanese Labor government's tax cuts help workers in female-dominated industries like the highly skilled early childhood education sector?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:41</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr ALY</name>
    <name.id>13050</name.id>
    <electorate>Cowan</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the member for Bennelong, who continues to make such a valued contribution in this place that I'm sure the people of Bennelong appreciate. The 92,000 taxpayers in Bennelong also appreciate the Albanese government's tax cuts which will see them get an average of $1,782 in tax cuts with the Labor government's plan.</para>
<para>Hardworking Australians are under pressure right now, and that's why we're delivering tax cuts for every Australian to help with the cost of living and alleviate some of that pressure. Labor's tax cuts come on top of billions of dollars in cost-of-living relief, including our cheaper childcare reforms, which the recent ACCC review confirms decreased out-of-pocket expenses by 11 per cent on average. Tax cuts are good for middle Australia, they're good for women, and they're good for the economy. They are what the Treasurer calls a better way—a better way that sees working women in Australia get, on average, a tax cut of $1,649 a year; a better way that sees hardworking early childhood educators on $46,000 a year getting a tax cut of $829.</para>
<para>Under the previous plan, how much do you think an early childhood educator got in a tax cut? Zero—not a dollar, not a cent. Under Labor's plan, an early childhood teacher who earns $69,000 a year—</para>
<para>Honourable members interjecting—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! The Leader of the Opposition and the Prime Minister will cease interjecting.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Dr ALY</name>
    <name.id>13050</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>a will receive an additional $1,404 as a tax cut. How much do you think an early childhood teacher got under the previous plan? Nothing—not a dollar, not a cent. That has gone from zero to over $1,000 of tax cuts for early childhood educators and early childhood teachers under Labor's plan.</para>
<para>Last week, I had the opportunity to meet some of those hardworking early childhood educators: Caro, who had been in the industry for 45 years, and Tennille, who was only just starting out in her career. Those two early childhood educators—one who had spent decades devoting her life to early childhood education, and one who had chosen to start her career as an early childhood educator—told me what these tax cuts mean for them. They mean food on the table, petrol in their car and paying their car insurance. I don't want to take that away from them, and I challenge those opposite <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Family Trusts</title>
          <page.no>68</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:44</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BOYCE</name>
    <name.id>299498</name.id>
    <electorate>Flynn</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Prime Minister. Farming families and small businesses rely on family trusts to manage their assets. Will the Prime Minister rule out any changes to family trusts or will this just be another broken promise to regional Australians?</para>
<para>Honourable members interjecting—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! Members on my right and left will cease interjecting. The Prime Minister hasn't even begun his answer.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:45</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ALBANESE</name>
    <name.id>R36</name.id>
    <electorate>Grayndler</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the member for his question but perhaps he should have saved it for the joint party room, because the Nats don't get that position, for reasons I don't quite understand.</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ALBANESE</name>
    <name.id>R36</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>He is very loyal to the National Party is the Leader of the National Party; that's true. But she said today on the <inline font-style="italic">Today </inline><inline font-style="italic">Show</inline>: 'I'm not going to play the yes, this is good, no, this is bad, the rule in, rule out. I am not going to do that.'</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The member for Herbert will leave the chamber under 94(a).</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ALBANESE</name>
    <name.id>R36</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>We have made it very clear what our tax policy is. I did it at the building down the road there. It is called the National Press Club. I did it, clearly. I put forward a clear policy plan that those opposite, including the member who asked the question, I assume, are voting for. I am not sure, but I assume he is voting for our legislation that was moved by the Treasurer yesterday. That is our tax policy. That is what we have put forward. That is what we are legislating here, and that is what those opposite, who spent so much time saying they were going to fight it, they were going to roll it back, are now saying they will vote for.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! The member for Hume is now warned. That means no more interjections; otherwise, it will be a repeat of yesterday. Yes, you got it, hopefully.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Aged Care</title>
          <page.no>69</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:47</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms BYRNES</name>
    <name.id>299145</name.id>
    <electorate>Cunningham</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister for Aged Care. What is the Albanese Labor government doing to ensure that our dedicated and hardworking aged-care workers can earn more and keep more of what they earn?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:47</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms WELLS</name>
    <name.id>264121</name.id>
    <electorate>Lilley</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the member for Cunningham for her question and for her relentless advocacy to lift the standard of aged care in her community. The Albanese government knows that strong sustainable wage growth is a solution to cost-of-living challenges, not part of the problem. That is why, unlike the opposition, we backed aged-care workers in their submission to the Fair Work Commission for a pay rise and, unlike the opposition, we then delivered on that promise. We delivered a 15 per cent increase to the award wage minimums for 250,000 aged-care workers across Australia, an $11.3 billion commitment.</para>
<para>Under the Albanese government, registered nurses are now taking home an additional $196 a week or more than $10,000 a year. Personal care workers are now taking home an additional $141 a week or $7,300 a year, and that pay rise is changing lives. Sarah, a personal nursing assistant working in the member for Pearce's electorate, told us that her pay rise means she has been able to save more money for her future. And this investment in aged-care workers is paying off because we are now seeing the quality of aged care in Australia improving.</para>
<para>Under the Albanese government, older people are now receiving an additional 2.16 million minutes of care per day. There has been a reduction in the number of pressure injuries, there has been a reduction in the number of physical restraints, there has been a reduction in significant unplanned weight loss, there has been a reduction in falls, there has been a reduction in polypharmacy and there has been a reduction in the use of antipsychotics in aged care. We are also seeing improvements in the star ratings data, with fewer one and two-star rated aged-care facilities and more four and five-star rated agencies.</para>
<para>We are recognising the sharp economic realities of 2024—that is, that household budgets are tight—and that is why, from 1 July, the Albanese government will deliver a tax cut for every single Australian taxpayer so that every taxpayer, including our aged-care workers, can earn more and keep more of what they earn. Ninety-seven per cent of aged-care workers will get a bigger tax cut under this scheme. Aged-care workers are overwhelmingly women, and they are overwhelmingly better off under this regime. Not only can a registered nurse working in aged care now take home an additional $10,000 a year under the Albanese government; they will now also get a tax cut of $1,679 from 1 July thanks to Labor's tax cuts. That's almost double what they would have gotten from the coalition. Australian taxpayers don't want the coalition's cost-of-living confusion. They want more reform of aged care. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Integrity in Politics</title>
          <page.no>69</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:50</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr RYAN</name>
    <name.id>297660</name.id>
    <electorate>Kooyong</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is the Attorney-General. In 2015, you said to the then Attorney-General that Australians have a right to know what the government is doing, 'what senior government ministers are doing with their time, who they're meeting with' and 'who they're being lobbied by'. I agree. Is the government open to supporting my CleanUpPoliticsAct, which would require the mandatory publication of ministerial diaries?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:51</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr DREYFUS</name>
    <name.id>HWG</name.id>
    <electorate>Isaacs</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the member for Kooyong for her question. I do recognise the member's advocacy for more transparency in government, and, after nine years of Liberal government, more transparency has been desperately needed. The Albanese government is committed to upholding a high standard of integrity, transparency and accountability—a standard that the former government never aspired to let alone achieved.</para>
<para>Within months of coming to office, we've established the National Anti-Corruption Commission—the single biggest reform to the Commonwealth integrity framework in decades. The Prime Minister and this government have exposed the shame of the former prime minister's secret ministries. That's the secrecy, of course, that the former government sunk to. It's an episode that damaged good government, damaged the parliament and damaged our democracy.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The Attorney-General will pause so I can hear from the member for Kooyong on a point of order.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Dr Ryan</name>
    <name.id>297660</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I have a point of order on relevance.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The Attorney-General was not asked about the former government. There were not alternative approaches. He was asked quite a specific question. He's had a preamble, and I'm going to invite him to return to the member's question to make sure he is directly relevant.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr DREYFUS</name>
    <name.id>HWG</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The Commonwealth's Lobbying Code of Conduct, which is a transparency measure, of course, was established by the last Labor government. For the first time, lobbyists were required to register their activity and comply with strict rules on transparency. Labor created the lobbying code, and it's worth saying by way of contrast that the former Liberal government tried to privatise the visa system by handing it to its lobbyist mates. The current freedom of information regime is a legacy of the last Labor government. Labor abolished conclusive certificates. Labor created a commissioner model with three commissioners—an Information Commissioner, a Privacy Commissioner and a Freedom of Information Commissioner—for a no-cost review of FOI decisions. The former Liberal government, regrettably, smashed that model, trying to repeal the legislation and then defunding the office.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The manager will pause. Attorney-General, I was pretty clear in my earlier remarks. You weren't asked about the former government. There was no compare and contrast. Can I ask you to stick to the question. Otherwise, you will resume your seat.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr DREYFUS</name>
    <name.id>HWG</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I recognise the call by the member for Kooyong for automatic access to ministerial diaries. Such access to diaries would be alien to the Commonwealth's freedom of information system, which does not provide for the automatic publication of any category of document. Access to official documents of government is available under the Freedom of Information Act by request. Each request is subject to assessment, which is governed by statutory requirements. It's governed by a series of exemptions, each of which need to be considered. Decisions are subject to review by the Information Commissioner and, if necessary, by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. That's just how our system works. I thank the member for her question.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Vocational Education and Training</title>
          <page.no>70</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:54</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ZAPPIA</name>
    <name.id>HWB</name.id>
    <electorate>Makin</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister for Skills and Training. How is the Albanese Labor government making it easier for Australians to undertake education and training and keep more of what they earn?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:54</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr O'CONNOR</name>
    <name.id>00AN3</name.id>
    <electorate>Gorton</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the member for Makin for his question and his strong advocacy for the VET sector in his electorate and across the country. In response to the worst skills shortage in 50 years, this government responded quickly by initiating programs like fee-free TAFE and, indeed, it struck the first national skills agreement with state and territory governments in a decade. This will deliver the reforms that are required to supply skills to a much-needed, rapidly changing modern economy.</para>
<para>Last year we smashed our 180,000 fee-free TAFE target by ensuring that 300,000 Australians were enrolled in courses, ensuring that they are acquiring the skills in demand for our economy, for businesses and for workers. The National Skills Agreement will see the creation of centres of excellence, bringing together TAFEs and universities to ensure that they collaborate so they can supply the skills that are very much needed. As a result of the great success and uptake of fee-free TAFE, we're making available a further 300,000 places, starting this year. Like any good policy, it achieves more than one goal. Not only does it encourage students to enrol in courses in areas of demand but it provides real cost-of-living relief for students doing it tough. In some cases this will amount to more than $10,000 a year for courses.</para>
<para>But the government's plans do not stop there for these students, because we are providing a tax cut for Australians. That means hundreds of thousands of these students—those who are working part-time—will receive a tax cut as a result of this government's tax plan, and for that reason we should be ensuring that this passes.</para>
<para>It's quite true that if those opposite were in government now none of these students would be receiving any of the relief under the tax plan of this government, because we know they would not be changing their position. We know that, in their heart of hearts, they do not support this proposal. In their heart of hearts, they are totally opposed to this proposal. They would like to see these students miss out on tax cuts that we're providing as a result of this policy.</para>
<para>We need to ensure, in as many ways as we can, that we provide relief for many people across this country. That's why all taxpayers will be getting relief. In particular, these students are aspiring to better themselves and to acquire skills in these areas so that they can have decent, well-paid jobs. They, like other Australians, have aspirations, and we're going to ensure that we encourage them through fee-free TAFE and a tax cut.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Taxation</title>
          <page.no>70</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:57</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr TAYLOR</name>
    <name.id>231027</name.id>
    <electorate>Hume</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Treasurer. When did the Treasurer or his office instruct Treasury to undertake work on the legislated stage 3 tax cuts?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:58</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr CHALMERS</name>
    <name.id>37998</name.id>
    <electorate>Rankin</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Once again, the shadow Treasurer is a day late and a dollar short when it comes to these questions. It is a matter of public record now, because of the conversation at the committee chaired by Senator Hume, that, in response to the Prime Minister and I making it very clear that we wanted more cost-of-living relief options, we knew that, in addition to the cost-of-living relief that was already flowing, we wanted to do something bigger and broader without putting extra pressure on inflation. We made that clear over the course of summer. The Prime Minister, I think on multiple occasions—he ran through them a moment ago—said that publicly. We indicated that privately as well. And as the Treasury has made clear, on 11 December they conveyed to colleagues in the Treasury that they thought that using the tax system would be an appropriate way to provide more cost-of-living relief to more people without putting extra pressure on inflation.</para>
<para>I think people know that over the course of summer we have been looking for more ways to provide more help to more people, and it became increasingly clear to us in the lead-up to the cabinet decision on 23 January that the tax system had an important role to play there. So my advice to the opposition is to stop searching around and lurching around for excuses to oppose bigger tax cuts for more people to deal with the cost of living. What we've been motivated by here is the pressure that people are under and we're actually doing something about it.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Community Services</title>
          <page.no>71</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:59</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr FREELANDER</name>
    <name.id>265979</name.id>
    <electorate>Macarthur</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister for Social Services. How will the Albanese Labor government's proposed tax cuts benefit workers in the community services sector?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:00</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms RISHWORTH</name>
    <name.id>HWA</name.id>
    <electorate>Kingston</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'd like to thank the member for Macarthur for his question. The Albanese government's No. 1 priority is supporting Australians faced with cost-of-living pressures. On 1 July, Labor will deliver a tax cut for every Australian taxpayer to help with the cost of living. These tax cuts will make a real difference for the 13.6 million Australians that will get a tax cut. Our tax cuts will deliver bigger benefits for more Australians. As the Treasurer says, they're good for middle Australia, good for helping with cost-of-living pressures, good for labour supply and good for the economy.</para>
<para>The member for Macarthur might be interested to know that there are 90,000 taxpayers in his electorate that will get a tax cut under Labor's plan. In my portfolio of social services, the government could not deliver the programs we do without the dedication of social and community service workers. They touch many lives every day, including of those doing it tough. I met some of these workers with the member for Macarthur last year when we visited BaptistCare in Campbelltown and saw the difference that these workers make in the lives of people they support. I am pleased that, under our government's plan, our tax cuts mean these workers, along with every Australian taxpayer, will be able to take home more of what they earn.</para>
<para>Our tax cuts mean that a part-time disability support worker earning $40,000 will receive a tax cut of $654, keeping more money in their pocket. This worker would have got nothing under the previous government's plan. A full-time social and community services worker earning $75,000 in the member for Macarthur's electorate will receive a tax cut of $1,554 under Labor's tax cut plan. This is double the tax cut that they would have got under the previous government.</para>
<para>Our tax cuts for community services workers build on the substantial support the Albanese government is providing to community sector organisations to help them deliver wage increases for their workers. Our tax cuts complement other cost-of-living relief that we've delivered through increased rent assistance, electricity bill relief, cheaper child care, cheaper medicines and our boost to income support payments.</para>
<para>We know the opposition never wanted these tax cuts for low and middle Australia, just as they never wanted to boost income support payments and never wanted to provide energy relief. While this Leader of the Opposition, full of negativity, has no positive plans for Australia, our government will get on with the job of helping Australians with cost-of-living relief.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Taxation</title>
          <page.no>71</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:03</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms DANIEL</name>
    <name.id>008CH</name.id>
    <electorate>Goldstein</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Treasurer. Will the government consider implementing tax indexation to reduce the corrosive impact of bracket creep on hardworking Australians?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:03</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr CHALMERS</name>
    <name.id>37998</name.id>
    <electorate>Rankin</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you to the member for Goldstein for her question, and I also say thank you to the member for the way she has engaged with her community about Labor's cost-of-living tax cuts for middle Australia. Right across the crossbench, the way parliamentary colleagues have engaged on this with their own community and with the arguments for our bigger tax cuts for more people to help with the cost of living has been a very good thing. I also want to thank the member for Goldstein for the opportunity to engage with her about it in the last day or so.</para>
<para>When it comes to bracket creep, we do acknowledge the impact that bracket creep has on take-home pay. What the parliament also needs to acknowledge and recognise is that there is more than one way to return bracket creep to hardworking Australians. There is the way that the member for Goldstein asks about. There is the way that was legislated five years ago by the previous government, and there is the way that this government is going about it. We acknowledge that there are a number of ways to go about it. We're not proposing to index the thresholds as the member for Goldstein is suggesting. But we think we have found a very effective way to return bracket creep to more people. What the parliament needs to understand—I'm confident that the crossbench does and I know for a fact that our side of the parliament does but I'm not so sure that those opposite do—is that you can return bracket creep in a number of ways. It doesn't just have to be returned disproportionately to people who are already on the highest incomes. What the Treasury advice makes really clear—the Treasury advice that we released at the same time we announced our position and our policy—is that what we are doing is returning bracket creep where bracket creep does the most damage, and that's through the middle incomes.</para>
<para>One of the motivations for the design of the tax package that we released almost a couple of weeks ago is that, as the average tax rates of people on lower and middle incomes climb faster, and as their incomes rise, bracket creep does the most damage, so our responsibility and our objective is to return more bracket creep to middle Australia. That's why, I think, from memory, average tax rates go, as a consequence of what we're proposing, from 25.4 per cent to 23.9 per cent. Getting those average tax rates down is an indication that we're doing something about bracket creep, even if we're not doing it exactly the way that the member for Goldstein proposes.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Taxation</title>
          <page.no>72</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:06</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms MASCARENHAS</name>
    <name.id>298800</name.id>
    <electorate>Swan</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister for Resources and Northern Australia. How will Labor's tax cuts benefit those living in northern Australia and those in the resource sector?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:06</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms MADELEINE KING</name>
    <name.id>102376</name.id>
    <electorate>Brand</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the member for Swan for her question and for her ongoing support and enthusiasm for the resources sector and resources workers. On the first of July, Labor will deliver a tax cut for every Australian to deal with the cost of living. We're delivering a tax cut for everyone living in northern Australia and for everyone working in the resources sector. There are a select few that have invested and taken risks and created hundreds and thousands of jobs in the sector, and they have received great reward. But the average income of resources workers is $144,000. They will get a tax cut of over $3,700. There is a wide range of salaries in the resources sector. CEOs get paid in the millions, with salary and company stock options, but that is far from the case for most hardworking blue collar workers in the resources sector.</para>
<para>From coal country in the Hunter to the iron ore mines in the Pilbara, there are trades assistants, haul truck drivers, diesel mechanics, heritage advisers, cleaners and cooks and they all earn between $75,000 and $95,000 a year. Each of them will get a tax cut of between $1,500 and $2,000 a year. All of these resources workers, and many more, will receive bigger tax cuts under Labor's cost-of-living tax cut plans.</para>
<para>Those opposite don't really want to talk about the average resources workers, their rights, their conditions or their well deserved tax cuts. They don't really want to talk about the truck drivers, the mechanics, the cooks and the cleaners that make our mines run and keep the economy humming. I mean, they might like to jump in a private charter and go to a party in the Pilbara or maybe even Bali. Good on them. That's really top stuff, I suppose. But what we care about are the workers in the resources industry that will get a tax cut. Every single one of them will get a tax cut, and it will be bigger than they might have expected before.</para>
<para>Then, when I go to northern Australia, every person living in northern Australia will receive a bigger tax cut. They have received an average income of $70,000 across northern Australia, and everyone earning that average will get an average tax cut of $1,400.</para>
<para>Only Labor supports all the communities across northern Australia. We don't pick and choose who we support. This will be extra money in people's pockets—people who are doing it tough in northern Australia, where it is tough. There are more expensive items, a lack of competition and transport issues which all add up to making the cost of living even more challenging for those in northern Australia compared to the big cities. Labor's cost-of-living tax cuts will help everyone in northern Australia and every single worker in the resources sector.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Taxation</title>
          <page.no>72</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:09</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr VIOLI</name>
    <name.id>300147</name.id>
    <electorate>Casey</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister and other ministers have committed to supporting the stage three tax cuts in full on over a hundred occasions. For example, on 29 August 2022, the Prime Minister said: 'Parliament made a decision to legislate these tax cuts and we made a decision that we would stand by the legislation.' How can Australian families ever trust this government on taxes again after he repeatedly lied to them?</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The member for Casey will withdraw the last part of the question, as that is unparliamentary.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr VIOLI</name>
    <name.id>300147</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Withdraw or rephrase? The last bit or the whole—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The last part of the question. You just withdraw.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr VIOLI</name>
    <name.id>300147</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I withdraw.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you, Member for Casey.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The member for Bruce will cease interjecting. The Prime Minister has the call.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:10</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ALBANESE</name>
    <name.id>R36</name.id>
    <electorate>Grayndler</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the member for Casey for his question. He should be pretty enthusiastic about the government making the decision to look after low- and middle-income earners, because in his electorate 87 per cent of his electorate will get a bigger tax cut—87 per cent! And every single one, 100 per cent, will get a tax cut—100 per cent!</para>
<para>He asked a question about the government changing its position, and, yes, we have, because economic circumstances have changed. But you've changed your position. You now say you are going to vote against the Morrison tax cuts. That's what you're going to do, or maybe you're going to go back to saying that you'll roll it back. You couldn't make this up, Mr Speaker. They need to make up their minds.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms Ley</name>
    <name.id>00AMN</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>A hundred times!</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ALBANESE</name>
    <name.id>R36</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>You can either come in here and say you are—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! The Deputy Leader of the Opposition!</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms Ley</name>
    <name.id>00AMN</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>We've got a better plan.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! There is far too much noise on my left. The member for Casey was heard in silence. The same courtesy is going to be shown to the Prime Minister or people will leave. The Prime Minister has the call.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ALBANESE</name>
    <name.id>R36</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Thanks, Mr Speaker. There are two options here. One is—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Ted O'Brien</name>
    <name.id>138932</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The truth?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! The—</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Ted O'Brien</name>
    <name.id>138932</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Don't you like that option?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The member for Fairfax will leave the chamber under 94(a).</para>
<para class="italic"> <inline font-style="italic">The member for Fairfax then left the chamber.</inline></para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ALBANESE</name>
    <name.id>R36</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>One is that those opposite can say that the Morrison tax cuts should be kept: they come in here, they vote against it—our changes—and they promise to roll it back. The second is that they agree with us that our package is better. If our package isn't better, why are they saying they're going to vote for it?</para>
<para>Mr Speaker, the member for Casey wasn't a part of the last circus that we've seen out there on <inline font-style="italic">Nemesis</inline> for the last couple weeks. Some people asked me last night why, of all the Jack Nicholson movies, I picked <inline font-style="italic">The Shining</inline>. Well, it couldn't be <inline font-style="italic">A Few Good Men</inline>—</para>
<para>Honourable members interjecting—</para>
</continue>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ALBANESE</name>
    <name.id>R36</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>and it certainly couldn't be <inline font-style="italic">Terms </inline><inline font-style="italic">of </inline><inline font-style="italic">Endearment</inline>!</para>
<para>Honourable members interjecting—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! The Prime Minister will pause while the House comes to order.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Burns</name>
    <name.id>278522</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>No career in comedy after this, Albo!</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The member for Macnamara will cease interjecting.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Member for Barker, I'm trying to hear from the member for Wannon. If you could assist me, it would be appreciated.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Tehan</name>
    <name.id>210911</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>My point of order goes to relevance. You can't handle the truth, and that's what the question was about.</para>
<para>Honourable members interjecting—</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Resume your seat. Resume your seat and keep walking out of the chamber.</para>
<para>Opposition members interjecting—</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! This is question time, not the Academy Awards. The Prime Minister has the call, and he's going to be heard in silence.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ALBANESE</name>
    <name.id>R36</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Our changes are so bad that they're going to vote for them! Nemesis is like a reboot of Fight Club, except on Fight Club no-one could talk about it. But they can't talk about anything else but fighting themselves. They can't talk about anything else. The fact is they have no credibility. If they want credibility and to defend their position, they need to do what the Deputy Leader of the Opposition did and roll back these changes.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Medicare</title>
          <page.no>74</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:15</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms DOYLE</name>
    <name.id>299962</name.id>
    <electorate>Aston</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister for Health and Aged Care. Forty years on, why is it important to strengthen Medicare, and what is the Albanese Labor government doing to ensure that Medicare remains strong?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:15</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BUTLER</name>
    <name.id>HWK</name.id>
    <electorate>Hindmarsh</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the terrific member for Aston for that question. We're joined in the chamber today by a delegation of nurses here celebrating primary health care nurses day. They are nurses working in general practice, working in other primary care settings, and I welcome them to the chamber.</para>
<para>There are about 75,000 primary care nurses in Australia, and under Labor every single one of them will receive a tax cut on 1 July. The member for Aston also reminds us that this month we celebrate the 40th birthday of the most important social program in Australia, Medicare. Before that day, 40 years ago, one in seven Australians didn't have health coverage, and unpaid medical bills was the leading cause of personal bankruptcies in this country. But all of that changed overnight. Thanks to that landmark Labor reform we now live in a country that has a healthcare system that is number one in the world when it comes to health outcomes and when it comes to equity.</para>
<para>But as I have said on many occasions, it is a system under pressure. I said yesterday bulk-billing rates, particularly for visits to the GP, were in free fall when we came to government. That's why the Treasurer tripled the bulk-billing incentive in last year's budget. That's not only stopped the slide in bulk billing rates; in the first two months we saw 360,000 additional free visits to the doctor, which I have talked about a bit last week.</para>
<para>I wasn't the only one out last week talking about bulk billing. Surprisingly, the Leader of the Opposition also broke cover and, apparently with a straight face, said on Tasmanian radio this: 'When I was health minister bulk billing was at 84 per cent. They're well and truly below that now.' Good on him for acknowledging the inheritance that his predecessor as health minister, the member for Sydney, left him, but perhaps he could have explained a little more clearly for those listeners in Tasmania what he did with those bulk billing rates. Perhaps he could have reminded them—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The Manager of Opposition Business, on a point of order?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Fletcher</name>
    <name.id>L6B</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>On relevance. It was a commendably tightly drafted question, with no reference to alternative policies, so there is absolutely no licence or basis for this minister, who is another serial offender, to be on the territory that he is presently on.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The question contained 'What is the government doing to ensure it remains a strong?' I'm going to make sure that the minister in his answer remains relevant to that part of the question. It does not invite an open compare and contrast but he's entitled to describe why it needs to be strong.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BUTLER</name>
    <name.id>HWK</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I was asked why it's important to strengthen Medicare. The Leader of the Opposition himself pointed out that bulk billing rates have declined since he was health minister. Perhaps he could have reminded listeners that he said as minister at there were too many free Medicare services. Perhaps he could have reminded them he tried to abolish bulk billing and introduce a fee for every single Australian every time they visited the doctor, and then introduced a Medicare rebate freeze that lasted for six years and ripped billions of dollars out of all health care.</para>
<para>He might have not told the listeners of Tasmania all that, but I tell you this: Australia's doctors and nurses will never forget what this man did when he was health minister. Australia's patients won't forget it either. They know exactly what he'll do if he ever gets his hands on Medicare again.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Taxation</title>
          <page.no>74</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:19</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms WARE</name>
    <name.id>300123</name.id>
    <electorate>Hughes</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Prime Minister. Why did the Prime Minister say on 21 December, when asked about changes to the stage 3 tax cuts 'We're not reconsidering that position', when the Treasury had already been instructed to undertake work that included changes to the stage 3 tax cuts? The Prime Minister claimed his word is his bond. Isn't it now clear Australians can't trust a word he says?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:19</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ALBANESE</name>
    <name.id>R36</name.id>
    <electorate>Grayndler</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I assume that the member who asked the question is voting against our plan, because unless she is going to vote against the plan we have put forward, then what we have just seen is all about whinge, all about hypocrisy. We changed our position through a proper cabinet process. I know that those opposite don't recognise what a proper cabinet process might look like, because the longer they were in office, they more and more dysfunctional they became. They allowed themselves to have a cabinet committee with one member on it. They sat back and allowed it; the former Deputy Prime Minister has said that he was aware of the former Prime Minister holding multiple portfolios.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr McCormack</name>
    <name.id>219646</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Which one? There are three former deputy prime ministers in the room.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! The member for Riverina will cease interjecting. The member for Hughes, on a point of order.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms Ware</name>
    <name.id>300123</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>A point of order, Mr Speaker. The question was quite clear. It went to the Prime Minister saying, 'We're not reconsidering our position on the stage 3 tax cuts,' and asking why it is not clear that Australians cannot trust a word he says.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>That last part of the question is pretty broad in terms of the actual hook of the question. If you ask that part at the end of the question, the Prime Minister's probably going to go to defend himself or why that is. But I'll listen carefully to make sure he's being relevant.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ALBANESE</name>
    <name.id>R36</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The whole premise of the question, the initial quote from the question, was completely inaccurate. If the member for Hughes wants to quote Treasury officials, she should actually quote them, not just read things that are given to her by those at the front.</para>
<para>What we're seeing here is once again consistent with the denigration of public officials. What we have done is lift up the Public Service. I have said, as I spoke about on <inline font-style="italic">7</inline><inline font-style="italic">.30</inline>, and as I spoke about in other interviews on multiple occasions, that I want a Public Service that comes up with ideas. I want a Public Service that uses the fullness of its capacity, that's valued and respected and that makes a contribution to public life in this country. That is what the Treasury official indicated in the evidence that she gave on Monday. We value the Public Service; those opposite denigrate it.</para>
<para>What we have done is have a change of position. We put it through our cabinet. I announced it at the National Press Club. Those opposite are yet to explain why it is, if that change of position is so bad, that they have changed their position in order to vote for it. If they're fair dinkum, they will have to not just vote against this plan but roll it back as well, because we know that that is really what they want to do.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Telecommunications</title>
          <page.no>75</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:23</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms COKER</name>
    <name.id>263547</name.id>
    <electorate>Corangamite</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister for Communications. What is the Albanese Labor government doing in the communications portfolio to support Australians with cost-of-living pressures? What approaches have been rejected?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:24</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms ROWLAND</name>
    <name.id>159771</name.id>
    <electorate>Greenway</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the member for her question and I particularly acknowledge her tireless advocacy for the highest-quality broadband for her constituents. In 2024, staying connected is an essential part of life, whether it's to keep in touch with loved ones, to log on for work, to study or to engage with government. The communications sector supports us all to stay connected, but when it comes to covering the bills, we know that many Australians are doing it tough. That's why today the Albanese government announced that it will become mandatory for telcos to provide financial hardship assistance to all customers experiencing difficulties paying their phone and internet bills, including prioritising keeping customers connected. The new industry standard on financial hardship will also ensure that telco staff are appropriately trained and that systems are in place to proactively identify and support consumers who are experiencing financial hardship. The new rules will come into effect in March and will ensure telcos do all they can to avoid disconnecting Australians who might be struggling with cost-of-living pressures. These rules are the result of a direction given to the regulator by the government, and we acknowledge the industry for its engagement with this process.</para>
<para>We're also delivering cost-of-living relief to Australian families who do not currently have an internet connection at home, which we know is so essential today for all school students. The School Student Broadband Initiative has now been extended for another two years, beyond our initial 12-month commitment. We know how important it is for every child to have access to the internet beyond the school gate. Today more than 6,500 disadvantaged families without broadband at home previously have been connected to free internet, and over 40 per cent of those families are in our regions. Any Australian family can contact the national referral centre on 1800954610 to check their eligibility and get assistance to set up their free connection.</para>
<para>Importantly, the workers who deliver these critical communications services will also benefit from Labor's new tax cuts. A telco technician earning $100,000 will benefit from around $2,179 in tax cuts, nearly double what they would otherwise have received. The postie or the transport worker delivering your parcels, earning $70,000, will receive $1,429 in their pocket under Labor's plan. These are the workers who deliver for Australia, and they deserve to keep more of what they earn. This government is here to make a difference, and our measures across the communications portfolio are doing just that.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Albanese</name>
    <name.id>R36</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I ask that further questions be placed on the <inline font-style="italic">Notice Paper</inline>.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>AUDITOR-GENERAL'S REPORTS</title>
        <page.no>76</page.no>
        <type>AUDITOR-GENERAL'S REPORTS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Report No. 13 of 2023-24</title>
          <page.no>76</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:27</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I present the Auditor-General's Audit report No. 13 of 2023-24, entitled <inline font-style="italic">Efficiency of the Australian Passport Office</inline>.</para>
<para>Document made a parliamentary paper.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>DOCUMENTS</title>
        <page.no>76</page.no>
        <type>DOCUMENTS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Presentation</title>
          <page.no>76</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:27</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BURKE</name>
    <name.id>DYW</name.id>
    <electorate>Watson</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Documents are tabled in accordance with the list circulated to honourable members earlier today. Full details of the documents will be recorded in the <inline font-style="italic">Votes and Proceedings</inline>.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE</title>
        <page.no>76</page.no>
        <type>MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Taxation</title>
          <page.no>76</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:28</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I have received a letter from the honourable member for Curtin proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The Australian tax system is not fit for purpose and needs broad reform.</para></quote>
<para>I call upon those honourable members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.</para>
<para class="italic"> <inline font-style="italic">More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places—</inline></para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:28</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms CHANEY</name>
    <name.id>300006</name.id>
    <electorate>Curtin</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Our tax system is unfit for purpose and no-one wants to talk about the underlying issues. In simple terms, we need to raise enough money from taxes to pay for the things we need. We need to do this in a way that's fair, economically efficient and not too complex, and our current system doesn't deliver any of these things. We need to have a rational, adult conversation about our tax system and our future, one that doesn't descend into outrage and political pointscoring. This needs to include communities, based on a common vision for the country as a whole and what we value.</para>
<para>Most economists recognise that we have a structural deficit in our budget of one to two per cent. Our net debt has increased fourfold since 2013. Borrowing to spend is addictive. It can win short-term votes, and any particular government won't be around for the consequences, but I want the tax that my kids pay in 20 years time to be used for services that are needed at the time, not to pay interest.</para>
<para>The most palatable way to achieve debt reduction is to increase productivity. This is really complex but needs to be a focus that includes education, workforce participation and workplace relations reform. But what else needs to change? I think the following things need to be back on the table.</para>
<para>Firstly, income tax: compared to other countries, Australia relies too heavily on taxing effort. Personal income tax was 39 per cent of total tax collected in 2021, nearly twice as much as the OECD average of 23.5 per cent. With an ageing population, it also doesn't pass the fairness test. When I was born, there were more than seven Australians of working age for each person over 65. This has now declined to less than four. So a bigger burden is placed on a smaller productive proportion of the population. It's creating a deeply unfair intergenerational burden.</para>
<para>Secondly, consumption tax: GST was introduced in an attempt to shift the tax mix. Compared to other countries, we charge GST on fewer things and at a lower level. Last year, the OECD average was 19.2 per cent compared to our 10 per cent. The challenge with GST is that it's regressive. Everyone pays the same percentage, so this works out to be a smaller proportion of total income for those on higher incomes and a larger proportion for those on lower incomes. We probably need to broaden the GST base and look for more elegant ways to address the redistribution problem.</para>
<para>Thirdly, resource rents: Australians collectively own our natural resources. When we allow countries to dig them up and export them, we should be paid appropriately. The petroleum resource rent tax earns an embarrassingly low amount of revenue due to its structure, writedowns and profit shifting. There was no tax paid on two-thirds of the gas exported from WA last year. In 2025-26, PRRT revenue is forecast to be worth 0.08 per cent of GDP. We missed an opportunity this year with pitifully small changes made to the PRRT, which, unsurprisingly, had the support of the fossil fuel industry. We are not being adequately compensated for the use of our natural resources, which is made worse by the fact that these fossil fuels are actually doing damage.</para>
<para>Fourthly, complexities: our tax systems also contain numerous complexities that provide the wrong incentives. Negative gearing was introduced in order to boost supply of rental properties; rental availability is now below one per cent. This hasn't worked, and we are not even allowed to talk about it. You watch: I'll be crucified for even uttering the words. The concession on capital gains tax for investment properties has made it easier to buy your second house than your first house. We need to be able to talk about whether this is what we actually want. Stamp duty creates a transaction cost, making it harder to change houses. Replacing this with land tax would mean people would be more likely to live in the house that's fit for purpose right now.</para>
<para>I could go on. There are plenty of ideas on tax reform, but there is no courage. The world is changing. We're getting older. Fewer workers are shouldering our tax burden. Decarbonisation puts our exports at risk and means we need to incentivise investment. We need to drive productivity so we can continue to enjoy prosperity in coming decades. Because of the decisions we've made, people in their 20s can't imagine owning a house. We have a structural deficit; we can't afford the things we deserve. All of these have implications for our tax system. This needs to be an issue at the next election. Without some courage, we will keep sleepwalking away from a thriving future.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:33</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr THISTLETHWAITE</name>
    <name.id>182468</name.id>
    <electorate>Kingsford Smith</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the member for Curtin for raising this important issue of tax reform. It allows me to report to the parliament the details of some of the substantial tax reform that's already undertaken and implemented by the Albanese government.</para>
<para>I think it's fair to say that this government has undertaken the most substantial tax reform of any first-term government since the Hawke government of the early 1980s. The principles that we've used to underpin the tax reform that we've undertaken have been encouraging hard work and aspiration amongst Australians, ensuring that the taxation system is efficient in the way that it collects taxes from Australian households, individuals and corporations and ensuring that the system is fair—that everyone pays their fair share of tax. We have done this by consulting and listening to the Australian people.</para>
<para>Recently we heard their message about Australian households and how tough they're doing it with cost-of-living pressures. That's why we listened and acted with Labor's income tax plan that is currently going through the parliament. Because we acted, 13½ million Australians will be better off, with substantial income tax cuts and more money in their pockets from 1 July this year. This will help greatly with household budgets and provide much-needed belief to Australians who are doing it tough.</para>
<para>As part of Labor's tax plan, three million more Australians will receive a tax cut compared to the previous government's plan—100 per cent of taxpayers compared to 84 per cent under the previous government's stage 3—which is a substantial increase in the number of Australians receiving relief from 1 July. Ninety per cent or 5.8 million women will receive a bigger tax cut under Labor's proposed tax package compared to the opposition's. This will assist with reducing gender inequality in incomes in our country, and those in occupations that are dominated by women, such as nurses, teachers, early childhood educators, will be some of the biggest beneficiaries of Labor's new tax plan. And we're increasing the threshold for the 37 per cent and 45 per cent tax rates to ensure that we're returning some of the bracket creep that's been occurring because of increasing inflation and the effect that that's been having on people's after-tax incomes.</para>
<para>For most governments that tax package would be enough for one term. Most governments would say, 'That's a substantial reform to income taxation in Australia, and that is enough for one government to undertake in a term of government.' That was certainly the case for the previous government. They weren't proposing any major tax reform beyond that proposed by stage 3 in this term of government. But our government has not shied away from further reform to ensure that our taxation system is efficient, is fair and is encouraging aspiration amongst Australians. We're also undertaking reform of corporate taxes, of superannuation and of the resources tax.</para>
<para>When it comes to the petroleum resource rent tax, we know that mining resources have been a fundamental part of the strength of the Australian economy and have contributed much to national income over the last century. These are resources that are owned by the Australian people collectively, and this government wants to make sure that the Australian people get a fair return for the exploitation of those resources by those corporations, particularly when the incomes that are derived from that mining go to funding the infrastructure that is fundamental to moving those resources around our country and across the globe. The reforms to the petroleum resource rent tax that we are undertaking will ensure that that system is much more efficient and fairer by introducing a cap on PRRT deductions that corporations can claim and strengthening the anti-tax-avoidance measures in taxing the offshore resources sector. This will ensure that the Australian people get a fair share of the resources that they own and the profits that corporations make from exploiting those resources.</para>
<para>When it comes to superannuation, we know superannuation was established to ensure that Australian workers had dignity in their retirement and a decent quality of life when they left the workforce. It wasn't established as a vehicle for intergenerational wealth creation. But, unfortunately, over time, because of the concessions that existed under the previous government, that is what it has become. This government is reforming the taxation of superannuation to ensure that it meets its intended aim of providing that dignity for Australian workers in retirement. We're doing that by reducing the tax concession for superannuation balances that have very, very large balances for individuals. From 1 July 2025, a 30 per cent concessional tax rate will be applied to future earnings on balances above $3 million. We're introducing fairness back into the superannuation system. Importantly, we are willing to take this reform to the next election to get the approval of the Australian people for it.</para>
<para>We're also introducing a multinational tax integrity package.</para>
<para>There's nothing more frustrating for Australian workers than seeing a substantial portion of their pay packets sent over to the Australian Taxation Office every week or fortnight, when large multinational corporations are able to shift profits to other jurisdictions where they're operating and minimise their tax and in some cases avoid paying any tax in the Australian jurisdiction. There is nothing more frustrating that gets up the noses of Australian workers.</para>
<para>This government has listened to Australians about that frustration and we are acting to make sure that the corporate taxation system is fairer through changes to the thin capitalisation rules and denying deductions for payments made to related parties in relation to intangible assets. We are making the taxation system for corporations and multinationals much fairer.</para>
<para>Importantly, we are also introducing new reporting requirements so that Australians, who have the right to know just how much tax multinational corporations are paying in Australia, can get access to that information, improving the transparency and accountability of our taxation system for hard-working Australians and, in doing so, introducing greater integrity into the way our taxation system works. So our government is undertaking substantial tax reform to ensure that our taxation system is fairer and more efficient and encourages aspiration in the Australian economy.</para>
<para>Good governance is about getting good outcomes for the benefit of the Australian people. When it comes to tax reform, it has been tough to achieve those outcomes for the Australian people. There have been plenty of policies put up by governments and oppositions that have hit the fence, that have never been implemented and never delivered tax reform for the Australian people. That has been a characteristic of debates about tax reform in this place for the last couple of years. Inevitably, you get that predictable and inevitable opposition from oppositions when it comes to tax reform that makes it almost impossible to undertake in this country and makes it almost impossible to modernise the taxation system.</para>
<para>The Albanese government has listened to the Australian people and consulted with the Australian people, but most importantly it has delivered outcomes for Australian people. We are in the process of delivering the most substantial outcome for workers in this country by delivering more of their hard earned into their pockets from 1 July and acting on bracket creep, which has not been done for the last decade. We've listened to the Australian people and we've been successful in getting outcomes on their behalf. That is exactly what tax reform should be about. We know how difficult it is to achieve substantial tax reform in this country. It has to be about achieving outcomes. The government understands and knows that the best way to do that is make sure you are consulting with the Australian people and you are undertaking gradual reform to ensure they understand the process and, most importantly, that the Australian people support what the government of Australia is doing.</para>
<para>That is exactly what the Albanese Labor government is delivering for the Australian people: substantial reform of our corporate taxes; making the superannuation taxation system fairer and ensuring it meets its intended aims of providing dignity for Australian workers in retirement; returning bracket creep to the Australian people; acting on the cost of living pressures that households are facing; and delivering a fairer, more efficient, more effective taxation system for the Australian people.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:43</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms SHARKIE</name>
    <name.id>265980</name.id>
    <electorate>Mayo</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I would like to thank the member for Curtin for raising this issue and I acknowledge the work of the member for Wentworth and others in this place. They have drawn attention to the need for broad taxation reform. We all pay taxes, sometimes grudgingly, but we recognise that tax is necessary and important to fund quality public services and support a robust economy. But a good taxation system must be fair, efficient and simple. However, our taxation system fails on all three of these basic measures. Unfortunately, our two-party system makes it difficult if not impossible for extensive taxation policy reform to occur, as both sides use this as a political weapon. We are witnessing this at the moment with respect to the stage 3 tax cuts and that legislation.</para>
<para>Australia has a relatively low tax revenue as a percentage of GDP. In 2021, it ranked 30th out of 38 OECD countries at 29.5 per cent compared to the OECD average of 34.2 per cent. However, of the tax that we do collect, more than 60 per cent is collected from personal and corporate tax. This is approximately twice the OECD average and one of the most inefficient ways to collect tax.</para>
<para>This week, the stage 3 tax cuts legislation will be debated, and, while I support the changes, I don't think they go far enough. The median weekly income in Australia is $1,300 and attracts a tax rate of 30 per cent. For the equivalent earnings in the United States, it's a mere 12 per cent. Our top tax bracket under stage 3 is imposed on incomes exceeding $190,000, with a tax rate of 45 per cent, plus the Medicare levy. In contrast, the top tax bracket in the United States is only 37 per cent, which applies to incomes exceeding $890,000 when converted into Australian dollars. The top tax rate in the UK is 45 per cent. That kicks in at incomes of over $240,000. In New Zealand, their top tax rate is 39 per cent, and that's for incomes over NZ$180,000, which is comparable to Australian dollars. Canada has a top tax rate of 33 per cent for incomes over $235,000—again, our dollars are near parity.</para>
<para>Most advanced economies maintain a high reliance on consumption tax, which is acknowledged as one of the most efficient and sustainable taxes to governments, hence any tax reform should be predicated on reducing our reliance on inefficient taxes and increasing the revenue raised by efficient taxes. Such a reform would improve productivity and increase employment.</para>
<para>The question of fairness appropriately arises when proposing reforms, none more so than for taxation, particularly around consumption taxes such as the GST, which, to some, are considered regressive. However, consumption taxes capture a greater share from those with a capacity to purchase, and the perceived regressive components can be managed through more aggressive reductions in income tax thresholds for low- to middle-income earners and/or other assistant measures, particularly for age pensioners.</para>
<para>The third component of a good taxation system is simplicity, and this is not a word that describes our taxation system, with its more than 10,000 pages of tax law. An overly complex taxation system increases compliance costs for small businesses and microbusinesses and requires more individual taxpayers to resort to the use of tax agents for end-of-year returns. As a country, we benchmark ourselves against the OECD, and it is demonstrably clear that, on taxation matters, Australia performs poorly against other OECD nations.</para>
<para>Every Australian and enterprise benefits from improved productivity and increased employment opportunities. To succeed in this, we need a fairer, more efficient and simpler tax system. Taxation reform is required with urgency, and it must be devoid of political pointscoring so that necessary reforms can be made in the interests of the country and not just one side of politics.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:48</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BURNS</name>
    <name.id>278522</name.id>
    <electorate>Macnamara</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I, for one, am very proud of the changes that the Labor government is making to the stage 3 tax cuts, because we in the Labor Party have always stood for a progressive tax system—a principle that says, the more you earn in this country, the more tax you pay. It means that people who are fortunate to earn higher incomes put more money back into the services and the society that we all fundamentally believe in and that we all are in this place to be custodians of and to improve.</para>
<para>What we saw under the former government was a set of tax cuts that were going to significantly assist people on higher incomes but were going to do nothing for those people on lower and middle incomes. In the Labor Party, we are always—and always have been and always will be—here to represent and to give voice to Australian workers who are on modest and medium incomes. They are the people who build this country. They are the people who work in our hospitals, in our supermarkets and in our schools. They are the young professionals right across Macnamara who deserve some financial support right now.</para>
<para>So I am very proud that, when Australians—especially those people in my electorate—are going through some genuinely difficult cost-of-living pressures, this government is going to do what's right, what's fairer and what will meaningfully make a difference to people's lives. In Caulfield, we have many families who are struggling with the cost of living. Southbank and St Kilda are filled with young professionals. I think of all of the creative workers in my electorate who are doing it really tough right now and whose rent has gone up. I have had hundreds of conversations with people in my electorate. They talk to me about the rising cost-of-living pressures and what it means every time they go to the supermarket to buy food for their household. It puts real pressure on their daily budgets and on their weekly budgets.</para>
<para>So, when you look at the stage 3 tax cuts that we are going to bring in, that the Treasurer has already introduced and that, hopefully, will pass through this parliament, what they will mean, for people on modest and medium incomes, is that they, too, will get tax relief on 1 July.</para>
<para>But, under the plan left by Scott Morrison and the coalition, thousands of people in my electorate were going to miss out. Now 95,000 people in Macnamara are going to get a tax cut on 1 July. Each and every one of those 95,000 people in Macnamara deserves a little bit more money in their pocket, because each and every one of the people that I am privileged to represent is hard working and dedicated, whether they're working in the arts, as young professionals, in our hospitals—in an incredible hospital like the Alfred—in our schools or in our incredible, world-class hospitality restaurants and venues in Macnamara. Wherever people are working, their work is important, their work is valued and they should be able to keep more of what they earn. They should be able to use these tax cuts to get a bit of a buffer on some of the cost-of-living pressures that they are facing.</para>
<para>To the lower income earners in Macnamara, you're going to get a tax cut. To the medium-income earners in Macnamara, you're going to get a tax cut. To even the higher income earners, you too are going to get a tax cut. In fact, the higher income earners are going to get, proportionately, a larger tax cut than some of the other workers but not as much as what would have occurred under the previous government. This means that every single Australian taxpayer can get a tax cut. That, I think, is something that's really important: that we, on this side of the House, stand with those low- and middle-income earners.</para>
<para>The other point I wanted to make about tax is that I'm also proud of the broad range of taxes that we have addressed and have reformed thus far, in the first year of the Albanese government. When you look at the tax reform that the Treasurer and the finance minister have led—along with, of course, the Prime Minister—we're looking at tax changes to the PRRT and tax changes to superannuation funds. Electric vehicle tax reforms are making it cheaper to import and purchase electric vehicles.</para>
<para>Obviously, these tax cuts that we've been talking about will go to every single Australian taxpayer, to support them in their cost-of-living pressures. But there is also tax reform around making it harder for multinationals to avoid tax in our country. That is an important suite of reforms that I am proud of—they are Labor tax reforms, reforms that are all about ensuring that the Australian government can put more into the services that the Australian people rely on. They are taxes that are fairer, that are progressive and that go to that old principle that, if you earn more, you put back into our great country. I'm proud of the tax reform we've already done, I'm proud of the stage 3 tax reforms and I'm proud that more Australian workers in my electorate will get more of their take-home pay. <inline font-style="italic">(</inline><inline font-style="italic">Time expired</inline><inline font-style="italic">)</inline></para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:53</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BANDT</name>
    <name.id>M3C</name.id>
    <electorate>Melbourne</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>There's been a bit of discussion about Labor's stage 3.1 tax cuts. Labor claims that they'll tackle the cost of living by giving a $4,500-a-year tax cut to every politician in this place and to billionaires, while only an extra $15 a week to middle-income earners. This whole debate is completely divorced from reality.</para>
<para>We're living in a country where a block of Bega tasty cheese is $20 a kilo at Coles and petrol is $2.20 a litre and where, waiting for you in your inbox, there is an email from the landlord telling you the rent has gone up $200 a month or more. We're seeing people living in tents, kids skipping meals and people unable to afford to see a doctor, let alone a dentist or a psychologist, yet, in this place, Labor and the Liberals have been arguing about whether politicians should get a $4,500-a-year tax cut or a $9,000-a-year tax cut. And you wonder why people are fed up with politics.</para>
<para>The Greens' view is straightforward: Labor should not be giving billionaires and politicians a tax cut while people are struggling to put food on the table or keep a roof over their heads. But this point seems to be missing from the debate. So listen up. We are in a full-blown cost-of-living crisis. People are really struggling to keep their heads above water, and the water is rising. Young people's lives are being delayed and constrained. The fastest growing group in our society who are becoming homeless are children. Some young people are stuck living with their parents well into their 20s and 30s, as they struggle to afford to move out of home. Others are forced to sleep on couches, to skip meals and medication, to travel further to and from work and study, and to do less with what they earn. This used to be a country which looked after people. Now, Labor looks after property moguls and gives billions to big corporations and the billionaires, while everyday people suffer.</para>
<para>This week, Nadine got in touch with my office for advice about her mum. She was living in a home under the NRAS, which provides affordable accommodation for people who need it. But Labor have cruelly, in the middle of a housing crisis, decided to defund this scheme, and in January her rent went from $300 to over $500 a week. We're talking about a 65-year-old woman who has to take out of her superannuation and sell her car to afford the basics. Now she's homeless, bouncing from motel to motel, and neither she nor her daughter know what to do.</para>
<para>I want everyone in this place to imagine that she's your mum—unhoused and living out of a suitcase, with no security and, sometimes, no safety. Too many people in this place have lost the plot and are in denial about what it's like for everyday people out there trying to get by. Our tax system is stacked against Nadine's mum; just like it's stacked against every renter and every first home buyer. Our tax system makes it easier to buy your seventh property than your first. Everyone deserves a home. Everyone should be able to afford to eat. These are really the basics of a dignified life. Nadine says they feel powerless and lost, and that her mum is a beautiful and empathetic person who loves helping others but is now being left behind.</para>
<para>Labor could get Nadine's mum a house, but they're choosing not to. Labor could stop out-of-control rent increases, but they're choosing not to. Labor could build the public housing that we need, instead of defunding the ones that people like Nadine rely on. Labor could change the tax system so that first home buyers aren't losing out to cashed-up property moguls at auctions around the country every weekend. Labor could raise the income support rate and end poverty and homelessness in this country. But they're not doing that. They're choosing not to do that. Until Labor stops tinkering around the edges and fronts up to the challenges of our time, more and more people like Nadine's mum will be left behind.</para>
<para>People have had enough. They've had enough of letting big corporations drive-up costs and make massive profits while getting huge handouts from Labor. The big corporations and the big, wealthy property moguls need to pay their fair share of tax. Enough of the rivers of gold of public money going to property moguls. We need to freeze and cap rents to stop people being kicked out of their homes. Enough of letting people on income support become homeless and hungry. This year, things need to change.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:58</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms RYAN</name>
    <name.id>249224</name.id>
    <electorate>Lalor</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I represent a community in the western suburbs of Melbourne, the outer west of Melbourne, which is one of our fastest growing areas in the country. The median personal weekly income is $801, and the median yearly income is $41,000. So I agree with this MPI that we need to see tax reform, which is why I'm so proud to stand in this place and support the cost-of-living relief tax cuts that do both relief and reform.</para>
<para>I'm going to be blunt. The community I represent, that I've just described, has the highest number of infants in the country and the highest number of people in their early 30s in the country. I'm going to tell you: it also has some of the highest aspiration in the country, and I see that every day in the schools when I get an opportunity to visit them. I'm a proud member for that community in this place. Our tax reform that's in this parliament now will support my community much more than the Morrison stage 3 tax cuts that were put into this parliament prior to the last election and would have rolled out on 1 July this year.</para>
<para>I can tell my colleagues, as I've told several this week, that I was losing sleep on how I was going to look my community in the eye on 1 July, when I know the mortgage stress they're under and when I know the cost-of-living pressures they're under. We've been working so hard to roll back the costs in health, with the minister at the table—working so hard to support people. How was I going to look them in the eye if this had become law on 1 July and I'd got a $9½ thousand tax cut while most of my community got nothing?</para>
<para>So I am really, really proud to be a part of this government that actually understands that, when tough decisions have to be made, you've got to make them, but that also has an eye always on middle Australia. In this place, there are 151 representatives from around the country, and I tell my community all the time that my job here is to tell our story, to influence the decisions that this place makes. Well, our story is that these tax cuts will bring real relief and that any tax reform that isn't about bringing real relief to communities like mine is not a tax reform that I can support. So I support this one wholeheartedly.</para>
<para>I support making super concessions fairer and more affordable, I support ensuring multinationals pay their fair share of tax here in Australia and I support reforms to the petroleum resource rent tax and improving tax compliance, because they all make our tax system fairer. I support our tax reform because it does address bracket creep for the people in my community who are confronted with that move into higher pay that means they pay more tax. Those changes in the thresholds for my community in middle Australia are going to push that further down the road and put more money in their pockets.</para>
<para>I support tax reform that sustains our progressive tax system. I support tax reform that sees every Australian taxpayer as someone worthy of the consideration of this place. I support a government that has created more jobs in its first term than any government on record, because those jobs are coming to my patch and my young people are accessing those jobs. I support this government and its tax reform, because it's not just tax; it's everything else—it's free TAFE; it's cheaper childcare. There are many ways we can support the community. Tax reform is one. I'm really proud to be a member of this Labor government.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:03</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms DANIEL</name>
    <name.id>008CH</name.id>
    <electorate>Goldstein</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Trust is in short supply in politics these days, in part because the space to have reasoned conversations is so narrow. Pointscoring in politics, magnified by the media, means policymaking is dictated by the headlines, that are ultimately geared towards short-term political outcomes—that is, three-yearly elections—rather than the long-term future of the nation.</para>
<para>The conversation about the stage 3 tax cuts is a good example. The Prime Minister is accused of breaking a promise, and, for some members of my community and elsewhere, that fact has overtaken the substance of the policy change which, in the circumstances, I think is the right call. I don't dismiss the concerns about the integrity of political discourse. However, I would argue that rebuilding trust through reasoned conversations is critical to enabling policy shifts like this when circumstances change.</para>
<para>The changes to stage 3 presented to the parliament this week do not represent tax reform, and the discussion around this cements my view that we're overreliant on income tax and that we must take braver steps on tax reform. To sustain a fair, equitable and prosperous society that supports our young and our old, we have no choice but to create a broader tax base. I would argue that many voters realise that.</para>
<para>Everyone wants to pay less tax, and bracket creep, for example, is a real problem. Right now, we're expected to be grateful to governments when they announce pre-election tax cuts which return some of the bracket creep that has robbed taxpayers in the intervening years. That's why I'm arguing for tax indexation, so that taxpayers are compensated for the impact of inflation every year, not just when a government deigns to do so for political purposes. Not only would it be more equitable, not only would be fairer, but it would also take politics out of it.</para>
<para>Meanwhile, as I have been saying since before the 2022 election, the government needs to be brave and tackle once-in-a-generation, everything-on-the-table tax reform. That means everything: income tax, consumption tax, company tax, property tax, property tax—and yes, that includes negative gearing—and multinational tax, particularly the resource rent tax. After I talked about this before the election, the Liberal Party distributed flyers into letterboxes saying that I was trying to take away the family home. Of course, that was false, but it is emblematic of the lack of capacity to have a conversation—a reasoned conversation—about these issues. Once these changes passed through parliament, we'll still be in the predicament where the budget will not be able to provide the services—especially for our children—that citizens of a prosperous community have a right to expect. Taxing higher-income earners ever more and more will not solve the problem. If we don't act now, we'll be condemning future generations to a less-prosperous future with fewer opportunities, poorer jobs, worse health, lower standards of education and less-affordable housing. They will be unable to reap the benefits of cleaner, greener, cheaper and more reliable energy and technology.</para>
<para>I've encouraged the government to be braver, arguing for a war profits tax on our multinational gas producers, a more significant return from the PRRT and an end to fossil fuel subsidies. The revenue would boost the bottom line and provide the immediate wherewithal for the government to ease the pressure on households and businesses further.</para>
<para>Apart from inflation, productivity is our No. 1 economic problem, but for too long we've ignored one of the significant steps to its solution—that is, keeping more women in the workforce. Overseas examples are instructive. In Australia and in Scandinavia, female workforce participation at the age of 25 is comparable but by age 30, female participation in Australia is 10 per cent lower and remains that way. Analysis by the Australia Institute indicates that if we had Scandinavian female participant rates, our economy would be $60 billion or 3.2 per cent bigger. And guess what? Lower tax and more take-home pay means more women work or women work more. Well, blow me down with a feather! Giving women more opportunities, taxing resources more effectively to facilitate the shift to a cleaner, greener economy, taking the politics out of tax—they are three of the very good reasons for real tax reform. The government says it has changed its mind because circumstances have changed. Well, circumstances are always changing, and we've had no substantial change to the tax system for a quarter of a century. It is time.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:08</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms MASCARENHAS</name>
    <name.id>298800</name.id>
    <electorate>Swan</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the member for Curtin for this motion. I see this as a place where we get to contest ideas, and I think the 47th parliament is a better place because of the discussions that we have here. I agree that the Australian tax system is not fit for purpose, but we are in the midst of making amazing reforms. If I reflect on the system we inherited when we took government, we had a trillion dollars worth of debt, we didn't have any plans and there was no productive work being done. Essentially, what we had was a wasted decade.</para>
<para>Since we have taken office, we have tried not to waste a single day. We have been working on different tax initiatives. One of the things I heard when I would speak to people in my electorate during the election campaign was about making sure that multinationals pay their fair share, and that's something that we haven't seen happening. The truth is, when we have these large corporations that come here and make lots of money off us but then have clever—I would describe it as 'unjust'—tax systems where they get this advice and basically restructure their business so they aren't paying their fair share, I see that as incredibly unfair. It's important that if people come to do business in Australia then they need to recognise that they need to contribute to the cohesiveness on this country and pay their fair share of tax.</para>
<para>We have also seen changes to our electric vehicle policy. One of the things that we do recognise is that we are participating in a decarbonised economy and we need to do act quickly. One of the things that we can do to help achieve this is to have a look at the way we encourage alternative technologies such as electric vehicles. The petroleum resource rent tax—the thing I would say about our resources is our resources are owned by all Australians and I think that is something we sometimes forget as Australians. These are things that are owned by all of us. Sometimes when we have these companies take over, it is almost like the perception is that they own the resources but they do not; we all own them. The thing we need to ensure is that it is taxed fairly. We are in the process of changing the petroleum resource rent tax and we will see revenue increase from that.</para>
<para>But the biggest and most significant reform is around our stage 3 tax cuts. This is a significant reform and was, really, what needed to happen at this moment in time. In our communities, we know that cost of living has been at the forefront of people's minds. I know people have been doing it really, really tough. What we needed to do was not only look at what we can do at this moment in time to ensure we are giving cost-of-living relief to as many people as possible but also look at a way in which we don't increase inflation in the economy. I think it is wonderful that this government has restored faith in the Public Service, that we see the Public Service as frank and fearless and that we actually listen to advice.</para>
<para>From discussions we have had in this place, the 47th Parliament, I would like to think, has stepped up and actually listened to what Australians want. I am really excited that 84 per cent of all Australians will get a bigger tax cut because of the changes Labor proposed. Ninety per cent of women will be better off; 98 per cent of 18 to 24-year-olds will be better off. In my electorate of Swan, 77,000 taxpayers will get an increased tax cut. This is phenomenal.</para>
<para>But this is not just about the 77,000. The truth is, in my electorate, everyone, approximately 94,000 people will get a tax cut, so I think this is an amazing thing we are seeing. The truth is Morrison's and the Liberals' previous stage 3 tax cuts were simply unfair. If I think of the country that Australia is, it is that we want to make sure we see fairness in our tax system. We need to continue to think about things like intergenerational equity. I am really excited about what is about to come through and I look forward to working across the House to do amazing things for our country.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:13</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms SPENDER</name>
    <name.id>286042</name.id>
    <electorate>Wentworth</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Today we are talking about tax, and I personally am delighted because I care about this country, I care about the future for our kids and, if you care about those things, you need to care about tax because there are major issues with our tax system. For me, there are three that really stand out. Firstly, it is harder as a young person today to get ahead than it has been at the past, and I do not like that. Secondly, our companies are not growing their productivity as much as they could, which means we cannot pay and grow our services to this country as much as we can, and I do not like that. Finally, we need to deal with climate change in the cheapest way possible but our tax system stops us from doing that well, and, again, I do not like that.</para>
<para>Starting with intergenerational equity, a young person came to me and said, 'I have worked hard at school, at university. I have a great job, I have a $50,000 HECS debt and I don't think I am ever going to be able to get a home.' The truth is that young people today are having a harder time than previous generations and it is just not fair. If you look at the last 15 years, for a family headed by somebody over 65, their wealth increased over a decade by about 50 per cent. But for a family headed by a young person under the age of 35, their wealth pretty much did not move. I don't think that was the intention of the Australian people when they elected and supported the governments of the past, and supported their tax policies. But that is the system that we have, and it just isn't fair to young people. We're now seeing only 17 per cent of older generations—those over 65—paying any tax, while previously it was 27 per cent. Take two households living next door to each other: if you're retired, you're paying about half the amount of tax that you would be as the same household on the same amount of income, at around $100,000. I just don't think that's fair, and the tax system is important in addressing that.</para>
<para>Secondly, the tax system is important in addressing growth and productivity. Frankly, if we can keep our productivity growth up, if we can raise it from where it has been, we will have billions extra in our coffers and that will make a huge difference to the services we can provide. But we have falling direct foreign investment; we have low and not-growing R&D investment; we are a net capital exporter, where we're sending more money overseas than we're investing in Australian companies; and our corporate tax rate for medium and large companies is, frankly, not competitive with the rest of the OECD. That matters; we need to address that.</para>
<para>And, finally, there's climate. Climate change is an issue that, thankfully, this parliament has taken seriously and is taking real action on. However, our tax system is not underpinning that in the way that it should be. Certainly, things like the fuel tax credit and our failure to deal with the cost of carbon and how to price carbon effectively, mean that we're not doing everything we can to make that transition as cost effective, as efficient and as strong as we possibly can.</para>
<para>Those are the sorts of changes that I think we should contemplate in the tax system. Members of the government have argued that they're doing tax reform. To be honest, my beef is not to say, 'What you're doing here and there aren't important changes.' Some of them, I agree with, some of them, I don't. Some of them are issues on the margins for me. It's not to criticise that, because I know tax reform is hard. But the point I'm trying to make is that what they're doing is not enough. Frankly, that's a symptom of the last election, where the political wedging and the political culture in this place meant that it seemed the only thing anyone wanted to say about tax was absolutely nothing, if they could possibly get away with it. That's what we did in the last election; we cannot do that in the next election.</para>
<para>The coalition has said they're going to put tax on the agenda for the next election, and I think that's a very good thing. My point to the coalition is: make it worth it—address those massive issues that we're facing. Let's not have another sugar hit, which is just tax cuts, without actually having the reform that can help underpin change on the major issues that our country is facing. And to the Labor Party: build on what you've done. I know you're very proud of what you've done in this last change, but build on it so that we do address those major issues our country is facing. That's because you have not gone far enough if you care about those three big issues: intergenerational equity, productivity and effective climate action.</para>
<para>Finally, on the rule-in and rule-out: this is unhelpful. I sat through question time yesterday and heard about that rule-in, rule-out. If we're going to make a tax reform, we must do it together—as a coalition across the parliament.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:18</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr LAXALE</name>
    <name.id>299174</name.id>
    <electorate>Bennelong</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the member for Curtin for bringing this important matter of public importance to parliament today, providing us all with the opportunity to talk about the significant tax reform that our government has undertaken in our two short years in office.</para>
<para>Unlike the former government, we recognise the importance of reform—but also reform to make our tax system better. As members would be aware, we have clear, stated priorities on tax reform. We've said we want to make super concessions fairer and more accessible. We want to ensure that multinational corporations contribute their rightful share to our tax system. We have reformed the petroleum resource rent tax, projected to increase tax receipts by $2.4 billion. We have enhanced tax compliance measures, which Treasury estimates will bring $9.1 billion back into the tax system. We've also ensured that build-to-rent housing has become an infrastructure asset class, reducing the tax rate from 30 per cent to 15 per cent to encourage the construction of rental homes to help ease the housing crisis. We've also nearly doubled the capital works tax deduction depreciation rate for build-to-rent projects from 2.5 per cent to four per cent—again, to boost housing supply. And we've also used the tax system to incentivise small businesses to invest in renewable energy, with a 20 per cent bonus tax deduction for investments of up to $100,000 for investments on battery storage, solar power and energy-efficient appliances. As noted by members before me on the government side, we've introduced tax reform to reduce the cost of zero emissions vehicles.</para>
<para>To the member for Curtin and others who have spoken today on this matter, I'd say that, in less than two short years, that's pretty significant tax reform. Of course, there's one more, and it's a pretty big reform. Few people have been talking about it. Introduced in the parliament this week, we have legislation to reform the tax system to implement Labor's cost-of-living tax cuts from 1 July. These fairer, better cost-of-living tax cuts, aimed squarely at middle Australia, represent yet another piece of tax reform that this government has put before the parliament.</para>
<para>I take umbrage at those who say that these cost-of-living tax cuts are just tinkering around the edges, because they're not. The reality is that, if this legislation doesn't pass, from 1 July we are set to see the end of the progressive income tax system. From 1 July, if this legislation isn't passed, someone who earns $45,000 will pay tax at the same rate as someone on $200,000. That is the reality, unless this legislation goes through. To imply that Labor's tax changes aren't reform is an incorrect characterisation of what is currently law in this country. Our tax reforms will address bracket creep by adjusting income brackets up the scale—the first change to some brackets since the last time Labor was in power, in 2008. Importantly, they will deliver a tax cut to every single taxpayer in a fairer and more progressive way, and we're doing this because Australians have asked us for help. Australians have asked us to do better, and we are.</para>
<para>Since I came to this place, in May 2022, I've had countless conversations with constituents across my electorate of Bennelong about Scott Morrison's stage 3 tax cuts. Broadly, they have consistently wanted the government to re-examine the tax cuts to ensure they meet the needs of the Australian people. Roslyn from Macquarie Park told me that, even though she and her husband were set to benefit from Scott Morrison's tax cuts, she would rather see that money go towards people who need it more. Alan from—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>248181</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Are you calling a point of order?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Howarth</name>
    <name.id>247742</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Yes.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>248181</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>On what grounds?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Howarth</name>
    <name.id>247742</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Point of order: referring to—</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>248181</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>On what grounds? What is the point of order?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Howarth</name>
    <name.id>247742</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>That's what I'm about to tell you. The point of order is about using members' names and correct titles. Twice the member opposite has referred to the member for Cook incorrectly.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>248181</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Sit down please. I do remind all members of the House to use correct titles when referring to any members.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr LAXALE</name>
    <name.id>299174</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>At the end of the day, people in Bennelong expect a fair and progressive tax system. The tax system was in desperate need of reform, and the legislation before the parliament is significant reform. It will give every Australian a tax cut. Ninety per cent of women will be better off, and 98 per cent of young people will be better off. That is significant reform for this nation.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:23</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms TINK</name>
    <name.id>300124</name.id>
    <electorate>North Sydney</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I had a whole speech prepared for this matter of public importance, but I'm going to ad-lib a little bit, so please stick with me. I think what we've just observed is that there is vociferous agreement that the need for broad tax reform is as clear as it is urgent, and I thank the member for Curtin for bringing this matter of public importance into the House. Having sat here and listened for over an hour now, what strikes me in this debate is that we need to agree what 'reform' actually means. Is it simply playing within the same ground rules that we've had all along and only moving the degrees of impact by adjusting the barriers, or is it actually turning up, as the member for Goldstein said, and focusing on rebuilding trust within our community by ensuring that we're able to have reasoned discussions that drive us forward in a possible way?</para>
<para>On behalf of my community of North Sydney, I'd like to add our voice to calls for responsible, sensible and reasoned reform of the core principles. It seems to me—again, having listened really carefully—there are three core principles that we all agree on.</para>
<para>The first is fairness, which must be at the heart of any tax reform process. We need to be driven by desire to tackle the growing inequality in our economic system and intergenerational wealth disparity. Despite being one of the wealthiest nations in the world, one in eight people in Australia live below the poverty line. A robust discussion around tax reform must be grounded in a commitment to fundamental, free and equal human rights. At the heart of it is that not what we are discussing here, that we all deserve to be treated with respect and to live with respect.</para>
<para>At the same time, we need to be prepared to robustly debate our tax space. Our current system relies too heavily on personal income tax, which hampers productivity, as the member for Wentworth said, and is increasingly unsustainable as our population ages, as the member for Curtin said. To become less reliant on this, we must consider alternatives. This is when the next characteristic, I think, needs to step in, and that is courage. From the moment I entered this parliament, I have been calling on our current government to lead with courage, be prepared to have the conversations that are uncomfortable, be prepared to show our nation that a government can truly lead, and be prepared to push for reform that takes us outside the comfort of a single election cycle.</para>
<para>To become less reliant on income tax we have to be prepared to take on some of the forces that, arguably, may make us feel uncomfortable. Winding back things like the fossil fuel subsidy, for example, or ensuring big businesses and the fossil fuel industry pay their fair share, is a good place to start, but it is not going to be easy. And what I would like to say to today's government is, 'I see you. I see you have put your toes into the water around this space, but sitting on the edge and dangling your feet in is not driving reform. You need to jump and invite the Australian people to come with you.'</para>
<para>Taxing windfall gas profits would enable billions to be invested in modernising Australia's energy grid and helping households and businesses directly rather than going into the pockets of gas companies. It should not be beyond the capacity of this government to take that leap. Let us come with you. The Australian Institute estimated that related windfall gain to liquefied natural gas companies in the last financial year was between $26 billion and $40 billion. No wonder Dr Ken Henry, the former Australian Treasury secretary, has argued that a windfall tax should be levied on 100 per cent of those profits. If it was imposed, the revenue generated alone would cover the Australian government's entire $20 billion Rewiring the Nation initiative to modernise the electricity grid. If we hear nothing more from this debate today, I hope we take out the following principles: as Australians, we all agree we want a tax system that is fair; as Australians we all agree we want a government who will lead with courage; and as Australians, we all agree that we need to focus on rebuilding trust between each other and encouraging reasoned discussion in this place for the betterment of our nation. It's time.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>248181</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The discussion has now concluded.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: ADDITIONAL ANSWERS</title>
        <page.no>85</page.no>
        <type>QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: ADDITIONAL ANSWERS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Taxation</title>
          <page.no>85</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:28</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr ALY</name>
    <name.id>13050</name.id>
    <electorate>Cowan</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to correct an answer that I gave earlier today during question time.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>248181</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Before we go on, does the minister claim to be misrepresented?</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Dr ALY</name>
    <name.id>13050</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>No, I am rising to correct the record. Under Labor's cost-of-living tax cuts, an early childhood educator earning $46,000 a year will receive a tax cut of $829, as opposed to a $25 tax cut under the previous Morrison plan. And an early childhood teacher earning $69,000 a year will receive a tax cut of $1,404, which is more than double the $600 they would have received under the Morrison plan.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS</title>
        <page.no>85</page.no>
        <type>PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Middle East</title>
          <page.no>85</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:29</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr KATTER</name>
    <name.id>HX4</name.id>
    <electorate>Kennedy</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the following:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) the Member for Kennedy moving:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) expresses its strong support for the people of Israel who, on 7 October 2023, were subjected to an appalling and unprovoked terrorist invasion and attack upon Israel; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) calls on the Parliament of Australia to condemn the terrorist organisation Hamas and demand that the people responsible for the invasion of Israel and consequent war release the hostages taken in this invasion;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) debate on the motion being limited to the mover, seconder and two other members;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) amendments to the motion not being permitted; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) any variation to the arrangement being made only on a motion moved by a Minister.</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to, with an absolute majority.</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr KATTER</name>
    <name.id>HX4</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) expresses its strong support for the people of Israel who, on 7 October 2023, were subjected to an appalling and unprovoked terrorist invasion and attack upon Israel; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) calls on the Parliament of Australia to condemn the terrorist organisation Hamas and demand that the people responsible for the invasion of Israel and consequent war release the hostages taken in this invasion.</para></quote>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>248181</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Is the motion seconded?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Fletcher</name>
    <name.id>L6B</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr KATTER</name>
    <name.id>HX4</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm afraid that some of my colleagues in the crossbench got up and I interpreted their speeches as supporting Hamas and veritably saying that the invasion was justified. Firstly, if you say that the Israelis invaded that country and took it over, I don't think many people on the planet would say that the Jews returning to Israel is someone taking someone else's country off them. Secondly, if that's your principle, then you Europeans roll your swag, go back to where you came from and give the country back to we blackfellas, I'd suggest, if you want to be consistent. If you say there was an invasion and you took our country off us, well, you Europeans go back to where you came from. That would be my answer to that argument.</para>
<para>Here is an article with photos on it: 'Why Egypt and other Arab countries are unwilling to take in Palestinian refugees from Gaza'. These people say, 'It's unfair that Israel is not taking us back into Israel.' Well, no other Arab country is going to take you either. There's got to be a reason why all these aggressive Arab countries whose governments have all passed resolutions to destroy the State of Israel won't have any of the Gazans come into their country. There must be a reason here. If you say, 'Oh, the naughty Israelis are retaliating,' well, when you fire a bomb, it doesn't have a name on it, and when it explodes it kills people. You picked the war—you started the war—so don't come blaming everyone else when you reap the whirlwind. You sowed the seeds, and now you reap the whirlwind.</para>
<para>Now, let it be a message to every other country on Earth that what Russia is doing and getting away with in Ukraine is because of the very dangerous weakness of the European countries. But at least in Israel they have sent the message, 'If you invade our country and hurt our people then we will retaliate.' No country can defend themselves without having that principle. So there was a retaliation. You started the war; now you will have to live with the war.</para>
<para>Having said that, there are still hundreds of hostages being held by Hamas. Are you entitled to go after the people that took those hostages, that raped and brutally murdered 1,200 people, and then advertised it on the television? You could say, 'At least the Germans had the decency to try and hide what they were doing to the Jews.'</para>
<para>As Australians, we have traditionally stood up for the underdog, the persecuted minority group. I am very proud, as an Australian, that we have had that reputation. If ever there were a persecuted underdog throughout history, it would be the people that adhere to the Judaic religion. I cannot fathom how or why, and people say, 'Jesus was crucified.' Well, hold on a minute. Jesus was not only a Jew but also a rabbi that preached in temples. That would hardly be logical there—in fact, just the opposite.</para>
<para>There is a principle involved here that, if you invade somebody else's country, you must expect retaliation and that other nations might help in that retaliation, because we don't want people just walking around invading other countries and starting wars. The Israeli people are surrounded by some 700 million Islamic people. I want to make a point here that it's not about the Islamic religion as such, because I've had great interface with Indonesia over the years through the cattle industry and in various other ways. I have found them to be a very good and decent people. They have been wonderful neighbours to us, and they are a Muslim country. But there is a big difference between how it is practised there and how it is practised in certain Middle Eastern countries.</para>
<para>If we are letting people into this country, surely there should be criteria. Are they coming from a democracy? Are they coming from a country with a rule of law? Are they coming from a country with Christianity or some similar belief like the Sikhs: love your neighbour, be humble, make the world a better place? Do they have that sort of philosophy and commitment? Do they have egalitarian traditions? The vast bulk of the people who come to this country—no, no, no, no, no, no. Over 850 people have come in from Gaza or have got permits to come into this country from Gaza since that invasion and murder of 1,200 people took place. No Muslim country and no Arab country will take them. Why is Australia taking them? That is a big question for the ALP to answer.</para>
<para>We know the answer to that. It's because so many of their branches are controlled by these people coming in from the Middle East. Let me state very clearly that I have been told by the best of authority—and I hope that the ALP side of this parliament can prove I'm wrong—that the mosques in Sydney control the ALP in Sydney and Sydney ALP controls Australian ALP. I hope that you can convince me that I'm wrong. But, if you are allowing 850 people in from Gaza and no-one else in the world will take them, you've got to ask a question: why is the ALP—and I say the ALP here, not the government—taking these people?</para>
<para>I'll make another point here. Antisemitism: if the people in Europe had stood up aggressively against this pernicious and dreadful sectarian hatred in the early 1930s, the terrible catastrophe of the Second World War would not have occurred. The worst murder in human history, mass murder on racial lines, would never have taken place if they had stood up aggressively right at the start. If more people had joined Pastor Niemoller in his courageous stand against the Nazis and if more people had backed people like von Stauffenberg then it wouldn't have happened.</para>
<para>We have here an embryonic anti-Semitism coming from elements of the crossbench. They're anti-Semitic. Don't muck around: they hate the Jews. If you watched the television of that mob in Sydney, they were chanting—I saw it with my own eyes and heard it and I replayed it later on the evening; I turned on again to watch it again—they were chanting, 'Gas the Jews.' They're weren't saying 'Gas the Israelis.' The were saying 'Gas the Jews.' It was racial. Not one single one of those people were stopped from chanting, advocating the murder of people. Not one single person was stopped from doing that. Not one single one of them was apprehended. Not one single one of them was sent back to where they came from. Nothing.</para>
<para>You've got to ask the question, why did the ALP government of New South Wales do nothing? Why did the ALP government in this place do nothing? Absolutely nothing. Ask yourself this question: if those people had been chanting anti-Muslim chants, what do you reckon would have happened?</para>
<para>We have anti-Semitism here, and it needs to be stamped out and stamped out with aggression. It is hateful and it is completely opposite to what every decent Australia believes in. If ever there is an underdog, a tiny little country of 3½ million people surrounded by 600 or 700 million people, all committed to the destruction of their country—and if you say they shouldn't have been there because the Gazans really own that country, hold on a minute. What would you have done? Six million of you persecuted, and to the shame of my country, the ship of shame that went all around the world. Brazil wouldn't take them; the United States wouldn't take them; no European country would take them. They came to Australia, these Jewish people escaping the Nazis, and we wouldn't take them, these poor people. So where were they going to go to escape to massacre that was occurring? Who can blame them for going back to their homeland? It's called Israel and they are called Jews. Why are they called Jews? Because they come from Jerusalem, which is the capital of Palestine, Israel, whatever you want to call it.</para>
<para>If we start adopting a principle that some other group of people were there originally, I have some Britons in my family tree, so you Anglo-Saxons go home to England. You Norman French go home to France. And I will say we British copped it. We can't turn the clock back, and we want to live in harmony with each other. If somebody invades another country, like Russia has done or the Hamas invasion of Israel, the Russians haven't systematically murdered the people. It's terrible what they have done, but they didn't systematically murder the people and then put the murder and rape on the television, promoting their murder and rape on the television. And that people in the parliament of Australia could have got away with what they got away with two nights ago, it was a disgrace and a reflection on every person in this parliament.</para>
<para>I have great pride being an Australian. Someone should be holding up the Australian flag. My family lost a son in the first World War and in the World War II. We went out west in a stagecoach there when the terrible Kalkadoon wars were still raging. We have a reputation for being involved in public life and making things a bit better for everybody. So who else should stand up? It should be me. I think there are a whole lot of people in this place that should be standing up as well. We as Australians will not accept racial hatred. And we will not condemn people for trying to stay alive and protect themselves. There's a great saying: if you want peace, prepare for war. Yes, that's right: if you want peace, prepare for war. So, you send a message out saying that if you attack us, we will hit you back and we will hurt you. My relatives—uncles and father, cousins and everybody on Kokoda, Milne Bay, Aitape and the islands—were telling the Japanese, 'You tried to invade our country and, mate, you're gonna pay for it.' We did everything humanly possible to see that they did pay for it. The message we sent out is, 'Don't touch my country.' The Israelis, surely, are entitled to the same attitude.</para>
<para>You know, we want peace. My great sorrow is that my generation have left my country. If you want peace, prepare for war. Well, we're not prepared for war. Our defences are a bloody joke. They're really just a joke. I'll give you one simple example. When I was put in uniform and was on my way to Indonesia—we were at war with Indonesia—we had one and a half million combat rifles. You don't pick a fight with a country with one and a half million combat rifles. Half a million were in the hands of the army and a million were in private hands. My family had three or four, I think, if my memory serves me correctly. Now we have 36,000! Not one and a half million: 36,000 little rifles with which to defend the country! There are virtually no artillery shells. They spent $40,000 million buying 15 patrol boats that have got one machine gun on them. That's $40,000 million for patrol boats and for drones with no ordnance whatsoever, except 15 machine guns. My platoon of 32 men in the 49th Battalion had 16 or 17 machine guns and we cost the Australian people $20,000. But this government—and the last government; you blokes are just as guilty as this mob—spent $40,000 million to buy 15 machine guns. I mean— <inline font-style="italic">Time expired</inline><inline font-style="italic">. </inline></para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:47</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr FLETCHER</name>
    <name.id>L6B</name.id>
    <electorate>Bradfield</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I was pleased to second the motion moved by the member for Kennedy, which expresses strong support for the people of Israel and calls on the Parliament of Australia to condemn the terrorist organisation Hamas, and demand that the people responsible for the invasion of Israel and the consequent war—namely, Hamas—release the hostages taken in this invasion.</para>
<para>I want to congratulate the member for Kennedy for expressing a strong, clear, moral position. It is a position that the coalition is very much in support of and that is very consistent with what we have said ever since the appalling, unprovoked terrorist attack that occurred on 7 October in Israel.</para>
<para>This is a motion which supports the nation and the people of Israel. This is a motion which supports the Jewish people. One of the reasons that the member for Kennedy was moved to take this action, which the coalition is pleased to support, was to respond to the appalling motion that was moved by the member for Melbourne and the Greens party this morning—a motion which purported to deal with these matters but which, extraordinarily, made no mention of Hamas, the murderous terrorist organisation which controls Gaza. It made no mention of the appalling, unprovoked attack on 7 October, in which at least 1,100 men, women and children were killed—in the main, civilians. As has, horrifyingly, been documented and demonstrated, not only were over 1,100 people killed but we saw depraved, horrific violence, including sexual violence and deliberate harm being done to young children. This was an attack on civilisation, an attack on fundamental human values and, of course, very deliberately an attack on the Jewish people. That such violence should be visited upon Jewish people is a chilling reminder of the evils of the Holocaust. Once again, Jewish people have been killed and injured specifically because of hatred for their religion, and any statement in relation to the conflict presently occurring which is silent as to the actions which triggered and initiated this conflict is a fundamentally misleading statement. That, sadly, is what the Greens Party attempted to do this morning. The member for Kennedy has responded in the fashion he has, and the coalition is pleased to support him.</para>
<para>The fact is that there are still at least 100 people who were taken hostage in that attack—children, elderly people, and civilians, largely—who remain imprisoned in the most horrific circumstances in Gaza. They're being held within the enormous network of tunnels that extends, we now know, throughout Gaza. They're being held in facilities which are, sadly, it appears, often located directly under hospitals. This is one of the hallmarks of the way that this murderous terrorist organisation, Hamas, operates. Not only are they using Jewish people—Israelis—as human shields but they're also using Palestinian civilians as human shields. The moral depravity of the actions of Hamas deserve enormous and unreserved condemnation.</para>
<para>The simple fact is that what all fair-minded observers want to see is a lasting peace. But at the same time, the proposition that the state of Israel—the democratic nation of Israel—should be exposed to this vicious attack—this attack without warning—which killed and injured so many people, the majority of them civilians, and that it ought to be in some way condemned or criticised because it has taken actions to defend itself and its people, to restore order and, very importantly, to deny Hamas the capacity to engage in such vicious attacks in the future—the proposition that this conduct should be condemned, which is what the Australian Greens are putting, is a proposition that on this side of the House we very strongly disagree with.</para>
<para>There are so many aspects of what has happened here that are an appalling tragedy. One of the aspects of this which is absolutely appalling is that the these violent terrorist attacks by Hamas have, in fact, grievously set back progress towards the lasting peace that all of us want to see. They have grievously set back that process.</para>
<para>The motion that is before the House today is clear and it is straightforward and it is based upon fundamental moral principles. It expresses support for a people and a nation who were the victims of an appalling and unprovoked terrorist invasion and attack, and that is something that, ordinarily, would be completely uncontroversial and would be absolutely the first instinct of any nation and any person observing what had occurred. It is deeply troubling that there are some who seem to find it difficult to express that support, that basic human reaction of sympathy and solidarity.</para>
<para>The second thing this motion rightly does is to condemn the terrorist organisation Hamas—the organisation which is responsible for what happened here; the organisation which took the decision to mount this appalling and unprovoked attack; the organisation whose activists, soldiers and terrorists carried out the horrifically violent attacks on innocent people that we have learnt so much about since those attacks occurred. It expresses a condemnation of that organisation and the values that it stands for, and it expresses a clear and straightforward demand: Hamas was responsible for this invasion, and for the consequent war, and they must release the hostages who were taken in this invasion. It is a clear, straightforward motion, based on fundamental moral principles, and the coalition is very pleased to be seconding this motion.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:57</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr WATTS</name>
    <name.id>193430</name.id>
    <electorate>Gellibrand</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise for the second time today to speak on a motion before this chamber on the conflict in the Middle East, and I recommend my earlier speech to all members of the House. It provided a comprehensive accounting of the way that the Albanese Labor government has sought to navigate this consequential and complex conflict.</para>
<para>Let me say that there is much in the member for Kennedy's speech that I disagree with, but I will take the text of the member's motion in good faith. We agree with the text of the motion moved by the member for Kennedy, but I should make clear that, were we to have drafted this motion, the motion would have taken a broader lens—and, indeed, we did, when this parliament passed a motion in October last year, almost unanimously. I want to go back to 16 October to reflect on that motion, because I think it set a very solid foundation for the way that we as a government, but also we as a chamber and we as a nation, have sought to respond to the appalling terrorist attacks of 7 October and the conflict that has followed. So let me just read out that 16 October motion. It reflects the motion before the House now. It said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That the House—</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) unequivocally condemns the attacks on Israel by Hamas, which are the heinous acts of terrorists, and have encompassed the targeting and murder of civilians, including women and children, the taking of hostages, and indiscriminate rocket fire;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) stands with Israel and recognises its inherent right to defend itself;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) condemns antisemitism and recognises that generations of Jewish people have been subjected to this hateful prejudice;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) calls for the immediate and unconditional release of all hostages;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(5) recognises that Hamas does not represent the Palestinian people, nor their legitimate needs and aspirations …</para></quote>
<para>These provisions of that motion, nearly unanimously passed by this parliament, reflect the provisions of the motion before the House now. But, as I said, we seek to encompass the full pain being experienced in this conflict in this motion. The motion went on:</para>
<quote><para class="block">(6) acknowledges the devastating loss of Israeli and Palestinian life and that innocent civilians on all sides are suffering as a result of the attacks by Hamas and the subsequent conflict—</para></quote>
<para>That's an important point to note—that the House recognises the suffering of all innocent civilians, all women and children, in this crisis. It went on:</para>
<quote><para class="block">(7) supports justice and freedom for Israelis and Palestinians alike;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(8) supports international efforts to establish and maintain humanitarian access into Gaza, including safe passage for civilians;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(9) reiterates Australia's consistent position in all contexts is to call for the protection of civilian lives and the observance of international law; …</para></quote>
<para>The motion goes on, but I should say that the principles of this motion, passed in the immediate wake of the appalling terrorist attack, have held up well. We have consistently argued for them as a government. And the power of that motion, I think, is strengthened by the unity of support for it across the political divide.</para>
<para>It's important, because Australia is being tested at the moment—the unity of our nation is being tested and our social cohesion is being tested. The kind of nation that I think we all believe we have is being tested. Our ability to treat fellow citizens with respect is being tested in our communities, which is why I was deeply disturbed by the leader of the Greens' characterisation—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Katter</name>
    <name.id>HX4</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Why did you let people scream out, 'Gas the Jews!'?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>248181</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The member for Kennedy, please!</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr WATTS</name>
    <name.id>193430</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I was deeply concerned, earlier this morning, by the Leader of the Greens' characterisation of this motion that I have just read out as, 'When the Labor Party brought a motion to parliament on the eve of a looming invasion to say they backed the invasion, we opposed it.' What a bad faith characterisation! It's an unbecoming characterisation of a motion that was explicitly designed to unite the Australian public behind principles that we can all support. Indeed, the final provisions of that motion in October were:</para>
<quote><para class="block">(15) notes that undermining social cohesion and unity by stoking fear and division risks Australia's domestic security; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(16) affirms in the strongest possible terms that hateful prejudice has no place in Australia.</para></quote>
<para>It's appalling to characterise that motion as somehow warmongering. Really? The principles in that motion, passed nearly unanimously by this parliament—with the notable exception of the Greens—have held up and been reflected in subsequent joint statements pursued by the Australian government with like-minded nations around the world trying to deal with this complex and difficult issue.</para>
<para>Indeed, on 13 December 2023, Prime Minister Albanese joined with Prime Minister Trudeau of Canada and Prime Minister Luxon of New Zealand in a joint statement by three like-minded prime ministers. It began:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Australia, Canada, and New Zealand mourn every Israeli and Palestinian innocent life which has been lost in this conflict and express our condolences to all families and communities affected by the violence.</para></quote>
<para>Reflecting the motion before the House, it goes on:</para>
<quote><para class="block">We unequivocally condemn Hamas' terror attacks on Israel on October 7, the appalling loss of life, and the heinous acts of violence perpetrated in those attacks, including sexual violence. We condemn Hamas' unacceptable treatment of hostages and call for the immediate and unconditional release of all remaining hostages.</para></quote>
<para>The statement also recognised the extraordinary pain and suffering of the humanitarian crisis we see in Gaza, saying:</para>
<quote><para class="block">We remain deeply concerned by the scale of the humanitarian crisis in Gaza and ongoing risks to all Palestinian civilians. Safe and unimpeded humanitarian access must be increased and sustained.</para></quote>
<para>Importantly, that statement also set the only pathway out of this current conflict, and that is a negotiated settlement between Israel and the Palestinians so that the two peoples can live side-by-side, with internationally recognised borders and in peace and security. It recognised the support by all three prime ministers:</para>
<quote><para class="block">We support Palestinians' right to self-determination. We oppose the forcible displacement of Palestinians from Gaza, the re-occupation of Gaza, any reduction in territory, and any use of siege or blockade. We emphasize that Gaza must no longer be used as a platform for terrorism. We reaffirm that settlements are illegal under international law. Settlements and settler violence are serious obstacles to a negotiated two-state solution.</para></quote>
<para>The reason this is included is that they are obstacles to the negotiated settlement I talked about earlier—the only pathway out of this conflict. It feels like a long way away, but it is the only pathway out.</para>
<para>This statement concludes with a call, in the same way the parliamentary motion concluded, by saying:</para>
<quote><para class="block">We condemn rising antisemitism, Islamophobia, and anti-Arab sentiment in our countries and around the world and remain firmly committed to combatting prejudice, hatred, and violent extremism.</para></quote>
<para>All of us in this place have an obligation to protect unity and social cohesion. There is no room in our country for antisemitism. There is no room in our country for Islamophobia.</para>
<para>I want to share with the House some recent research from the United Kingdom. It's in the UK context, but I think we can all benefit from it. More in Common is an NGO that we should all know in this place. It was founded in the wake of the murder of UK member of Parliament Jo Cox by a right-wing extremist, while she was doing what all MPs do—serving her community on the street, talking to constituents. More in Common undertakes regular research aimed at finding ways to tackle increasing fragmentation and polarisation in democratic societies. Its recent research 'More than taking sides', on the way that the UK community has responded to the Middle East conflict, offers lessons for us here in Australia.</para>
<para>More in Common's in-depth research in the UK highlights that the simplistic portrayal of a community divided into sides by the conflict in the Middle East that is often seen on social media belies the overwhelming majority of citizens who have complex feelings about the conflict and are feeling 'simultaneously angry about the actions of murderous terrorists, concerned for civilians in both Israel and Gaza, and profoundly worried about what the situation means for community relations here in the UK.' Even worse, the polarisation portrayed on social media isn't just inaccurate, as More in Common says, it 'risks deepening division.' As More in Common states:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Dividing the country into stark binaries cedes discussion to those with the loudest voices and silences the views of the majority of Britons. That in turn risks polarisation on this issue becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy where ordinary Britons feel forced to choose and double down. It also gives licence to a small but vocal fringe of conflict entrepreneurs and extremists to use the conflict as an opportunity to sow discord and hate.</para></quote>
<para>As leaders in this place we need to recognise the complex and conflicting feelings of many Australians on these issues. We need to encourage Australians to engage with each other with empathy, not contempt, to be curious about different perspectives, not judgemental. Such an approach is less likely to get traction on social media platforms, but it's where the vast majority of the Australian public wants their political leaders to be—to recognise their complex feelings on some of the most difficult issues imaginable and to focus on ensuring our diverse community can grapple with these issues with empathy and respect for each other. That is what we are all charged with as leaders in this place, and that is what I am working for in this nation and in my community.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:07</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr LEESER</name>
    <name.id>109556</name.id>
    <electorate>Berowra</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I want to commend the member for Kennedy for bringing this motion to the House. The motion was seconded by my friend the member for Bradfield, who spoke extremely well on the issues that pertain to the terrible terrorist organisation that is Hamas. I note the Assistant Minister's speech as well, and I note that sitting next to me today is the chair of the international allies caucus on Israel, the member for Fisher.</para>
<para>I want to begin by saying something you might not expect. I'm asking you to believe Hamas. Believe them when they say they want to exterminate all Jewish people. Believe them when they chant, 'From the river to the sea.' Believe them, because their actions and their evil speak volumes. Their deliberate and calculated actions on 7 October saw babies captured, caged and killed. It saw women sexually assaulted on the streets. It saw children sexually assaulted in front of their parents, and parents sexually assaulted in front of their children, before they were murdered. In homes, places of love, security and safety, the most gruesome and cruel tortures and humiliations were inflicted upon families. In fields surrounding a music festival, young people were hunted like prey. There were actions so evil and so horrific that they would defile our shared humanity by recounting them. Believe Hamas, because they filmed, broadcasted and boasted of their crimes. Believe Hamas, because they continue to mistreat and kill hostages. Believe Hamas, because they have a history of murdering their own people. Like with the Nazis and ISIS, our humanity underestimates this evil at our peril.</para>
<para>No matter our race, creed or nationality, we are all people of memory and story. We grapple with our histories of family and country and of understanding the good and the bad, pain and hope, and relationships that unite and divide. The whispers of history reside in us all. For Jewish people, these are the whispers of persecutions, pogroms and the Holocaust, so we know what it means when a Greens MP speaks of Jewish tentacles and argues publicly for the exclusion of Jewish people from charities, sporting groups, culture and politics.</para>
<para>This is a sick conspiracy theory. We've seen this before. We know what it means, and we know where it leads. We know what it means when businesses are boycotted for no other reason than that the owner is Jewish. We know what it means when art galleries are shunned or vandalised because they're supported by Jewish Australians. Hamas didn't just seek to brutalise Israel. They sought to unleash antisemitism across the world and, sadly, they have.</para>
<para>Like Jewish people around the world, I'm seeking to understand the complexities of our times. As a parent, I'm trying to explain why there are people that hate me and my family and wish us harm for no other reason than our faith tradition. As an Australian, I wonder how our shared ethos has been corroded on our campuses and by extremist politicians of the far left.</para>
<para>This is a time for empathy. Empathy is not merely identifying with people who are just like us; it's something deeper. True empathy is seeing the humanity of someone when they are not like us and when we don't see ourselves in the face of another. It's a challenge for all of us, no matter our background. One of the groups I've learnt empathy from is the local Persian community in my electorate. One of them brought a book to my office as big as an old-fashioned telephone book. It was leather bound and in it were the names and photos of tens of thousands killed by the sponsor of Hamas, the Iranian regime. I learnt that, whilst the government of Iran exports terror around the world, including to Gaza, its first victims were in fact the people of Iran. I do think of the people of Gaza, many of whom live in fear of Hamas. We know that Hamas exercises the most vile punishments on its own citizens—on women, on gay people, on people of other faiths and on anyone who might disagree with them.</para>
<para>The Leader of the Opposition is right. This is a time for moral clarity, and I think of our country and what lies ahead. Will Australians continue to see the humanity of the Jewish people? Or will we condemn Jewish people because of an ideology and conspiracy theories that say they embody privilege or, as the Greens imply, somehow have tentacles?</para>
<para>To the members of the Greens, I say: I don't have tentacles, neither does my five-year-old son or my two-year-old daughter; neither does my friend the member for Macnamara, the member for Isaacs or the member for Macarthur; and neither do the patriotic Jewish Australians who contribute to the country they love by serving in the ADF or the police force, by supporting community organisations, by bolstering multiculturalism and by making this country stronger. We give back because that's what we're called to do and because that's what it means to be a good Australian. We don't have tentacles. We are human beings just like you.</para>
<para>So I say to the Greens: it is time to root out the antisemitism in your political party. This is a test of your moral courage and humanity. Time always exposes behaviours and motives, and your response to your fellow Australians will go down through history.</para>
<para>On 5 October, just prior to the Hamas attacks, the High Court Justice Jayne Jagot, who herself is not Jewish, gave what I think is an extraordinary and important speech. She gave the Zelman Cowen oration, and she focused the speech not on Cowen's extraordinary work as a jurist or as Governor-General but on antisemitism. She reminded us that antisemitism is the 'canary in the coalmine of global hatred'. More than a threat to the Jewish people, antisemitism is a broader symptom of an underlying loss of confidence in liberal democratic ideals and practices.</para>
<para>The Hamas attacks were more than an attack on Israel. They were an attack on our shared democratic ideals, and our democratic ideals are always defended by people of goodwill. I saw that defence after the 7 October attacks, when members of a local Anglican church in my electorate brought flowers to my office because they wanted to let me know that the local Christian community were standing with me and other Jewish Australians and were thinking of us at this difficult time. I saw it when constituents stopped me regularly in the street just to let me know they were standing with the Jewish people. We saw it today with Nova Peris's brave statements and similar actions from Indigenous leaders like Marcia Langton, Warren Mundine and Sean Gordon. And I've seen it in the genuine multipartisan work on antisemitism I've been doing with my friends the member for Macnamara and the member for Wentworth.</para>
<para>This land, like so few in human history and like so few around the world, has been good to the Jewish people. It is a wonderful and underappreciated aspect of our broader Australian story. I believe it will continue to be so if we as Australians, regardless of our faith and regardless of our background, continue to stand and resist those who would seek to deny the humanity of the Jewish people.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:15</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr WATTS</name>
    <name.id>193430</name.id>
    <electorate>Gellibrand</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—I table the joint statement from the prime ministers of Australia, Canada and New Zealand about this issue.</para>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>COMMITTEES</title>
        <page.no>92</page.no>
        <type>COMMITTEES</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Human Rights Joint Committee</title>
          <page.no>92</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Report</title>
            <page.no>92</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:16</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BURNS</name>
    <name.id>278522</name.id>
    <electorate>Macnamara</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>On behalf of Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, I present the following reports: <inline font-style="italic">Human rights scrutiny report:</inline><inline font-style="italic"> report 14 of 2023</inline> and <inline font-style="italic">Human rights scrutiny report: report 1 of 2024</inline>.</para>
<para>Reports made parliamentary papers in accordance with standing order 39(e).</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BURNS</name>
    <name.id>278522</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—I'm pleased to present the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights 14th scrutiny report of 2023, which was tabled out of session on 19 December 2023, and to table the committee's first scrutiny report of 2024. In these reports, the committee has considered 258 new legislative instruments and 25 new bills, commenting on four new bills and two new instruments and concluding on two bills and one instrument. In particular the committee considered the Australian Citizenship Amendment (Citizenship Repudiation) Bill and the two migration amendment (bridging visa conditions) bills, which are now all acts. All of the bills raise significant human rights concerns, which are detailed in both these reports. The committee draws these human rights concerns to the attention of the parliament; however, as these bills have now passed into law, the committee makes no further comment in relation to them.</para>
<para>The committee has also considered the Administrative Review Tribunal Bill 2023 and its consequential bill. These bills seek to establish a new administrative review tribunal to replace the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. The committee has commented on some small aspects of these substantive bills. For example, the new tribunal would be empowered to appoint a litigation guardian for people considered to lack capacity. As such, the measure engages the right to equal recognition before the law for people of disability and the right to equality and nondiscrimination. The committee notes the clear position under international human rights law that substitute decision-making regimes are contrary to the rights of equal recognition and that parties should move towards the abolition of such regimes and instead develop supported decision-making. The committee considers the capability of this measure may be assisted were it amended to set out a model of supported rather than substitute decision-making and that recommendations of the Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability be fully implemented. The committee also recommends the statement of compatibility be updated and otherwise draws these human rights concerns to the attention of the Attorney-General and the parliament.</para>
<para>As always, I encourage all members to consider the committee's reports closely. Fourteen reports in one year isn't bad. It is a good effort by a very hardworking committee that I'm privileged to be the chair of, with the outstanding contributions, as always, from the very qualified and capable public servants and staff who make the committee tick. On that note, I commend the committee's scrutiny report 14 of 2023 and report 1 of 2024 to the House.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>BILLS</title>
        <page.no>92</page.no>
        <type>BILLS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>National Redress Scheme for Institutional Child Sexual Abuse Amendment Bill 2023</title>
          <page.no>92</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r7106" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">National Redress Scheme for Institutional Child Sexual Abuse Amendment Bill 2023</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Report from Federation Chamber</title>
            <page.no>92</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo></subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Third Reading</title>
            <page.no>93</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:20</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms RISHWORTH</name>
    <name.id>HWA</name.id>
    <electorate>Kingston</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I seek leave of the House to move the third reading immediately</para>
<para>Leave not granted.</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms RISHWORTH</name>
    <name.id>HWA</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent the motion for the third reading being moved without delay.</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</continue>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms RISHWORTH</name>
    <name.id>HWA</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That this bill now be read a third time.</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
<para>Bill read a third time.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Attorney-General's Portfolio Miscellaneous Measures Bill 2023</title>
          <page.no>93</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r7103" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Attorney-General's Portfolio Miscellaneous Measures Bill 2023</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Report from Federation Chamber</title>
            <page.no>93</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:28</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The question before the House is that the bill be now read a second time.</para>
<para> </para>
</speech>
<division>
            <division.header>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionPreamble">The House divided. [17:28]<br />(The Speaker—Hon. Milton Dick)</p>
              </body>
            </division.header>
            <division.data>
              <ayes>
                <num.votes>88</num.votes>
                <title>AYES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Albanese, A. N.</name>
                  <name>Aly, A.</name>
                  <name>Ananda-Rajah, M.</name>
                  <name>Bandt, A. P.</name>
                  <name>Bates, S. J.</name>
                  <name>Bowen, C. E.</name>
                  <name>Burke, A. S.</name>
                  <name>Burnell, M. P.</name>
                  <name>Burney, L. J.</name>
                  <name>Burns, J.</name>
                  <name>Butler, M. C.</name>
                  <name>Byrnes, A. J.</name>
                  <name>Chalmers, J. E.</name>
                  <name>Chandler-Mather, M.</name>
                  <name>Chaney, K. E.</name>
                  <name>Charlton, A. H. G.</name>
                  <name>Chesters, L. M.</name>
                  <name>Clare, J. D.</name>
                  <name>Claydon, S. C.</name>
                  <name>Coker, E. A.</name>
                  <name>Collins, J. M.</name>
                  <name>Conroy, P. M.</name>
                  <name>Daniel, Z.</name>
                  <name>Doyle, M. J. J.</name>
                  <name>Dreyfus, M. A.</name>
                  <name>Elliot, M. J.</name>
                  <name>Fernando, C.</name>
                  <name>Freelander, M. R.</name>
                  <name>Garland, C. M. L.</name>
                  <name>Georganas, S.</name>
                  <name>Giles, A. J.</name>
                  <name>Gorman, P.</name>
                  <name>Gosling, L. J.</name>
                  <name>Haines, H. M.</name>
                  <name>Hill, J. C.</name>
                  <name>Jones, S. P.</name>
                  <name>Kearney, G. M.</name>
                  <name>Keogh, M. J.</name>
                  <name>Khalil, P.</name>
                  <name>King, C. F.</name>
                  <name>King, M. M. H.</name>
                  <name>Lawrence, T. N.</name>
                  <name>Laxale, J. A. A.</name>
                  <name>Le, D.</name>
                  <name>Leigh, A. K.</name>
                  <name>Lim, S. B. C.</name>
                  <name>Marles, R. D.</name>
                  <name>Mascarenhas, Z. F. A.</name>
                  <name>McBain, K. L.</name>
                  <name>McBride, E. M.</name>
                  <name>Miller-Frost, L. J.</name>
                  <name>Mitchell, B. K.</name>
                  <name>Mitchell, R. G.</name>
                  <name>Mulino, D.</name>
                  <name>Neumann, S. K.</name>
                  <name>O'Connor, B. P. J.</name>
                  <name>O'Neil, C. E.</name>
                  <name>Payne, A. E.</name>
                  <name>Perrett, G. D.</name>
                  <name>Phillips, F. E.</name>
                  <name>Plibersek, T. J.</name>
                  <name>Rae, S. T.</name>
                  <name>Reid, G. J.</name>
                  <name>Repacholi, D. P.</name>
                  <name>Rishworth, A. L.</name>
                  <name>Roberts, T. G.</name>
                  <name>Rowland, M. A.</name>
                  <name>Ryan, J. C.</name>
                  <name>Ryan, M. M.</name>
                  <name>Scamps, S. A.</name>
                  <name>Scrymgour, M. R.</name>
                  <name>Sharkie, R. C. C.</name>
                  <name>Sitou, S.</name>
                  <name>Smith, D. P. B. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Spender, A. M.</name>
                  <name>Stanley, A. M. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Steggall, Z.</name>
                  <name>Templeman, S. R.</name>
                  <name>Thistlethwaite, M. J.</name>
                  <name>Thwaites, K. L.</name>
                  <name>Tink, K. J.</name>
                  <name>Vamvakinou, M.</name>
                  <name>Watson-Brown, E.</name>
                  <name>Watts, T. G.</name>
                  <name>Wells, A. S.</name>
                  <name>Wilkie, A. D.</name>
                  <name>Wilson, J. H.</name>
                  <name>Zappia, A.</name>
                </names>
              </ayes>
              <noes>
                <num.votes>52</num.votes>
                <title>NOES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Andrews, K. L.</name>
                  <name>Archer, B. K.</name>
                  <name>Bell, A. M.</name>
                  <name>Birrell, S. J.</name>
                  <name>Boyce, C. E.</name>
                  <name>Broadbent, R. E.</name>
                  <name>Buchholz, S.</name>
                  <name>Caldwell, C. M.</name>
                  <name>Chester, D. J.</name>
                  <name>Coleman, D. B.</name>
                  <name>Conaghan, P. J.</name>
                  <name>Coulton, M. M. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Entsch, W. G.</name>
                  <name>Fletcher, P. W.</name>
                  <name>Gillespie, D. A.</name>
                  <name>Hamilton, G. R.</name>
                  <name>Hastie, A. W.</name>
                  <name>Hawke, A. G.</name>
                  <name>Hogan, K. J.</name>
                  <name>Howarth, L. R.</name>
                  <name>Joyce, B. T. G.</name>
                  <name>Landry, M. L.</name>
                  <name>Leeser, J.</name>
                  <name>Ley, S. P.</name>
                  <name>Littleproud, D.</name>
                  <name>Marino, N. B.</name>
                  <name>McCormack, M. F.</name>
                  <name>McIntosh, M. I.</name>
                  <name>McKenzie, Z. A.</name>
                  <name>O'Brien, E. L.</name>
                  <name>O'Brien, L. S.</name>
                  <name>Pasin, A.</name>
                  <name>Pearce, G. B.</name>
                  <name>Pike, H. J.</name>
                  <name>Pitt, K. J.</name>
                  <name>Price, M. L.</name>
                  <name>Ramsey, R. E. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Stevens, J.</name>
                  <name>Sukkar, M. S.</name>
                  <name>Taylor, A. J.</name>
                  <name>Thompson, P.</name>
                  <name>van Manen, A. J.</name>
                  <name>Vasta, R. X.</name>
                  <name>Violi, A. A.</name>
                  <name>Wallace, A. B.</name>
                  <name>Ware, J. L.</name>
                  <name>Webster, A. E.</name>
                  <name>Willcox, A. J.</name>
                  <name>Wilson, R. J.</name>
                  <name>Wolahan, K.</name>
                  <name>Wood, J. P.</name>
                  <name>Young, T. J.</name>
                </names>
              </noes>
              <pairs>
                <num.votes>0</num.votes>
                <title>PAIRS</title>
                <names />
              </pairs>
            </division.data>
            <division.result>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionFooter">Question agreed to.<br />Bill read a second time.</p>
              </body>
            </division.result>
          </division><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:33</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I have receved a message from His Excellency the governor-General recommending in accordance with section 56 of the Constitution an appropriation for purposes of this bill.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Third Reading</title>
            <page.no>94</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:33</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr DREYFUS</name>
    <name.id>HWG</name.id>
    <electorate>Isaacs</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That this bill be now read a third time.</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
<para>Bill read a third time.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Paid Parental Leave Amendment (More Support for Working Families) Bill 2023</title>
          <page.no>94</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r7102" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Paid Parental Leave Amendment (More Support for Working Families) Bill 2023</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>94</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:34</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms BYRNES</name>
    <name.id>299145</name.id>
    <electorate>Cunningham</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The Paid Parental Leave Amendment (More Support for Working Families) Bill 2023 delivers on the Albanese Labor government's commitment to the Australian people to provide a system of paid parental leave which is accessible, flexible and gender equitable. Paid parental leave is vital for the health and wellbeing of families and this is why we are increasing the total number of weeks of paid leave to a family from 20 to 26 weeks. Children benefit from being able to spend more time with their parents. This bill does exactly that by increasing the amount of leave which a family can take by 30 per cent. Currently, up to 18 weeks are available for one parent, with two weeks reserved for the other parent. The increase to 26 weeks means that one parent can access up to 22 weeks of paid parental leave. It also doubles the period reserved for the other parent from two to four weeks.</para>
<para>Improving paid parental leave is a critical reform. It is critical for families, women and the economy. These reforms are part of a broad package of measures that have been introduced by this government for the benefit of Australian families. Investing in paid parental leave is vital to the economy as it helps maintain the participation of women within the workforce. The Australian government's Workplace Gender Equity Agency reports that 63 per cent of employers offer paid parental leave. This is an area of reform which has widespread support throughout the community. Paid parental leave provides real opportunities for families and real opportunities for women. Businesses, unions and economists all recognise that one of the best ways to boost productivity and maintain women's participation in the workforce is to provide more support for families. These reforms do just that.</para>
<para>The provision of support for families has been a feature of the Albanese Labor government. Under the Labor tax plan, the average taxpayer on an income of $73,000 will get a tax cut of $1,504 per annum. It is important to see this bill in the context of the government's reform agenda, which is seeking to create a fairer Australia. Of course, these aren't the only initiatives that have been undertaken by the Albanese Labor government for the benefit of families. The government has already made early childhood education more affordable, which has been of considerable benefit to families within the Illawarra. Labor's cheaper childcare initiatives have seen the childcare subsidy increase for nearly 16,000 families within the Illawarra, while child care is cheaper for 96 per cent of local families. This reduction in the cost of child care shows the government's commitment to middle Australia and the government's commitment to the support of families.</para>
<para>These initiatives follow the reform of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, which was one of the early priorities of the Albanese Labor government. The cost of the PBS copayment was reduced from $42.50 to just $30. Australian families have saved $220 million on almost 20 million cheaper prescriptions over the period of January to November 2023, with residents of New South Wales saving $69 million over the same period. Labor is also taking steps to deal with bulk-billing after 10 years of neglect by the previous government. In the first two months since we tripled the bulk-billing incentive, Australia's bulk-billing rate has risen, with an estimated additional 360,000 trips to the GP being bulk billed. This year, we are celebrating the 40th anniversary of Medicare, the great achievement of Labor. The provision of quality and affordable health care is part of Labor's DNA. The Albanese Labor government has taken concrete steps to increase access to affordable health care for all.</para>
<para>These changes also reflect the Albanese government's commitment to improve the lives of working families and to provide better outcomes for young children by allowing them to spend the first weeks of their lives with both their parents. To do this, we have increased the paid concurrent leave, which both parents can take, from two to four weeks. This increase and concurrent leave are to be phased in over the period from 2024 to 2026.</para>
<para>A case study provided by the Workplace Gender Equality Agency shows the impact which paid parental leave has on the lives on those that take it:</para>
<quote><para class="block">My wife took leave after our son Julian was born, but wanted to return to work as she had studied so hard to get where she was, and she wanted to keep up her skills.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">I wanted to support my wife and help around the house but I also wanted to be a dad. I lost my father a couple of years ago—I didn't get to see him that much when we were growing up, because he was working long hours in a factory and I didn't want to miss out on time with Julian.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">When I first raised the idea of taking time off work, people outside work were quite negative saying it would be career-limiting…</para></quote>
<para>Good Australian employers increasingly see paid parental leave as part of their social obligations as an employer. This reflects a positive change in social attitudes and shows that business fully supports the concept of paid parental leave. But this isn't the only improvement in equity of employment conditions that has occurred. Eighty-one per cent of employers who offer paid parental leave now also pay superannuation over the period of this leave.</para>
<para>This bill also understands the complexities of family life and what it means to be a new parent. In our community, many mothers are also recovering from major surgical procedures following the birth of a child. They may have had a caesarean or other procedures, which leave them unable to lift and complete household tasks, but of course there is no opportunity for a rest when there is a newborn baby in the home. This bill is seeking to improve the lives of parents by increasing concurrent leave entitlements, allowing one parent to stay at home and look after their partner, who may be recovering from one of these surgical procedures. The extension of leave entitlements allows many mothers to receive much-needed care within the home, as not every family has support living nearby.</para>
<para>This bill provides support for families as they care for their newborn child and will make a positive contribution to the quality of life of families within Australia. The lived experience of one local family in my community illustrates the problems that many families faced under the previous scheme prior to its reform. One mother told me:</para>
<quote><para class="block">We had our first child in May 2021. At the time the only option for my husband to access parental leave was through the Dad and partner payment. In order to access this payment, my husband had to be on leave without pay from his job with only access to minimum wage payments.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">This was a significant pay cut for him. With me taking maternity leave at half pay for a couple of months followed by leave without pay, it wasn't financially viable for him to take leave. We couldn't afford our mortgage repayments if we did this.</para></quote>
<para>Previously, fathers could not take both paid leave from work and receive paid parental leave. I know from my conversations with new parents in my community that this has prevented some fathers from claiming parental leave, and this will no longer be the case.</para>
<para>This bill will have a positive impact on household income by not compelling the father to take unpaid leave before they can access paid parental leave. This is a real improvement in the circumstances of families. The Women's Economic Equality Taskforce recommended this increase in concurrent weeks, as it recognises that the raising of a child is a shared responsibility. The Albanese Labor government has seriously considered the taskforce's recommendations. The reforms contained within this bill are part of a process which is looking to improve the lives of families and increase the economic participation of women.</para>
<para>It is important to see the improvement of paid parental leave as part of a broad reform package that supports Australian families with the cost-of-living challenges. It has been known for a long time that paid parental leave increases the prospects of a woman returning to work. In 2018, the Australian Bureau of Statistics found that 74 per cent of people who took paid parental leave returned to work after at least four months at home with their child, which was up from 65 per cent in 2011. One in four returned to work after 10 months or longer, up from 21 per cent in 2011. There is every reason to believe that this extension of paid parental leave will increase the amount of time that parents stay at home with their children.</para>
<para>The extension of paid parental leave is a real win for families in the Illawarra. Business Illawarra estimates that approximately 25,000 people commute from the Illawarra to Sydney for work each day. This journey can add hours of travel to a working week and adds pressure to families. Statistics show that men have much lower rates of access and utilisation of flexible working arrangements and parental leave entitlements. According to the 2022-23 WGEA data, men make up 14 per cent of people who take primary carer parental leave. This bill is about providing options for parents and letting families make their own choices. It also includes a minor technical amendment to ensure access for fathers and partners who do not meet the work activity test requirements but who would have if their child had not been born prematurely. This provision is already in place for birth parents.</para>
<para>This is the largest investment in paid parental leave since Labor established the current format of leave in 2011. It is estimated that paid parental leave benefits over 180,000 families each year, and the economic value of allowing women to return to work after a period of paid leave outstrips this investment by the government. I am proud to be part of a government which is bringing into effect reforms that are delivering real benefits to the lives of Australian families.</para>
<para>When considering the impact of this bill, ACTU President Michele O'Neil said, 'We welcome the Albanese government's leadership and prioritisation of this issue.' She then went on to say:</para>
<quote><para class="block">This Bill is a significant improvement after a decade of neglect by the previous government by providing more paid leave and creating a more equal balance of caring responsibilities amongst parents.</para></quote>
<para>The Business Council of Australia also welcomed these reforms, with the Chief Executive, Bran Black, stating:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The Business Council of Australia welcomes the Government's expansion of the Paid Parental Leave system that will bring more equity and flexibility to caregiving roles, boosting the economy and making it easier for new parents to stay in the workforce …</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Business Council has longed called for reform to the Paid Parental Leave system, and our recently released <inline font-style="italic">Seize the Moment</inline> report outlined our Paid Parental Leave proposal aimed at removing barriers for women to work and improving simplicity and flexibility. It is great to see the Government incorporate significant aspects of our proposal in its Bill.</para></quote>
<para>This bill clearly has broad support within the Australian community. This bill is good for parents, kids, employers and the economy. It helps keep women in the workforce and builds stronger families.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:47</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms RISHWORTH</name>
    <name.id>HWA</name.id>
    <electorate>Kingston</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank all those who have contributed in this important debate on the Paid Parental Leave Amendment (More Support for Working Families) Bill 2023. Paid parental leave is a proud Labor legacy, and the Albanese government is building and expanding on this legacy. This bill increases the scheme to six months by 2026, providing families an extra six weeks of government paid leave. It implements, in full, our commitment from the 2022-23 October budget and represents a total investment of $1.2 billion over five years.</para>
<para>Starting on 1 July 2024, the scheme will increase by two weeks each year until reaching 26 weeks in 2026. This will benefit over 180,000 families each year and represents the biggest expansion of the scheme since Labor introduced it in 2011. The bill adopts advice from the Women's Economic Equality Taskforce on the optimal model of the 26-weeks scheme, where four weeks are reserved for each parent on a 'use it or lose it' basis and parents can take up to four weeks of PPL at the same time. As a result of these reforms, from 2026-27, the government's total investment in PPL will be around $4.4 billion a year.</para>
<para>I note the Community Affairs Legislation Committee has examined the bill ahead of the Senate consideration. Delivering their report on 5 February, the committee recommended the Senate pass the bill. I thank the Senate committee's secretariat staff for their work and, particularly, the work of Senator Marielle Smith as chair. I would like to thank all of those who made written submissions and contributed to the public hearing. I was very pleased to see strong support for the bill from a diverse range of family, employer and community groups; unions; gender experts; and economists, including the Business Council of Australia, the Parenthood, the Australian Council of Trade Unions, the Brotherhood of St. Laurence, the Australian Council of Social Service, Equality Rights Alliance, Diversity Council Australia and Impact Economics. The Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Under this legislation businesses are set to benefit by ensuring that fewer productive employees end up leaving workplaces permanently and more women remain in the labour market.</para></quote>
<para>Equality Rights Alliance, Australia's largest network of organisations advocating for gender equality, called the changes 'equality enabling' and 'significant advances in the promotion of Australian women's economic security'. Dr Leonora Risse, an economist specialising in gender equality, said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The amendments in this Bill are an undisputable and significant improvement from previous policy settings and are strongly welcomed. The expansion of entitlements to 26 weeks, with the inclusion of a reserved allocation for fathers and partners, is a historic milestone for women's rights and economic standing, and for gender equality in our country.</para></quote>
<para>And I couldn't agree more. Dr Risse and Diversity Council Australia both noted that the bill's changes were well informed by evidence and best practice.</para>
<para>I acknowledge, in the committee report, and this second reading debate, some of the crossbench have called for the government to further invest in paid parental leave. I am proud of the strides our government has made since coming to office. We know that there's always more to do. We've been clear. We intend to pay super and paid parental leave when the budget has the space to do so. We also know that gender pay gaps at retirement are driven by gender pay gaps in working life. Investing in paid parental leave is one part of the government's multibillion-dollar and long-term agenda to support women's economic opportunity.</para>
<para>It is worth remembering that the government payment is a minimum entitlement, designed to complement leave provided by employers, who also have a key role to play. Data collected by the Workplace Gender Equality Agency shows that the proportion of businesses providing their own paid parental leave has increased over the last decade. Nearly two-thirds of employers offer their own entitlement; that's up from less than half, a decade ago. This positive trend demonstrates that employers increasingly see themselves as having a role alongside government in providing paid parental leave, recognising that it is a workplace entitlement rather than an income support payment. We want to see this trend keep growing. We want paid parental leave to continue to be recognised as not only a great social policy but also a valuable workplace incentive that returns benefits for parents, employers and the economy.</para>
<para>Now, the second reading amendment from the opposition risks undermining recent progress by weakening the employer role. If the coalition strongly believed that small business shouldn't administer this workplace entitlement, then they should have acted in the nine years for which they held office. Instead, they focused their energy on calling mothers 'double-dippers' and trying to find budget savings from paid parental leave.</para>
<para>I want to be clear. This bill does not make any change to the employer role, which has been in place since the scheme's inception. Giving mind to administrative impacts, the act already provides reasonable circumstances where Services Australia steps in and delivers the payment—for instance, if the employee has been with the business for less than 12 months, or they're taking leave in blocks of less than eight weeks.</para>
<para>As the member for Deakin well knows, the Productivity Commission recommended the employer role to promote workplace retention and gender equality. In considering potential administrative impacts, the Productivity Commission found that, in any given year, only four per cent of small businesses would need to administer PPL for an employee. Subsequently, an independent evaluation of the Paid Parental Leave scheme conducted by the University of Queensland over a four-year period found employers generally experienced few difficulties in administering the payment, and costs were very minimal, both in terms of time and money.</para>
<para>Administering the payment is a reasonable contribution for employers, who significantly benefit from the government providing PPL to their employees. Each year the government spends around $460 million to provide paid parental leave to employees in small businesses. Moreover, the member for Deakin is wilfully ignoring the fact that two recent Senate committee hearings heard compelling evidence from women's groups, family groups, economists and unions about how the employer role in administering paid parental leave is important in promoting gender equality. These groups have expressed significant concern with the idea that small businesses shouldn't have to administer the payment. The ACTU said this 'would be a huge backward step for gender equality', and paid parental leave:</para>
<quote><para class="block">should be perceived as a normal feature of employment arrangements, rather than as welfare …</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">…   …   …</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">we are concerned that the already shocking rates of discrimination against women … would just worsen.</para></quote>
<para>Jess Rudd from The Parenthood, an organisation representing more than 80,000 parents and carers across Australia, said: 'Parents will lose the umbilical link to their employer and have to go through Centrelink. I've run a small business. I'm all for cutting red tape, but this is just bad policy'. Equality Rights Alliance, Australia's largest network advocating for gender equality, said: 'If we start to tell small business, "This isn't your job, you don't need to worry about women's work," then that sends a signal that could have ramification across the country'. Dr Angela Jackson, a leading economist said, it would be 'a retrograde step', and:</para>
<quote><para class="block">while it might be a small time administrative gain for small businesses, the long-term competitive disadvantages will hurt them as a sector. It'll certainly hurt the women that are working for them, and it will hurt the broader economy.</para></quote>
<para>The government shares the views of the Productivity Commission, women's groups, family advocates, economists and trade unions—paid parental leave is a workplace entitlement and should be administered by employers. Government, business and unions should be working together to ensure paid parental leave entitlements are as strong as inclusive as they can be.</para>
<para>I also acknowledge the second reading amendment put forward by the member for Wentworth and the importance that it expresses of encouraging shared care for the social and economic benefits it brings, particularly for women. While we agree with the sentiment, we don't agree with the detail and we will not be supporting this amendment. Encouraging greater uptake by men has been a key consideration in the design of our paid parental leave reform. When fathers take a great greater caring role from the start, evidence shows that there is a more even distribution of household responsibilities, which persists through a child's life. However, the amendment does call for locking the government into proposals for any future paid parental leave, and the government reserves its right to consult widely on any future tranches of paid parental leave, as we have done with this bill, and make sure we have the settings right.</para>
<para>This bill does adopt the advice from the Women's Economic Equality Taskforce, and includes four weeks reserve for each parent on a 'use it or lose it' basis. This will encourage men's uptake, working in tandem with the changes we legislated earlier this year to make the scheme more accessible, flexible and gender-equitable. From 1 July this year, we've significantly expanded access for many fathers and partners by: creating a single payment that both parents can claim; allowing paid parental leave days to be taken flexibly in blocks as small as one day at a time, with periods of work in between; allowing partners to be eligible regardless of their mother's income or residency status; and allowing partners to take government-paid leave at the same time as any employer-paid leave. As part of our reform, the government has committed to undertake a multiyear evaluation to track the impact of the changes, including uptake by gender, which will help us identify where refinements might be needed.</para>
<para>In summary, the bill's careful design changes all work together to strike an important balance of increasing support to families, encouraging both parents to take leave, and providing flexibility in how they structure their care arrangements. The bill gives Australian families more paid parental leave than ever before and will support participation and productivity over the longer term, providing a dividend for the economy. I commend the bill to the House.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>230531</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The question before the House is that the amendment move by the honourable member for Wentworth be agreed to.</para>
<para>Question negatived.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The question before the House is that the amendment moved by the honourable member for Deakin be agreed to.</para>
<para> </para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<division>
            <division.header>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionPreamble">The House divided. [18:03]<br />(The Speaker—Hon. Milton Dick) </p>
              </body>
            </division.header>
            <division.data>
              <ayes>
                <num.votes>54</num.votes>
                <title>AYES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Andrews, K. L.</name>
                  <name>Archer, B. K.</name>
                  <name>Bell, A. M.</name>
                  <name>Birrell, S. J.</name>
                  <name>Boyce, C. E.</name>
                  <name>Broadbent, R. E.</name>
                  <name>Buchholz, S.</name>
                  <name>Caldwell, C. M.</name>
                  <name>Chester, D. J.</name>
                  <name>Coleman, D. B.</name>
                  <name>Conaghan, P. J.</name>
                  <name>Coulton, M. M. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Entsch, W. G.</name>
                  <name>Fletcher, P. W.</name>
                  <name>Gillespie, D. A.</name>
                  <name>Hamilton, G. R.</name>
                  <name>Hastie, A. W.</name>
                  <name>Hawke, A. G.</name>
                  <name>Hogan, K. J.</name>
                  <name>Howarth, L. R.</name>
                  <name>Joyce, B. T. G.</name>
                  <name>Katter, R. C.</name>
                  <name>Landry, M. L.</name>
                  <name>Leeser, J.</name>
                  <name>Littleproud, D.</name>
                  <name>Marino, N. B.</name>
                  <name>McCormack, M. F.</name>
                  <name>McIntosh, M. I.</name>
                  <name>McKenzie, Z. A.</name>
                  <name>O'Brien, E. L.</name>
                  <name>O'Brien, L. S.</name>
                  <name>Pasin, A.</name>
                  <name>Pearce, G. B.</name>
                  <name>Pike, H. J.</name>
                  <name>Pitt, K. J.</name>
                  <name>Price, M. L.</name>
                  <name>Ramsey, R. E. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Scamps, S. A.</name>
                  <name>Sharkie, R. C. C.</name>
                  <name>Stevens, J.</name>
                  <name>Sukkar, M. S.</name>
                  <name>Taylor, A. J.</name>
                  <name>Thompson, P.</name>
                  <name>van Manen, A. J.</name>
                  <name>Vasta, R. X.</name>
                  <name>Violi, A. A.</name>
                  <name>Wallace, A. B.</name>
                  <name>Ware, J. L.</name>
                  <name>Webster, A. E.</name>
                  <name>Willcox, A. J.</name>
                  <name>Wilson, R. J.</name>
                  <name>Wolahan, K.</name>
                  <name>Wood, J. P.</name>
                  <name>Young, T. J.</name>
                </names>
              </ayes>
              <noes>
                <num.votes>84</num.votes>
                <title>NOES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Albanese, A. N.</name>
                  <name>Aly, A.</name>
                  <name>Ananda-Rajah, M.</name>
                  <name>Bandt, A. P.</name>
                  <name>Bates, S. J.</name>
                  <name>Bowen, C. E.</name>
                  <name>Burke, A. S.</name>
                  <name>Burnell, M. P.</name>
                  <name>Burney, L. J.</name>
                  <name>Burns, J.</name>
                  <name>Butler, M. C.</name>
                  <name>Byrnes, A. J.</name>
                  <name>Chalmers, J. E.</name>
                  <name>Chandler-Mather, M.</name>
                  <name>Chaney, K. E.</name>
                  <name>Charlton, A. H. G.</name>
                  <name>Chesters, L. M.</name>
                  <name>Clare, J. D.</name>
                  <name>Claydon, S. C.</name>
                  <name>Coker, E. A.</name>
                  <name>Collins, J. M.</name>
                  <name>Conroy, P. M.</name>
                  <name>Daniel, Z.</name>
                  <name>Doyle, M. J. J.</name>
                  <name>Dreyfus, M. A.</name>
                  <name>Elliot, M. J.</name>
                  <name>Fernando, C.</name>
                  <name>Freelander, M. R.</name>
                  <name>Garland, C. M. L.</name>
                  <name>Georganas, S.</name>
                  <name>Giles, A. J.</name>
                  <name>Gosling, L. J.</name>
                  <name>Haines, H. M.</name>
                  <name>Hill, J. C.</name>
                  <name>Jones, S. P.</name>
                  <name>Kearney, G. M.</name>
                  <name>Keogh, M. J.</name>
                  <name>Khalil, P.</name>
                  <name>King, C. F.</name>
                  <name>King, M. M. H.</name>
                  <name>Lawrence, T. N.</name>
                  <name>Laxale, J. A. A.</name>
                  <name>Le, D.</name>
                  <name>Leigh, A. K.</name>
                  <name>Lim, S. B. C.</name>
                  <name>Marles, R. D.</name>
                  <name>Mascarenhas, Z. F. A.</name>
                  <name>McBain, K. L.</name>
                  <name>McBride, E. M.</name>
                  <name>Miller-Frost, L. J.</name>
                  <name>Mitchell, B. K.</name>
                  <name>Mitchell, R. G.</name>
                  <name>Mulino, D.</name>
                  <name>Neumann, S. K.</name>
                  <name>O'Connor, B. P. J.</name>
                  <name>O'Neil, C. E.</name>
                  <name>Payne, A. E.</name>
                  <name>Perrett, G. D.</name>
                  <name>Phillips, F. E.</name>
                  <name>Plibersek, T. J.</name>
                  <name>Rae, S. T.</name>
                  <name>Reid, G. J.</name>
                  <name>Repacholi, D. P.</name>
                  <name>Rishworth, A. L.</name>
                  <name>Roberts, T. G.</name>
                  <name>Rowland, M. A.</name>
                  <name>Ryan, J. C.</name>
                  <name>Ryan, M. M.</name>
                  <name>Scrymgour, M. R.</name>
                  <name>Sitou, S.</name>
                  <name>Smith, D. P. B. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Stanley, A. M. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Steggall, Z.</name>
                  <name>Templeman, S. R.</name>
                  <name>Thistlethwaite, M. J.</name>
                  <name>Thwaites, K. L.</name>
                  <name>Tink, K. J.</name>
                  <name>Vamvakinou, M.</name>
                  <name>Watson-Brown, E.</name>
                  <name>Watts, T. G.</name>
                  <name>Wells, A. S.</name>
                  <name>Wilkie, A. D.</name>
                  <name>Wilson, J. H.</name>
                  <name>Zappia, A.</name>
                </names>
              </noes>
              <pairs>
                <num.votes>0</num.votes>
                <title>PAIRS</title>
                <names />
              </pairs>
            </division.data>
            <division.result>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionFooter">Question negatived.<br />Original question agreed to.<br />Bill read a second time.<br />Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.</p>
              </body>
            </division.result>
          </division></subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Third Reading</title>
            <page.no>100</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:09</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms RISHWORTH</name>
    <name.id>HWA</name.id>
    <electorate>Kingston</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That this bill be now read a third time.</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
<para>Bill read a third time.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Treasury Laws Amendment (Cost of Living Tax Cuts) Bill 2024, Treasury Laws Amendment (Cost of Living—Medicare Levy) Bill 2024</title>
          <page.no>100</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <p>
              <a href="r7140" type="Bill">
                <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                  <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Treasury Laws Amendment (Cost of Living Tax Cuts) Bill 2024</span>
                </p>
              </a>
            </p>
            <a href="r7141" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Treasury Laws Amendment (Cost of Living—Medicare Levy) Bill 2024</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>100</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:10</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr TAYLOR</name>
    <name.id>231027</name.id>
    <electorate>Hume</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to speak on the Treasury Laws Amendment (Cost of Living Tax Cuts) Bill 2024, and I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">"whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House notes:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) this Government has mismanaged the economy and made a deliberate decision to break promises and raise taxes;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) the Coalition is committed to lower, simpler and fairer taxes;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) because Australians are hurting from the Government's mismanagement of the economy, the Coalition will not oppose the reduction in the 19c tax rate to 16c;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) the Coalition is committed to going to the next election with a tax reform package that is in keeping with the stage 3 tax cuts; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(5) the Coalition's package will:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">a. deliver lower, simpler, and fairer taxes;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">b. fight bracket creep and enshrine aspiration in our tax system;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">c. reward hard work and support a strong economy where every Australian can get ahead; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">d. unite, rather than pit Australians against each other".</para></quote>
<para>It's important understand why this bill is before us today. There is a very simple and important reason for that, which is that Labor has absolutely failed in managing the economy and the result of that is Australians are being hurt on a scale that I haven't seen in my lifetime. In my lifetime!</para>
<para>Since coming to office, this government and this Prime Minister have made the wrong decisions, have been distracted and have consistently broken promises. The Prime Minister spent all of last year dividing Australians based on race; he was distracted by his $450 million failed referendum. Meanwhile, throughout the course of that year, he hadn't noticed that Australians were being smashed. They were seeing their household budgets being hurt in a way that they hadn't anticipated and that he promised would not be the case—he promised he was going to be a Prime Minister who was dealing with the cost of living.</para>
<para>Let's look at the facts of what has happened to household budgets in the 18 months that those opposite have been in government. It's very important to get to the bottom of the numbers. These numbers came out in the national accounts late last year. We on this side know this, because we see it every single day. Whenever I go into an electorate, as much as I can I go to one of the local food banks and I ask them, 'Who are you seeing?' They're seeing people looking for help in a way that they have never seen before. This is a tragedy we're seeing unfolding right around this country as aspiration is being smashed, as people's standards of living is being smashed and as their ability to make ends meet is being smashed. What we saw in the national accounts that came out—</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr TAYLOR</name>
    <name.id>231027</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>You should listen to this! The numbers behind that came out in December last year. In 18 months, the average Australian household has lost 8.6 per cent of its real disposable income. It's a phenomenal amount, if you think about it. The average Australian has lost $8,000 in 18 months from their disposable income.</para>
<para>They're seeing this coming through in three different ways. First of all, prices have gone up far faster than wages. That means, in technical speak, their real wages are going backwards. What that means in practical terms is that their purchasing power is disappearing from their pay packets. Their purchasing power over the last 18 months has been disappearing from their pay packets. The second thing they saw in the course of that 18 months was 12 interest rate increases. That means that a family with a mortgage—about a third of Australian households have a mortgage—has not lost $8,000 of their real disposable income, it's more like $20,000, or $30,000 or more. And they have to find that $20,000 or $30,000 a year in after-tax income.</para>
<para>Australians are stumbling through this because the government spent all of last year ignoring it. It was distracted and focused on other things, and no-one was more distracted than this Prime Minister. The question so many Australians ask me as I get out and about is: Is this all going to go back to normal some time soon? Is this going to revert back? Am I going to get my $8,000 back? Is this 8.6 per cent hit to my disposable income going to return? Are interest rates going to go back to where they were? Are prices going to go back to where they were? There has been an almost 10 per cent increase in prices—of course far more for some goods and services in the last 18 months. Are they going to go back to where they were? And are the tax increases I've seen going to back where they were?</para>
<para>To put those tax increases in perspective, we saw a 27 per cent increase in personal income taxes being paid in 18 months. I'll hand it to the Labor Party; they are good at one thing: tax collection. They are the masters—27 per cent! How could it be that there's a 27 per cent increase in taxes? Well, it's true that there was record population growth during that time period, but that was only 3½ per cent, so the rest of it was all Australians paying more tax.</para>
<para>Right at the heart of that was the greatest thief in the night that a big-spending Labor government absolutely adores, and that's bracket creep. Australians see bracket creep in a very clear way. They don't call it bracket creep. To them it just means: why is there so little money in my bank account? Because the hand of big government is pulling it out, and it's doing it through inflation and it loves inflation. It doesn't want that bracket creep to go away. We heard the Prime Minister yesterday demonstrate that he doesn't even understand bracket creep. He's got no idea. But it has resulted, along with other things, in a 27 per cent increase in the personal income taxes being paid by Australians in the period of 18 months. That increase in prices, mortgage payments and personal income taxes is responsible for Australian households seeing a decimation of their income.</para>
<para>We know that Labor's policies are causing this. We heard the Reserve Bank governor tell us that inflation was homegrown. Inflation comes from Canberra. It's not coming from the Ukraine, as the Prime Minister liked to say for a while until he was corrected by the Reserve Bank governor. It is homegrown. This Labor government has been responsible for gross and egregious economic mismanagement in Australia, and every Australian is paying the price. They have botched energy policy. They promised a $275 price reduction, but of course it never arrived. They promised cheaper mortgages, but of course we've seen 12 interest rate increases under this government, and any Australian family with a mortgage is seeing a decimation, a smashing, of their disposable incomes, as I said earlier.</para>
<para>At the heart of this is a government that loves to spend money. In fact there's been $209 billion of extra spending since they came to power. That's over $20,000 of extra spending for every Australian household. But, when you're taxing lots, that's what you do; you spend it all, if you're a Labor government. And they have spent almost every bit of it, despite what the Treasurer likes to say.</para>
<para><inline font-style="italic">A government member interjecting</inline>—</para>
</continue>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr TAYLOR</name>
    <name.id>231027</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Well, it's the truth. You've added $20,000 of spending for every Australian household, but the member opposite seems to think this is terribly funny—the plight of Australian households—and it's not. It's a crisis, and this Labor government has exacerbated this crisis in a very significant way.</para>
<para>This is where we stand. We stand in a situation where Australian households are in a dire situation. It's certainly far worse than anything we've seen in my lifetime. Perhaps it was as bad during the Depression, but this is really next level. That's why we are supporting the tax relief in this legislation—because that's what's left. There is nothing else this government is offering. When they fail on economic management, that's what you have to do. We won't get between Australians and lower taxes because we are ultimately the parties of simpler, lower, fairer taxes.</para>
<para>There is a second reason why this legislation is in front of us in this form.</para>
</continue>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr TAYLOR</name>
    <name.id>231027</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I'll take the interjection. I think I've just answered your question. What we're doing is voting for tax relief that is required because of the Labor government's failed economic management, disastrous economic management and unprecedented economic management. Those opposite should take responsibility for their failures. There's a second reason why this legislation is in front of us in this form today, which includes an egregious broken promise. Those opposite have chosen to fund that tax relief by taxing a group of Australians more. That's $28 billion of bracket creep that they're going to impose on Australians right now.</para>
<para>The Prime Minister fessed up to this last night on <inline font-style="italic">7:30</inline>, where he admitted that they had seen options, none of which had been seen by the Australian people or by the opposition, but he reckoned this was the best option. Of course, taxing a group of Australians substantially more is always going to be the best option for a Labor prime minister, particularly one with a background like the Prime Minister. He spent last year dividing Australians based on race. I'm sure he's going to spend this year dividing Australians based on income. He doesn't believe that Australians can get ahead and benefit other Australians in the process by employing them, by making investments, by enhancing productivity and by supporting higher wages. He doesn't believe that. He thinks the only way anyone can get ahead is by taking money from someone else. That is the option this Prime Minister has chosen. It's his choice. He said it last night on <inline font-style="italic">7:30</inline>. There were options in front of him, but this was the one he liked. In the process, he broke a promise that he had made not once, not twice, not three times, not four times, not five times—look, I've only got 18 minutes left; I can't keep counting up to over 100, because that's how many times he and the Treasurer made the promise that he would not repeal the stage 3 tax cuts—over 100 times.</para>
<para>We learnt in the last couple of days that, miraculously, Treasury was working away on breaking an election promise without instructions from the Treasurer. Does anyone believe that? I did notice that, when this was discussed in the House, the Treasurer was looking down. He didn't really want to look anyone in the eye. He certainly didn't want to look me in the eye when this was going on, because no-one believed him. The truth is that this Treasurer and this Prime Minister have been working away on this for a long time. We know that, and it's time for them to admit that. We don't want to see them misleading the House. That's not a good thing for them to do. They need to fess up. What we do know, regardless, is that this has gone to two elections, that those opposite voted in favour of these tax cuts and that, between the Prime Minister and the Treasurer, they promised it over 100 times.</para>
<para>To take it even further, it is in legislation and there are many Australians who have made commitments, to their detriment, on the back of the assumption that they were going to get what was legislated and had been promised over 100 times. But no promise from those opposite counts for anything. This is a prime minister who said his word was his bond. Tell you what: you want a better bond than that one. That's as hopeless a bond as you're ever going to get. The result is that we're going to see $28 billion of extra taxation in the coming years.</para>
<para>He, of course, claims that no-one is going to be impacted by this. Well, let me tell you something: that tax bracket that he is whacking back in will see three to four million people in that tax bracket in the coming years—it's growing at about eight or nine per cent a year—and they are aspirational Australians who want to get ahead and are fighting to get ahead and who are working hard for their families and for their futures. In the process, they're investing; they're creating jobs; they're taking risks. That is how you grow the economy. Those opposite, of course, are taking us in exactly the opposite direction. I should say that those opposite refuse to accept that we are in a GDP-per-person recession right now. That's where we're at. From an individual point of view, that's a recession; that's the real deal.</para>
<para>We saw the Reserve Bank yesterday, telling us that, actually, it's worse than we'd thought. As they scale down their GDP forecast—</para>
</continue>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr TAYLOR</name>
    <name.id>231027</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The member opposite should take a look at this. The Reserve Bank has recognised that this government is hopeless when it comes to economic management.</para>
<para>I said that the government was taking from one group of Australians to give to another. It didn't need to be that way. We do support taking the 19 per cent bracket down to 16 per cent. What we don't support is taking it from another group of Australians to achieve that—robbing Peter to pay Paul. That's why we will take to the next election strong tax reforms that are in the spirit of the stage 3 tax cuts, that are in keeping with stage 3 tax cuts.</para>
<para>I'll tell you what: those opposite need to understand how egregious this broken promise is. Before the election, the Prime Minister said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">An Albanese Labor Government will deliver the same legislated tax relief to more than 9 million Australians …</para></quote>
<para>That was at a press conference on 26 July 2021. On Sky News on 29 May 2022, he said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">… I've said on the stage three tax cuts, that they've been legislated, people are entitled to operate on the basis of that certainty.</para></quote>
<para>I'll go on. On Radio 4CA on 20 January 2022, he said, 'Now that they are legislated we do need economic certainty going forward for people, and we make no apologies for that.' That's what he said. Again, in that same interview, he said, 'We're not going to interfere with the legislated tax cuts which are there,' and that his word was his bond. That's what he said. On Sky News, again, on 11 February back in 2015, he said, 'If you make a promise and a commitment, you do have to stick to it or you'll be punished.' That's the Prime Minister: if you make a promise and a commitment, you do have to stick to it or you'll be punished! Gee, that's a doozy!</para>
<para>Worse, since election, the Prime Minister—along with the Treasurer—has gone on to repeat that promise more than a hundred times. In fact, I'll go through an interview from less than two weeks ago:</para>
<quote><para class="block">MACDONALD: You're on ABC Radio Sydney with the Prime Minister Anthony Albanese in the studio. There are calls to stop the Stage Three Tax Cuts coming in this year. Are they definitely, absolutely, going ahead as written and planned?</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">PRIME MINISTER: Well, of course there will be tax cuts. We'll go ahead in July. We haven't changed our position.</para></quote>
<para>We have not changed our position—a lie repeated over a hundred times by the Prime Minister and the Treasurer is of profound significance to every Australian.</para>
<para>Of course it's not the only time he has misled Australians. He said he wasn't going to touch taxes on superannuation. Well, he's going after those! He's taxing unrealised capital gains. Every small-business person knows that a capital gain that's realised—you might be able to pay some tax on that, but I don't know how you're supposed to pay tax on an unrealised capital gain. But most of those opposite have never been in business, so they wouldn't have a clue! He's increasing taxes on franking credits, he's raising taxes on traditional industries that create enormous wealth for this country and he's ended small-business tax concessions. This is all, as I said, despite the national accounts showing a 27 per cent increase in personal income taxes being paid. But the truth is that we all know higher taxes are in Labor's DNA.</para>
<para>The question this raises for every Australian is: what's next? The Prime Minister and the Treasurer were asked yesterday about negative gearing, and I tell you what—they're not ruling it out. There was no effort by either of them to rule it out, because they want the housing stock that's rented out, particularly to younger Australians, pensioners and others across Australia, to be owned by offshore funds and superannuation funds. That's their model of rental housing in this country. That's where they want to go, and getting rid of negative gearing is their way of achieving their great vision of the corporatisation of house ownership in this country.</para>
<para>They're going after small businesses and farming trusts; we know that. They were asked about this again today. They're not going to rule that out. That's the next one on the list—the small-business tax rate. The best way to unionise a workforce is to get rid of the small businesses in that industry, isn't it. We know that. That's why the industrial relations reforms they're pursuing with such passion are all about making sure they can re-unionise workforces. I have worked with good unions over the course of my career, and I've seen enormous value added by sensible work done by unions working with businesses to improve workplaces and improve wage outcomes for workers. But getting rid of small businesses and punishing small businesses because they're not unionised is not the pathway to prosperity in this country.</para>
<para>Then there's capital gains tax on the family home. The Prime Minister gave a very slippery answer on this yesterday: 'No-one would do this.' That means nothing coming from the Prime Minister. There is no doubt he would love to impose capital gains tax on the family home. These tax increases are all on the table. Sadly, the result of all of this is that tax reform, which is one of the crucial ways you deliver a stronger and more prosperous economy, an economy that provides opportunity and aspiration to every Australian—tax reform in this country appears to be dead. Innes Willox of the AI Group has said that abandoning the stage 3 tax cuts 'demonstrates that the government attaches little weight to addressing the problems created by Australia's economic situation'. He continued:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The Government's new tax scales will barely touch the sides on improving incentives to invest, employ and save.</para></quote>
<para>Of course, that's quite right. The only way you return the $8,000 lost to the average Australian in their real disposable incomes is to manage the economy properly with a back-to-basics economic agenda. What does that look like?</para>
<para>There is a better way. There is nothing this great country can't achieve with the right policy framework, and that is lower, simpler and fairer taxes. It is fighting bracket creep and enshrining aspiration in our tax system, not adding $28 billion of thief-in-the-night bracket creep, which takes from every Australian's bank account. It's a tax system that rewards hard work and supports a stronger economy where every Australian can get ahead, a system that unites Australians rather than pitting Australians against each other. But this Prime Minister loves to pit Australians against each other, because it's all politics to him. In fact, the Treasurer admitted that in an interview in recent days, where he said, 'We had to do this before Dunkley.' Well, that just tells you: it is all politics for this government, this Prime Minister and this Treasurer.</para>
<para>A back-to-basics economic agenda extends beyond tax, even though tax reform is obviously enormously important. It's about supporting small business aspiration and entrepreneurship. That's why we've said that the small-business accelerated depreciation concessions should be back where they were, but Labor has scaled them back. I've already gone through how they dislike small business.</para>
<para>We need an economy that rewards and focuses on work, not on more welfare, and that is why we championed from very early on in this term of parliament older Australians being able to work more without being punished for it. You do, if you're go to a back-to-basics agenda, have to contain the growth in government spending, and that is why we opposed $45 billion of spending through this parliament. We opposed it for good reason—$18 billion of interest payments are in the budget. All of these are examples of government overreach. Getting the basics right, knowing where government has a role to play and where it doesn't, making sure you get your competition policy right is not just crony capitalism. Looking after your mates at Qantas, that's not competition policy; that's crony capitalism, but the Prime Minister loves a good bit of crony capitalism.</para>
<para>Government needs to be prepared to pull every lever to fix this crisis and that means sound economic management, ending waste, workplace laws that are sensible and flexible and not putting union officials in charge of our workplace. You have to allow employers and workers to get together and work out how to make the workplace more productive and pay people more in the process. That's how you do it. Back in the eighties, that's what the Labor Party used to believe in but that's all by the wayside now.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Sukkar</name>
    <name.id>242515</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The radical Left has taken over.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr TAYLOR</name>
    <name.id>231027</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I will take the interjection. The radical left has taken over. That's why we are seeing the economic outcomes we are. We don't live in an economy which is zero sum. We live in an economy where, if you give opportunities for people to get ahead, to realise their aspirations in that process, they create opportunities for others—jobs, investment, opportunity for all. Those opposite will continue to play class wars. The Prime Minister and the Treasurer will continue to state the politics of envy, but, on this side of the House, we will continue to support aspiration, opportunity and prosperity for all.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:37</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>E0D</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Is the amendment seconded?</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Sukkar</name>
    <name.id>242515</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:37</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr KHALIL</name>
    <name.id>101351</name.id>
    <electorate>Wills</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Well, what a performance by the shadow Treasurer. I've never actually seen him in full flight. He hasn't asked a question in six months. I've not had the amazing opportunity to see him in full flight, and what a performance it was. I mean, did he talk about the Australians who are struggling? Did he talk about ordinary Australians that need cost-of-living relief? No. It was just a bunch of hollow talking points.</para>
<para>I remember the Treasurer in question time talked about the dregs of the former government. The shadow Treasurer was reaching into the dregs of the talking points, the hollow talking points he was referring to. That was probably one of the worst performances I have seen. Not once did he mention the needs of the Australian people, the people who are feeling the pinch. Now, we, as a government, know it's getting harder and harder for many Australians to pay for the essentials. We know hard it is to pay the rent, the mortgage, the food and the bills, and that they're feeling the financial pinch. That's what we're focused on—the needs of the people that we represent.</para>
<para>We know some Australians are having to choose between paying rent or seeing their GP or paying for essential medicines. We don't need to be told that there is a cost-of-living challenge in our economy. We know that. Everyone is seeing it. Everyone is feeling it, maybe not the Shadow Treasurer, but we certainly are. We know some of this is not in our control. The war in Ukraine has raised energy prices even higher, and the problem in supply chains post pandemic has pushed up the cost of goods. We know that. They are just facts. Despite the challenges, many Australians rightly expect a good government to do whatever it takes to support them, not to play politics with this but to support them, and that's what we're focused on.</para>
<para>This bill includes policy reforms that are fair for working Australians. The Labor government is, and always will be, the party of progressive policy and reform. That's why every single Australian will get a tax cut under Labor's tax cuts. The two amendments to the Treasury laws are being introduced for the purpose of ensuring more Australians are better off. That's what we're focused on. The first relates to cost-of-living tax cuts. Many Australians, including many of my constituents in my electorate of Wills, have been talking to me, writing to me and calling my office, expressing their angst and their issues with Scott Morrison and the Liberal Party's stage 3 cuts. Many were worried about these cuts worsening services and placing additional pressure on lower-income Australians, who are already struggling. Many were worried about the cuts resulting in increasing income inequality for Australians. Many expressed concerns about the Liberals' benefits only reaching the top percentile of income earners. The message has been loud and clear: the majority of Australians wanted the Albanese Labor government to take action to reduce that pressure on the cost of living.</para>
<para>We on this side agree, because we're focused on the needs of the people who we represent. That's why we understand the policies that we're putting forward; the changes to these Treasury laws are so impactful and important to relieve that cost-of-living pressure. Most of us, I would say, ran for political office to support, put forward and advocate for policies that ensure a fairer and more equitable society for all Australians. That's what we're here for—at least, I think I can safely say that about those of us on this side. I've always advocated for Labor to implement tax cuts that will benefit millions of working- and middle-class Australians. When the former coalition government brought these tax cuts to parliament, the stage 3 tax cuts of Morrison, I called on them publicly to split the tax cuts bill so that Labor could support the passage of tax cuts to low- and middle-income earners. When it became obvious that they were all about politics—that's all they were about—and that the former government were not going to split their tax cut bill, then federal Labor, in opposition, made the decision to support the tax cuts in full so that working-class Australians wouldn't suffer or miss out. It was so that low- and middle-income earners wouldn't miss out on those tax cuts.</para>
<para>We were given an all-or-nothing situation because that's all former prime minister Morrison did: play politics. That's what the former government was about. And I see no difference in the comments and statements in the speech of the shadow Treasurer—it's more of the same. We did what we could do to advocate for low- and middle-income earners. We did what we could in opposition to push for progressive tax reform, because we wanted to ensure that working- and middle-class Australians did not miss out on tax benefits. That's why, now that Labor is in government, we're putting these tax cuts forward for low- and middle-income earners. Eighty-four per cent of all Australians are going to be better off with our policy, with every Australian still getting a tax cut.</para>
<para>These cost-of-living tax cuts are part of a broader plan by the government to provide relief for the Australians that we represent by boosting incomes, reducing costs and putting the budget on a stronger footing. We will deliver a bigger tax cut for all of middle Australia. It's going to help with the cost of living. These are real challenges—not that I heard any of that discussed by the shadow Treasurer. These changes are critically important for people, day to day. As I said, 84 per cent of Australians will get a bigger tax cut and be better off because of the changes that we're putting forward in this place.</para>
<para>Under the Liberal's tax cuts, these Australians would have got absolutely nothing. We managed and we did the work and the hard yards—great credit goes to the Treasurer, Jim Chalmers, the economic team and the Prime Minister for actually having the courage to find a better way to provide more cost-of-living relief for more Australians. Of course, the opposition leader, the shadow Treasurer and all those opposite said they were against these tax cuts, even before we announced them. I think it's probably true to say that the coalition and the Greens political party have a choice. Are they going to stand with Labor and vote for a tax cut for every Australian, and for more tax cuts for 84 per cent, or are they going to block relief for working Australians and force us to keep Scott Morrison's 2019 cuts?</para>
<para>I cannot stress enough the importance of these cuts and the significance of making them now. In my electorate of Wills, 78,000 people will receive a tax cut and 85 per cent will receive a bigger tax cut under Labor. We know for a fact, too, that single women over 55 are undergoing the greatest rental distress. That demographic is feeling the greatest pinch from the cost of living.</para>
<para>There's a woman in my electorate by the name of Freema. She's one of those women. She's a teacher living in my electorate. She's an immigrant and a single parent. She has remained a renter, and, in October last year, her rent went up by $282 per month. At the start of this year, she was forced to sublet one of her rooms to ensure that her rent was being paid. She has two daughters—a 14-year-old and a 17-year-old. She is on a single income of $80,000. Women like Freema will be able to receive up to $1,700 in tax cuts. That's up from $875 under the coalition's plan. That means something. That additional cost-of-living relief means the world to Freema and her daughters. At $1,700 in tax cuts, it's almost double the tax cut she would have received under the Morrison government's plan. This means Freema is better able to manage her rent as well as the increases in the cost of living. It's worth highlighting that 90 per cent of women who pay tax in this country will receive a greater tax cut under this new plan. That means a lot to them.</para>
<para>I'm part of a government on this side—on the Treasury benches—that ensures that those under the greatest pressure receive the biggest cuts. That's the difference between us and them. We actually care about the people that we represent. We know the pain that they're going through, and we're targeting our efforts and policy at supporting them. All Australians—Australians like Freema—will benefit from the Albanese government's reduction of the lowest rate of income tax from 19 to 16 per cent for those low-income earners. This means that every working Australian will pay less tax on the first $45,000 that they earn. This means that part-time workers earning $40,000, such as waiters and waitresses, retail workers and cashiers in grocery stores, will get a tax cut of $654. That means a lot to them. Under the Morrison tax plan, these people would have received absolutely nothing.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Sukkar</name>
    <name.id>242515</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Why did you vote for it, then?</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr KHALIL</name>
    <name.id>101351</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I'll take that interjection from the member for Deakin, because he wasn't listening to the early part of my speech when I said very clearly: we were focused on the needs of low- and middle-income Australians. We supported the tax cuts for them. We sought to split the tax bill, which you refused to do when you were in government because you cared about politics over all else—not about the people and their needs. But our policy will give the biggest tax cuts to the people in the greatest need. That is the big difference between us and you. We care about the people that we represent, and we put forward policies that make a difference to their lives. Whether it's Freema, or whether it's people who are on $40,000 or $45,000, they will get a tax cut when, under your policy, they would have gotten absolutely nothing. They would have gotten zero!</para>
<para>For incomes between $45,000 and $135,000, Labor is reducing the 32.5 per cent tax rate to 30 per cent. That reduces the burden for those who need it the most. The impact on reducing the tax liability for those in the first two brackets is allowing a woman like Freema to better care for her daughters and to abate that rental stress that she's feeling. The member for Deakin might want to listen to this. For childcare workers and mechanics—</para>
</continue>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr KHALIL</name>
    <name.id>101351</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Maybe he gets his car fixed by one of these mechanics! Why don't you tell your mechanic next time you see him or her that, in my electorate of Wills, a mechanic or childcare worker who is earning $50,000 will receive $920 in cuts under Labor's plan instead of receiving a paltry $125 under your tax cuts policy. Maybe you can ask your mechanic to buy you a coffee with that extra money, because you might not want to spend it on him or her. A primary school teacher in the seat of Wills earning $80,000 will receive almost double the tax cut that they would have received under the coalition's plan. We know that most of the primary school teachers are women. That is the predominant gender in that workforce, and these teachers are now going to keep $1,679 in their pockets—almost double what they would have received.</para>
<para>We are also increasing the threshold at which the 37 per cent rate will now apply, starting from $135,000 instead of $120,000, and increasing the threshold above which the 45 per cent tax rate applies from $180,000 to $190,000. Overall, we're lowering the tax rate in two brackets and increasing the threshold of taxable income in the other two brackets. These changes mean that families with a combined income of $130,000 are so much better off than they would have been.</para>
<para>Schools across Australia have just opened. Households are feeling the pinch at the supermarket and at the uniform shops. Mums and dads are feeling the pinch at the chemist. Even a little bit of entertainment—taking the kids to a movie, where there's a lot of popcorn and candy—costs a fair bit. With one parent earning $80,000 and the other earning $50,000, households will now receive a tax cut of over $2,600 combined. That's significant. It means something to them. Under the Coalition, they would have received under $1,000. We think the economic circumstances facing households right now warrant this greater action. The need is so great. That's why we're taking that action.</para>
<para>In conclusion, I want to say that this is just an example of one of the instances where this government is going in to bat for working Australians, because we care about those people. Low- and middle-income Australians, who are facing the most pressures due to the rising cost of living, are receiving the largest tax cuts. That's significant. Eighty-four per cent, as I said, across the country will benefit from the changes that are before us today. They'll get a bigger tax cut. And 100 per cent of Australians will receive a tax cut.</para>
<para>Further, the changes, I should note, to Medicare, ensure that, as to the levy, people on lower incomes pay less on or are exempt from the Medicare levy, which is also an additional relief for those people. I'm proud to be part of this government that is taking this action. Policymaking can be complex, but sometimes, at its core, it's really quite simple. In this case, it's about ensuring more Australians are supported through this tax cut for every taxpaying worker. It's about a simple proposition: look after those who need it the most with the greatest support.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:52</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms SHARKIE</name>
    <name.id>265980</name.id>
    <electorate>Mayo</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to support this bill, the Treasury Laws Amendment (Cost of Living Tax Cuts) Bill 2024, but, in doing so, I wish to talk about the need for bipartisan support for genuine taxation reform. This is not the first time I've spoken about this need for taxation reform, and nor am I alone in this place. It was, in fact, only today that I spoke on the member for Curtin's matter of public importance on tax reform, citing the need for a fairer, more efficient and simpler system.</para>
<para>In making the announcement that the legislated stage 3 tax cuts would be replaced with the proposal before us, the Prime Minister justified the changes on the need to assist with the cost-of-living crisis that's faced by so many Australians—a crisis that I believe is, in some part, of the government's making. In this term of government, we have had successive rate rises, that have seen the repayments on a mortgage of $750,000 rise by around $2,000 a month—a staggering $24,000 of after-tax money per year that Australians must find. Inflation, the driver of these mortgage rate rises, has been running hot, and part of that is because the government has added $209 billion of new spending.</para>
<para>We have also had record immigration, which has put enormous pressure on infrastructure demand. Anyone in the market for a new house will be immediately aware of the absurd price rises over the last couple of years. Housing has contributed more than six per cent to inflation and is a direct consequence of a migration strategy that is poorly timed and simply too large. Adopting a 'big Australia' policy at a time when we do not have sufficient supply was always going to result in upward pressure on prices. That is simple economics.</para>
<para>In 2002, the <inline font-style="italic">Intergenerational </inline><inline font-style="italic">report</inline> projected that Australia's population would reach about 25 million by the year 2042, an increase of around 30 per cent, and it assumed a net migration of 90,000 people per year. Now here we are in 2024, and we have already reached 27 million, nearly 20 years ahead of projections. In the last 12 months, our population increased by a record 624,000. To put this into perspective, this is greater than the population of the ACT or Tasmania. Consequently, we are having to add the equivalent of an entire state or territory every year. Last year, we recorded 737,200 overseas arrivals and 219,100 departures—a net migration of 518,100. This equates to more than 80 per cent of the population increase.</para>
<para>The government controls migration; therefore, it is on the government to explain why it has allowed so many people to settle at a time when we already have housing pressures and natural demand that have flowed on from this. It is inflationary. Much of last year reminds me of the inflation that we suffered during the Whitlam years that I remember studying at university.</para>
<para>This approach to migration is not sustainable and is unfair to the most marginalised in our community, who now find themselves homeless, or living in poverty, or with rents or mortgages consuming most of their take-home pay. I receive emails every day from people who cannot find a place to live. They are unable to access medical appointments or find places for their children in schools. Is this really the Australia that we want?</para>
<para>These tax cuts are due to take effect on 1 July this year. Yet, in the same week that we are discussing personal tax changes we've had an increase to the fuel excise rate from 48.8 cents per litre to 49.6 cents per litre. Beer, spirits and pre-mixed drinks have also risen this week. The tax on a pint of beer has increased by 90 cents, while the tax on a slab has risen to $20.</para>
<para>In the year to September 2023, bread prices were up 12.6 per cent, fish prices rose 8.7 per cent and dairy by 10.2 per cent. These increases, along with mortgage and rent rises, are already being experienced by everyday Australians. Don't even get me started on energy price hikes! I've spoken at length in this place, detailing awful stories of elderly constituents going to bed after dinner because they could no longer afford to run their heaters during winter.</para>
<para>So, yes, a tax break is necessary, but it doesn't even come close to covering the additional costs that every household has experienced in the last couple of years, and this will not be assisting any age pensioners or people on disability support pensions.</para>
<para>The debate we are now having highlights the structural problem of our taxation system. It is inefficient, unfair and overly complex. It is broken and requires immediate reform. We are over-reliant on personal and corporation tax, which account for more than 60 per cent of total tax receipts in the country. With respect to personal tax, it is prosecuted time and time again within the lens of political and class warfare. Our personal tax regime is progressive, and that is appropriate, but our over-reliance on personal tax has resulted in much higher tax rates and lower income bands to which they apply. The median weekly earning in Australia is $1,300 per week and attracts a tax rate of 30 per cent. The equivalent earnings in the United States are a mere 12 per cent. The top tax bracket under this bill is imposed on incomes exceeding $190,000 with a rate of 45 per cent, plus the Medicare levy. In contrast, the top tax bracket in the United States is only 33 per cent and applies to incomes exceeding $890,000 when converted to Australian dollars. In the United Kingdom, a worker on A$95,000 is in the 20 per cent tax bracket. To reach the top tax bracket of 45 per cent he would need to be earning more than A$240,000.</para>
<para>This legislation will see Australians earning more than $190,000 paying the top marginal rate of 45 per cent, plus the Medicare levy. I don't deny that this is considered a high income, but it's hard to justify that for every two hours of work that one is rewarded with payment, the other is gifted to the Taxation Office. I recognise many of the jobs that earn a higher income are often hot and very difficult jobs to do, such as in mining or construction; jobs where people are away from their families, or health professionals who work long hours and long hours overnight—particularly doctors.</para>
<para>Let's not reduce this debate to a discussion of rich versus poor. We all accept that a progressive taxation system appropriately taxes higher income earners more than lower income earners, but we shouldn't accept an inefficient tax system that overtaxes individuals, stifles productivity and neuters incentives to work harder.</para>
<para>We also need to look at incomes at the household level. Many households are limited to one income for various reasons. For instance, one partner may stay home to care for children or may not be able to work due to a disability or caring for another person with a disability. Because we tax at the personal level, we can have two households earning the same aggregate income but paying completely different levels of income tax. For example, a household with one primary caregiver and one primary income of $130,000 per annum will pay $35,767 per year in tax. If this legislation passes, they'll pay $32,388. However, a household with two incomes of $65,000, totalling $130,000, will only pay $25,000 tax per year, or $23,126 if this legislation passes. That's a difference of $10,033 and $9,262, respectively.</para>
<para>If you're in the highest tax bracket it's even worse. A household of one primary care giver and one primary income earner on $190,000 per annum will pay $59,967 in tax per year, or $55,438 if this legislation passes. However, a household with the same amount of money coming but with two people earning $85,000 each will only pay $39,584 in tax, or $35,976 if this passes. That's a difference of $20,000 or $19,000, respectively.</para>
<para>It is inconceivable that two households with the same gross income can have a difference of $20,000 in tax paid. How is it fair that the family in one household can have an extra $20,000 in disposable income because of the way we treat personal taxation? We spend billions of dollars on childcare assistance, but if a mother or father cares for their children at home and relies on a primary income earner they are financially penalised thousands of dollars each year. To me, this is a tax on family values.</para>
<para>Many years ago, we had a dependent spouse rebate which gave some taxation relief to households that I've just described. We need to give more choice back to families and not follow a policy pathway that only rewards parents that work to the detriment of parents that are sharing working and child-rearing responsibilities. I regularly receive emails about this, and I call on the government to give serious consideration to the adoption of a household taxation threshold for couples in addition to the existing personal threshold taxation rates.</para>
<para>The electorate of Mayo has 76,000 taxpayers who will receive an average cut of $1,475. Around 65,000 Mayo taxpayers will be better off under this proposal, representing 86 per cent of taxpayers in my electorate. But I do respect that there will be 14 per cent that will not receive what they were expecting to receive, and some of them will be quite disappointed. It's important that we also remember that the benefit that will be felt by this will not flow for another five months, and I hope that in the coming budget we will see relief for working families, and age and disability pensioners in particular.</para>
<para>This bill will result in a small but better outcome for the majority of taxpayers in the electorate of Mayo. I support the bill, but I call on the government—in fact, I call on everyone in this parliament—to consider broader taxation reforms so that everybody can be rewarded for their hard work.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:04</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BRIAN MITCHELL</name>
    <name.id>129164</name.id>
    <electorate>Lyons</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise today to speak on the Treasury Laws Amendment (Cost of Living Tax Cuts) Bill 2024 which implements the government's cost-of-living tax cuts for middle Australia. This legislation delivers a tax cut to every taxpayer in Lyons, to every taxpayer in Tasmania, to every taxpayer in Australia from 1 July. I'm proud to be a member of a government that recognises the economic realities of 2024, which are different to those that were around five years ago, and I'm proud to be part of a government that listens when people tell us family budgets are under pressure. The government understands cost-of-living pressures are in front of Australians right now, and it is determined to take action to relieve those pressures. Labor's fairer and better tax relief plan delivers for every single taxpayer. Every single one of Australia's 13.6 million taxpayers get a tax cut—11.5 million get a bigger tax cut, and 2.9 million low-income Australians, who wouldn't have received any tax cut at all under the Liberals, also get a tax cut under Labor. In his speech the shadow Treasurer mentioned how the government was apparently dividing Australians. Well, when the majority of Australians are getting a bigger tax cut, you're not dividing Australia; you're bringing it together, with bigger tax cuts for more Australians.</para>
<para>This legislation from 1 July 2024 will reduce the 19 per cent tax rate to 16 per cent for incomes between $18,200 to $45,000, reduce the 32.5 per cent tax rate to 30 per cent for incomes between $45,000 and the new threshold of $135,000, increase the threshold at which the 37 per cent tax rate applies from $120,000 to $135,000 and increase the threshold at which the 45 per cent tax rate applies from $180,000 to $190,000. This means Australians earning the average annual wage of $73,000 receive a tax cut of $1,504. That's $800 better off than under the Liberal plan. It's more than double!</para>
<para>In my electorate of Lyons, 46,000 taxpayers receive a tax cut averaging $1,279, and 40,000 get a bigger tax cut than under the Liberal plan. Overall, nine in 10 Tassie taxpayers get bigger tax cuts under Labor than under the Liberals. It's a no-brainer. The vast majority of Tasmanians are better off under Labor's tax cut plan than under the Liberals' stage 3.</para>
<para>This is so important, because I know many of my constituents have been doing it tough—like Josh from Bridgewater. He's a young man, married and raising a young family with his partner. Both Josh and his wife work full time and recently purchased a home. Josh contacted me to let me know that, as a mortgagee and a father, he's very aware of the pinch that is being felt across the country by many working families. Another of my constituents is Ruth, a grandmother from Cressy, who was concerned about how cost-of-living pressures might impact her grandchildren as they grow up and look to pursue educational and employment opportunities and save to buy a home. As their local member, I've shared these concerns with my Labor colleagues, and they've shared their concerns with me. It was clear action had to be taken, and I thank the Treasurer, the Minister for Finance and the Prime Minister for being so willing to listen and for acting so decisively. I know it was a difficult decision to change the government's position, but it was the right decision for the country, made for the right reasons. As a result of this decision, millions of Australians are going to be better off. I was thrilled to be able to head back to my electorate last week and tell Josh, Ruth and all my constituents that the Albanese Labor government had listened to them and was taking immediate action.</para>
<para>I also want to shout out to my friend Lyn, who's been talking to me about the need for reforming stage 3 for some time. I held the government line about the fact that we'd said what we said. But she's right. They needed to change. They have changed—we are changing them, and millions are going to benefit as a result. So well done, Lyn, for sticking by your principles there.</para>
<para>In the days after the government announced its tax cuts plan, I hosted the Treasurer at a steelworks in my electorate, and I thank Steve and the team at Haywards for their hospitality. It was great to talk to the guys in the workshop—and they were all guys—including a new batch of apprentices, and let them know how Labor's tax relief plan will benefit them. Nearly nine in 10 steelworkers get bigger tax cuts under Labor than under the Liberals.</para>
<para>If you think that's high, Deputy Speaker, listen to this. For nursing support and personal care workers—there are 80,000 of them—98 per cent are better off. For primary school teachers—170,000 of them—98 per cent are better off. Workers in aged care and disability care, 150,000 workers—97 per cent are better off. Child carers, are 97 per cent better off. Chefs—97 per cent are better off. Registered nurses, truck drivers, secondary school teachers, welfare support workers and receptionists—97 per cent are better off. Storepersons, accounting clerks, retail managers and commercial cleaners—96 per cent are better off. Sales assistants, call and contact centre customer service managers, general clerks, checkout operators and office cashiers—95 per cent are better off. Office managers—94 per cent are better off. Sales representatives, contract program and project administrators—93 per cent are better off. Miscellaneous labourers, waiters and motor mechanics—91 per cent are better off under Labor's tax cut plan than under the Liberal's stage 3. Yet the shadow Treasurer had the hide to stand in this place and say that the Labor government is dividing Australian workers. What an absolute joke!</para>
<para>On 24 January, just two weeks ago, the deputy opposition leader stated:</para>
<quote><para class="block">… when this legislation hits the parliament will fight it, we will fight it all the way …</para></quote>
<para>She said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">I'm digging in along with my colleagues and our leader Peter Dutton to fight this fight really, really hard.</para></quote>
<para>She went on to say later that day, weirdly:</para>
<quote><para class="block">We're not prepared to give up on this and we know that hardworking Australians who deserve to keep more of their money don't want us to give up on this.</para></quote>
<para>That's even though every single hardworking Australian gets a tax cut under Labor and the vast majority of hardworking Australians get a bigger tax cut under Labor than under the Liberal plan, as I've just enunciated.</para>
<para>The deputy leader wasn't alone. The shadow Treasurer, the bloke who kept secret a wholesale power price rise until after the election, added his two cents too. He said: 'Of course we're going to try to stop it. The move away from the stage 3 tax cuts will not be something we can support.' But a move away from the stage 3 tax cuts is now absolutely something that the shadow Treasurer is going to support, because the Liberals have apparently decided to support the government's legislation—not that you'd know it from all the hot air they've been circulating.</para>
<para>The shadow Treasurer delivered an absolutely unhinged speech earlier, long on rhetoric and short on facts. If the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and the shadow Treasurer truly believe their stage 3 plan is superior to Labor's tax cut plan, they should do the honourable thing and not vote for our plan. They should stand up in this House and defend their stage 3 plan and tell nine in 10 Australian workers why they deserve less than half the tax cut Labor is delivering, just so one in 10 Australians—high-income earners, including politicians—can double their tax cut. Under the Liberals, politicians get a $9,000 tax cut; an average worker's is around $800. Under Labor, politician's tax cuts are halved, but average workers' tax cuts are more than doubled. I'm proud of that. If the member for Farrer and the member for Hume really believe politicians should double their tax cut but average workers should halve theirs, they should come into this place and explain why that is better for the country. They should come in here and vote against Labor's plan. But if they are not prepared to do that then clearly they agree with the government that our tax cut plan is superior to their stage 3 because it delivers bigger tax cuts for more Australians. And it doesn't add to inflationary pressure and it doesn't put any extra strain on the budget.</para>
<para>Speaking of the budget, in his speech the shadow Treasurer signalled that he would flatten the tax scales if he were ever given opportunity to be Treasurer. He didn't tell the House how much that would cost the budget, but I can say that it would be billions. He didn't say how he was going to pay for it; it's absolutely economically irresponsible. He was the worst energy minister the country's ever had. Certainly, if he were ever to get his hands on the Treasury he would be the worst Treasurer that the nation will be likely to see. If they're voting for Labor's tax cuts, we really have to ask what all the noise has been about over the past week or so from the opposition benches. It's just been the same old negative Liberal politics. Even when they're going to vote yes, they're saying no.</para>
<para>Of course, Labor's tax cuts are on top of the measured and targeted action already put in place by the Albanese Labor government when it comes to the cost of living.</para>
<para>We have delivered on cheaper child care, cheaper medicines, more bulk-billing, more paid parental leave, energy bill relief, the biggest rate boost to rent assistance in 30 years, fee-free TAFE and unashamed support for higher wages after a decade of the Liberals keeping wages deliberately low. These are all real, practical measures that are already easing cost-of-living pressures. Our tripling of the Medicare bulk-billing incentive has resulted in 360,000 additional bulk-bill visits to GPs in just two months. Tasmanians alone have saved about $1 million in GP gap fees over November and December. In my electorate, bulk-billing has gone up five per cent.</para>
<para>We have also commissioned an independent review of the food and grocery code to investigate allegations of price gouging. We want to make sure the code is working to give farmers and families a fair go on grocery prices. We have enhanced the work bonus for age pensioners and eligible veterans by providing new entrants with a starting income bank balance and retained the higher work bonus maximum cap to provide more choice and flexibility to participate in the workforce.</para>
<para>I mention this because I've had a lot of positive feedback on this specific change from working pensioners and Lyons, like Mick from Old Beach, who told me recently how helpful the increase to work bonus had been, enabling him to earn more before his pension was affected.</para>
<para>Today we have directed the Australian Communications and Media Authority to make it mandatory for telcos to provide financial hardship assistance to all customers experiencing difficulties paying their bills, including prioritising keeping customers connected. I mention all of these things because the tax cut bill before the House today is one of a suite of measures this government is taking to address the cost-of-living pressures Australians are facing.</para>
<para>The Albanese Labor government's cost-of-living tax cuts for middle Australia are all about putting more money back into household budgets. We want Australians to be able to earn more and to keep more of what they earn. We are getting on the job that we were elected to do—providing good stable decent government that always puts the national interest first and that is just what we are doing. I commend the bill to the House.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:17</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr HAINES</name>
    <name.id>282335</name.id>
    <electorate>Indi</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise this evening in support of the cost-of-living tax cut bill, a decision I've reached after close assessment of how these changes will affect the people in my electorate of Indi. As an independent member of this place, I make every decision on every vote. I try very hard to look at what is best for the people I represent, to look at the evidence, to look at the ethics and to do what I believe is right.</para>
<para>The evidence from my electorate is clear. People are doing it tough at the moment. The cost of living is increasing, every trip to the supermarket seems to get more expensive and energy bills are sky high. As I have said in many times in this place, the cost and availability of housing is a major issue and more work is needed to address this and other things, especially in regional Australia.</para>
<para>The cost of living tax cuts bill when compared to the arrangements for this financial year will amend the threshold amounts of three of the five personal income tax brackets and reduce the tax rate for one of the five brackets. The first bracket, known as the income-free threshold, will remain unchanged. The second bracket for incomes between $18,200 and $45,000 will be taxed at a reduced rate of 16 percent instead of 19 percent. The third bracket for incomes between $45,000 and $135,000 will be taxed at a rate of 30 percent. The fourth bracket for incomes between $135,000 and $190,000 will be taxed at a rate of 37 percent, and the highest tax bracket from incomes above $190,000 will be taxed at a rate of 45 percent.</para>
<para>So, in Indi, the 43,000 people earning between $18,200 and $45,000 who received zero tax cut under the previous plan will now will receive a tax cut of up to $800 per year. Their tax rate will be lowered from 19 percent to 16 percent. For the more than 45,000 residents in Indi earning between $45,000 and $135,000, they will receive $804 more under this bill than under the previous plan, with a total tax cut of $3,050. For the 6,000 people in Indi earning more than $135,000, they will receive a tax cut of up to $4,500.</para>
<para>The second bill before us, the Treasury Laws Amendment (Cost of Living—Medicare Levy) Bill 2024, will increase the Medicare levy exemption thresholds. The Medicare Levy Act states that people earning below a certain limit are exempt from paying the Medicare levy, and this bill will ensure that these amounts are increased by 7.1 per cent to match the inflation we've seen in the last few years. This means that 1.2 million lower income earners, including individuals, families, and pensioners, will remain exempt from the Medicare levy.</para>
<para>What this all means is that 112,000 Indi residents earning between $18,200 and $135,000 will have more money in their pockets from July as a result of these changes. So, yes, I do support them. I support these changes because the previous deal was a shocker for the people of Indi, and I've long said so in this place. Under the previous plan, more than 60 per cent of taxpayers in Indi would have received zero benefit, zero tax cut. That's 68,000 people in my electorate who would have watched more than $300 billion in tax cuts go to higher income earners over the next decade without seeing a single cent themselves. At a time when the cost of living is affecting everyone, this would have been completely unacceptable. It wasn't fair in 2019 and it isn't fair now.</para>
<para>On average, Australian households are experiencing a nine per cent drop in real disposable income compared to 2020. This means less money for food, less money for health care, less money for petrol and less money to save for the future. If the previous plan, legislated in 2019, made no sense when economic circumstances were radically different, then in 2024 it was frankly absurd. The previous plan was a dud deal for Indi, a dud deal for rural and regional Australia more broadly and actually a dud deal for Australia. I have consistently supported changes to these tax cuts so that they provide relief where relief is needed most. The previous plan provided tax cuts to the cities at the expense of the bush, with Indi being one of the worst-off electorates in the country. The new plan is better, with rural electorates like Indi seeing significantly higher tax cuts. That's why I am supporting it.</para>
<para>This is a plan that increases workforce participation across the economy, particularly so for women. Workforce participation is expected to increase by a staggering 920,000 hours every single week because of these tax cuts. This means more women, students and low-income earners taking on an extra day of work knowing that the tax system won't disadvantage them as a result. Think about where these people mostly work. They mostly work in the care economy, and we are desperate for them to take on an extra day or two of work. The evidence both across regional Australia and in Indi is clear. That's why as an Independent I'm happy to support these bills that will make things a little easier.</para>
<para>But this cannot be the end of cost-of-living relief from the government. These measures will not make any difference to the 25,000 people in my electorate whose income is below the tax-free threshold. These are the people on the lowest incomes or with no income at all, and they can't be left behind. Many of these people, whether retirees or people unable to work, are struggling just as much if not more in this cost-of-living crisis. They deserve our support, and these tax cuts do nothing to help them.</para>
<para>Yesterday, I asked the Prime Minister what new actions the government will take to address cost-of-living pressures for these people, because these bills give no benefit to almost one-quarter of my constituents. That's right—one-quarter. While I support the bills, I call on the government to provide immediate cost-of-living relief to these people. The budget's too late when people are struggling with the cost of groceries, child care and housing right now. A tax cut in July is too late if you might not have a roof over your head by March. The government needs to provide more immediate cost-of-living relief to those doing it toughest right now. For those in my electorate who rely on government payments, such as JobSeeker, the disability support pension, student payments and the age pension, I know that the decisions they make as costs go up are just so much harder.</para>
<para>As Australians, we can be very proud that we have such a safety net, but too often I hear that the level of support offered through these payments is not enough to keep a roof over people's heads and food on the table. It's why people are couch-surfing and living in tents by rivers. It's why people are very, very desperate. To be clear, the rate of JobSeeker is just not enough. The government must increase the rates of JobSeeker, youth allowance and the disability support pension to provide cost-of-living relief to more Australians. This is an issue on which I will continue to speak because it is so important for so many of my constituents.</para>
<para>While I support this bill, I would also like to address the way in which this policy shift was announced. I am disappointed that the government waited so long before clearly signalling its intention to change course. I could see the tax cuts were a bad deal when first legislated in 2019, and I've supported change every day since. If the government became aware of the need for a change before Christmas, as they've said, they could have and should have taken Australians into their confidence then by indicating that they were considering designing a better approach to the tax cuts, an approach that would be more inclusive and deliver relief to more Australians.</para>
<para>Integrity is important, and it's really clear that Australians get this. When the PM did explain to the nation his change of tack, Australians were willing to listen. In my mind, a broken promise can be justified if the outcome that it delivers is better than the initial promise. I think the Prime Minister was justified in his decision, but I would say I think he could have trusted us with that a little earlier. However, these bills—the Treasury Laws Amendment (Cost of Living Tax Cuts) Bill and the Treasury Laws Amendment (Cost of Living—Medicare Levy) Bill—are important steps in supporting Australians who are doing it tough in this cost-of-living crisis. The cost-of-living tax cuts bill will ensure that tax cuts benefit more taxpayers in my electorate of Indi, not just the very small number of high-income earners there. As the Independent member for Indi, I am proud to vote in the interests of the majority of my constituents.</para>
<para>The government still has much more work to do in providing cost-of-living relief, particularly for the 25,000 people in Indi receiving no benefits from these tax cuts. Yesterday, in response to my question, the Prime Minister said that the government was looking at further measures for these people, and I can tell you I will be keeping the pressure on to make sure that that happens. The government must bring forward immediate cost-of-living relief because, for so many Australians, the May budget is simply way too far off. I commend this bill to the House.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:27</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr NEUMANN</name>
    <name.id>HVO</name.id>
    <electorate>Blair</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>If you listened to the shadow Treasurer before, you would think that he was voting against this legislation. It was a pitiful, pathetic performance by the shadow Treasurer. You see the crocodile tears from those opposite when it comes to issues of cost-of-living relief. Who could forget their vote in this place when we were providing energy relief? Who could forget their opposition to pharmaceutical changes that would help people across the country by allowing 60-day scripts, not just 30-day scripts? Who could forget their opposition to the Housing Australia Future Fund while they were complaining about the fact that people are doing it tough in terms of housing? Who could forget their opposition to fee-free TAFE? They opposed it! They've either voted against cost-of-living relief or made public statements against it. They simply say one thing in this place but vote differently—and we saw the shadow Treasurer do that. They vote against what they say should be done, whether it's with housing, energy or making medicines cheaper.</para>
<para>The legislation before the chamber is about cost-of-living relief, but those opposite do exactly the opposite. Don't listen to what they say; look at what they do. It's what they do that really counts. It is the doers of the word who are righteous, as it says in the Good Book, and not those opposite when they come to this issue. This legislation is about a progressive taxation system, a fairer taxation system, that will provide tax relief to every Australian. This is a good piece of legislation. This will benefit 90 per cent of the taxpayers in my electorate. That is a good thing in a rural and regional electorate in Queensland—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>E0D</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! I thank the honourable member for Blair.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>ADJOURNMENT</title>
        <page.no>112</page.no>
        <type>ADJOURNMENT</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>National Broadband Network</title>
          <page.no>112</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:30</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr COLEMAN</name>
    <name.id>241067</name.id>
    <electorate>Banks</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>A few hours ago, the National Broadband Network released disturbing new figures about its continuing loss of customers. Under the communications minister, the NBN is facing a customer crisis, with more and more Australians abandoning the network. The NBN has four types of customers: brownfields, referring to existing homes; greenfields, referring to new developments; satellite customers; and fixed wireless customers. NBN customers continue to grow in the greenfields area, as new housing developments commence, as one would expect. But, outside of the greenfield sites, the NBN is seeing very concerning losses. These losses have accelerated after recent price increases, and those price increases were described by the Minister for Communications as 'great news for consumers'.</para>
<para>Today, the NBN revealed that it lost more than two per cent of its entire satellite customer base in one month, January 2024. From 28 December 2023 until 1 February—just a few days ago—the NBN lost 2.3 per cent of its entire satellite customer base. Think about that: about one in 50 net NBN satellite customers walked away in a period of just a few weeks. Imagine if that happened to a business, if you lost one in 50 of your customers in just a few weeks. It is an absolutely shocking result.</para>
<para>The government says that NBN satellite customers will move to its fixed wireless product. There's a bit of a problem with that, because in that period the fixed wireless product lost customers as well. During that period, from 28 December to 1 February—so the last five weeks—the NBN lost even more members from its core brownfields product, which refers to existing homes. During those five weeks, as the NBN revealed in the data it released just a few hours ago, the NBN lost on a net basis more than 3,500 customers. This is on top of the large decline that we saw in NBN customers in 2023 in these key categories. In the brownfields category in 2023, the NBN on a net basis lost 35,000 customers. That was the first year that it had ever lost customers in the brownfield segment. Its satellite business on a net basis lost 12.5 per cent of its entire customer base, getting smashed in the market as Australians looked elsewhere. If you exclude the greenfields developments, which continue to grow, the NBN suffered a loss of 40,000 customers in 2023, the first year in its history where it has lost customers outside of new housing developments. That first year occurred entirely on the watch of this quite hapless communications minister.</para>
<para>The great news that Minister Rowland welcomed in October was that prices in the NBN would be rising by up to 10 per cent, and, when they did, people left. Since the price rise announcement on 17 October, the NBN has lost from the brownfields business, on a net basis, 17,000 customers. That's an annualised rate of about 50,000 customers. The rate of loss is going up and up. In July, prices are going to go up again. The great news that Minister Rowland welcomed will see NBN estimate its charges rise by more than four per cent, which obviously will then be passed on to consumers.</para>
<para>The question that has to be asked here is: what is going on? The NBN—the National Broadband Network—which has gained customers every year since its inception in 2023 lost tens of thousands of customers, excluding those greenfield sites. As the satellite business collapses, the government's response is to convene a roundtable of academics. As Australians reel under the cost-of-living crisis, the government backs in further price rises for the NBN. It's a very serious situation and something that has to be addressed.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Black Saturday Bushfires</title>
          <page.no>113</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:35</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ROB MITCHELL</name>
    <name.id>M3E</name.id>
    <electorate>McEwen</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Today I rise in acknowledgement of the 15th anniversary of the Black Saturday bushfires. On this day 15 years ago, Victorians awoke to an extremely hot and windy Saturday. It's a day etched in the collective memory of all of us. We solemnly remember the staggering toll it took on human lives, with 173 lives lost and 414 others left injured on that terrible day. We lost 35 children, and 16 were left orphaned. That's a staggering number which continued to grow in the days, weeks, months and years following. The enormity of the destruction left us grappling with the scale of loss and devastation. The most devastating fire was the Kilmore East fire, which started in the centre of our electorate of McEwen, just a kilometre from my place. These fires fuelled huge winds and embers that sped up to 40 kilometres from the fire front, claiming the lives of 119 people.</para>
<para>The Black Saturday fires burned for over a month, with the final fire extinguished on 14 March 2009. But, even in the face of such adversity, the spirit of community and resilience stood tall. More than 19,000 CFA members were involved in frontline firefighting, incident management and support behind the scenes. Tragically, the CFA lost one of its own during these fires. Arthurs Creek CFA volunteer firefighter Joe Shepherd died in Melbourne's Alfred Hospital on 22 February as a result of severe injuries he received on Black Saturday. His son Danny, at the age of 32, lost his life that day as well. ACT firefighter David Balfour also died in the February firefight. David came to Victoria repaying, in his words, a debt of honour to those who came to the ACT's aid in the fires of 2003. We'll forever recognise and remember the lives of Joe and David for what they did. Our community recognises all the volunteers who supported the firefighting personnel and who were part of the massive recovery, clean-up and rebuilding efforts. That spirit of community—that true Australian mateship and determination to dig in when times are tough—is the spirit that inspires us as a nation.</para>
<para>When we remember the Black Saturday fires, it's important to acknowledge the ongoing effects these disasters have on a community. I want to acknowledge the work being done by the Bushfire Survivors for Climate Action. These are people who survived the fires, know the stakes and acknowledge that we must take effective action to tackle climate change. As our climate changes, we see more and more severe, more frequent and more damaging weather events, which create disasters, including floods and bushfires. These survivors from areas like Christmas Hills and Yarra Glen shared their stories and asked me to remind all in this place that supporting renewable energy and a clean future means supporting a safer future. I was talking about the different stories of the many, many people that I've met and helped since that terrible day. I think we've got to look at and focus on the future. We must think about where we've come from, where we're going and what we can do collectively to minimise the chance of this disaster occurring again.</para>
<para>There have been many fires since Black Saturday, and, fortunately, the lessons we learnt on that day have been used to protect lives and properties ever since, not only here but across the globe. While physical scars can still be seen burnt into the countryside, the hidden scars can be harder to track and therefore are not always acknowledged or understood. The toll on people's mental health can be replayed over and over again. Hot weather, strong winds, the sound of the CFA bell or even sirens in the distance all return us to that time. The experience of Black Saturday lingers in our collective minds as a community and affects our people today. So we must remember that if someone is going through the process of grief, they don't need to hear: 'Move on. These things happen. Put it behind you'. Maybe they need someone to say, 'I'm here for you'. As we acknowledge this sombre anniversary, let us not only remember the pain and the loss but celebrate the strength and the unity that emerged from the ashes; the strength and resilience of people in our communities who stepped out of the ashes of Black Summer and who stood up and helped rebuild positive, vibrant, resilient communities. Today is a tough day. Some days are tougher than others. We will always remember them.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Small Business</title>
          <page.no>114</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:40</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr CONAGHAN</name>
    <name.id>279991</name.id>
    <electorate>Cowper</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I would like to take this opportunity to highlight the ever-increasing burdens this Labor government has been piling onto our small and medium businesses. In my electorate of Cowper and, in fact, in the majority of regional and rural electorates, small and medium businesses are the backbone of the community and of the local economy. Collectively, they represent our largest employers.</para>
<para>I ran a small business, my own legal practice, for 18 years. I understand how difficult it can be to operate a small business and the pressures that keep employers up at night-time: cash flow issues, making sure you've got money to cover the salaries each month, payments for insurances, rent, replacing stock, doing BASs in the middle of the night—you name it. At the same time, running the complexities of your day-to-day business and ensuring that you provide that service to your customers or clientele is what will bring them back every single time. It's tough; it's tough on small business and medium business.</para>
<para>I'm hearing that every single day in my electorate. In fact, I advertised for two new positions in my office just today, and I asked the people I interviewed what the feel is out there? What is the feel? They said that it's tough. They've come from small business and they know how difficult it is for small businesses to operate, particularly family-owned small businesses. Every day my social media feeds are filled with small business references, celebrating their staff. Small business owners look after their staff, welcoming newcomers or start-ups, or wishing well old favourites who are moving into retirement. These are businesses like Seasalt Cafe & Restaurant in Port Macquarie, which posted pictures of their family dinner online, celebrating their young casual staff moving on to study or to another full-time career. This is a wonderful small business that is the quintessential example of how regional small businesses are managed and run.</para>
<para>At the end of 2023 there was a bill passed through this House and through the Senate which, unfortunately, doesn't help our small businesses, particularly in the regions. I want to highlight a couple of things in it for those small business owners in my electorate and around the country which they need to be aware of. Do they know that as a result of the bill passed in December, as of 1 July changes will be made to all existing enterprise agreements and awards to include delegate's rights? Delegates' rights will see any employee who is a union member able to be appointed by the union as a union delegate within a small business. This will mean that as an employer, no matter the size of your business, you will be obligated to allow paid time off and travel expenses for the delegates to undertake training and union duties. These changes allow unprecedented union access to small and medium business, and are designed to increase union numbers. And the Labor government are proposing changes, currently before the Senate, to the definition of 'casual employment' as part of their extreme industrial relations agenda, making it more cumbersome for small business to employ multiple casual staff. Businesses like Seasalt Cafe and Restaurant—who employ our teens as casual—train them up, show them the value of hard work and set them on a positive path.</para>
<para>I have to refer to Akubra, which has just been sold off after five generations to, fortunately, Twiggy Forrest. But a friend of mine, Steve Keir—from the fifth generation—said to me, 'Pat, it is all too much.' He was referring to same job, same pay: 'Why should I be paying someone who's been here for 20 years the same as someone who's been here for two minutes?' I urge small-business owners to get their head around these changes because they will hurt you.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Assange, Mr Julian Paul</title>
          <page.no>114</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:45</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ZAPPIA</name>
    <name.id>HWB</name.id>
    <electorate>Makin</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>In two weeks time, on 20 and 21 February, the UK high court is scheduled to hear an application by Julian Assange, who is seeking leave to appeal an April 2023 court ruling that he be extradited from the UK to the USA to face 18 charges alleging that he was complicit with Chelsea Manning, a former intelligence analyst in the US Army, in unlawfully obtaining and disclosing classified US documents. An earlier request to appeal the decision was denied by the high court in June 2023.</para>
<para>In January 2021, UK district judge Baraitser rejected the extradition of Julian Assange on the grounds that the extradition presented a risk to his health and wellbeing. That decision was subsequently overturned in December 2021, after a successful US appeal. To be clear, the February hearing will not determine whether Julian Assange should be extradited but whether he is allowed to appeal the extradition ruling. Given the snail's pace of court decisions to date, it could be months before the two-judge court hands down its decision after the February hearing.</para>
<para>If leave to appeal is granted, it could then be several months after that before the appeal is heard and a further lengthy period before the court decision on the extradition is then handed down. If, at the February hearing, leave to appeal is not granted, Julian Assange's only options, as I understand it, is for him to apply to the European Court of Human Rights. There is, of course, no certainty of success in that process.</para>
<para>Julian Assange has now been in high-security prison Belmarsh for nearly five years. For seven years before that, he was confined to the Ecuadorian embassy, where he had sought refuge. The US charges related to the publication by Julian Assange, through WikiLeaks in 2010, of classified US government material, which, amongst other things, revealed war crimes, torture, assassinations and the list of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay. Julian Assange is an Australian citizen, and the publishing occurred in the UK.</para>
<para>In 2013, the Obama administration did not proceed with the charges against Julian Assange, but the charges were revived by the Trump administration in 2019, arguing that he had violated the US Espionage Act of 1917. It is the first time that the 1917 espionage act has been used against a publisher.</para>
<para>Julian Assange's continued detention and persecution is opposed in dozens of countries by global human rights groups, journalist organisations, leading media publishers and numerous political and civic leaders. His health is deteriorating, and there is no end in sight for the court proceedings. Even if Julian Assange went to the US to face the charges against him, the legal process could take years. As others have noted, Julian Assange is being punished by process, with the legal system being used to persecute him and wear him down.</para>
<para>The widely held view is that the charges against Julian Assange are payback for the embarrassing WikiLeaks publications. The only early end to this 13-year saga, with the release of Julian Assange, is political intervention. With a US presidential election later this year, the likelihood of political intervention is fading. The UK government, which could also refuse the extradition, is also in an election year—possibly this year or next year.</para>
<para>In the meantime, Julian Assange languishes in prison, deprived of his freedom and his life with his wife and children, who are also being punished. He has never been convicted of a crime, yet he has spent the last five years in prison. His continued incarceration greatly diminishes core values of Western democracy, including free speech, the protection of whistleblowers, the right to know matters of public interest and freedom of the press.</para>
<para>Every day that Julian Assange remains in prison erodes US, UK and Australian moral authority in defending human rights in other parts of the world. Even people who believe that Julian Assange did wrong believe that he should now be released. He has suffered enough, and it is time that Julian Assange was set free.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Wakelin, Barry Hugh OAM</title>
          <page.no>115</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:50</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr RAMSEY</name>
    <name.id>HWS</name.id>
    <electorate>Grey</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I take this opportunity to acknowledge the life and the contribution of Barry Hugh Wakelin, OAM, my predecessor and former Liberal member for Grey from 1993 to 2007, who passed away on 19 December last year following a devastating cancer diagnosis. Barry was born in my hometown of Kimba in South Australia, and had worked in a bank. He had been a share farmer, a shearer and a labourer, and finally settled on and operated the family farm. He had participated in farmer organisations at a state level and had been elected to the Kimba District Council, but he was perhaps better known for his prolific letter writing to the editor on almost any subject one could imagine, which contributed to his public profile.</para>
<para>In 1993 he stood as the Liberal candidate for Grey, and became only the fifth non-Labor member since the establishment of the seat in 1903, and only the second-ever Liberal member. The seat had been previously won by Liberal Don Jessop in 1966, but he was unsuccessful in defending the seat three years later in 1999. Don became a senator the next year and made a 17-year contribution in the other place. I attended his funeral in 2018.</para>
<para>In 1996 Barry became the first non-Labor member in 53 years to be re-elected to Grey, picking up a swing of over six per cent. On paper, this turned Grey into a safe Liberal seat, and while our boundaries have expanded since, generally favouring the Liberal Party, Barry's role in gaining recognition and breaking the stranglehold of the Labor vote in the cities of the Upper Spencer Gulf has led to a lasting change in voting patterns.</para>
<para>Barry's wife, Tina, was an integral partner in the role, and people often remarked that Tina was sort of a deputy member for Grey. They felt, quite reasonably, that if they'd spoken to her, they'd spoken to Barry. It would have been much more difficult for Barry without her full-on support, and no one—certainly not me—would underestimate the effort involved in properly servicing an enormous and hugely diverse electorate like Grey. From the early morning pre-dawn departures to the late evenings, pulling into a motel in a car still hot from the road, at a friend's place, and never ever often enough at home, there are never enough hours in the day or days in the week. Barry and Tina spent an enormous amount of time on the road, getting around Grey and out to communities, making sure they were across the local issues.</para>
<para>However, don't think for one minute that it was an unmanageable burden. Barry never complained about the task; indeed, I think he revelled in it. He was fortunate to have only one term in opposition—his first—but then he enjoyed the entire length of the Howard years in government. During those times he served on a wide range of parliamentary committees, including for Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, and the Public Works Committee. He chaired both the family and community affairs committee and the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs Committee.</para>
<para>I was deeply saddened in later years that Barry felt his views and those of the Liberal Party no longer aligned. He resigned from the party and chose to campaign against me in the last election. However, while we had come to disagree on a number of issues—the most prominent of which being the proposal to build a national low-level radioactive waste management facility in our hometown—I celebrate the fact that we live in a country and under a system where we could disagree.</para>
<para>In 2011 Barry was honoured with a Medal of the Order of Australia for his service to the parliament and to rural and regional areas. Post politics, Barry became, along with Tina, an ambulance volunteer for a time. With Tina's experience in nursing, we all hoped that she would be looking after the health in the ambulance and that Barry would be driving—although, given the fact that he totalled a couple of cars in his terms in parliament, we might have worried about that as well! He was also immensely proud of the fact that he managed to complete the New York Marathon in 2018—for those who remember, he was no small bloke, and it would have been quite a challenge.</para>
<para>Barry succumbed to cancer after a 12-month battle late last year, and I attended his large funeral in Adelaide on 28 December. Barry and Tina have raised a wonderful family, who are all making terrific contributions to our Australia. That, in itself, is no small achievement given the time and effort their public lives consume. I extend my condolences to Tina, their children and all of Barry's family and loved ones.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Australia Day Honours and Awards</title>
          <page.no>116</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:55</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms TEMPLEMAN</name>
    <name.id>181810</name.id>
    <electorate>Macquarie</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>A number of exceptional residents from Macquarie were recognised in the Australia Day honours this year, and it's with a great sense of pride that I speak of them here tonight. Our Blue Mountains residents receiving a Metal of the Order of Australia included Elizabeth O'Callaghan for service to education and Victor O'Callaghan for service to restorative practices. I know of their work for the Springwood East Timor Support Group, but they are also involved in many other groups in many community roles across Western Sydney. Joy Connor, who's received a Medal of the Order of Australia, I've also known for many years for her work as founder and member of the Blue Mountains Refugee Support Group. She is a fierce advocate for refugees and asylum seekers. Joy's social justice work includes years with organisations across Australia and Papua New Guinea. The late Chris Murphy, a giant in the Australian music industry, whose management, among many, guided INXS and the Models, has been posthumously recognised with a Metal of the Order of Australia for his services to the music industry.</para>
<para>Superintendent Sonya Tabor has received the Australian Police Medal for, amongst other things, her work for the safety reform that she was involved in so that the police affected by disasters, like a pandemic or a devastating flood, can access additional welfare support from their workplace.</para>
<para>In the Hawkesbury, Saint Albans resident the retired New South Wales state librarian Dr John Vallance, who in the Macdonald Valley might be better known as the man brave enough to be Santa Claus in the middle of summer, has been recognised as a Member of the Order of Australia for his significant service to education, to library services and to the arts.</para>
<para>Roberta Colbran, Bobby, was awarded the Australian Fire Service Medal in honour of her 50-year contribution in the Hawkesbury district as a volunteer in the New South Wales Rural Fire Service. During this time, Bobby has held many roles, including her current role of deputy captain. Now in her mid-80s, she has only fairly recently been banned from the truck, I'm told. Her medal is in recognition of the enormous hours and energy she continues to put into the vital Rural Fire Service.</para>
<para>Warrant Officer Paul Ernest Argus has been awarded the Conspicuous Service Cross for his outstanding achievement in aircraft maintenance reform and other roles within the Royal Australian Air Force.</para>
<para>I'd also like to commend ex-Blue Mountains resident Noel Hiffernan on receiving an Order of Australia Medal for his advocacy and service for people with a disability, which really means that he's been fighting for accessibility rights and equality of life for people with a disability since his own car accident in 1971, which resulted in midthoracic paraplegia. These are such deserving honours recipients, and I'm very proud to have them as residents or former residents of the Blue Mountains and the Hawkesbury.</para>
<para>I also want to congratulate the Hawkesbury Council citizens of the year. Citizen of the Year Keith Acton: while he would rather not have been centre of attention, certainly deserved recognition for his 17 years of volunteering with the RFS as a joint member of both Wiseman's Ferry and Lower Macdonald brigades, not to mention his unpaid extra work at Wisemans Ferry Public School and arranging Anzac Day commemorations plus much more. Gemma King, who I first met when she was fundraising for youth mental health through Laps for Life—and she is now on the board of our new Hawkesbury headspace—is fittingly Young Citizen of the Year. It was a tie for the Local Hero Award between Scott Hinks, recognised for his big contribution to the Richmond Lions Club and a myriad of involvement in other issues, and Rochelle Miller, whose most recent advocacy with all levels of government was triggered by the floods which isolated her community of Lower Portland. She was instrumental in getting the issues resolved. Sportsperson of the Year Melissa Crane has made a huge contribution to Pitt Town Sports Club and the football club and managed to have eight girls from the club lead the Matildas into the FIFA Women's World Cup semi-final last year.</para>
<para>The Kurrajong Nursing Home auxiliary, a caring community run aged-care facility, won the Community Organisation of the Year Award for its volunteers. Windsor High School's Thursday lunchtime interest group received the Arts and Cultural Award for offering an inclusive program to get students to try new things. To all the recipients, thank you for you passion, dedication and service. We are richer because of you.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>265979</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>In accordance with the resolution agreed to earlier, the debate is adjourned.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>BILLS</title>
        <page.no>117</page.no>
        <type>BILLS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Treasury Laws Amendment (Cost of Living Tax Cuts) Bill 2024, Treasury Laws Amendment (Cost of Living—Medicare Levy) Bill 2024</title>
          <page.no>117</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <p>
              <a href="r7140" type="Bill">
                <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                  <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Treasury Laws Amendment (Cost of Living Tax Cuts) Bill 2024</span>
                </p>
              </a>
            </p>
            <a href="r7141" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Treasury Laws Amendment (Cost of Living—Medicare Levy) Bill 2024</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>117</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>20:00</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr NEUMANN</name>
    <name.id>HVO</name.id>
    <electorate>Blair</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>As I was saying before the adjournment debate, the Albanese Labor government has provided $23 billion in targeted relief, whether in child care, in housing, in TAFE, in medicine or in electricity bill relief. But those opposite opposed it in this chamber either in votes they cast or, indeed, in statements they made. Those opposite have no record in this term of actually supporting cost-of-living relief. In the member for Hume's contribution, almost no policy was announced in relation to the cost of living, whereas, in contrast, the bills before this chamber will address bracket creep, increase labour supply and increase the hours of work that Australians participate in, particularly women who are earning between $20,000 and $75,000 a year. I said before: look at how those opposite vote; look at what they say as well. If you listened to the contribution of the member for Hume, it was full of righteous unction, but, in reality, they're going to vote for this legislation. I noticed how few opposition members are on the speaking list for this debate. The Independents are plentiful on the speaking list, but there are hardly any members of the Liberal and National parties. You couldn't even get a soccer team. They can't even get that number to speak on this legislation. Maybe they're all rolling themselves back, as the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party talked about rolling back this particular legislation and these changes. Maybe they're rolling themselves back into their offices. They can't bring themselves to be here to actually speak on this legislation.</para>
<para>The cost-of-living relief in this legislation is really important. It's about delivering a tax cut for every Australian taxpayer. It will provide more tax relief for more people to help with the cost of living and deliver a fairer go, particularly for people in my electorate, regional and rural Blair. The changes are about relief and reform. I've seen some media commentary from people, even those opposite, who seem to think that the only tax reform is giving those people who are wealthy a tax cut—that's the only tax reform, they seem to think. Every form of regressive taxation in this country is progressive in the minds of those opposite. Every single time, they'll want regressive taxation. If they can give those who are wealthy a tax cut, they're really happy. But, when it comes to people on middle and lower incomes, they baulk at tax relief. They want to roll it back—but reluctantly because they know that in their regional and rural Queensland seats, like Wide Bay, Dawson, Leichhardt, Capricornia, Maranoa and Wright, these measures are important. They know that 87 per cent of Queenslanders will do better under this legislation than the legislation that was passed five years ago during the Morrison regime.</para>
<para>We've found a better way to deliver tax cuts—a way that helps with cost-of-living relief, something that those opposite talk about but don't want to do anything about. We're addressing bracket creep. It's better for the economy and it's fairer. The legislation streamlines our income tax system. It cuts two rates and lifts two thresholds, which is the best way to provide tax relief for more Australians and return some of the bracket creep those opposite always like to talk about. They've spent the last couple of weeks talking about bracket creep, but this fiscal drag will be impacted by our legislation.</para>
<para>The reforms will ensure that from 1 July this year the 19 per cent marginal tax rate reduces to 16 per cent for incomes between $18,200 and $45,000. Those opposite were doing nothing on that—nothing to help those who needed it most. So don't cry your crocodile tears of concern about the cost of living for people who are battling, when you were going to do nothing for those on the lowest incomes. We're going to do something about it with this legislation. The 32.5 per cent tax rate reduces to 30 per cent for incomes between $45,000 and the new $135,000 threshold. The threshold above which the 37 per cent tax rate applies increases from $120,000 to $135,000, and the threshold above which the 45 per cent tax rate applies increases—for the first time in about a decade and a half, I might add—from $180,000 to $190,000. If those opposite were really fair dinkum about their stage 3 tax cuts, they would've brought them in during those wonderful Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison years that we see in <inline font-style="italic">Nemesis</inline> being played out so wonderfully, full of amity and love and respect for one another. I don't know how they have a caucus meeting, honestly, without having a fight. It's really quite astonishing, and we see it on full display on the ABC every Monday night. Their caucus meetings and shadow cabinet meetings must be fantastic, the way they fight amongst themselves. I would love to have been a fly on the wall when this particular thing was debated.</para>
<para>Our plan means that every taxpayer will get that tax cut this year. That's 13.6 million Australian taxpayers from 1 July, which is 2.9 million more that would've benefited under the coalition's stage 3 tax cuts from five years ago, and 11.5 million taxpayers, or 84 per cent of taxpayers, will receive a bigger tax cut. As I say, in my home state of Queensland it's 87 per cent—90 per cent in my electorate. Under our better plan, an average Australian worker on $73,000 a year gets a tax cut of more than $1,500, or $29 a week, which is more than $800 extra in their pocket every year than they would've received under those opposite.</para>
<para>A lot has changed since the stage 3 tax cuts were legislated five years ago, but not much in the mentality of those opposite, I can tell you. We've had a pandemic, wars, global conflicts, a global inflation spike and higher interest rates, and these events have put a lot of people under a lot of cost-of-living pressure. As the great economist John Maynard Keynes said—those opposite don't like him; they're more Milton Friedman people—when the facts change I change my mind; what do you do, sir? He was right. We've listened to our communities and responded to these changing economic circumstances, and we've found a fairer and more responsible way to ensure more people get a better tax cut to help ease the cost-of-living pressures they're under. This is the right thing for the right reasons.</para>
<para>These tax cuts will benefit more Australians. Our tax cuts are good for middle Australia and they're good for women, particularly with participation. They're good for people who are doing it tough—nurses, police officers, electricians, shop assistants, those who work in child care and aged care and those who work in logistics and transport. They're good for the economy generally. For example, 5.8 million women, or 90 per cent of all women taxpayers, will receive a bigger tax cut. A person earning $100,000 a year will get a tax cut of $2,179, which is $804 more than they would've received under the coalition's tax cuts. Someone earning $40,000 will get a tax cut of $654, compared to nothing under the Liberal and National parties. We're giving a tax cut to every taxpayer in 2024, but the hard-working nurses, disability workers, aged-care workers, truck drivers and teachers will be getting more. Ninety-five per cent of these taxpayers will get a bigger tax cut. On top of that, young people, older Australians and people living in the regions will get a bigger tax cut.</para>
<para>These tax cuts are designed to provide cost-of-living relief to middle Australia. I will just say that those opposite represent some of the poorest electorates, particularly those from the National Party in Queensland, yet they listened in silence as the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party talked about opposing this absolutely, fighting them in the hills and the valleys and fighting as hard as they could against these changes. But you know what? I guarantee she'll be sitting on the same side as all of the Labor MPs when it comes to this particular vote.</para>
<para>We're going to make a difference for a lot of people. That includes every taxpayer in my electorate of Blair. That's 80,000 taxpayers who will get an average of $1,380 in terms of a tax cut. Ninety per cent will be better off under our plan. It's no wonder it's had a positive response. I can tell you that, in my electorate office and when I've been doing mobile offices, we've had a very positive response to these tax cuts and these changes we're making. It builds on our first budget which delivered the first surplus in 15 years. These tax cuts deliver more relief. They're fiscally responsible. They don't add inflationary pressure. This is a responsible thing to do, and I know it'll go down well in Ipswich, the Somerset region and the Karana Downs area. It will be very, very important.</para>
<para>One of the other things that we are doing is we are introducing the Treasury Laws Amendment (Cost of Living—Medicare Levy) Bill 2024 to increase the Medicare levy low-income thresholds for 2023-24, which will benefit more than a million low-income Australians as well. This will ensure that people on lower incomes continue to pay a reduced levy rate or be exempt from the Medicare levy. That's a good cost-of-living relief and a practical thing to do. We're implementing the government's cost-of-living tax cuts and changes to the Medicare levy to ensure more people get more help when they are under pressure. At the same time, we're seeing inflation come down. We're seeing that, and the most recent figures are very encouraging, but there's more work to be done.</para>
<para>The advice from Treasury is clear. Our tax cuts will not add to inflationary pressures. They won't put pressure up on interest rates because they're broadly revenue neutral. The Reserve Bank has also said they don't expect the changes will have any impact on the inflation forecast. Treasury advice makes it clear that these tax cuts will return bracket creep, increase rewards for all Australians who choose to work and earn more, boost workforce participation and deliver a fairer share of tax relief for women and people on low and middle incomes. That's what Treasury says. That's not the Labor Party's talking points; that's what Treasury has found. Those opposite should have a look at that Treasury analysis. They hit the so-called holy trinity of simplicity, efficiency and equity when it comes to new tax policies.</para>
<para>These are simpler, lower and fairer taxes for middle Australia. It's an essential part of our economic plan, along with getting wages moving. Those opposite were worried about a-dollar-an-hour increase. The Prime Minister held that dollar up in question time today and during the campaign. Those opposite thought he was engaging in some sort of socialist endeavour—that the whole world was going to collapse and Marxism was going to happen if Labor won. What nonsense! We hear that sort of rhetoric from those opposite every time we put pressure to get wages going in industrial relations. You'd think that, all of a sudden, some kind of Communist dystopia was coming in this country from those opposite. A number of them use that sort of rhetoric when they're talking about the IR changes. Getting wages moving, particularly for people in the aged care sector and the childcare sector and those who were the heroes of the pandemic, is really important, but those opposite can't bring themselves to support any increase in the minimum wage or any wage. You know, they'll give us this thing that they're supporting cost-of-living pressures, but the moment we do something about it they oppose it. They oppose it in legislation or make public utterances about it.</para>
<para>We're providing meaningful cost-of-living relief in a responsible way that doesn't add to inflationary pressures. It's laying the foundation for a stronger, more resilient and fairer economy and retaining the progressive nature of our tax system which has been there a long time. Those opposite will vote for it, notwithstanding their protestations.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>20:14</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr STEVENS</name>
    <name.id>176304</name.id>
    <electorate>Sturt</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I appreciate the contribution so far to this debate, particularly from those in the government who have run a variety of arguments—some of which, I might add, are extremely contradictory of each other—about the merit of the proposal that they're putting before the parliament here and now. The Treasury Laws Amendment (Cost of Living Tax Cuts) Bill 2024 is a proposal to change what we referred to as the third stage of income tax relief for all Australians, which, of course, I was honoured to vote for in the first ever debate that I participated in this parliament after the 2019 election. Although I correct myself, because I didn't need to vote on it because, of course, the parliament supported it without a division. That's because back in 2019 the new opposition leader, Anthony Albanese, made a decision that the Labor opposition would support what are known as the stage 3 tax cuts. There were comments made about that in the debate, to be sure, by them in those early days of the new parliament. They ultimately made what seemed to be reported out of the Labor caucus as a pragmatic decision to support tax cuts for all Australians. Of course, stage 3 is called stage 3 because there are three stages of tax cuts that saw the tax burden appropriately relieved for all Australians.</para>
<para>One wonders, in listening to the debate and the comments being made by Labor members, if what they're doing here is such a great idea and such a popular idea, why it wasn't something that they articulated and campaigned for in the recent federal election. For all of the reasons that are being put forward by government members, I find it very curious and strange to understand why they didn't want to make any of these points in an election campaign. If they're such good arguments, and if so many Australians would be better off thanks to the changes that they're proposing to our previous government's broad and comprehensive income tax relief, then it should have been something to campaign on and get elected on. But of course the complete opposite happened. The now Prime Minister made a very solemn covenant with the people of this country. When he went to the polls in May 2022 and when he was seeking to become the prime minister he was asked repeatedly—and he was very clear repeatedly—that an Albanese government supported the legislated stage 3 tax cuts, that they would not touch them if they were elected, and that the people of this country could trust Anthony Albanese because he was making a solemn commitment. It's pretty clear since the election what Anthony Albanese's commitment and solemn word means—absolutely nothing.</para>
<para>Of course, this isn't the first time. We know that with $275 power bill cuts that are frankly laughable now and a range of other things that I won't digress into in this debate. This, unfortunately, is the deepest cut of all. By order of magnitude, the value of this broken promise is the greatest in the history of Australian democracy. If you look at the value of this betrayal, it is the greatest in the history of Australian democracy. There are some other examples in the history of Australian democracy. Paul Keating comes to mind—a very famous iron-clad tax commitment that he gave, l-a-w law.</para>
<para>The GST's a great example, because the GST is an example of having a policy, taking it to the people and giving them the chance to vote for it or not. What an excellent example of having a policy position that you take to the people and ask them whether or not to endorse. The concept of going to an election in May 2022 and giving a repetitive, iron-clad promise on honouring legislated income tax cuts and then changing your position is absolutely appalling. What we're voting for on this side of the chamber are tax cuts—no question about it. We're the low-tax party. It's in our DNA. What's happening right here is that taxes are getting cut for some Australians whilst increasing taxes on other Australians to pay for it. What an absolute fraud.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>265979</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order, Member for Moreton!</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr STEVENS</name>
    <name.id>176304</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>We've just had the last speaker say this is fiscally neutral. It can't be fiscally neutral to cut taxes if taxes aren't going up somewhere else. That was the government speaker, Member for Moreton. You missed his contribution, but he made a virtue of what you're interjecting and condemning by saying it was fiscally neutral.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>265979</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Address your remarks through the Deputy Speaker, please.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr STEVENS</name>
    <name.id>176304</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Pardon me, Deputy Speaker. What this legislation does is increases tax for some Australians, and, instead of cutting government expenditure or wearing it through the budget process, what you're doing is saying, 'To give some Australians a tax cut, we're going to go and bludgeon some others.' The ones Labor love bludgeoning are the successful ones. The previous speaker made the point and said with pride that this is a policy that expands the progressivism of our tax system and goes and takes money from wealthy Australians to fund a tax cut for other Australians.</para>
<para>So I'm not going to vote against tax relief for any Australian—never, ever—but what we will be doing is going to the next election with a debate and a policy position that is very different to what this government is doing, which is saying, 'To give tax cuts to some Australians, we're going to ratchet taxes up on other Australians.' We will find out at the next election what the Australian people think of this approach.</para>
<para>Firstly, the fraud: the Labor Party went to the people and made a solemn commitment and then broke it after the election. I think a lot of Australians will wonder what that means for other promises that the Labor Party might take to the next election. We've just had the previous speaker give the hilarious Keynes quote, saying, 'Well, when the facts change, I change my position.' We can apply that now to absolutely every election policy and every election promise that this government takes to the next election. It's actually being used in speeches in the parliament—with five people in here, I might add—which is great content for election campaigns and for billboards and brochures. A member of the government is bragging about the fact that, for any policies that they have and any promises that they take to an election, if the facts change and if something changes—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>265979</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! Member for Banks, the member for Sturt doesn't need your echo to reinforce his point.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr STEVENS</name>
    <name.id>176304</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>then, absolutely, any policy promise or policy commitment will change.</para>
<para>Those opposite are also running two contrary arguments in the contributions that are being made, and some of them are making the same contradictory arguments in the same speech. On the one hand, apparently the circumstances have changed and it's because of the economic situation since the last election that they couldn't have possibly predicted what led them to need to change their position on an ironclad election promise and increase taxes on some Australians to cut taxes on other Australians. That's one argument. But then some of the very same speakers are saying in their same contributions that the policy they had was never the right policy in the first place. To be honest, I think we all know what the truth is, and it's the latter.</para>
<para>I do believe government members that are now coming clean in this debate and saying they never supported the stage 3 tax cuts in the first place. To be fair, that seems quite credible. What it also does is magnify the extent of the fraud, because we now have members of the government owning up to the fact that this was their secret plan all along. They could have gone to the last election and said, 'It is not the position of the Labor Party that income tax rates that were legislated by the previous government are what we support, and, if we were elected, we will change them.'</para>
<para>We got all sorts of contributions about why, apparently, the changes that are being made are so sensible, are going to benefit so many people and are going to be so popular. So it is miraculous that they didn't want to campaign on this in a recent election, and that says something about just how much they believe some of the lines that they're using in this debate. I actually think that the Australian people will say, 'What we've learnt about them, what we've learnt about the Labor Party, is that, whatever they say in an election campaign and whatever commitments and promises they make, we now know that they will all be junked, using any excuse they like after, and if, they're re-elected.'</para>
<para>That's why we know that all sorts of things that they won't talk about before the election are suddenly going to be on the table if they get re-elected. That's why they're using the same sorts of weasel words on negative gearing. They're jacking up superannuation tax already, but that's the tip of the iceberg. The Assistant Treasurer described superannuation as the 'honey pot', and I see that we've got some legislation coming into the parliament to increase super tax. This is where earnings on balances of over $3 million will attract a higher tax rate. But I hear that, regrettably, it won't apply to politicians on the defined benefit superannuation scheme. My understanding from my briefing on that legislation is that, regrettably, the Prime Minister's superannuation won't be affected by the higher rate of taxation that other people with super worth more than $3 million—which is what the superannuation of someone in the Prime Minister's position would be worth, if you could value it—in a lump sum rather than a defined benefit will have to pay. He's very good at raising taxes on other people, but unfortunately he just missed out on applying that same standard to his own superannuation. It is absolutely pathetic. We have a Prime Minister that will ratchet up taxes on everyone else's super but not on his own. That's what Australians know about this Prime Minister, and the legislation before us—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>265979</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Assistant Minister, this is not a debate.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr STEVENS</name>
    <name.id>176304</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The legislation before us is the greatest example of that fraud, and we will see what the people of Australia think about that fraud at the next election. We will find out what they think about a government that makes solemn vows, solemn commitments and solemn promises and breaks them after making them.</para>
<para>This legislation will pass the parliament, and we welcome reducing the tax burden on Australians. It is appalling that it is being funded by increasing taxes on other Australians, and we will have more to say about that in the lead-up to the next election. In the meantime, it is absolutely appalling that a solemn commitment to the people of this country was made by the Labor Party in a campaign and they are now legislating to break that promise.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>20:27</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr CONROY</name>
    <name.id>249127</name.id>
    <electorate>Shortland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>It is indeed a great pleasure to be speaking on the Treasury Laws Amendment (Cost of Living Tax Cuts) Bill 2024. It is also a pleasure to follow the member for Sturt, whose greatest contribution to this place so far has been sleeping through a vote a year ago. His speech just then demonstrated that he makes more sense when he keeps his mouth closed, because his argument was fundamentally contradictory. If this is such a bad policy, why is he going to vote for it? That's the ultimate question he and every member of the opposition have to answer. They can come in here and bleat and carp, but, ultimately, if they think this is a bad policy and the wrong move, they should vote against it. Go to the election and pledge to roll it back. Go to the election and pledge to increase taxes on low- and middle-income earners in this country, just like your deputy leader did before she even saw the policy.</para>
<para>The truth is that what we're talking about now is providing cost-of-living relief to every single Australian taxpayer. Every single Australian taxpayer gets a tax cut. Let me repeat that: every single Australian taxpayer gets a tax cut. We have been very clear with the Australian people that we are laserlike in our focus on providing cost-of-living relief to those who need it most—to low- and middle-income families in this country—and that's why I'm proud to speak in favour of this bill.</para>
<para>The truth is: every taxpayer in Shortland—that's 67,000 people—will receive a tax cut from 1 July under Labor's better tax cuts, announced by the Prime Minister and the Treasurer. The average tax cut will be $1,551. Around 57,000 taxpayers in my electorate, or 85 per cent, will receive a bigger tax cut than they would have under the plan that the member for Cook, Scott Morrison, legislated five years ago. Across the Hunter and the Central Coast, 428,000 taxpayers will now receive a tax cut and 367,000 taxpayers will receive a bigger tax cut than they would have under the Morrison plan. Those opposite need to work out whether they're for a bigger tax cut for 84 per cent of Australians or against it. Ultimately, that's their decision. They can't carp and whine, saying it's a bad policy, but then come in here and vote for it.</para>
<para>We're delivering more help for working families and more help for Australians who are unfortunately under the pump from the cost of living due to the remnants of the global pandemic, the war in Ukraine and the conflict in the Middle East. We're putting cash back into people's pockets when they need it most. Our tax cuts are about ensuring more workers, in the Shortland electorate and in every electorate, can keep more of what they earn, because we know that will take pressure off people doing it tough.</para>
<para>I'm incredibly proud that 5.8 million women, or 90 per cent of female taxpayers, will receive a bigger tax cut than under the Morrison plan, with an average increase of $707. A nurse earning $76,000 will get a tax cut of $1,579, and I'm proud to say that there are 1,847 nurses living in Shortland. We have Belmont Hospital in our electorate, and we're very close to both Wyong and the John. We have 200 nurses in Charlestown, 66 nurses in Belmont, 53 nurses in Lake Munmorah, 49 nurses in Mount Hutton and 99 nurses in Warners Bay, all getting a tax cut. If those nurses are earning $76,000 they'll get a tax cut of $1,579.</para>
<para>A primary school teacher earning $93,000 will get a tax cut of $2,004, and I'm delighted to say there are 2,849 schoolteachers living in Shortland. There are 112 teachers in Cardiff, 101 teachers in Belmont, 77 teachers in Redhead, 155 teachers in Eleebana and 26 teachers in Chain Valley Bay. They get up every day and make a contribution, teaching our kids, giving them the best possible start in life. A primary school teacher on $93,000 a year will get a tax cut of $2,004, significantly more than what they would've received under the previous tax plan.</para>
<para>A truckie earning $77,000 will get a tax cut of $1,604, and I'm proud to say there are 872 truckies in the Shortland electorate—21 truck drivers in Windale, 41 in Cardiff, 50 in San Remo and 32 in Mount Hutton. Importantly, a police officer earning $110,000 will get a tax cut of $2,429, and there are 288 police officers in Shortland—20 in Valentine, 32 in Warners Bay and 35 in Charlestown.</para>
<para>A person earning $40,000—someone working part time, or someone working in the retail sector, say at a local Woolies, who the Leader of the Opposition wants to put out of work—will get a tax cut of $654, compared to nothing under the Morrison plan. A person earning $100,000 will get a tax cut of $2,179, which is $804 more than they would've received under the member for Cook's plan. A person earning $200,000 will still get a tax cut, which will be $4½ thousand.</para>
<para>This plan is the right plan for our times. It's so important to support this plan. This is a plan that provides cost-of-living relief to every single Australian taxpayer, particularly to low- and middle-income earners. The government is responding to the pressure Australians are under here and now. That's the right and responsible thing to do: to deliver more relief to more workers without adding to inflationary pressure or burdening the budget. Under Labor's plan, Australians will get a tax cut and more Australians will get a bigger tax cut. Nurses, teachers and truckies, as I've highlighted, are some of those most likely to benefit, with more than 95 per cent of those taxpayers getting a bigger tax cut. Our tax cuts are good for middle Australia, good for women, good for helping with cost-of-living pressures, good for labour supply and good for the economy.</para>
<para>Labor's tax cuts come on top of the billions of dollars in cost-of-living relief that we're rolling out, including energy bill relief, cheaper medicines, a stronger Medicare, higher income support payments and the biggest boost to rent assistance in 30 years. That is the importance of this plan. Australians are under pressure right now, and it's crystal clear that every single taxpayer needs and deserves a meaningful tax cut. That didn't happen under the former government's plan but it will now. We've listened to our communities, and it has become increasingly clear that this is the best way to ease some of the pressure they are under.</para>
<para>Since the tax cuts were legislated by the member for Cook five years ago, there has been a once-in-100-year pandemic, wars and global conflicts, a global inflation spike and higher interest rates. Those events have put people under greater cost-of-living pressure. Good government isn't about doing what's easy for yourself; it's about doing the right thing for the right reasons. It's about putting people ahead of politics. I've had a few street stalls since we made the announcement. I had a shopping centre stall at Charlestown Square, which is the biggest shopping centre in my electorate, if not the whole region, and I've had street stalls at places like Kahibah and Whitebridge. I've had people coming up to me saying, 'Thank you for what you have announced.' I've had people outside the Whitebridge butcher telling me, 'I won't get as big a tax cut as I would have under the member for Cook's plan but I completely support your policy because it's the right thing to do for Australia.' I heard similar sentiments at Charlestown and Kahibah, and at a beautiful Australia Day breakfast at Chain Valley Bay I heard very similar sentiments.</para>
<para>It's up to the opposition to justify their multiple positions on this matter, because we're acting in the national interest. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition let the cat out of the bag when she said that absolutely the Liberals would unwind our tax cuts for every single taxpayer, which will mean higher taxes on middle Australia under the Liberals. Unwinding our changes and clinging to the tax cuts those opposite proposed five years ago would mean higher taxes for middle Australia, to fund even bigger tax cuts for people on the highest incomes. The Liberals' position on our tax cuts is incoherent, unintelligible and incomprehensible. They didn't even ask a question in parliament today about our plan to give every Australian a tax cut. They're trying to distract from their division on this and their contradictory position.</para>
<para>The choice is clear here. This is a Labor government that is taking the hard but important decisions to put Australians first, to address urgent cost-of-living relief for all Australians but principally targeted at low- and middle-income earners. That is the policy we've announced; that's the legislation we're debating today; that's the legislation we're so proud of. The opposition have to make up their mind. If they think it's bad policy, they should vote against it. If their speakers come in and criticise us for 15 minutes, that's fine, but they should vote against the legislation—vote against it and say they're in favour of putting up taxes on low- and middle-income Australians in this country. That's their choice.</para>
<para>I commend this bill to the House. I'm proud of it. I'm proud that it will give every single taxpayer in Shortland a tax cut. I'm proud that it will give 57,000 of the 67,000 taxpayers in Shortland an even bigger tax cut than they would have had under the original plan: a tax cut, on average, of $1,551, which is around $800 more than they would have received under the previous plan.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>20:38</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms BELL</name>
    <name.id>282981</name.id>
    <electorate>Moncrieff</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I think members opposite conveniently forget that stage 1 and stage 2 tax cuts have already been delivered under the Morrison government, and this is stage 3 of those tax cuts. They forget, conveniently, that the low- and middle-income tax offset for those earning $48,000 to $90,000 a year was $1,500. They spruik about an increase of $804 for those on $85,000 a year, but under the former government it was $1,500 for those earning from $48,000 to $90,000. They forget that. Australians are actually feeling poorer under this government than they were under the last government. When you look at the return that Australians are getting through these tax cuts, versus the cost-of-living increase, it's actually 10 per cent that taxpayers are getting back. When you consider how much everything has increased, it's 10c in the dollar that they are getting back through these tax cuts.</para>
<para>Labor's good at putting the foot on the pedal one way—on the accelerator—and putting the foot on the brake at the same time. They're good at speaking out of both sides of their mouths at the same time, as well. Anthony Albanese, the Prime Minister, has looked Australians in the eye and he has repeatedly told porky pies. He's fibbed. He's been dishonest and disingenuous. He's spoken out of both sides of his mouth. He's been insincere and even fraudulent. He's been fallacious and—here's my favourite; it came straight from my electorate—mendacious. Mendacious is a good word to describe our Prime Minister.</para>
<para>Do Australians remember the $275 electricity price promise? Are the cheaper mortgages ringing a bell for you? Just last month, the Prime Minister was on record saying that his government would not make changes to the coalition's stage 3 tax cuts. Now, suddenly, he's changed his mind. He is, as the member for Sturt eloquently pointed out, taking from some Australians and giving to others, ripping out the guts of aspiration for some Australians. It's a blatant betrayal of trust on a scale not seen since Julia Gillard's infamous no-carbon-tax promise. The biggest betrayal, at the member for Sturt also eloquently pointed out, in our Australian democracy, the GST—</para>
<para class="italic"> <inline font-style="italic">Opposition member interjecting—</inline></para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms BELL</name>
    <name.id>282981</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I will take that interjection. The GST was a tax that went to the Australian people. It went to the Australian people—</para>
<para class="italic"> <inline font-style="italic">Government members interjecting—</inline></para>
</continue>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms BELL</name>
    <name.id>282981</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>and they decided—with the many interjections that are coming from the other side—getting back to the Prime Minister, what he said was, 'My word is my bond.' Well, I say to the Australian people: his word is a big fat wand, like a wizard's, that he waves around, erasing all of his promises to Australian families who are hurting.</para>
<para>The coalition will always be the parties of lower taxes—lower, simpler and fairer taxes.</para>
<para> <inline font-style="italic">Government members interjecting</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline></para>
</continue>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms BELL</name>
    <name.id>282981</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>There are lots of interjections coming from the other side of the chamber. The coalition will not stand in the way of providing support to those in our community who are doing it tough. We want to unite Australia rather than divide Australia by class, or divide Australia by race, which is what this Prime Minister has tried to do. It's his cost-of-living crisis.</para>
<para>Labor has pushed families to food insecurity. Charities in my electorate on the Gold Coast, the home of the entrepreneurial spirit, have been whacked around by this government and its cost-of-living crisis. Charities in my electorate are being overrun with cries of help from my community who have not got food security. They're going to charities and getting food from the free supermarket in my electorate for those mums and dads who are working but who simply can't make ends meet because of Labor's cost-of-living crisis.</para>
<para>Make no mistake, the Prime Minister has made this change not over the last 18 months, when Australians have been hurting the most, and not during the last 18 months when he was focused on the failed $450 taxpayer funded failed referendum. No, he's made it just before the first by-election in a Labor-held seat—in Dunkley. The good people of Dunkley will have their say on 3 March, because this is about his political survival. This is about his political career and his survival as the Prime Minister.</para>
<para>We're supporting this change not to support his lie but to support the families who need help right now, because Labor has made decisions that have made it much harder for families to make ends meet. The average Australian knows that they are $8,000 worse off thanks to inflation, interest rates, bracket creep and mismanagement of the economy by this Labor government. Labor's broken promises are piling up. They're taking more money out of the pockets of Gold Coasters, with Australians now set to pay an extra $28 billion more in taxes because of these changes over the next 10 years.</para>
<para>We remain committed to fighting bracket creep, which will see more Australians pushed up into the next tax bracket and so pay higher taxes, and we will bake in aspiration through meaningful tax reform that we will take to the next election. It will be a fully costed, ready-to-implement package that is in keeping with the stage 3 tax reforms and will be delivered while providing Australia's future security and guaranteeing the essential services that Australians rely on.</para>
<para>What's next on the Prime Minister's list of porkies? I want to outline another porky. Let's look at fee-free TAFE data. Labor ministers have been deliberately using misleading data about Australia's childcare workforce, and, when confronted about their deceitful tactics, one minister pathetically tried to blame a missing dash in the <inline font-style="italic">Hansard</inline> record for the error. For months, Labor has been claiming the 123,000 educators and childcare workers in the training pipeline are the result of their policies since May 2022. Well, a tranche of secret documents now reveals that the data includes only enrolments from 24 months of coalition government skills and education policies and is not the result of Labor's fee-free TAFE policies at all.</para>
<para>Fee-free TAFE was not funded until the October 2022-23 budget, and fee-free TAFE agreements were not struck with state governments until late 2022 and early 2023. As a result, the first semester of fee-free TAFE didn't even start until January 2023, so none of the enrolments captured by the 123,000 figure that we've heard from ministers in this government is from the government's new fee-free TAFE policy. That means that the key data that Labor ministers have been using to spruik their childcare workforce so-called achievements cannot possibly include any data from fee-free TAFE enrolments. Labor has been highlighting the pipeline of training established under the coalition government, including the JobTrainer program, which used both TAFE and industry-led RTOs, and these are coalition achievements; these are not the achievements of the Labor government.</para>
<para>There is a liar in the Lodge, and it's a sad state of affairs when we cannot trust a word that this Prime Minister says. So buyer beware of what could be next—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>DZY</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! The member for Moreton on a point of order?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Perrett</name>
    <name.id>HVP</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I would ask the speaker to withdraw that comment made about the Prime Minister.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>DZY</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Which was?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Perrett</name>
    <name.id>HVP</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Unparliamentary language made about the Prime Minister.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>DZY</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I'll ask the member for Moncrieff, for the sake of the House, to withdraw that comment.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms BELL</name>
    <name.id>282981</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I withdraw.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>DZY</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you, Member for Moncrieff. Continue.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms BELL</name>
    <name.id>282981</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>There is a fibber in the Lodge—and what's next? I ask Australians: what's next? It could be your investment property or tax on the family home, perhaps. Negative gearing and capital gains tax on the family home could be up for grabs next. How can anybody across our nation trust what this Prime Minister says when he has broken his solemn promise to them?</para>
<para>The Treasurer—and I see he's in the chamber now—was asked on 29 January about a plan to make changes to negative gearing, and he said that Labor wasn't considering it. That's what they said about stage 3 tax cuts: 'My word is my bond. We're not changing tack. We're not changing our position. We haven't changed our position.' And then they changed their position! So, if they're saying that about negative gearing and tax on the family home, how can you believe what they're saying? You simply can't. The string of broken promises from This Prime Minister is eclipsed only by the outright assault on the values that Gold Coasters hold so dear, which are reward for effort, working hard and keeping more of what you earn.</para>
<para>There are more than 70,000 businesses, and our aspiration and hard work are under attack through the wealth redistribution strategy coming from the most socialist government since Whitlam. It's true, the facts are there for all to see. In Labor's first 18 months, personal income tax has risen by a record 27 per cent. As I said, in the cost-of-living crisis, you're getting 10c back in the dollar for the mistakes that Labor made managing our economy in the first 18 months of their reign.</para>
<para>The Albanese Labor government spent all of last year distracted by its failed Voice referendum, meanwhile Australians are now thousands of dollars worse off as a result of this government's economic mismanagement. Australians have seen their living standards collapse by 8.6 per cent, or $8,000. I will say it again; that is a lot of money. That is one child in a private school if you've got enough money to send your children to a private school. If they have a mortgage, it's far more. It's $24,000 if they have a $750,000 mortgage with 12 interest rate rises.</para>
<para>Australians know that food costs more. They know that electricity costs more; they're paying it every day. While Australians have spent the last 18 months crying out for help, it's apparently only occurred to the Prime Minister and Treasurer over summer that Australians are in this cost-of-living crisis. It's only occurred in the lead-up, as I said, to the by-election, where the good people of Dunkley in Victoria will have their say as to whether they want more of this reckless government or whether they want the LNP's candidate, Nathan Conroy. We remain committed to fighting bracket creep and baking in aspiration, because Australians want to get ahead and they should be able to get ahead.</para>
<para>Our package, the package under the opposition leader, will deliver lower, simpler and fairer taxes. It will fight bracket creep and bake in aspiration in our tax system. Labor's broken promise entrenches bracket creep in our tax system and increases taxes by $28 billion on more than four million Australians over the next 10 years. Our tax policies will reward hard work and effort, and support a strong economy where every Australian can get ahead if they want to, not punish 1.8 million taxpayers, who will be worse off. That number will increase to four million by the end of the medium term—four million! Give Australians more opportunity to get ahead and to stay ahead; that's what we want to do. Our package will be fully costed and ready to implement when we are elected and, most importantly, we will keep our promises to the Australian people.</para>
<para>On a parting note, I just ask Australians: Do those opposite deserve to be trusted to tell the truth ever again?</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>20:52</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr PERRETT</name>
    <name.id>HVP</name.id>
    <electorate>Moreton</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm very happy to rise in support of Labor's Treasury Laws Amendment (Cost of Living Tax Cuts) Bill 2024. I'm very happy because I know the amendments to the tax cuts will directly help the constituents of my electorate of Moreton and, indeed, every single Australian taxpayer from 1 July this year. That is 13.6 million people who will be better off. This figure includes nearly three million Australians who would not have received any tax cut under Scott Morrison's plan. Every representative in this chamber should support the Albanese government's cost-of-living tax cuts. It's common sense. This is a bigger tax cut for more people. It helps with the cost of living and it helps make our tax system more equitable. It is both support in a tough time and reform.</para>
<para>Under our tax plan, the average taxpayer on an income of $73,000 will get a tax cut of $1,504. That's an extra $804 compared with Scott Morrison's plan. As the honourable member for Rankin said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">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.</para></quote>
<para>These are the aspirational Australians that the Labor government is committed to helping.</para>
<para>It's instructive that the coalition's knee-jerk response when these tax cuts were first announced was negative—straight to 'Dr No'. Even before these tax cuts were announced, those opposite were against the policy. The deputy opposition leader immediately confirmed the intention to roll the changes back, A statement she later retreated from—crab walked away from, I guess you would say.</para>
<para>Those opposite may continue to grandstand about Labor's change for the better—a policy that they've also said they will support. So my questions to them are: Why would you put politics before the people that you represent, when 85 per cent of the people in Moncrieff are going to be better off under a Labor policy? Aren't you listening to the people doing it tough in your electorates? How can you look the cleaners in the eye and say that they deserve nothing? Why would a millionaire deserve $9,000 back from the tax office but a Woolies cleaner deserve zip? How could you be that politician that ran that up?</para>
<para>Since the tax cuts were legislated by the member for Cook, five years ago, there has been a once-in-100-years pandemic, conflicts throughout the globe, a global inflation spike and all of those higher interest rate rises that have passed costs onto households. We know that Australians are suffering because of the economic ripples flowing into their homes and workplaces from all of these factors. When economic circumstances change, the responsible thing to do is to change your economic policy. This is what the Albanese Labor government has done, and we stand behind this change for the better. I'll choose commonsense over stubborn stupidity every single time.</para>
<para>The honourable Leader of the Opposition has grudgingly indicated that his team will support these tax cuts. You wouldn't believe it when you listened to the content of their speeches, but even the honourable Leader of the Opposition realised that the choice was obvious: to vote with Labor in favour of a tax cut for every Australian rather than stick with the Morrison plan from 2019.</para>
<para>Labor's tax cuts have broad support across my electorate. I doorknocked twice last week, and there's been uniform support for the additional help we're delivering to the people of southern Brisbane. As one of my constituents said prior to our government's 25 January announcement, 'As a high-income earner with a mortgage, I'm someone who will benefit from the proposed tax cuts'—that means the Morrison cuts—'but I want you to cancel them because the benefit to people like me of keeping the tax cuts is so small compared to the benefit of using the money for something else that will benefit all Australians, low-income earners in particular.'</para>
<para>The key here is that Labor's tax cuts benefit all Australian workers. We know Australians are doing it tough. We've listened to people and we know that they're under pressure. The Albanese Labor government doesn't just accept that people are under pressure and say, 'Well, what can I do?' We do something about it. That's why easing these tough cost-of-living pressures has been the Albanese government's No. 1 priority. These tax cuts provide meaningful and immediate cost-of-living relief up and down the income scale without adding pressure on inflation. That's so important. I stress that, because we know that inflation hits low- to middle-income earners most. It takes buying power out of their pockets.</para>
<para>So this is a fair and responsible plan, responding to the economic conditions of 2024 and helping those hardworking Australians most under pressure. Labor's cost-of-living tax cuts come on top of the other important relief measures we've rolled out, measures that are making a real difference in communities across the country. Despite a lack of support from the coalition, we've moved to make so many positive changes for Australians. We've provided energy bill relief—which I think they voted against—higher income support payments and the biggest boost to rent assistance in 30 years. We've made child care cheaper, we've made TAFE free and we're building more social and affordable homes. I know we need to do more, but we've got some great plans. I particularly commend the Steven Miles government in Queensland for what they're doing in terms of rolling out new homes.</para>
<para>In the week of the 40th anniversary of Medicare, designed by Labor, we can reflect with pride on the Albanese Labor government's strengthening of Medicare and the rolling out of cheaper medicines for Australians. We've tripled the bulk-billing incentive, supporting 11.6 million Australians to access a GP with no out-of-pocket costs. We saved Australians $250 million last year on medicines, and we're establishing the Medicare urgent care clinics across the country—like the one in Dutton Park, right on the border of my electorate— to boost access to critical medical care.</para>
<para>The Treasurer also introduced the Treasury Laws Amendment (Cost of Living—Medicare Levy) Bill, which directs more support to Australians on modest incomes. The Albanese government will increase that Medicare low-income threshold for 2023-24, ensuring that people on lower incomes continue to pay less or are exempt from the Medicare levy. It's great help but non-inflationary. It's a sensible approach to government, rather than one that sprays money around with a hose. Labor's tax plan centres around relief and reform. It provides more help up and down the income scale without adding to inflation, as I said.</para>
<para>What else are we doing? We're decreasing the lowest rate of income tax from 19 per cent to 16 per cent. This is for the people earning below $45,000. Those in that tax slot, above the income tax-free threshold of $18,200, instead of giving nearly one-fifth of each dollar to Treasury, will now only pay 16 per cent. And we're lowering the second tax rate from 32½ per cent down to 30 per cent, so that's for middle Australians earning between 45 grand and $135,000. We're raising the threshold of the 37 per cent tax bracket to $135,000 and raising the threshold of the 45 per cent tax bracket up to $190,000.</para>
<para>I note we've had a few contributions from those opposite about bracket creep, but I also note that the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison horror show didn't touch this threshold in that wasted decade that they haunted the Lodge. This is a substantial and sustainable tax reform that has a direct impact on all workers at all ages in every community in Australia.</para>
<para>The Labor cost-of-living tax cuts, I'm proud to say, are a great boost for women. All 6.5 million women taxpayers will receive a tax cut, on average that's a tax cut of $1,649 each year under Labor's plan, and 5.8 million women—that is, 90 per cent of taxpaying women—will benefit from a bigger tax cut, with an average increase of $707. This directly helps families with parents who are returning to work and it support workers in high-demand occupations that have high numbers of women workers.</para>
<para>Ninety-six per cent of the nurses at QEII Jubilee Hospital, down the road from my office, will benefit. I'm sure Logan Hospital will be much the same. That's where my neighbour works as an obstetrician—as a midwife, sorry! I think that's a demotion! I thank all the people at QEII for the great work that they do, and I particularly want to call them out for helping my son Leo, who broke his arm on the last day of school. The QEII staff were magnificent.</para>
<para>I'll also do a call-out for my former profession: 98 per cent of the teachers at the 49 schools peppered across Moreton will receive a boost to their pay packet. The hard workers in early childhood, disability support and aged care, who are the crux of our community, will all benefit from the Albanese tax cuts.</para>
<para>Another group to benefit will be the young working Australians. Again, more than 90 per cent of under 35s will receive a bigger cut—remembering that those above this threshold, above that 90 per cent mark, will be doing okay. This plan has a positive effect on labour supply, will increase it by about 930,000 hours per week—yet again a substantial improvement compared to that flawed, out-of-date Morrison plan I mentioned earlier. This is more than double the labour supply impact forecast from five years ago.</para>
<para>The Treasurer and the economic team consulted extensively with the Treasury and received confirmation that the plan in front of the House addresses the bracket creep that can hit low- and middle-income earners. The average worker will pay around $21,000 less in tax over the next decade. So Labor's cost-of-living tax cuts don't burden the budget and don't add to inflation. Inflation is cooling—more work to be done, Treasurer, obviously—and, by the time the cuts rollout from 1 July, it's expected to moderate further. The RBA has also confirmed these tax cuts don't affect inflation forecasts.</para>
<para>The Albanese government wants people to earn more and it wants people to keep more. We want for no-one to be left behind and nobody to be held back. The Labor tax cuts mean that 84 per cent of Australian taxpayers will get a bigger tax cut from 1 July, just a few months away. These measures are fair and responsible. They provide support; they provide reform. This is something I'm proud to get behind, and I commend this bill to the House.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>21:04</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr RYAN</name>
    <name.id>297660</name.id>
    <electorate>Kooyong</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I also rise to commend the Treasury Laws Amendment (Cost of Living Tax Cuts) Bill 2024 to the House. This bill modifies the legislated stage 3 tax cuts to give greater benefit to lower and middle-income earners. The vast majority of Australian taxpayers will be better off over the next decade under this revised legislation. In its first year, about 11.6 million people will receive a bigger tax cut. Ninety per cent of women and more than 90 per cent of people aged under 35 will receive a bigger tax cut than they would otherwise have received.</para>
<para>The Grattan Institute and the Treasury have both released analyses indicating that more than 80 per cent of taxpayers will be better off over the next decade. Treasury estimates that these changes will increase labour supply by as much as 930,000 hours every week in this country, an important contribution at a time of labour shortages and when many are concerned about immigration. The proposed changes will also restore the 37 per cent bracket to the tax system. The Morrison stage 3 cuts had a single tax bracket from $45,000 to $200,000. This would have flattened our income tax system radically, to the point where it would have been more aggressive than at any time since the 1950s. The restoration of the 37 per cent bracket, which I called for in 2023, improves the basic structure of our tax system.</para>
<para>The move to modify the stage 3 tax cuts is evidence based. Last year, more than 100 tax experts and economists publicly declared their concern about the impending tax changes. Their concern was that the Morrison stage 3 cuts would worsen inequality in this country and that they were unfair and inflationary. Those experts stated that they believed politicians should take their promises seriously, but that they also believed the country's economic circumstances had changed radically since the stage 3 tax cuts were legislated in 2018.</para>
<para>To date, my community has been disappointed with Labor's response on the cost-of-living crisis. This legislation will provide greater tax cuts to more Australians, and most of my constituents support this change. Indeed, 71 per cent of taxpayers, even in Kooyong, will be better off with the modified stage 3 tax cuts. However, the changes do mean that some taxpayers will not receive the full tax cut that they had planned and budgeted for. At the time of increases in the cost of living, that is extremely disappointing for some. I want to acknowledge that this evening. While many constituents have written to me to express their support for the changes to the stage 3 tax cuts, some have contacted me to express their concerns. There are two main reasons why some constituents are disappointed with the changes. Firstly, many people, especially single parents, were relying on those tax cuts. Last month I heard from a young single mother in my electorate who would have received a larger tax cut under the Morrison legislation. She had recently been offered a new job with a significantly higher salary. In her words: 'Because of an existing HECS debt and because of the high tax rate, it's amazing how quickly a striking on-paper salary can be cannibalised. I really feel that the amount being taken at the payroll office is unreasonably high. Because I don't have a partner, I am taxed at a far greater rate, in effect, than a couple earning my salary between them, due to there being one tax-free threshold, not two. The prospect of the planned tax cuts was a great relief; it was going to mean I would see a greater proportion of my income actually hit my bank account, and it would allow me to more viably save for my kids' future. I don't yet own a home.'</para>
<para>I have also heard from constituents who are concerned about the impact of bracket creep, with one couple noting that the $180,000 threshold introduced on 1 January 2008 would be over $265,000 now, had it been adjusted appropriately for inflation. That couple also told me that the government needs to take the lead in explaining the impact of inflation on the tax thresholds, and that it needs to be more open with the public about the resultant need to regularly adjust these. I agree that bracket creep is a vexatious problem; it can be a real disincentive to people working more. To address bracket creep, we need to review our tax brackets and we should index them. My constituents' difficulties are real; they reflect the severity of the current cost-of-living crisis. I share my constituents' concerns about the cumulative effect of income tax and of compounding HECS debts—and about systemic inequalities and the cost of child care; the financial disadvantages of being a single parent; and the increasing difficulty of saving for a home deposit, or paying the rent or a mortgage.</para>
<para>The other reason that some constituents are disappointed with this tax change is that they believe it was a broken promise from our Prime Minister. Most of the stressors feeding into the current cost-of-living crisis were already apparent at the time of the 2022 federal election: COVID, the war in Ukraine, rising inflation and consequent increases in interest rates. All of those manifested after the tax cuts were legislated, but before the most recent election. When asked in 2022, and when asked subsequently, repeatedly, whether they planned to change the stage 3 tax cuts, the Prime Minister and the Treasurer repeatedly said, 'No'.</para>
<para>We have a trust deficit in this country. A deficit driven by increasing economic inequality and fuelled by the stressors of the recent pandemic. A deficit which is, sadly, fuelling increasing populism and division. That trust deficit may well have been exacerbated by the government's change of mind on these tax cuts. We don't yet know when the government did change its mind.</para>
<para>In politics, words matter. When we're elected, we enter into a covenant with our community to act, as much as we can, with honesty and with integrity. But we also promise to act, as much as we can, in the best interests of our community, and that is why I am supporting this bill.</para>
<para>There are two important points to make here. Firstly, the sad reality of tax debate in this country is that politicians of all sides face brutal, bitter smear campaigns when they start conversations about tax. We've seen that in almost every term of parliament this century, on issues from the GST to the mining tax and stage 3. We've seen that in the media this week, in the mainstream media's concentration on rule-in rule-out questions, on wedges and on wordplay. We deserve better. In an ideal world, the government would have announced a plan for genuine tax reform before the last election, a plan to address what Ken Henry—more than 10 years ago now—called 'extraordinary intergenerational inequity'. We have not addressed that to date, and this bill does not do that.</para>
<para>The second point I want to make is that our circumstances in this country have significantly changed since the last election. In May 2022, Australia was doing relatively well. Consumer spending and economic growth were on the up. Mortgage rates and rents were only just starting to climb. In the last 18 months we have dealt with persistent inflation, 13 interest rate rises and a war in the Middle East which places us at risk of an energy price shock. Real household disposable income, per capita, decreased 5.3 per cent last year. That was the worst decline in 40 years. Mortgage payments and rent are taking up a larger share of our income than at any time in Australian history.</para>
<para>The tax cuts in their previous form were slated to cost $20 billion a year. That's about what we spend on the Pharmaceutical Benefit Scheme each year; it's almost twice what we spend on higher education, and $20 billion a year in tax cuts when the budget is in deficit and there's inflation is a problem. They didn't make sense then, especially in the face of increasing inflation, and they don't make sense now. That's why they need to be changed. The RBA's response has been, in recent years, a series of interest rate rises which have disproportionately affected those with mortgages and renters. This is a group which is already doing it tough. The Morrison stage 3 tax cuts would have worsened inflation, and they likely would have led to further interest rate rises and further stress on those renters and mortgagees.</para>
<para>The US jurist Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr famously said, 'Taxes are the price we pay for a civilised society.' In our country, our civilised society, we are very, very lucky to expect the standard of living that most of us have. We expect high levels of education. We expect superior health care. We expect that our country will be kept secure and that our aged and our disabled are looked after. We expect that people who cannot work are afforded financial and housing support and that people who come to our country seeking asylum are welcomed and helped to start a new life. We expect that our government will provide those things. As citizens we know that the price we have to pay for them is tax, and every three years we get to judge how legitimately our taxes have been spent.</para>
<para>Our government must find a sustainable way of funding societal needs and expectations. Right now, our dependence on personal income tax to provide that funding is too high, and the impact of that on future generations is too great. As was recently noted by the Parliamentary Budget Office, in the current tax mix, with its high dependence on personal income tax, there is a trade-off between providing sufficient support for the ageing population and maintaining intergenerational fairness for younger Australians whose primary income is wages. Really, what we need is a whole-of-system tax reform which looks at all of the services that we need from government—how much they will cost and how best to pay for them—and which not just looks at domestic sources of revenue but also takes full benefit from the windfall profits made by multinationals from our mineral and fossil fuel wealth.</para>
<para>Australians are sensible and pragmatic. They know that nothing comes for free, but they've lost trust in government processes and spending decisions—with good reason. We must future-proof our economy for the next generation, which faces increasing national debt and HECS debts, challenging housing affordability, the cost of climate remediation and the need to support an ageing population. I will continue to make the case for this government, the Labor government, to be brave and to help all Australians through the worst cost-of-living crisis in a generation. Tinkering around the edges on tax isn't good for us in the long term.</para>
<para>My community has been clear with me. It is supportive of these changes to the stage 3 tax cuts in order to make them less inflationary, in order to make them fairer, and I support these changes, too. But what Australia really needs is a broader discussion about intergenerational inequity and about our economy. We must ensure that we can fairly and equitably raise the revenue that we need to provide the services and the infrastructure that Australians expect and deserve. I urge both major parties to put politics aside and to be open to reasonable, expert led tax reform. I commend this bill to the House.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>21:17</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms TEMPLEMAN</name>
    <name.id>181810</name.id>
    <electorate>Macquarie</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The emails that I've got from my constituents have given a really good reflection and appreciation of how they are feeling and what their response is to our decision to make changes to the stage 3 tax cuts so that the Labor tax cuts are more equitable. This is what Ross says: 'I wish to thank the government for adjusting the tax cuts in order to help those less well-off. In a society where there is so much inequality, any move to address this situation is to be applauded.' Jane writes: 'Recent governments have taken decisions which advance their own political ends. It is so refreshing to see a government consider the needs of the Australian people and the challenges they are facing in current economic circumstances. The changes reflect great integrity and bravery, particularly given the strong opposition the government would be aware it would face.' And, finally, David says: 'As a higher income earner missing out, I nonetheless agree that the changes to stage 3 are more equitable than the Morrison attempt to bribe me. Keep up the good work'—and we will.</para>
<para>That sums up the response from the majority of people who've spoken to me about these changes and our decision to give every taxpayer a tax cut in a bit over four months time. For me, this bill is a demonstration of something that I certainly didn't see in the previous government, and that is an ability to really listen, to hear what communities are saying and to then respond in a way that might not have been considered a few short years ago. I was one of many MPs who listened to their community as they shared the experience of being squeezed by the rise in interest rates that started before we came to government and continued fiercely for many months, by the rising prices and—even though wages had started rising and unemployment was historically low—by too little being stretched too far. These were parts of the community who may have missed out on some or much of the cost-of-living relief that we delivered: cheaper child care, expanded paid parental leave, electricity bill relief, cheaper medicines and more Medicare bulk billing, fee-free TAFE, increased rent assistance and boosted income support payments.</para>
<para>The key conversation, the absolute key conversation I had with so many people was the need to provide relief if possible, but not to send their mortgage repayments skyrocketing any further. So this decision, our decision, our tax cuts which deliver more relief to more people in a way that is fiscally responsible and doesn't add to inflationary pressures, is something I'm very proud to be standing here and speaking to. The Labor tax plan means every Australian taxpayer will receive a tax cut this year from 1 July. These new tax cuts provide bigger cuts for middle Australia to help with cost of living, and at the same time they make our tax system fairer. This is a plan for both tax relief and tax reform.</para>
<para>Let's look at some of the ways there will be benefits from these tax cuts. They are good for middle Australia; they are good for women; they are good for young people; they are good for helping with cost-of-living pressures; they are good for labour supply; and they are also good for the economy. When I look at Macquarie, my electorate, every single one of the 67,000 taxpayers in the Blue Mountains and Hawkesbury will receive a tax cut under Labor's tax plan, with 85 per cent—that's 57,000 people—receiving a bigger tax cut from 1 July than under the old stage 3. The average tax cut is $1,624. That's around $90 million back into the pockets of taxpayers, the pockets of workers, just in my community alone in the Blue Mountains and Hawkesbury. That's just for the first year.</para>
<para>Here are some of the examples: 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. Parents, particularly women with young children, will have even more meaningful support to return to work under our changes because of the increase in their take-home pay. Someone on the average wage in Australia—that's around $73,000—will now get a tax cut of more than $1,500 a year. That's around $29 a week, more than double what they were going to get under the old coalition 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 the average household income, which is around $130,000, with one partner earning $80,000 and the other $50,000, their combined tax cut will be over $2,600, with is about $50 a week and $1,600 more than they would have got under the old plan.</para>
<para>How we achieve it is by a number of steps. From 1 July this year we will reduce the 19 per cent tax rate to 16 per cent. We will reduce the 32.5 per cent tax rate to 30 per cent. We will increase the threshold above which the 37 per cent tax rate applies from $120,000 to $135,000. And we will increase the threshold above which the 45 per cent tax rate applies from $180,000 to $190,000. The 45 per cent threshold is being lifted on 1 July for the first time since Labor was last in office. It didn't go up, it didn't get changed, it wasn't made better. There was no relief in the last nearly 10 years. It's taken Labor to be in government for there to be a change to that top tax rate.</para>
<para>All 13.6 million Australian taxpayers will receive a tax cut from 2024-25 onwards. The tax cuts will also help tackle bracket creep and lower average tax rates for all taxpayers. So our changes deliver a better, more progressive tax system and they address bracket creep more evenly. This whole program is broadly revenue neutral, so it won't be adding inflationary pressure. All of these things mean that there are many, many winners from the changes that we've brought in.</para>
<para>I've mentioned women. All 6.5 million female taxpayers will receive a tax cut. Ninety per cent, or 5.8 million, of female taxpayers will receive a bigger tax cut than under the Morrison plan, an average increase of $707.</para>
<para>I'm really pleased that our tax cuts extend the relief to a group that was probably likely to miss out under the old stage 3 tax cuts. All 1.5 million young Australian taxpayers aged between 18 and 24 will receive a tax cut. The average tax cut will be a bit over $1,000. All 1.6 million taxpayers aged 25 to 29 will receive a tax cut and their average tax cut will be just over $1,500 a year. I also note that students who have been able to take advantage of fee-free TAFE and are studying at TAFE are also workers, many of them, and they will not only get the benefit of fee-free TAFE but these thousands students who are working part-time will also get a tax cut. They are working hard to do better, they are aspiring to do better, and we're supporting them, not just through fee-free TAFE but also through tax cuts.</para>
<para>Now, older Australians don't miss out on this. Older Australians who are paying tax, all 500,000 taxpayers aged between 65 and 69, will receive a tax cut. All 250,000 taxpayers between 70 and 74 will receive a tax cut and all 344,000 taxpayers aged over 75 will receive a tax cut, so these benefits will be felt right across the board.</para>
<para>When I look at some of the professions that I know are heavily represented in the seat of Macquarie, I can see these benefits. Ninety-eight per cent of nursing support and personal care workers will be better off under our tax cuts than under the previous model from the coalition. Ninety-eight per cent primary school teachers are going to be better off, get a greater tax cut. Ninety-seven per cent of secondary school teachers are going to get a bigger tax cut than under the previous government. Ninety-seven per cent of registered nurses, 97 per cent of chefs, 90 per cent of childcare workers, 90 per cent of aged and disability carers, 97 per cent of truck drivers and welfare support workers, all of these groups are going to benefit enormously. It is the sort of thing that is going to go right across my electorate. There will not be a town or village or suburb where the benefit isn't felt and that is great for our local economy.</para>
<para>So, let's get really clear. A person on an average income of around $73,000 is going to see a tax cut of $1,504, $804 more than they were going to receive under Morrison's plan. A person earning $40,000 will get a tax cut of $654 compared to nothing under the previous government's plan. A person earning $100,000 will get a tax cut of $2,179, $804 more than they would have under the Morrison plan. And a person earning $200,000 will still get a tax cut, which will be $4,529.</para>
<para>The Treasury estimates, when looking at these results, show that one of the consequences will be increased labour supply by around 930,000 hours a week. Now, that's more than double the labour supply benefit from the former coalition government's plan. That means more people in the workforce doing more work. It's driven by increases in hours worked and by the participation of women with taxable income between $20,000 and $75,000. These are things that we are very proud to be able to achieve.</para>
<para>The other change that we're making is around the Medicare levy. This bill sits alongside the Treasury Laws Amendment (Cost of Living Tax Cuts) Bill. I think what a lot of people have missed is we want to further support low-income households, because households with taxable incomes below the relevant statutory low-income thresholds will not be liable for the Medicare levy. The change is that we're going to increase the income threshold for the partial Medicare levy to $26,000 a year and for the full Medicare levy to $32,500 a year. For a single person earning $30,000 a year, it means they're going to keep an extra $170 in their pocket. That's another small part of the change which is going to yield widespread benefit.</para>
<para>We're introducing these changes because they recognise the economic realities of 2024. Australians are under pressure right now, and they deserve a tax plan that actually responds to the challenges that they're facing right now. We couldn't have predicted this situation five years ago; we didn't know exactly what was coming. But we are a mature government that can look at a situation and assess it.</para>
<para>I did have someone say to me, 'Oh, I'm really disappointed you've done this, because you've been in small business; you should know that this is a bad thing to do,' and I said, 'To the contrary—I'm doing exactly what I would have done in small business when presented with information that showed me a better way forward than the way I'd planned to go five years ago; I absolutely would've seized that new information, taken into account the new conditions that I was trading in and made changes.' And that's what we've done. We've been responsive.</para>
<para>When the coalition's plan was legislated five years ago, the world was a different place. It was before the once-in-a hundred-years pandemic. It was before this persistent inflation and the higher interest rates and the two big conflicts and global uncertainty which have placed so much pressure on us. When the circumstances change, changing policy is the responsible thing to do.</para>
<para>The Albanese government is providing meaningful cost-of-living relief in a responsible way. We are not adding to inflationary pressures, and we're laying the foundations for a stronger and more resilient economy. As Richard Denniss from the Australia Institute said, Anthony Albanese's decision to recast Scott Morrison's 2018 tax cuts to suit the economy of 2024 is 'the biggest and most honest piece of tax reform' in Australia for decades. I am so proud to be supporting this bill.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>21:32</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr HOGAN</name>
    <name.id>218019</name.id>
    <electorate>Page</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to talk on the Treasury Laws Amendment (Cost of Living Tax Cuts) Bill 2024. As we have said, the coalition will be supporting this bill but, obviously, moving amendments as well.</para>
<para>I want to make it really clear that, if the previous coalition government hadn't legislated for three stages of tax cuts—the first two stages primarily for lower income earners, and the third stage for middle- to upper-income earners—and the third stage wasn't about to come into force on 1 July this year, there would be no way that this new government would be legislating any type or form of tax cut. I think we need to lay that out.</para>
<para>It's also interesting that the previous member got up and talked about the 'Morrison tax cuts'. They were bipartisan. They were the Morrison and Albanese—or whoever was the leader: Shorten—tax cuts, because both sides of the parliament voted for these tax cuts.</para>
<para>But it's not in Labor's DNA to support tax cuts. It's not in their DNA to legislate tax cuts. They're having to do this because these cuts were legislated. They said they would support tax cuts, so now, obviously, they are putting tax cuts through, but certainly not the ones that everyone voted for.</para>
<para>There would be more respect for the government if the government hadn't said a hundred times that they were going to support the tax cuts as legislated—if the government of today, at the last election, had not said that they were going to support the tax cuts as legislated. The thing that has to be acknowledged—and the other side would like to say, 'Nothing to see here'—is that they have misled the Australian public about what they were going to do and what they were going to say.</para>
<para>Members, one after the other, are getting up and saying, 'Oh, there's been a change in circumstances.' The previous member mentioned the COVID pandemic. That happened a few years ago. It was only three weeks ago that the Prime Minister and the Treasurer said they were going to support the stage 3 tax cuts as had been legislated. The pandemic happened a long time ago, so, when we're dragging stuff back from two or three years ago—and that's why circumstances have changed—why weren't the Prime Minister and the Treasurer saying, three or four weeks ago, 'No, we are going to reconsider the legislated stage 3 tax cuts'? Why weren't they saying that then? Why weren't all these amazing things that have transformed the world looked at: 'We've had to revisit it and we've had to look at it'? Why weren't the Prime Minister and the Treasurer saying, just three weeks ago, 'We're going to relook at this.' They weren't saying that. They were saying, 'No, we're supporting the legislated tax cuts, as we supported them a number of years ago.' So what an amazing furphy it is when the government says: 'There have been all these changed circumstances. Things have developed. You look at new evidence when it happens.' But there was no new evidence three weeks ago—there were no new circumstances three weeks ago—about why they were going to change what was legislated.</para>
<para>An integral part of this is integrity. An integral part of this is whether you have misled the Australian public or you are taking them for mugs, saying one thing and then just saying: 'Look, everything has changed. What I said two weeks ago isn't the same.' That is a really important point in what we're talking about today, and that's why we have to remind the Australian public that the Prime Minister and the Treasurer misled and deceived the Australian public 100 times. That cannot be waived over. That cannot be forgotten. That cannot be justified by something that happened two or three years ago.</para>
<para>Quite rightly, the Australian public now need to question everything this Prime Minister says, everything this Treasurer says and everything this government says because you can't trust them. You can't rely on them. You can't say, 'No, the Prime Minister said his word is his bond.' Well, he's already proved that's it not. Nothing now is ruled out from them saying, 'But, no, circumstances have changed,' or saying, 'Something happened four years ago, and we've changed our mind on that, even though we said two weeks ago that we were still committed to it.' That is why, with these words that we're now hearing from the government on things like negative gearing and a whole lot of the tax policies, the Australian public cannot trust this government.</para>
<para>I don't think you need much of a crystal ball to predict the next one. I'd say that the next thing this government is going to look at is negative gearing. The words they're using, they're not saying yes or no. They're just saying: 'It has not been considered. It has not been looked at.' Then suddenly it's like, 'Because of changing circumstances and because of this and because of that, we've changed what we said to the Australian public at the last election.' That is what is exceptionally disappointing about this.</para>
<para>It was interesting: I listened quite closely to the member for Kooyong when she got up and spoke. She is someone who came into this parliament as a Teal and talking about integrity, talking about transparency and talking about the fact that we have to be open with the Australian public. I'll withdraw this if I'm corrected tomorrow, but, from what I heard her say, not once did she call out the government that they had deceived the Australian public at the last election. This is the election that she came in on, and the government have changed their position. All I heard was why she thought this was a good idea. I respect that if she believes it, but call this government out. You can agree with the government about what they are doing—I don't have a problem with that if that's your opinion—but you have to call the government out on that. They have deceived, I believe, the Australian public.</para>
<para>I wouldn't say that if they had mentioned it six months ago. If the Prime Minister got up six months ago and said: 'Look, there are a lot of things that have gone on. There's a cost-of-living crisis'—well, six months ago he wasn't talking about the cost of living; he was talking about the Voice. But, if he had got up six months ago and talked about the cost of living and said, 'Look, we are going to revisit stage 3 and we are going to look at this and redesign it in a way that we think would be more targeted,' you would have to respect that. I would respect that. I'd say: 'Okay, you said six months ago that you were going to redesign this. There are changing conditions, and there are circumstances that you think you want to retarget and redefine in it.' I would respect that. You can't not respect that. I would have liked to have seen it at the last election—even six months ago. To wait six months, I think that you'd respect that. But to say three weeks ago that you're not going to change it and then do that three weeks later is unacceptable to the Australian public. That's the issue here; this cannot be forgotten, and it won't be forgotten by the Australian public.</para>
<para>There were a lot of tricky, sneaky words going on here, too. Today in question time there was talk about when Treasury looked at this. When did the department look at this? Why did the department start looking at this? Suddenly there was this inference in looking at the words: it was almost: 'Oh, no, Treasury started looking at this by themselves. This wasn't directed by the Treasurer or any minister and this wasn't directed by the Prime Minister. Treasury, just as a department—just themselves—creatively started to come up with different scenarios.' Okay, so there was no conversation between the minister, the Treasurer, the Prime Minister and Treasury to look at different scenarios about what other things could be done or what parameters there could be around the stage 3 tax cuts? This was done autonomously, without direction, by the Treasury? Without ministerial discretion? Really? Okay, that's interesting—an interesting take on it in itself, which we might pursue with more questions. But that's a key element here.</para>
<para>We can talk about this. I'm happy to sit down, with great respect, and listen to members opposite say why they think that these tax cuts, as they have been redesigned by the government, are a better policy, or more targeted or better right now, than what was designed five years ago with the stage 3 tax cuts, albeit that stages 1 and 2 were for lower-income earners. But it's almost hypocritical to say that times and circumstances have changed. They haven't changed in three weeks. It was only three weeks ago that the Prime Minister and the Treasurer were saying that the stage 3 tax cuts would go through as legislated.</para>
<para>Let's be really blunt about this: why were the Treasurer and the Prime Minister asked about this 100 times? They were asked 100 times because a lot of the media and a lot of people didn't really think they believed in them anyway. That's why it happened. You don't get asked 100 times about an issue if people think you believe in it and people think you're going to carry through with it. Why they were asked 100 times, and why that statistic is there, is because a lot of people knew, or believed, that the Prime Minister and the Treasurer didn't believe in stage 3. But they've reinforced the hypocrisy here, because 100 times they said, 'No, we do, and we're going to put them through as legislated.' Then, suddenly, it was, 'Oh, no, we're not.' That's where the deceit has been here. Everyone knew that they really didn't want to do it. If they had said that two years ago, one year ago or six months ago then maybe; but to say it now at the 11th hour, 'Oh, all the circumstances have changed.' The Australian people aren't mugs, and they have seen through this.</para>
<para>Let's look at the timing of this. A quote was mentioned where one of the ministers said earlier today, 'If you want to be really cynical about this, there's a by-election coming up.' I think that's one of the reasons they've done this—and this may be cynical—there's a by-election and they've asked: 'How can we divide the public? Let's pick out an income and give the tax cut to the people below that but not above that. Let's try and be divisive about this; let's try and wedge the coalition and run a divisive thing about this.' That's quite disappointing, but it's not surprising from this government. I think some of the intentions of some of those opposite—and of some of the ministers opposite, I must say—on the Voice were very altruistic, and I respect them for that. But it was always going to be divisive in the way it was run. They ran it—the Prime Minister ran the Voice as a divisive thing through a lot of things that he didn't do with that campaign—and now, again, I think they're looking to divide the public in Australia on this issue as well.</para>
<para>I look at the Treasurer, who's apparently a student of Paul Keating—and I'm happy to go on the public record and say that I myself have a lot of admiration for former Treasurer Keating and Prime Minister Keating. He didn't divide the country like this. When he looked at tax cuts, do you know what he did? He lowered the upper end of personal income tax from 60 per cent to 49. That's what Keating did. The Treasurer might regard himself as a student of Keating, but, gee, he hasn't digested it, because Keating lowered the personal income tax rate from 60 per cent not just for those earning over $200,000 but for every income earner. These were the top income earners. You're not doing that at all; you're not lowering income tax like Keating—</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr HOGAN</name>
    <name.id>218019</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I'll take the interjection. Keating lowered income tax for everybody, without a capped income.</para>
</continue>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr HOGAN</name>
    <name.id>218019</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>You're not. You might want to read the legislation. If you earn over $200,000, you're not getting a tax cut.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Keogh</name>
    <name.id>249147</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>You are getting a tax cut.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr HOGAN</name>
    <name.id>218019</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Well, you're not lowering the rate. The top tax rate is staying the same. I'll repeat it for you: Keating lowered the top tax rate.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! The Minister will cease interjecting. The member for Page will direct his comments through the chair.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr HOGAN</name>
    <name.id>218019</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I will, but I'd remind the minister opposite that he doesn't understand what I'm saying, and that's concerning. Keating lowered the top tax rate—the top tax rate. Do you understand what the top tax rate was? The top tax rate went from 60 per cent to 49. You're not lowering the top tax rate, so can you withdraw the comment you just made. But I don't think you understood what I was saying, which is concerning. Keating lowered the top tax rate from 60 per cent to 49, so I say to the Treasurer, who's his student: Keating didn't look to divide us; Keating didn't look to divide the country on those income earners who were at the top tax level like the Treasurer is doing. Again, this is divisive.</para>
<para>We will support the bill, because we support lower taxes, but the government has been very deceitful in their behaviour on this.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! The member for Page will cease interjecting so I can give the call to the Minister for Veterans' Affairs.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>21:47</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr KEOGH</name>
    <name.id>249147</name.id>
    <electorate>Burt</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Labor is delivering a tax cut for every Australian taxpayer. Just think about that for a moment—every Australian taxpayer.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The minister will pause. The member for Page has had his say. I know this is a hot topic, but I'm just going to ask him to refrain from interjecting so we can get through this speech. I give the call to the Minister for Veterans' Affairs.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr KEOGH</name>
    <name.id>249147</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Labor is delivering a tax cut for every Australian taxpayer. Just think about that for a moment—every Australian taxpayer. That's some 13.6 million people. Every person who pays tax in Australia will get a tax cut this year when they lodge their tax return. This means 82,000 people in the electorate of Burt will receive on average a $1,489 tax cut. In practice, that will mean 87 per cent of the people in our community will be better off under Labor's tax cuts.</para>
<para>Labor's tax cuts build on our targeted cost-of-living relief, and importantly they don't add to inflation. We are taking real action to respond to the pressure Australians are under here and now. I know that rents are rising in our community. House prices have been going through the roof. Groceries at the checkout are costing more. A lot of people in our community are doing it tough. Thanks to this legislation, an average Australian taxpayer will now be getting a tax cut of $29 a week, which is more than double what they would have been getting under the former Liberal-National government's plan.</para>
<para>We've been listening. I've been listening. You've shared your concerns with me, and I get it. The economic reality we're facing is very, very different to how it looked five years ago. When the Liberal-National government legislated its stage 3 tax cuts five years ago, the world was a very different place. Since then we've had a once-in-a-century pandemic, persistent inflation, higher interest rates, two conflicts and global uncertainty. When circumstances change, changing policy is the right thing to do. That's why I'm proud to stand here today to speak on this legislation, lowering taxes for all taxpayers. Yes, the government's position has changed, but good government isn't about doing what's easy, it's about doing the right thing. We've found a better way. As I explained to somebody the other day, if I promised my son Nicholas that I would play Lego with him, but then my other son Benedict breaks his arm, should I make Benedict wait while I play Lego before I take him to the hospital, or should I make sure that I attend to that emergency?</para>
<para>Labor's tax cuts are all about doing the right thing for the right reasons. It's about putting people ahead of politics. We've changed our position and we've changed it for the better. Because it's not just our community who will be better off; it's everyone. Ninety-seven per cent of aged care workers in our community will be better off under Labor's tax cuts. Ninety-eight per cent of primary school teachers in our community will be better off. Chefs, nurses, truckies, mechanics, the list goes on—all will be better off.</para>
<para>Our community is excited about the action the Albanese Labor government has taken to ease the cost-of-living pressures. Under these changes taxpayers earning less than $45,000 will now receive a tax cut. They wouldn't have received anything under the previous government's plan. This will significantly boost the take-home pay of Australians on lower incomes and people working part time.</para>
<para>Graham got in touch with me saying we're on the right track. He told me he's been on the same $80,000 wage for a decade, and it's the only income he and his wife have been living on. He says that this tax cut will soften the grief. Margaret got in touch saying thank you, and made the point that Labor's plan is far more equitable than what the Liberals had proposed. Stephen says, 'Good luck with the tax cuts. They are popular with the workforce.' It would be unparliamentary for me to quote the rest of his message of support.</para>
<para>Every member of the Australian Defence Force and every public servant in the Department of Defence will receive a tax cut under Labor's tax plan. Those who have and who continue to serve our nation will this year take home more of what they earn through a tax cut. A soldier who is in the first few months of training at Kapooka earning just over $56,000 a year will receive a tax cut of $1,089. An army captain posted into infantry based up in Darwin will receive a tax cut of $2,880. A member of the Public Service working for Defence on a salary of $71,343 will receive a tax cut of $1,463. They will all keep more of what they earn, and so they should.</para>
<para>Labor's tax cuts are good for all Australians, and that includes older Australians. There are half a million taxpayers between the ages of 65 and 69. On average they will receive a tax cut of $1,731 a year. All 344,000 taxpayers over the age of 75 will receive a tax cut of about $1,726 a year. Labor's tax cuts will help all workers, whether they're in their first job or in the twilight years of their careers, with all 1.5 million taxpayers under the age of 42 to receive more than $1,000 in their tax return.</para>
<para>Labor's tax cuts build upon our earlier cost-of-living assistance initiatives. We've worked with the WA Labor government to bring down energy bills, making turning on the air con on those 40-plus degree days that we've had this summer more affordable. We've made child care cheaper, which is getting more families back to work. We've increased rent assistance to soften the blow of skyrocketing rents. We've expanded bulk billing, tripling the incentive payment to make accessing a bulk-billing GP easier. People in our community are gaining the skills they need for good jobs through our fee-free TAFE courses. We've got wages moving again, making sure people are better paid for the work that they do.</para>
<para>Our No. 1 priority is addressing cost-of-living pressures, and that's precisely what we are doing through our tax plan that sees all taxpayers paying less tax. I commend the bill to the House.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>21:55</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr ANANDA-RAJAH</name>
    <name.id>290544</name.id>
    <electorate>Higgins</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>People are doing it tough. From renters, pensioners, working families and early to mid-career professionals to tradies, single parents and essential workers, all are facing persistent pressure on their household budgets. When young people are leaving Higgins because they can't make the rent, when families are moving for the same reason, when mortgage holders are near their limit, when people are sleeping in cars in Higgins, and when we are seeing an uptick in domestic violence amongst people being seen at our maternal and child health centres, you know we need to act. If this is happening in Higgins, just imagine how much worse it is right around Australia. There is not one reason to course correct but, in fact, 26 million reasons to do so.</para>
<para>Our decision to change the stage 3 tax cuts was not made lightly. It was done in response to persistent and sustained pressure on household budgets, despite us throwing a slew of medicines at the problem, like cheaper child care, cheaper medicines, energy relief, more bulk billing, urgent care clinics, increases to income support payments and fee-free TAFE.</para>
<para>Our $23 billion cost-of-living package across two budgets has helped, but it is clear that people need more relief. The original stage 3 tax cuts were legislated in 2018, when the world looked very different. Who could have anticipated an inflationary storm triggered by a global pandemic and linked to generous government support, disrupted supply chains and not one, but two, global conflicts.</para>
<para>This cost-of-living problem has proven to be more stubborn than we hoped for, demanding that we do more. Labor's tax cuts will deliver more bang for buck at a time when people are under sustained pressure. On 1 July, the Albanese government will be delivering a tax cut for every Australian taxpayer. A total of 13.6 million Australian taxpayers will be receiving a tax cut, and 85 per cent of taxpayers will be getting a bigger tax cut under our plan compared to Scott Morrison's plan.</para>
<para>Every taxpayer in Higgins—around 85,000 people—will receive a tax cut. Nearly three in four workers in Higgins will receive a bigger tax cut under our plan compared to the previous one. The average tax cut in Higgins will be $2,059. That is huge. The average Australian wage earner on $73,000 per year will receive a tax cut of $1,504, which is more than $800 extra in their pocket each year than they would have received under Scott Morrison's plan.</para>
<para>Among the biggest beneficiaries are women. That is music to my ears in a government that is 53 per cent women. We walk the talk. All women will receive a tax cut, but 90 per cent of working women will receive a bigger tax cut under Labor's plan compared to Scott Morrison's plan. You can't comment on or talk about gender equality without actually supporting women's economic development, and these tax cuts certainly do that. On average, all 6.5 million women taxpayers would receive an average tax cut of $1,649 compared to $1,278 under the previous stage 3 tax cuts.</para>
<para>Treasury estimates that Labor's tax cuts will boost workforce supply, particularly for women. I have walked around Higgins and I've seen women with extraordinary professional qualifications who are currently languishing at home. Why? Because they are basically working part-time. It's not worth their time to increase their hours due to the current tax regime. These changes will encourage more women to step up into the workforce at a time when businesses are desperate for skilled workers.</para>
<para>We have, as you know, had the worst productivity in the last six decades. It was absolutely moribund under the Liberals. Having more workers with appropriate skills that the economy needs will be a real shot in the arm for productivity. This just makes good economic sense.</para>
<para>Treasury expects an increase in workforce supply of around 930,000 hours per week, more than double the previous stage 3 cuts. There are many women in Higgins who are going to get— <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
<para>Debate adjourned.</para>
<para>House adjourned at 22:00</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>NOTICES</title>
        <page.no>135</page.no>
        <type>NOTICES</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Presentation</title>
          <page.no>135</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1></debate>
  </chamber.xscript>
  <fedchamb.xscript>
    <business.start>
      <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:WX="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
        <p class="HPS-MCJobDate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
          <span class="HPS-MCJobDate">
            <a href="Federation Chamber" type="">Wednesday, 7 February 2024</a>
          </span>
        </p>
        <p class="HPS-Normal" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
          <span class="HPS-Normal">
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">The </span>
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">DEPUTY SPEAKER </span>
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">(</span>
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">Mrs Archer</span>
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">)</span>
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">
            </span>took the chair at 09:30.</span>
        </p>
      </body>
    </business.start>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS</title>
        <page.no>136</page.no>
        <type>CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Racism</title>
          <page.no>136</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:30</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms SPENDER</name>
    <name.id>286042</name.id>
    <electorate>Wentworth</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The last few months have been some of the most difficult in memory for the Australian Jewish community. The horrific attacks on 7 October have not only created a war in the Middle East, but they are causing an unprecedented rise of anti-Semitism in Australia. In Sydney we have seen anti-Semitic posters at protests, anti-Semitic slurs from members of the New South Wales parliament, motorcycle convoys deliberately travelling through the heart of the Jewish community and boycotts of Jewish businesses. There were already guards outside Jewish schools, now there are more.</para>
<para>Australia has long been a safe haven for people around the world, a chance for people to bring up their families in safety, to work hard and to build a prosperous life. And that's no more so than for the Jewish community. But tragically, it feels like this is changing. In the words of one of my friends: 'Australia is scary, which is awful because it's one of the best places in the world to be Jewish.'</para>
<para>We can have different views on pathways to peace in the Middle East, and we can all mourn the devastating loss of life of civilians in this conflict, but there is absolutely no place for anti-Semitism. A country's multicultural success is founded on the values of respect for all Australians, regardless of ethnic or religious origin. It has never been more important to stand up for those values, and that's why combating anti-Semitism at universities is one of my priorities.</para>
<para>Prior to the Hamas attacks, the Australian Jewish University Experience Survey was released. It found that almost two-thirds of Jewish students reported anti-Semitic incidents at universities, and more than 50 per cent had hidden their Jewish identity. These incidents have gotten worse since 7 October. In the survey of Jewish students that I recently conducted, nearly 200 young people told me about their experiences. They told me about the rise of anti-Semitic social media posts, about Nazi symbols being graffitied on buildings, about disregard for Jewish grieving after 7 October. A young man told me about having food thrown at him, being followed around and being verbally abused for wearing a kippah on campus.</para>
<para>It is well overdue that we combat anti-Semitism at universities and, along with the members for Berowra and Macnamara, my fellow co-chairs of the Parliamentary Friends of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance, we have been doing just that. Earlier last year, the Friends of IHRA wrote to Australian universities and asked them to adopt the IHRA definition of anti-Semitism to help them better identify and deal with anti-Semitism. I'm delighted that five universities have already done this, and I want more to do so.</para>
<para>The survey also highlighted the specific issues at universities attended by students in my communities, so I'm arranging meetings with the vice chancellors of those universities in the coming weeks to urge them to take stronger action on anti-Semitism. We must go beyond individual universities, though, to systemic reform, and that is why we've presented to the cross-jurisdictional working group on university governance.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Medicare: Urgent Care Clinics</title>
          <page.no>136</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:33</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms COLLINS</name>
    <name.id>HWM</name.id>
    <electorate>Franklin</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>It was terrific to be back in Tasmania late last week, in southern Tassie, with my colleague the member for Lyons, Brian Mitchell, to celebrate the 40th anniversary of Medicare. It was terrific to be able to do that at one of the urgent care clinics. Deputy Speaker Archer, I know that you would know the urgent care clinics in Tasmania extraordinarily well. There are two in Hobart, one in Launceston and one on the north-west coast. They have had over 14,000 visits to those urgent care clinics. These are Tasmanians that we know would have ended up in our emergency departments if it were not for the urgent care clinics.</para>
<para>Indeed, we know that in Tassie around 40 per cent of presentations to our emergency departments are not necessarily the best place for them to be, and they could be seeing either a nurse practitioner or a general practitioner if they were available. One in four of the visits to the urgent care clinics in Tasmania occurs on a weekend, which obviously explains why many of them end up in an emergency department—because in the past they haven't had any other option.</para>
<para>One of the things we were able to talk about at the 40th anniversary of Medicare at the urgent care clinic was how our GP bulk-billing incentive is actually going. We have invested over $3 billion in increasing the GP bulk-billing incentive, and in Tasmania it has had an extraordinary impact. We know that in Tasmania getting access to bulk-billing GPs has been an issue for many years. My electorate has been one of the worst in the country for it. I'm pleased to say that, since that increase in just two months, we've now had a 7.5 per cent increase in bulk billing in my electorate of Franklin. In the neighbouring electorate of Clark in south Tasmania where the two urgent care clinics are located, which I don't think is coincidental, there's been a nine per cent increase in bulk billing in just two months. Clearly the urgent care clinics together with the tripling of the bulk-billing incentive—that $3 billion and indeed the $6 billion that we're investing in Medicare—are really having an impact in my home state of Tasmania.</para>
<para>We're also able to talk about the trial of the single-employer model that we are trialling with the Tasmania state Liberal government, where we are investing around $12 million in the state government actually being the single employer of GPs so that they're able to practise while they do their practical. This has been a resounding success. We had a trial of five last year. There are 12 GPs this year. We've funded up to 42 GPs to be employed under the single-employer model. This trial is something that we should be able to expand, particularly working with two tiers of government. Our state government knows that a lot of people are ending up at emergency departments who don't need to be there. If we can get them alternative care through nurse practitioners, through GPs or through alternative models of care, we should absolutely be investing and looking at those. That's what our urgent care clinics and our bulk-billing incentive are doing in Tasmania.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Australia Day Awards</title>
          <page.no>137</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:36</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr SUKKAR</name>
    <name.id>242515</name.id>
    <electorate>Deakin</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>On Australia Day this year, it was wonderful to be able to share in the celebrations with my local community at the Maroondah City Council Australia Day awards and ceremony and, at the same time, the Whitehorse City Council, who held their Australia Day citizenship ceremony and civic awards. Today I want to recognise some of those locals who work so hard to make our community what it is and who were recognised on the day.</para>
<para>In Maroondah, the Citizen of the Year was Catherine Gordon. Catherine was recognised for her pivotal work in promoting inclusiveness and community engagement, predominantly through her work with the Maroondah Volleyball Association. Catherine is a very deserving winner. She's a great personal friend and someone who's worked so hard for the community. The Young Citizen of the Year in Maroondah was Satria Arbai. Satria was recognised for advocating for disability rights and inclusivity, predominantly at Ringwood Secondary College, through the Ringwood Activists for Disability group. He was a very popular winner on the day. The Community Event of the Year this year was awarded to the Language of Friendship, which was accepted by two good friends of mine, Edwina Ricci and Jodie Murphy. They sold out a workshop with 700 bookings presented in partnership with other local groups that they're involved with—URSTRONG, the Maroondah Positive Education Network and the Communities of Wellbeing. The event showed how to support children to create healthy, feel-good social connections. Congratulations to them.</para>
<para>The Whitehorse Civic Awards recognised a number of really dedicated individuals. The Young Citizens of the Year, Emily Padman, Sebastian van Ketwich and Jacob Niven, were awarded for their wonderful work seeking to reduce soft plastics in their school. Elizabeth Meredith was awarded the Community Achievement Award for her work predominately with the Gardiners Creek Parklands. A local Deakin resident, Heather Tasker, who dedicated her time to various organisations over 50 years from the Lions to the scouts, including the first Vermont scouts, was a really deserving person to be recognised. Helen Gunther is someone I know very well from the Nunawading Toy Library as well as roles in local district guides—congratulations to Helen. The Box Hill Hospital staff, represented by Christine Lamotte, received acknowledgement for their outstanding work during COVID-19. All these people work so hard to make the Maroondah and Whitehorse communities what they are, and it was wonderful that they were recognised on a very special Australia Day this year.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Medicare</title>
          <page.no>137</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:39</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr CONROY</name>
    <name.id>249127</name.id>
    <electorate>Shortland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm so very proud to be a member of the Albanese Labor government that is delivering on the promises we made to the people of Shortland before the last election, particularly our efforts to improve access to health care by making it easier to visit a doctor. The Labor Party has and always will believe that access to health care in Australia should be based on a person's need for treatment and not their ability to pay for that treatment. Your Medicare card must always be more important than your credit card.</para>
<para>It was great to celebrate the anniversary of Medicare at Charlestown Medical and Dental Centre last week, and I thank the wonderful team there for hosting me. Medicare is cherished by Australians and none of us should ever forget that the Liberals and Nationals will attack, undermine and seek to dismantle Medicare whenever they get a chance. Indeed, the Leader of the Opposition is so out of touch with what Australians value that, as health minister, he tried to abolish bulk-billing and introduce a GP tax for every Australian. That's why he was voted the worst health minister ever. Only Labor guarantees to both protect Medicare and make it stronger.</para>
<para>I was delighted to join my Central Coast colleague the member for Dobell at the opening of the Medicare urgent care clinic at Lake Haven just before Christmas. It fulfils a commitment Labor made to the people of the Central Coast before the last election. The urgent care clinic at Lake Haven is open seven days a week, you don't need to make an appointment and, importantly for my constituents, it bulk-bills. It is ensuring that my constituents get the urgent treatment they need from doctors and nurses, and it takes pressure off the very busy emergency department at Wyong Hospital.</para>
<para>In the health space alone, Labor, before the last election, committed to restore funding cut by the Liberals to GP access after hours, and this has been delivered. We pledged to reclassify Shortland as a priority area for GPs, which the Liberals refused to do, and this has been done. We committed to build two urgent care clinics on the Central Coast, and these are now operating. We've also tripled the incentive for GPs to bulk-bill millions of Australians. This is all in the space of 20 months, and I was delighted to report last week that we've seen a significant increase in bulk-billing in the Hunter. It has moved from two-thirds of visits being bulk-billed to 70 per cent. That is 10,800 extra visits being bulk-billed in two months alone.</para>
<para>Finally, I'm very pleased to advise the House that one of my constituents, Isaac Strutt-Stevens from Cardiff South, has made his acting debut in the hit TV series of the summer <inline font-style="italic">Boy Swallows Universe</inline>, based on the book by Trent Dalton. Everyone, it seems, is either reading the book or watching the series. I congratulate Isaac, and his family, on this significant achievement at such a young age and I send him my best wishes for a long and successful acting career.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Hume Electorate: Australia Day Honours and Awards</title>
          <page.no>138</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:42</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr TAYLOR</name>
    <name.id>231027</name.id>
    <electorate>Hume</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>On 26 January many residents of my electorate of Hume were recognised with local Australia Day awards for outstanding contributions to their communities. I'm delighted to extend my heartfelt congratulations to Dr Brett Summerell from Douglas Park, who was appointed as a Member of the Order of Australia in the General Division of the Order of Australia. Dr Summerell has made a significant mark on the community through his service to the environment, particularly in the fields of plant pathology and mycology. He has been recognised for his vital research into plant diseases caused by fungi and into the prevention and treatment of these diseases. He has spent an extraordinary career researching plant science and leading a team of world-class plant scientists. He has helped establish vital scientific facilities such as PlantClinic, the Australian PlantBank and the National Herbarium of New South Wales, located in the great Mount Annan botanical garden.</para>
<para>I would also like to recognise fellow recipients of the medal of the Member of the Order of Australia. Jenny Lambert from Werombi, who's known by many in this place, was recognised for her service to business. Jenny has spent the last four decades working in industrial relations and found herself to be chief executive officer of four different employer industry organisations throughout her career. Finally, Dr Stuart Quarmby, a great friend, an incredible Australian and a great constituent of mine, was honoured for his contribution to primary and secondary education over a 38-year career, with 17 of those years in the role of foundation headmaster of Wollondilly Anglican College at Tahmoor. He took that school from not existing to being a major force for education in my electorate, and he did an outstanding job in doing all of that.</para>
<para>The dedication of these three recipients has undoubtedly had a positive impact on the lives of many. My heartfelt congratulations also extend to Superintendent Michael Rochester from Camden, who was awarded the Australian Police Medal, and Acting Assistant Commissioner Brian White from Wayo, who was honoured with the Ambulance Service Medal. Their commitment to public safety and wellbeing is truly admirable and we are grateful for their service. I want to highlight Public Service Medal recipient Lisa Freeman from Narellan Vale. Her outstanding public service to the New South Wales District Court, particularly during the challenging times of the COVID-19 pandemic, is absolutely commendable. Lisa's dedication to serving our community is a terrific example of the resilience and strength that defines us as Australians.</para>
<para>I'm immensely proud to celebrate the outstanding achievements of these individuals from my electorate who were recognised with awards this year. Their contributions showcase the diverse and remarkable talents within the community I live in and are symbolic of the sorts of people we have right across this great nation.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Richmond Electorate: Feros Village Aged Care</title>
          <page.no>138</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:45</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mrs ELLIOT</name>
    <name.id>DZW</name.id>
    <electorate>Richmond</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise today to speak on the very recent and welcome news regarding the Feros Village aged-care facility in my electorate. After nearly a year the residents now have been given certainty on the future of their much-loved home.</para>
<para>Feros Village has as its namesake the late George Feros, who was a well-known resident of the Byron Bay community. For many years George walked the streets with a wooden box and bell collecting money for his vision of aged-care services in the Byron region. Over a period of 20 years he raised more than $180,000 for what would later become Feros Care. In February 2023, Feros Care very suddenly and unexpectedly announced that they would cease providing those aged-care services and redevelop the much-loved village in Byron Bay. The whole community were distressed. Residents and their families were understandably disappointed and faced months of uncertainty as to their future. When the news broke I, like everyone in the community, was equally disappointed and distressed by that decision and the absolute stress it placed on the residents.</para>
<para>After this news, both the state and federal Labor governments and the Byron Shire Council worked to find a resolution and a new provider to keep the site open for residents. I spoke with many of the affected residents when I visited the village, and they talked about how much they loved living there and the really special friendships they had forged in their time as residents. I personally raised all of the concerns of residents with the Minister for Aged Care, the member for Lilley, and I commend the minister for her deep concern and compassion about the situation and for the work done by the department in supporting many of the residents through this incredibly difficult time.</para>
<para>Can I also strongly commend the New South Wales minister for Crown land, Steve Kamper, for his and the state government's work in securing the new provider. Minister Kamper worked tirelessly, and in response to the feedback from residents in the community he ensured Crown Lands conducted an expression of interest process to attract a new operator for the Feros Village facility with a long-term lease arrangement. Thanks to this incredible work, just last month St Andrews Village Ballina took official management of the Byron Bay facility.</para>
<para>I want to thank and acknowledge all those community members who stood up and stood with the residents. With St Andrews taking over the operation, the site is secure and the future of those residents is secure. This is as a result of federal and state Labor governments working together with the community and acting on their concerns. I want to thank everyone who fought so hard to make this a reality.</para>
<para>St Andrews is a community based organisation that has been in our region since 1983. They've now been awarded this opportunity to negotiate a 40-year lease over the site. Again, I want to thank the residents, families and community members who never gave up the fight for their home at Feros Village. State and federal Labor governments listened to our community and worked with them, and we're all very proud to be delivering this result.</para>
<para>Aged care is a priority for the Albanese government. We're very proud to have worked closely with the state government to deliver this outcome.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Wannon Electorate: Ocean Swimming</title>
          <page.no>139</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:48</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr TEHAN</name>
    <name.id>210911</name.id>
    <electorate>Wannon</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to congratulate all the surf lifesaving clubs, right across my electorate and Australia, that have been keeping people safe over the summer. In particular, I commend the surf lifesaving clubs of Portland, Port Fairy, Warrnambool and Port Campbell for putting on the Shipwreck Coast Swim Series, a series of 1.2-kilometre ocean swims across those wonderful beaches. There were lots and lots of participants who swam. It was a great way to showcase how important it is for people to learn how to swim and to make sure they can continue to get those skills—especially young Australians—to keep themselves safe in the water.</para>
<para>I absolutely commend all the surf lifesaving clubs who donated their volunteers' time and efforts to make sure that the swim series went ahead so successfully, as well as all the volunteers who make those surf lifesaving clubs the great institutions they are. I look forward to continuing to work with them over the coming years to make sure that their facilities are top notch. We will do everything we can to make sure we provide the facilities that those wonderful volunteers need to keep our communities safe right across the summer.</para>
<para>We also had the very memorable Pier to Pub swim event take place in Lorne, in my electorate. Over 4,000 people swam at that famous Pier to Pub swim this year. It's back to pre-COVID levels. Once again, it is wonderful volunteers that put on that event. There are other surf life saving clubs right across Australia who do similar swim events. When it came to the Pier to Pub I was very pleased to be able to do a personal best, and I was very pleased to be able to undertake that swim with one of my very good friends, Pat Burke, with whom I did a lot of training in the ocean in the lead up to the Pier to Pub. Unfortunately for Pat this year, he didn't get the chocolates. But I'm sure he'll be back next year to try to knock me off.</para>
<para>Once again, to all those wonderful surf life saving clubs right across Australia, particularly in my electorate, who are keeping people safe throughout the summer—we've sadly seen an increase in drowning over that time—I say a very big thank you. Thank you for putting on the wonderful Shipwreck Coast Swim Series to Lorne and for a fantastic Pier to Pub again. I'm sure there will be even more swimmers ready to participate next year.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Aston Electorate: Knox Festival, Lunar New Year</title>
          <page.no>139</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:51</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms DOYLE</name>
    <name.id>299962</name.id>
    <electorate>Aston</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to speak and welcome my constituents and my colleagues into the new year of 2024. I hope everyone had a restful and refreshing break and gave themselves a pat on the back for seeing off 2023.</para>
<para>The electorate of Aston is a little unusual in the sense that its boundaries match those of the local council boundaries—that is, Knox. There is just the one LGA for the one federal electorate, one of only a handful the country. I believe it is important to work collaboratively across all levels of government to achieve what is best for our shared local community. That is why I'm disappointed that Knox City Council does not welcome elected government representatives, state or federal, as stallholders at their local community events like the upcoming Knox Festival in March. As a federal government representative my role is talking to my constituents about issues that affect them, assisting them with all Services Australia inquiries, visa issues, aged-care assistance, federal grants of all kinds—there is a long list. These are all apolitical things that people in my electorate might need help with navigating. Other state and federal MPs around the outer eastern suburbs of Melbourne can enjoy being stallholders at their council-run festivals and can help their constituents with issues that affect them. I have made repeated attempts to explain to the council how I could assist residents of Knox. It is a real shame that Knox City Council doesn't allow government representatives to hold stalls at council festivals; plenty of other councils do. I plan to still attend the Knox Festival for a few hours, but not as a stallholder, like I did last year during the 2023 by-election campaign. This time I'll be attending as the member for Aston, not as a political candidate. I look forward to catching up with everyone there on the day.</para>
<para>To end on a positive note, I would like to mention that the lunar new year is quickly approaching. I wish everyone who celebrates it a wonderful lunar new year, the year of the dragon. The lunar new year has become an integral part of the Australian calendar in our wonderful community in Aston, and everything is a lovely shade of red as everyone starts to prepare for it. It's an occasion for family, friends and festivities. So whether you are celebrating Chinese new year, the Tet festival or Seollal, I hope the year of the dragon brings you good health, prosperity and boundless happiness.</para>
<para>I love heading out in my electorate and seeing my constituents in person. I thank you again for your ongoing kindness and faith throughout last year, and I'm looking forward to having another great and productive year with you all. As always, as your federal member, I continue to work hard every day to deliver for you and to hear you.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Herbert Electorate: Tropical Cyclone Kirrily</title>
          <page.no>140</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:54</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr THOMPSON</name>
    <name.id>281826</name.id>
    <electorate>Herbert</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Australia Day looked a little different in Townsville this year. On the eve of our national day, Tropical Cyclone Kirrily crossed the Queensland coast near Townsville, leaving significant damage in her wake. Although we are a strong and resilient community, the people of Townsville need financial assistance to get back on their feet. But the Albanese Labor government are refusing to come to the table.</para>
<para>Tropical Cyclone Kirrily was declared a category 3 system, with very destructive wind gusts of up to 170 kilometres per hour, just before it ripped through our community. More than 66,000 properties were left without power for many days. Property damage from fallen trees and destructive winds continues to be reported. Our community is persevering through the clean-up and recovery efforts. Some community members who lost fences are living with extra fear in our crime-riddled city, with serious garage door damage and fencing along their properties destroyed. In a city that is nationally renowned for crime, residents needed to be able to secure their homes urgently so those families are able to feel more secure. Ash's brand-new pharmacy in Belgian Gardens, which was set to officially open this month, has now suffered multimillion-dollar damage, after an electrical fire started when a surge when power was restored caused the printer to catch fire. Ash's pharmacy cannot trade, and his staff are out of work until the damage is repaired.</para>
<para>But the biggest and most pressing issue that I'm being contacted about is the several hundred dollars worth of food and medication that people have lost because of the loss of power. We are already in a cost-of-living crisis, and this natural disaster has made it worse. But people are being left without significant help. The government's current solution of $180 per individual is expected to cover food, clothing and medicine and replace damaged contents. This just goes to show how out of touch the Albanese Labor government is. You'd be hard-pressed to find a supermarket that could replace even the smallest portion of food contents with that money, let alone a garage door, a fence or medicine from a pharmacy.</para>
<para>I wrote to the Minister for Emergency Management, asking him to activate the federal government's disaster recovery payment. I've had no response. I've escalated that to the Prime Minister. I've had no response. I wrote to the state disaster recovery minister, asking for business grants. This request was rejected. I today even walked over to see Minister Murray Watt. He was too busy to talk to me. Cyclone Jasper hit on 13 December. The disaster recovery payment was activated on 19 December—six days later. Cyclone Kirrily hit on 25 January, and it's been 13 days with no activation, nothing, from this government. I call on the Labor government to do the right thing, activate the Australian government disaster recovery payment and help the community of Townsville get back on their feet.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Parramatta Electorate: Medicare</title>
          <page.no>141</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:57</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr CHARLTON</name>
    <name.id>I8M</name.id>
    <electorate>Parramatta</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>A strong Medicare and bulk-billing are among the most important and valuable elements of our community services. In Australia, health care is a right, not a privilege. In Australia, people have access to health care based on their need, not just on their ability to pay. Free access to primary health care is not just important because it's a right for all Australians; it makes really good economic sense. People who have strong access to primary care are more likely to have illnesses detected early. They're more likely to engage in preventive activities, improving their overall health and reducing the long-term cost to our healthcare system.</para>
<para>I'm pleased to say that Parramatta is a stronghold of Medicare and a stronghold of bulk-billing. Parramatta has the 10th-highest bulk-billing rates of anywhere in Australia. When the data recently came out for October 2023, it showed that 93 per cent of all GP appointments in Parramatta were bulk-billed. I was pleased to see, when the new data came out in December, that the rate of bulk-billing in Parramatta had gone up. After decades of decline chipping away at bulk-billing, for the first time we had an increase in bulk-billing rates in Parramatta.</para>
<para>Pioneer Medical Practice in Stockland Merrylands, since the incentive, have increased the number of bulk-billed consultations offered to their patients, because it's now $14 easier to do this compared to before the incentive was introduced. Pioneer Medical Practice now bulk-bills for all Medicare cardholders.</para>
<para>At Myhealth Medical Centre in Parramatta Westfield, they used to only bulk-bill on weekdays for patients 16 years and under. But, since the incentive, they've begun bulk-billing for these patients every day of the week. At Granville Family Medical Centre, they bulk-bill on weekdays for all patients, and, since the incentive, they say their doctors are paid more, and their patients, most of whom are pensioners and concession cardholders, have experienced significant benefits.</para>
<para>Thanks to the Albanese government, bulk-billing has now stabilised and begun to rise again, enabling GPs to bulk-bill more patients who need care the most. This is incredibly important right across the country and especially in Parramatta, where bulk-billing means so much to our constituents.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>144732</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>In accordance with standing order 193, the time for members' constituency statements has concluded.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>BILLS</title>
        <page.no>141</page.no>
        <type>BILLS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>National Redress Scheme for Institutional Child Sexual Abuse Amendment Bill 2023</title>
          <page.no>141</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r7106" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">National Redress Scheme for Institutional Child Sexual Abuse Amendment Bill 2023</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>141</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:00</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr PERRETT</name>
    <name.id>HVP</name.id>
    <electorate>Moreton</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to speak on the National Redress Scheme for Institutional Child Sexual Abuse Amendment Bill 2023. The evidence tells us that survivors of child sexual abuse are more likely to be incarcerated later in life. My wife, when she was a solicitor working for knowmore, the community legal service centre to help victims of abuse, spoke to many of her clients and took their statements in prisons right around Australia. That's the sad reality. The amendments to this bill are fair measures which give this particular group of survivors the opportunity to rebuild their lives.</para>
<para>I note that the member for Deakin's contribution focused on eternal retribution for the survivors of childhood sexual abuse who'd been subsequently incarcerated. Many Christians can't hear that redemption song. I find that very disappointing. Perhaps they should spend a bit more time reading the New Testament rather than wallowing always in the Old Testament. Some sequels are actually better! Compassion and a belief in redemption and humanity does not mean you're lenient on crime. I stress that to the member for Deakin.</para>
<para>When I spoke in parliament back in 2018 on the National Redress Scheme, I said that whatever had happened in the past must be remedied in the future and that the future must include such a national redress scheme. But fast forward to today, 7 February 2024, and I'm pleased to say that, as a sign of the Albanese government's commitment to continual improvement of the scheme, the bill also includes an amendment to the act that will improve the process for applicants with serious criminal convictions so that the special assessment process is only required for a person convicted of an unlawful killing, terrorism offences or sexual offences, with exceptional circumstances where appropriate. It will also allow incarcerated survivors to apply for redress— <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:03</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms WARE</name>
    <name.id>300123</name.id>
    <electorate>Hughes</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to speak on the National Redress Scheme for Institutional Child Sexual Abuse Amendment Bill 2023. This legislation proposes to amend certain aspects of the National Redress Scheme which was established under the former coalition government. As a preliminary matter, I thought it might be helpful to recall how the National Redress Scheme was legislated. It came about as a key recommendation from the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse. The royal commission was chaired by the Hon. Justice Peter McClellan and was Australia's longest royal commission to date, having run for more than four years. During that period, the royal commission heard from thousands of survivors across Australia. Their stories opened Australians' eyes to the prevalence of child sexual abuse, the failures of institutions to respond and the lifelong impact it brings to bear for victims as well as their families.</para>
<para>As I was not in this place at that time, I take this opportunity to acknowledge the survivors of institutionalised sexual abuse, their families and the organisations that have represented and supported them over many years—often decades. In a former life, I did a little bit of work for some of these victims when I was at a firm, David Begg & Associates, and I just want to acknowledge the work that David and one of my colleagues there, John Ellis, did.</para>
<para>But, mostly, I commend the courage of the victims who came forward with their harrowing claims of grotesque abuse. I was present in this chamber when the honourable member for Moreton said in his speech, 'There are no words, there are no adjectives, to describe the testimony that was given.' I said 'grotesque'. I used the thesaurus, and there are other words: 'reprehensible', 'repugnant', 'sickening', 'loathsome'. This was abuse of our most vulnerable, our children, by those in institutions, ranging from religious to educational, whose role was to protect, nurture and support those victims. Instead, on too many occasions, over too many years—decades in many instances—the abuse was hushed up to protect the reputation of the abusers and the institutions. Victims were not believed.</para>
<para>I also commend the work carried out by all of those involved in the royal commission. At the time of handing down his report, Peter McClellan described the conjunction of events examined by the royal commission as a national tragedy. He concluded that, while the primary responsibility for the sexual abuse of a child lies with the abuser and the institution of which they were part, the problems faced by many of the victims are the responsibility of our entire society. One of the key recommendations which arose from that was the establishment of the National Redress Scheme. The chief commissioner described it as a national tragedy. That's why it was entirely appropriate that legislation was brought into this place on a bipartisan basis to address that national tragedy.</para>
<para>The Redress Scheme recognises the suffering that survivors have experienced and accepts that these events occurred and that institutions must take responsibility for this abuse. The scheme remains the most significant step in addressing the wrongs of the past, providing some justice to survivors and trying to ensure, as we go forward as a nation, that this abuse never happens again. This also represents a very important step in healing. It ensures that governments and institutions will take those safeguards into the future. It is intended to provide a survivor with the means to access a sense of justice through monetary redress, restorative supports and, where the victim wants it, a personal apology or statement from the institution. Its purpose is to be faster, simpler and less distressing for survivors and to provide governments and institutions with the means to deliver justice to their survivors.</para>
<para>It was very pleasing to see that the scheme operates on a cooperative basis between Commonwealth, state and territory governments, underpinned by referral legislation in each state and territory. Its main components are a monetary payment of up to $150,000, counselling and psychological care, as well as a direct apology, if sought by the victim. As at June of last year, the average redress payment was $88,524.</para>
<para>There are a number of criteria that applicants need to meet for redress. Those criteria are: there was a reasonable likelihood the applicant was a victim of sexual abuse; one or more participating institutions are responsible for the abuse; the applicant was a child and an Australian citizen or resident at the time of the abuse; and the abuse occurred prior to the scheme start date.</para>
<para>The stated purpose of the bill currently before this place is to respond to recommendations from the second-year review of the National Redress Scheme. Its stated intention is to improve accessibility to redress, enhance choice for survivors, increase transparency and hold the scheme accountable.</para>
<para>To recap, this scheme was implemented as an acknowledgement by Australian state and territory governments that sexual abuse suffered by children in institution settings was wrong and that it did occur. It was a betrayal of trust and should never have happened. It is appropriate, therefore, that governments continue to review the scheme to ensure it remains an appropriate, fair and tangible form of redress for victims. To that extent, I commend the bill to the House.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:10</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms MILLER-FROST</name>
    <name.id>296272</name.id>
    <electorate>Boothby</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise today to speak to the National Redress Scheme for Institutional Child Sexual Abuse Amendment Bill 2023. This bill introduces legislative amendments to the National Redress Scheme for Institutional Child Sexual Abuse Act 2018. These amendments form part of the government's final response to recommendations from the <inline font-style="italic">Final Report, Second Year Review of the National Redress Scheme</inline>, undertaken by Ms Robyn Kruk AO.</para>
<para>The National Redress Scheme is designed to assist people who've experienced institutional child sexual abuse. It is one of the many significant outcomes of the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse, finalised in 2017. Over five years, the royal commission heard from more than 16,000 brave people who shared their harrowing experience of sexual abuse that happened when they were in institutions. The submissions of all those people that bravely relived their trauma so that the truth could come to light have allowed for us to be here. Many had never told anyone previously, such was the shame and distress—shame they should never have felt, shame that should have belonged to the perpetrator, not to the survivor-victim.</para>
<para>The average length of time to disclose for women was 20.6 years and for males was 25.6 years. We know many victims never disclose. The longest time to disclose was an elderly man in his 80s, who attended with his adult son. He had been abused as an 11-year-old and had never told anyone; no-one in his family knew. He made his son sit outside.</para>
<para>We know child sexual abuse happens. We know it has happened. We know in all likelihood it is still happening, often in homes but also in trusted institutions, and this bill relates to that latter part. From my work in the homeless sector, I know that the impact of child sexual abuse is multifaceted and long-lasting. Many people experiencing homelessness have a background of being abused as children, and it can be an experience that destabilises them for their entire life. These toxic secrets and the manipulation by perpetrators undermine fundamental family relationships, leading to trust issues and, in some cases, deep rooted personality issues. It can affect a victim-survivor's ability to form relationships, friendships, even collegiate relationships at work. Such trauma and manipulation during early brain development can cause a lifelong developmental deficit and affect mental health. It can affect their attendance at school and their education pathway, which, of course, impact their participation in workforce and career pathways. It can be life limiting and, sadly, as we know, it can be life ending.</para>
<para>Victims-survivors deserve recompense, but there are a number of barriers to that outcome occurring. Delayed disclosure is often used against victims-survivors, undermining their credibility, aimed at destroying their confidence and courage. It is an intimidation tactic. The trauma brain can result in confused memories with some factors appearing larger and more prominent in the memory and others being suppressed or sublimated. They can't remember the colour of the carpet or the curtains, which is used against them, but they can remember and, sadly, they can relive how they felt—panicked, powerless, distressed, vulnerable.</para>
<para>Abuse over a period of time, possibly by multiple perpetrators, makes it difficult for a victim-survivor to name dates and specific instances of what happened when and by whom. Courts demand linear, consistent facts, dates, times, details that can be examined and disputed, but that's not how trauma memory works. And, ultimately, they were a child at the time of this occurring. Their brain may still have been developing. And many have spent years, decades, trying to forget, trying to move on. Reliving it and speaking about it in an adversarial legal process can be traumatising. All in all, they are often not good witnesses in an adversarial court process—easily undermined, intimidated. The powerlessness they felt during the abuse is replicated in the court process in the presence of the perpetrators.</para>
<para>So the National Redress Scheme was set up in 2018, after the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse, to address just this issue. Its aim is to have a redress scheme that is based on survivor knowledge, focused on minimising further harm and retraumatisation by avoiding that adversarial experience, and provides assistance to people who have survived truly harrowing experiences. Survivors who have experienced child sexual abuse at participating declared organisations, including sporting and educational institutions, can receive a payment of up to $150,000, but also, importantly, access to counselling and psychological care and a direct personal response for historical child sexual abuse where an institution is found responsible or negligent in its care.</para>
<para>The institutions participating in the scheme comprise religious orders and affiliated bodies, schools and education providers, sporting bodies, community clubs and rehabilitation support services, among others. As of November, 496 non-government institutions were taking part in the scheme, covering more than 69,000 sites across the country. It's a really important statement for each of these institutions to take responsibility for past sexual abuse against children. Either you're on the side of the victim-survivor or you're on the side of the perpetrator; there's no middle ground.</para>
<para>More than $1 billion in redress payments have been paid to survivors since the scheme's establishment, in more than 11,000 outcomes. For those who have experienced institutional abuse, the scheme provides acknowledgement and recognition of the suffering they experience and a direct personal response. This provides survivors with a meaningful response and recognition of their suffering and it holds responsible institutions to account. This can be hugely powerful for survivors, as it recognises not just what happened to them in the past but the lifelong impact of institutional child sexual abuse. This, alongside the redress payment and access to counselling services, ensures that the scheme is focused first and foremost on the wellbeing of survivors.</para>
<para>Consistent with this government's policy of ongoing improvement of the scheme, this bill will ultimately 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 review made a total of 38 recommendations, identifying a number of administrative, policy and operational matters that need improvement to ensure the scheme meets its statutory objectives, facilitates greater accessibility and support to survivors, and provides a more trauma informed experience that is responsive to survivors of institutional child sexual abuse.</para>
<para>The amendments made by the bill will establish a process to give applicants the option of having their application reassessed if it was finalised with one or more relevant institutions not participating, where that institution subsequently joins the scheme or the government agrees as a funder of last resort. It will allow redress applicants to provided additional information with their request for an internal review and introduce a limited no-worse-off provision so that offers are not reduced on review by a differing interpretation of the application. It will improve the process for applicants with serious criminal convictions so that a special assessment process is only required for a person convicted of unlawful killing, terrorism, sexual offences or where a risk to the integrity of the scheme exists. It will allow incarcerated survivors to apply for redress, because we know that victims-survivors of child sexual abuse are overrepresented in the criminal justice system. It will expand the protected information provisions to enable additional circumstances in which protected information may be disclosed, and it will implement technical amendments to the funder of last resort provisions to correct technical drafting issues to ensure the legislation operates as intended.</para>
<para>This bill will also make minor technical amendments to support the effective operation of the scheme and increase access to the scheme for survivors.</para>
<para>Of the review's 38 recommendations, 29 were supported. A further five were supported in part, and five were not supported. Survivor input into changes in the scheme policy and processes is critically important, and consultation with survivors was front and centre in the review process. There were more than 450 submissions, surveys or consultations that informed the outcomes of the review. These were all contributed by survivors and ensured that their voices were heard in the drafting of these amendments.</para>
<para>Since coming to office, the government has prioritised working closely with states and territories on recommendations, many of which would constitute major changes to the scheme and which would require additional funding from government and non-government institutions. In accordance with the Intergovernmental Agreement on the National Redress Scheme for Institutional Child Sexual Abuse, all state and territory governments were also consulted on the bill, and we've been able to secure agreement to all of the proposed amendments from all state and territory governments.</para>
<para>It's worth noting that, by contrast, the former government received the final report of the second-year review in March 2021 and took no active steps to engage with jurisdictions on the recommendations, whereas our government moved urgently to finalise the response, by holding a redress ministers meeting in October 2022 and subsequently releasing the government response in May 2023, because we understand how important this is to get right and how urgent it is.</para>
<para>This is about supporting people who have endured harrowing experiences as children and ensuring that they get the help and recognition they need. We've all heard the stories of children being abused by people meant to be protecting them, and they are heartbreaking. The anger and sadness we feel when confronted with these stories is why we as a government are so committed to this scheme. Survivors have endured unimaginable pain, so we need to ensure that the systems we put in place to help them are as fair and streamlined as possible. For many, if they have disclosed, they've been disbelieved for decades. We believe them. We need to believe them.</para>
<para>The Department of Social Services will communicate the measures in this bill to survivors, institutions and other key stakeholders so that everyone involved can be ready to utilise the updated scheme. This bill evidences the commitment by all governments to improve access to redress and the survivor experience with the scheme, and it will uphold the legacy of the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse.</para>
<para>The measures in the bill build on legislative and non-legislative steps taken to date in response to the review and implement our commitment to survivors to make meaningful improvements in the delivery of the scheme. Redress is about recognising the harm done to people who experienced sexual abuse as children and holding the institutions responsible to account. We take our responsibility to survivors seriously and we will keep pushing to improve access to redress. That's why I'm proud to be part of a government that is pushing forward on this bill and working to support the survivors of institutional child sexual abuse. We hear you. We understand. We believe you.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:23</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr WOOD</name>
    <name.id>E0F</name.id>
    <electorate>La Trobe</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>What a very sad, sad situation it was for all those young children who were put in institutions, for whatever reason. In some cases, it would have been with the parents' consent. At other times, it would have been removal because the parents couldn't care for them. Those young people would have gone to an institution believing and hoping that they would be protected and cared for, but, sadly, they went into the clutches of evil. It wasn't tens or hundreds; it was thousands of children that this happened to. The sad reality for so many was that, when they tried to report it, they were not believed. Also, when the institutions became aware of it, rather than take action, they went into a mode of covering up and hiding. It went on for years and years.</para>
<para>In my own electorate, I've had people come forward and tell me their horrific experiences, and it's something they just can't get over. As a former police officer, I dealt with, obviously sadly, children who had been abused. Giving evidence in court was a harrowing experience for them. They can't remember days and times and everything else like that, and that's why a royal commission was set up. As we've heard from other members, we believe the victims, now adults. We think of you. We acknowledge the awful atrocities you went through, and it should never ever have occurred.</para>
<para>Something I'm very passionate about is having legislation in place to protect young people. Sadly, it doesn't matter what penalties we have in place, what measures we have in place, evil will lurk and evil people will do everything they can to take advantage of children. The sad reality is, as I said before, the children weren't believed, even as adults.</para>
<para>The National Redress Scheme was established in 2018 by the former coalition government as a response to recommendations from the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse—a very important royal commission. The Redress Scheme provides support to eligible applicants who have experienced institutional child sexual abuse with monetary compensation; counselling services, as many have obviously lived with the torment every day and can't move on; an option of a personal response from responsible institutions that they are believed; for governments and institutions to take steps to safeguard against these crimes to ensure they're not repeated in the future. Sadly, as I said before, there will always be someone there—it's the modus operandi of a child sex predator, putting themselves in a place where they have access to children.</para>
<para>The scheme is intended to be fast, simple and less distressing for survivors to provide governments and institutions with the means to deliver justice to the survivors. The scheme recognises suffering survivors have experienced, accepts that these events occurred and that institutions must take responsibility for the abuse. Sometimes it took a lot of effort to get those institutions to admit the wrongs of the past—horrible wrongs.</para>
<para>The scheme's most significant step is in addressing the wrongs of the past and providing a just response for survivors. The maximum redress payment a person can receive is $150,000. When they, sadly, have been abused and had their innocence taken away—well, it's an insignificant amount, but at least they receive some acknowledgement in a financial capacity. As of June 2023, the average redress payment was $88,254. There have been 13,741 applicants for redress who have received money from the scheme. That's more than 13,000 victims. Again, going from my experience, going back to my police force days, there will be many, many, many more victims than that who still, even if they were going to receive compensation, wouldn't come forward. The scheme issued 8,729 outcomes to applicants. More than 7,826 applications have been finalised and 7,530 payments have been made, totalling $650 million. But again, that's to thousands of victims. The average payment is nearly $86,000, 33 per cent higher than the royal commission's estimate of $65,000. But those figures, as I say, mean nothing to a victim.</para>
<para>There are 5,472 applications currently on hand being processed, and I urge the government to do everything they can to expediate those. But in saying that, it must go through a process. I understand that. That's a lot of applications to go through. Six hundred and seventy-three offers have been made and are waiting an applicant's decision; 625 applicants are with institutions to provide information.</para>
<para>When the scheme was established under the coalition government, there were some limitations for people who had committed the most serious crimes. If a person was convicted of an offence which received a custodial sentence of five years or more—and, can I say, to get five years or more in jail you would have had to do some very serious criminal activity—the operator may determine that the person is entitled to redress if providing redress to the person would not bring the scheme into disrepute and adversely affect the public confidence in the scheme. When making this determination, the operator takes into account the relevant information, such as advice given by the relevant Attorney-General on the nature of the offence.</para>
<para>The coalition does not believe this arrangement needs to change, and I'll explain a bit more about that. The bill shows Labor's lenience on crime could be benefitting individuals with serious criminal convictions. One thing I do acknowledge is that many people who are in custody serving prison time have been victims of child abuse, which has led to them going down a horrible path in life. Labor's amendment will look at only those sentenced to five years or more for offences such as unlawful killing, sexual offences and terrorism where there is a risk to the scheme's integrity. Applicants would have to go through a special assessment process.</para>
<para>My great concern is that people who have entered the prison system have obviously committed crimes. Again, I know this from precedent experience. There would be a capacity to rip off and rort the system. What we don't want to see is an open slab of applications go through without special assessment. Extortion, distributing child abuse material, possessing 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—these wouldn't be covered. The point I make is that the special assessment can take place to make sure that No.1: it's a legitimate claim and No.2: there's no rorting. That's a concern. The bill also seeks to allow those in jail to apply for redress. The coalition believes the current arrangements permitting jailed people to apply for redress strike the right balance and should remain.</para>
<para>With the time I have remaining, there's another issue which I've been on about for a number of years, and that's the need for a national child sex disclosure scheme. It was first raised by the Leader of the Opposition a number of years ago. There were concerns by police and victims even of child sex abuse about how it would work. But we put a lot of time and effort into this. Speaking to law enforcement, it's to make sure we can put something in place which works well, and we'll be looking at a model from the UK called Sarah's Law. I know the Attorney-General previously came out and said, 'We need some evidence before we can do this.' I was hearing this all the time, even from law enforcement.</para>
<para>Can I say as a former police officer that there's a view in law enforcement that, when it comes to recidivist offenders, saying that it's not occurring is completely wrong. I commissioned a report from the Australian Institute of Criminology when I was the assistant minister. I think everyone agrees in this country that it's a highly regarded institute. We arranged for them to get data from the states and territories. Data was provided from the ACT, Queensland, Western Australia, New South Wales and Victoria. You'll be interested in this: the ACT figures were so low for recidivist offenders that the Australian Institute of Criminology didn't even take that into account. They said the data was completely wrong up in the ACT. They should be ashamed of not having data going back 15 years and saying there have only been five recidivist offenders. They didn't even take that into account. At the time, South Australia, Tasmania and the Northern Territory were unable to provide that data.</para>
<para>The report found, based on the information that came through, that in New South Wales seven per cent of child sex offenders were proceeded against for further sexual offences within 10 years. The evidence determined that the average reoffending for a child sex offender is roughly 10 years. On average, the victim they would target was an 11-year-old girl. The interesting and shocking thing that all these statistics show is that everyone is a victim, but it didn't matter if they previously committed an offence against a boy. They were just predators; they would target a girl. There's also been this notion in Australia and elsewhere of stranger danger—we should worry about the stranger. From my experience as a police officer in a criminal investigations branch, it is, sadly, sleepovers where offences occur. A parent or guardian allows their child to go to someone's house for a sleepover, kids party or whatever else, believing that the child's going to be cared for. No, they're not. They're actually being targeted because their parents didn't know a child-sex offender was living in the place. Offences occur 66 to 82 per cent of the time in residential locations, and up to 61 per cent involve a family member or a person known to the family. That could be someone you drop your child off with each weekend to go swimming or anything else like that.</para>
<para>The scheme which I think we need to put in place is the UK's Sarah's Law. I have the support of law enforcement. I thank Scott Weber from the Police Federation of Australia for raising this with all his police jurisdictions across the country. Sarah's Law comes from another tragic story where a young girl was murdered. The UK has had this in place since 2014, where a person makes an application to the police about another person. It's very confidential. The police make an assessment of the person, then they decide what information gets provided back to the individual who's made the application. A neighbour could make an application and the police might say, 'We're not going to assess that application.' First of all, they assess the application being made. Then they have face-to-face meetings. Then they determine what information should be provided. In fact, it's something that's rolling out right across the UK.</para>
<para>I'd like to acknowledge Madeleine West, the former <inline font-style="italic">Neighbours</inline> star, who appeared before the Joint Committee on Law Enforcement. Madeleine gave an insight of the tragedy that happened to her. Her offender was just convicted and sentenced to 15 years jail. Madeleine advised us that, if this person had been on some sort of register, she wouldn't have been a victim and other people wouldn't have been victims.</para>
<para>I call on the Labor government. I don't know why they don't support a national child sex offender register. It absolutely shocks me that they don't just support it and make it a reality. For example, you could have a single mum who gets a new boyfriend—and this happened to a family in my electorate where the lady met a guy online. He was more interested in meeting her grandkids than hanging out with her, and then she found out he was a convicted child-sex offender. The internet is a place where child-sex offenders target women to get access to their children or their grandchildren. This was from Dr Rick Brown from the Australian Institute of Criminology.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:38</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr ANANDA-RAJAH</name>
    <name.id>290544</name.id>
    <electorate>Higgins</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Institutional child sex abuse has lifelong impacts that compound over time. It derails life, sending people down passages lined with shame, grief and isolation. I remember a survivor who I met in the hospital ward during my rounds. Geoff was in his 50s undergoing chemotherapy for leukemia. He was a little rough around the edges, missing a few teeth, but chatty as he packed his belongings into various plastic bags. As I got to know him at his bedside, he disclosed that he had been a victim of child sexual abuse in Ballarat. I pondered the cruelty of life that would pile leukemia onto his already overloaded plate. We did our best to support him—a team of health professionals trying to scorch his leukemia but trying and probably failing to meet his psychosocial needs. How do you repair a life birthed in trauma?</para>
<para>One meaningful step in the process of healing is reparation. The Australian government is committed to improving the accessibility, transparency and cultural safety of the National Redress Scheme for the benefit of victims-survivors. The National Redress Scheme was established in 2018 for 10 years, following the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse. These crimes—and they were crimes—occurred in polite society, right under our noses: in residential care, foster care, schools, community centres, churches and places of worship, and the juvenile justice system. The testimonies are horrifying.</para>
<para>A second-year review of the scheme was finalised in 2021, and some interim amendments followed. The purpose of the current amendment bill is to implement the key recommendations of the second-year review of the scheme. As at December of last year, there were over 34,000 applications to the scheme, of which around 15,000 have been finalised. Over 13,400 payments, totalling approximately $1.2 billion, have been paid out to survivors to date. As of December of last year, 506 non-government institutions are participating in the scheme, including churches, sporting clubs and organisations, schools, kindergartens, and community and charity groups. This means that the scheme now covers approximately 70,000 sites across Australia. Around 109 institutions have been declared under the funder of last resort arrangements, meaning that they are now defunct and the Australian government and/or the relevant state or territory government are underwriting them. The scale is staggering, but it's still not all of them.</para>
<para>There is a personal story behind each application that deserves to be heard. Martin's story is available on the scheme's website and it's worth watching. As a child, Martin, an Indigenous man, was arrested for stealing an $8 pair of jeans and was sent to a boys home. While there, he was sexually abused by people who were responsible for his protection. Martin did not talk about it for more than 50 years. After applying through the National Redress Scheme, Martin received an apology and a payment. He could not change what had happened but he did find a way to move forward that was right for him. The personal stories available on the royal commission's website are harrowing, but worth reading to understand what these people went through and how an entire system imprisoned their childhood with silence, gaslighting and fear.</para>
<para>Several themes were identified from the qualitative analysis that was done: the abuse reported was multidimensional, involving physical, sexual and emotional aspects; there was a pervasive culture of fear that allowed sexual abuse to flourish and that silenced victims, who were often shuffled between places; the abuse had long-term impacts to mental health, physical health, and career and education prospects, and this in turn led to ripple effects in damaging children, siblings and partners of survivors; repeated abuse and multiple perpetrators were common; abuse was preceded by a period of grooming; and the lack of training by authority figures, like health professionals, led to signs being missed or survivors not being believed.</para>
<para>Despite the horror of these events and the complete failure of adults—who are basically authority figures—to end these crimes, survivors were noted to display strength and courage, to have shown resilience. And many have gone on to form stable relationships in the face of adversity.</para>
<para>At the heart of this bill, the National Redress Scheme for Institutional Child Sexual Abuse Amendment Bill 2023, is the wellbeing of survivors, which is why survivor input was key to the review process. Survivors contributed more than 450 submissions, surveys or consultations to inform the review. Additionally, all state and territory governments have been consulted and have agreed to these amendments. Note that the previous government took no active steps to engage with the relevant jurisdictions after receiving the final report in March 2021.</para>
<para>The Albanese government moved swiftly to organise a meeting of redress ministers in October 2022 and released the final government response in May of last year. Importantly, the government continues to encourage institutions to join the scheme, and there are consequences for those institutions that choose not to. These include public naming, restrictions on Commonwealth grant funding, and possible loss of their charitable status and associated tax concessions. The main amendments cover the following areas. The bill introduces a new reassessment process, making it fairer for survivors who may have been disadvantaged where an institution was not participating at the time their application was progressed. Where an institution identified in an application later joins the scheme, or where the government later agrees to be the funder of last resort, applicants will now have the option of having their application reassessed. The new process allows an applicant who proceeds with an application, where institutions are not participants in the scheme, to reapply and be reassessed when institutions later join. Currently, the National Redress Scheme for Institutional Child Sexual Abuse Act does not allow applicants to submit further information when requesting a review of a decision. The second-year review found this position limits procedural fairness and risks the redress offered being reduced, thereby deterring survivors from requesting a review, contrary to the spirit of the scheme. We will allow applicants to provide additional information when requesting a review. The changes will also introduce a 'no worse off' provision so that redress offers are not reduced on review.</para>
<para>Currently, applicants who are sentenced to imprisonment for five years or longer for a single offence are not entitled to redress unless the operator is satisfied that providing redress to the applicant will not bring the scheme into disrepute. Applicants with a serious criminal conviction are required to now undergo a special reassessment process, and this is quite rigorous. The process includes seeking advice from the attorneys-general of the relevant jurisdiction; it might be the state where the offence or offences occurred and where the child abuse occurred. The special reassessment process has resulted in delays for this group of applicants. This bill limits the special reassessment process to specific classes of serious offences. These include people being imprisoned for five years or more for unlawful killing, sexual offences or terrorism offences, or where a risk to the integrity of the scheme exists. This will mean that these people will have to undergo special reassessment. This will remove a significant barrier for incarcerated survivors in applying for redress and will provide greater accessibility to the scheme for a cohort of survivors where there is an acknowledged impact of institutional child sexual abuse. Criminality is recognised as a downstream impact of child sexual abuse, with a litany of other problems that I've described.</para>
<para>The review identified some measures to improve the information protection framework. The changes will enable the scheme operator to disclose information to an applicant that an institution is not participating in the scheme—that is, their onboarding status. The amendment is designed to improve transparency with survivors on the steps taken by the institution they named in their application to join the scheme. This will allow survivors to make more informed decisions about their application. The need for this was highlighted by recent media concerning the status of Gymnastics Australia and the frustration by applicants who could not be advised of their status.</para>
<para>There are people who walk among us whose lives have been impacted by institutional child sexual abuse. It is important to amend this vital scheme to ensure it provides a continually improving model of redress. I encourage all institutions named in the applications to fulfil their moral obligation and join the scheme. As Martin says, 'I think a lot of survivors are ashamed to talk about what happened. What I'd say to people who feel ashamed and scared is: come forward and talk and go through the scheme. Get actual recognition about what happened to you. There is nothing to be ashamed about; just come forward and talk.' We acknowledge you, we believe you and we stand beside you. I commend this bill to the House.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:48</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr TEHAN</name>
    <name.id>210911</name.id>
    <electorate>Wannon</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to speak on the National Redress Scheme for Institutional Child Sexual Abuse Amendment Bill 2023 because it's incredibly important that we continue the work which was started under the coalition government on making sure that we've got a National Redress Scheme that works for everyone. It's incredibly important that we continue to do so in a bipartisan way because this issue is incredibly important for the survivors. All our focus has to be on making sure that we're getting the best outcomes for survivors.</para>
<para>I had the great privilege of putting the National Redress Scheme together, working along with the states and territories at the time to make sure that we established a National Redress Scheme. The National Redress Scheme was only able to come into operation with the approval of every state and territory. It took a lot of time and effort and a lot of negotiation to put the National Redress Scheme together because each state and territory—and especially the attorneys-general of each state and territory—obviously wanted to make sure that, for their particular circumstances, we got the scheme right. Over a number of months and a number of meetings we were able to set the National Redress Scheme up.</para>
<para>We knew when we set it up and came up with the first iteration of the National Redress Scheme that it would need to evolve. That's why a review process was put in place after two years. You've got to remember that when we were putting the National Redress Scheme together there were state Labor governments, there were coalition governments and obviously the coalition was in power federally.</para>
<para>In my role, I always wanted to make sure that the survivors themselves were front and centre and the sole focus of the National Redress Scheme. I want to thank the survivors that I met with, who told me about their personal experiences—harrowing beyond harrowing. Some of the stories that I heard at the time were so deeply disturbing that they still readily come to mind now. The survivors' honesty and willingness to tell their stories were why the Commonwealth worked so closely with the states and territories across all political persuasions to make sure we put this National Redress Scheme in place. I'd like to once again thank all those state and territory attorneys-general who worked with the Commonwealth to do it at the time.</para>
<para>I'd also like to mention one of those survivors, who is from my electorate. I still stay in touch with him today, and he is battling cancer at the moment. Mick, I wish you all the very best with your ongoing battle with cancer at this time, and I look forward to staying in touch with you.</para>
<para>The two-year review was incredibly important in terms of making sure that this scheme continued to evolve.</para>
<para class="italic"> <inline font-style="italic">A division having been called in the House of Representatives—</inline></para>
<para>Sitting suspended from 10:52 to 11:07</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr TEHAN</name>
    <name.id>210911</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I will just go back to where I was. Governments of all political colours came together to put the National Redress Scheme together. You have to remember that, at the time, there were state and territory Labor governments, state and territory coalition governments and a federal coalition government, and everyone put those political differences aside because everyone realised how important it was that this was all about survivors. My hope is that we can continue to do that.</para>
<para>One of the important things we put in place was a review process so that, if the scheme did need to evolve, we could make sure that it did evolve. I think that was particularly important because everyone was determined to see two outcomes.</para>
<para>The first was a good and fair process to make sure that those survivors could get the compensation that they utterly deserved. There was also an understanding that, in some instances—probably in nearly every instance—no matter how much compensation was provided, it was never going to make up in any way for the wrongs that had been committed. But the idea was that, with that process, with an apology and with a determination by all governments to do everything we could to make sure that these types of heinous offences didn't occur in the future, there would be an understanding that everyone was trying to do the very best by those survivors.</para>
<para>The other outcome was making sure that the Redress Scheme itself was seen by survivors in particular and by the general community as honouring what it was set up to do, which was to make sure that it was all about the survivors and that people knew and understood what needed to be done.</para>
<para>That's why, in good faith, I hope that both the coalition and the government can sit down and work through this. We think there needs to be one change to this bill, because what we do not want to see is the scheme coming into disrepute. Some of the people who committed those offences wouldn't have to go through a special process now. We think that needs to be looked at. My hope is that the minister and the shadow minister will be able to sit down and look at that, because it is incredibly important that the community and the survivors themselves continue to have confidence in the scheme and the way it is operating. That was very much the intent when ministers across all political persuasions put the scheme together. My hope is that we will be able to continue that approach on an issue like this, which should be one of complete bipartisanship where the interests of survivors, the scheme itself and the proper operation of the scheme are absolutely paramount and are put first.</para>
<para>Can I say that there is still a lot of work to do. One of the things we did after we set the scheme up was to ensure that all those institutions that had been named would join the scheme. There was a lot of pressure put on those institutions to ensure that we had full coverage. I would once again call on any institution who has been named and who hasn't joined the scheme to please do so. You have an absolute moral and ethical obligation to do so, and I would call on any institution that hasn't joined to do that. I would also say to those institutions who have that I think the morally and ethically right thing for you to have done was to join the scheme. I ask those that have joined to make sure they continue to participate within the scheme with grace and understanding, knowing about the heinous things that were done to people—people from across all walks of life—under the names of those institutions. Sadly, no-one was spared. There were successful businesspeople. There were young children. There were women and young girls. You name it. This went right across every walk of life in our society, and that's why it's incredibly important that we do our absolute best to make amends for those crimes that were committed.</para>
<para>I commend this bill and what it is seeking to do. I ask that we continue to work in a bipartisan fashion and that there is proper discussion around some of the areas of concern so that we can continue to make sure that this scheme operates in a fully bipartisan way, which was how it was set up.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:14</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ZAPPIA</name>
    <name.id>HWB</name.id>
    <electorate>Makin</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>When in December 2012 the Gillard government announced the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse, there was enormous hope for so many who had suffered in silence for so long that they would finally be heard and believed. There was also recognition of their suffering and trauma that came to the forefront. There was an acknowledgement for them of the impact on their lives that that abuse had. And there was also enormous hope for redress for the loss and hurt that had been caused to so many people. In addition to that, there was also the hope that there would be justice, that perpetrators would be exposed and held to account. Equally importantly, there was an expectation that as a result of the royal commission others may be spared, in the future, from similar types of abuses as a result of the changes that would be made following the royal commission.</para>
<para>At the end of the royal commission in 2017—and it was a lengthy royal commission—there was a huge number of recommendations, and again that added to the hope of those who had suffered in silence for so long. The Redress Scheme was put into effect. The National Redress Scheme, I have to say, has gone a long way to delivering on the aspirations that those victims held when the royal commission was announced, and it has done a lot to assist many of them. But the reality is that it has not been without fault. The reality is also that there have been a lot of shortfalls and imperfections in the delivery of the scheme that have caused additional angst and suffering and hurt to many of those victims.</para>
<para>The legislation responds to the second-year review. The first- and second-year reviews were carried out precisely for that purpose—to see whether the Redress Scheme was delivering the outcomes that everyone had hoped for. In particular, responding to the second-year review, certain changes will be made by this legislation. It will create a fairer review process with no-worse-off provisions and allow new information to be provided in the appeal process, which was one of the areas about which there was a fair amount of concern and angst and frustration by many of the victims. It allows people with certain types of criminal records to make redress claims more easily, and I might come back to that a bit later if time permits. It makes the whole process more transparent by disclosing more information. And it allows greater access to the scheme for survivors of child sexual abuse.</para>
<para>I'm a member of the Joint Standing Committee on Implementation of the National Redress Scheme. I certainly don't want to go into the details of what the committee has been doing as there will be a report in due course at some stage down the track about the current work of the committee, and there will be plenty of time for me to talk about those details at that time, but the reality is that we have been hearing considerable evidence from across the board about how well the scheme has been operating or how well it hasn't been operating. Many concerns have been raised in the course of the evidence that has been presented to the committee. Some of those concerns have been picked up in this very legislation, and that is a good thing.</para>
<para>I also note that, as a result of legislation, what has now been put out there and people's understanding of the scheme, the number of redress claims has been steadily increasing each year. That is possibly a good thing. What it is doing is giving people confidence that the scheme is working and therefore they might come forward and talk about what happened to them and what redress is available to them.</para>
<para>But also notable in saying that there has been a steady increase in the number of people that have come forward is that there has been a very high number of Indigenous Australians, people with a disability and care leavers who are now, in my view, overrepresented as victims of child sexual exploitation. By saying 'overrepresented' I mean that that cohort of people seems to be amongst those that were the most abused in their childhood. Perhaps that doesn't come as a surprise to everyone, but the reality is that those people—whether it's Indigenous people or people with a disability or care leavers—are less likely to be able to manage their own affairs and more likely to need more help and more assistance in the process of going through the administrative details that they must go through when they apply for redress under the scheme.</para>
<para>In fact, it's a fairly complex and complicated process. I suspect some of the victims would probably say: 'I simply cannot do it. I won't do it, because, quite frankly, it's in the past. I find it too hard, and I don't want to relive some of the things that I went through, in any event.'</para>
<para>Having said all that, my understanding is that there have been some 30,600 redress applications received to date and, of those, not quite half have been finalised. That tells me—and this has been borne out by other evidence as well—that it has taken a long time in many cases to deal with the applications once they have come in. That in itself can be traumatic to those people who have lodged an application. It not only takes a long time; each step of the way, they have to relive the experience by filling out different forms or providing different kinds of evidence and so on. That can sometimes actually add to the trauma that people are experiencing.</para>
<para>But there have been other things identified that I think need to be addressed in the months and years ahead when it comes to ensuring that the scheme delivers in the way that people hoped it would. I spoke earlier on—</para>
<para class="italic"><inline font-style="italic">A division having been called in the House of Representatives—</inline></para>
<para>Sitting suspended from 11:21 to 11:34</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ZAPPIA</name>
    <name.id>HWB</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Just before the bells rang for that division, I was about to touch on some of the areas where I think the scheme could actually do better and where I believe many of the people who are seeking redress feel that, to some extent, they are being let down. I'm not saying that's always the case, and I'm sure there's a lot of good work still being done for all of those people. Nevertheless, improvements could be made in some areas, and I will just touch briefly on that.</para>
<para>I mentioned Indigenous people earlier on. Often, they are people who do not have access to the right support. They're sometimes poorly educated. Sometimes these people are living remotely and therefore don't have access to the kinds of legal support or avenues that otherwise might assist them with lodging claims. We need to do a lot better for them. One of the things that concerns me with Indigenous people is sometimes their applications, I believe, are being treated in a way where it's, 'Well, let's try and get through them as quickly as we can,' without looking at how and whether the redress that is being provided is fair and adequate for what they've experienced.</para>
<para>The same applies for people with a disability. Again, they're people who sometimes cannot manage their own affairs and who rely on others, and sometimes those others might have limited understanding of the scheme themselves or are in a position where they find it's all too hard and simply want to get the process over and done with as quickly as possible—again, potentially denying full redress to those people who are otherwise entitled to it. Those are not easy issues to deal with, but they have been raised in the course of my discussions with people and certainly in the course of the hearings that the committee has had when listening to people who have made submissions.</para>
<para>The other cohort, of course, is people across the board who are generally poorly educated. Again, poor education often results in poorer outcomes in every aspect of life, and that applies equally to the issue of redress where, again, they don't know who to go to, what processes to use, who to take advice from and the like. So, we need to try and help them.</para>
<para>The issue of people with criminal records, which comes up as part of this legislation, is an important one because quite often the people who were abused, as we all know, ultimately end up being either drug addicts themselves because of their experiences in life or end up in an institution, whether it's a prison or another facility, and then, in turn, are denied all the support that they need to get redress as well. We need to do better in that regard and I believe this legislation makes a huge improvement as far as that goes. That is improvement, because we need to understand that sometimes it was the initial abuse that has resulted in the situation that the person finds themselves in today.</para>
<para>There are two other areas that deeply concern me. There are institutions out there who are using every legal loophole possible to avoid their responsibility. We need to identify those loopholes and close them. I'm aware of cases where people have been denied redress through what I call a loophole in the law that currently provides the redress. I won't go into the details right now—I might talk about that in a subsequent speech, perhaps when the committee hands down its report—but there are areas that deeply concern me about that. Those loopholes need to be closed and all institutions need to be held fully accountable for actions which I believe they have some responsibility for.</para>
<para>The final matter that I will touch on is the number of either advocates or legal firms who, in my view, are now jumping onto the scheme as a form of revenue for themselves. They're going out there, seeking cases of redress, getting their commission along the way, or charging their fees for doing so, but not necessarily always putting the interests of the victim at the forefront. Those victims are being dealt with. They are being paid redress, but not always the amount that they're entitled to. And when they perhaps realise that later on, in some cases it's too late. I do understand that there might be a better system now available for them to have a review of what happened, even if they have been paid a redress in the past. But the issue of what I would loosely call the exploitation of victims by people making money out of the system is also a concern to me. I think this legislation, as I said from the outset, improves the scheme greatly. But it's not the end of the process, and I would like to think that, if other changes are needed, they will be enacted in the future.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:40</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ROB MITCHELL</name>
    <name.id>M3E</name.id>
    <electorate>McEwen</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to speak on a crucial moment in our commitment to addressing the profound impact of institutional child sexual abuse with the introduction of the National Redress Scheme for Institutional Child Sexual Abuse Amendment Bill 2023. Today again, we stand at the threshold in our nation's quest for healing and justice for all the people who were so badly wronged. I want to begin by acknowledging and recognising the courageous individuals who have stepped forward, shared their stories and advocated for justice. Their bravery propels us forward in our mission to create a safer and more just society. The National Redress Scheme for Institutional Child Sexual Abuse Amendment Bill 2023 is a testament to our collective commitment to ensuring survivors are seen, heard and supported on the path of healing.</para>
<para>The measures in this bill are brought forward from survivor consultation, because it's their voices that have been silenced for so long. It is our job to amplify them, give them a platform and make the changes needed to improve the system to better protect survivors. I'm proud to be part of the party that stood by, believed and fought for survivors of institutional sexual assault. The original Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse was established under the former Labor government of Prime Minister Gillard. This pivotal legislation builds upon the findings of the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse and reflects on the Australian government's steadfast dedication to tackling a very deeply sensitive issue.</para>
<para>The bill lays before us presenting us a new opportunity to take substantial steps forward in alleviating the ongoing trauma and pain experienced by survivors. While the original redress scheme was a crucial first step, this bill acknowledges the shortcomings and seeks to rectify them. It's not merely an amendment; it's a powerful statement of our government's collective commitment to creating a society where healing and hope prevail over the trauma and silence. The pace of its progress has been because the recommendations and their implications have been carefully considered to improve survivors' lives and outcomes. We want to make sure that there is justice, and through this bill we can do that and continue the journey of bringing and holding to account the institutions that turned a blind eye—in some cases deliberately—to such heinous acts. It's not a partisan issue; it's a human issue. I urge all members to stand with the government, united in our support for this vital legislation. Let us demonstrate our unwavering commitment to survivors by passing the bill swiftly and ensuring its effective implementation.</para>
<para>Together, we can create a more just and compassionate society. The bill recognises the need for ongoing support by strengthening partnerships with support services and providing survivors with greater access to counselling and other resources. The bill addresses another critical issue that has hindered the scheme's effectiveness, and that is accessibility. The bill eliminates unnecessary barriers, reducing the reliance on special assessments, allowing additional information during reviews and enabling applications from incarcerated individuals. This ensures a more inclusive and trauma-informed approach. The bill enhances transparency by allowing reassessments of finalised applications if new institutions join the scheme, empowering survivors with the knowledge that their cases can be reconsidered. The bill addresses concerns about the treatment of serious criminal convictions, ensuring a balanced approach that considers individual circumstances and avoids blanket exclusions.</para>
<para>I would especially like to highlight how this amendment will give applicants to the scheme the option to have applications reassessed if they have been finalised before the relevant institutions join the scheme or if the government has agreed to act as a funder of last resort. This means, when the institutions finally join the scheme, survivors who were previously denied justice for bureaucratic reasons can reapply and receive the compensation and voice that they deserved all those years ago.</para>
<para>Across the nation there are now over 600 non-government organisations participating, such as churches, schools, homes, charities and community groups, covering more than 71,000 sites. By enacting these changes, we anticipate a profound impact on the lives of survivors. By ensuring more consistent outcomes, we increase the certainty that survivors will see justice. The increased access to redress will not only provide financial security but ensure that the stories are being heard and believed. Improved support services will equip survivors with the necessary tools to cope with the lasting effects of abuse. The bill sends a powerful message that institutions must be held accountable for their actions. Survivors must not be silenced.</para>
<para>This reminds me of the time I met one of the survivors of institutional abuse when, in the Victoria government, we do a similar thing. I went outside and I saw this bloke, who'd obviously had a pretty hard life. He'd been in and out of incarceration. He'd really struggled with substance abuse. This was back in the days when I was smoking. I walked up to him and I said, 'Big day. How are you going? Do you want a smoke?' and he said, 'Yeah.' So I said, 'How are you feeling?' and his words have stuck with me ever since. He said, 'It's not about the money.' It was about getting that letter from the Premier and the minister at the time that said that someone finally believed him. For decades this man had been trying to tell his story and he was just pulled from pillar to post. He was being told it never happened and was having the institution involved deliberately and systematically cover it up. For him, it was about having that piece of paper that said: 'Yes. We've heard you. We hear you and we believe you.'</para>
<para>I think that's the most important thing. When I hear the stories of people I know who have gone through similar situations, it's the trauma they faced during decades of not being heard, not being believed and not being listened to. I know of situations where systematic cover-ups were happening out in the electorates that border mine. Children were told: 'If you say anything, you're attacking the church; therefore, you're attacking God.' That's not the case. Children should be able to speak up and should have their voices heard. It's so important, for each individual, that we listen to these stories.</para>
<para>I think this bill, as noted in the government's final response, prioritises survivor wellbeing, safety and health. Consideration was given to the risk concerning participation—the retraumatisation and the introducing of inequity between survivors. This bill fixes the gaps and legislates technical amendments to ensure a fairer and more consistent approach. This government's main concern has been the protection of the wellbeing of survivors. They've already gone through hell, and we owe it to survivors to make sure the redress process is as smooth as possible. Often the process of getting justice, while liberating when justice is achieved, can be long and tedious, and when the processes aren't right, it's all too painful. There are many stories of people—victims—who just don't want to come forward because they don't want to relive that trauma. They don't want to have to go through that process. It's unfair and it's wrong. I think all of us would agree that we need to address this, and address it very quickly.</para>
<para>Even after this scheme was initially introduced, while it did bring the justice it promised, the long delays in the application process meant many survivors were left with uncertainty and silence. I raised these complaints during the time of the former government, as residents of our electorate had been left in the dark for up to 12 months. This unnecessary delay caused extreme frustration and hurt. A process that already dredged up some of the most painful memories for people was made even harder by the seeming indifference and apathy shown by the bureaucracy. People who had been dealing with terrible emotional and physical damage were being left to deal with even more stress and pain while seeking justice. That's what this bill is fixing.</para>
<para>This government, the Albanese Labor government, is making sure survivors can come forward and get the compensation and validation for those crimes committed against them. Our government is making sure your voices are being heard. While it's something that should go beyond the politics, this has been a major talking point in the history of what happened. The track record of the former government was less than stellar in this area. While the renewed political will on these issues is welcome, we need to make sure that never again do we have steps that drag it backwards. We also have to make sure that the apathy that led to robodebt and destroyed the lives of ordinary Australians never happens again.</para>
<para>The redress process was prolonged and added to the strain for people who had been abused and unheard by the system for far too long. It's time that we just continue to get this done quickly. The bill makes sure that the scheme is supported, no matter who is in government and no matter the political will of the day.</para>
<para>As I said, this is an issue that should go beyond politics, as the voices of survivors should always be heard and believed. We will always stand up, advocate and legislate for survivors of institutional abuse. This is what the bill before us does today, and it's what the law will do in the future.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:50</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms RISHWORTH</name>
    <name.id>HWA</name.id>
    <electorate>Kingston</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'd like to thank everyone who has contributed to this debate. I appreciate everyone's contributions. The National Redress Scheme for Institutional Child Sexual Abuse Amendment Bill 2023 will amend the primary legislation for the National Redress Scheme for institutional child sexual abuse, the scheme, in response to recommendations from the final report of the second-year review of the National Redress Scheme undertaken by Ms Robyn Kruk AO. 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. The Australian government has supported 34 of the recommendations either in full or in part. This bill builds on the action already taken in response to the review. It seeks to make legislative changes to give effect to the government's response to the remaining, more complex review recommendations. This bill is the final legislative action necessary to implement the Australian government's response to the review.</para>
<para>Importantly, the measures in this bill make genuine change that will have real and direct impact on survivors' experience in accessing redress through the scheme. In line with the scheme's governance arrangements, all states and territories have agreed to the amendments in this bill. The legislation currently before the parliament is part of the final response to the second-year review, which commenced in 2020 and was received by those opposite in 2021, before being finalised by this government.</para>
<para>I note the comments from the member for Deakin, who will move a consequential amendment that will delete provisions of the bill that narrow the scope of the serious criminal convictions special assessment process and remove the restriction on applying from jail. We will be going into consideration in detail on this amendment, but I want to make a few remarks here. This amendment will not be supported by the government, as what is contained in the bill is a measured, proportionate response and in the interests of victims-survivors. In November, when responding to the Prime Minister's acknowledgement of the fifth anniversary of the apology, the Leader of the Opposition said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">I note too that the government has released its final response to the <inline font-style="italic">Final report of the second year review of the National Redress Scheme</inline>. The opposition thanks and supports the government's commitment to improving the scheme for survivors …</para></quote>
<para>Any survivors listening to this would have assumed that, because these amendments directly go to the second-year review and the government's response, this would mean that those opposite would support these amendments. It is therefore very disappointing that, despite that commitment being made on the stage when we were discussing how important the apology was but also the royal commission and indeed the response, we have now seen the opposition backtrack on that public commitment to try to interfere with the government's response.</para>
<para>I want to make a couple of comments. First, I note the member for Deakin's remarks on the bill's amendments regarding serious criminal convictions and applying from jail and the impact they would have on the scheme's demand, leading to longer wait times for other survivors. Any applicant who applies from jail or who otherwise would have been impacted by the special assessment is not given more swift access to the scheme. The assertion by the member for Deakin is incorrect. These applicants, once determined to be eligible to apply, are given the same access to the scheme as other applicants. I further note remarks made by the member for Deakin that allowing this cohort of survivors who are eligible for the scheme to have easier access to the scheme will increase the wait times for other survivors. It's a pretty novel approach, and I'm pretty disappointed that the member for Deakin has suggested that restricting access to the scheme for one group will ensure that there is a faster processing time. In fact, the answer to this is to put more resources into the scheme, which is exactly what this government has done. We have recognised the increases in the scheme's demand and have allocated $148.1 million in the 2023-24 budget to ensure that there is smooth implementation and processing.</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms RISHWORTH</name>
    <name.id>HWA</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I'll go to the interjections by the member, because, once again, what the Leader of the Opposition signalled was a bipartisan approach, and we now have the politics played by the member for Deakin. The review recommended that the eligibility to the scheme be extended for all applicants with a criminal conviction, including the most serious, and without any safeguards. This government, together with the states and territories, did not accept this recommendation. All Australian governments agreed to maintain the current special assessment process for particularly serious offences, namely unlawful killing, terrorism and sexual offences, and the operator's discretion to refer applicants to the special assessment process. These applicants will still be required to apply for special assessment and receive approval from the scheme's operator consistent with the current practice in order to apply for redress. This process has not changed from that established when those opposite were in government.</para>
<para>The special assessment process requires a scheme operator to seek the advice of a state or territory Attorney-General or a nominated senior official in the jurisdiction where the abuse occurred and give greater weight to their advice and other factors. This is a time-consuming process, and, as the data shows, 91 per cent of applicants with a criminal conviction carrying a custodial sentence over five years are not prevented from applying for redress. This is under those opposite's operating procedures. This change will support scheme efficiencies and contribute to faster processing times for all survivors applying for redress.</para>
<para>I note the member for Deakin listed a number of offences that, in his view, were sufficiently serious and would be excluded from the requirement to undergo the special assessment process. I'm not going to read all of them, but I would suggest that arson causing death is an unlawful killing, and so I think there is some sobriety that needs to be taken to this to make sure that we are considering this in a dispassionate way and in a way that is about putting survivors at the scheme. With references to other offences listed by members, it's the operator's discretion to refer an applicant who has received a custodial sentence of over five years for any offence. As I said, 91 per cent of those applicants currently going through that process are approved. They are not prevented from applying for redress.</para>
<para>As of 26 January 2024, the scheme had received 1,768 applications from people who had indicated a serious criminal conviction of five years or more. Of the applications that have had the special assessment process completed, as I've said, 91 per cent of applicants have not been prevented from applying for redress. As of 26 January 2024, the scheme had received about 905 applications from people who had indicated they were applying from jail under the exceptional circumstances. Of the applications that have had the special assessment process completed, 92 per cent of applicants have been granted exceptional circumstances to apply from jail.</para>
<para>I also note the member's remarks regarding the changes in the bill for applicants in jail, seeking an explanation from the government as to why these applicants should be given unrestricted access to the scheme. Currently all applicants who are in jail must demonstrate exceptional circumstances in order to apply. Exceptional circumstances usually include that they will still be in jail at the scheme's sunset. The restriction on applying from jail disproportionally impacts First Nations applicants in Western Australia and the Northern Territory. Importantly, the changes will provide immediate access to these survivors.</para>
<para>The changes this government has brought to parliament are measured and in recognition of the lifelong impacts of child sexual abuse. I'm disappointed that the member for Deakin is laughing at these things. This is an absolutely serious issue that we have listened to victims-survivors and the bipartisanship nature of this. The rank politics on display right now is just so disappointing. We should be working in this place together for victims-survivors, and they should see that we all have their interests at heart. I would like to acknowledge those members that have spoken in this debate from all sides that have indicated the bipartisan approach that they would like to take to this. I would like to thank the member for Wannon, the former Minister for Social Services, for trying to reiterate the bipartisan support for redress. I thank those who have played a very constructive role. It is important that we all work together to improve this scheme. This scheme is so important to victims-survivors. It doesn't make up for what happened to them, but it goes some way to ensuring that victims-survivors do get the acknowledgement that they deserve. This is about listening to victims-survivors. This is about careful consultation with victims-survivors, states and territories about how we make this scheme better. I hope that all of us in this place can work together to enact that and ensure that we are doing all we can to acknowledge what has happened.</para>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
<para>Bill read a second time.</para>
<para>Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Consideration in Detail</title>
            <page.no>154</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:02</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr SUKKAR</name>
    <name.id>242515</name.id>
    <electorate>Deakin</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move the amendment circulated in my name:</para>
<quote><para class="block">(1) Schedule 1, Part 2, page 7 (line 1) to page 9 (line 10), omit the Part.</para></quote>
<para>It's not often that the minister makes your arguments so eloquently for you, but the minister did exactly that in her latest contribution. Our amendment is an amendment to plead with the government not to meddle with the processes in place that address those who have committed the most serious crimes in this country. As the minister outlined, those who are victims-survivors who have been jailed for five years or longer are not denied access to the scheme, but there are important integrity processes to ensure the scheme and its integrity are not brought into jeopardy. We are pleading with the minister not to make these changes. I think the minister rightly sounds a little embarrassed about what the government has done here. Let me outline very briefly what has occurred. Here we've got the government saying the special assessment process that currently applies for people who either are in jail or have been jailed for five years or longer is suspended other than for those who have been found guilty of the most serious crimes. We agree on that—when there are serious crimes, we agree. Where there are serious crimes, there should be a special assessment process.</para>
<para>The government defines serious crimes as unlawful killing, sexual offences or terrorism. Where I disagree with the minister and the government is that there are a whole raft of offences that I consider just as serious as these or serious enough that they should be subjected to the existing special assessment process. If the minister wants to disagree that these sorts of offences are serious, she's entitled to do that: 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. The minister quibbles over arson causing death. Perhaps she's right; perhaps that's out. So, for that litany of crimes where you've been jailed for five years or longer, you are no longer subject to the special assessment process. This is a change that the government are making. They're changing the status quo of this program and they cannot justify why. Why are those offences where you've been jailed for five years or more not considered, in the minister's mind, to be serious offences? How on earth is distributing child abuse material not a serious offence, when you've been jailed for five years or more? Let's be frank, we all watch what happens in our supreme courts around the country, and, for you to be jailed for five years or more, we're talking about very serious crimes. You do not get jailed in Australia for five years or more for minor offences.</para>
<para>Let me make it very clear. As those who set this scheme up, those special assessment processes for people who have been found guilty, who are sitting in jail—</para>
<para>Mr Perrett interjecting—</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr SUKKAR</name>
    <name.id>242515</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I'll take that interjection.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>201906</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! The member for Moreton.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr</name>
    <name.id>242515</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The member for Moreton believes that someone who has distributed child abuse material, who's sitting in a jail right now, should get a fast-track application. That's what the member for Moreton is arguing. That's what the government is arguing.</para>
<para>Ultimately, we are moving this amendment to plead with the government to see some common sense. Accept the amendment. There are a range of other worthy amendments in this bill that, as the minister outlined, quite rightly, came out of the second-year review and are in many respects uncontentious. We're ultimately going to support the bill and we will not withdraw support for the bill on this basis, but I felt it was very important that the Australian people understood what was going on here. And I wonder if the minister really didn't understand what was slipped upon her desk for signature before this came to the parliament, because I can't believe that she would think that that litany of crimes that I've just outlined are not serious. The minister carves out crimes she does believe are serious, but apparently these are not serious enough to be amongst them. It's very surprising.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:07</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms RISHWORTH</name>
    <name.id>HWA</name.id>
    <electorate>Kingston</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to speak against the amendment. The government will not be supporting this amendment. The provisions in this bill have been carefully considered and have been negotiated and agreed to by all state and territory governments, along with the Commonwealth. It was done in consultation with victims-survivors and, of course, stems from the consultation done of the second-year review.</para>
<para>The effect of removing schedule 1, part 2, of the bill and retaining the current provisions in the act is that this group of survivors with a criminal conviction, or in jail, will be required to undergo a special assessment process or seek exemption where it may not be necessary. As the data shows, 91 per cent of applicants requiring a special assessment have not been prevented from being able to apply for redress. Likewise, 92 per cent of applicants applying from jail have been granted exceptional circumstances. In particular, I note that the restrictions on applying from jail disproportionately impact First Nations survivors in Western Australia and the Northern Territory and are not trauma informed, as they restrict a survivor's ability to choose when they apply for redress.</para>
<para>I will turn to the second-year review and the specific portions of the bill. The review recommended the eligibility of the scheme be extended to all applicants with a criminal conviction, including those with the most serious convictions, without safeguards. This government, and all states or territories, did not accept this proposal in full. Previously, all applicants with any conviction over five years were required to go through the special assessment process to ensure that applicants could not bring the scheme into disrepute or affect public confidence in the scheme. However, there are not any changes to the process currently in place for those with serious offences. The government has decided to maintain the current special assessment processes for serious offences—namely, homicide, terrorism and sexual offences. These applicants will have to apply through the special assessment and receive approval from the scheme's operation.</para>
<para>Going directly to the member for Deakin's comments: to suggest that this scheme should just be 'set and forget' from the outset is incorrect. That is why the previous government embarked on a second-year review and why we have considered these changes very carefully.</para>
<para>In terms of the special assessment process for people with a serious criminal conviction, it was of course implemented. The scheme has passed the halfway mark, and the experience to date has been that the vast majority, 91 per cent, of people who go through the process are not prevented from accessing redress. This suggests that the policy settings can be improved so as not to unnecessarily delay survivors' outcomes. The bill does not remove the special assessment process. It simply refines the process based on the years of practical experience to date. The Australian government and all states and territories have agreed to these changes. The bill streamlines the process to only require people with the most serious offences to undergo the special assessment process, as committed in the final response to the second-year review of the National Redress Scheme. Those applicants who have been prevented from accessing redress to date under the existing provisions will still be prevented from doing so.</para>
<para>Critically, the bill also includes the ability for the operator to require a person to undergo a special assessment process where there are exceptional circumstances of those listed offences if the operator believes providing redress may affect the integrity of the scheme. This is an important safeguard and it means that, where there is a criminal conviction of five years or more, the operator can require the person to undergo a special assessment process, even if the person's offence is not in the prescribed list. The current special assessment process itself will not change. The operator will still need to determine whether providing redress to the person with a serious criminal conviction for a single offence would negatively affect public confidence in the scheme. This process involves the operator asking for written advice from the Attorney-General or special adviser of the jurisdiction where the abuse occurred and where the person was sentenced. Ultimately, this change will see people who have committed the most serious offences continue to be prevented from accessing redress, where the reputation of the scheme is at risk. But it will not delay access to the scheme for most others, as they will no longer be required to undergo the special assessment process. These changes will not provide swifter access compared to other survivors. They will mean less delay for people who are not and should not be required to go through the special assessment process.</para>
<para>I'll sit down and rise again later. I believe my time has finished.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:12</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr SUKKAR</name>
    <name.id>242515</name.id>
    <electorate>Deakin</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I think we're making some progress. I think the minister is almost talking herself into supporting this amendment. The minister has just given the House two quite important revelations. The first is that she has made very clear that the government rejected some portion of the recommendation on unfettered access to this scheme for everybody who had offended in the category that still requires a special assessment process—namely, those who have been sentenced to five years or more for unlawful killing, sexual offences or terrorism. The government rejected that recommendation. That is a stunning admission from the minister. So on one hand the government has rejected that recommendation. Yet it wants to change the scheme to include offences that presumably the minister does not consider serious enough to require the special assessment process.</para>
<para>There would almost be more credibility to the argument if the minister had said: 'We accepted all the recommendations holus-bolus. The second-year review made this recommendation and we accepted it out of hand.' But no. She's saying, 'We rejected a portion of that recommendation,' and is now arguing that the litany of offences I referred to are somehow not serious enough to require a special assessment process. So she doesn't object to a special assessment process per se. We're now getting down to quibbling over which offences should be subject to the special assessment process. The minister says, 'The only crimes that should be subject to the special assessment process are the most serious crimes.' The minister has now put on the record that they will not support this amendment. Therefore, she must not consider these as serious crimes: extortion, distributing child abuse material, possessing child abuse material, accessing child abuse material, kidnapping, robbery, armed robbery, burglary, aggravated burglary, home invasion, aggravated home invasion, carjacking, aggravated carjacking, arson—not serious crimes. These are not serious crimes according to this Labor government. We don't object to having a special assessment process for serious crimes, yet, let's just say that you're in jail serving more than five years for distributing child abuse material, the most disgusting crime you could imagine, the exploitation of children. Guess what? You now get access to the scheme according to these changes without any special assessment process, delivered to you by this minister. And the minister has the gall to say that she's disappointed in me. I'm disappointed in you! How on earth could anybody allow this to come across their desk without scrubbing it out and saying, 'Send it back to where it came from'?</para>
<para>The most serious crimes, according to the minister, are subject to a special assessment process. We agree. The most serious crimes should be subject to a special assessment process, as they are under the current law. You are making a positive change to provide simpler and easier access for people who have been jailed for more than five years for extortion, distributing child abuse material, possession child abuse material, accessing child abuse material, kidnapping, robbery, armed robbery, burglary, aggravated burglary, home invasion, aggravated home invasion, carjacking, aggravated carjacking, arson.</para>
<para>Support the amendment. It's a sensible amendment that Australians would nod their heads in agreement with. End this madness right now, Minister.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:17</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms RISHWORTH</name>
    <name.id>HWA</name.id>
    <electorate>Kingston</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Another implication of the amendment proposed by the member for Deakin would stop those who are currently in prison from automatically being able to make an application to the scheme. The royal commission devoted significant attention to prisons and juvenile justice facilities, and the prevalence of survivors in these settings was well explored. As it stands, the scheme's legislation includes a restriction on people applying from jail. This was included in the act on the assumption that it would be difficult to secure appropriate redress support services for this environment. Further, there could be a risk associated with the confidentiality of applicants. Currently, a person can apply while in jail where that person can demonstrate exceptional circumstances. Applications can be progressed while a person is in jail if they had submitted it prior to being incarcerated, and former prisoners may apply for redress. The scheme currently progresses a significant number of applications with people in jail and has made continual improvements to its operations, including in relation to providing support for people in jail and ensuring confidentiality.</para>
<para>In response to the second-year review of the scheme, and with the agreement of all states and territories, this bill seeks to remove this restriction. The measure will give survivors a choice to apply for redress while in jail or wait to apply upon release from the jail, making the scheme more trauma informed and survivor focused. The Australian government and all states and territory governments as partners in the scheme have agreed to this change. People in jail continue to indicate they are better supported to apply from jail because they're in a more stable environment and have access to supports, often comparing this favourably to their life outside of jail.</para>
<para>The measure also removes inequalities across those survivors who can have their applications progressed while being in jail and those that cannot apply. This change will apply equally to all survivors in jail. It is separate from the changes that will see fewer survivors go through the special assessment process for people with serious criminal convictions. I need to make that very clear: these are two separate measures. That is another reason we will not be supporting the amendments.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:19</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr SUKKAR</name>
    <name.id>242515</name.id>
    <electorate>Deakin</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>On those applicants in jail, our amendment seeks to acknowledge a pretty basic view in the Australian community, and that view is: to be jailed in Australia for five years or longer—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms Rishworth</name>
    <name.id>HWA</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>No, this is anyone in jail.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr SUKKAR</name>
    <name.id>242515</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you. I'll continue. To be jailed in Australia for five years or longer, you really have to have committed a very serious crime, and I could go through the list again. It might be repetitive.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms Rishworth</name>
    <name.id>HWA</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>It's anyone in jail.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>201906</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order!</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr SUKKAR</name>
    <name.id>242515</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The minister is two steps behind. If she'd just allow me to finish my sentence—the most serious of those are now getting preferential access or equal access to the scheme. If you're in jail though for any period, which is the amendment the minister is now talking about, I think a common sense view in the Australian public is you are doing your time for a serious crime that you've committed. You are serving a punishment for a serious crime. I think it's equally fair to say that in Australia you don't get jailed for trifling offences. We're not a country where you get incarcerated for minor offences. What the minister is now saying is that those people are no longer required to wait until they've served their debt to society. If you're in jail, you are serving time. You are partly suffering the punishment for that crime. The existing rules make very clear that you've got to wait, unless there are absolutely extenuating circumstances, including your health, until you've finished your incarceration.</para>
<para>The minister is now saying: 'We're going to make that change. We're going to make that change along with the other change about—</para>
</continue>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr SUKKAR</name>
    <name.id>242515</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>It's interesting the member for Moreton would talk about people suffering in those circumstances, given that—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>201906</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The member for Moreton will withdraw that unparliamentary comment, please.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Perrett</name>
    <name.id>HVP</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Nimrod?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>201906</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Please.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Perrett</name>
    <name.id>HVP</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Nimrod was a great warrior, but I'll withdraw.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr SUKKAR</name>
    <name.id>242515</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>'Nimrod' is a boomer term, I think. I'm not sure what it is. This member for Moreton presumably is going to vote against an amendment that would seek to maintain the position for those who have been jailed for distributing child abuse material, possession of child abuse material, accessing child abuse material.</para>
<para>Now, I suspect the Labor caucus know very little about this. I'm shocked that this could get through the Labor caucus, if any scrutiny had been applied to it by their party room. You wouldn't need to be a genius—and we know no-one is going to accuse the member of Moreton for that—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>201906</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I haven't heard anything that's unparliamentary. If he does, I will ask him to withdraw.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr SUKKAR</name>
    <name.id>242515</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>If any scrutiny had been applied to this, it's shocking that it got through their caucus. It's shocking it got through their cabinet. It's shocking it got passed the minister's desk. How on earth didn't the minister take one look at this, get the red pen out and put a mark through it and say, 'Come back with this excised, thank you very much'? This amendment is pleading to any vestige of common sense left in the Labor Party that the current arrangements that still provide access to the scheme for people in exceptional circumstances who are in jail or that provide a special assessment process for those criminals who have served for more than five years for an offence—the minister herself has said for the most serious of offences she's happy with the special assessment process. She just doesn't consider these to be serious crimes. I'm not sure how anyone could claim that the litany of offences I've outlined on numerous occasions here are not serious crimes. If you don't think they're serious crimes, Minister, put it on the record in black and white.</para>
<para>Question unresolved.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>201906</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>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.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Attorney-General's Portfolio Miscellaneous Measures Bill 2023</title>
          <page.no>158</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r7103" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Attorney-General's Portfolio Miscellaneous Measures Bill 2023</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>158</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:27</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr PIKE</name>
    <name.id>300120</name.id>
    <electorate>Bowman</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Part 2 of schedule 3 of the Attorney-General's Portfolio Miscellaneous Measures Bill 2023 repeals section 213A of the Native Title Act 1993. In effect, this would abolish the native title respondent funding scheme. This scheme has provided grants of financial assistance to respondents in native title claims to help them meet their obligations under the federal act. I'm advised that, since the inception of the scheme, support has been provided to 469 pastoralists, 375 local governments, 319 fishers, 286 who fell into the 'other' category, 91 miners, eight recreational users and so on.</para>
<para>Sadly, over the years, the fairness and balance within the Native Title Act has fallen victim to partisan agendas; the respondent funding scheme has waxed and waned at the whim of governments. The scheme was first expanded by the coalition in 1998 to remove a hardship test which previously applied to respondent applications and which was found to be prejudicial in many cases. The respondent funding scheme was again amended by the coalition in 2005 and 2007 to better promote agreement-making and avoid the burden of over-litigious claims. These were applauded as positive reform in terms of fairness and sustainability.</para>
<para>Unfortunately, the respondent funding scheme has since become a political football, following a significant funding cut in 2013 during the term of the Gillard government. The funding scheme was promptly restored by the Abbott government and continued under successive coalition governments through to 2022. I find it deeply regrettable that the Labor government has chosen to abolish the native title respondent funding scheme through this bill, particularly at a time when my community is facing one of the biggest native title claims this country has ever seen.</para>
<para>The Attorney-General's second reading speech states that many significant questions of native title law have now been settled, and the government considers that many current native title respondents, which are generally commercially viable or sound entities, would have the capacity to deal with native title matters as part of their ordinary business costs. Well, that is simply not the case. It is not the case in my community of the Redlands. There is currently a native title claim, the Quandamooka Coast Claim, over much of the Redlands—the community I have the honour of representing in this place. The claim covers approximately 530 square kilometres, including most of mainland Redland City Council local government area and Macleay, Karragarra, Coochiemudlo and Lamb islands in the southern Moreton Bay.</para>
<para>Redland City Council is seeking clarity from the Federal Court to determine if native title has been extinguished on council owned or managed land within the Quandamooka Coast native title claim area. Approximately 3,500 council owned or managed properties are included in the current native title claim. The claim is likely to see thousands of council properties, including parks, reserves and public spaces, handed over to Indigenous ownership. Much of this land is of high value to our suburban communities but would be of little benefit in improving the economic circumstances or wellbeing of our Indigenous population. The land in question includes some of our city's most iconic sites, such as the Wellington Point Reserve, Cleveland Point reserve, the Redland Performing Arts Centre and even the Cleveland Cemetery. It also includes countless nature reserves, playgrounds and other community assets.</para>
<para>Understandably, there is a growing level of community consternation about what a change of ownership of these land parcels would mean for how they are maintained, accessed and enjoyed by locals. Recent history on North Stradbroke Island has raised serious concerns from locals about land clearing and segregated access to land now under native title control. Just this week we saw a $20,000 fine issued for the illegal clearing of 2,900 square metres of protected vegetation on some native title land within North Stradbroke Island.</para>
<para>Our parks, reserves and public spaces should be available for our entire community to utilise, regardless of race. They should also be maintained in a professional and accountable way with the support of our rates. The question has to be asked: What possible utility or economic benefit can be gained for Indigenous people from taking ownership over a neighbourhood playground? How can that ever be anything other than a financial and time burden upon the prescribed body corporate? The fact that these questions are yet to be resolved continues to frustrate Redland City Council, the interests of ratepayers and the rights of the Quandamooka people.</para>
<para>The mounting cost for Redland City Council, as the respondent to the native title claim, continues to place unreasonable pressure on planning and land use certainty and on the limited capacity of Redland City Council ratepayers and services. There are many sporting and community organisations who currently lease land off Redland City Council which now have their tenure called into question due to this claim. They can't make the investment decisions required to grow their operations while this tenure is under a cloud. These groups, as well as Redland City Council and local residents, want a quick resolution to this issue.</para>
<para>Consider, as an example, the Alex Hills Bombers, an Australian rules club in my electorate. We've been working hard to secure an upgrade to change rooms to improve the amenity for female players. I struggle to see how council can proceed with that project until the tenure of that land is resolved. There is a real risk that the Redlands native title claim drags out in the courts for decades, costing both sides millions and ultimately delivering poor outcomes for both our Indigenous and broader communities.</para>
<para>The <inline font-style="italic">Sunday Mail</inline> recently estimated that the total cost for Redland City Council could exceed $210 million. While the federal government provides financial support to the native title claimants, Redland City Council receives no financial support from the federal government to defend the position of the broader community through native title processes. This creates a significant financial burden on ratepayers.</para>
<para>I recently sent a petition to the Attorney-General with over 5,000 local signatories asking for the Native Title Respondents Funding Scheme to not be erased, but this call from my community has fallen on deaf ears. I would draw the Attorney-General's attention to a letter he received in his first innings as Attorney-General that the then president of the Queensland Law Society wrote to him some 10 years ago to outline the society's objections to cuts to the NTRFS being made at that time. In that letter, dated back in 2013, the Queensland Law Society argued that cuts to this funding stream was completely at odds with the public interest. Further to the position of the Queensland Law Society, I would argue that if scaling back the NTRFS was previously considered to be at odds with the public interest, the abolition of the whole scheme is even more so. Unfortunately, what we have here is an ideological objection to respondent funding from the Attorney-General.</para>
<para>The government has sought to justify this decision by claiming it was a budget repair measure. This position is difficult to argue as the previous coalition government allocated only a modest $1.7 million to this funding scheme in 2022-23. In contrast, the Queensland South Native Title Services was granted $25.8 million in the same financial year by the Commonwealth for the performance of native title functions under the act. Across all of Australia, native title claimant funding from the federal government was $212.6 million last financial year. Across Queensland, this funding totalled $83.3 million. Any informed person would argue that $1.7 million or even three or four times that amount is minuscule given the size of the federal budget, and it is completely dwarfed by the funding currently available to native title representative bodies acting for claimants in such matters.</para>
<para>There is clearly a sense within the Labor government that stacking the deck in favour of native title claimants is a compassionate and progressive thing to do. While I don't doubt the sincerity of their motives, I simply can't agree that seeking to precontrive these outcomes is in the best interests of the communities across the country or even in the spirit of the act. The Native Title Act was famously created by a Labor government. The act doesn't say that every native title claim is legitimate. It doesn't say that respondents must roll over and provide claimants with everything they want. It outlines a process and a legal framework to assess native title claims, a process to test and evaluate those claims, a process to ensure that dispossession of the past is not repeated in the name of redressing historical wrongs. This shouldn't be about ideology. It should be about fairness. The government's role should be about ensuring that all stakeholders can meet their obligations under the federal act. In order to ensure a fair and equitable outcome, I'm pushing for the federal government to provide equal funding to support both the claimants and Redland City Council through the legal process. This bill will unfortunately kill a key avenue through which this funding equality could be achieved. I've been pushing for an outcome that leaves no community worse off and an outcome that doesn't lead to a protracted stand-off.</para>
<para>A similar stand-off was resolved in Orange, New South Wales, through an historic agreement between the local Indigenous community and the state and local governments. The agreement saw multiple claims resolved in a collaborative way through a mutually beneficial land swap determined between the parties. This deal preserved public access to community recreation land, protected sites of cultural significance and supported the creation of local Indigenous jobs. I'm pushing for a collaborative approach in the Redlands between all levels of government that will deliver a similar win-win solution to what was achieved in Orange. Unfortunately the approach from the Queensland state government to date has been to pressure Redland City Council not to contest the native title claim and to simply ignore the legitimate concerns of ratepayers. That wouldn't be a fair or equitable outcome, and I commend Redland City Council for taking the decisions they've taken to date. I'll be standing up for my community and my city 100 per cent of the way on this important issue. The coalition strongly encourages the government to reconsider the scrapping of the Native Title Respondent Funding Scheme through this bill.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:38</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BATES</name>
    <name.id>300246</name.id>
    <electorate>Brisbane</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The Attorney-General's Portfolio Miscellaneous Measures Bill 2023 makes miscellaneous changes to Attorney-General matters, including removing the legislative framework for the recently abolished Native Title Respondent Funding Scheme. We understand that it is this minor administrative aspect of the bill that the opposition opposes. The Greens will be supporting the bill here today, but we reserve our position in the Senate as we continue discussions with stakeholders about the matters that have been raised.</para>
<para>Schedule 1 amends the ASIC Act, Corporations Act, Judiciary Act, NCCP Act, SI(S) Act to confer jurisdiction on the Federal Court to hear and determine a range of summary and indictable offences relating to entities and conduct against those acts and the Criminal Code within the regulatory remit of ASIC. This new jurisdiction makes sense for the Federal Court, which has significant relevant expertise.</para>
<para>Schedule 2 will allow the sheriff to request a state or territory jury official, with the consent of the relevant state or territory, to prepare and provide a jury panel to the sheriff, thereby streamlining the process. Schedule 3 amends the Marriage Act to enable an authorised witness to remotely witness the signing of the notice of marriage by the parties to the marriage. It also creates the position of deputy registrar of marriage celebrants, changes some paperwork requirements for celebrants, allows for refunds of marriage celebrant fees and says a celebrant must be physically present at a marriage. I can foreshadow that the Greens may be moving amendments in the Senate to address some technical impacts of the current laws regarding marriage celebrants.</para>
<para>Schedule 4 repeals obsolete legislation, including the legislative framework underpinning the now-abolished native title respondent scheme. This scheme was abolished as an election commitment from Labor and has not been funded in the last budget. Funding respondents to native title claims without means-testing tips the scales towards wealthy landowners and miners and can act as a real impediment to First Nations communities getting fair outcomes under the native title scheme. As I said, we will be supporting the bill in the House but reserving our position, pending amendments, in the Senate.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:40</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr DREYFUS</name>
    <name.id>HWG</name.id>
    <electorate>Isaacs</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The Attorney-General's Portfolio Miscellaneous Measures Bill 2023 will make a range of important amendments to update, clarify and improve the intended operation of legislation administered by the Attorney-General's portfolio. The bill will enhance the capacity of the Australian court system to deal with corporate crime offences and enable a more efficient jury preparation process in the federal court of Australia. The bill will also formalise the government's election commitment to abolish the native title respondent scheme. Thirty years on from the enactment of the Native Title Act, the law is largely settled, and legal costs associated with responding to native title claims should now be treated as an ordinary business expense.</para>
<para>The bill will also clarify and improve the operation of the Commonwealth Marriage Celebrants Program, provide greater accessibility for marrying couples by allowing couples to have the notice of intended marriage witnessed remotely and streamline the administrative process used in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia for family law arbitration applications to review an arbitral award or to determine a question of law. In conclusion, these amendments will make a number of appropriate and necessary improvements to laws in my portfolio. I commend the bill to the House.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>201906</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>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.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Modern Slavery Amendment (Australian Anti-Slavery Commissioner) Bill 2023</title>
          <page.no>161</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r7122" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Modern Slavery Amendment (Australian Anti-Slavery Commissioner) Bill 2023</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>161</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:41</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr PERRETT</name>
    <name.id>HVP</name.id>
    <electorate>Moreton</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to speak on the Modern Slavery Amendment (Australian Anti-Slavery Commissioner) Bill 2023. In mid-January this year, the ABC ran a story online about a Queensland man who'd been charged with 46 offences, including slavery and torture. According to the media report, the deckhands on the man's vessel were allegedly abused and had food and water withheld. The police inspector interviewed for the story said that the deckhands were not paid for their work and were forced to sleep out on the open deck of the boat. This was up in the far north part of Australia. It's alleged that the deckhands were exploited and manipulated, and some of them even claim to have been assaulted. The matter hasn't been finalised, but I would point out that my nephew worked for the same bloke a couple of decades before and spoke of similar questionable practices and how he saw other people being exploited on the boat. Obviously, these recent incidents all occurred in the waters off northern Australia. The one covered by the ABC was in a remote part of Cape York, out at sea, where there is less safety and scrutiny and where, obviously, there's nowhere to go if you want to leave that workplace. You don't want to go swimming in shark-infested, crocodile-infested waters up there.</para>
<para>However, the practice of modern slavery does not always happen in remote places. It can be happening right next door in a quiet suburban street, in our inner-city electorates or in a factory just down the road. It might be hard to imagine modern slavery existing in our own neighbourhoods, but we are not as far removed from exploitation as people might like to think. We like to think of ourselves as a modern, wealthy country with unions, awards and strong workplace conditions and protections. We're a democracy. We believe that we are progressive in our views of the world and its social norms. Despite this, human-trafficking and slavery in Australia often go unnoticed. While those being exploited may not be in chains, the cases that appear demonstrate that slavery-like practices are taking place right here in our country.</para>
<para>Mr Deputy Speaker, you might recall the case of the Sydney couple charged with modern slavery and sentenced to several years jail for holding a Filipina woman as their domestic slave. They had originally invited the woman to Australia to work as a nanny and housekeeper—perfectly normal—but when her tourist visa expired the couple told her that she could not return to the Philippines as she had to repay the cost to them of bringing her to Australia. For three years the couple forced the woman to work in their home and their business, all without pay. They told her she could not leave the home on her own or talk to anyone outside the family, and she was warned that disobeying these instructions would lead to her being punished. As you can see, Mr Deputy Speaker, exploiting someone is easy. Many people have vulnerabilities, and it can be easy to manipulate those vulnerabilities using fear, violence and misinformation.</para>
<para>It's important to note that modern slavery is distinct from historical slavery in that people are no longer legally owned under the system but instead subjected to illegal control. Modern slavery takes many forms but essentially refers to situations of exploitation that a person cannot refuse to leave because of threats, violence, coercion or deception. It's not a manacle around the ankle, but they are horrific workplaces nevertheless. Exploitative practices that include human trafficking, servitude, forced labour, debt bondage and forced marriage can all be forms of modern slavery. These are all serious crimes under Australian law. From all accounts, forced marriage, forced labour, debt bondage, domestic servitude and deceptive recruitment are on the rise in Australia. Unfortunately, global conviction rates are very low; they at around 38 per cent. In Australia, only 24 offenders were convicted between 2004 and 30 June 2019.</para>
<para>Walk Free, an international human rights group focused on the eradication of modern slavery, surmises that globally there are around 49.6 million people who are enduring some form of modern slavery. Sadly, our wonderful nation, the best place on earth, is not immune from this. In Australia it's estimated that around 41,000 people are experiencing modern-slavery-like conditions. Within Asia and the Pacific, Australia is ranked 26th out of 27 countries in terms of the prevalence of modern slavery, and 149th out of 160 countries globally. In the financial year ending 30 June 2022, authorities received 294 modern slavery reports. That this represents the highest number ever received annually suggests that modern slavery remains underreported in Australia, given the estimated prevalence rate of modern slavery.</para>
<para>The Modern Slavery Amendment (Australian Anti-Slavery Commissioner) Bill 2023 delivers on Labor's election commitment to add a new, independent pillar to Australia's comprehensive response to modern slavery. The bill before the chamber amends the Modern Slavery Act to establish the core functions of the Anti-Slavery Commissioner, including engaging with and supporting victims and survivors of modern slavery and supporting business to address risks of modern slavery practices in their operations and supply chains, where sometimes businesses can be duped. One of the most important parts of our response is making sure that people who have experienced modern slavery can access timely and appropriate support. In the last budget, the Albanese government committed an additional $24.3 million in funding over four years for the Support for Trafficked People Program. Administered by the Department of Social Services and delivered nationally by the Red Cross, a wonderful organisation, this is a program that aims to help clients in meeting their safety, security, health and wellbeing needs and to develop options for life after they leave the support program.</para>
<para>At the heart of our commitment to eradicating modern slavery is combating the drivers of modern slavery, disrupting its operations and holding perpetrators of slavery to account. Of course, a key focus remains on the people affected, those who have been or may become victims of modern slavery, by placing a strong emphasis on partnering effectively with survivors. This year's budget committed $5.3 million to establish an antislavery commissioner. This new commissioner will play a whole-of-government role in implementing our package in full, alongside other measures such as the introduction of penalties for noncompliance with the Modern Slavery Act. As a country, we have a significant role to play in fighting modern slavery both at home and overseas. A robust and powerful antislavery commissioner is key to this.</para>
<para>The commissioner will be appointed through a merit based and transparent selection process on a full-time basis for a term of up to five years. Independence is important to maintaining objectivity, and the commissioner will have the discretion to work as they need to. Independence also means that the commissioner is free to scrutinise the efforts of government departments, government agencies and the police and others working in prevention, prosecution and protection. Importantly, the commissioner will not be subject to direction. Failure to provide the Australian Anti-Slavery Commissioner with this independence, adequate resourcing and relevant powers could undermine the effective functioning of Australia's Modern Slavery Act.</para>
<para>Once appointed, the commissioner will be required to develop a strategic plan that sets out how they intend to deliver and monitor the effectiveness of their functions. They'll be required to develop an annual report, to be tabled in parliament, outlining their key progress and milestones. This is extremely important in relation to measuring the extent to which objectives and priorities are achieved.</para>
<para>The Albanese government has also committed $8 million over four years to support the commissioner's establishment and operations. The role and functions will complement the work undertaken across government, business and civil society to prevent and to respond to incidents of modern slavery.</para>
<para>It's also important to recognise the important research, support and advocacy that organisations such as Anti-Slavery Australia, Walk Free Australia, the wonderful Red Cross and other organisations have done in this area.</para>
<para>The commissioner will play a key role in helping to shape implementation of future modern slavery reforms, including those which may arise from the recent statutory review of the Modern Slavery Act, which the Albanese government is currently considering. The commissioner will also have an important role in promoting and harnessing research capabilities to support evidence based responses, as well as playing a key role in educating and raising awareness of modern slavery in Australia.</para>
<para>I said earlier that modern slavery cases in Australia are under-reported. That is our great suspicion. We must provide the awareness and tools to recognise that deprivation of freedom and the existence of exploitation, and then to give people the courage, protection and support to come forward and report, and support after they do so. As a government, we must continue to lead by example when it comes to tackling modern slavery. The commissioner will be an advocate for the continuous improvement of practice and policy. While the commissioner will not investigate or deal directly with individual matters of modern slavery—they're not the police—they will be able to make observations regarding systemic issues, based on their engagement with victims and survivors and with the broader community.</para>
<para>I look forward, as I'm sure all in the parliament do, to hearing of the appointment of Australia's first Anti-Slavery Commissioner, a role that will provide an excellent opportunity for government to work with agencies across the country and beyond our borders on policy that will make an impact for survivors and also address the underlying causes which create vulnerability and criminal opportunity. I commend this legislation to the House.</para>
<para>Sitting suspended from 12 : 53 to 1 5 : 59</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:59</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr WOOD</name>
    <name.id>E0F</name.id>
    <electorate>La Trobe</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I speak on the Modern Slavery Amendment (Australian Anti-Slavery Commissioner) Bill 2023. The bill's primary intention is to establish an antislavery commissioner as a statutory appointment under the Attorney-General's portfolio. I acknowledge that this was a commitment from the Labor Party prior to the election. The cost over the forward estimates is $8 million. I do have a concern: is it the best way to spend the funding? I was previously in the role of assistant minister for home affairs. On our side, we think it may be necessary to take this to committee and have a further look at it. Maybe the minister can explain a bit more. I'm trying to work out whether the role of the Anti-Slavery Commissioner is more to look at ensuring that the modern slavery statements from companies earning more than $100 million are in some way enforced. Under the previous government, it was worked through with the business community not to name and shame those companies who don't meet the standard of releasing a statement. But we actually had that power. I remember at one stage the Department of Home Affairs did want us to release that. I'm very interested to hear from the minister, the Attorney-General, about how the role of the Anti-Slavery Commissioner would work, considering, too, that you have grants going to good community groups. It's a lot of money, $8 million, so I'd be very interested to see how that's going to be spent.</para>
<para>Sadly, worldwide there are an estimated 49 million, nearly 50 million, people who are victims of modern slavery. We often think it's something happening overseas, but, sadly, we've heard often that it's actually happening here in Australia. I remember an example was given to me of a lady coming from Thailand or Singapore. A friend invited her to Australia—'Come over here for a great holiday'—picked her up from the airport and took her straight to a brothel, where they took her passport away. Basically she was stuck there for over 12 months. Shocking situations like that do occur here in Australia.</para>
<para>Modern slavery encompasses various forms, such as forced labour, human trafficking, debt bondage and exploitation, cutting across various industries, including agriculture, manufacturing, construction and the service sector. It very much targets vulnerable populations, including migrants and refugees. Those living in poverty are disproportionately affected by modern slavery. Quite often it comes down to education and not knowing your rights. You may be from a country where you've got no trust in government and law enforcement at all, and therefore, if a person has, for example, taken your passport away, you think, 'If I go to the police, does that mean I get deported?' There are those sorts of incidents taking place. It's also very difficult to prosecute. I've heard numerous examples from the AFP and the Australian Border Force of how difficult it is to actually prosecute cases like this.</para>
<para>When I was the assistant minister for customs under the previous coalition government, we proudly legislated the landmark Modern Slavery Act 2018, to directly target modern slavery in supply chains and support the business community to take action by establishing a practical, risk based reporting framework. The Modern Slavery Act came into effect on 1 January 2019. Companies based and operating in Australia which have an annual consolidated revenue of more than $100 million—which ended up being over 3,000 business entities—are obliged to report annually on the risks of modern slavery in their business operation and supply chains and take action to address those risks.</para>
<para>When you're dealing with the bigger companies—such as Woolworths, Qantas or Bunnings, which is a good example—you find that those companies in some ways find it easy to put in a modern slavery statement, but then all those in the supply chain also have to comply, which puts added pressure on the small businesses. Reporting entities are required to submit annual modern slavery statements, which are published on the Modern Slavery Statements Register. We were the first country after the UK to do this. The big difference between Australia's online register and the UK's at the time—I'm not sure if the UK has now changed—is that there wasn't a search ability in the UK, which is something we made sure we had in Australia.</para>
<para>The register was launched on 30 July 2020. The coalition's online register for modern slavery statements was the first government run register of its kind in the world. As I said, the UK had something similar. The UK was very excited and said they had the best, but in fact the various not-for-profit groups and those involved in protecting vulnerable people were very impressed with what the previous government did. Can I congratulate the Department of Home Affairs. They were so passionate—especially the Australian Border Force—about doing everything they could to protect vulnerable people.</para>
<para>During my time as assistant minister, the register published more than 4,000 entity statements, covering activities of 8,000 reporting entities. The government itself is also required to submit annual Commonwealth modern slavery statements. We also put in place an expert advisory panel. Our efforts to implement the Modern Slavery Act were bolstered by the contributions of the Modern Slavery Expert Advisory Group. I thank all the group members for their expertise.</para>
<para>The great thing is that the inquiry into establishing the act was a bipartisan one. It went on, I think, when the former member for Dunkley Chris Crewther was on the committee. It was both sides of politics who supported this, and the advisory group was very helpful. It was committed to providing strategic advice to government to support the effective implementation of the Modern Slavery Act. The group comprised representatives from five peak bodies and a further 10 appointed representatives. The Modern Slavery Expert Advisory Group focused on various subjects, including the development of the Modern Slavery Recognition Scheme, Australian businesses' response to modern slavery risks in overseas supply chains, and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on modern slavery.</para>
<para>As the assistant minister in the previous coalition government, on 31 March 2022 I announced a statutory review of the landmark Modern Slavery Act. The review considered the operation of the act over its first three years and whether further measures to improve the act and, where necessary, compliance were required. One the issues was whether the threshold for statements should be reduced to $50 million. I know New South Wales was looking at that, and it'll be interesting to see whether the Labor government takes it up. The only thing is that when you go further down with the amount of money it becomes a great burden for smaller companies to provide the information for those statements. They take a lot of work.</para>
<para>The review was conducted in accordance with section 24 of the act and supports the <inline font-style="italic">National Action Plan </inline><inline font-style="italic">t</inline><inline font-style="italic">o Combat Modern Slavery 202</inline><inline font-style="italic">0-25</inline>, in which the previous coalition government committed to undertake a review of the act in 2022. Under the national action plan, we proudly awarded more than $1.6 million in grant funding to seven organisations working to combat modern slavery. The organisations were determined by the Department of Home Affairs group working on modern slavery. This was part of $4.4 million allocated over five years for multiyear grant funding opportunities for civil society organisations, NGOs, business and academia to deliver projects to combat modern slavery in Australia. There are some really clever organisations when it comes to passing on to victims information on how to report. I won't go into the details of how it is done, because that is something I don't want those involved in this to find out, but some of the ideas, when it comes to computers and what the ABF are doing, are fantastic.</para>
<para>I thank all the past and present members of the expert advisory group, in particular Professor Jennifer Burn, who has been the Director of Anti-Slavery Australia since 2003. She has been actively involved in the development of Australia's response to human trafficking and slavery. It was just incredible how passionate all these people on the advisory committee were and how thankful they were for government commitment. I'm glad the new government has taken the mantle on. Again, I thank all the ABF officers for their tireless work to combat the scourge of modern slavery in Australia.</para>
<para>One concern brought to me was that there was a reluctance of victims to come forward to the Australian Federal Police, and one thing I recommended to the Australian Federal Police was to allow a trial whereby agencies could actually speak to the victims first. The AFP had a concern that it would jeopardise the witness in evidence, but, as a former police officer, I pointed out to them that, if you've got no witness, you've got no evidence, and you've got no case. So I would be interested to know how that matter ended up.</para>
<para>Some important dates are 2 December, which is the United Nations International Day for the Abolition of Slavery, and 30 July is the World Day Against Trafficking in Persons. It's very sad that we have this occurring in Australia and around the world, and we just have to do everything we can to have tougher penalties and target those people involved in modern slavery.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:10</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr NEUMANN</name>
    <name.id>HVO</name.id>
    <electorate>Blair</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to speak on the Modern Slavery Amendment (Australian Anti-Slavery Commissioner) Bill 2023. Our American friends have a country that was conceived with a compromise between the southern and northern states with inbuilt, inherent slavery continuing on. It took until the 13th amendment in 1865 to vanquish the south. The brilliant US President Abraham Lincoln, with the support of Union generals Ulysses S Grant and William Tecumseh Sherman, eventually persuaded enough politicians and states to pass the 13th amendment.</para>
<para>We in Australia understood early that slavery needed to be abolished. We had picked up the common law from the United Kingdom. Agitation took place from the 1750s onwards in the United Kingdom to abolish slavery. Eventually, in 1807, the slave trade was abolished by legislation passed by the UK parliament. We picked that up when New South Wales and Van Diemen's Land, as Tasmania was then called, had legislation that was passed in the Australian Courts Act 1828. That meant that abolition of the slave trade was part of Australian law. Credit to William Wilberforce, a conservative UK politician, and others who eventually saw the abolition of slavery in the UK and obviously then in Australia in 1833.</para>
<para>In the same way that our understanding of domestic and family violence is not just assault and sexual assault—we understand that domestic and family violence is much broader in its understanding, encompassing everything from familial isolation to financial domination and coercive control—we understand also that slavery is more than human trafficking and physical enslavement to work in a workplace. We understand that it can involve deceptive recruiting, debt bondage, forced labour and forced marriage. Modern slavery takes many, many forms. These are insidious and abhorrent crimes and abuses of power that simply have no place in a modern, multicultural, liberal, democratic country like Australia.</para>
<para>In a particularly egregious in my home state of Queensland recently a 47-year-old man was charged with 46 offences involving assault, torture and enslavement of deckhands on his fishing boat in the Gulf of Carpentaria. The accused allegedly intimidated and attacked his young employees and withheld food and water as well as wages. In fact, police have alleged that some of the complainants were in such fear for their lives that they actually jumped off boats and swam through crocodile and shark infested waters to escape being tortured. Sadly, we know modern slavery includes alleged cases like this one. They have become more prevalent both here and overseas. In fact, the Australian government estimates that at least 1,900 modern slavery victims currently exist in Australia, and that's a shocking statistic.</para>
<para>This type of crime is complex, ever evolving and hidden in large part. International conflicts, poverty and climate change have assisted perpetrators to seek to seriously exploit others for their benefit. Online interconnectedness brings increased opportunities to detect and disrupt perpetrators also bringing this crime right to our doorstep. To stop modern slavery, we need engagement and partnership. Combating modern slavery is a challenge that requires steadfastness and collaboration. I'm proud of the role Australia and the Albanese Labor government have played in preventing and disrupting this evil—a fact recently recognised by Australia maintaining its tier 1 ranking in the United States government's 2023 <inline font-style="italic">T</inline><inline font-style="italic">rafficking </inline><inline font-style="italic">in </inline><inline font-style="italic">p</inline><inline font-style="italic">ersons</inline><inline font-style="italic">r</inline><inline font-style="italic">eport</inline>. Make no mistake, our government is committed to bolstering efforts to tackle this appalling abuse of human rights. To that end, the government's tackling modern slavery package contains a number of key sets of commitments.</para>
<para>The first step is to strengthen the actual legislation and establish an antislavery commissioner. This bill before parliament gives effect to that commitment we made at the last election and amends the act accordingly. Australia will have its first Australian Anti-Slavery Commissioner as an independent statutory office holder in the Attorney-General Department's portfolio. This is a landmark reform that delivers on our election commitment, a new independent pillar and part of a comprehensive approach. The core functions of the Anti-Slavery Commissioner will include engaging and supporting victims and survivors of modern slavery and supporting businesses to address the risk of modern slavery practices in their operation and supply chains.</para>
<para>The commissioner's role and functions will complement work undertaken across government, business and civil society to respond. The commissioner will play a key role in helping to shape implementation of reforms in this area, including those which arise from the recent statutory review of the Modern Slavery Act, which the government is currently considering. That review was led by Professor John McMillan and considered the first three years of the act's operation. It also examined the potential role of the independent commissioner. A number of the review's recommendations were in line with key election commitments in the Tackling Modern Slavery Package, including the need for penalties for noncompliance with the act.</para>
<para>When the previous government put this legislation through, which we supported because we needed to take steps, we thought that it was not tough enough or strong enough. It had flaws. So we are really keen to make sure that that legislation is better, and part of this legislation today is part of our election commitment to do so. This core commitment supports our ambitious agenda to address this insidious scourge.</para>
<para>The commissioner's functions will allow the commissioner to work with victims-survivors in compliance with the legislation; that's absolutely crucial. Having that commissioner in place will assist with implementation of other recommendations and will really be a moral force for good in our society. We view the commissioner as playing a key role in leading the change across government, business and society generally—a national figurehead in Australia's fight against modern slavery. We've committed $8 million over four years to support the commission's establishment and operation. We're confident it will complement and enhance existing initiatives and functions.</para>
<para>We called for the commissioner to be established when the legislation was first passed, when we were in opposition. It fell on the deaf ears of those opposite, but we're glad that they've had a Damascus-road conversion on this and they're now going to support us. We weren't alone in asking for that. We acknowledge those stakeholders—civil, business and academic—who have long campaigned for an independent commissioner to raise awareness of modern slavery in Australia, to provide independent information and support to victims and survivors, to target those businesses that might be involved and to identify and address supply chain issues.</para>
<para>The parliament also supported the idea recently with the 2017 report of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade—a committee which I now chair—<inline font-style="italic">Hidden in plain sight</inline>, and the 2017 report of the Joint Committee on Law Enforcement, <inline font-style="italic">An </inline><inline font-style="italic">inquiry into human trafficking, slavery and slavery</inline><inline font-style="italic">-</inline><inline font-style="italic">like practices</inline>. Both inquiries explored and made recommendations for Australian modern slavery laws that would establish an independent commissioner. So this has a long history, and Labor has strongly been on the side of supporting an independent commissioner.</para>
<para>There's always more work we can do to help victims and survivors. We can do more to ensure businesses are able to identify and address modern slavery risks in their supply chains. There are good businesses that find these things happening in their supply chains, much to their horror. We can do more to support civil society organisations to hold those perpetrators to account; it's critical that they are taken before the courts of law.</para>
<para>On top of establishing this commissioner, we're working to eliminate the scourge of modern slavery through a range of activities at home and abroad. We have appointed 20 members to the Modern Slavery Expert Advisory Group to advise the government. The group advises on the operation of the act and on the practical implementation of measures to strengthen the legislation that the government is considering following the review, which I mentioned earlier. The individuals and organisations appointed bring a diversity of skills. They come from business, civil society, unions and academia.</para>
<para>In addition, in December last year the government hosted the 15th National Roundtable on Human Trafficking and Slavery and announced a $12.1 million funding commitment over five years for the new Forced Marriage Specialist Support Program—and haven't we had enough reviews and examinations of that issue! There's $2.2 million in further funding to extend the Speak Now project. These reviews that I have referred to indicate quite clearly that forced marriages are a scourge and a real problem in our society.</para>
<para>The Forced Marriage Specialist Support Program will provide individualised, needs based prevention and early intervention support for those experiencing or at risk of experiencing forced marriage. It will also provide essential access to counselling and emergency accommodation where required. The Speak Now project, delivered by Anti-Slavery Australia, aims to prevent forced marriage through education, awareness raising and collaboration with the sector. One of the most important tasks of our Tackling Modern Slavery Package is ensuring people who've experienced modern slavery can get the support they need. That's why we committed $24.3 million in funding for the support for trafficked people program in the last budget.</para>
<para>Under the program, the additional funding will be used to increase the minimum length of time for support to 90 days, ensuring equitable financial support for visa holders as well as providing follow-ups after a client has left the program—that's really critical. A pilot program of up to 18 months will also commence this year to allow direct referrals to the program by community providers in response to advocates calls for trial, an additional referral pathway. So we're creating a new pathway. In June last year, the Attorney-General announced 13 recipients of the modern slavery grants round 2 package under the <inline font-style="italic">National Action Plan </inline><inline font-style="italic">to </inline><inline font-style="italic">Combat Modern Sla</inline><inline font-style="italic">very 2020</inline><inline font-style="italic">-</inline><inline font-style="italic">25</inline>. The government is providing $2.73 million over two years to develop community and research projects to raise awareness of the issues and help people's responses.</para>
<para>Also last year, the government lodged Australia's ratification of the Minimum Age Convention No. 138 with the Director-General of the International Labor Organization. I also referred earlier to what we're doing internationally. This represents a significant step towards protection of children's rights in combating modern slavery by setting out a minimum age for young people to start employment, so they can work safely without any interference with their education.</para>
<para>In March last year the Attorney-General commemorated with the national roundtable members the 10th anniversary of the legislation that inserted forced marriage, forced labour and organ traffic offences into the Criminal Code Act 1995. We're now reviewing these offences to ensure Australia's criminal justice frameworks are fit for purpose in a changing world.</para>
<para>In June, the government received findings from the targeted review of the modern slavery offences in the Criminal Code conducted by the Attorney-General's Department in collaboration with the Australian Federal Police and the Australian Director of Public Prosecutions. We've been looking at these findings closely to inform any future necessary action to strengthen the criminal justice response to modern slavery, and I want to thank stakeholders for their contributions to that public consultation process.</para>
<para>We're also looking to bolster our international response to combating modern slavery. In February last year the Attorney-General, the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Minister for Home Affairs attended the Eighth Bali Process Ministerial Conference on people smuggling, trafficking and person related transnational crime. The good engagement we've had with the Bali process member countries is a further example of our region's commitment to working together and collaborating on these issues. This marks 20 years of partnership in combating trafficking between Australia and ASEAN.</para>
<para>Australia is working with ASEAN partners to make a real difference in the lives of vulnerable people in our region. Over 10,000 government officials have been trained to better identify, protect and support victims of trafficking and their families across the whole region. Since 2003, Australia has provided $160 million in development assistance to ASEAN countries to strengthen criminal justice responses and improve victim protection and support. They're just some of the examples of the significant work we're doing internationally. I want to pay tribute to the surviving advocates and say how impressed I've been by their passion and how their voices are heard.</para>
<para>The pilot Survivor Advisory Council, established by the Salvation Army as part of the <inline font-style="italic">National Action P</inline><inline font-style="italic">lan to </inline><inline font-style="italic">Combat Modern Slavery</inline> grants program, is one of the many ways the government is acknowledging, empowering and incorporating survivor voices into policy programs and legislation. This program is providing the development of Australia's first modern slavery victim and survivor engagement and empowerment strategy to work together to tackle this problem. This is timely given the theme of last year's World Day Against Trafficking in Persons—'Reach every victim of trafficking, leave no-one behind'.</para>
<para>Early last year, the Attorney-General's Department portfolio agencies, the New South Wales Anti-Slavery Commissioner and civil society partners discussed trauma-informed practices to support survivors of modern slavery through that criminal justice journey, a forum hosted by the Australian Institute of Criminology. There is much more we can do.</para>
<para>This bill builds on our election commitments, on the outstanding work of victims and survivors, civil society and industry stakeholders who advocate for this important reform. We're pleased to fulfil our election commitment. We're glad those opposite have finally seen sense. I commend the bill to the House.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:25</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms STEGGALL</name>
    <name.id>175696</name.id>
    <electorate>Warringah</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to speak on and support the Modern Slavery Amendment (Australian Anti-Slavery Commissioner) Bill 2023. I'd like to start by thanking Dr David Cooke who worked tirelessly to get the Modern Slavery Act in the first place and recognises this is a very big problem.</para>
<para>Modern slavery is a global issue that the Australian government has a role in addressing. Its scope is huge, ranging from the use of forced labour in overseas factories to forced marriages to domestic servitude in suburban Australian homes. In 2023, the Global Slavery Index estimated that globally nearly 50 million people are victims of modern slavery—over half are women and a quarter are children. Nearly 30 million of those are in forced labour.</para>
<para>It's not just an overseas problem. You could be forgiven for not realising that it is also occurring in Australia. It's estimated that about 1.6 people in every 1,000 are a victim of modern slavery in Australia, so that is still 41,000 people in Australia.</para>
<para>The policies and laws required to address these issues are multiple, as outlined in the <inline font-style="italic">N</inline><inline font-style="italic">ational </inline><inline font-style="italic">A</inline><inline font-style="italic">ction </inline><inline font-style="italic">P</inline><inline font-style="italic">lan to </inline><inline font-style="italic">C</inline><inline font-style="italic">ombat </inline><inline font-style="italic">M</inline><inline font-style="italic">odern </inline><inline font-style="italic">S</inline><inline font-style="italic">lavery</inline> and requires the engagement of different departments and agencies, including the Australian Federal Police, as well as Australian businesses and government due to the influence and responsibility they have over their supply chains. There is no place for modern slavery in Australia, yet it hides insidiously here as well, in homes, in businesses and, of course, indirectly in the global supply chains of the products and services bought by unsuspecting Australians. I know the constituents of Warringah want confidence that the purchases they make, whether it be a solar panel or a chocolate bar, support fair and free practices and do not risk supporting modern slavery. Yet modern slavery is hidden in the global supply chains of some of the products we buy and services we procure. Because of this, corporations have a key role in addressing and minimising modern slavery risks.</para>
<para>The Modern Slavery Act 2018 deals with only one of the many avenues to combat modern slavery: the role of large Australian businesses in identifying and mitigating modern slavery in their supply chains. It established a reporting regime for large companies of over $100 million in revenue, with statements made publicly available. Mandatory reporting for large companies has been well received. To date, over 4,000 companies have met the reporting threshold and submitted statements in conjunction with the act. Over 70 per cent of those companies support mandatory reporting requirements under the Modern Slavery Act, and less than 10 per cent are not supporting the requirements.</para>
<para>Recently, the McMillan report, which reviewed the first three years under the Modern Slavery Act, made a number of recommendations, including strengthening or reporting, such as due diligence requirements. The government has not yet responded to this review. I understand the establishment of the independent commissioner will help support the government in its response to that very important review.</para>
<para>The bill currently before this House amends the Modern Slavery Act to establish an Australian antislavery commissioner to play a soft role of supporting and monitoring the operation of the modern slavery reporting regime. The establishment of the position itself is welcome and long overdue, having been called for in multiple inquiry recommendations, including the <inline font-style="italic">H</inline><inline font-style="italic">idden in plain sight</inline> Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade on modern slavery inquiry and civil liberties groups, including the Human Rights Law Centre and Walk Free, to match other leading jurisdictions, including the UK and Europe.</para>
<para>However, the powers conferred on the commissioner are limited, primarily focused on a commissioner who will support business, educate and advise civil society, government, and agencies, and provide limited support to victims of modern slavery by directing them to appropriate agencies. The functions outlined in the bill before the House, to assist businesses identifying and mitigating modern slavery risks and to provide national leadership in raising awareness of modern slavery issues, are broadly consistent with the McMillan review, creating a commissioner responsible for supporting and monitoring rather than investigating and prosecuting.</para>
<para>One power, though, that has not been expressly included from the McMillan review includes the role of the commissioner in identifying regions and supply chains that are at higher risk than others from modern slavery and compelling businesses covered by the reporting requirements to consider these higher risk areas. Although this may be achieved through the powers that are outlined, the importance of this function means that this power should be expressly included in the bill.</para>
<para>An example of the specific risks include the modern slavery risks that are known to be within the renewable economy supply chains. I know from my advocacy on the need to accelerate our transition to a renewable economy that ensuring industry is free from modern slavery concerns is critical. We cannot trade one problem for another—solving climate change at the expense of risking the exacerbation of modern slavery and human rights violations. I know my constituents are concerned about these risks, including child labour in the mining of critical minerals such as cobalt and forced labour in solar panel supply chains. They are genuine concerns that must be addressed. Additionally, these risks are weaponised by groups seeking to undermine the transition to renewable energy like this is a 'one or the other' choice. It's not.</para>
<para>The commissioner should have a responsibility to address these risks. However, this bill establishes a commissioner with limited powers, particularly compared with other jurisdictions, such as Europe and the UK where commissioners have the broader power. Under this bill, the commissioner does not even have the power to compel the businesses subject to the Modern Slavery Act to meet their requirements. Instead, the commissioner will play the role of assisting businesses, leaving enforcement of the Modern Slavery Act to the Attorney-General's Department. Additionally, the bill expressly states that the commissioner does not have the power to investigate or resolve individual cases of modern slavery, taking a weaker position than the New South Wales commissioner.</para>
<para>Maybe the greatest omission from this bill, in fact, is that there is no requirement or duty for other agencies or departments to co-operate with the commissioner in the event of findings. This is a provision that is included in the New South Wales legislation and ensures a requirement for findings made by a commissioner to be adequately followed up where such actions fall outside the commissioner's scope of jurisdiction. I think it's a missed opportunity in this bill to establish a commissioner who considers modern slavery issues more broadly beyond the role corporate Australia plays in addressing modern slavery issues and the limitations of the Modern Slavery Act. It's a bird's eye scope for a commissioner that has been advocated for by civil liberty groups, including Walk Free. When it comes to modern slavery in business and supply chains, it is not only the role of Australian corporations to identify and mitigate; the Australian government must do more to address modern slavery and give Australian's confidence that the products and services they buy and the commissioner could have a role in monitoring and supporting broader reform.</para>
<para>International jurisdictions are implementing Magnitsky-style sanctions and border protections for the rejection of goods that are made with forced labour. Beyond supply chains, modern slavery hides across Australia in every area of society and the economy. It exists in small businesses in Australia and in homes in Australia, and it extends to the illegal sex trade, including paedophile rings.</para>
<para>Last year the <inline font-style="italic">Sydney Morning Herald</inline> and <inline font-style="italic">60 Minutes</inline> investigated serious failings in our Home Affairs office that included modern slavery—the story of Henry Qi, who believed he was coming to Australia to study and was instead a victim of industrial-scale exploitation of our visa scheme, forced to work in a car window tinting factory with appalling conditions with his passport taken away from him.</para>
<para>Whilst we often think of modern slavery as something that is happening in developing nations far away, it is actually here as well, and so we need to be mindful of how we frame and think of the problem. Even in Warringah: I know from a brave constituent her story of being a victim of human trafficking as part of a child paedophile ring from the age of four when she lived in Adelaide. Her story highlights the horrific trauma inflicted on the victims of human trafficking.</para>
<para>There is a need for independent oversight of all types of modern slavery, which could be undertaken by the commissioner. The scope of this office should be broadened in the future. I welcome this bill and its establishment of the commissioner, but there is more work to be done to enhance and strengthen the Modern Slavery Act and its operation and broaden the role of the commissioner. I call on the government to accelerate its response to the 30 recommendations made in the McMillan review and other actions, including the visa system, sanctions and border control, to bring Australia's response to modern slavery in line with other leading jurisdictions.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:35</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms MILLER-FROST</name>
    <name.id>296272</name.id>
    <electorate>Boothby</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise today to speak to the Modern Slavery Amendment (Australian Anti-Slavery Commissioner) Bill 2023. It's a truth that I suspect is not disputed that slavery is a heinous crime. It is a scourge on us as humans and a scourge on our society. Although the UK Slave Trade Act officially outlawed the slave trade in the British Empire in 1807, slavery has existed long after that date. In Australia the so-called blackbirding, a slave trade from the Pacific islands to the east coast of Australia to provide labour for cane fields, existed much later, starting around 1860 and continuing until the 1900s. We know Aboriginal people were often made to work in stations and on missions, with wages withheld or partially withheld, even up until the 1970s. These cases are subject to stolen wage cases now, which continue to this day, and I commend some of the legal firms supporting these important class actions to retrieve stolen wages.</para>
<para>In our modern Australian society, slavery is more hidden but no less damaging to individuals and to our society. Modern slavery practices, like all previous slavery practices, are major violations of human rights. Slavery is a serious crime that has become more prevalent globally. It is a complex, ever-evolving and hidden crime. Australian organisations spend a lot of effort trying to eliminate overseas slavery from their supply chains, which is an important ethical consideration to ensure that we are not supporting human misery overseas. But onshore slavery, slavery right here in our country, often goes under the radar and of course is no less criminal and no less damaging.</para>
<para>I recently met with Associate Professor Marinella Marmo, an expert in modern slavery. She is a professor in law and criminology at Flinders University, and modern slavery is one of her areas of research. Professor Marmo told me that overseas students, people on work visas and foreign and temporary workers are particularly vulnerable to slavery practices, but other vulnerable groups, such as young people, people experiencing homelessness and people with disability, can also be targeted by unscrupulous employers.</para>
<para>What does modern slavery look like in Australia? It looks like accommodation rackets where employers are overcharging for accommodation, for transport to work, for food and for internet access so that the worker is essentially working for free. Female workers, particularly, are sexually exploited in order for them to get more hours or, worse, are tricked into the illegal sex trade. There are situations where the workers' passports are held by the employer. Workers are being forced to work excessive overtime or risk losing their jobs and thereby potentially breaching their visa conditions. For overseas workers, these unscrupulous employers know that the workers don't have good support networks in Australia. Language may be a barrier. They may be fearful of government because of the situation in their home country. The worker is often intimidated for fear of being reported for visa breaches, real or made up.</para>
<para>More locally, vulnerable people may be in fear of losing their job with a bad reference and having no other source of income. Professor Marmo says that her research has unearthed examples in a number of industries in remote-area work such as agriculture—where victims have additional barriers to physically leaving the premises—in hospitality, in 24/7 services such as petrol stations, in car washes, in nail salons and in the cleaning industry. These are but a few industries but by no means an exhaustive list. When we talk about the importance of protecting workers' rights, of ensuring a fair day's pay for a fair day's work and of ensuring people are safe in their work environment, this goes doubly so for this extreme form of exploitation. This government takes workers' rights seriously, and this government is taking modern slavery seriously.</para>
<para>The Modern Slavery Amendment (Australian Anti-Slavery Commissioner) Bill 2023 will deliver a key component of the government's 'tackling modern slavery' election commitment. The bill will also support the government's 2023-24 budget announcement of $8 million over four years allocated for the establishment of an Australian Anti-Slavery Commissioner. This bill amends the Modern Slavery Act 2018 to confer a number of critical core functions on the commissioner, including to engage and support victims and survivors of modern slavery, to promote compliance with the Modern Slavery Act and to support business to address risks of modern slavery practices in their operations and supply chains.</para>
<para>Modern slavery practices can and do affect any country, and Australia is not immune. In 2019 the Australian Institute of Criminology's research found that there were between 1,300 and 1,900 victims of human trafficking and slavery in Australia between 2015-16 and 2016-17. The AIC's research also indicated that, for every victim detected in Australia, there are approximately four undetected victims.</para>
<para>Australian businesses are also exposed to modern slavery risks, and some goods and services in Australia are likely tainted by modern slavery. The Modern Slavery Act has increased transparency in supply chains and elevated awareness among the Australian business community of modern slavery risks. The government recognises that more can be done to address estimates that modern slavery crimes continue to increase here and abroad. The bill will deliver long-awaited reform by adding an independent pillar to Australia's comprehensive framework to combat modern slavery.</para>
<para>Civil society, business and academia have long advocated for an independent commissioner who could raise awareness of modern slavery in Australia, provide independent information and support to victims and survivors and targeted support to businesses to identify and address modern slavery risks in their supply chains. The 2017 reports of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, <inline font-style="italic">Hidden in plain sight</inline>, and the Joint Committee on Law Enforcement, <inline font-style="italic">An inquiry into human trafficking, slavery and </inline><inline font-style="italic">slavery-l</inline><inline font-style="italic">ike practices</inline>, both explored and made recommendations for Australian modern slavery laws that would establish an independent commissioner.</para>
<para>In May 2023 the statutory review of the Modern Slavery Act led by Professor John McMillan AO also examined the potential role of an independent commissioner. The extensive consultations and submissions to the review highlighted continued strong public support for the establishment of an independent, high-profile specialist commissioner. By further strengthening Australia's response to modern slavery, this bill demonstrates Australia's heightened commitment to upholding the absolute right to freedom from slavery and forced labour and the right to protection from exploitation, violence and abuse.</para>
<para>The bill also requires the commissioner to consider Australia's international commitments when performing their functions, to ensure that implications for Australia's human rights and trades obligations are appropriately respected. The bill establishes the commissioner as an independent statutory office holder. Through the commissioner, the bill provides an independent mechanism for victims and survivors, business and civil society to engage on issues and strategies to address modern slavery. Independence will facilitate the commissioner's engagement with diverse stakeholders to gain insights that would inform advocacy for improved policy and practice to address modern slavery.</para>
<para>The commissioner will be financially accountable to the parliament and will develop a strategic plan describing their priorities over the lifetime of the plan, to be published on their website. The commissioner will report on the outcomes of their activities in their annual reports, which will be tabled in parliament. The bill also requires the commissioner to uphold Australia's public governance and privacy laws when performing their functions, to protect individuals and Australia's interest.</para>
<para>I turn now to the government's response to the review of the Modern Slavery Act. The government will respond to the review in 2024, after careful analysis of the recommendations. Further functions may be considered for the commissioner as necessary, following the government response to the review.</para>
<para>As Australians, we expect that workers will be safe in the workplace, will be paid appropriately, will have the freedom to leave a job or to change jobs at will. We assume that these basic standards apply not only to us as Australians but also to overseas workers who come to our country either as students or on work visas. We assume that, when we go to a supermarket to buy food or when we get our car washed or when we buy a meal from a restaurant, we are not contributing to a slavery supply chain. This bill is another step forward in eliminating modern slavery in our country. I commend the bill to the House.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:45</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms CHANEY</name>
    <name.id>300006</name.id>
    <electorate>Curtin</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Modern slavery hides in plain sight in business practices and supply chains in Australia and in every other country in the world. It goes without saying that people must be able to work in conditions that are free from exploitation and degradation. Modern slavery refers to criminal and some nefarious slavery-like business practices that deny employees their self-determination and agency. This includes not just the better-known human trafficking and forced labour but also debt bondage, child labour and domestic servitude. In Australia, new migrants, workers who are temporary visa holders and students are particularly vulnerable to modern slavery practices.</para>
<para>We're very fortunate in Western Australia to have the expertise of the international human rights group Walk Free, which is focused on the eradication of modern slavery. Walk Free produces the Global Slavery Index, which provides the most comprehensive data on modern slavery in the world. In Australia, seven people in 100 are estimated to be vulnerable to modern slavery. In 2021, a total of 41,000 people were estimated to be living in slavery in Australia. This is, of course, a huge problem, but supply chains present an even greater issue. Many Australian companies regularly do business with countries with a much higher vulnerability to modern slavery. Walk Free reports that Australia is estimated to annually import nearly $26 billion worth of products at risk of having been made with forced labour.</para>
<para>With globalisation comes greater competition. Companies are always on the lookout for any competitive advantages. Opportunities to access cheaper labour costs may be one such advantage. We need to develop widespread business awareness and practices in Australia that recognise the factors that increase the risk of modern slavery both in Australia and in overseas supply chains—factors such as gender inequality, poverty and, in particular, an absence of workplace regulation and safeguards in other countries. There's a lot more work to do.</para>
<para>The current Modern Slavery Act imposes reporting conditions only on entities carrying on business in Australia—both Australian and foreign—that have a consolidated revenue of at least $100 million in Australia. These large companies must submit a modern slavery statement every year. They're required to report on the risks of modern slavery practices in their operations and supply chains and the actions taken by them to address those risks. That's the extent of the reporting required.</para>
<para>In May 2023 Professor John McMillan AO, conducted a mandatory review of the Modern Slavery Act, which resulted in 30 significant recommendations for reform. One of the 30 recommendations was the establishment of the Commonwealth Anti-Slavery Commissioner, which is the subject of this bill and was foreshadowed by the 2023 budget allocation of $8 million for this role. I welcome the appointment of the Anti-Slavery Commissioner and I will support this bill because it's a step in the right direction, but I do so with some reservation. It feels distinctly like the government is putting the cart before the horse. My concern is that, if other reforms are not implemented at the same time, the Anti-Slavery Commissioner will have limited ability to actually uncover slavery or to support well-intentioned companies to take reasonable and necessary steps to avoid slavery risks and to hold to account businesses that are knowingly condoning modern slavery.</para>
<para>It would have made more sense to include this new appointment as part of a comprehensive package of other much-needed reforms to the Modern Slavery Act. I want to talk about what other reforms are needed and why they need to happen before or at the same time as the creation of the Anti-Slavery Commissioner role—or, in the worst case, only a short time afterwards. The McMillan review concludes that modern slavery is not yet being treated with the seriousness it deserves in Australia. The main criticism of the act relates to two things: firstly, the standard, substance and effectiveness of reporting and, secondly, the lack of enforceability.</para>
<para>The main criticism of the act relates to two things. Firstly, it's the standard substance and effectiveness of reporting, and, secondly, it's the lack of enforceability. To improve reporting, we need to reach more companies, embed a more consistent reporting methodology and ensure that reporting is based on reasonable due diligence. In relation to reaching more companies, it's recommended that we lower the mandatory reporting threshold from $100 million of consolidated income to $50 million. Currently, only 3,000 entities in Australia are required to report. Lowering the threshold will likely require another 2,500 companies to report and send a message that all companies should take the risk of modern slavery seriously. I understand that there's always a trade-off when creating new regulation for business, but a company turning over $50 million should be required to address modern slavery, because smaller companies are often prominent in high-risk industries, and this would bring Australia in line with reporting thresholds in other countries. It's important we send a clear message that modern slavery is not acceptable in Australian businesses.</para>
<para>The second part of reporting that needs improving is consistency. To achieve this, we need clearer guidance given to reporting entities. The review highlights the poor standard and inconsistency of the modern slavery reports currently received. Businesses clearly require more assistance to respond with best practice. Businesses generally want to avoid slavery in their supply chains, but it is complicated. In a previous role, I chaired Wesfarmers' ethical sourcing forum trying to address supply chain risks, including slavery, across Coles, Target, Kmart, Bunnings and other businesses, report appropriately and share best practice between divisions. It's a difficult challenge, and I know how important it is to get good guidance to ensure that well-intentioned companies can do the right thing.</para>
<para>One of the principal functions of the new commissioner listed in this bill is to provide support to entities to address risks of modern slavery practices in their operations and supply chains. It's not clear what this actually means. Can the commissioner examine and monitor business practices? To what extent can the commissioner act on information provided about business practices that may or may not amount to modern slavery? Or is it merely intended that the commissioner will provide entities with feedback on their modern slavery reports, how they might improve them and no more? It would be really helpful if it were clearer what support the commissioner can provide and, critically, the outcomes that the support is intended to achieve. Effective support requires tangible guidance that goes beyond providing a checklist.</para>
<para>The bill should go further and include as part of the Anti-Slavery Commissioner's functions the provision of specific guidance that demonstrates how reporting entities can make better assessment and measurement of risk, demonstrates how entities and sectors can identify the vulnerabilities associated with different types of modern slavery, provides best practice for reporting of incidents, responses and remediation and provides scope to monitor responses and actions relating to actual and not merely perceived risks. The third improvement needed for reporting is a system of due diligence. Companies should be required to undertake due diligence in their supply chains rather than just turning a blind eye. They should account for their responses to actual risks rather than merely providing a theoretical list of perceived risks. These are the reporting changes that are needed.</para>
<para>The second main criticism of the act and the review is the lack of enforceability. The functions of the commissioner need to extend beyond support and promoting compliance. The consequences of modern slavery in Australia have implications for other policies and laws of the Commonwealth that go beyond the Modern Slavery Act. Modern slavery has the potential to intersect with criminal justice, law enforcement, victim support services, migration, visas, employment law and procurement, to name just a few. For our Anti-Slavery Commissioner to be effective, we must give them the power to monitor our whole-of-Australia response to modern slavery and to make referrals or recommendations to agencies and departments on how they could strengthen or improve our collective response.</para>
<para>The bill includes provisions for the Anti-Slavery Commissioner to request relevant information from a Commonwealth agency, and, where it is reasonably practical, that agency must comply. This creates a much weaker obligation than the duty to cooperate created by both the modern slavery legislation in New South Wales and the equivalent in the United Kingdom. I urge the minister to include, as recommended by Walk Free, a function for the commissioner to make recommendations to any government department or public authority about the exercise of its functions as they relate to modern slavery. Further, the minister should include a duty to cooperate with the commissioner on the part of departments and agencies. An antislavery commissioner that's truly independent must be able to monitor and reach out to different departments and sectors about other laws and policies and seek cooperation where that may impact upon or have consequences for modern slavery. As part of this, the bill is also strangely silent on the issue of how the new commissioner will interact with Australia's <inline font-style="italic">National Action Plan to </inline><inline font-style="italic">C</inline><inline font-style="italic">ombat </inline><inline font-style="italic">Modern S</inline><inline font-style="italic">lavery</inline> and our national roundtable, and in relation to any mechanism for collaboration with Australia's Ambassador to Counter Modern Slavery, People Smuggling and Human Trafficking. If we're serious about strengthening our response to modern slavery then we must integrate the functions of all the major players in this puzzle.</para>
<para>I also want to say something about the commissioner's role in relation to victims of modern slavery. The bill anticipates functions that are largely administrative. A commissioner can pass on to victims information relating to any available resources, programs and services, and can also engage with victims to inform the consideration of measures for addressing modern slavery. The commissioner may not investigate complaints relating to modern slavery; indeed, it has no complaint or dispute resolution handling role at all. In fact, the bill is silent on the issue of how the commissioner will respond to complaints it receives and to whistleblowers. There is no specified referral process or mechanism to appropriately deal with information or to activate other agencies dealing with complaints received. These complaints could be time sensitive and could have very serious implications for victims. It's not adequate to cover these scenarios under the commissioner's function to consult and liaise with other departments and agencies. There should be a proper mechanism which addresses referrals of serious conduct and the status of whistleblowers. This, again, brings into focus the need for reform of public interest disclosure and whistleblower legislation. Each of these areas of needed reform will impact upon the functions of an antislavery commissioner, so it seems inefficient to legislate for this new role in a vacuum without implementing the broader reforms required.</para>
<para>In conclusion, I welcome the appointment of an antislavery commissioner. However, the government must press ahead with much-needed reform of the Modern Slavery Act. I also urge the government to amend this bill to enhance the scope of the commissioner's role and powers so they can be part of driving real change. This would include, firstly, empowering an antislavery commissioner to provide more tangible guidance to reporting entities and set stronger expectations and obligations for reporting and due diligence; secondly, creating a mechanism to refer complaints and protection of victims and whistleblowers; thirdly, creating a duty to cooperate with the commissioner; and, fourthly, integrating the role and authority of the commissioner within the overall modern slavery framework in Australia.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:57</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr REID</name>
    <name.id>300126</name.id>
    <electorate>Robertson</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>It is unfortunate that slavery is not a problem that existed yesterday, because it exists today in the form of modern slavery. It is a problem that doesn't just affect Australia and doesn't just affect our neighbours to the north. It affects countries all over the globe and people from all walks of life: men, women, boys, girls, different ethnicities and religions and such.</para>
<para>Modern slavery is actually a topic that I have had some interest in for quite some time now. It came to my attention when I was leaving high school, in 2010, and about to enter university. It was on a CNN report, in fact, on the CNN Freedom Project, which outlines what modern slavery is, how it impacts communities right across the globe and how it impacts businesses and corporations as well. Modern slavery truly is a scourge on our society; it is a scourge on our global society and here in Australia. The control of another human being and their family in order to exploit them is absolutely abhorrent. Millions of people around the globe are currently living in modern slavery. It's just not good enough.</para>
<para>Modern slavery is quite varied in what it looks like and how it presents. It can be sex trafficking, child sex trafficking, forced labour, bonded labour or debt bondage, domestic servitude, forced child labour, forced marriage and the use of child soldiers in conflict. I have to say that all of these are horrendous, and I know that all members here would agree that these are absolutely horrendous. So what we must do, and what this bill seeks to do in the Australia context but more broadly, is combat this problem.</para>
<para>What I want to do first is look at modern slavery in Australia and how it impacts our communities here. I then want to explore and get to the crux of what this bill is—namely, it establishes the Anti-Slavery Commissioner. We know that modern slavery practices are major violations of human rights. They are, as I have just said, serious crimes that have become more prevalent right across the globe. They are complex. They are ever evolving. Also, importantly, they are hidden in plain sight. The Modern Slavery Amendment (Australian Anti-Slavery Commissioner) Bill 2023 would deliver a key component of the Albanese Labor government's election commitment to tackle modern slavery. The bill would also support the government's budget announcement on 9 May 2023 that $8 million over four years would be allocated to the establishment of the Anti-Slavery Commissioner. This bill amends the Modern Slavery Act 2018 to confer a number of critical core functions on the commissioner, including to engage and support victims and survivors of modern slavery, to promote compliance with the Modern Slavery Act and to support business to address risks of modern slavery practices in their operations, as well as, really importantly—and this has been said a few times now by other members in this chamber—to address the risk of modern slavery practices in the supply chains of businesses.</para>
<para>As I've alluded to, Australia isn't immune to modern slavery. These practices can affect any country, and they affect Australia. In 2019, the Australian Institute of Criminology's research found that there were between 1,300 and 1,900 victims of human trafficking and slavery in Australia between 2015-2016 and 2016-2017. AIC's research also indicated that, for every victim detected in Australia, there are approximately four undetected victims. So there are people in our community suffering from this horrific issue who are not getting the assistance that they need in order to work and live safely with their families.</para>
<para>Australian businesses are also exposed to risks from modern slavery. Some goods and services in Australia are likely to be tainted by modern slavery practices. That's what I was talking about earlier with regard to those supply chains. The Modern Slavery Act has increased transparency in those supply chains and elevated awareness of these risks among the Australian business community. Within the Labor government, we recognise that more can be done to address estimates that modern slavery crimes are continuing to increase here and are also continuing to increase abroad.</para>
<para>This bill delivers what we committed to, and that's a reform that will add an independent pillar to Australia's comprehensive framework to combat modern slavery. Civil society, academia and business have long advocated for an independent commissioner who could raise awareness of modern slavery in Australia, provide independent information and support to victims and survivors and provide targeted support to businesses to identify and address modern slavery risks in their supply chains.</para>
<para>The 2017 reports of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade and the Joint Committee on Law Enforcement both explored and made recommendations for Australian modern slavery laws that would establish an independent commissioner. In May 2023 the statutory review of the Modern Slavery Act led by Professor McMillan AO also examined the potential role of an independent commissioner. There were extensive submissions and extensive consultations at that point, which highlighted continued strong public support for the appointment of a specialist antislavery commissioner here in Australia.</para>
<para>This bill further strengthens Australia's response to modern slavery. It demonstrates Australia's heightened commitment to upholding the absolute right to freedom from slavery and forced labour and the right to protection against exploitation, violence and abuse. I won't go through them again, but I did give some horrific examples of modern slavery that occurs right across the globe, from sex trafficking to forced labour to forced marriage and child soldiers. They are all absolutely horrific, and we must combat them.</para>
<para>This bill establishes the Anti-Slavery Commissioner as an independent statutory office holder. Through the commissioner, the bill provides an independent mechanism for victims and survivors, businesses and civil society on issues and strategies to address modern slavery. Independence would facilitate the commissioner's engagement with diverse stakeholders to gain insights that would inform advocacy for improved policy and practice to address modern slavery issues.</para>
<para>I'd also like to highlight the governance surrounding the appointment of the Anti-Slavery Commissioner here in Australia. The commissioner would be financially accountable to the Australian parliament and would develop a strategic plan describing their priorities over the lifetime of said plan, to be published on their website. The commissioner would then report on the outcomes of their activities in their annual reports, and those reports would then be tabled in parliament for all to see. The bill also requires the Anti-Slavery Commissioner to uphold Australia's public governance and privacy laws when performing their functions, to protect individuals and Australia's interests.</para>
<para>Regarding the review of the Modern Slavery Act, the government will respond to it after careful analysis of the recommendations, and further functions may be considered for the commissioner as necessary, following the government response to that review.</para>
<para>I really again want to highlight that slavery is not just a problem that existed yesterday. It is not a problem of the past; it is a problem now. It is a problem here in Australia, as we've heard. They are troubling statistics. Up to 1,900 people—that is absolutely unacceptable. This problem exists here today. It's right across the world, in all of our communities and it affects people from all walks of life—men, women, boys, girls, different religions, different ethnicities and the like. This is a problem that is right through our communities.</para>
<para>Again, I'll give a shout-out to one of the reasons that I became interested in this topic and found out about this topic. It was the CNN Freedom Project. I was watching the news. I think it was either the last day of high school or the first week of university. This program came on, and the report spoke about what modern slavery is, how it affects our communities and what governments across the world, not-for-profit groups, advocacy groups and the like should be doing in order to support not just those affected, and families and communities affected, but also businesses and their supply chains and governance structures. This is an absolute scourge on our society. The control of another human being in order to exploit them and then control their families and such is abhorrent and it must come to an end. Part of how we combat this problem is through this bill, the Modern Slavery Amendment (Australian Anti-Slavery Commissioner) Bill 2023, with the establishment of the Anti-Slavery Commissioner. I commend the bill to the House.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:10</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms SHARKIE</name>
    <name.id>265980</name.id>
    <electorate>Mayo</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>While it has long been outlawed in modern society, modern slavery persists. It exists where coercion, threats or deception is used to exploit victims and limit freedoms that many of us take for granted. Modern slavery is found in every country and can include human trafficking, slavery, servitude, forced labour, debt bondage, forced marriage and child labour.</para>
<para>Of an estimated 50 million people subjected to modern slavery worldwide, 28 million are in forced labour and 22 million in forced marriage. It's estimated that more than 10 million of those in forced labour are children, robbed of their opportunity to have a childhood or to be with their families. They are robbed of their health, their safety and their access to education. There is a high cost of forced child labour. Their lives depend on our choices and Australia moving to be modern slavery free.</para>
<para>In the last parliament, I introduced my Customs Amendment (Banning Goods Produced by Forced Labour) Bill 2021 in the hope that Australia would not be the end point of services and products made by forced labour. That bill built upon former Independent senator Rex Patrick's bill, the Custom Amendments (Banning Goods Produced by Uyghur Forced Labour) Bill 2020, which aimed to address the well-documented human rights abuses of hundreds of thousands of Uighur people being used in forced labour. Senator Patrick's bill was referred to the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee, which endorsed its objectives but recommended the introduction of a global ban on importing to Australia goods that are produced by forced labour—all provided for in my bill. Despite this recommendation, the government of the day did not support our bills and neither former senator Patrick's nor my bill passed into law.</para>
<para>The bill before us forms part of the government's response to the 2023 statutory review of the first three years of operation of Australia's Modern Slavery Act 2018, led by Professor John McMillan. In line with the review's recommendations, a new Anti-Slavery Commissioner will fight slavery in Australia and overseas by fostering compliance with the Modern Slavery Act. The commissioner will seek to improve transparency in supply chains, raise the profile of modern slavery through education awareness and provide resources to support victim-survivors of modern slavery practices. The commissioner is not intended to investigate or deal directly with individual matters within the remit of enforcement agencies.</para>
<para>Be Slavery Free, working with other civil society groups, advises that, while the bill represents a positive start, there some gaps and omissions. The Australian Council of Trade Unions stated:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Unfortunately, this Bill falls far short of what is required to ensure an effective response to modern slavery. It proposes a piecemeal response with the creation of a figurehead primarily exercising education, promotion and awareness-raising functions, with a very small budget to carry out this role. This is completely inadequate to deal with the scope and severity of the problem of modern slavery.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">We recommend that the Bill be withdrawn in its current form and substantially amended.</para></quote>
<para>Human rights experts agree that it does need to go further, with Professor Emeritus Paul Redmond stating in his submission that the commissioner is in:</para>
<quote><para class="block">… a narrowly constrained role, incoherently emerging from the disordered jumble of functions listed in the paragraphs of s20(1).</para></quote>
<para>The UK Modern Slavery and Human Rights Policy and Evidence Centre's submission outlines the importance of the independence of the Anti-Slavery Commissioner, based on the UK experience.</para>
<para>There appears to be agreement that the bill falls short of providing a comprehensive response to modern slavery, that the commissioner's role, as drafted, lacks the teeth they need to fight modern slavery and that the budget committed to date will be inadequate. The commissioner's independence must be guaranteed so that it may raise difficult issues with government, business and other stakeholders. That is why I have tabled detailed amendments to this bill.</para>
<para>It will require Australian entities and entities carrying out business in Australia to assist the commissioner in their functions and to address modern slavery. It will require entities to undertake due diligence processes to address the risk of modern slavery practices in their operation's supply chain rather than just risk reporting; increase the commissioner's focus in helping to identify and provide support for victims-survivors, including helping them with complaints and coordinated referrals to relevant organisations; enable the commissioner to provide advice to the minister on modern slavery matters at their own instigation rather than only at the minister's request; clarify that the commissioner can conduct general inquiries but not interfere with investigations by enforcement agencies; require the commissioner to consult more broadly with civil society, victims-survivors, business and government agencies in strategic planning; and set a three-year time frame for a statutory review of the commission's budget after commencement of the legislation to ensure that they are appropriately resourced. Beyond the legislation, the government needs to determine the structure and commit the resources necessary to enable the commissioner to properly fulfil their duties and functions.</para>
<para>I thank the Attorney-General's office for its willingness to consider the amendments that I will be putting forward in the consideration and detail stage. However, these amendments really can't wait. The commissioner should be fit for purpose from the start rather than aspiring to make further changes in the future when we know that we can do those changes now. I commend this bill to the House and look forward to working with the government and all members to improve upon the role, resourcing and independence of the commissioner so they can best fight modern slavery.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:16</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr GOSLING</name>
    <name.id>245392</name.id>
    <electorate>Solomon</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to speak on the Modern Slavery Amendment (Australian Anti-Slavery Commissioner) Bill 2023. Modern slavery is a major violation of human rights. It is a serious crime, afflicting innocents all across our globe. It's a pox on our shared humanity, but we shouldn't see it as a new phenomenon. Behind the word 'modern' lies an ancient evil. The new is but a mutation, a strain of an older disease, and we may never know the total number of its silent sufferers—those victims of that original sin, as it has been called, of the brutal, at least 11,000-year-old peculiar institution that flourished across all regions of the earth over a millennia.</para>
<para>Mass slavery was invented by the ancients to fuel the rise of what they call, without irony, civilisation. Egypt, Babylonia, Israel, Persia, Greece, Rome, the Arab caliphates, India, China, and the pre-Columbian Americas all practiced it. Millions were bound by chains around their necks and ankles, yoked like oxen to till rice and wheat fields, their mouths parched, shirts drenched, fainting in the excruciating heat, whipped like horses to keep going and heaped in open graves like strays when their bodies crumbled. Up to 100,000 Athenians may have been enslaved, which was about one-in-four inhabitants, and 1.5 million people in what is now Italy by the first century BC—another quarter of that population. Estimates for the 19th century transatlantic slave trade alone range between 12.5 million and 20 million people taken from Africa, tricked and forced onto boats. It was a practice that existed in the Pacific Islands, with 62,000 people being blackbirded, or kidnapped, from their families to work on Australian farms in that dark chapter of our history. The grim global tally, if one were possible, might easily run into the tens of millions of souls. Many faces and so many stories—most lost for all time.</para>
<para>I dwell on old-fashioned slavery to make this point. While all people of good faith may join together in their shared revulsion of the ancient practice of slavery and celebrate the triumph of abolitionism over the treatment of one's fellow humans as beasts of burden, even 235 years after the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen in France, 163 years after the Emancipation Manifesto in Russia, 161 years after the Emancipation Proclamation in the United States, 113 years after a Qing court edict abolished slavery in China, and 76 years since the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights—even after so many triumphs lighting the Promethean torch of our shared humanity—it is still too soon for a victory parade. Millions remain enslaved and imprisoned in a vale of tears, still alive—some barely—in what the Bible calls the pit or the abyss. It's a place reserved for dead souls in what I refuse to call modern conditions. Let us rather call them antiquated, barbaric conditions.</para>
<para>Around the world, 49.6 million people are still held captive, according to the latest global estimates of modern slavery, at least four times the victims of the transatlantic slave trade. Slavery never really ended. The peculiar institution, as it's known, is still open for business—thriving, even. 'But is this really slavery?' some of you might ask. After all, it does not look like that slavery of old, the immense stones dragged by thousands of Jewish slaves to build the colosseum, or the White Sea canal built by forced labour from a soviet gulag at a cost of 50,000 lives. I agree that modern slavery is far more insidious than that. It's well hidden—pervasive even—seeded into our supply chains. But modern slavery is still slavery. If we can't accept that then all of us are part of the problem. We obviously do accept that.</para>
<para>But who are our modern slaves? They are the 22 million people, a population just a little bit less than Australia's, living in forced marriages, two out of every five a mere child. They are the 27.6 million people working in sweatshops and forced labour camps, even in our very own region, owned like chattels and now the quasi-property of a state or armed group, just as slaves were once owned by a single person. They are the forced labourers, including children in Central Asia still forced to pick cotton like in the antebellum south. They are the 6.3 million often trafficked into commercial sexual exploitation, mainly women, with many of the worst-ranking countries being in Asia, the capital of modern slavery. Horridly, in 36 per cent of cases in our region there are children too. If that's not slavery, then what is it?</para>
<para>Their exploiters act with the same disgusting impunity as the slave masters of old. Even in our information saturated age they strive to keep modern slaves as isolated, invisible and disempowered as they once were—out of sight, out of mind. Well, we have a message for those predators: wherever you may be, we are intent on ending your business model. Whatever is required, however long it takes, there will be no hiding from the collective searchlights of governments and civil society actors working to end this scourge. There has been incredible work by organisations like Walk Free, Anti-Slavery International, End Slavery Now, as well as the Santa Marta group—a coalition of civil society, law enforcement, business and faith communities that I'm proud to have been working with on this issue. There are also institutions, like Australia's Anti-Slavery Commissioner established by this bill, which I will return to shortly.</para>
<para>My office has dedicated some of its own resources to identifying the gender disparity in human trafficking in modern slavery in Australia.</para>
<para class="italic"> <inline font-style="italic">A division having been called in the House of Representatives—</inline></para>
<para>Sitting suspended from 17:24 to 17:36</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr GOSLING</name>
    <name.id>245392</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>As I mentioned, my office has dedicated some of its own resources to identifying the gender disparity in human trafficking and modern slavery in Australia and the Indo-Pacific. I salute the work of a previous ANU intern, Tess Brummelhuis. I also thank colleagues across this parliament who have shown leadership on modern slavery and human trafficking, including Senator Linda Reynolds. Though it would take a truly bipartisan and global partnership to achieve it, we will achieve Sustainable Development Goal 8.7:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Take immediate and effective measures to eradicate forced labour, end modern slavery and human trafficking and secure the prohibition and elimination of the worst forms of child labour, including recruitment and use of child soldiers, and by 2025 end child labour in all its forms.</para></quote>
<para>We can only achieve this difficult objective—cutting as it does across hundreds of national borders and jurisdictions—if we were to treat and view the plight of modern slaves with the same urgency and indignation that we would classical slavery, as I outlined earlier, because it is slavery. The original sin remains the same blot on our whole species that it always was. The motto of our government is 'we will leave no one behind', and we are a government that will always look after the disadvantaged and the vulnerable.</para>
<para>Human slavery is far above party and politics. It's higher even than our national interest as Australians. Eradicating it is surely a global interest of all countries. A Russian writer proposed that we should give up our ticket to a harmonious life on account of the unatoned tears of a single tortured child praying to God for deliverance, and I propose that we take the same attitude to ending this evil and that we not rest until every person is accounted for as safe.</para>
<para>Australia is not free of modern slavery. It's a practice that can affect any country, and we shouldn't think of modern slavery as something that happens out there beyond our borders in a fallen world outside our coast. It's nefarious effects reverberate across Australian society.</para>
<para>In 2019 the Australian Institute of Criminology found there were between 1,300 and 1,900 victims of human trafficking and slavery in Australia between 2016 and 2017. AIC's research also indicated that for every victim detected in Australia there were approximately four undetected victims. Australian businesses are also exposed to modern slavery risks. Some goods and services in Australia are likely tainted by it, and this bill delivers a key component of the government's tackling modern slavery election commitment. The bill also supports our May 2023 budget announcement that $8 million over four years will be allocated to establish the Australian Anti-Slavery Commissioner. This bill amends the Modern Slavery Act 2018 to confer core functions on the commissioners. It supports victims-survivors of modern slavery, it promotes compliance with the Modern Slavery Act and it supports businesses to address risks of modern slavery practices in their supply chains.</para>
<para>The Modern Slavery Act increased transparency in supply chains and elevated awareness amongst the Australian business community of the risks of modern slavery. But the government recognises that more can be done, because modern slavery crimes continue to increase both here and abroad. The bill delivers a long awaited reform by adding an independent pillar to Australia's framework to combat modern slavery. Civil society, business and academia have long advocated for an independent commissioner who could raise awareness of modern slavery in Australia. The 2017 report of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, <inline font-style="italic">Hidden in plain sight</inline>, and of the Joint Committee on Law Enforcement inquiry, <inline font-style="italic">An inquiry into human trafficking, slavery and slavery-like practices</inline>, both made recommendations for Australian modern slavery laws that would establish an independent commissioner. In May 2023 the statutory review of the Modern Slavery Act, led by Professor John McMillan AO, also examined the potential role of an independent commissioner. The extensive consultations and submissions to that review highlight continued strong public support for the establishment of an independent specialist commissioner. By strengthening Australia's response to modern slavery, this bill demonstrates our firm commitment to upholding the absolute right to freedom from slavery and freedom from forced labour.</para>
<para>The bill also requires the commissioner to consider Australia's international commitments when performing their functions to ensure that implications for Australia's human rights and trade obligations are respected. The bill establishes the commissioner as an independent statutory office holder. Through the commissioner, the bill provides an independent mechanism for survivors, for business and for civil society to engage on issues and strategies to address modern slavery in our nation. Their independence will facilitate the commissioner's engagement with stakeholders and inform advocacy for improved policy and practice to address modern slavery. The commissioner will be financially accountable to the parliament and will develop a strategic plan describing their priorities, to be published on their website. The commissioner will report on the outcomes of their activities in their annual reports that will be tabled in parliament. The bill also requires the commissioner to uphold Australia's public governance and privacy laws when performing their functions to protect individuals and Australia's interests, which of course is important.</para>
<para>The government will respond to the review of the Modern Slavery Act in 2024, this year, after careful analysis of the recommendations. Further functions may be considered for the commissioner as necessary following the government response to the review. In closing I wish every success to the future commissioner, whoever that may be, and I call on all parliamentarians to join hands in cleansing the earth of slavery and drying the tears of the victims once and for all.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:44</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr KHALIL</name>
    <name.id>101351</name.id>
    <electorate>Wills</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>This issue is one of profound moral urgency—that is, the need to combat modern slavery in all its insidious forms. Like previous speakers, I support the Albanese Labor government's comprehensive reforms to strengthen Australia's response to this injustice. Slavery is not a distant problem relegated to the history books. It is still sadly a stark reality that persists in the shadows of our society, impacting millions of lives both here, at home in Australia, and around the world.</para>
<para>According to recent reports, more than 90 per cent of Australian businesses have identified potential slavery risks in their supply chains. And yet, nearly 85 per cent of them failed to adequately address these concerns in their reporting. Walk Free's most recent estimate indicates there are 49.6 million people across the globe living in situations of modern slavery on any given day. Two thirds of these are in the Indo-Pacific region—our region. This includes being forced to work against one's will or being forced into marriage.</para>
<para>Walk Free also knows that, since its previous estimate in 2017, some 10 million more men, women and children have been forced into work or marriage. These are, obviously, alarming statistics, but these statistics actually represent human lives caught in the grip of insidious and unbearable exploitation and suffering. Modern slavery casts a dark shadow and leaves a profound impact on individuals, communities and our nation at large. While all of us may see our nation as developed and just—and it certainly is—the harsh reality is that modern slavery still persists and affects vulnerable populations very deeply.</para>
<para>We talk also about Australia being a leader in championing values of dignity and freedom in our region. As leaders, I think it is incumbent upon us to be at the forefront of dismantling the systems of oppression that perpetuate modern slavery and to ensure that every person is afforded the dignity and freedom that they deserve. Many of my own constituents in my electorate of Wills have corresponded on this very issue for many years. Tackling slavery and exploitation is core to Labor's mission to protect the vulnerable, to protect workers and to implement and enforce human rights. Our party and our policy are committed to doing so.</para>
<para>The Modern Slavery Amendment (Australian Anti-Slavery Commissioner) Bill delivers on the Albanese government's election commitment to establish the first Commonwealth Anti-Slavery Commissioner to tackle modern slavery in Australia and abroad. Working with government, business and civil society, the commissioner will support victims and survivors of modern slavery, promote compliance with the Modern Slavery Act and provide targeted support to businesses to address risks of modern slavery practices in their operations and supply chains. The commissioner will be completely independent and carry their own discretionary powers and functions. The commissioner will work with our government agencies to bolster existing initiatives and progress new, complementary initiatives to address modern slavery. This includes working with the Attorney-General's Department, other government agencies and the Ambassador to Counter Modern Slavery, People Smuggling and Human Trafficking, who leads on Australia's international efforts to tackle modern slavery. The commissioner will not have any investigative or coercive powers. Australia's effective and strong law enforcement agencies will maintain that responsibility for investigating individual cases and suspected cases.</para>
<para>The commissioner will play a crucial role in educating and raising awareness about modern slavery, supporting victims and advocating for the policy improvements that are necessary as we go down this path and this journey. I do want to emphasise that the calls to establish an Anti-Slavery Commissioner in Australia have come from all areas of civil society, business and academia. They have specifically called for the establishment of an office which can provide independent information and support to victims and survivors and targeted support to businesses to identify and address modern slavery risks in their supply chains.</para>
<para>Back in 2017, the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade had an inquiry report called <inline font-style="italic">Hidden in plain sight</inline>. The 2017 Joint Committee on Law Enforcement inquiry into human trafficking, slavery and slavery-like practices produced a report that also explored the establishment of a commissioner. Both reports made recommendations for Australian modern slavery laws that would establish an independent commissioner. When the <inline font-style="italic">H</inline><inline font-style="italic">idden in plain sight</inline> report was released in 2017, the then government suggested that Australia already has an effective national response to human trafficking and slavery.</para>
<para>I acknowledge the very important role that existing antislavery bodies play in Australia. There is the Interdepartmental Committee on Human Trafficking and Slavery or IDC, for example, which is chaired by the Australian Border Force and is focused on building strong partnerships with government and civil society. It provides an oversight of Australia's response to human trafficking. Its remit includes coordinating the response to emerging human trafficking and slavery issues to review the effectiveness of Australia's antitrafficking and antislavery strategy, to review the Commonwealth's legislative and policy frameworks and to collate data on human trafficking and slavery trends.</para>
<para>But the IDC is not a public office engaged with businesses and their supply chains to improve the rates of compliance under the Modern Slavery Act 2018. The IDC is not designed to advocate for victims, raise awareness or combat the prevalence of modern slavery with a whole-of-society lens. In fact, the IDC's work in relation to supply chains has focused on the Commonwealth's procurement and investment processes. It is clear that the establishment of a commissioner is long awaited and very much needed, and this was confirmed in May 2023 when Professor John McMillan AO tabled his report on the independent statutory review of the Modern Slavery Act 2018. The extensive consultations and submissions to the review highlighted continued strong support for the establishment of an independent, high-profile, specialist commissioner.</para>
<para>Lastly, I want to emphasise that the Albanese government always takes an evidence based approach to legislative changes such as this one. The government is carefully reviewing the recommendations of the statutory review of the Modern Slavery Act as well as a targeted review of modern slavery offences in divisions 270 and 271 of the Criminal Code Act. Once appointed, the commissioner will play a key role in shaping implementation of future reforms recommended by both these reviews.</para>
<para>Presently, this bill represents a significant step forward in the fight against modern slavery. By establishing a Australian Anti-Slavery Commissioner with comprehensive functions, the legislation underscores our commitment to eradicating this heinous crime, fostering collaboration and safeguarding the rights and wellbeing of the most vulnerable among us. That's what a Labor government does. A strong Labor government will always stand against modern slavery and strive for a more just and equitable society. This bill establishing a commissioner is a significant and important commitment to this end.</para>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
<para>Bill read a second time.</para>
<para>Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Consideration in Detail</title>
            <page.no>178</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:53</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms SHARKIE</name>
    <name.id>265980</name.id>
    <electorate>Mayo</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—I move amendments (1) to (9) as circulated in my name:</para>
<quote><para class="block">(1) Schedule 1, item 4, page 4 (before line 15), before the paragraph beginning "This Part also deals with" in section 20A, insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">This Part requires reporting entities to assist the Commissioner to perform the Commissioner's functions.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) Schedule 1, item 4, page 4 (line 26) to page 5 (line 2), omit paragraph 20C(1)(b), substitute:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) to support Australian entities, and entities carrying on business in Australia, to:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) undertake due diligence processes to address risks of modern slavery practices in their operations and supply chains, and in the operations and supply chains of entities they own or control; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) develop innovative practices towards ending modern slavery;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) Schedule 1, item 4, page 5 (lines 5 to 7), omit paragraph 20C(1)(d), substitute:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) to support victims of modern slavery by:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) helping to identify victims; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) providing information to victims about government and non-government resources, programs and services; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(iii) helping victims make complaints; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(iv) providing background support to enable coordinated referrals of victim complaints to relevant organisations;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) Schedule 1, item 4, page 5 (line 15), after "to", insert "conduct general inquiries relating to modern slavery and to".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(5) Schedule 1, item 4, page 5 (line 25), omit "at the request of the Minister,".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(6) Schedule 1, item 4, page 5 (lines 31 to 33), omit subsection 20C(2), substitute:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) To avoid doubt, the Commissioner may not:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) interfere with criminal investigations; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) investigate, or resolve complaints concerning, individual instances or suspected instances of modern slavery.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(7) Schedule 1, item 4, page 10 (after line 14), after Division 4, insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Division 4A — Reporting entities must assist the Commissioner</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">20VA Reporting entities must assist the Commissioner</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">A reporting entity must cooperate with and assist the Commissioner in the performance of the Commissioner's functions.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">20VB Explanations for failure to assist the Commissioner</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Request for explanation or remedial action</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) If the Minister is reasonably satisfied that an entity has failed to comply with section 20VA, the Minister may give a written request to the entity to do either or both of the following:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) provide an explanation for the failure to comply within a specified period of 28 days or longer after the request is given;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) undertake specified remedial action in accordance with the request within a specified period of 28 days or longer after the request is given.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) The Minister may extend, or further extend, a period specified in a request under subsection (1) by written notice given to the entity. The extension may be given before or after the end of the specified period (or that period as previously extended).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) A request under subsection (1) must include a statement of the effect of subsections (2), (4) and (5).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Publication of information about failure to comply with request</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) If the Minister is reasonably satisfied that an entity has failed to comply with a request under subsection (1), the Minister may publish the following information in any way the Minister considers appropriate:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the identity of the entity;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the date the request was given, and details of any extension given under subsection (2);</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) details of the explanation or remedial action requested, and the period or periods specified in the request;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) the reasons why the Minister is satisfied that the entity has failed to comply with the request.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Review of decisions</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(5) Applications may be made to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal for review of the Minister's decision under subsection (4) to publish information about an entity's failure to comply with a request under subsection (1).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(8) Schedule 1, item 4, page 11 (line 23), at the end of paragraph 20X(6)(b), add:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">; and (c) other government agencies, civil society groups (including victim survivors) and businesses.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(9) Schedule 1, item 4, page 12 (after line 35), at the end of Division 5, add:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">20Z Review of the Commissioner's budget</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) The Minister must cause an independent review to be conducted of the Commissioner's budget.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) The review must start as soon as practicable after the end of the 3-year period after the commencement of this section.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) The persons who conduct the review must give the Minister a written report of the review within 3 months of the commencement of the review.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) The Minister must cause a copy of the report to be tabled in each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after the report is given to the Minister.</para></quote>
<para>The Modern Slavery Amendment (Australian Anti-Slavery Commissioner) Bill 2023 is a vital step in combating modern slavery. It establishes a new commissioner to support victim-survivors of modern slavery practices and to fight slavery in Australia and overseas. However, I share the views of the Australian Council of Trade Unions. Often I don't share the views of the ACTU, but this time I do! Human rights experts and civil society groups said the bill must be improved upon and the commissioner's role and independence bolstered considerably. Such an important role must be empowered and resourced to work most effectively from its inception. That is why I am moving these amendments: to require Australian entities and entities carrying on business in Australia to assist the commissioner in addressing modern slavery; to require entities to undertake due diligence to address risks of modern slavery practices in their operations and supply chain, rather than just reporting risks; to increase the commissioner's focus on helping to identify and provide support for victims-survivors, including helping them with complaints and referrals; to enable the commissioner to provide advice to the minister on modern slavery matters on their own instigation rather than only at the minister's request—and I think this is particularly critical; to clarify that the commissioner can conduct general inquiries but cannot interfere with enforcement agencies' investigations; to require the commissioner to consult more broadly with victims-survivors, civil society, business, government agencies and strategic planning; and, finally, to set a three-year time frame for a statutory review of the commissioner's budget to make sure they are appropriately resourced.</para>
<para>While slavery still flourishes in the shadows both in private industry and under some government and military regimes, we need to equip the new Australian Anti-Slavery Commissioner to take the fight to modern slavery. This applies whether that slavery takes place on our shores or in the supply chains of goods that end up here.</para>
<para>I would like to thank Be Slavery Free for their work with civil society and other groups to achieve a better bill. In the words of Be Slavery Free, 'Modern slavery is a horrendous and growing crime in Australia and globally.'</para>
<para>An independent well resourced antislavery commissioner is essential to strengthen Australia's response and supporting government departments, businesses and civil society groups including victims-survivors. Once appointed this person will become a magnet for advice, support, education and awareness raising related to modern slavery. The position must have the scope, independence and resources to do so.</para>
<para>I acknowledge former senator Rex Patrick who, in the previous parliament, brought legislation to the parliament to ban the importation of products into Australia which used the forced labour of the Uyghur people, which formed the genesis of my own 2021 private member's bill. I call on the government and on every member of parliament to consider these important amendments to make the Anti-Slavery Commissioner as effective as they possibly can be from the inception. I commend these amendments to the House.</para>
<para>Question negatived.</para>
<para>Bill agreed to.</para>
<para>Ordered that this bill be reported to the House without amendment.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS</title>
        <page.no>180</page.no>
        <type>MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Annual Climate Change Statement</title>
          <page.no>180</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:57</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms CLAYDON</name>
    <name.id>248181</name.id>
    <electorate>Newcastle</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>It's with great pleasure that I rise to speak to this <inline font-style="italic">Annual </inline><inline font-style="italic">climate change statement</inline> by the Minister for Climate Change and Energy and to lend my full support. Certainly the Albanese Labor government came to office with a very clear plan for this nation. It was a plan for jobs and economic growth, for energy prices and cost-of-living relief, for averting climate change and for transforming industry and competing in a decarbonising world. Our plan is comprehensive but it's simple. It's about delivering cheaper, cleaner, more reliable energy. It's about decarbonising our economy and establishing Australia as a renewable energy superpower. Newcastle, my home town, is central to this plan. Newcastle and the Hunter Region have powered Australia for generations and we will continue to do so well into the future. With our skilled workforce, abundant resources, industrial expertise and critical rail and port infrastructure our region is poised to take full advantage of the new energy industries. Let's talk through a few of these now.</para>
<para>Last year, the Albanese government officially declared an offshore wind zone off the coast of Newcastle, paving the way for large-scale production of clean energy and for good, secure local jobs for decades to come. The declared area stretches over 1,800 square kilometres between Norah Head to the south and Port Stephens to the north. It could generate up to five gigawatts of wind energy, enough to power an estimated 4.2 million homes and local industries into the future. For locals that means we could generate almost twice as what power coming out of Eraring coal-fired power station today. We are talking about a big, big generator of clean energy.</para>
<para>Offshore wind projects in the area have the potential to create up to 3,120 construction jobs and another 1,560 ongoing operational jobs. This represents an exciting opportunity for Newcastle. The strong, consistent winds off our coast, our deepwater port, our highly-skilled—</para>
<para class="italic"><inline font-style="italic">A division having been called in the House of Representatives—</inline></para>
<para>Sitting suspended from 18:00 to 18:11</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms CLAYDON</name>
    <name.id>248181</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I will pick up where I was. The strong, consistent winds off our coast, our deepwater port, our highly skilled energy and manufacturing workforce and our existing electricity transmission infrastructure make our region an ideal location. Around the world, offshore wind turbines coexist with bird and sea life as well as thriving shipping industries. I've been fortunate to see this firsthand myself.</para>
<para>Developing a new offshore wind sector in Australia will not only help deliver more renewable energy and help the environment, it will also drive regional investment and create jobs. For Newcastle, this means new jobs in local manufacturing, in construction, in maritime transport, in logistics and tourism—yes, tourism. I know it's been an issue for some, but during my own self-funded fact-finding mission in Denmark and north-east Scotland, I saw firsthand tourist boats taking visitors out to see the wind turbines. It was a whole new area of industry for ecotourism. And it means continued growth for our vocational education and training pathways, our TAFEs and universities.</para>
<para>Novocastrians get it. In fact, just this morning I heard from a constituent in Stockton who wrote to me to express his total support for offshore wind power generation as proposed off our Newcastle-Port Stephens coast. Bruce said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">I'm sick and tired of the purveyors of self-interest who fail to see the many benefits of this essential project. The Jobs outlook during construction and further into the future after completion is substantial and far outweighs the whingers and their self-interest claims of harm to current jobs and the local economy. Please do the utmost to keep this project online and going ahead to help the Nation and the Planet.</para></quote>
<para>Thank you, Bruce.</para>
<para>His sentiments are echoed by the hundreds of people who attended a community rally last Sunday in Newcastle in support of offshore wind. There I saw people gathered from all quarters of our community. Novocastrians were represented from industry, business, environmentalists, blue-collar workers and other concerned citizens. Doctors for the Environment Australia's Ben Ewald spoke about the effects of climate change on our health. He said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Burning coal is the principal cause of climate change and it's a health priority to get coal out of our electricity system as soon as possible and building wind farms is really the only pathway to get there.</para></quote>
<para>Business Hunter chief executive, Bob Hawes, spoke about the support from the business community. He said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">It's a reality that coal-fired power is turning off, and we must be in a position to replace this with abundant and affordable renewable energy for business, industry and our community.</para></quote>
<para>Newcastle councillor and proud Wiradjuri woman Deahnna Richardson spoke about the importance of transitioning to renewables for the Newcastle community. 'We know that the community wants this project,' she said. 'We know that we cannot continue to burn coal and ship coal out of the Port of Newcastle to the rest of the world forever, but we need to have a way forward for the workers in this community.' This is what distinguishes people in my community from many of those who like to speak about this topic. We have a lot of skin in the game, and yet we're showing leadership in this area. Councillor Richardson said: 'We can't just one day shut down those power stations and shut down those coalmines. We need to have jobs for the future.'</para>
<para>That was echoed by many at the rally. Jo Lynch from the Hunter Community Environment Centre said that researchers had found no causal link between wind farms and beached whales, despite what many—sadly, politically motivated—opponents of offshore wind would have you believe. Ms Lynch said that the project needed to be developed responsibly but that it was needed due to the very real threat of climate change.</para>
<para>Jasmine Loades and Joanna Tavita, two formidable young wharfies from the Maritime Union of Australia, spoke about their experiences working at the Port of Newcastle unloading wind turbines from ships and the job security that they hoped the offshore wind industry would bring to them and their families. 'It means more work for us and more work for the region,' Ms Tavita said.</para>
<para>The Albanese Labor government is fully focused on driving the transformation to renewable energies. That's why we've set ambitious but achievable policies and why we can't take our foot off the pedal when it comes to our goals. We're investing $70 million into developing a hydrogen hub in Newcastle, which will create jobs and boost Australia's renewable hydrogen industry. This is the first major agreement struck in Australia that delivers a government investment commitment to a regional hydrogen hub. The funding will build the infrastructure needed to produce up to 5½ thousand tonnes of renewable hydrogen every year. Most of the hydrogen will be used by the Orica ammonia and ammonium nitrate facility to help make their products emissions free. Hydrogen will also be made available for refuelling hydrogen buses and trucks at the hub. Construction of the facility is expected to begin in 2025 and operations to commence in 2026.</para>
<para>We've also committed $16 million to the New Energy Skills Hub in partnership with the University of Newcastle, and we've budgeted $2 billion for the Hydrogen Headstart Program so Australia stays in the green hydrogen game. Six applicants have now been short-listed for the program, including two from Newcastle—fantastic news for our region. The six applicants are amongst the largest renewable hydrogen projects in the world and represent a total electrolyser capacity of more than 3.5 gigawatts across various end users.</para>
<para>Since coming to government, we have given the safeguard mechanism teeth, requiring our biggest industrial emitters to reduce their emissions by 4.9 per cent each year. This is equivalent to taking two-thirds of all the cars off our roads by 2030. And on Sunday we released our preferred model for the New Vehicle Efficiency Standard, to ensure Australian families and businesses can choose the latest and most efficient vehicles. Our electric vehicle discount has contributed to an increase in electric car sales, from around two per cent when we came to office to close to nine per cent over the first three quarters of last year. We've funded and have commenced the rollout of our Driving the Nation charging program, which will see fast chargers approximately every 150 kays on our highways.</para>
<para>We've signed funding agreements to deliver more than 50 community batteries around Australia, and the broader expression-of-interest process for a further 342, through ARENA, is well underway. We've established the Net Zero Economy Agency, to have a laser-like focus on the economic opportunities for the regions, industries and workers at the centre of the energy transformation. We've established the National Reconstruction Fund, with targeted investment of $3 billion in renewables and low-emissions technologies. We've released the Critical Minerals Strategy and topped up the Critical Minerals Facility to the tune of $2 billion so that we can see priority investments in the minerals needed for the clean energy transformation. We've opened all funding streams for the Powering the Regions Fund and we've recapitalised the Clean Energy Finance Corporation.</para>
<para>We are not wasting a single moment in government. There is so much to do. We cannot go back to climate wars in this country. We cannot look back. There's an exciting future ahead for all of us.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:19</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BANDT</name>
    <name.id>M3C</name.id>
    <electorate>Melbourne</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Coal and gas are the leading causes of the climate crisis, and Labor is addicted to more coal and gas. Last year, Labor approved five new coal and gas projects. There are 92 new coal and gas projects in the pipeline, and today, at the start of 2024, Labor in Queensland just approved the country's biggest new greenfield coalmine. After the cyclones, fires and floods in Queensland, they're approving new, huge coalmines that will last for ages. Labor are kidding themselves. We can't have a safe future if we keep opening new coal and gas mines. Labor are far more concerned with what the coal and gas corporations want than with what will keep people safe.</para>
<para>The corporations are making billions of dollars in revenue, and many of them aren't even paying a single cent in tax. You have to wonder how they're getting away with it. Well, last week, we discovered how. It was $863,000. That's how much money Labor took from the coal and gas corporations and their lobby groups in their first full year of office alone. Santos, Woodside and the Minerals Council of Australia all coughed up big. What did it get them in return?</para>
<para>Santos donated over $110,000 to Labor last year. Santos also wants to open up the new Barossa gas fields and faces staunch opposition from the local First Nations community and millions of people around the country. Are the donations to Labor the reason why the resources minister announced her decision to change the rules for Santos to fast-track their project and ignore the concerns of the locals? Labor also rammed through the sea dumping bill, so that Santos could dump their emissions in East Timor's waters, and approved 116 new gas wells to be fracked by Santos in Queensland. What a return on Santos's dirty donation to Labor. It was a big return on investment for Santos.</para>
<para>Next on the list is Woodside. They donated $55,600 to Labor. Woodside wants to open up one of the world's most polluting projects, the Burrup Hub, off the coast of the Kimberley. It's an existential climate threat that will release six billion tonnes of emissions and that requires the approval of Labor's environment minister. I bet Woodside reckon that they'll get it. Then there are the lobby groups—the ones who are always crawling over parliament urging Labor to keep backing new coal and gas mines and threatening anyone who doesn't with public campaigns funded by coal and gas. To keep the doors of the ministerial suite open, APIA, the key lobby group, and the Minerals Council both gave Labor $68,000 and $85,000 respectively.</para>
<para>These corporations are driving the climate crisis, but they can't do it without Labor, and they're getting Labor's support. These corporations are driving the extreme heat, the floods and the fires that people are living through right now. But Labor is giving them the go-ahead. Labor's pipeline of over 90 new coal and gas projects will ensure that the heat will be worse, the floods will rise faster and the fires will burn hotter. Labor's policies mean insurance will cost more—if you can get it! More households will have to be rebuilt. More lives will be destroyed. Labor is giving these greedy, dangerous corporations the go-ahead to mine and burn more coal and gas. Labor is not only complicit in the mining and burning of coal, the leading causes of the climate crisis; it's colluding with companies who want to burn down the world for profit.</para>
<para>The Minister for Resources now flies off around the world spruiking our coal and gas—these dangerous products which are currently cooking the ocean, melting the glaciers, killing off endangered species and threatening people's lives. So many former Labor ministers now work for the coal and gas sector, tucking into the gravy train of an industry which we don't need, which doesn't employ as many people as people think, which doesn't pay much tax and which is threatening our environment, our food, our water, our air and our lives. Did you know this, Deputy Speaker? Every formal resource minister in this country of the last 20 years now works for coal and gas corporations or their lobby groups. That's where they went after they left.</para>
<para>This industry doesn't pay enough tax, and some in this industry pay no tax at all. Labor could make this industry pay its fair share of tax and could use it to ensure everyone has mental and dental care covered fully under Medicare. Instead, Labor's tearing up the Beetaloo basin, shipping it offshore and not even getting the tax that could be used to help wipe student debt, ensure that no-one lives in poverty or ensure that everyone has an affordable home.</para>
<para>Labor loves to wax lyrical about national security as much as the coalition, but there's no national security in a climate crisis. Former heads of the Defence Force have been telling us that the No. 1 threat to our national security is the climate crisis because it will spark massive instability in our region and set off a cataclysmic chain that will threaten our very security. And what is the response? Our nation is under threat, and the politicians are in bed with the enemy. The enemies are coal and gas corporations. They are mining and burning our future, and they are getting support from Labor and Liberal.</para>
<para>We are tough in this country; people are tough but people have a limit. How long could you live in a tent or a shipping container while you try to rebuild, nervously listening to the weather forecast to see if there's a rising river or if there are catastrophic fire conditions on the cards? There are thousands of people around the country who are still building back from the fires and floods of years gone by, and more and more people will join them thanks to the new coal and gas mines being opened by Labor.</para>
<para>The first step to fixing a problem is to stop making the problem worse. You can't put the fire out while you're pouring petrol on it. Every new coal and gas project that is approved by this Labor government puts people's lives at risk. It puts their livelihoods at risk, it pushes up insurance premiums and it threatens our precious natural environment. In 2024, as so many people are struggling, literally, to keep their heads above water, as massive climate fuelled disaster after climate fuelled disaster make so much of our country unliveable for so many people and pushes people to the brink, we cannot be opening one more new coal and gas project. These massive projects that Labor is approving could spark off a climate chain reaction, a tipping point, after which it will be impossible to reverse the damage. That is what the scientists fear: that we will pass the climate tipping point and future generations will not be able to unwind the damage they face. That is why what we do now will reverberate for decades to come and will set the course for future generations.</para>
<para>We are in the critical decade. We are in a climate emergency. We are in an era of global boiling according to the UN Secretary-General. In response to that—yes, we need to have a debate about how quickly we're going to cut our emissions in this country, but the first thing we should do is stop making the problem worse. There should be no new coal and gas projects—no more excuses and no more lies, Labor.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:28</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr HAINES</name>
    <name.id>282335</name.id>
    <electorate>Indi</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise this evening to speak to the <inline font-style="italic">Annual </inline><inline font-style="italic">climate change statement </inline><inline font-style="italic">2023</inline> tabled by the Minister for Climate Change and Energy. The annual climate change statement is a reporting requirement legislated by the Climate Change Act 2022. The objective of the annual climate change statementis to promote accountability and ambition as we respond to climate change. It requires the minister to consider the independent advice provided by the Climate Change Authority and to share this advice and the government's response with the public.</para>
<para>Independent expert advice and public accountability of government are key elements of a successful democracy, and they're especially critical when it comes to the issue of climate change—so fundamental to the future of our country, including to my constituents in Indi. This is why I worked with the government in 2022 to amend the Climate Change Act. The first of my successful amendments requires the minister, via the annual climate change statement—this statement—to report on the impacts of the government's emissions reductions policies on rural, remote and regional Australia. This includes reporting on the social, employment and economic benefits being delivered by those policies in rural and regional Australia. My second successful amendment requires the Climate Change Authority to advise on the benefits for rural and regional Australia of recommended changes to Australia's emissions reduction targets. The advice given must also detail the physical impacts of climate change on rural and regional Australia.</para>
<para>I am a steadfast supporter of efforts to transition the Australian economy to renewable energy. My amendments have the clear aim of ensuring that the government's actions in support of the transition deliver economic, employment and social benefits for all of Australia, including rural, remote and regional Australia. These amendments are especially important, given regional Australia will host the vast majority of the renewable energy infrastructure set to be built.</para>
<para>Beyond the context of this act, I've worked with committees across my electorate of Indi and with all levels of government to seize the opportunities presented by renewable energy, energy efficiency and the new industries they will unlock. I've engaged constructively with the government of the day and have put forward bills that would both accelerate the energy transition in Australia and benefit regional communities, because, with good policy, with well-designed policy, this doesn't need to be an either-or scenario.</para>
<para>The Australian Local Power Agency Bill and my cheaper home batteries bill were designed to do just that: lock in genuine benefit sharing with the transition to renewables. Disappointingly, the government has so far largely failed to support and empower regional communities as central actors in energy transition. This failure is clearly evident in its <inline font-style="italic">Annual climate change statement 2023</inline>. With my amendment, the statement is required to detail the benefits and other impacts of the government's policies on regional communities, yet the efforts of the government to fulfil this obligation are paltry.</para>
<para>The <inline font-style="italic">Annual </inline><inline font-style="italic">climate change statement</inline> is 92 pages long with over 37,000 words, yet only 280 words are dedicated to detailing regional impacts. Furthermore, almost all of these 280 words are dedicated to the challenges and needs of communities with fossil fuel industries as they transition. Now, such work is critically important, and I wholeheartedly support the work of the Net Zero Economy Agency in this space. However, the annual statement fails to detail the actual impacts of Commonwealth government policies to date on these communities. Critically, the statement also fails to detail the impacts of government policies on traditional agricultural communities that are now finding themselves host to renewable energy infrastructure. Again, I want to be clear: there are many farmers right now that are taking advantage of this transition and hosting very successful renewable energy projects alongside their farming enterprises.</para>
<para>Beyond the impacts on regional communities, though, the statement refers to community engagement for renewable energy infrastructure projects. Community engagement in the statement is framed as a means of securing social licence for projects. This is not nearly good enough, because I'm seeing firsthand in the electorate of Indi the real impacts of renewable energy projects on communities. Regional communities are playing host to almost all of the infrastructure needed to deliver Australia's clean energy transition: solar PV, wind, battery and transmission infrastructure. Communities in Indi such as Bobinawarrah, Meadow Creek, Ruffy, Dederang and others are facing the prospect of significant renewable energy being developed in their area with little or no information on the impact, either positive or negative, that these projects will have on their committees, let alone the real benefits that they could receive and share if this is done well.</para>
<para>I know that there are some bad-faith actors in this debate who are ideologically seeking to oppose the transition completely, without putting forward any realistic alternatives to reach net zero emissions. But as this rollout happens, many farmers, landholders and communities have legitimate questions and concerns, and, as I've said many times, a legitimate question or a legitimate concern becomes a complaint if it's not listened to. They want to know about things like fire risks—potential or real—impacts on insurance premiums and how farmers and regional communities can truly benefit, and they should know. This goes well beyond mere social licence to operate.</para>
<para>What I've heard from these communities is that these concerns are rarely addressed. In almost all cases, community engagement and benefit sharing has been disappointing at best and non-existent at worst. Take the Strathbogie shire communities in my electorate, for example. These communities have long-term energy security issues. In fact, many communities in the shire of Strathbogie have experienced up to 17 power outages in the last four months. They're on the edge of the grid and their energy security is appalling. These same communities are at the forefront of a renewable energy project proposal of wind turbines and transmission lines that are being touted as part of the solution to keeping the nation's lights on. But under the proposal, it's unclear if this energy project would keep the lights on for this local community, which will see these turbines and transmission lines in their backyards.</para>
<para>That is why, last year, I worked with Senator David Pocock on the terms of reference for an independent review into the community engagement on renewable energy infrastructure developments. That inquiry was commissioned by the Minister for Climate Change and Energy, Chris Bowen, and was led by the Australian Energy Infrastructure Commissioner, Andrew Dyer. The review held a series of roundtables across the country, including in Wangaratta, where they met with local governments, businesses, landholders and community groups from Indi—communities like those from Meadow Creek, Dederang, Barnawartha and the Strathbogie Ranges.</para>
<para>Mr Dyer finalised his report in December last year. I'm pleased that, last Friday, standing beside the National Farmers' Federation, Minister Bowen made the findings and recommendations of that report public and accepted in principle all of the report's recommendations. The government's acceptance of this report is an indication they are beginning to see community engagement not as a box that needs to be ticked but rather as a genuine process that aims to secure beneficial outcomes for all those involved.</para>
<para>This report gives state, territory and Commonwealth governments a road map for improving how people are consulted when energy projects are developed in their communities. The review made several recommendations that require the Commonwealth to work with the states and territories. These include ensuring best-practice complaints handling via state and territory ombudsmen, reforming planning laws to better recognise no-go and inappropriate locations for projects and identifying opportunities for benefit sharing between communities and developers.</para>
<para>I'm calling on the government to have the community engagement review recommendations at the top of the agenda when the Energy and Climate Change Ministerial Council meet for the first time this year. I also urge the government to fund, under the upcoming budget, a number of its recommendations, including setting up an independent body to design and operate a developer rating scheme so communities know whether they are dealing with good-faith proponents when they get a knock on the door or a letter in the post.</para>
<para>The government must also set up a communications program that provides local communities with details and time frames for the energy transition. Communities shouldn't be left to do this work alone. The government has so far failed to adequately fulfil its obligations under the Climate Change Act to detail how its policies benefit regional Australia. I urge the government to remedy this shortcoming through stronger policy action and better information sharing. Implementing the recommendations of the community engagement review, and implementing them quickly, is a good place to start.</para>
<para>There are major opportunities this government must take up to empower regional communities to play a role in the energy transition and to truly benefit. Let this be a gold rush for rural and regional Australia.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:38</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr STEVENS</name>
    <name.id>176304</name.id>
    <electorate>Sturt</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I appreciate the opportunity to make a statement on the <inline font-style="italic">Annual </inline><inline font-style="italic">climate change statement </inline><inline font-style="italic">2023</inline> that the minister has delivered to the parliament. It is an opportunity to reflect on the great challenge that is before us of achieving a net zero situation in this country and on this planet by 2050.</para>
<para>Indeed, I take this opportunity to firstly express my deep appreciation to the member for Fairfax, our shadow minister for energy and climate change, for the depth of work that he has already done on and his exploration of the opportunity to embrace civilian nuclear energy generation for this country, Australia. Nuclear, as we know, of course, is a zero carbon emissions technology. It is also completely reliable and a source of baseload power. As someone who is from South Australia, I know a lot about what happens when you don't have reliable baseload power.</para>
<para>In the state of South Australia—in, as we would believe Australia to be, a First World country—in 2016, our entire electricity grid collapsed for four hours. In South Australia we'd just had, months earlier, our final coal station, the Northern Power Station at Port Augusta, close down, and South Australia was very much reliant on an interconnector with Victoria. When the system lost power, that interconnector triggered a safety mechanism, and the grid went down for the whole state of South Australia for a period of four hours. It was something that no-one could ever have believed would happen in a First World nation like Australia or a First World state like South Australia. It dramatically sharpened the minds of South Australians and their awareness of how important it is to have a reliable electricity system.</para>
<para>That's why I welcome and am very excited by the work of the shadow minister and our opposition leader, Peter Dutton as we in the coalition develop a policy position on embracing civilian nuclear generation as an option for the grid in this country. There's no debate about nuclear in South Australia—except from the Greens, I suppose. In South Australia, it's the position of the Liberal Party and the Labor Party that we welcome and are excited about the opportunity of the AUKUS submarine construction, which will be eight nuclear submarines built at the Osborne North shipyard in Adelaide, which means that eight nuclear reactors are coming into the bellies of submarines in metropolitan Adelaide. The moment this was announced as a prospect for South Australia, I concede the South Australian Labor Party were the first to absolutely embrace nuclear and nuclear generation to be domiciled in suburban Adelaide.</para>
<para>That is still the position of the South Australian Labor Premier. In fact, he has been even more fulsome in embracing the issue of nuclear and the opportunity of nuclear and standing up to Prime Minister Albanese on this issue and being very prepared to entertain civilian nuclear generation in the state of South Australia. I commend that position. I was on <inline font-style="italic">Q+A</inline> with him a few months ago, where he made the very clear point that, in his view, there was absolutely no safety risk with nuclear generation whatsoever. He said that to an audience that wasn't necessarily very supportive of his perspective on that. I commend him and contrast him with some of the scaremongering on the issue of nuclear. Frankly, I simply do not believe there is any credible path to achieving net zero by 2050 in this country without nuclear. It'll be hard enough with nuclear, but without nuclear we are proposing to be, effectively, the only nation on the planet with a credible pathway to net zero by 2050 that, according to this government, won't have nuclear in the mix of consideration.</para>
<para>It remind me of the fact that a lot of people get very confused about what getting to net zero means. They think, because there are a lot of slogans out there, that getting to net zero means net zero electricity generation. That is one of many complex parts of decarbonising the economy. The most challenging one for which there are no serious solutions, particularly without nuclear, is industrial production—industrial transformation. For example, steel is seven per cent of global emissions. If we get to zero-emission electricity, that is completely irrelevant to the production of steel. Blast furnaces don't run on 24-volt electricity. At the moment they run on metallurgical coal. To achieve the kind of industrial chemistry you would need in steel—this also applies for cement and a whole range of industrial processes that are, by some measures, about 30 per cent of emissions—you need heat that cannot be generated through electricity in any commercially viable way. That is the reality of the industrial chemistry. Nuclear is absolutely a potential heat source for certain types of industrial heat, and, if we're living in a world without steel and cement, others can explain that to the people out there on the street, because I don't think that's people's expectations. So we’re going to need to keep making steel. We're going to keep needing cement and a whole range of things that are currently produced through industrial processes that emit carbon and cannot be replaced by electricity, whether or not that is sourced from renewables. It's much like the transport sector, which has significant challenges in it that can't be overcome purely from zero emissions electricity. So nuclear has to be considered.</para>
<para>I also don't understand why those who don't believe in nuclear are so frightened of the debate on nuclear or of giving people the option of generating electricity from nuclear. Some say it's not economic. Well then, you have nothing to fear. If it's not economic then the private sector will determine that, and it won't invest in it. In this country, thanks to Paul Keating, we have a private national electricity market that is driven by investment decisions. But we have a moratorium on nuclear, a ban, that is legislated. It says that you're not even allowed to consider it. For those who would say that it's not economic, take away the moratorium, and your position that we shouldn't have nuclear will evidently be the right one when the financiers and those who look at business cases for these come along and say, 'The economics don't stack up.'</para>
<para>I'm very confident that, technologically, nuclear will change dramatically in the years and decades ahead. We are told by everyone in this debate that apparently every other technology, whether it's battery or these renewables, will make dramatic advances over the next few decades except nuclear. Apparently, that's the only one. There's no chance whatsoever that the way in which nuclear technology works today will transform and improve in the years and decades ahead, while left-wing governments around the world are pouring billions of dollars into research and development into nuclear at the same time.</para>
<para>So, as we reflect on this climate change statement and how difficult the challenge will be to get to net zero in 2050, it is fraudulent to say that you're committed to getting to that, but you would rule out a form of technology that could help you achieve it. We can have a debate on these things, but that's very different to saying: 'I'm not prepared to have a debate on it. We're going to make a certain type of technology illegal in this country and not considerate as part of bearing the burden of a very challenging and complex task that we're all committed to achieving by 2050.' So I reflect on the challenge that the statement presents, and I congratulate the shadow minister and the opposition leader for the leadership they are providing on this topic. I look forward to having this debate towards the next election. I certainly commend an agnostic approach, considering all and any options technologically for the very important task of achieving net zero by 2050.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:48</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr JOSH WILSON</name>
    <name.id>265970</name.id>
    <electorate>Fremantle</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm just going to respond to a few of the things that the member for Sturt was saying in relation to the <inline font-style="italic">Annual </inline><inline font-style="italic">c</inline><inline font-style="italic">limate </inline><inline font-style="italic">c</inline><inline font-style="italic">hange </inline><inline font-style="italic">s</inline><inline font-style="italic">tatement</inline><inline font-style="italic"> 2023</inline> which raises the question of how Australia makes progress towards its commitment to net zero by 2050—a commitment made by the current government. It wasn't something that the former government had any strong interest in, and the member for Sturt has just come and talked exclusively about how nuclear energy is required to get there. He said a few things that I think should be rebutted, and the first is around having a debate.</para>
<para>I'm going to give him the debate that he asked for, and it's just one of many debates that have occurred on this issue. In fact, it's pretty much an ongoing conversation. There was a Ziggy Switkowski review under the Howard government in 2006. There was a royal commission, I think, in South Australia. There have been multiple committee inquiries. In fact, in the last parliament there was an inquiry that the former government caused to be undertaken by the Standing Committee on the Environment and Energy that the member for Warringah and I were on. I was deputy chair of the committee. It was chaired by the opposition's energy spokesperson. It was on the viability of civilian nuclear energy, and it concluded that it wasn't viable at this stage. I think all it could bring itself to say from the point of view of the government members was that this idea of small modular reactors should be kept somewhere on the blackboard to be thought about from time to time. But there were no steps taken by the former government to deal with the very sensible EPBC prohibition of civilian nuclear power in Australia. That was put in place under the Howard government. Again, there were no steps by the former government to do that—just as there were no steps taken further down the path of nuclear energy, just as there was no actual national energy policy of any kind. We have been watching the <inline font-style="italic">Nemesis</inline> program, and it is a reminder of the terrible knot that the former government got itself into around the National Energy Guarantee. The NEG was probably the closest thing they got to a national policy. There were 22 energy policies that they toyed with. I think the NEG was the one they got closest to and failed to deliver.</para>
<para>Now that they're in opposition, of course, the energy policy they have is to bring in nuclear. One of the reasons you don't take the prohibition away is that the first thing you would need, if you were to contemplate civilian nuclear in this country, would be the whole apparatus that would go around governing it. I'd encourage the member for Sturt and anyone else who thinks that would be a good idea to go and look at the annual budget for that regulation and all the associated agencies in the United States. It runs to tens upon tens upon tens of millions of dollars. That's the first thing you'd have to do. Then, of course, you'd have the nuclear white-shoe brigade sniffing around for every little bit of money they could get for all of these wild pilot projects and other kinds of wild goose chases, frankly.</para>
<para>The member for Sturt belled the cat. He argued against himself, I thought, pretty well when he mentioned that nuclear technology hasn't changed in 70 years. It's not a new industry. We've been told over and over again for literally the last 30 years that the next amazing magic generation of nuclear technology will arrive and will be safe, cheap and all of these other things, and it just doesn't occur. Renewable energy and those related technologies provide the starkest contrast that you can imagine, because the improvement in the learning curve, in efficiency, in technology and in the cost curve are there for all to see. The stuff keeps getting cheaper, and it keeps getting better and more effective.</para>
<para>Nuclear just hasn't been that kind of technology. It's no good pointing the finger and trying to blame other people for it. That's just the nature of the beast. The fascination that those opposite have developed—or have been sucked into, in my view—around small modular reactors is part of that problem. We looked at that very closely in the inquiry I talked about before. The CSIRO GenCost analysis showed that small modular reactors are not going to be all that different in their exorbitant capital costs and operating costs than the existing, larger-scale nuclear technology. Since the time we had that inquiry, some of the darlings of the SMR fantasists, like the NuScale project in the United States, have literally fallen apart. We had that inquiry, and the chair—now the opposition energy spokesperson—and other nuclear devotees were falling over themselves to get NuScale to present to us. And they did. They gave evidence to that inquiry, and they put forward all of the usual pie-in-the-sky nuclear vendor claims about how little it would cost and the price at which NuScale would be able to deliver nuclear-generated electricity.</para>
<para>Then, as the next few years went on, between 2019 and now there were a series of updates. Every update, the project timeline went out by another two or three years, the capital costs went up by another few billion and the operating costs went up by several tens of dollars per megawatt hour until, eventually—not that long ago, because it was late last year—NuScale went 'poof!' and disappeared. The project fell over because it was, frankly, not viable. They gave an update to the market. Capital costs had gone up by 2½. Operating costs and the delivery price of electricity, even with the subsidy that the new Inflation Reduction Act of the Biden administration provided, still put it at an exorbitant cost. That cost is not faintly comparable to what is being delivered by wind and solar at about exactly the same cost as what you'd get from coal or gas, but it does have incredibly long and uncertain timelines and massive capital costs.</para>
<para>That's the reality of the SMR fantasy. It doesn't exist. People can make whatever claims they want about it. This is a darling project of the member for Fairfax. Someone might want to go back through <inline font-style="italic">Hansard</inline> and do a search on NuScale and the member for Fairfax. My God, there will be love letters about NuScale and what a wonderful thing it's going to turn out to be in every one of those leather-bound volumes that we get in our offices or that are in the bookshelves around here. That project is defunct. That project has gone because it didn't stack up. That's the reality of nuclear. The member for Sturt thinks that it's a clever thing for Australia to waste time, money, energy and hopes on nuclear technology. It's a bizarre proposition, and it seems to be the only proposition when it comes to the energy emissions reduction strategy that those opposite have—a technology that is ferociously expensive and that takes a long time. If Australia were to entertain the lunacy of civilian nuclear power, we would not see a single watt generated from that technology inside of 15 years. That's the reality of it. By that time, it would be, what, 2038, and 2050 would be only a decade away. But it would be ferociously expensive. It's inflexible, and it's not what our evolving energy system needs.</para>
<para>And it comes with all these risks. Again, I don't know why the member for Sturt was so blithe or flippant about the risks of nuclear technology. We have seen in the current conflict in Ukraine the largest nuclear reactor in that country, Zaporizhzhia, on a number of occasions in jeopardy because of the nature of the conflict, with the possibility that its power supply would be interdicted. If that were to happen, if they were to lose the ability to run their cooling systems, we would basically get Chernobyl all over again. People said, when Three Mile Island happened, 'That'll never happen again,' and then, after Chernobyl, 'That'll never happen again.' Then, of course, we had Fukushima, in the incredibly technologically savvy, developed and sophisticated country of Japan, where they're now putting tonnes and tonnes of irradiated water into the Pacific Ocean because there's nothing else that they're going to do. The clean-up for Fukushima will run for another 25 years. It's going to be $600 billion-plus by the time it's finished. That is the reality.</para>
<para>You can have the nuclear fantasy, the nuclear dreamland, where suddenly a technology, after 70 years, becomes miraculously cheap and safe in a way that it has never proved to be—it's an industry that, after those 70 years, doesn't have anywhere to put the high-level waste that gets produced; there is still nowhere on earth that that gets stored—or you can have sanity. You can have renewable energy and energy efficiency and storage and all the things that the Albanese Labor government is putting in place as we chart a path towards net zero by 2050.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:58</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms STEGGALL</name>
    <name.id>175696</name.id>
    <electorate>Warringah</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to respond to the second annual climate statement, delivered last year by the Minister for Climate Change and Energy, and the Climate Change Authority's annual progress report. I have to note that the debate in this place is still fairly disappointing. We are seeing, yet again, the coalition dig the hole a little deeper, if it's possible, in this policy area, with a complete void of credible response and policy and an insistence on going down a pathway that is just not feasible. They insist on talking of only nuclear in a situation where time and cost are of the essence. They are the two primary considerations. The reality is that members of the coalition have been on the record pointing out that it's a delaying tactic, because it means nothing occurs for 15 to 20 years. It is essentially about keeping fossil fuels in our system.</para>
<para>In any event, I want to talk about climate change, and what the annual statement really highlights is the urgency—the status of where we're at—when it comes to global warming and emissions, and the progress that has been made by the government since the last election and the change of government. There have been, which I welcome, the significant policy steps and investment to assist with the nation's transition to net zero. But we also have to be real and talk about the facts. It's disappointing to see that Australia's total emissions still increased over the last 12 months. As the Climate Change Authority's report outlines, we are not yet on track to achieve net zero by 2050, and we know that is probably not sufficient to keep us to the safe temperature goal.</para>
<para>The year 2023 was a year of record temperatures, and the ocean saw crazy spikes in temperature. More importantly, we're not on track to stay true to the Paris Agreement. The Paris Agreement aims to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees, or to keep under two degrees at the very least. We are probably on track to pass 1.5 degrees this year or within the next couple of years. We are already tipping over it occasionally. Whilst we sometimes have fantasy discussions in this place, it's really important for the Australian public to be reminded of the very dire reality and the real facts that matter.</para>
<para>Our next nationally determined contribution under the Paris Agreement will be for 2025. That NDC must be ambitious. We must accelerate our ambition. Australia has a responsibility to be a leader in this place and to set the example. State governments are already doing it. We are not yet seeing that indication from the federal government. In an absence of attention or even remotely realistic policy from the opposition, it's clear that push is going to need to come from the Australian public, from Australian businesses, from the sector and, clearly, from the crossbench. We must aim to have our next NDC under the Paris Agreement be at least 75 per cent emissions reduction by 2035.</para>
<para>The key messages coming out of this annual climate change report are, in a nutshell, that Australia's just transition to a prosperous net zero economy is slowly emerging, but much more is needed. The Climate Change Authority's annual report tells us what 1.1 degrees Celsius of warming looked like in 2023: wildfires in Hawaii, Spain, Greece and Canada; floods in China, India, Pakistan and Nigeria; heat waves in the United Kingdom, Europe and India. July 2023 was the hottest month in over a century of global temperature records, and thousands of climate records have been exceeded worldwide.</para>
<para>We need total emissions to start coming down significantly and fast. Last year's emissions did not go down and, in particular, transport and agriculture increased, leading to a total emissions increasing by four metric tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent. To put this into perspective, the Climate Change Authority says that we must decarbonise at an average rate of 17 metric tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent, some 40 per cent faster than what our current annual rate of decarbonisation has been since 2009. To achieve this, it is essential that the government establish sectoral targets to drive emissions reduction in every sector.</para>
<para>On a positive note, it is pleasing to see the government has accepted some 39 out of the 42 recommendations by the Climate Change Authority. It's excellent to see a focus now on adaptation planning and a move to legislate for climate risk assessment. The government will soon be required to do this. We absolutely need to do this.</para>
<para>Recommendation 4 of the report in fact mirrors the provisions I had in the climate change bills that I put to the last parliament to legislate that national climate risk assessment be undertaken and national adaptation plans be updated a minimum of every five years, with monitoring of those plans. There is strong support for these provisions, so I urge the government and the opposition to legislate this without delay. If there is one responsibility of government, it is to keep communities safe, and that requires assessing the risk and adapting to that risk.</para>
<para>We talk a lot about the costs of climate change. The Insurance Council of Australia noted in 2022 that, since 2005, Commonwealth expenditure on disaster relief has been $24 billion. Since the 2019-2020 Black Summer bushfires, insurers have paid out more than $16.8 billion dollars in natural disaster claims for 13 declared catastrophes and five significant events. By 2050, Australian households will be paying some $35.24 billion dollars every year—in 2022 dollars—for the direct costs of extreme weather. Just pause and think about that when you're hesitating about whether we should deal with climate change and reduce emissions.</para>
<para>So I welcome the recommendations in the report, in particular those around methane, which mirror my submission to the NGER Act review in relation to monitoring and measuring methane. In its first 20 years, methane is eight times more potent at trapping heat than even CO2. So, if there is any sense that we need to urgently avoid key tipping points that are fast approaching, we must deal with methane. To that end, the Climate Change Authority has made recommendations, and I will be engaged with the government to ensure we adopt those recommendations and have good monitoring and measurement of our methane and stop venting and flaring. We must stop methane being allowed just to leak out into the atmosphere. It is accelerating us towards key tipping points.</para>
<para>We know we need to move away from gas. Gas is not a transition fuel; it is accelerating our short-term emissions and global heating.</para>
<para>Household electrification is a critical step in our transition. We talk a lot about cost of living—many in this place talk about it. Two of the key variables in household expenses are energy and insurance, and these, ironically, are both impacted by climate change. If we transition away from fuels that are inflationary and move to electrification of households, we can make a difference. It's a win-win: reduce emissions and reduce cost-of-living impacts.</para>
<para>Transport sector emissions are continuing to rise. We need to have much clearer targets around that. I welcome the announcement by the government around fuel efficiency standards, but more is needed. Electric vehicle sales may have increased from two per cent to nine per cent for new vehicles, but that needs to accelerate. We need to have much greater investment in public transport to ensure we move away from single vehicles to much more efficient modes of transport.</para>
<para>There are a lot of steps that have been announced by the government to head in the right direction, but we know that we can still do a lot more. It's reassuring to see new initiatives such as the expanded Capacity Investment Scheme and the Hydrogen Headstart Program. However, while the government supports building on the recommendations of the Samuel review it is dragging its heels when it comes to the EPBC Act, which is a key element in how we are going to ensure we get to net zero. We need to ensure protection of the environment. The most natural way we can sequester carbon is through forests, yet we still have incredible rates of deforestation and both sides of government resisting an end to native forest logging. We absolutely have to do this. There is no point spending millions and billions on technologies like carbon capture and storage when our most natural storage is through maintaining native forests. Amendments to the EPBC Act are urgently needed, and I will be working with the government and proposing amendments to introduce a climate risk assessment of applications, especially for projects that are likely to become stranded assets where there is climate financial risk at play.</para>
<para>It's really important that we acknowledge the risk of climate change from a national security perspective, and I'll continue to push the government to release the Office of National Intelligence's risk assessment of the impacts of climate change.</para>
<para>I welcome the report but I urge the government to get braver and more ambitious when it comes to dealing with climate change.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>201906</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>There being no further speakers, the debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.</para>
<para>Federation Chamber adjourned at 19:09</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
  </fedchamb.xscript>
</hansard>